Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. MDS
   Member

   From the village press release:

   After a delay in the process to address resident concerns identified through a series of workshops, a number of significant adjustments to the proposal were considered by Village Trustees. When these adjustments were factored in by TIF consultants, the value of the proposed tax increment was projected to have marginal value. Additional EAV reduction resulted when the Class L tax status was awarded by the Village Board to the Arcade building. Anticipated givebacks to the local schools promoted by residents opposed to the TIF further diminish the potential value of the undertaking.

   Let's break these down and see what lessons we can learn from the TIF saga...

   When these adjustments [changes that were deemed necessary after the workshops] were factored in by TIF consultants, the value of the proposed tax increment was projected to have marginal value.

   Two things of note in this sentence:

   First, had the village board held the CBD planning workshops prior to engaging Kane McKenna & Associates (KMA) to draw the TIF map, the "marginal value" of the TIF would have been clear to the board from the start, and the village could have saved tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees.

   Second, the portion of the quote above that I have bolded seems to indicate that KMA did some sort of assessment of the value of the TIF district after the village board special meetings to adopt/reject changes to the TIF on 4/14 and 4/23. When exactly did KMA come to this realization, and when were they asked by the board to make that call?

   Additional EAV reduction resulted when the Class L tax status was awarded by the Village Board to the Arcade building.

   The implication here seems to be that had the board not given the Arcade building the Class L status, the TIF would have been viable in the eyes of KMA, or at least more so. Did the village board take this into consideration prior to awarding this status? As we know, in September 2006 the village board agreed to a formal agreement to provide inducements to the Arcade developer. This included consideration of being included in the TIF district, should it come to fruition. Was the pursuit/awarding of the Class L tax status the "canary in the coal mine" that indicated the TIF was not going to be viable?

   Anticipated givebacks to the local schools promoted by residents opposed to the TIF further diminish the potential value of the undertaking.

   Ah, here are the villains -- the schools and those opposed to the TIF. Didn't Phil McKenna tell residents at the workshops that the impact on the schools would be minimal? If this is the case, then making the schools whole should not have had a significant impact on the value of the money that the TIF district would have collected. The fact that the village board's press release says that is was residents pushing for the board to ensure that the schools didn't get shortchanged shows you where the board stood on the issue. Reminds me of the old Scooby Doo line: "...and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"

   Any other thoughts on this requiem for TIF?

   Posted Thursday May 24, 2007 10:12 #

2. spatny
   Member

   Here's a thought. This entire process was paid for with public funds. We deserve to know exactly what happened, when, and how the Board arrived at thir decision without benefit of a public, legal meeting between the last time they met and wee infavor of proceeding, and this last meeting when they marched in with a decision done and a that absurd Press Statement ready to go. The numbers, the work product from KMA and the Board, belong to the people that paid for them - the residents. If Pres. Wiaduck hadn't foolishly written what he did, it is very possible that we might have been able to show that wthe Village was misled by KMA to believe that we would qualify when in actuality there is very little chance of that being the case. Maybe it is still posible to show that KMA just milked us for fees. We should demand to see whatever mumbers were generated - both for the old "Shields" mega-map and for the reduced one. FOIA requests - here we come.

   Posted Thursday May 24, 2007 11:30 #

3. Catherine
   Member

   PRESS RELEASE
   Riverside Announces TIF Consideration to Cease

   Analysis shows marginal value with recent modifications.

   May 21, 2007: Village Manager Kathleen Rush recommended today that the Village of Riverside not proceed with efforts to establish a Tax Increment Finance District covering its Central Business District and adjacent residential properties.

   And how was it decided to agree to this recommendation without the benefit of an Open Meeting under the Open Meeting Act?

   The Village had proposed this economic development tool to stimulate investment in this area. The plan called for the Village to use the resulting growth and increased revenue to address aging infrastructure improvements and provide much-needed dollars to promote reinvestment in the area and economic development.

   TIF dollars could only be used in the TIF area. The "improvements" in the aging infrastructure were for the purpose of supporting new mondo-condo developments. No one in the rest of the village was going to have their infrastructure improved. Except maybe after 23 years when, if all the profits had not been eaten by drain on the rest of village services, the new property taxes would go into the pool for the whole village.

   After a delay in the process to address resident concerns identified through a series of workshops, a number of significant adjustments to the proposal were considered by Village Trustees. When these adjustments were factored in by TIF consultants, the value of the proposed tax increment was projected to have marginal value. Additional EAV reduction resulted when the Class L tax status was awarded by the Village Board to the Arcade building. Anticipated givebacks to the local schools promoted by residents opposed to the TIF further diminish the potential value of the undertaking.

   Translation: Residents, it's all your fault. We tried to help you, but you were too stupid to understand that. Yes, we know the Arcade is crumbling over our heads, but we should have waited even longer to do something about it. (Givebacks to the schools are illegal unless all taxing bodies are given givebacks. A non-issue).

   Over the past two years, village officials and residents have worked diligently to identify and plan for needed improvements in our Central Business District. The Village has worked to gather information to help make good and purposeful decisions about land use and other issues surrounding these efforts. “It is clear,— says President Wiaduck, “while Riverside is unique in many ways, we share in the difficulties faced by communities everywhere. No set of issues generates more controversy and divisiveness for a community than those surrounding revitalization and development; and, decision making in regards to how and who will pay for it, is far more difficult yet.—

   No, what generates controversy is passing a zoning law that allows ugly monsters like the WC to be built, then trying to give money to developers to come and build more of the same in a national historic landmark. We know the CBD needs improvement: how about paying for the landscaping instead of for consultants to tell us it needs improvement. How about going out into other towns and inviting their businesses in. There's a big empty space in the Tower building going for dirt cheap.

   President Wiaduck stated he is truly disappointed with this outcome as it demonstrates reluctance on the part of the community to address the long-standing decreased growth in the tax base of the area. Many village officials believe delaying improvements will result in further decline in property value in the Central Business District. This will continue to shift more of the tax burden of the area to individual single-family property owners. This is troublesome for all of our taxing districts. Options are minimal and typically, come down to reaching into the pockets of each and every resident; not a popular position for any elected official.

   Riverside is a residential, bedroom community, and always has been. Those who live in it have to pay for keeping it up. I don't mind "carrying" the schools that I don't use. And commercial EAV ALWAYS lags behind residential EAV. Finally, the TIF area was not limited to the CBD, but was trying to glom onto peoples' homes. The fact that it couldn't was what didn't make it "worthwhile."

   Further, the inability to foster an environment for reinvestment and development sends a negative message to current owners and potential investors as well as prospective homeowners that the community is less than willing to work for the rehabilitation and preservation of its business district.

   No, actually I think the business owners are relieved they won't be eminent domained. The community is ready to go out and rehabilitate and preserve the business district any day of the week. What you were trying to do was tear it down and replace it with big ugly developments with no study of whether we would not empty up with big new ugly empty storefronts. Of course, stores are not really what are wanted, it is condo development that is wanted.

   Regardless if we could not reach consensus about TIF, I am proud to be part of a community that considers all options, controversial or not. We have learned much, and the products of our work remain valuable and well worth the journey.

   I am proud to be part of a community that knows how to keep its town from being ruined.

   The Village Board will not act on the proposed contract extension with Kane McKenna and Associates. The Economic Development Commission will consider other economic development tools and opportunities to support needed improvements to the Central Business District in the future.

   I don't think we need to leave it to the EDC to "improve" the CBD, but it will be nice to have their support.

   Those who want to see grace in victory should show grace in defeat. Naturally, no one expects them to say they made a mistake. But there was no need to pull down the draperies insulting the intelligence and good faith of those who opposed the TIF. Now what you give, you get. I have tried to ignore this letter, but it is just too galling.

   Posted Thursday May 24, 2007 12:37 #

4. spatny
   Member

   Screw giving KMA more money - we want them to give back some of what they extracted for what turned out to be a bogus and indefensible plan to bypass the residents. I mean it - these guys fostered the belief that this TIF would pass and when, upon closer look it became apparent to even the hard core supporters that it might not, the Board folded and KMA has slunk away with our doiugh in their pockets. This was just like throwing the money away on an early bet, then folding. Let's see some action on the part of our freespending Board to get some of that back. And as for that Press Release - I gave it to my parakeet to ready on the bottom of his cage.

   Posted Thursday May 24, 2007 13:14 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.