Is the VC in the TIF district? According to the Landmark's map (dated 10/06 - courtesy of this site), the VC is in. According to the Village's map (dated 11/06) it looks to be outside of the borders. Does anyone know for sure?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Is the VC in the TIF district?
(45 posts)-
Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 22:54 #
-
Good question. When I checked the boundaries of the TIF area on the village website, it was removed or temporarily unavailable. Since 11/06 was a draft, it could have been changed or be changed. I had thought all of the CBD was in the TIF area, and then some. (For example, it extended to Burlington and Cowley beyond the CBD.)
Why do you ask?
Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 23:29 # -
My recollection from the First Time Ever I Saw Mckenna's Face, on 11-9, he said it had to be excluded because it violated the but for clause (but for the tif, no development would occur; development had already started at VC; therefore, it had to be excluded).
I do not know why the Landmark wd indicate that it was in - maybe it was in, in a prior draft?
This brings us to an obvious violation of the BUT FOR clause IN SPIRIT. Since the tif district is supposed to be an overlay of the cbd - the tif was created, ostensibly, for cbd improvements - one would think that the whole cbd should be in it. Only a sperm whale of a property called the VC was left out! Lord, it is almost the whole dang cbd! This is an obvious violation of the 'but for' clause in spirit.
It really is one of the best reasons to CALL OFF THE TIF NOW and LET THE MARKET WORK !
Let's try to level set the chaos that has been put into play by the Board when they granted those variances for Moby Dick.
Burr Ridge developers looking down I-55, waiting with their steeds chomping at the bit, you can come in now - but there will be no TIF, and you are going to have to work for your money.
WORKFARE ! NOT WELFARE !
:) (what goes 'round, republicans, comes 'round)
No Welfare FOR DEVELOPERS!
No TIF in Riverside.Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 23:32 # -
Well, if it's outside of the TIF district, then all that property tax money that is collected would not go to the TIF fund. If it is included, then the money would go to the TIF fund. I have tried to work out the pros/cons for each entity (Village and VC) for both scenarios and can't figure it out.
If it was IN the TIF district:
(+) for Village because of property tax $ generated that would go to the TIF fund and (-) for Village because if they were unhappy with the developers, they might be unhappy that the VC would be eligible for the TIF funds. (I'm not saying they were, I'm trying to think of circumstances where the Village would be unhappy with the VC being in the TIF district.)(+) for VC because they are eligible for TIF funds and (-) for VC because the Village may have more control over them??? (Do you see how hard this is?)
*****************************************
If it was OUT of the TIF district:
(+) for the Village because they (if they were unhappy with the developers) wouldn't have to give any funds to the developers and (-) for the Village because they would lose out on the property taxes generated.(+) for the VC because they wouldn't have to be subject to the controls that the Village could place on entities in the TIF district and (-) for the VC because they wouldn't be eligible for and TIF monies that might come their way.
Either way, it seems as if it would be best for both the VC and the Village that their property is included in the TIF. When I compared the two maps, though, the earlier one had it in and the later one had it out. I wondered 1.) what prompted the change? and 2.) if either map was mistaken.
Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 23:44 # -
But I believe the Arcade is in the TIF area, no? And that purchase and work was already entered into.
Anyway, that leaves open the issue of whether the entire area meets the but for test, a point some people seem miss thinking it applies only to particular buildings or projects.
Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 23:45 # -
Yes, on both maps the Arcade is in the TIF district. I can't answer the "but for" question. Both properties were underway, so they both should be getting the same treatment, so to speak.
Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 23:47 # -
Elisa, the board gets criticized on all fronts: by pro tiffers because they did not enact a tif soon enough to get all that money (millions) into the tif slush fund, and, of course, by the anti tiffers for even trying a tif! oy! it is tough to be a trustee! But yous did a good thing to wait! You held the buck.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=68&replies=10#post-723Catherine, yes, Arcade is in. But I think that is because of Res 62 since some work was started when Mckenna was drawing the map.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/resolution-62/.
It would be nice if they took the tif away as even a possibility; then maybe we'd get some more 'natural' market driven work done. I just spoke with a homeowner in the TIF district who has put plans to an addition on hold because of the tif. TIF almost seems to discourage economic activity sometimes paradoxically. see also arcade. same with me and my windows and roof.
windows
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=6&replies=15#post-49
roof (find roof after linking)
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=188&page=2&replies=47#post-2877Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 23:51 # -
Mike - I am not trying to critize the Board on this one. My criticisms are very specific and I have not been shy about them. But on this one, I can see their point - I am just trying to understand the process here. I understood that the pro-TIFers said that if only a TIF was in place, then they could have had tighter control over what the project looked like. But now that the project is underway, if it is in fact in the district (if it's created), then wouldn't the Village still be getting the tax revenue? I can see the Board wanting to get the money out of the project - it's already up and running, it's a real thing - as opposed to the "yeah, people are looking to get into Riverside" - this is being built and units are being sold.
Posted Saturday Feb 24, 2007 00:01 # -
Read Resolution 62 on the main page of the site.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/resolution-62/
The village has worked out a deal with Arcade, to keep it in the TIF district, and, even if they begin their construction, they can stay in the TIF and receive TIF funds.
As far as VC, they were excluded because the TIF would no longer pass the "but for" test. The funny thing is that the EDC has recommended that Central/Hauser be included in the TIF to be able to access funds to "make whole" (which they can't cuz it isn't legal, but that is besides the point.) The point is that a TIF district needs to be 'contiguous,' and go up BOTH sides of the street. How in the world is that district going to get around the VC to get to the schools? They can't!Posted Saturday Feb 24, 2007 07:04 # -
KimJ,
You should really take the time to research an issue properly before you open your mouth. Central and Hauser can (and will) be included in the TIF district while maintaining contiguity. Furthermore, as the EDC has stated all along, traditional make whole structures employed by school districts like Oak Park are discriminatory and have been recently judged to be illegal. However, as detailed in the attached legal opinion issued by Bell Boyd, a top Chicago law firm, "the Act permits a municipality to provide significant benefits to a specific taxing district via its powers to renovate and construct new buildings within a TIF." Let me translate this for you. This means that the TIF district can provide funds to a taxing body to renovate or construct a building as long as those buildings are in the TIF district. That is how Distrcit 96 can and will be made whole via the TIF. Clear enough?
One Illinois state court has interpreted these provisions and concluded that the Act
prohibits selective payments in lieu of taxes and requires pro rata distribution of funds to all local taxing districts. Henry County Board v. Village of Orion, 278 Ill.App.3d 1058, 663 N.E.2d 1076 (Ill. 3d Dist., 1996). In Henry, the Village of Orion (the “Village—) had inserted a provision in the ordinance creating the TIF district that required the Village to make payments to the local school district for the duration of the TIF district. Id. at 1079. The Village intended to reimburse
the school district for property taxes it would have received had the TIF plan not been adopted. Id. at 1084. The Henry County Board and various other local taxing districts sought to enjoin the TIF project, alleging that the agreement between the Village and the school district violated the Act's pro rata distribution requirement. Id. at 1079. The Village asserted that the school district payment agreement was valid because the “capital costs— provision allowed for payments to only one local taxing district.4 Id. at 1084. Therefore, the Village argued, the payment in lieu of taxes provision must likewise allow payments to only one local taxing district. Id. The court flatly rejected this argument, stating that the Act's “mandate to provide payments in lieu of taxes to all affected taxing districts— could not be “circumvented by the legislature's grammar in a separate statutory section.— Id. Continuing,
the court reasoned that the capital cost provision was intended to repay capital expenditures made by a local taxing district, while the payment in lieu of taxes provision was intended to repay all affected local taxing districts for lost property tax revenue. Id. at 1084-85. The court concluded that there was “no basis in the Act or in the arguments presented to hold that a municipality may make payments to a single taxing district in lieu of taxes cloaked as an intergovernmental agreement.— Id. at 1085. Thus, the court held that every payment in lieu of taxes made by a municipality must be made on a pro rata basis to all affected local taxing districts.Conclusion
Payments to a taxing district as contemplated by make-whole agreements are not allowed
under the Act. The Act permits payments in lieu of taxes, but only during the period that a municipality owns property that will later be used for private development, and such payments must be made to all taxing districts. The Act permits reimbursement to schools districts for increased costs attributable to assisted housing units within the TIF, and permits payments to a taxing district for training costs for employees within a TIF. Finally, the Act permits a municipality to provide significant benefits to a specific taxing district via its powers to renovate and construct new buildings within a TIF.Posted Saturday Feb 24, 2007 07:57 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.