Riverside Info » About Riverside

Notes from Feb 5 Special Meeting

(82 posts)
  1. MDS
    Member

    The meeting started with public comments. The board was asked what CBD improvements the TIF/SSA/tax increase/general obligation bonds would fund, and the response was that this would be discussed later in the meeting. The board was also asked if any studies had been done as to what would be a reasonable to expect for an increase in either sales tax or property tax revenues to the village as a result of the improvements the village wants to make. The board's response was that no studies have been done on those issues, and that the improvements contemplated by a TIF are to make the CBD more enjoyable and aesthetically pleasing (Katy's words, more or less). Katy also said they would never expect the CBD to generate significant sales tax revenue.

    Trustee Smith spoke about the ordinance concerning the reconsideration of the B-2 zoning and the requirement for the first floors of the CBD be used for commercial development only. His rationale for this referendum question is that he felt that those who are anti-TIF seem to be very concerned about the impact a TIF would have on the schools, and allowing residential-only development in the CBD would maximize revenues/EAV and give more money to schools. Smith also said that he wants a better sense of what the voters want to do with downtown -- maybe residents don't want businesses downtown, just residences.

    The next referendum question discussed were the general obligation bonds. These would be used to make "basic fixes" to infrastructure in the CBD. The figure cited was $10MM for projects such as:
    - sewer improvements
    - Centennial Plaza
    - Parking and street improvements
    - Streetscape/landscape
    - Water line improvements
    - Signscapes
    - Shoreline enhancements

    The $10MM does not include other things that have been proposed, like the community center, wi-fi, traffic management, etc.

    The Special Service Area (SSA) was discussed next, then the property tax increase. Much less discussion about these two issues.

    I believe I heard Trustee Gustafson say that the discussion of these referenda items were purely a reaction to the TIF referendum question that was submitted, and that the board should wait until they start their financial planning to consider these other options.

    The village could put 2 of the options on the April 17th ballot.

    First item put to a vote was the general obligation bonds. Gustafson, Scanlon, and Smith all voted no, so it was defeated (they needed 4 yes votes, and Scully was absent tonight).

    Reconsider zoning & commercial requirements: passed, with Grace, Scanlon, Smith, and Wiaduck voting yes.

    SSA failed, as no one seconded the motion to vote on it.

    Property tax increase question passed, with Grace, Scanlon, Smith, and Wiaduck voting for it.

    So there will be 3 referendum questions on the April 17th ballot:

    1. TIF: yes or no?
    2. Reconsider the B-2 zoning and eliminate the requirement for first floor of CBD only being commercial space?
    3. Should a property tax rate increase be proposed to support CBD improvements?

    It was a very interesting, and in some ways, enlightening meeting. I was surprised that after 2-3 months of not being able to articulate what the $20MM in TIF money would be used for, the board came up with $10MM worth of infrastructure improvements that they wanted to fund.

    And this is essentially how they are framing the TIF/CBD funding issue now: how can the village pay for all of these improvements? It's no longer about attracting development, it's about paying for infrastructure and, per what I heard Katy say tonight, making the CBD look nice and making it walkable.

    Anyone else who was there, what did I miss in this write-up?

    Posted Monday Feb 5, 2007 22:22 #
  2. KimJ
    Member

    So Shields and Gustafson voted against the referendum questions???

    Posted Monday Feb 5, 2007 22:42 #
  3. MikeT
    Member

    Scanlon proposed another question that would pertain to nuances to the TIF proposal on the table now.

    something like...

    Shall the Village execute a TIF ....
    ....without eminent domain,
    ....that would refund money back to the schools,
    ....that would be pay as you go (not sure on this one), and,
    ....that would include the other limitations on the TIF that have been talked about?

    He was told that this would entail another meeting, and the deadline to submit referenda questions is this Saturday according to the Village Attny. So there was not enuf time to do the meeting, we were told.

    Posted Monday Feb 5, 2007 22:57 #
  4. corbi328
    Member

    As far as I am concerned, the TIF has always been about a way to revitalize downtown, first and foremost, for the benefit of its residents, while at the same time generating an improved revenue stream from this area for the Village and longer term for other taxing bodies. This improved revenue stream would be composed primarily of enhanced real estate tax revenue and, to a lesser extent, improved sales tax revenue. This additional revenue stream is needed to reverse the distrurbing and untenable trends in our general operating fund, but also to fund many inevitable and some nice to have infrastructure projects. Without a TIF or some other program to act as a catalyst for redevelopment of downtown, the Village will be forced to seek these funds via a real estate tax increase that will be borne primarily by single family residential homeowners. The TIF has never been about redevelopment just for redevelopment's sake

    Posted Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 09:19 #
  5. Lonnie
    Member

    The TIF is also a form of corporate welfare. It is about taking the people's money and giving it to multi-million dollar developers. In fact, in Riverside this seems to be a prime motivator. Resolution 62, passed at a special board meeting in September, is in effect promising TIF money to Wexford before a TIF is even passed. Why the special meeting just for Wexford? The village can get quite specific on which developer they want to give tax money to, but they can't get specific on how they want to make infrastructure and visual enhancements to downtown. And they expect us to trust them with 20mm?

    Posted Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 09:59 #
  6. corbi328
    Member

    Lonnie,

    To say that a TIF is equivalent to corporate welfare shows a lack of understanding of how a TIF works. A TIF is an incentive or a stimulus that is no different than other stimuli and incentives that are sprinkled throughout our tax code to encourage a certain type of behavior from an individual or a business. The best way to summarize the TIF is to say that Riverisde wants to make its economic pie larger and is willing to share a portion of the larger pie with businessmen that will contribute to making the pie larger. In the end, both sides get a bigger share of the pie than they would have without the TIF. It's a very basic concept.

    Posted Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 10:22 #
  7. Catherine
    Member

    Thank you for that excellent summary MDS. The only infrastructure improvement I see there is the water lines, and I am not sure if that is for existing residents or new ones. This absolutely amazes me after all the discussion about our desperate need for infrastructure improvements. Could any of this money be put to operating purposes or no? (I am thinking of Smith's comment once of having to choose between meeting the police payroll or trimming the trees.)

    Yes, the purpose of corporate welfare is to induce a certain kind of behavior, and its partisans always claim that by the trickle down of their increased profits, all will benefit. But that is ideology, but not established as fact.

    Does anyone have a comment about the contemplated change from retail/residential to allowing just residential? Either the market will bear more condos or it won't; I don't see any argument for incentives there. Therefore it would follow there is no argument for TIF. Let it be noted that all the condos that would fit would require substantial improvements to infrastructure, as one of the studies - was it the TOD? - noted.

    Posted Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 10:42 #
  8. spatny
    Member

    Thank you Trustee Gustafson for bringing a little sanity into that somewhat sureal discussion last night. Typical action for this Board - first authorize paying for a Financial Consultant to figure out what we should do and then, before the guy can even start, have a quickie meeting to but a $10 mil Bond Issue up without a detailed list of what it's for. Let's have a Sunday meeting and decide how to get this money.... ooops, our legal eagle sez no - has to be Sat. - ooops, but we have the Workshops where people who are trying to figure out how to revitalize the downtown - which I thought ws the purpose of thei TIF in the first place - will share their strategies if not their visions. But let's put SOMETHING on the ballot - we can't let this Yes or No question languish by itself. Let's confuse everyboday and maybe they won't vote at all. Or?

    I'm going to pick up the Trustee packet from last night and see what the line items are. Quite honestly, if they want to fix up downtown why not concentrate on that area - let's say Burlington and Quincy, east from Longcommon about as far as the Catholic School parking lot, and see what kind of thing "might" be done there to bring in some new businesses, a few repeat few new condos, address parking, create something that will attract people into the area by car, on foot and off the train. I think that should be what they are working on, creating the reason that everyone wants to do this - the developers, the businesses, the new condo dwellers, the customers. Repairs in the Swan Pond, condos or a Community Center on Forest or the river or anyplace else, come later. I wanted to say ten times last night that all the people weren't against TIFs per se, just this TIF, the way it was formulated, presented, designed. Our budding "Master Buikders " will have enough to do - at least ten years worth - just to address Burl and Quincy. I'll bet if you asked 100 residents where the "Downtown" was that's what they would say - B&Q. So let's address that area first. Oh, I'm glad you asked. That's just what I'm goingto try and do at the Sat/Thurs Workshops. Come and take a look.

    Posted Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 10:43 #
  9. MDS
    Member

    I want to clarify something about that list of specific infrastructure fixes from my write-up -- I believe they were listed as a requirement for proposing the general obligation bonds. TIF money, increased taxes, or an SSA may or may not be used for these projects -- there has been no commitment to these, at least that I have heard, outside the discussion of the general obligation bonds.

    Mark D. Shevitz

    Posted Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 10:45 #
  10. Catherine
    Member

    And why did they vote down General Obligation Bonds? Do we have too much debt already? (I do not understand this instrument beyond the fact it is a bond, i.e. a promise to repay with interest in the future.)

    Posted Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 10:58 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.