GOB's are a 100% burden as are tax increases, neither of which is contemplated under the current TIF proposal, but clearly alternatives to the TIF.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Workshop 3
(94 posts)-
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 10:22 #
-
1) Please detail how the schools tax revenue increased 21% last year. Why would RB need a referendum if they could just increase their taxes 21% every year to pay for the renovations??? They can levy all they want - the difference between what they levy and what they get is a result of tax caps. Do you really not understand this?
2) Please give an example mechanically of how increased taxes from a development which occurs as a result of a TIF incentive is shared by a corresponding increase of everyone else's taxes outside the TIF district.
Question 1:
See page 23 of 27 from Kevin's presentation from Workshop 1.
It is on the Village Website. I broke it down for you.2004 2005 increase %
District 96 $1,177,216 $1,433,849 21.8%
RBHS $320,353 $339,575 6.0%Combined $1,497,569 $1,773,424 19.0%
So you are right. It is actually only 19% increase for the schools for 2005 (village was 3.7% as Kevin presented...I believe capped to CPI).
Question 2:
If you can tell me why Kane and McKenna selected 4.9% growth for their TIF model they presented to the Village to grow their TIF (as opposed to say the 9% historical growth over the past 5 years...or any other arbitrary number) I would be happy to try to answer your question.
And, as for Joe, I will discuss his rational directly with him. I agree he has the right to defend himself.
Have a great day!
tim
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 12:26 # -
Tim - good point on 1) based on Kevin Wachtel's presentation. If the Schools can collect a 20% tax increase in any given year, even a re-assessment year, that is certainly news to me. Certainly worth more research.
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 13:23 # -
Let me interject and once again repeat the circumstances under which a taxying body's levy can increase by more than 5% or the applicable CPI rate year over year. First, as a result of a tax increase referendum approved by the voters. Secondly, levies on individual properties that have been rehabbed or newly built are not subject to the cap. Therefore, I will repeat again that district 96's levy in 2005 went up 21.8% mostly because it was the first effective tax year for the district 96 referendum that was voted on a few year's back. District 96's levy in 2006 will be closer to the tax cap with the only variation being attributable to levies on newly rehabbed or constructed properties that are not subject to the cap. District 208's levy went up by 6% vs the applicable CPI capped levy of 3.7%. The difference reflects the uncapped levy that was applied to all properties within district 208 border's that were newly rehabbed or built. In 2006 District 208's levy will experience a dramatic percentage increase because that is the first year that its tax referndum kicks in.
The main point in all of this is to reiterate that absent a referendum or new construction, taxying bodies are tax capped. The TIF is being considered to stimulate new construction/rehabs in the CBD so that this segment of the town can start bearing the fair brunt of the tax levies from the taxying bodies. Lastly, I'll reiterate that TIF's and tax referndums are not mutually exclusive. A taxing body can seek a referendum and receive the full benefit of the referndum levy. A TIF does capture tax dollars levied as a result of a referendum.
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 13:45 # -
Corbi - thanks for the clarification. I forgot about the District 96 referendum and stand by my previous posts. I do note that Tim mentioned referenda earlier and I missed it there as well. Looks like we are back to the $50K/year based on historical numbers. A few of us have requested that the Village pull historical tax data and run the exact numbers historically. I think we should all encourage that instead of speculating.
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 14:05 # -
If a TIF removes funds from a taxing body, and the scope of that body's operations have not been reduced proportionately, it seems to me that this will cause, or at least signigicantly hasten, that body coming to the residents for revenue.
The notion that the TIF, under the best outcomes, will give the money back in 23 years, is a non starter to any taxing body, ESPECIALLY schools. That is like 2 - 3 cycles of kids through the schools. That is their only time. NO WAY is this worth some properties adding more tax revenue to the village.
The very ground of this, that a property is not contributing according some standard - but is satisfying all the building ordinances - is not right. So a property along the tracks is not worth as much as a place on Downing or Maplewood. So put an X on it?
You poor people out there, make-me-sick! Get richer!
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 15:46 # -
Mike - so the alternative you propose is what? It has to then be higher taxes, which is going to be real hard for people to swallow when they get their October tax bill reflecting the R-B referendum (which I supported).
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 15:52 # -
Mike,
You can crack jokes all you want. The TIF will have an extremely minor impact on District 96's revenues and proportionally an even smaller impact on District 208. With the amount of money we are talking about, it won't hasten anything. Furthermore, District 96 can be made whole through all of this if the TIF boundaries are adjusted to include the Central and Hauser buildings (see EDC Resolution). Let me reiterate that I have no incentive at all to see the schools hurt as I am a parent of a District 96 4th grader and of a soon to be District 96 kindergartner
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 15:53 # -
We are getting back to old issues.
1. The schools are our biggest taxing body (like over 50% of tax dollars go to them.)
2. If schools were made 'whole,' the TIF would be worth less than half the current estimate.
3. It is not legal to make the schools 'whole' in the state of IL.
4. Including the schools in the TIF district and sequestering their funds, to be disseminated at the will of the village board, will make the schools beholden to the village. Our schools should continue to operate without village government involvement with their finances, whatsoever.Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 15:59 # -
Corbi - that is a good point. No one has any interest in compromising the schools. I have 2 children at Central, and a 2-yr old at home that will attend Central. Both my parents graduated from R-B and my mother has worked at R-B for almost 25 years and still works there. I have voted for all of the school referenda to date. I am as "vested" as anyone.
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 16:01 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.