Board not telling whole story on TIF
Thank you Mr. Scanlon for your vocabulary lesson (“Get the facts on the Riverside TIF,” Letters, Oct. 4). You forgot one used by our Navy and moonshiners. It’s smokescreen, smokescreen, smokescreen. This along with mirrors is what our village board is using to promote and pass the TIF district.
I agree with you that the taxpayers need to get the facts, and thank you for dispelling the rumors about the swim club and Swan Pond. What the board is not telling taxpayers is that a TIF district will freeze property values and their taxes paid to the village, library and, most importantly, our school districts, at this year’s assessed value. And they don’t tell us it’s frozen for 23 years.
Now who do you think is going to have to make up the loss to those taxing bodies?
As the TIF district is improved the property values increase, but that increase in value and its resulting increase in revenue is never given to the taxing bodies.
The district must pass the “but for” test, which must prove the private investment and improvements could not be possible without the TIF district. Since two of the projects in the proposed district have already been started, they would not, should not be eligible for this funding, as our village [board] has put forward with a friendly handshake. …
The village Web site is the only place that mentions that the TIF district will be pursued based on the conservation section of the district requirements. Conservation requirements are less strict and consist of:
At least 50 percent of the structures must be 35 years old.
It must meet three of the 14 factors required under the blighted area conditions.
The added factor of “excessive vacancies” must be present.
I will admit that I am not 100 percent sure if the conservation TIF district excludes the “but for” test or not; it appears so. If it does then the only thing left, in my opinion, is the ink on the paper, as it’s a done deal.
If that’s the case, we taxpayers will be making up the difference in lost taxes for the next 23 years. We had better get out to those meetings and let our elected board members know we cannot afford to pick up the additional financial burden.
Frank C. Vlazny
Riverside
Brookfield blew it on Prairie water main
The taxpayers of Brookfield have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent, or wasted, as the case may be. The recently paved Prairie Avenue project is a prime example. The project was a 70 percent grant project with the village paying 30 percent of the construction costs, about $500,000. This money will come from the motor/fuel tax fund. The scope of work includes widening, sewer work, and new curbs gutters and asphalt.
Incredibly, the village engineer and Public Works Department did not identify that the water main serving the homes on Prairie Avenue is about 85 years old. It was an oversight and could have been included in the 70/30 grant. The Brookfield administration was made aware of this just about halfway through the project; it seems that there were breaks in the line during construction, too late to apply for grant money.
So what did they do? Cover the 85-year-old water pipe with a brand new street and put the replacement of the water main in the next 5-year water main replacement program. It seems inevitable that mistakes are made, but why compound the problem by putting their heads in the sand?
There is no doubt that the main could have been replaced at a lower cost now, before the paving rather than wait for a year or so. What were they thinking?
Wilfred Brennan
Brookfield
Ed. note: According to Village Engineer Derek Treichel, there is no plan to replace the Prairie Avenue water main.
