Nearly 200 residents crowded into the auditorium of the Riverside Village Hall on Nov. 21 to voice their opposition to the proposed creation of a TIF district in the village’s downtown area. For over three hours, the stream of speakers questioned the effects a TIF district would have on laws of eminent domain and revenue for local school districts, and almost unanimously asked the administration to slow down the process for further planning and review.
The hearing began with an overview of the proposed TIF district, which would incorporate all of the central business district as well as surrounding residential areas and village park land. Philip McKenna, the president of Kane, McKenna and Associates, Inc., the consulting firm the village has been utilizing on the project, explained that the TIF district would provide the village with funds to support private development in the downtown without having to raise taxes for the entire village.
For some residents, a TIF district would be the perfect solution to stimulate growth in the village. For example, Eric Sundstrom, owner of Sundstrom Insurance Agency and the treasurer of the Riverside Chamber of Commerce, said he believed a TIF district would help Riverside businesses recover from a slump that’s lasted for more than a decade.
“I know what the business district was like in the 1960s and ’80s, and it’s not like that now. Things aren’t great,” he said. “Change is inevitable, but we want to be able to control that change, and a TIF would be one of the ways to do that.”
For most residents at the meeting, though, the idea of a TIF district in Riverside raised many red flags.
By far the largest concern was over the rules of eminent domain in a TIF district, which become much more lenient for governments seeking to acquire property for economic development. Village officials have repeatedly said they have no intention of exercising eminent domain if a TIF district were created, but many residents remained alarmed by the fact that the village identified 13 residential units for potential acquisition in the original TIF Redevelopment Plan issued in mid-October.
Village Manager Kathleen Rush announced at the hearing that this number had been reduced to six, following a decision by the board on Nov. 20 to remove 62, 64 and 68 Pine Ave. from the district. The remaining properties are located at 56, 60, and 68 Pine Ave., and 61 and 63 East Burlington St., according to Rush.
McKenna explained that the properties had been identified because the proposal required the village to list potential sites for acquisition. The Pine Avenue sites are all located in an area that the village’s Transit-Oriented Development Study had marked for an above-ground parking garage. Village President Harold Wiaduck stressed that the village had no current plans to actually build the garage, however.
When asked by resident Michael Tomecek, who lives at 56 Pine Ave., whether future plans to build a parking garage would justify the use of eminent domain, Wiaduck replied, “Not to me.”
“The desire of the village, if it becomes involved in acquiring property, is to acquire it through normal market procedures,” Wiaduck explained. “If the property owner is unwilling to sell, then we won’t go through with the project.”
In a separate interview, Tomecek said he was still concerned over his property’s inclusion in the TIF district. He noted that even if the village never used its power of eminent domain, the fact that it could would reduce his property value and distort the real estate market within the district.
n
“Your house is injured just by being inside a TIF,” he said. “It stigmatizes buyers and reduces the market for your home. There’s really just one buyer left-the village-and that’s not a free market anymore.”
In addition to concerns over eminent domain, many residents also questioned the effect the TIF district would have on tax revenue for the local school districts. One resident noted that the Illinois Association of School Boards recently passed a resolution against the implementation of TIF districts, citing the negative effects they may have on a school district’s revenue sources.
Jonathan Lamberson, the superintendent of Riverside Elementary School District 96, did offer a guarded endorsement of the TIF, however, supporting the village’s effort to increase economic growth but requesting that the board make the TIF as short-lived as possible.
n
“Our concern is the length of time the TIF is in effect,” he said. “In many communities, TIFs continue long after they are appropriate. Whatever the board’s decision, we would like it to expire as soon as possible so that the district can benefit from it.”
A final point raised by residents at the hearing was that the TIF district would be adopted without an underlying plan for development within it. McKenna explained that the village would likely follow a pay-as-you-go scheme, where they would wait for developers to approach them with new projects for the district. Some who spoke at the hearing objected that this would lead to uneven, mismatched development in the district.
Overall, many urged the village board to simply wait longer before adopting the TIF proposal, arguing that this would give residents more time to learn about the proposal and the village the opportunity to develop a more comprehensive development plan.
Also, a delay would allow the village to see how new constructions projects already happening in the downtown area, such as the new Village Center at East Burlington Street and Longcommon Road, are received by residents. It could be possible, some argued, that these new projects would help revitalize the business district without the need for a TIF.
“The level of current development in the downtown is unprecedented in the last 20 to 30 years,” resident Dale Miller said. “When we talk about the need to bring development here, I think the market is already doing a good job of that.”
In response to suggestion to wait, Rush said the development of the TIF proposal had been going on for a year, and waiting to bring the issue to a vote before the board would simply increase costs.
“I don’t think the board has been in a hurry; I think we’ve been following a process,” she said. “When you start a process, you keep trying to go through it. It’s a matter of adding expense.”
This hearing was not residents’ last chance to voice their opinion of the proposed TIF district. McKenna explained that the next step in the review process would be a meeting of the of joint review board, a group made up of representatives from all the taxing districts that would be affected by the TIF.
Following that, more meetings would be held to finalize remaining details of the proposal, such as the final borders of the TIF district and the length of time it would be in effect. The village board would not vote on adopting the TIF until February or March at the earliest.
