.

Letter: TIF 4 is Justification for a Boondoggle and has Become Corrupt Political Process

City Council will soon vote on a fourth Tax Increment Financing District. Citizen Advocacy Center says the ends don't justify the means.

The North York Street tax increment financing district (TIF 4) may have started out with good intentions, but it has degenerated into a corrupt political process.

What is a TIF?
 
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a favorite government tool used to spur economic development in areas identified as legally blighted or underperforming. Elmhurst currently has three TIF districts and is considering a fourth to assist the north side of town.  
 
How do TIFs work?
 
City Hall provides developers and business with subsidies to lure them into town or to improve existing properties.  At the most basic level, when a TIF district is created property tax revenues that are collected over a certain base amount are redirected to City Hall for its exclusive use within the TIF district for a period of 23 to 35 years rather than being distributed to numerous taxing bodies like the school district and park district. The diversion of property tax dollars away from the other taxing bodies and into the TIF district creates a TIF “piggy bank.”
 
City Hall’s Theory of TIF
 
The theory behind a TIF is that a developer or business will not come into a certain area unless a subsidy is provided. More subsidies lead to more development. Over 23-35 years of subsidized development, property values that otherwise would have remained stagnant rise. At the end of the 23-35 years, City Hall ends the TIF and the school district and the other taxing bodies now begin to access property tax revenue based on the new, higher property values.  So much development will have occurred during the TIF years that there will be a huge increase in property tax collected by the previously shut out taxing bodies as compared to what was collected during the 23-35 TIF years, or as compared to what they would have collected had City Hall never done the TIF in the first place.  The massive property tax increase will have been all due to the benevolence of City Hall.   
 
Who Pays for the TIF?
 
All property owners pay for the TIF despite City Hall’s claims that only property owners in the TIF pay. TIFs change the math calculation for property tax rates. Taxes are still collected on the increased property values within the TIF district, but rather than going to the school district, park district, etc., those funds are co-opted by City Hall to pay back the subsidies which have been given to developers or to cover other development-related costs within the TIF district.  The other taxing districts still need to collect their revenues from somewhere to meet their operational costs (the levy). That somewhere is from tax on properties located outside of all the TIF districts.
 
The Problem: In a rush to create TIF 4, the Elmhurst City Council has failed to adhere to basic principles of good public policy and has not justified the TIF financial details. 
 
1. The TIF privatizes profits and socializes the cost of development without adequate justification: City Council’s proposed redevelopment costs are $89 million. Why $89 million? This is very large as compared to Elmhurst’s other TIFs. What potential projects is this based on? The City Council approved a $1.25 million incentive related to as part of TIF 4, before TIF 4 was even created.  Are there other projects in mind? Have other incentive discussions happened that justify the $89 million?
 
2. Phantom rationale for anticipated property growth and estimated redevelopment costs: City Council projects the property tax base in TIF 4 will go from its current value of $32 million up to $105 million to $150 million. Why a 300 percent increase? This estimate far exceeds growth projections made at the creation of the three previous TIFs.  How does the rate of inflation factor into the growth estimates of TIF 1, 2, and 3?
 
3. City Council projections show $16 million difference between projected budgeted redevelopment costs and projected generation of property tax increment at the end of 23 years: City Council projects $89 million in redevelopment costs but only recovering $73 million in property tax increment at the end of 23 years. Why? Is the $89 million too high? Is the idea to over-budget so to avoid amending the plan, which requires a public process? Is there a projected TIF extension? How does the projected difference impact the ?   
 
4. Gerrymandered TIF map: Properties south of North Avenue should not be in TIF 4. They are already located in TIF 1, scheduled to end in 2021. Some of the properties are economically healthy, and Illinois law limits how long TIFs can last (23 years initially with a one time extension of 12 years) to ensure that properties are not held in a TIF in perpetuity. Moving properties from TIF 1 to TIF 4 means they could be in a TIF for more than 60 years!
 
5. Doing what’s right vs. what’s legal: The School and Park Districts were not invited to discuss TIF 4 until just prior to the Joint Review Board meeting.  If the City Council believed the TIF to be a good idea, why not have a joint City Council and School Board meeting to discuss the issue publically? By not having an open discussion on the TIF itself, the conversation has changed to closed-door discussions about a discretionary intergovernmental agreement focused on payouts. Adhering to strict legal requirements is the floor, not the ceiling, of good government policy.
 
6. No process to vet Incentive requests by the city: City Hall has no such process for evaluating incentive requests. By the time the issues get to the Finance Committee, a multitude of private discussions have already happened.  TIF 4 should not be adopted until a formal procedure to evaluate incentive requests is in place.
 
7. All property owners in Elmhurst pay for the TIF: City Hall should not create TIF 4 until there is a “Taxpayer TIF Cost” calculation section of the City’s website, where individual property owners can determine how much they pay due to the TIF. Let individual property owners themselves decide if TIFs are a good investment. 
 
For a more comprehensive outline of the above issues, visit the Citizen Advocacy Center website or Facebook page.

—Terry Pastika, executive director/community lawyer, Citizen Advocacy Center

tom cruse August 29, 2012 at 01:12 PM
I would like to thank Terry for her intelligent assessment of TIF 4. I did think that this process was too quick and the public does not grasp the possible increased taxes for us. Thomas Cruse
Steve August 29, 2012 at 08:49 PM
I agree with you 100% Bob! It is sad at some of the "issues" that cause outrage in the community (a sign at a church) compared to potential of a new TIF might do (pros and cons).
McSorley August 29, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Ms Pastika's opinion is an informed one? Seriously? Bob, I expect more from you than that. No sooner had Ms. (not Mrs.) Pasticka's letter been submitted to the Patch than it had been sent to Mrs. (not Ms.) Nadar's house with a request for another check to cover CAC expenses for another 6 months or so, including Ms. Pasticka's salary. Why is there not outrage over TIFs in Elmhurst? Because they work. They are MORE than fair to the schools and other taxing bodies (including yours Mr. Howard) and they improve our community. Elmhurst is an informed, and politically active community. When something doesn't work, residents speak out. That has been proven over and over again. Do not confuse lack of response for lack or caring. View it as acceptance of what does.
Bill Angel August 29, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Bobby, make that Steak and Lobster! TIF's will bankrupt the City. How is that hope and change working?
McSorley August 30, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Bob - I don't dispute my reading comp may be fuzzy at best, however, I was directly disputing Ms Pastika's assesment is an informed one. She has an agenda, a very clear agenda. The by line on this letter contain the words "boondoggle" and "corrupt", yet nowhere in her letter does she back those assertions up. According to her letter, TIFs are bad, nowhere does she discuss the positves of a TIF. I know you know they are a positive eceonomic development tool if used properly, and Elmhurst is using them properly. I do agree TIFs affect the other taxing bodies, mainly the schools, but TIF 1 with the early release of properties, TIF 2 with the multiple declarations of surplus and TIF 4, once the school board agrees to the revenue sharing, clearly show that the city more than accounts for the possible negative impact of the TIFs on them. In fact, the other taxing bodies are more than made whole and in fact are sharing in the growth the TIFs help generate faster than they would have otherwise. Ms Pastika, and her "informed" assesment, failed to mention that at all. Why? Because it blows up her argument and exposes her for what she really is, a woman who must "prove" to her money people that she is doing something to collect those dollars and her salary.
David R. August 30, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Bob, I completely agree regarding Hahn street -- the merits of the TIF 4 project in general are debatable, but the inclusion of the Hahn street parcel is an abomination and should be illegal. Shame on the mayor and the city council for pushing that through (yes, it's a foregone conclusion). We shouldn't even need TIFs to attract businesses to Elmhurst, but if the mayor, city council and city administration were doing their jobs properly, the remaining 9 years on that parcel would provide them with plenty of ability to attract an investor.
Terry Pastika August 30, 2012 at 09:03 PM
Thanks to those who commented. As a point of information, since a letter to the editor format does not serve to post Citizen Advocacy Center's full commentary, readers were directed to the 7 page detailed explanation posted on our website. Our website also contains organizational information and community lawyering activities. www.citizenadvocacycenter.org
RobertAWilson August 31, 2012 at 07:49 PM
The City Council will approve the new TIF on Tuesday night. Two weeks ago the vote to move forward was not unanimous, of the 13 aldermen at the meeting, one argued and voted against moving Hahn Street into the new TIF. The Patch never reported on that meeting. You can watch the video on the City's web site.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something