Tuesday night, Dr. David Kinney from District 150 presented a plan to mitigate the negative impact of a TIF by sharing some of the revenue with the school district. I mentioned in my live blog that he had distributed a PowerPoint handout to the council members; here is a copy of that handout:
Will the City approve this proposal? My sources say yes.
So is this good or bad? Does this just make something not great a little less great?
kinney’s analysis is close but overstated. the gsa pickup isn’t dollar for dollar, as shown. it also assumes a historical average growth rate, where there is really little basis to trust it. Minor caveats. The major flaw is the 20+ million $$ number, which assumes desired growth.
A fairer comparison would be to use the 2% historical which nets something closer to $17.2 million as the “REAL increment”. Real increment is taxes collected against the base versus taxes collected against the base plus 2% growth in year x to 23.
If you take the 20% number they use against the annual real increment including the 2% growth figure less the taxes they will continue to recieve (the $2.445 million), the sum is $3.4 million. Not 6 to $7 million. Factor in the gsa and it’s pennies.
So, I would say it’s bad that no one understands this, its bad that 150 mis-represents, and it’s a loser on many fronts because there is still the question of what are they going to DO to spur a sustainable growth rate of 4% and how are the taxpayers going to finance it.
I am still baffled at how one taxing authority can freeze out another. If the City of Peoria wants to TIF its own tax revenue, fine. How and why does the City of Peoria have the authority to even dictate District 150 revenue? How is it that people who are possibly not resident to the District 150 tax district (some of 5th district) are capable of making decisions concerning District 150s revenue stream? I realize the law is written as it is but it strikes me as wrong.
All TIFing will do is force tax increases upon other parts of the city.
The TIF’s sound good at the core, but is the city just spreading itself too thin? While this area is certainly “blighted” and could use a formal gameplan in zoning, growth and development I’m not sure banking on taxes and government funding is the way to go. While this will very well get passed, will it really get the results from it? OSF will get what they want, but the area and the city as a whole I’m not so sure. The root lies at the riverfront (Taft Homes) and moves north. If you pull up the non-owner occupied home list on the city website and look at these houses in this targeted area it’s rich (sarcastic) with rentals. How do you force the owners to fix up a rental property, or sell to qualified owners, and all in all restore a sense of a safe community? For now concentrate on the Warehouse District, make that area the best it can be and then think about moving on to other areas. Don’t do a half-a job all around town.
If the city allows this will all of the projections made in the study are accurate?? Since the TIF was marginal as to covering expenses over its 23 year run with all of the increment going to the TIF now if #150 gets some of the cash will it work? What will be cut? So will the money part of the study need to be re-done?
Was #150s plans brought forward to the TIF advisory board? Residents at a local meeting?
Will the schooling be district wide or just for TIF residents?
roguemonkey:
Thanks for re-enforcing my “blighted” home. TIF standards are wide as to age of structures so the warehouse district could be labeled as “blighted” if it becomes a TIF. Wonder what “blighted” label will do for sales of homes & property in the East village TIF, should drive them down even lower. Thanks COP!
I was reading at PJStar.com … is it true that Teska used 2000 Census data instead of 2010 Census data in their report? If true, why? and how does that affect their results?
Eastbluffcitizen
——————————————————————————–
And that is exactly on point, ChuckIL. In a related comment on the EVGC TIF, I hinted there was a suspicious disparity in the report submitted by Teska to the city council. That disparity is the lack of up to date demographics, instead opting to supply the recommendations based on 2000 census figures. I do believe if the census was examined in the East Bluff today, it would show there are not enough primary and middle school children living in the area to support the gleaming new Glen Oak Community School, and that parents from the area who can afford to do so are sending those children to other districts. The cooperative incompetence of the school board, the city council, and the county board has left us with several white elephants in the room, and no doors to escape it. In typical Democrat fashion, they are attempting to throw money at the situation instead of actually addressing the core problem….Crime is the basis for our problems, and crime must be addressed successfully before anything else is attempted.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x362545738/Some-District-150-employees-will-have-to-reapply-for-jobs
**********************
Put that in context of the recent PASS — then if there were to be consolidation of services – shared services, how does that affect the reported plans of talking about consolidating all schools within Peoria County into a countywide school system? …. just askin’
The full 2010 census data isn’t released until 2/11
Thanks. The differences might be insightful….
PJStar: Richwoods Principal May Break Contract…
Richwoods principal leaving may be the worst kept secret in Peoria. This works out best for all involved.
“Richwoods principal leaving may be the worst kept secret in Peoria”
And how do you think the info got out?
Somebody has a hard time keeping his mouth shut! It is all about him!
He could talk the talk but couldn’t walk the walk.
I know how the info got out. Again, the fact that he is leaving is a good thing.