(click to enlarge)
The Wilson Yard TIF is already in the red. It pays over $3.5 million each year in interest on outstanding loans, but that doesn't keep Ald. Shiller from spending, spending, spending.
With Year 2010’s new spending, she’s putting us $1.5 million in the hole through 2011. Why should she worry when her patronage workers at Uplift School want a new parking lot?
Wow! I just did the math. Out of 160 TIF's in the city 15% (24) are in the red. Some by a little, some by alot.
ReplyDeleteAnd who has one of TIF's in the Top 10 Overspender's Hall of Shame? Why "I-never-saw-a-tax-I-didn't-like" Ald. Helen Shiller, of course.
Hey BIG SPENDER, spend a little time with me, your taxpaying constituent.
Guess the reason she wanted to expand the TIF last year was a lot more obvious than originally assumed.
ReplyDeleteTB's right: "wow"
The city's broke and even the fund which is causing that particular deficit is going broke.
Now THAT is some kick-ass fiscal responsibility, right there!
Wonder what all of the groups suckling the tif-teet are going to do when the nipple runs dry?
Could someone please explain to me:
ReplyDeleteWhat are these outstanding loans for and why is a TIF responsible for paying the interest?
The bottom line is probably worse than reported here since tax revenue is likely to fall through 2013 with the 7% cap reinstated and higher than average tax appeals reducing assessments and tax receipts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's worth noting which TIFs with outstanding loan balances have actual projects to show for it. Last I checked, and granted it's been awhile, there were TIF districts that had taken out loans but initiated NO projects. If that's still the case, being in the top ten by itself may not be such a bad thing, especially if you have housing and retail to show for it.
What is the Clifton/Magnolia apartments expense?
ReplyDeleteIs the TIF paying the mortgage for properties owned by clients of Alderman Ed Burke?
Clifton-Magnolia Apartments is not owned by the city or anyone connected to the city, or Alderman Shiller! Where do you people get your information?????????
ReplyDelete"You people"? Nice unity there, sweetie.
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would you say that "we people" think it is? No one here is saying that, that I'm aware of.
Clifton Magnolia Apartments may not be owned by the City, but they're getting a HUGE chunk of change from the City (in the form of TIF funding from property taxes). Where am I getting that information? Why, from the city itself! Click the link or just look at the graphic.
Pick your fights, sweetie.
Those sucking off the tif-teet won't let it go dry. They can lay a special assessment on the tax payers in the TIF to keep that juice a-flowing. And they can extend the TIF for additional years.
ReplyDeleteAt least we only have to put up with this til the end of 2025.
ReplyDelete-Brian
@ Lunchbox: The interest paid is most likely in connection with bonds that were issued in 2007. (City of Chicago Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Wilson Yard Senior Apartments), Series 2007). I believe the bonds were issued in order to leverage the Wilson Yard TIF and provide the funding to build the Wilson Yard development. Without the issuance of bonds, it wouldn’t be possible to fund the project and build it in the timeframe that it got built. I’m not sure how much it cost to build the project, but let’s say it cost $45 million. Obviously there isn’t $45 million immediately available from TIF revenues to fund the project. So, the City issues bonds which investors buy and essentially provide the City money to build the project now, rather than wait for enough TIF funds to roll in to have sufficient money to move forward with the development. The interest on the bonds is most likely backed in part by the Wilson Yard TIF revenues, which is the “debt service” payments which are outlined in the projections.
ReplyDeleteseems like, in 2012, there will have to be no expenditures besides debt service to re-balance. i wonder if that's actually the plan.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the background MC80.
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess it all boils down to the fact that we are borrowing money that we don't have to fund things that we can't afford and paying interest to those who are fronting us the cash.
Am I wrong to think that, w/interest involved, the project is actually costing us more than we thought?
And is Target's existence now a lot more obvious than originally assumed?
Have we essentially given them a plumb deal to come along and secure the debt of building affordable housing - which generates no direct tax revenue?
Now, I'm curious if we're actually making these interest payments (which are putting us into the red) and if so - how?
Oh, right ... forgot. The answer to that is complicated.
"Am I wrong to think that, w/interest involved, the project is actually costing us more than we thought?"
ReplyDeleteNot a wrong assessment at all. Although, it's necessary to pay the additional interest on the bonds/loans unless you want an empty lot at Montrose & Broadway for 10 years while enough money is built up to cover the cost.
Target was definitely given a good deal. They get lots of taxpayer money to set up shop there. I think Target is good for economic revitalization of the area. It's just the extreme excess of taxpayer funded government housing in the 46th Ward that is the elephant in the room.
I don't know how their taxes are set up, but I would venture to guess that they are given "the treatment".
As far as the Wilson Yard TIF being able to fund the projected interest to bondholders, either they will have to rely on increased property taxes which will bring the TIF out of the red or secure shortfall funding from somewhere else.
Or, they could restructure the debt, which is extremely costly in and of itself.
It's confusing and not very clear to the average taxpaying citizen looking for answers any way you cut it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have an elected representative be willing to sit down with people and answer these types of questions?
Although, it's necessary to pay the additional interest on the bonds/loans unless you want an empty lot at Montrose & Broadway for 10 years while enough money is built up to cover the cost.
ReplyDeleteYou mean .. another 10 years, right? ;)
As far as the Wilson Yard TIF being able to fund the projected interest to bondholders, either they will have to rely on increased property taxes which will bring the TIF out of the red or secure shortfall funding from somewhere else.
With the State legislation pushing the 7% cap into 2015, I'm not sure how the increased property taxes aspect would work, here.
Nor, can I think of another source of funding from which to legally secure any shortfall.
I certainly hope that Target can fill the coffers in short order (which, if they got a sweet property tax deal, I'm not sure how that's going to happen) cuz, from my vantage, the particulars and consequences of how WYTIF has and is being funded look sorta' gloomy (and not only to property owners).
Not that I'm against helping others, to include affordable housing, but ... well, to the quick: are we really going to be able to afford all of this?
It's hard to make real estate tax money in a TIF when so much of the spending is on entities that don't pay taxes. $1 million invested into a zero tax paying property still only gets you $0 taxes forever. Only now you are $1 million in the hole.
ReplyDelete