Lakewood TIF Expenditures

These are the bills related to Lakewood’s Tax Increment Financing District that have been paid:

 

List of Eligible Redevelopment Project Costs
March 14, 2017
Date Vendor Expense Description Authorization Number
06/30/14 Catherine Peterson $46.61 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation Meeting 1
Aug-14 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $1,031.25 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation 1
09/25/14 SB Friedman $13,498.99 Prof. services re: RDA – Researching TIF Eligibility 1
Oct-14 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $7,310.00 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation / Sportsplex 1
10/22/14 SB Friedman $7,420.70 Prof. services re: RDA – Preparing TIF RDA 1
Nov-14 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $4,625.85 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation / Sportsplex 1
11/04/14 Alan Coulson PC $1,850.00 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation (Legal Desc) 1
11/05/14 Alan Coulson PC $1,475.00 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation (Legal Desc) 1
11/11/14 Alan Coulson PC $375.00 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation (Legal Desc) 1
Dec-14 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $4,312.80 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation / Sportsplex 1
12/18/14 SB Friedman $4,524.22 Prof. services re: RDA – Finalizing TIF & JRB 1
12/18/14 SB Friedman $805.00 Prof. services re: RDA – Napier RDA 1
12/19/14 Vanderstappen Survey $250.00 Prof. services re: RDA – Sportsplex 1
12/29/14 Shaw Media $1,263.00 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation 1
01/13/15 Alan Coulson PC $375.00 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation (Legal Desc) 1
01/14/15 Shaw Media $584.40 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation 1
Jan-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $17,912.00 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation / Sportsplex 1
01/20/15 SB Friedman $2,195.03 Prof. services re: RDA – D200 Agreement 1
01/21/15 Shaw Media $721.60 Prof. services re: RDA – TIF Creation 1
01/22/15 Baxter & Woodman $13,440.90 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
01/22/15 Baxter & Woodman $385.00 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
01/28/15 SB Friedman $2,425.43 Prof. services re: RDA – D200 Agreement 1
02/06/15 Catherine Peterson $151.01 Prof. services re: RDA – Marketing to Investor 1
Feb-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $9,851.96 Prof. services re: RDA – Sportsplex 1
Feb-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $82.50 Prof. services re: RDA – Sportsplex 1
02/19/15 Baxter & Woodman $11,527.75 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
Mar-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $3,712.50 Prof. services re: RDA – Sportsplex 1
03/19/15 Baxter & Woodman $180.00 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
03/23/15 Baxter & Woodman $7,040.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Expenditures: $119,373.50
05/05/15 Baxter & Woodman $2,202.35 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
06/18/15 Baxter & Woodman $780.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
07/23/15 Baxter & Woodman $70.00 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
07/23/15 Baxter & Woodman $2,459.60 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
08/20/15 Baxter & Woodman $7,314.58 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
09/24/15 Baxter & Woodman $441.25 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
10/22/15 Baxter & Woodman $2,553.57 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase I 1, 4
02/19/16 Baxter & Woodman $5,475.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
03/17/16 Baxter & Woodman $5,746.25 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
04/21/16 Baxter & Woodman $6,490.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
05/06/16 Baxter & Woodman $4,037.50 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
03/04/16 TSC $5,300.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
Sep-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $123.75 Prof. services re: RDA – Sportsplex 1
Nov-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $577.50 Prof. services re: RDA – D200 Agreement 1
Nov-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $206.25 Prof. services re: RDA – Sportsplex 1
Dec-15 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $825.00 Prof. services re: RDA – D200 Agreement 1
Jan-16 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $1,361.25 Prof. services re: RDA – D200 Agreement 1
Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Expenditures: $45,963.85
05/19/16 Baxter & Woodman $1,813.20 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
06/10/16 TSC $5,000.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
06/23/16 Baxter & Woodman $1,385.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
07/21/16 Baxter & Woodman $15,630.36 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
07/21/16 Baxter & Woodman $412.50 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
08/25/16 Baxter & Woodman $22,109.67 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
09/22/16 Baxter & Woodman $3,640.74 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
10/20/16 Baxter & Woodman $2,880.00 Engineering – Extension of Utilities Phase II 1, 4
10/20/16 Baxter & Woodman $150.00 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
11/17/16 Baxter & Woodman $187.50 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
12/15/16 Baxter & Woodman $262.50 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
01/21/17 Baxter & Woodman $300.00 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
02/16/17 Baxter & Woodman $532.49 Engineering – Pleasant Valley Road Realignment 1, 4
Dec-16 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $743.75 Prof. services re: RDA – Joint Review Board Meeting 1
Jan-17 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $568.75 Prof. services re: RDA – Joint Review Board Meeting 1
Feb-17 Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle $43.75 Prof. services re: RDA – Joint Review Board Meeting 1
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Expenditures $55,660.21

Comments

Lakewood TIF Expenditures — 18 Comments

  1. These figures and a host of other information related to Lakewood’s $66 Million Dollar TIF and the Intergovernmental Agreement with D200 have been public on The Lakewood Tax-Fighter & Better Government Project website for quite sometime (Link Below).

    https://www.lakewoodtaxfighter.com/issues-property-tax-time-bomb

    What I find most telling is the Redevelopment Agreement itself, which can be found at the link.

    Former president Erin Smith along with previous board members continually stated that “it is not a $66 Million Dollar TIF”

    Yet here it is in black and white.

    Current trustee, Jason McMahon continues to state “Residential development will NEVER happen!”

    Yet, here it is in black and white!

    Cleverly, the $$ allocation for this “affordable housing” line item is only $1 Million. But, those who understand, know that the dollar amounts of each line item can be increased or decreased to any amount, so long as the combined aggregate amount does not exceed $66 MILLION.

    To this, president Smith and her protege, Jason McMahon, continue to reply “but, we plan to only build senior housing or something of that nature.” but, I can’t seem to find that stipulation anywhere, in any of the documents.

    I guess we’ll just have to trust them!

  2. Are you talking about the same tax fighter whom voted YES to a fire contract that’s cost will escalate infinitely every year with our property values but then vowed to reduce our property tax levy by 10%?

    Talk about a REAL “property tax time bomb”.

    How will Lakewood increase revenue outside of the property tax levy while simultaneously decreasing the property tax levy to pay for this commitment?

    The TIF will be dissolved and the Lakewood taxpayers will take the hit.

    The tax fighter helped set the REAL “property tax time bomb” and it will cost Lakewood residents.

  3. I’ve read that Jason McMahon is referred to by residents, as “Little Erin”.

    How proud she must be!

  4. It seems thus info has been on the radio fighter Web date for some time.

    Looks like xall just copied it.

    Some journalism cal

  5. I guess Patrick didn’t like the truth.

    His tax fighter helped set this “bomb”.

    Here are the numbers: (simplified)

    Income – Property Tax Levy: $1,700,000
    Expense – Police and Fire Protection: $1,780.000
    Current Shortfall – $80,000

    Expense – Public Works including plow operations: $400,000
    Expense – ALL remaining municipal services: $600,000

    These Public Works and remaining municipal expenses are covered by other sources of income Lakewood generates.

    Most of these sources are not variable with the exception of sales tax.

    However, sales tax is only significantly variable with new sources.

    At the end of the 2018 Budget year a very small surplus of $140,000 remains.

    IF it is not eaten up by any unexpected expenses, this amount could be allocated to roads in 2019.

    “Patrick” proposes to cut the levy by $177,000.

    Clearly that won’t come from public safety which means $177,000 needs to come from the municipal operations portion of the budget.

    A 17% decrease. Is Lakewood ready for few services and worse roads?

    “Patrick” also forgets about the recently eliminated Village stickers that generated $60,000 for Lakewood road maintenance and replacement.

    Road repair and replacement was not Budgeted for 2017/2018.

    Instead it was opted to hope the surplus would remain at the end of 2018 and could be allocated to roads.

    “Patrick” also fails to take into account Lakewood’s cost for fire protection increased by $55,000 this year.

    This will continue to increase EVERY year along with our property values.

    If and when the real estate market recovers, Lakewood is in for some significant increases.

    This is the REAL “property tax time bomb”.

    This is a REAL problem facing Lakewood residents and “Patrick’s” tax fighter help set it up.

  6. Jason, keep up the good work, stay focused on the facts, and don’t let the personal snipes slow you down.

    I read the fire service contract over and over and over again and still don’t understand how anyone could have voted in favor of it.

    It is a true ticking time bomb for the residents of Lakewood, as the costs of fire protection will exponentially rise.

  7. Lakewood, like every other municipality has no entitlement to low priced social service provision and high revenues.

    Compare Lakewood municipal rate to Crystal Lake and Woodstock ( percentage of EAV ):

    Woodstock City: 1.93%
    Woodstock fire&rescue: .92%

    Crystal Lake City: .36%
    CL fire: .79%
    CL library: .44%

    Lakewood Village: 1.05%

    No one forced Lakewood to incorporate.
    You could unincorporate or annex yourself to CL or another municipality.

    But you have no right to expect to have low cost social services subsidized by other municipalities’ taxpayers.

  8. By the way, you can’t spend TIF money on Lakewood East expenses, so won’t the extra costs of police and fire protection need to be borne by Lakewood taxpayers as a free benefit to TIF properties?

  9. Lakewood will get the sales tax revenue with or without a TIF there.

    If a TIF this additional? But must be spent in and on TIF.

    Statutory Reference
    65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3

    Definition

    The department distributes state sales tax collections to municipalities that have tax increment financing (TIF) districts for either state sales tax, state utility tax, or both that produced an incremental growth in retail sales, or gas and electricity consumption. Funds are prorated to each municipality based on its share of the overall TIF net state increment.
    Distribution

    Overall TIF funding is 0.27 percent of net state sales tax revenues.

    Funds are allocated quarterly to all eligible TIF municipalities.

    Each TIF district is subject to the following reduction in order to determine the net state sales tax increment (the maximum amount available to each municipality for each TIF district):

    80 percent of the increment up to and including $100,000

    60 percent of the increment exceeding $100,000 but not exceeding $500,000

    40 percent of all amounts exceeding $500,000

    For each quarterly distribution, each eligible municipality receives a prorated share of the available distribution amount.

    For more information about the Property Tax TIF Program, contact the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.

  10. What is interesting is that Crystal Lake taxpayers haven’t wised up to the fact that:

    with only a service contract in place which can be dropped in the future (as it has in the past), Crystal Lake taxpayers—but NOT Lakewood taxpayers— are on the hook for:

    1. unfunded pension liabilities of firemen. This is growing year by year and accruing to CL taxpayers obligated to pay into CL fire District but not Lakewood who is just under contract?

    2. funding increased needs of Lakewood TIF (maybe more equipment, personnel?) without any increased payments by Lakewood, because any increased TIF EAV is not considered increased (taxable) Lakewood EAV?

    If I were a Lakewood taxpayer I would thank heaven that CL taxpayers are generous enough (or not paying attention) to subsidize the cost of Lakewood fire&rescue provision:

    CL taxpayers (and most other municipalities) are taxed by the district as a function of home value, and are thus liable for future unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities…and if you look at relative property tax rates of what CL or Woodstock homeowners pay vs. Lakewood homeowners, you might want to keep that quiet so those generous CL taxpayers don’t wise up and demand fair share payments from Lakewood.

    Cl fire= .79% of EAV

    Woodstock Fire= .92% of EAV

    Lakewood Village TOTAL (including police and everything else)= 1.05%of EAV

    looks like a big bargain for fire&rescue absent any accruing pension liability, plus freebie increased service provision obligation to Lakewood TIF, no?

    Or, Lakewood could always pay to build, outfit, and maintain its own fire&rescue department as many incorporated Villages have done.

    Have you run those cost comparisons?

  11. It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on the purpose of TIFs and how Lakewood’s TIF District was created.

    In general, government is not supposed to favor one business over another.

    This is a principle often violated, but still a good principle.

    And a TIF favors new businesses at the expense of existing businesses.

    It’s a subsidy, a kickback.

    So the law attempts to restrict TIFs by saying they should only be used in blighted areas, and only if they met a “but for” test.

    The “but for” test says that “but for” the TIF, development wouldn’t happen.

    Lakewood defined the Crystal Woods Golf course as “blighted”.

    That’s a ludicrous abuse of the law, but absent someone willing to pay for a lawsuit to challenge the Village, they got away with it.

    In order to meet the “but for” test, they hired a firm to give that opinion.

    I asked the Village three questions about the firm giving the opinion:

    * how many TIFs had they reviewed?

    * how many TIFs had they approved?

    * had they done any studies after the fact to confirm their findings?

    The answers from Village staff and board members were, “We don’t know, we don’t know, and we don’t know.”

    So much for oversight.

    I did ultimately get answers to my questions.

    he answers were 50, 50 and no.

    In other words, the firm had reviewed 50 TIF districts and approved every single one.

    100%.

    Now, studies show that most TIF districts in Illinois do not result in development that would not otherwise have occurred.

    But let’s assume this firm got lucky, and that every TIF they reviewed actually had a 66% chance of being successful.

    What are the odds, in that case, that they got 50 in a row with no duds?

    A billion to one.

    That’s not a typo.

    A billion to one.

    Personally, I find that highly unlikely.

    In fact, what seems much more likely is that the firm gave exactly the opinion they were paid to give, as they always had in the past.

    And they never went back to see if any of the TIF districts they had approved had actually resulted in development that would not have occurred anyway.

    Never.

    In short, they only “evidence” that the TIF would succeed was their unsubstantiated opinion.

    So the creation of the TIF district in Lakewood was done through obvious abuses of the law.

    Yet some would argue that, despite these abuses, the TIF district should be maintained, and that if Lakewood can grab some money from other governments, well, that the end justifies the means.

    Some favor this even if there’s no benefit to Lakewood’s taxpayers because a bad TIF district just moves taxes from one government to another without saving the taxpayers any money.

    Some would go further and argue that the only way to get development is by using TIFs, despite the clear evidence that the vast majority of development all across this country, and even here in McHenry County, occurs without TIFs or other government subsidies.

  12. Lakewood had it own fire department, run by a private company, before signing up with Woodstock.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.