Thursday
September 02, 2010


News
Dan Haley
Inside Report
Crime
Obituaries
Calendar
Viewpoints
Lifelines
Sports
Journal Plus

Blogs

Community Guide
Special Sections

About Us
Feedback
Send us letters



Legal Notices






Search


Advanced Search

home : news : news

3/2/2010 10:15:00 PM Email this articlePrint this article 
Web Extra


To view this document you might need the free .pdf reader from Adobe. You can download it by clicking here.


Related stories:


OPRF vs. Village of Oak Park
Simmering tensions erupt. High school files suit. Village and D97 object

By MARTY STEMPNIAK
Staff Reporter

First reported 2/24/2010 4:59 p.m.

Despite public pleas to back off, Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200 is sticking to its guns in suing village hall in a dispute over $3.3 million.

The suit has surfaced long- papered over frustrations between Oak Park's three largest taxing bodies - District 200 Oak Park and River Forest High School, District 97 Oak Park elementary schools and the Village of Oak Park. The current contretemps involves the long controversial downtown TIF district with the high school claiming the village has failed to make legally obligated payments. District 97 has sided with the village in saying a lawsuit is unnecessary and an unwarranted expense to taxpayers. The village and high school have traded barbs for years over who should be responsible for the costly operation of a parking garage the village built at the high school. And no longer beneath the surface is intense frustration on the part of the cash-strapped village hall and elementary school district over the size of the financial reserves accumulated through property taxes in recent years by the high school.

District 200 says village hall has delayed paying money promised in a 2003 agreement between the village and the two local school districts. Under that agreement, village hall was to "carve out" properties in Oak Park's downtown tax increment financing district, or TIF, and funnel money back to other taxing bodies. But that hasn't been done, the high school alleges.

Oak Park Village Manager Tom Barwin said he was blindsided by the suit and thought the two parties had been working toward a resolution.

"We're in a deep recession. It's a challenge to work through it," Barwin said of the dispute. "This would run up legal bills to decide how to shift around taxpayers' dollars."

Barwin and others have asked the high school to withdraw the complaint since it was filed Feb. 19, but Ralph Lee, District 200 board president, says his board isn't currently considering that option. The high school board felt a resolution of the dispute was going nowhere and that they had to ask a judge to resolve it.

"We haven't gotten the feeling that anything is changing by talking about it," Lee said. "The village has not been appropriately responsive. It is time for a court to weigh in with an objective decision."

Village urges other remedies

At Monday night's village board meeting, Village President David Pope read a letter he had sent to Lee urging direct discussions and also acknowledging that despite the village's dismal finances that its obligations to the school districts were legitimate.

Village trustees "believe strongly that it is the clear and appropriate expectation of the public that we work together to resolve these issues without resorting to costly and protracted litigation. I have every confidence that we can do that," Pope wrote.

However, in an executive session last Thursday, Lee said the high school board maintained its determination to press the lawsuit. Some people involved in the meeting suggested withdrawing the suit, but the board "did not consider" that suggestion, according to Lee. At the same meeting, Lee's board also appointed its attorney, Paul Keller, and chief financial officer, Cheryl Witham, as representatives in any discussions with the village.

The dispute has largely played out in behind-closed-doors meetings and tersely worded letters sent by lawyers over the past six months.

OPRF's law firm - Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer - sent a memo to the village in August, laying out the school's position and hinting that a lawsuit was being considered.

Barwin sent a letter in response Dec. 10, explaining village hall's position and saying that he expected to send $1.32 million to the high school and $1.39 million to District 97, with the carveouts occurring by the end of April. Barwin claims to have not heard "a peep" from OPRF since that letter. The high school, meanwhile, said it was waiting for a call from the village to set up a meeting after the Dec. 10 letter.

Officials from both the District 97 elementary schools and village hall have been meeting recently, trying to calculate exactly how much is owed, said Peter Traczyk, board president for District 97. After the parties figured out where things were going, they had planned to reach out to OPRF, but by then the high school was already setting up to sue the village, he said.

Village hall acknowledges that it owes money, but the sides have disagreed on two "footnotes" in the 2003 agreement, items Traczyk called "ridiculously complicated" and "the big elephant in the room." Traczyk wants all parties to get together to come up with a transparent way of figuring out formulas and calculating how much is owed. He says the village and District 97 are getting close to a resolution. He disputed the notion that OPRF could have independently figured out a concrete number to hang its hat on.

"If anyone tells you that, 'Oh, what is owed is obvious and known,' I don't buy that," he said. "Not up to this point."

Traczyk was frustrated by the inability of the parties to get together and resolve their differences, so he had reached out to the village to work things out. He echoed Pope's comments about keeping the dispute out of court.

"I think we as elected officials can sit down, with legal counsel, and work this out," he said, "but I don't think we need to do this in court where legal expenses are significantly higher, and the outcome is going to be one where someone loses."

A little background

Oak Park started its downtown tax increment financing district in 1983. The TIF is a fund created by freezing property taxes at a certain level and using future tax revenues above that amount for development and infrastructure projects in a designated area.

With the TIF set to expire in 2006, the village worked in the early years of the last decade to create an agreement with the schools and other local governing bodies to extend the TIF for another 12 years. Under the agreement, the village was to "carve out" certain properties from the TIF each year, funneling tax dollars back to the schools and other taxing bodies - the library, the township and the park district.

And if certain properties weren't ready to be "carved out" when the village expected - as has been the case for some large developments, such as the Whiteco building on Harlem just north of Lake - then the village is supposed to pay an amount to the taxing bodies equal to the assessed value of land not yet ready to be carved out, OPRF asserts in its lawsuit.

The high school alleges that village hall has "failed and refused" to make these alternative payments to OPRF. The village currently owes the school about $1.3 million in such payments, according to the complaint, filed Feb. 19 in the chancery division of Cook County Circuit Court.

OPRF is also looking for $1.5 million in excess equalized assessed valuation, and another $527,895 of tax revenue, resulting from a property tax rate increase authorized by a 2002 District 200 referendum, which the school board alleges should be calculated into the funding total.

Altogether, the high school is seeking about $3.3 million from the village. They also claim that village hall has "failed and refused" to participate in annual meetings with OPRF to approve the amounts of TIF money owed each year.

In a demand that has village officials frustrated, the high school is asking a judge to require a detailed accounting of funds deposited into and spent by the TIF district since its founding 27 years ago. The suit asks the court to forbid the village from spending TIF dollars above what it owes to other taxing bodies, and pay the $3.3 million said to be owed. Or, as an alternative to those three requests, OPRF is asking for the termination of the TIF and distribution of any surplus dollars currently in the account.

In a Feb. 19 letter to Barwin, the District 200 board asserted that a lawsuit was the last resort. The school feels the village has inadequately addressed questions about when and if village hall plans to pay back dollars owed.

When asked about the village's request to work things out without a lawsuit, Lee said of his board, "I couldn't predict the response. We've made the decision to do it, and that's where we are right now. Our board decided we couldn't afford to accept the status quo."

District 200 Superintendent Attila Weninger declined to comment.

The village board also met in closed session on Monday to talk about the lawsuit, according to Barwin. Village hall hadn't yet been formally served with the complaint as of late Monday.

Barwin anticipates that the village will have to spend between $25,000 and $50,000 for its TIF lawyer in the first 30 days as Oak Park works on a response to the lawsuit. A request for the costs of OPRF's legal fees was not returned by late Tuesday morning.

The village is close to finalizing a deal with a Chicago developer to partner up and build a 20-story hotel and garage complex at Lake and Forest. The board is scheduled to give the proposal final approval on March 8, with Oak Park committing to spend $9.8 million for a new garage, possibly using TIF money. Barwin said the lawsuit won't stop that project from moving forward.

"I don' think we could just stop everything we're doing because somebody at District 200 has convinced their board to behave irrationally and sue the village," Barwin said.

Publisher Dan Haley and staff reporter Terry Dean contributed to this report.





Reader Comments


Posted: Monday, March 08, 2010
Article comment by: Jim Coughlin

I've yet to see a single posting on this forum in support of keeping the TIF books closed to Oak Park taxing bodies and taxpayers. Where are the VMA stalwarts on the issue? TIFs are the centerpiece of the party's long term plan for revitilizing local business districts. VMA leaders were front and center in successfully keeping Daniel Fore off a ballot but are now strangely silent on a truly important matter that raises legitimate and serious questions about accountabilty and transparency. That was the VMA campaign promise to the community and has to be honored!

Curiously,President Pope and the trustees also seem to be taking a pass. Have they fled the kitchen? I guess they are comfortable having Manager Barwin argue their position but these elected officials surely owe the public an honest explanation. It is especially worrisome that Ray Johnson has not offered a defense. He's been quick to criticize any news reports that took issue with the validity of Oak Park establishing TIFs but is now strangely silent when push comes to shove. Is the plan to just ignore the questions and hope this blows over? Is it true that that no one has kept an accurate record of expenditures totaling more than $30+ million in public monies? Did a lack of any oversight result in criminal activity? Circling the wagons is not going to work. This arrogant attitude represents bad politics and bad government! There is simply no reason to force this matter in to litigation. We cannot afford to spend scare tax dollars on legal fees to argue against the public's right to know.

"Government is a trust and the officers of the government are trustees and both the trust and the trustee are created for the benefit of the people." -Henry Clay


Posted: Friday, March 05, 2010
Article comment by: Gregg Kuenster

From the Chicago Tribune
March 5, 2010

See anything similar?

An attorney with one of the nation's largest law firms bilked an impoverished south suburb out of more than $1 million, Cook County prosecutors charged today.

Mark J. McCombs, 50, of Greenberg Traurig, which has nearly 1,800 attorneys and offices in the U.S., Asia and Europe, appeared in the Criminal Courts Building charged with theft for allegedly overbilling the Village of Calumet Park more than $1 million since 2003.

The Class X felony carries a sentence of 6 to 30 years in prison on conviction.

Prosecutors alleged the veteran attorney abused long-standing professional and personal relationships with village officials to overbill the village by $1 million for work that was never performed.

While McCombs did not pocket the money personally, Assistant State's Attorney John Mahoney argued that the thefts boosted McCombs' standing in the law firm and set him up for higher pay.

The scheme came to light last Dec. 31 when officials from Community School District 218, one of five governmental agencies that benefitted from five tax-increment finance districts in the tiny one-mile square suburb, grew suspicious about the lack of information given by McCombs in a presentation, prosecutors said.


Posted: Thursday, March 04, 2010
Article comment by: Warren Garlick

Recognizing that this is tangential to the central theme here, it comes as no surprise that OPRF is welling to litigate this matter.

Several years ago I requested copies of semester exams completed by my daughter. OPRF imposed restrictions on my access to these documents for two reasons. First, it wanted to reuse the test questions and second, it wanted to protect teachers from having their teaching methodologies scrutinized or criticized.

This resulted to two sets of litigation, the first in which OPRF prevailed, the second in which OPRF did not and which resulted in a published opinion by an Illinois Appellate Court that prompted Dr. Weninger to send a copy of the decision to the Board with urgency because (amongst other reasons) “the press may get this out soon.”

Apparently the press didn’t pick up on the story or didn’t see it as potentially embarrassing as Dr. Weninger perceived. And actually now the bigger story might be how OPRF has changed its testing methodologies in response to this decision and the potential harm that change is causing students (which is acknowledged by OPRF teachers) but that is a digression and a story for another day.

In the end OPRF spent $60,000 litigating this matter in defense of what it perceived was one of its “rights” rather than finding a more pragmatic solution. And I say this recognizing that the same criticism could be directed at me. But I also think that it is fair to say, at least in terms of the second litigation that resulted in the published opinion, that there is a willingness on the part of OPRF to vigorously defend a position no matter how tenuous it might be.

Not that OPRF is alone among school districts in this regard. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200 refused to honor a FOIA request from a resident for a copy of its superintendent’s employment contract, even after the Illinois Attorney General’s office had written to the school and its attorneys opining that the document in question was a “public record” that the school district was obligated to furnish under FOIA. Rather, the school district pursued the matter all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court. In a unanimous opinion the court ruled that the document in question was unequivocally a public record under FOIA. And finally, apparently this school district, which is currently facing an $8.6 million dollar deficit for the 2010-11 school year spent more than $62,000 litigating the matter.

Warren R. Garlick


Posted: Thursday, March 04, 2010
Article comment by: Bill P

If the property taxes I pay to OPRF can be reduced by the school collecting as soon as possible what the Village of Oak park owes to it, i say go for it. ANd if the School district is building up big cash reserves at our expense, I say replace the board. It's time our elected officials take a hard look at what it will take to reduce the tax burden. this suit brings out issues that every tax payer should be concerned about. Abuse of TIF funds and building up excessive reserves.

Posted: Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Article comment by: John M

I think it should be no surprise this lawsuit was filed on the eve of another major commitment our Village Trustee's are about make, with money they don't have.
There is a long history of TIF money not living up to its promises.
Gap Old Navy don't produce sales/property net of bond payments to what they replaced
Whiteco is half occupied
Marion St is pock marked with empty stores with prospect of landing a retailer that can produce any appreciable tax revenue.
Tom Barwin and the board are acting like spoiled children who are being told they have to live with the allowance they have.
I suspect OPRF filed the suit based on the prospect that it could be years before there is even any money to get.
The trustee's/VMA should get out of the development business. Look at Forest Park and how they have done with far less money. I know store owners there that live in Oak Park and didn't even call the village about opening up a business here.
This paper says this board was elected to build this hotel. Of course that election has extremely low turnout and I haven't met a single resident that thinks its worth the money let alone the damage it is doing to schools and other services. I think voters realize that it makes no difference whe gets elected, the trustee's do what they want.
If the village really wants this development propose a referendum and put before the tax payers.
Or better yet lets buy them a big construction set and they do projects late into the night.


Posted: Friday, February 26, 2010
Article comment by: diane ponder

tif are a heavy burden for schools. the funds have been used out of proportion to the good to the community that were originally earmarked for schools. corruption and subterfuge however is not exempt from either side

Posted: Friday, February 26, 2010
Article comment by: paul hamer

Thanks to the Wed. Journal for having a copy of the suit available on line. That is really cool, and a great service to all citizens. The reading is a brief one, and I have to say that after reading, that it would appear there is a lot of merit to the high schools case. Also the high school is asking that the village be enjoined from committing any more TIF money to anyone until the taxing bodies receive their carve outs. This means that the village can not vote on the Hotel Deal until this lawsuit is resolved.

Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010
Article comment by: paul hamer

I agree that it is a shame that the high school feels that it has to sue to get the village to live up to it's obligations and that only the lawyers will win and that we, the taxpayers, are paying for both sides to argue. However so much of the management of the TIF Districts is so inside, and without any of the other taxing bodies feeling that there is any accountability, the one thing that this suit will do is bring everything out in the open. If the village has nothing to hide they should do this willingly and not be forced into a lawsuit. However their actions have been to delay and obscure. I have been saying for over a year now that my suspicions were that the TIF cookie jar only had crumbs at the bottom. My fear is not only that the TIF's and other village funds have been over leveraged and over encumbered but that the same holds true for many of the other local taxing bodies. Except the high school. Why is the high school excempt? It is the only organization that has input from outside the VMA sphere of influence with the River Foresters on the board.

Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010
Article comment by: Gary Schwab

During the most recent village election campaign, I and my colleagues on the "It Takes a Village" slate repeatedly explained the simple fact that, in order to get school boards to accept the DTOP TIF extension, the Village promised these school boards they'd get the projected revenue from proposed development projects whether these projects occurred or not. Although the VMA and the Wednesday Journal chose to ignore our statements in the process of ridiculing and marginalizing us, our predictions of a TIF collapse, based as they were upon the Village's contractual agreements and the reality of the ongoing "recession," are coming true. The relative financial conditions of District 200 and the Village are irrelevant. The Village promised money to the schools, and the schools would be negligent if they chose to forgive and forget those promises. We proposed ending the DTOP TIF. If the TIF had been ended, the schools would be getting their full, fair share of DTOP property taxes. A side benefit would have been that the Village wouldn't have been able to proceed with such bizarre projects as the immense, repellant, and financially ludicrous Lake-Forest development that will soon receive final Village approval.

Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010
Article comment by: Jim Coughlin

A TIF fund simply provides politicians and their cronies with a big pot of money from which they can draw public funds without proper oversight and controls. It's not surprising that the Village is not able to meet it's obligations to the community. The Downtown Oak Park TIF has been plagued by mismanagement and questionable expenditures. I guess we can now look forward to the VMA announcing they are the political party that can straighten out a mess that unfortunately they created. It's time for someone at Village Hall to stand up and accept responsibility now that we seem to be out of the buck to pass.

Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010
Article comment by: John Has No Points

John,

When the hotel comes to fruition it will be in the wave of economic goodness of 2012 or 2013, it's not getting built tomorrow so please stop using current economic conditions as a justification for not building a hotel. And the village is not "giving" 14 million to a developer, jeez get some education will you?

OPRF should be ashamed of themselves.


Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010
Article comment by: Jim Kelly

This is indeed like two siblings bickering about how to split the money mom and dad left them for lunch, except one of the siblings (D200) is already sitting on $80 million they scammed from mom and dad a few years ago.

All the taxing bodies cram their hands into the same pockets. It's outrageous that now we might have to pay untold thousands of dollars in legal fees so that D200 board can have its gimme, gimme, gimme tantrum on a larger stage. D97 is far more challenged financially, but they are not wasting our taxpayer dollars with a lawsuit.


Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Article comment by: Jon Points

What is shameful is that the Village Board keeps giving subsidies to developers to build buildings that sit vacant. And now the Board wants to give Sertus over $14 million of taxpayer money to build more condominiums in an oversaturated condominium market and a hotel for which no demand exists.

Personally, I am glad that OPRF is suing. Hopefully the law suit will persuade the Village Board to spend taxpayer money on things that will really bring value to our community, such as the schools, parks, and libraries. Instead of skyscrapers and empty retail space.


Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Article comment by: Steve Latterell

This is only the beginning of lawsuits against the incompentent village board.


Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Article comment by: Michael Nevins

Both of my parents and I are OPRF grads. My son graduated last year and my daughter is a soph. I consider OPRF to be an important asset for OP and RF - and I can speak with a strong sense of experience.

Having established that, the board should reconsider this action AND the decision to gouge the taxpayers with the back-door referendum increase a couple of years ago.

Both OP and RF are essentially broke communities and OPRF is living in fat city - and now they want OP to pay them money that they can only possibly obtain by raising property taxes?!?

We pay enough already to OPRF and raising prop taxes today on residents and businesses will only make matters worse for everyone - which, indirectly, includes OPRF.

Well, at least the various attorneys hired for this fiasco, if they live in either OP or RF, will be able to afford the OPRF property taxes. Unfortunately, I'm NOT an attorney.

OPRF board - I don't care if you are legally correct right now - you have a fat surplus and I request that you show a little patience. Withdraw the suit - it is like a brother shamefully suing a sister! Shameful.


Article Comment Submission Form
Please feel free to submit your comments.

Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the Web site editor reviews and approves it.

Note: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number and e-mail address are for our use only, and will not be attached to your comment.
Name:
Telephone:
E-mail:
Passcode: This form will not send your comment unless you copy exactly the passcode seen below into the text field. This is an anti-spam device to help reduce the automated email spam coming through this form.

Please copy the passcode exactly
- it is case sensitive.
Message:
   






Copyright 2010, Wednesday Journal, Inc.,
141 S. Oak Park Ave., Oak Park, IL 60302, 708-524-8300

To view any of the publications owned and operated
by Wednesday Journal, Inc., click on the appropriate title.

Forest Park Review · Riverside Brookfield Landmark
Chicago Journal · Skyline · Austin Weekly News · Chicago Parent magazine


Copyright 2010, Wednesday Journal Inc.

Software © 1998-2010 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved