Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maywood TIF concerns raised: speaker says Proviso District receives small share of property tax increment
Summary
A Maywood resident and community advocate told the board that tax-increment financing (TIF) in Maywood diverts tax revenue from Proviso Township HSD 209 and asked whether the district participates on the TIF joint review board or has received annual TIF reports.
During public comment at the Proviso Township High School District 209 meeting, Maywood resident John Williams raised questions about the effect of Maywood tax-increment financing (TIF) districts on district revenues.
Williams identified himself as a Maywood resident and neighborhood advocate and said he reviewed the Cook County Treasurer’s second-installment tax bill for 1718 South First Avenue (a Starbucks), which showed $18,904.21 in property taxes for the second installment. He said District 209 received less than 5% of that amount — which he calculated as $786.35 — while the village received about 85% ($16,142.21) because the property is in a TIF district.
Williams warned that if Maywood establishes new TIF districts, future increases in property taxes within TIF boundaries are diverted from taxing bodies such as the school district, park district and library and used to support private development projects inside the TIF through the village. He said the TIF arrangement runs through 2034 for that district and said he had a printed breakdown he would circulate to board members.
"Who is the Proviso Township High School District 209 representative on the Maywood TIF joint review board?" Williams asked, and whether any district representatives had participated in statutory annual meetings to review TIF projects, revenues and expenses. He also said he believed Maywood had not published a required annual TIF report since 2022.
Williams urged the board to become informed about TIF effects before more TIF districts are approved. The board took the comment under advisement; no district official provided detailed answers during the comment period.
