Proposed Ridgewood Special Improvement District would assess businesses; council presses for representation and budget detail

Ridgewood — At a Sept. 29 work session the Ridgewood Business Alliance (RBA) outlined a proposed special improvement district (SID) that would create a two‑tier assessment on commercial properties and fund marketing, capital improvements and economic‑development activities.

Pam, speaking for the RBA, said the plan divides the commercial area into a smaller "tier 1" (the expanded central business footprint shown on a distributed map) and a broader "tier 2" reaching to the municipality’s commercial borders. Under the proposal, tier 1 properties would be assessed 4% of their prior‑year taxes and tier 2 properties 2% of their prior‑year taxes; the RBA estimated the assessment would generate about $760,550 annually. The RBA proposed spending that revenue on marketing and branding (approximately $200,000), economic development (~$170,000), capital/visual improvements (~$216,000) and administration (~$170,550), and said the money would be collected by the village and returned to a district management corporation (the RBA) to manage per its board’s priorities.

Pam told council the SID is not voluntary: under the enabling statute she said the district is mandatory for properties that fall in the defined schedules and that the board of directors must be more than 50% commercial property owners. She said the RBA has 13 directors now and bylaws allow up to 17.

Councilors praised the idea but raised multiple concerns in follow‑up questioning. Key points from the exchange:

- Map boundaries and representation: Several council members said the SID map did not match many residents’ mental maps of the "central business district" and sought the methodology used to include some apartment buildings, condominiums and properties near Southern Parkway. Council members asked the RBA to recruit representatives from tier‑2 businesses and nonprofits so the board better reflects the affected community; RBA leaders said outreach is underway and they will add members.

- Due process/appeals: Council members urged that property owners who believe they were mis‑tiered have an appeal or due‑process avenue. The presenter said the board’s bylaws allow up to 17 directors and that RBA will reach out to affected stakeholders; councilors asked staff to consider adding an explicit appeal mechanism in the approval/implementation process.

- Budget detail and placeholders: Multiple council members said some line items in the RBA’s budget packet appeared to be placeholders (for example, several event and promotional line items) and asked for more detailed, realistic line‑item descriptions before the council would feel comfortable approving the budget. Several urged treating the RBA budget review with the same scrutiny the council applies to municipal budgets.

- Statutory obligations: RBA representatives emphasized the board decides which projects to fund within the statutory powers of a special improvement district; the village council's role, they said, is limited to review and approval of the proposed management budget. The presenter reiterated that the statute requires a majority of directors to be commercial property owners.

"We walked the Central Business District and there was a lot of judgment that went into the map," Pam said; she asked councilors to defer to the group that spent months drafting the plan but promised continued outreach. A council member responded that labeling the area "extended CBD" or another term might reduce confusion.

Next steps: The council indicated it will scrutinize the RBA’s budget and board composition, ask staff for a breakdown of who will be assessed (a parcel list currently tied to the ordinance schedule was referenced), and expect a return report with fuller line‑item detail and confirmation of outreach to tier‑2 businesses and nonprofits. If the council approves the SID budget, the village would collect the assessment and transfer funds to the district management corporation per the enabling ordinance and statute.

Several public commenters urged civil discussion during council exchanges and asked clarifying questions about the open‑space referendum; the council and village attorney clarified that referendum language must be neutral and that the state statute limits the use of open‑space funds to acquisition, maintenance and development.