Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Funding and Affordable Housing
An analysis of current TIF resources and
City of Chicago TIF-funded Housing 1995-2008
June, 2009
Sweet Home Chicago Coalition
Action NOW
Albany Park Neighborhood Council
Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless
Jane Addams Senior Caucus
Kenwood Oakland Community Organization
Lakeview Action Coalition
Logan Square Neighborhood Association
Organization of the Northeast
SEIU-Healthcare Illinois/Indiana
SEIU Local 1
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881
Report Prepared by Chicago Coalition for the Homeless
on behalf of the Sweet Home Chicago Coalition
Report Author: Julie Dworkin, Director of Policy,
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless
Researchers: Stephanie Procyk and Jim Picchetti
Executive Summary
A serious affordable housing crisis, which has plagued the City of Chicago for
more than a decade, has deepened drastically during the last two years due to the
rise in foreclosures and unemployment. Meanwhile, through its 158 active Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) districts, the city has accumulated, and likely will
continue to generate, a large surplus of funds that could be used to alleviate the
affordable housing problem.
TIF districts were created to promote revitalization of blighted or struggling
neighborhoods, and the availability of affordable housing is instrumental to a
neighborhood’s stability. Unfortunately, the city’s policy on the use of TIF funds
for housing has not gone far enough to adequately address the fundamental need
for affordable housing in developing neighborhoods. Expenditures on affordable
housing have accounted for too small of a percentage of TIF funds. An even
smaller percentage of TIF funds have supported housing affordable to people in
the neighborhoods in which it is built and for those with the greatest housing needs.
Key findings are:
As of 2008, there was nearly $1 billion built up in Chicago’s TIF accounts at •
least $350 million of which has not been dedicated to a particular project.
1
Between 1995-2007, only 4 percent of TIF funds were targeted for develop-•
ment of affordable housing.
2
(Note: 1995 was the rst year the Chicago Department of Housing began issuing detailed reports on its
production and spending)
TIF funds have been used to create housing that is more expensive and tar-•
geted for higher incomes than existing housing in the neighborhoods in which
it has been created. In 50 percent of the wards in which TIF-funded housing
was built, at least half of the units were too expensive for current residents.
3
TIF-funded units go disproportionately to higher income households. Between •
1995-2008, only 27 percent of the units created with TIF funds went to the
households with the most critical needs—those earning less than $20,000 a year.
4
Recommendations:
Target 20 percent of TIF funds each year for affordable housing. •
Forthosetargeteddollars,affordableshouldbedenedashousingthatmeets•
the needs of neighborhood residents and those with the greatest need.
3
Chicago’s Housing Crisis
Chicago is experiencing a housing crisis, but this is not a new problem. Certainly the foreclosure crisis
is in the forefront of everyone’s mind when they think about housing needs in Chicago. In 2008, 20,592
foreclosureswereledinChicago,a48percentincreasefrom2007.Ofthose,6,589weretwo-sixunit
buildings--meaning up to 39,000 renters potentially faced eviction due to foreclosure.
5
Foreclosures
have exacerbated the housing crisis by increasing demand and decreasing the supply of affordable
housing. But even before this spike in foreclosures, Chicago’s housing needs were great:
In Chicago in 2007, 50% of renters and 43% of homeowners paid more than 30% of •
their income for housing.
6
This is considered unaffordable and puts people at risk of
homelessness or foreclosure.
In 2007, 42,281 households were on the public housing waiting list in Chicago.•
7
In 2008, when CHA opened the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers more than 200,000 •
people vied for 40,000 slots on the waiting list.
8
By 2011, approximately 17,000 units of federally subsidized housing in Chicago •
could be lost due to expiring subsidies.
9
The Chicago Housing Authority’s Plan for Transformation will result in a net loss of •
13,000 public housing units in Chicago.
10
Inthe2008-2009schoolyear,arecord12,525studentswereidentiedashomelessin•
the Chicago Public Schools. This number represents an 18% increase over the number
identiedthepreviousschoolyear.
11
Tax Increment Financing:
A city resource to address housing needs
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a tool the city uses to spur economic development in a
specicgeographicareathatisconsidered“blighted.”TheareaisdesignatedaTIFdistrict
and then when development takes place and property taxes rise, any increase in property
tax revenues go into a fund that must be spent on redevelopment projects in the TIF.
State law dictates what TIF funding can be spent on. Allowable uses include: public
improvements such as streets, streetscaping and sewers; redevelopment costs such as
acquiringandrehabbingpropertiesordemolitionofexistingproperties;nancingand
administrative costs associated with development. Construction of affordable housing is
specicallyspelledoutinstatelawasanallowableuse.Infact,upto50percentofthecost
of construction for a particular affordable housing project can be paid for out of TIF funds.
4
TIFs in Chicago
The city of Chicago has used TIFs widely in its efforts to redevelop neighborhoods
in Chicago. There are now 158 TIF districts in Chicago covering 30 percent of the
land in the city. The TIFs in Chicago are collectively generating a large amount of
money. In 2007 they generated $555 million.
12
Each year more money is generated
than is spent on projects so the TIF accounts continue to grow over time.
Amount of available TIF funds
An analysis of the 2007 audits of all TIF accounts found that at the end of 2007
there was nearly $1 billion in the TIF accounts available for redevelopment projects
including affordable housing. The audits showed that 57 TIFs (35 percent) had fund
balances in excess of $5 million and 27 had fund balances in excess of $10 million
(seeappendicesforspecicTIFbalancesandlocationoflargerbalances).
13
A more
recent document released by the Chicago Department of Community Development
says that unaudited 2008 balances still total $1 billion. The same document also says
thatthecityplanstospend$478-$643millionofthatbalancein2009,
14
leaving at
least $350 million in the accounts plus whatever is collected in 2009.
There are clearly available funds that could be dedicated for affordable housing,
and now seems to be a critical time to use them. Needs are higher due to the
recession, and other resources for affordable housing are declining. The Illinois
Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the state’s primary source of capital funds for
housing development is funded through the state’s Real Estate Transfer Tax. The
transfer tax has seen a severe loss of revenue due to the collapse of the real estate
market.Atitspeakin2006,theTrustFundsaw$71millioninrevenue.In2009,it
is expected to receive just $42 million, a 42% decrease. The low-income housing
tax credit, the primary federal source of funding for affordable housing is expected
in 2009 to generate only 30% of the capital it has in recent years.
5
City of Chicago’s use of TIF funds for affordable housing
Despite a large and growing pot of money in TIF accounts and a growing need
for affordable housing, the city has spent a very small percentage of TIF funds
on developing affordable housing.
The chart below shows the total amount of TIF funding that has gone into
affordable housing developments. It should be noted that the affordable
housing spending shown below includes money that went towards Chicago
Housing Authority public housing redevelopments. While those redevelopments
include affordable units, many of the units are only replacing other units that have
been demolished. The chart does not include TIF funding that went to market
rate developments that include some affordable units as it is meant to show the
investmentinprojectsthatarespecicallyintendedtobeaffordablehousing.
Investment in market rate developments will be discussed later.
Year
TIF Revenue
Totals by Year
15
Total TIF Revenue spent
on Affordable Housing
Developments*
16
% of Total
TIF Revenue
1995 $44 million $960,000 2%
1996 $50 million $2.2 million 4%
1997 $61million $4.9 million 8%
1998 $77 million $2. 7 million 3%
1999 $93 million $10.3 million 11%
2000 $129 million $4.3 million 3%
2001 $159 million $2.9 million 2%
2002 $217 million $1.5 million 1%
2003 $287 million $12.2 million 4%
2004 $329 million $3.1 million 1%
2005 $387 million $41.3 million 11%
2006 $500 million $29 million 6%
2007 $555 million $12.3 million 2%
Total $2.9 billion $127.8 million 4%
*54 percent of the housing funding shown in this column was for
Chicago Housing Authority Plan for Transformation replacement units
6
Housing created with
TIF funds too expensive for Chicago residents
According to state statute, one of the primary uses of TIF funding is to increase the
property tax base in a given area. This can have the effect of gentrifying a neigh-
borhood and therefore making it unaffordable for the current residents. Because of
this, the city created a policy to ensure some affordability of housing units created
with TIF funds. However, an analysis of the data shows that the policy did not go
far enough. The income levels for which the TIF-funded housing is targeted exceed
the median income in the city and are far greater than the income levels of families
most in need of affordable housing.
Although 40 percent of households in Chicago earn less than $35,000 a year and
nearly one-third of Chicago households earn less than $25,000 a year,
17
the city’s
policy for affordable housing created with TIF funds only requires units to be cre-
atedforhouseholds(basedonafamilyoffour)earning$45,000ayear(60percent
of area median income (AMI)) for rental housing and $75,000 a year (100 percent
of AMI) for for-sale housing.
18
Because the area median income used by the city
to calculate affordability ($75,000) includes the suburbs in the region, it is much
higher than the median income just in Chicago ($43,000). Therefore, although
all affordable units are in theory supposed to target households at or below the
median income, the chart below indicates that 50 percent of the TIF units created
were for households earning above the city of Chicago’s median.
7
Income Level
Based on family
of four
Units
created
1995-2008
Percent
of
Total
Upto$22,600 1773 27%
$22,600-$37,700 1536 24%
$45,240 2077 32%
$60,300-$75,400 1148 18%
Total 6534 100%
(Source: Department of Housing Quarterly Progress Reports)
Disparity between housing created and neighborhood incomes by ward
A ward-by-ward analysis of TIF-funded housing developments reveals a more detailed
view of how the units created price out residents.
Rental Housing
In keeping with the city’s policy, between 1995 and 2008, 39 percent of the rental housing
unitscreatedwithTIFfundingwereforhouseholdsearning60percentoftheareamedian
income in Chicago. At that income level, rents for a 2-bedroom must not be more than
$1,019. However, that amount exceeds the average rent in many of the wards where this
TIF-funded housing was created. In other words, in many wards, TIF funds supported
housingthatwasdesignatedas“affordable”butactuallycostmorethantheaveragerent
in the neighborhood.
Ward
# of TIF-funded
rental units
created for
60% AMI
19
Percentage of
total TIF-funded
rental units
in ward
Rent for
2-bdrm for
household at
60% of AMI
20
Average rent for
2-bedroom for
neighborhoods in
the ward
21
36 230 73% $1019 $625-$675
34 80 53% $1019 $437-$662
4 171 48% $1019 $925
31 51 60% $1019 $862
3 688 65% $1019 $550- $925
13 27 100% $1019 $500
For-Sale Housing
Likewise, for-sale housing created with TIF funding was primarily for households at 100
percent of AMI, or $75,000 for a family of four. In most wards this income level is much
higherthanthemedianincomefortheward.Infact,in60percentofwardsinChicago,the
median income is less than $50,000.
Ward
Number of for-sale
units created for
$75,000 income
22
Percentage of total
TIF-funded
for-sale units in ward
Median Income
for ward
(estimated 2009)
23
21 48 100% $46,985
20 41 100% $29,027
14 36 100% $46,788
18 28 100% $56,580
50 6 100% $50,770
29 9 100% $41,727
39 27 100% $58,550
In total, out of 29 wards in which TIF-funded housing was created between
1995-2008, half of them created a majority of units beyond the means of those
in the neighborhoods.
8
(Source: Department of Housing Quarterly Progress Reports)
98%
53%
98% of affordable
units created in
Affordable Housing
developments are
for households
earning $45,000
a year or less.
53% of affordable
units created in
Market Rate
developments are
for households
earning $75,000
a year or more.
TIF investments in market rate housing fail to maintain
neighborhood affordability
An analysis of all residential developments that have received TIF funding over
the past fourteen years shows that 47 percent of the TIF resources went to market
rate developments that create few affordable units for higher income households.
A market rate development receiving TIF funding is only required to create 20%
oftheunitsasaffordableforhouseholdsat60%ofareamedianincomeifitis
rental or 100% of area median income if it is for sale. Another 25 percent of the
TIF resources went to Chicago Housing Authority public housing redevelopment
that is primarily replacing lost affordable housing units. Only 27 percent of the
resources went to non-CHA affordable housing developments. In general, market
rate developments, unlike affordable housing developments, will only meet the
minimum requirements for affordability and not go beyond that.
Not only did the market rate developments receive the vast majority of the TIF
resources, but they also received more than twice the amount of subsidy per
affordable unit as the affordable housing developments. The chart below shows
the amount of TIF funding that was invested in different types of residential
development in Chicago from 1995-2008. By examining the number of units
created for those investments, the chart shows what the average TIF investment
was per unit in each type of development.
City TIF investment by development type
Type of Housing
Development
City TIF
Commitment
Total
Units
Total
Affordable
Units
Average TIF
investment
per unit
Affordable Housing
Development
$76,540,000 3,520 3,520 $21,744
Chicago Housing
Authority Development
$70,721,000 2,170 2,170 $32,590
Market Rate
Development
$133,986,000 3,045 844 $44,000
(Source: Department of Housing Quarterly Progress Reports)
The data show that the city invested almost twice as much funding overall and
twice as much per unit in market rate developments over affordable developments.
Of concern is the fact that in market rate developments the affordable units are
least likely to be targeted at households in the neighborhoods (see charts below).
9
TIF funding could go farther towards addressing critical housing
needs for the lowest income households
As demonstrated by the statistics at the opening of this report (public housing waiting
lists, homeless children, loss of subsidized units) the demand for units for the lowest
income households far exceeds the supply. Households earning 30% or less of area
median income in Chicago ($22,000) are at the greatest risk of homelessness. Yet
only 27% of TIF funds have been used to meet this great need.
As the chart below indicates these households are by far the most likely to be paying
too much of their income for housing. Furthermore, when households have so little
income altogether and housing costs are too high, they are left with almost no income
to cover other household needs.
10
Income level based
on family of four
Up to $22,600
$22,600–$37,700
$45,240
$60,300–$75,400
(Source: Department of Housing Quarterly Progress Reports)
Up to $20,000
$20,000-$35,000
$35,000-$50,000
$50,000–$75,000
Over $75,000
Percentage of Cost Burdened Households
Percentage of Units Created from 1995 - 2008
Income level
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 20 40 60 80 100
(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2007 American Community Survey)
88%
70%
46%
34%
14%
27%
24%
32%
18%
In Chicago, there are 214,000
households earning less than
$20,000 who are cost burdened.
25
Despite this great need, only 27
percent of TIF units created in
the past fourteen years have been
targeted at that income level.
Cost burdened
households
88% of households earning less
than $20,000 a year are paying
more than 30% of their income
for rent. This is considered cost
burdened. By comparison, only
34 percent of households earn-
ing between $50,000 and 75,000
a year are cost burdened and 14
percent of households earning
more than $75,000 a year are
cost burdened.
24
Policy Recommendations:
The city’s current policy and practices for TIF-funded housing development
end up pricing people out of neighborhoods rather than maintaining affordable
housing as the policy was meant to do. They also do not go far enough towards
addressing critical housing needs for the lowest income households at time when
those needs are at their greatest and other resources are diminishing.
In order to address those shortfalls, the city should dedicate a much larger per-
centage of TIF funding in each year towards housing and target it towards lower
income families. The effect of this would be that more of the resources would go
towards affordable housing developments that are designed to reach lower income
families. Because each affordable housing development would have the potential
toseemoreTIFresourcesinitsnancingpackage,moreofthosedevelopments
would actually reach their full funding and come to fruition.
In addition, it would mean that the units in those deals would be able to reach
even lower income households than currently. As seen earlier, the current average
investment per unit in an affordable housing development is only $21,744. State
law allows up to 50% of the cost of constructing a unit to be covered and an aver-
ageaffordableunitinChicagocosts$261,000.
26
If more of the cost were covered
by TIF funding, then projects could have less private debt and therefore less an-
nual costs, allowing them to charge lower rents.
The overall effect would be that residents would be less likely to be priced out of
theirneighborhoodsandcouldenjoythebenetsastheirneighborhoodsimprove.
It also would mean those at greatest risk of homelessness would have more access
to housing affordable to them.
Specifically, the city should:
Designate 20% of TIF funding for affordable housing
The city should make a commitment to spending 20 percent of TIF funding generated
each year on affordable housing. Just as the city budgets for other priorities, the city
could commit to spending a dedicated amount of TIF funds on affordable housing and
thenacceptproposalsfromdevelopersforprojectsinspecicTIFs.
Target Designated TIF funds for lower income households
In order to ensure that TIF affordable housing funds meet the need of people in
Chicago neighborhoods, they should have more stringent affordability require-
ments than are currently required for developments receiving TIF funds.
…continued on page 12.
11
12
Proposed affordability requirements for designated affordable
housing TIF funds:
• Atleast50percentoftheunitsinthedevelopmentwouldhavetobe
affordablewith“affordable”denedasfollows:
For rental housing:
• Housingmustbeaffordabletohouseholdsearninglessthan$37,700fora
family of four (50% of AMI)—Maximum rent $848.
• Inaddition,citywide,40%ofthetotalunitscreatedwiththedesignatedfunds
mustservehouseholdsearninglessthan$22,600ayearforafamilyoffour
(30% of AMI)—Maximum rent $509. Developers could receive more TIF
funds if they target the housing to this income level.
For for-sale housing:
• Housingmustbeaffordabletohouseholdsearninglessthan$60,300fora
family of four (80% of AMI).
Conclusion
Duringthisverydifculteconomictime,thecityofChicagohastheresources
available to create housing for families most in need. Using these resources to
address the needs of the most vulnerable families living in a TIF both provides
tremendous opportunities to those families and creates more stable neighborhoods
furthering the goals of the TIF itself. Now is the time for the city to examine
its policies on TIF spending and target resources towards housing for struggling
families.
Appendix I: TIF Funds 2007
REF # TIF District
Funds for Future Proj-
ects as of 2007 Audit
27
TIF Amounts Collected
in 2007
28
T-11 Addison Corridor North $8,108,450.00 $1,746,973.31
Addison/Kimball $482,127.40
T-150 Addison South $1,125,017.56 $1,125,017.56
T-67 Archer Courts $1,335,606.00 $284,558.32
T-99 Archer/Central $3,527,720.00 $828,555.95
T-151 Armitage/Pulaski $255,249.22 $255,249.22
T-156 Austin Commerical $1,032,903.92 $1,032,903.92
T-123 Avalon Park/South Shore $2,110,300.00 $725,403.42
T-81 Belmont/Central $11,084,998.00 $3,304,068.78
T-82 Belmont/Cicero $4,380,118.00 $1,269,587.15
Bloomingdale/Laramie
T-61 Bronzevile $15,573,415.00 $4,389,901.77
T-13 Bryn Mawr/Broadway $5,715,918.00 $1,674,589.44
T-59 Calumet Ave/Cermak Rd. $57,491,781.00 $9,549,804.17
T-63 Canal/Congress $46,051,159.00 $19,209,030.17
T-14 Central Loop $24,466,913.00 $111,080,512.73
T-86 Central West $36,453,809.00 $13,443,003.37
T-15 Chatham Ridge $1,704,492.50
T-115 Chicago/Central Park $6,388,319.06
T-94 Chicago/Kingsbury $23,623,540.00 $11,316,984.25
T-16 Chinatown $8,495,995.00 $2,532,232.52
T-96 Cicero/Archer $3,972,247.00 $894,686.69
T-70 Clark/Montrose $5,946,597.00 $2,021,343.65
T-74 Clark/Ridge $5,660,732.00 $1,965,609.87
T-128 Commercial Avenue $6,308,723.00 $1,989,784.95
T-134 Devon/Sheridan $942,623.00 $454,870.85
T-76 Devon/Western $8,601,397.00 $2,842,009.39
T-129 Diversey/Narragansett $4,707,786.00 $2,341,689.15
T-107 Division/Homan $3,433,280.00 $1,217,195.41
T-17 Division/Hooker $1,132,560.00 $218,121.34
T-18 Division/North Branch $145,904.40
T-122 Drexel Blvd. $250,658.00 $346,247.75
T-19 Eastman/North Branch $1,087,223.00 $229,471.00
T-20 Edgewater $1,740,075.00 $287,095.12
T-130 Edgewater/Ashland $5,622,090.00 $2,343,172.61
T-153 Elston/Armstrong $373,549.62 $373,549.62
T-21 Englewood Mall $5,251,814.00 $616,659.67
T-106 Englewood Neighborhood $15,801,508.00 $5,469,024.09
T-87 Fullerton/Milwaukee $14,532,996.00 $6,133,857.96
13
REF # TIF District
Funds for Future Proj-
ects as of 2007 Audit
TIF Amounts Collected
in 2007
T-22 Fullerton/Normandy $5,861,536.00 $617,024.48
T-71 Galewood/Armitage $8,099,361.00 $2,536,219.16
T-23 Goose Island $3,336,383.58
T-66 Greater SW East (Industrial) $2,311,764.00 $781,434.92
T-92 Greater SW West (Industrial) $6,489,121.00 $1,596,011.99
T-148 Harlem Industrial Park $250,653.25 $250,653.25
T-144 Harrison/Central $818,570.98
T-157 Hollywood/Sheridan $175,626.82 $175,626.82
T-24 Homan/Arthington $6,489,121.00 $593,877.84
T-25 Homan/Grand Trunk $2,027,574.00 $232,114.13
T-26 Howard/Paulina $7,738,239.00 $2,039,059.06
T-108 Humboldt Park Commercial $4,682,421.00 $2,696,762.70
T-27 Irving Park/Cicero $707,219.96
T-57 Jefferson Park $1,839,593.00 $949,919.00
T-101 Jefferson/Roosevelt $12,054,625.00 $3,556,222.41
T-52 Kinzie Conservation (Industrial
Area)
$51,705,262.00 $16,381,198.11
T-103 Lake Calumet $15,142,009.00 $6,331,003.55
T-119 Lakefront $366,154.00 $90,474.55
T-137 Lakeside/Clarendon $31,862.57 $31,862.57
T-147 LaSalle Central $18,910,755.00 $18,935,160.36
T-109 Lawrence/Broadway $7,586,294.00 $3,494,294.24
T-88 Lawrence/Kedzie $6,942,087.89
T-116 Lawrence/Pulaski $4,737,516.00 $1,412,706.20
T-77 Lincoln Ave. $8,904,826.00 $2,848,539.70
T-28 Lincoln/Belmont/Ashland $1,091,058.29
T-152 Little Village Industrial $593,426.68 $593,426.68
T-126 Madden/Wells $1,023,973.00 $759,337.15
T-75 Madison/Austin $2,226,998.34
T-29 Michigan/Cermak $3,008,690.00 $767,940.21
T-89 Midway Ind. Corridor $5,190,951.00 $1,660,615.53
T-95 Midwest $21,595,755.00 $14,427,883.89
T-102 Montclare $850,007.00 $390,273.81
T-30 Near North $14,969,408.43
T-31 Near South (Central Station) $9,404,396.00 $46,165,748.21
T-32 Near West (Madison/Racine) $37,732,796.00 $10,933,929.25
T-35 North/Cicero $2,456,331.00 $1,319,020.32
T-33 North Branch/North $21,954,885.00 $4,145,278.09
T-34 North Branch/South $23,066,871.00 $5,526,340.08
T-64 NW Ind. Corridor $18,924,712.00 $6,785,747.14
T-100 Ohio/Wabash $3,130,905.00 $1,500,352.21
T-154 Pershing/King $101,082.46 $101,082.46
T-90 Peterson/Cicero $16,755.00 $526,769.42
T-91 Peterson/Pulaski $4,146,825.00 $1,123,030.49
14
REF # TIF District
Funds for Future Proj-
ects as of 2007 Audit
TIF Amounts Collected
in 2007
T-53 Pilsen Industrial Corridor $9,497,788.39
T-58 Portage Park $10,156,237.00 $3,037,403.67
T-135 Pratt/Ridge Industrial Park $267,122.62 $267,122.62
T-69 Pulaski Corridor $8,087,449.00 $3,831,103.30
T-139 Ravenswood Corridor $1,499,723.00 $709,358.22
T-36 Read Dunning $646,840.00 $3,126,741.45
T-37 River South $38,406,753.00 $10,629,741.94
T-104 River West $22,356,325.00 $10,154,698.71
T-39 Roosevelt/Canal $3,747,163.00 $1,245,258.24
T-38 Roosevelt/Cicero $7,144,054.00 $2,432,127.34
T-40 Roosevelt/Homan $5,869,440.00 $959,592.76
T-62 Roosevelt/Racine $1,869,341.00 $1,546,858.59
T-68 Roosevelt/Union (UIC) $6,688,265.00 $4,121,313.53
T-113 Roseland/Michigan $1,731,600.00 $707,401.00
T-41 RyanGareldCommunity $4,985,355.00 $358,940.15
T-42 Sanitary Drain & Ship Canal $906,397.48
T-93 South Chicago $2,587,782.00 $1,064,501.53
T-78 South Works Industrial $696,314.00 $209,723.92
T-149 Stevenson/Brighton $871,729.80 $871,729.80
T-43 Stockyards Annex $11,159,358.00 $1,952,299.40
T-44 Stockyards Industrial Com-
mercial
$2,372,925.50
T-45 Stockyards SE Quad Ind. Area $163,500.00 $1,952,524.26
T-54 Stony Island/Burnside $7,695,288.00 $2,390,237.62
T-146 Touhy/Western Avenue $955,853.00 $625,754.64
T-46 West Grand $186,694.00 $85,482.70
T-83 West Irving Park $7,096,076.00 $1,204,570.74
T-50 West Pullman Industrial Park $10,694.00 $68,805.40
T-47 West Ridge/Peterson Avenue $1,210,364.00 $522,194.81
T-84 Western Ave. North $13,541,664.00 $4,544,932.10
T-85 Western Ave. South $13,326,368.00 $5,719,640.14
T-48 Western Ave/Ogden $11,186,087.00 $7,453,275.77
T-142 Western Ave/Rock Island $1,698,821.26 $1,698,821.26
T-110 Wilson Yard $15,597,572.00 $6,186,257.93
T-65 Woodlawn $8,135,044.00 $3,049,420.00
T-111 105th/Vincennes $643,929.00 $225,776.90
T-73 111th St./Kedzie Avenue $1,741,323.00 $608,160.75
T-114 119th/Halsted $748,343.00 $743,610.65
T-125 119th/I-57 $945,994.00 $943,939.35
T-10 126th/Torrence $1,413,651.00 $1,043,027.70
T-72 24th/Michigan $2,181,887.00 $663,240.15
T-141 26th/King $55,854.34 $55,854.34
26th/Kostner $115,445.00
T-1 35th/Halsted $13,140,246.00 $ 4,093,310.02
15
REF # TIF District
Funds for Future Proj-
ects as of 2007 Audit
TIF Amounts Collected
in 2007
T-131 35th/State St. $1,539,612.00 $743,026.45
T-79 35th/Wallace $1,251,313.00 $516,643.78
T-132 40th/State
T-2 41st/King Drive $566,411.00 $154,182.15
T-55 43rd/Cottage Grove $5,928,083.00 $2,649,358.75
T-3 43rd/Damen $840,402.00 $160,152.64
T-120 45th/Western Industrial Park $296,054.00 $156,376.72
T-117 47th/Ashland $8,517,037.00 $2,822,384.35
T-121 47th/Halsted $8,637,499.00 $3,120,021.26
T-118 47th/King Drive $20,061,703.00 $7,567,928.67
T-136 47th/State $3,596,477.00 $1,577,909.48
T-4 49th/St. Lawrence Ave. $1,246,646.00 $424,409.65
T-97 51st/Archer $3,601,473.00 $771,802.36
T-105 53rd St. (Industrial) $3,196,344.00 $785,524.04
T-5 60th/WesternwithAmmend-
ment
$2,815,484.00 $324,668.05
T-143 63rd/Ashland NA
T-98 63rd/Pulaski $6,923,650.00 $2,263,804.70
T-124 67th/Cicero $312,547.00 $305,918.21
T-138 69th/Ashland $69,954.00 $563,318.56
T-60 71st/Stony Island $418,755.00 $3,584,808.35
T-6 72nd/Cicero $1,737,655.00 $319,529.50
T-7 73rd/Kedzie $506,064.00
T-145 73rd/University $773,520.76 $773,520.76
T-56 79th St. Corridor $2,798,191.00 $863,236.98
T-140 79th/Cicero $863,236.98 $162,859.58
T-112 79th/SW Hwy $4,036,373.00 $1,301,844.58
T-155 79th/Vincennes $475,553.20 $475,553.20
T-133 83rd/Stewart $220,998.00
T-127 87th/Cottage Grove $6,064,765.00 $2,138,351.35
T-49 89th/State $714,916.00 $340,002.60
T-8 95th/Stony Island $3,998,876.00 $1,093,643.25
T-9 95th/Western $1,161,222.00 $866,647.57
T-158 Weed/Freemont
T-159 134th/Avenue K
T-160 Kennedy/Kimball
T-161 Ogden/Pulaski
Totals $978,418,345.06 $555,427,013.29
Note: Accounts with a negative balance were recorded as zero for the total tally, because one
account’s negative balance will not affect the total in other accounts.
16
Appendix II: Map of TIF $ Amounts
17
Endnotes
1
Department of Community Development, Tax Increment Financing Overview, May 2009
2
Cook County Clerk Website; Department of Housing (DOH) Affordable Housing Plan Quarterly Progress
Reports, 1995-2008.
3
Department of Housing Quarterly Progress Reports, 1995-2008
4
Department of Housing Quarterly Progress Reports, 1995-2008
5
Woodstock Insititute, The Chicago Region’s Foreclosure Problem Continued to Grow in 2008, Geoff Smith
and Sarah Duda, January 28, 2009
6
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey
7
Not Even a Place in Line, Mid-American Institute on Poverty of the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs
and Human Rights, 2007
8
Chicago Housing Authority
9
Chicago Rehab Network, City of Chicago, Housing Fact Sheet
10
JanetL.Smith.“TheChicagoHousingAuthority’sPlanforTransformation”:WhereArePoorPeopleto
Live.M.E.Sharpe,2006.
11
Chicago Public Schools, Homeless Education Program
12
Cook County Clerk Website
13
2007 TIF Annual Reports
14
Department of Community Development, Tax Increment Financing Overview, May 2009
15
Cook County Clerk Website
16
DOH Quarterly Progress Reports
17
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey
18
City of Chicago website, Affordable Requirements Ordinance
19
DOH Quarterly Reports
20
2008 Department of Housing Quarterly Progress Report
21
http://www.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/Housing0607.pdf
22
DOH Quarterly Progress Reports
23
Estimates based on data from Onboard Informatics
24
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey
25
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey
26
Estimate based on total costs of 2009 pending low-income tax credit developments in Chicago.
27
2007 TIF Annual Reports
28
Cook County Clerk Website
June, 2009