Battle continues over downtown Wheaton taxing district

The battle to block a special taxing district in downtown Wheaton continues even as the city finalizes the properties to be included in the proposed area.

On Monday, city officials removed two lots from the proposed special service area, saying the properties will be the future sites of residential developments.

According to law governing the creation of special service areas, any removals must be done at the meeting that follows a public hearing. At that Oct. 10 hearing, a representative of Morningside Equities Group asked the city council to remove the property at 218 E. Wesley St. from the taxing district because the group plans to develop it as a residential site. Also, a letter received by city officials asked for the removal of 232 W. Willow Ave.

A 2005 agreement between the city and the Downtown Wheaton Association, a business group charged with promoting downtown, established a special service area that will expire April 30. That agreement taxes all properties in the district 95 cents per $100 of equalized assessed value to establish a fund that goes to the organization.

The new seven-year agreement, with new boundaries that exclude government buildings, residences and not-for-profit locations, would decrease that tax to 45 cents while also diverting tax increment finance money to make up the difference in its budget.

Opponents of the tax district plan to challenge it and have started to collect signatures.

If 51 percent of property owners and voters in the district object to its creation within 60 days of the public hearing, the taxing district could not be created. Downtown Wheaton officials have said in the past that their group would dissolve without it.

On Monday, however, Councilwoman Jeanne Ives renewed her opposition to the special service area, noting that at least one dead person remains on a list of property owners in the district. Councilman Phil Suess also pointed out that a handful of properties on Main Street belonged to the city, meaning those sites should also be excluded.

Ives said the dead person listed as a property owner and the city-owned lots showed that creating the district remains a bad idea because of the uncertainty of the properties.

“What we are doing here is extremely arbitrary,” she said. “I think we need to look at this again.”