BLOOMINGTON — Work has started to create about 57 affordable apartments for older tenants at the former Bloomington High School, and the project could be completed by the end of next year.
"We're already doing the roof and other outside work in anticipation of moving inside and starting that work before the end of this year," developer James Bergman told The Pantagraph.
"We should have it completed by the end of next year," said Bergman."So the project is still on slate for completion, as presented."
That timetable is well ahead of city deadlines setting the start of renovations on or before June 15, 2019, and completion by Aug. 15, 2020.
At its meeting at 6 p.m. Monday at City Hall, the City Council is expected to take the next step to move the project forward by formally setting the amount of rental assistance from the city at $228,720 over a 10-year period, or $22,872 per year for four apartments.
To offset development costs, Iceberg secured nearly $1.4 million in low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) through the Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA). The private developer also obtained tax credits after the property was placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
At his request, the city provided a letter supporting the application for the tax credits through IHDA that are awarded through a competitive process.
To bolster its LIHTC application, Iceberg also asked the city to pledge low-income rental assistance for four apartments.
The applicants for the four city-sponsored rental assistance apartments must be 55 years or older and meet certain income guidelines.
The LIHTC program provides a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit for affordable housing investments. In exchange, the developer agrees to rent the units at below market rates for a minimum of 15 years.
"Nine out of 10 developers don't get the credit. So we're really fortunate, due to the strong backing of this project and the developer by the city, that this developer, on its first application, was able to secure those credits," said Austin Grammer, the city's economic development coordinator.
"The availability of quality, affordable housing is needed in the community, and based upon Iceberg's track record in renovating buildings like the Rosenwald Courts apartments in Chicago, they will do really quality work," said Grammer.
In addition to providing more affordable apartments for seniors, the project will help preserve a historical old building, said City Manager Tim Gleason.
"I think it's very positive," he said. "The $17 million investment that's going to be made into that building is quite an opportunity that communities don't oftentimes have with old schools and old churches."
In 2016, Iceberg purchased the former BHS building for $400,000. The city adopted a TIF redevelopment agreement with Iceberg in June 2017.
In this case, the city would rebate to Iceberg 80 percent of property tax increment generated by the developer's improvements, but the amount would not exceed the $1.3 million limit, said Grammer.
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(9) comments
228000 of our tax dollars , what we do not need roads, sewers ???...lol..just sayin
$228,000 to help basically 4 people for a decade. Has anyone done a price comparison to already-existing rental housing to see if there are cheaper options? Just looking at it appears to be Cadillac prices when we could stretch dollars further with cheaper options.
I feel badly for older people without means to pay for good housing, but that is not the government's responsibility. If it were another building, do you think the city would be considering this? My guess is no. Stop trying to save obsolete buildings on the backs of taxpayers.
"Stop trying to save obsolete buildings on the backs of taxpayers."
You, know that's a darn good point - and the more I think about it, the better a point it seems. But then again, what if the people trying to save the obsolete buildings (on the backs of the taxpayers) were at least willing to live in those buildings themselves - wouldn't that sort of HELP their case? Maybe change the equation? But then again, what if those same people were NOT willing to live in such buildings - in other words, NOT making their own "personal commitments"? Wouldn't that sort of HURT their case? Change the equation in the opposite direction?
So with that dialectic in mind, I did some research. Just so you know, all was done via public-domain sources. No fancy stuff, and no payments to private database sources (I'm far too cheap for that!). And nothing even approaching illegal, because I know the law:
- Tari Renner's house - 2 SABLE OAKS CT, BLOOMINGTON, IL 61704. Google it - nice, no? Modern! See any "old, rehabbed buildings"? Me neither.
- David Hales' house (he's gone now, thank goodness, but he helped put in place much of the high local tax and spending structure we'll have to deal with for years) - 5 CONWAY CIRCLE, BLOOMINGTON, IL 61704. Google it - nice, and modern! It's for sale, for obvious reasons. (A side note - I've heard through the grapevine that the price on this house has been reduced twice, and is for sale for at least $16K less than paid for it in 2008, and about $30K less than first listed, which speaks to other issues in the B/N area. But, that's fodder for another post, not this one.)
Again, where is the "rehabbed-ness"? (And before Chad the Grammarian wakes up to tells me that this is not a word - I'm just trying to make a point here, Chad.) And I think the point is obvious.
I don't understand your logic reader99. Although I don't agree with Renner's or Hales' tax and spend positions on pretty much anything, I don't think any taxpayer but the two of them are paying the taxes on the homes they own. No one else is being asked to subsidize their homes. Not the case with the old BHS the developer is asking the city to subsidize for a very few potential residents. That subsidy will come from us taxpayers. My point is costs of private residences is not the government' or taxpayers' responsibility. It sounds like a Go Fund Me to save the BHS building! On backs of taxpayers.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Nobody is questioning whether Renner or Hales paid the taxes on their houses. I assume they did.
Here's all I'm saying: Local government (Renner and, until recently, Hales) has been H*ll-bent for years on spending taxpayer dollars on refurbishing old buildings, mainly in downtown Bloomington but also sometimes in other areas like 510 E. Washington Street. They've chosen to do this instead of simply letting the marketplace decide on these locations, so to speak. Many of these projects have been quite unsuccessful in terms of drawing customers, tenants, owners, etc.
I just find it a bit odd that with their affinity for rehabbing these old buildings at taxpayer expense (some of which were intended as apartments or owner-purchased condos), they themselves have chosen to live in quite new homes, way on the east side, none of which are in downtown or near-downtown locations like 510 E. Washington St., and none of which are even remotely "rehabbed".
One would think that if they were as "invested" in rehabbing old buildings as they seem (when taxpayer money was being spent), that they might themselves have "practiced what they preached", and actually chosen to live in rehabbed older buildings (when they were spending their own money).
"The availability of quality, affordable housing is needed in the community, and based upon Iceberg's track record in renovating buildings like the Rosenwald Courts apartments in Chicago, they will do really quality work," said Grammer.
What others are saying on Google about Rosenwald Courts apartments in Chicago....
Lived here almost a year now. The place is ran like a maximum security prison, and the property manager, Ms. Powell, is the warden. All management staff live on site for free and are obsessed with invading tenants privacy and rights. The cameras aren't there for your security, it's to spy on you and your family. Horrible office staff that obviously is new at this. No communication. No playground as promised, no shops and restaurants as promised. Shooting right outside of building targeting a tenant a few months ago. Junkies staggering around like zombies all times of the day on the surrounding streets. Yes it's new construction and nice, but definitely not worth the invasion of your privacy and controlling management. Not recommended to rent here! Be warned!
No heat, shootings around the building every week, money hungry establishment...Not the place if you're trying to get yourself together. They only want well established tenants and nothing less. Very strict.
No secruity ..when visiting it was like prison too much control in the building neighbors are very noisy ..Management is horrible they don't fix nothing in a timely manner can't let Windows up ..if So we have to buy our own sreams the hold setup is institutionalized..For anybody to live comfortably...I wouldn't recommend none of my frds to moved in there, So I will be Putting the word out not to seek or rent there period..
Remember to vote!
For that price, I can build them a 10 apartment building. The old BHS/BJHS is never going to work for older folks, and just the roof alone is going to be close to $500k, since I'm sure it hasn't improved in the past 15 years since I bid that job($140,000 in materials alone...15 years ago!). This is a VERY bad idea, and it will cost all of us to 'help' no one...except for the developers and the council, who are probably getting a kickback for doing this. Those people need to be audited thoroughly.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.