Return to Nicholas Johnson's Coralville Rain Forest Web Site
 
 

[Note: This material is copyright by The Gazette, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of The Gazette.]

    That’s because it appears the property tax bonanza expected from the $50 million development under way east of Riverside won’t materialize for at least 10 years and, perhaps, never.

    Instead of flowing into the county’s coffers, the property taxes on the 325-acre site of a 60,000-square-foot casino, 200-room hotel and 18-hole golf course will be captured by a tax increment financing district the county is establishing so the city of Riverside can provide water and sewer to the casino resort.

    Some Washington County property taxpayers are claiming they’re victims of a bait-and-switch.

    ‘‘Everyone voted for jobs and tax relief,’’ Washington, Iowa, banker Dale Torpey, a casino opponent, said, referring to the county’s gambling referendum in September 2004. It was approved 4,095 to 3,743. ‘‘The jury’s out on the jobs, and we’ve seen what happened to the tax relief.’’

    He’s probably right about no property tax relief, Riverside Mayor Bill Poch said, but he doubts that’s why people voted for the casino.

    ‘‘You can say that now, after the fact, but I don’t think tax relief was a factor in the vote,’’ Poch said. ‘‘People voted for growth.’’

    Torpey and the others who oppose the county’s creation of a TIF for Riverside are missing the big picture, Poch said. The whole county will benefit from the 850 employees and 1.1 million people expected to visit the casino each year, he said.

    ‘‘Sure, Riverside will benefit more than the rest of the county. Good for Riverside,’’ Poch said.

    That’s one reason Brian Hora and other Washington County Farm Bureau members are taking another look at the TIF proposal.

    The prospects of diverting about $370,000 a year in future property tax revenue into water and waste-water treatment for the casino doesn’t sit well with Farm Bureau members, said Hora, a county Farm Bureau board member who farms north of Washington.

    ‘‘There was a pretty good opportunity for some tax relief, to hold our property taxes in check, and now it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen,’’ Hora said.

    The Farm Bureau took no position on the casino referendum, Hora said, but it is questioning whether it’s good policy for the county to create a 390-acre TIF district for Riverside to accommodate the casino and potential development near it.

    ‘‘We’re told that as Riverside grows it’s good for the county, that we’re in this together,’’ said Jerry Anderson, southeast regional manager for the Iowa Farm Bureau. ‘‘We’re all pulling the same rope. It just seems that part of the rope has grease on it.’’

    County Auditor Bill Fredrick thinks there are a lot of misconceptions about the TIF. ‘‘I’m not saying this is a utopian plan, but I don’t think the impact will be as big as people think,’’ he said.

    Some people question whether the TIF is necessary, Fredrick said. ‘‘I think what people are mad about is that normally when you do a TIF you do it to encourage growth that wouldn’t otherwise occur,’’ Fredrick said. ‘‘But the casino is coming no matter what.’’

    It also sticks in the craw of some opponents that Riverside is asking the county to send property tax revenue its way while the city of 928 people uses the revenue it gets from the casino to build a new fire station and community center.

    The city could use its funds to pay for water and sewer, Hora and Torpey suggested.

    They will continue to speak out against the county TIF, but they aren’t sure if they can stop it.

    ‘‘I’ve resigned myself to the fact the casino will be here,’’ Torpey said. ‘‘I fought from Day 1 to get the best deal possible for the county and we’re not getting it.’’

    Supervisor Jack Dillon of Wellman said there may be some hope for derailing or modifying the TIF.

    ‘‘I’m not sure we are into this so far that we can’t turn around,’’ Dillon said. ‘‘If a large population turns up (at the as-yet-unscheduled hearings) against this thing, then maybe we have to look at it again.’’