A closer look at comparison TIF

Looking through the East Village Growth Cell (EVGC) TIF materials the City helpfully provided online, one page in particular caught my attention. It’s the one that gives examples of residential TIF districts in Springfield and Decatur. I decided to do a little more research on Springfield’s TIF to see just how successful it has been. (I’ll look into Decatur at a later date.)

The EVGC website states, “The Enos Park Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) was created in 1997. The TIF District generates approximately $450,000 annually. The TIF District contains both residential and commercial properties; however, it is approximately 90% residential.” The most recent TIF report published by the City of Springfield is the one for 2010, available here.

The Enos Park TIF’s equalized assessed valuation (EAV) in 1997 was $13,838,543. The EAV in 2010 was $17,314,380. So between 1997 and 2010 — 13 years — the EAV increased a total of just $3,475,837. That comes out to an average of 1.9% growth per year. According to the EVGC TIF Draft Redevelopment Plan, the proposed TIF area in Peoria had an EAV of $45,021,720 in 2004 which grew to $49,626,980 by 2009, or $4,605,260 in five years. That comes out to an average of 2.05% growth per year. That means that the East Village Growth Cell is experiencing better growth without any TIF at all than Springfield’s Enos Park TIF has experienced over the last 13 years.

Springfield is unhappy with the performance of Enos Park. Just last year they spent $122,500 on a new “master plan study” that recommends pumping $45 million into the area. They’re looking for additional funding sources as the TIF increment would not be adequate to cover an infusion of that much cash.

Does new Big Al’s location violate liquor ordinance?

Here’s an e-mail exchange I had recently with the City’s attorney, Randy Ray:

First e-mail to Mr. Ray

Hi Randy,

Upon reading the municipal code, Sec. 3-11, it would appear to me that Big Al’s could not get a liquor license at the proposed Jefferson Street location because it’s within 100 feet of a licensed day care facility. Is that not the case? If so, why did the Liquor Commission approve it? If not, why not?

Thanks for your help,
C. J. Summers

Response from Mr. Ray:

C.J.,
The day care center is approx. 164 feet from the property line of the proposed site. The day care lease is for specific rooms within the building. Lessee has no rights to the bus area or any other common area.
Randy

Second e-mail to Mr. Ray:

Thanks, Randy.

The ordinance states, “In the case of a church, the distance of 100 feet shall be measured to the nearest part of any building used for worship services or educational programs and not to property boundaries. In all other cases, the measurement shall be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the property line of school, hospital, home of the aged or indigent persons, nursing home or homes for veterans or their spouses or children or any military or naval stations, any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, or any publicly owned housing development containing 200 or more housing units.”

The CityLink bus transfer center is all one parcel, and there’s one property line around the entire site. What’s the warrant (from the city code) for defining “property line” the way you described — as only those specific rooms within the building that are being used by the daycare? Elsewhere (for instance, 28-2), the code defines “property line” as “the line marking the boundary between any street and the private property abutting thereon.” I don’t see anywhere in the code where “property line” ever refers to the boundaries of leased office space within a parcel.

Thanks for your help,
C. J. Summers

No response yet from Mr. Ray. I’ll update this post when I hear back.