Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Tif topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers, council spar over 48.5% TIF request for downtown renovation at 322 E. Adams
Summary
Developers seeking $1.455 million in TIF assistance to rehab the long‑vacant building at 322 East Adams presented project financials and requested a TIF share of roughly 48.5 percent of the estimated $3.0 million rehab cost; councilors debated whether the city should approve that level of assistance.
The Committee of the Whole took up a redevelopment agreement (Ordinance 2025‑036) proposing Central Area Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance of $1,455,000 for renovation of the building at 322 East Adams. The applicant, Martin Haxel, described the building as long vacant and said rehabilitation is estimated at roughly $3.0 million; Haxel said roughly $600,000 has already been invested. He told the committee that after factoring in prior investment the TIF request would represent a lower share of the total and that construction costs have risen roughly 40% since the pandemic, increasing the amount developers need to bridge financing.
Alderwoman Notriano, a co‑sponsor, and others said the project could add offices and street‑level retail — potentially including a grocery — to downtown and noted an earlier 2020 TIF award of $1,000,000 for the property that never resulted in a completed project. Alderman Hanauer and other members pressed staff and the sponsors on the percentage of project cost the TIF would cover; Hanauer said council practice has often used a 33% TIF cap and expressed concern about a 48.5% assistance level, arguing that excessive TIF shares shift risk to taxpayers.
Corporation Counsel advised the committee on recusal rules under the TIF Act: a voting member who owns property within a TIF district must recuse from debate and vote on that TIF, and disclosure to the city clerk is required. Counsel said the city will implement a disclosure form to coincide with the May 1 statement of economic interest deadline so the city has a record of ownership interests in TIFs.
Alderwoman Purchase — who has assisted the developers and asked to be added as a co‑sponsor — was advised to recuse from any vote if she had an ownership interest in the TIF area. Haxel told the council the project will not move forward without assistance because banks would not finance the full gap.
Councilors asked for standard redevelopment safeguards: the city’s prior policy to disburse TIF funds only after project completion and issuance of occupancy permits was reiterated by the chair as a protection. Developers and council members agreed to include provisions in any redevelopment agreement tying payments to project completion and occupancy.
The committee approved moving the item to the debate calendar for final consideration later, and several members indicated support for the project while urging clearer citywide guidance about typical TIF caps and consistent standards across projects.
Ending: Sponsors were asked to produce a redevelopment agreement with standard completion/occupancy protections and the city clerk/counsel to implement an ownership‑disclosure process for TIFs; the item will return for final council action.
