Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tif Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions $3 million TIF request for 3510 West Elm Street rehabilitation
Summary
Developers said the 3510 West Elm Street rehab would raise assessed value from $670,000 to $1.7 million but still generate little TIF increment; several aldermen said a $3 million area‑wide TIF grant is excessive and would set a bad precedent. No formal vote was taken.
Developer representatives asked the city council on Dec. 15 to consider tax‑increment financing (TIF) assistance for a rehabilitation at 3510 West Elm Street, but multiple aldermen expressed strong reservations about the size and form of the request.
For the record, Christopher Stark, a TIF consultant with Johnson Research Group, told the council the parcel’s assessment history makes the project a difficult fit for typical TIF structures. "The current value of the property is $670,000 and the post rehab value would be $1,700,000," Stark said, adding that because the district’s base equalized assessed value was set when a bank occupied the site, the incremental tax benefit for the project would be minimal: "it will basically generate like an $11,000 a year as it currently stands."
The developer asked for an area‑wide, upfront TIF grant — a request described during the meeting as roughly $3,000,000. Council members pressed for alternatives and questioned whether the developer had explored options before returning to request public funds. "I'm disappointed in the request," Alderman Miller said. "On the original presentation ... you said you would do the project without asking for money." Miller said he would not support the TIF request in its current form.
Alderman Bassi raised the project’s asset base and precedent concerns, noting the applicant’s broader portfolio and the current TIF district timeline. "I think it would be inappropriate to give a $3,000,000 TIF and it would set a bad precedent for future city projects and developers," she said. Several other council members echoed those worries and indicated reluctance to approve a large, area‑wide grant.
Stark outlined possible alternatives the consultant and developer have discussed, including creating a new, narrower TIF district or re‑capturing increment through a project‑level (de‑TIF/re‑TIF) approach that would draw only on value generated by this site rather than an area‑wide formula. He said the project’s economics made private equity participation difficult without some form of assistance.
No formal motion or vote to grant TIF assistance was taken during the meeting. The developer thanked the council for its time and indicated willingness to work with staff on alternate structures. The item remains under review; staff and the developer discussed further modeling and district options but did not commit the council to a funding decision.
