Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Reinvestment Area topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Urbana council approves Community Reinvestment Area #2 after debate over abatements
Summary
The Urbana City Council voted 5-2 on Nov. 4 to establish Community Reinvestment Area #2 (Ordinance 4631-25), a geographic designation enabling tax-abatement tools for future development; council members and residents debated whether the CRA’s language could allow large “megaproject” abatements and stressed that any specific abatement agreement would return to Council for separate approval.
The Urbana City Council voted 5-2 on Nov. 4 to adopt Ordinance 4631-25, creating Community Reinvestment Area #2, a geographic designation that makes tax-abatement incentives available to projects within defined boundaries.
Director of Law Mark Feinstein told council that the ordinance establishes only the CRA area and does not itself approve any tax-abatement agreement. Feinstein said any future abatement proposal would come back to Council for separate consideration and that the Tax Incentive Review Committee (TIRC) monitors compliance and can terminate agreements for breach.
The measure prompted concerns from residents and some council members about wide wording that could be used for large projects. Brad Winner, a resident who spoke during public comment, urged Council to vote no, saying a broadly written CRA “produces uneven pressure on local residents and small businesses” and can attract out-of-town investors; he cited a recent abatement in Sydney as an undesirable example. Mr. Feinstein and several council members repeatedly emphasized that the ordinance creates a tool, not an automatic approval process.
Councilmembers raised questions about whether removing “megaproject” language from the ordinance would prevent large projects. Feinstein said changing that language would not necessarily stop large projects from being proposed and that Council retains the authority to approve or reject any specific agreement when it is presented.
Mrs. Audra Bean, serving as Council’s representative on TIRC, said the primary objective is to encourage multi‑family development in underinvested areas while still supporting commercial and industrial growth. Ms. Truelove said she supports the concept of a CRA in general but will scrutinize any agreement that comes before Council.
Roll-call votes on passage were: Mr. Scott, no; Mr. Davis, yes; Ms. Truelove, yes; Mr. Thackery, yes; Mrs. Collier, yes; Mrs. Bean, yes; and Ms. Jumper, no. The ordinance passed 5–2.
There are no tax-abatement agreements tied to the ordinance at this time; any developer requests for abatements will require separate Council action and TIRC review. The City’s law director and council members stressed that those future agreements would be the forum to test and, if necessary, reject projects that do not meet local objectives.
