Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the defendant’s creation of a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district under the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act. The circuit court entered summary judgment for the defendant and plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the defendant did not satisfy the but-for test under the TIF Act, the parcels did not meet the TIF Act’s contiguity and substantial benefit requirements, that there were insufficient eligibility factors to designate the TIF district as a conservation area, and that the defendant impermissibly extended parcels in one TIF district by transferring them to another district. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the circuit court did not err in finding that there were substantial improvements for all parcels, that defendant made sufficient findings related to the relevant eligibility factors to properly designate the area as a conservation area, and that there was nothing in the Act that prohibited the defendant from placing a parcel in a TIF district after it was removed from another district. (PETERSON and ANDERSON, concurring)
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act