SE Illinois News

An Illinois House bill amendment that would have extended a tax increment financing (TIF) to a Charleston district received an unfavorable recommendation to the House floor during a recent Executive Committee meeting.

House Rep. Chris Miller (R-Oakland), House Bill 1743's chief sponsor, said the bill would extend the current TIF district in Charleston for another 12 years. He initially said it was for 47 years, but corrected himself during debate.

House Rep. Grant Wehrli (R-Naperville) asked if property taxes had gone up or down in the district over the last 10 years and asked why the economy in Charleston wasn't doing well. Miller couldn't answer Wehrli's questions.

"I urge a no vote on this," Wehrli said. "I will be voting no on this."

House Rep. Kathleen Willis (D-Addison) questioned if Miller supported TIF districts for temporary extensions.

"You probably know the answer to that question," Miller said.

Willis said she didn't understand why Miller would expect everyone else to support this move if he didn't support others.

"You’re asking us to support a TIF in your district when you wouldn’t support the ones in all of our districts?" Willis said. "I didn’t look up your voting record, but I’m just assuming if you say you don’t recall how you voted you likely voted no."

When Miller initially said the bill was to extend the TIF for 47 years, Willis was surprised.

"That is ridiculous," Willis said. "At these times you want to stop a flow of money? I recommend everyone to vote no on this extension."

Miller then said he was wrong and the TIF was actually for 12 years.

"You're stopping that money from coming in," Willis said. "No one should be getting even 12 years. Maybe temporary, but not 12 years."

House Rep. Tim Butler (R-Springfield), was one only a handful who agreed with the bill.

"This is a unique ask," Butler said. "I'm not a fan of most of the TIFs in Springfield — and we have a lot of them. But I know some of them are good. I recommend a yes vote for this because I think this one does some good."

The bill was not favorable recommended, as it received only five Yes votes, six No votes and two voted Present.