The stars have aligned on the I-57 TIF district

The City of Mattoon took another step towards creating a TIF district along the I-57/Route 16 corridor. There was a public meeting held on the TIF during the council’s regular meeting on November 21. There were no objections to the TIF at the meeting.

The TIF was originally created to accommodate a proposed convention center just east of Interstate 57. The city was sued by a would be competitor of the convention center on the grounds that the land doesn't meet the requirements for a TIF district.

The TIF district was repealed in August of 2005 on a technicality with the platting of the ground. The lawsuit was dropped with the repeal.

Long before the lawsuit, the City of Mattoon negotiated with state legislatures to rewrite the TIF law to accommodate the land. The law states: "The area, prior to its designation, is subject to: (i.) chronic flooding that adversely impacts on real property in the area as certified by a registered professional engineer or appropriate regulatory agency or (ii.) surface water which discharges from all or a part of such area and contributes to flooding within the same watershed where the redevelopment project provides for facilities or improvements that contribute to the alleviation of all or part of such flooding."

Basically, it says if it floods, it qualifies. It was this provision that the City was claiming the land falls under when qualifying for the TIF. But they really didn’t produce enough evidence to make this claim.

This time around, they have done their homework and produced an engineering report almost one inch thick. “It would have been hard to qualify the land (for chronic flooding) based on the first report,” is what Public Works Director David Wortman said, “not with this one.”

The other factor working in the City’s favor this time around is the plaintiff of the previous lawsuit seems to be selling his interest in the competing motels near the proposed site. Two of the three motels have been sold and it appears the sale of the third may be in the works.

I still think the City has had worked the TIF laws to develop an area that wasn’t for what the TIF law was created. But they seem to have met the new requirements in a way that will hold up in court. And the biggest opponent seems to be getting out of the way.
It seems the stars have aligned on the I-57 TIF district. Estimates say we will have a new convention center by 2008.

County should study zoning for other solutions

After two years of discussion, Coles County finally has a Comprehensive Plan. The plan was unanimously approved last Tuesday after an amendment was made to remove the recommendation of addressing countywide zoning.

For the record, the plan did not recommend zoning, only that the issue is addressed. “There has been considerable discussion about county zoning, both “pro” and “con”. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the Coles County Board address the issue of county zoning.” is the exact text from the draft version of the plan.

Many see this as a win for the landowners. After all, who wants more restrictions on what you can or cannot do with your own land? I agree, traditional zoning puts to many restrictions on possible land uses.

This is why I suggested “Performance Zoning” earlier this year. My suggestion made it into the Comprehensive Plan, but I think since it contained the “z” word, it was not seriously considered by the County Board.

My idea was to find a compromise where land owners would still be able to do as they wish with their properties, but not put undo hardship on the rest of the taxpayers in the County. After all, if someone builds a 100-lot subdivision at the end of a 2-mile gravel road, who pays to fix the road in 5 years when the increased traffic tears it up. And better yet, who is going to want to move to that subdivision if the adjacent owner decides to build 500 cow dairy farm?

There are three outcomes to this scenario. First, without any controls, you end up with unsellable lots, bad roads, and incompatible neighbors. With traditional zoning, you would have neither the business nor the subdivision, because the land would be zoned “agricultural” since the infrastructure is not there for either. But performance zoning would allow for the sale of lots up to the capacity of the road. And adjacent ground would be able to develop as they please as long as odor and noise standards are met at the limits of their property.

It is a shame the plan was amended to take out the recommendation to study zoning. The county could be missing out on solutions that satisfy everyone’s wishes. Everyone wants to be able to do what they want with their property, but do you trust your neighbor to do what you want with theirs?

Once again, I am not advocating countywide zoning. But by not addressing it at all, the County is turning a blind eye to possible problems in the future. Address the issue, lay out the pro and cons, study the alternatives and then come to a conclusion. I hope this decision doesn’t come back to haunt us.

More debate at the meetings

Past Mattoon Councils have abused consent agendas by using them to shorten meetings instead of streamlining mundane, routine items that are repeated in almost every meeting. When this was brought to the current councils attention, they approved a new meeting format correcting the misuse of consent agendas.

Now the council faces another possible change in the meeting format. Maybe not a change as much as bringing more discussion to the meetings. When the format was first changed, there were some issues debated and discussed on the floor during the meeting.

Now, the agenda is read and voted on without discussion. It is often joked about breaking time records for the meetings. The shortest City Council meeting has been just over four minutes. On average, they seem to last about 20 minutes. Add the 30 minute caucus session and the City Council is doing all of the City’s business in under 2 hours per month.

Of course they are working beyond the meetings, but since any two members cannot discuss City business outside of a public meeting, it can only be assumed one member is fully aware of the details of the item.

Why can’t two Council members discuss City business outside of an open meeting? Because it only take three members to conduct a meeting, and two votes would equal a majority in that case. And a majority cannot discuss business without a public meeting.

The Council has been called on this a few times in the past. Most recently when Chapin Rose met with the City on FutureGen and the Mayor and one councilman was in attendance. Even though the public was welcome to this meeting, it was not properly announced and advertised. It was not an official public meeting.

These instances and the inability to bounce ideas of other members prompted Commissioner Randy Ervin to propose more discussion during the City’s regular meeting. This change should greatly increase the agendas exposure to the public before voted on. The information provided on the agenda is scant at best.

I would suggest eliminating the caucus session before the meeting. The discussion that takes place in this meeting should be done on the floor during the regular City Council meeting.

It is good that the Council is working on improving its track record with the open meetings act. And the added discussion in the meetings will give the public a better chance to inform themselves on issues facing the City. I look forward to future meetings to see how things evolve.

Cows, corn, milk and ethanol

While FutureGen is getting the bulk of the attention in proposed industry in Coles County, there are other large industries proposed as well. This includes an ethanol plant to be constructed at the former Trailmobile site.

The proposed site has raised some questions of safety and quality of life issues that could be affected by the plant. Processing grain has a reputation of being a smelly business. Anyone who has ever driven through Decatur can attest to that.

Last week, City of Charleston officials visited a nearby ethanol plant in Palestine, Illinois in hopes to ease concerns of the odors created from the process. Their trip seemed to ease their concerns. Odors were only noticeable when closer than 50 yards from the plant. And were described as smelling a little like baking bread.

Residents near some older plants have complained of odors described as a combination of rubbing alcohol and burning corn. But EPA regulations now require thermal oxidizers that essentially burn up emissions before releasing them into the atmosphere.

Another option for reducing the odor would be to find a use for the wet byproduct. A lot of the odor is created when the grain byproduct is dried for use as cattle feed. It is not cost effective to transport the feed wet, unless the route is fairly short.

A lot of ethanol plants attract dairy farms to the area as dairy cows feed on the ethanol grain byproduct. The two industries work well together as the methane produced from the dairy farm can be captured and used to power the ethanol plant. The manure is then used for fertilizer on the cornfields that produce the grain for the ethanol plant. It is one big cycle.

Establishing a dairy farm in rural Coles County should not be to difficult since Coles County doesn’t have, and is opposed to countywide zoning. Once EPA requirements are met, bring in the cows. This could create anywhere from 20 to 100 more jobs in the county.

Charleston is one step closer to creating 40 new jobs. Some of the fears from the proposed ethanol plant have been eased. Secondary industry from the plant could create dozens more jobs. The Coles County Comprehensive Plan is tailor made for attracting industries that go hand in hand with the plant. It’s time to see some new jobs coming to the area.