## Facts

- A municipality adopted ordinances designating an 85-acre vacant tract (seven parcels, two owners) as a tax increment financing (TIF) redevelopment project area under the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act.
- Initial consultant work indicated the tract did not qualify; a later consultant report concluded it qualified based on asserted statutory factors including diversity of ownership, flooding, obsolete platting, and tax delinquencies.
- The area had recent and concrete private development interest, including contacts from developers and development proposals.
- The TIF designation would freeze the tax base for overlapping taxing bodies and divert incremental property tax revenues to a redevelopment fund, affecting a local school district’s revenues.
- The school district challenged the ordinances, asserting the tract did not satisfy statutory eligibility requirements for a vacant redevelopment project area and that redevelopment would occur without TIF assistance.

## Issues

1. Whether the municipality’s findings that the vacant tract satisfied the TIF Act’s redevelopment project area eligibility requirements were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the municipality’s “but-for” finding—redevelopment would not reasonably be anticipated without TIF—was supported by the record.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the school district and invalidated the TIF ordinances.
- The court held the municipality’s eligibility/blight findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the cited factors did not meaningfully hinder development under actual conditions.
- The court held the “but-for” finding was unsupported given significant evidence of market-driven, imminent private development without TIF.
- Summary judgment was proper because the material facts concerning the property’s condition and market interest were largely undisputed and statutory compliance could be decided as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal TIF findings are reviewable; courts may set aside a redevelopment designation when required statutory findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- For a vacant area, statutory factors such as diversity of ownership, flooding, obsolete platting, and tax delinquencies must be shown as real conditions that materially impede private development, not merely technical labels.
- “Diversity of ownership” requires evidence that ownership patterns create a serious assemblage constraint; limited ownership with cooperative negotiations will not satisfy the factor.
- Flooding must be a present, significant condition relevant to development; historical floodplain mapping without current flooding problems is insufficient.
- “Obsolete platting” requires a showing that plat configuration substantially hinders development; ordinary plat adjustments typical in development do not establish the factor.
- The TIF Act’s “but-for” requirement is substantive; concrete evidence that private redevelopment is reasonably expected to occur without TIF defeats the required finding.
- TIF may not be used as a general development subsidy when statutory conditions targeted at disinvestment are not met.

## Conclusion

The court upheld invalidation of a vacant-area TIF designation because the municipality’s asserted statutory factors did not materially impede development and the record showed private redevelopment was reasonably expected without TIF, making the required findings contrary to the evidence.


Bd. of Educ. of Pleasantdale Sch. Dist. No. 107 v. Vill. of Burr Ridge, 341 Ill. App. 3d 1004, 793 N.E.2d 856 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2003)