Builders and city officials agree there has to be a better way to encourage
development in Springfield. The sticking point has always been deciding who
picks up the tab for a better looking city and quality roads.
Last week, Mayor Tim Davlin’s transition committee presented their take on the topic inside their wide-ranging report. They suggested making things easier for developers by approving their projects faster and revisiting a 1998 developer’s agreement with the city, which the report says hasn’t fulfilled expectations.
In 1998, after years of unwieldy west side growth, Springfield developers butted heads with the city over who should pay for necessary road construction and improvements. The city was not only tired of providing infrastructure for developers at taxpayers’ expense, it was also running out of cash. Developers insisted that, because their projects economically benefit the city, it was the city’s responsibility to provide the infrastructure. Besides, they claimed, if they had to shoulder the costs themselves, they’d have no choice but to pass the expense on to customers. It sounded like some or all of Springfield’s residents would end up paying, no matter what happened.
Still, busy new subdivisions and commercial properties were sprouting up along shoulderless, two-lane roads. Then-mayor Karen Hasara tried to work out a cost-sharing agreement with developers. She set up meetings and, in February 1998, wanted a compromise in 30 days–some developers were threatening to sue the city because the dispute was delaying their projects. The 30 days turned into half a year. By November of 1998, when the City Council finally put the agreement into ordinance form, hardly anyone was happy.
“Not surprisingly, neither the developers nor the city was 100 percent pleased with the results,” says Mike Boer, president of the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce. Boer helped mediate between the city and the developers during the 1998 negotiations. “The two sides reached an impasse. We all felt that it would be appropriate, if not necessary, to come back and re-look it at some point. No one thought this was going to be the way forever.”
In other words, says a developer in on those discussions, “We decided to wait for a new administration. That’s pretty much what happened.”
Aldermen Irv Smith and Bruce Strom, who were both in on the 1998 talks, dispute that the final agreement was unsuccessful. They suspect the claim is due to a slowdown in development and pressure by developers on Davlin’s administration. “The reason development has slowed is not because of the agreement,” says Ward 8’s Smith. “It’s because of the economy.”
Under the 1998 agreement, the city splits costs with developers whose projects either border roads that require improving or land where new roads are needed.
“But what about the subdivision that’s behind me but needs my road?” asks Joe Metzger. Metzger, a retired Springfield developer, represented builders during the 1998 negotiations.
Charging only developers whose property would be next to roads amounted to an unfair, hidden “impact fee,” Metzger says. If the agreement included an actual impact fee, state statutes dictate how to calculate it. Impact fees are determined by studies that figure out which developments use which roads and then divide costs for those roads accordingly. Metzger favors the use of such fees.
But Ward 10’s Strom says impact fees involve a lengthy public process (including a chance for developers to protest the division of costs) that would only add further delays. “The agreement we reached isn’t perfect,” he says, “but it does a reasonable job of assessing property owners most likely to benefit from new and improved roads.” Strom and others on the city’s side add that there just isn’t much government money available for roads, and developers simply must chip in one way or another.
Smith says he’s in favor of taking another look at the developer’s agreement, but isn’t sure it can be improved. “We worked on that agreement on and off for four or five years. Nobody was happy with it. I wasn’t happy with it. Developer’s weren’t happy with it. That means it might be all right.”
One thing the city doesn’t need is a more lengthy approval process, says Phil Spengler, another Springfield developer at the 1998 discussions and president of the Capital Area Development Association. Spengler, whose work takes him all over the state as well as across state lines, says a typical large-scale development takes 90 to 120 days to get approved in Springfield, mostly because of the way city meetings are scheduled. In cities such as Urbana and Champaign, Spengler says, the same projects only take 30 to 60 days to get approved. Even though they have stricter building codes, planning and zoning meetings take place twice as often, he says. “You don’t have to wait an entire month for each decision.”
Cutting down the approval time for developers is what Davlin’s transition committee has in mind. In its 71-page report, the committee makes only one recommendation to hire a specific consultant. And it’s for the sake of helping developers break ground earlier.
Whether this will ease the tension between the city and developers or make
room for impact studies remains to be seen. Smith is skeptical and suspects
Davlin’s transition committee has a hidden agenda: to raise taxes to take the
burden off of developers. “I’m certain that’s what they’re tyring to get done,”
he says. “They’re going to find me hard to deal with. I’ll tell you that.”
This article appears in Jul 31 – Aug 6, 2003.
