C-Street TIF, short-term rentals and noise subjects of new council bills

The buyout of a Commercial Street funding mechanism, density limitations on short-term rentals and a new approach to curb vehicle noise were all introduced in a four-plus-hour session last night of Springfield City Council. 

The trio of measures were all first readings, meaning they were introduced for discussion and public feedback prior to a council vote. For each of the three measures, votes are scheduled for the next council meeting on Nov. 18. 

C-Street TIF 
An ordinance introduced last night would amend the Commercial Street tax increment financing, or TIF, redevelopment plan by removing properties in the 17-parcel, 7.5-acre Commercial-Pacific Street Redevelopment Area, headed by developer Titus Williams. 

The C-Street TIF, established in 2008, captures payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs, and economic activity taxes, or EATs, in the district. Since its establishment, it has directed $2.2 million into a special allocation fund and has financed such projects as streetscapes, a facade loan program, street and alleyway improvements, directional signage, public parking lots, public art and gateways to the district, as well as paying for a schematic design for Footbridge Plaza at the southern end of the soon-to-be-restored Jefferson Avenue Footbridge, according to the report to council. 

The Commercial-Pacific plan, approved by council in April, aims to redevelop four areas with multifamily residential and commercial projects.  

Williams, through the Commercial-Pacific Street Redevelopment Corp., has agreed to a buyout of the remaining TIF PILOTs in the amount of $212,506, and the city is in possession of the funds, pending approval of the council bill, according to the council report. EATs are not going to be bought out under the plan because the properties have not generated sales taxes since the TIF was established. 

The city discourages Chapter 353 partial real property tax abatement, which the redevelopment project intends to use, within approved TIFs, according to the explanation of the bill provided by city staff. 

Williams spoke at the meeting to give an update on the first of four areas to be developed, called the Pacific South Project Area, where 72 townhouse dwelling units are being built. The area is on East Pacific Street between North Jefferson and North Benton avenues. 

Williams said it took a long time to get construction documents done after the April approval by council, and now a building demolition permit has been applied for and environmental remediation is underway. 

“Once we have that completed, we should be able to start moving some dirt there and start the construction,” he said. 

He added that the planned development process caught him off guard because of its increased cost from bids obtained before the planned development. 

“Because of that we’re going through the process of value engineering the Pacific South piece,” he said. 

C-Street business owner and resident Christine Schilling spoke up at the meeting to object to the buyout. 

“Two hundred thousand dollars is paltry – it’s kind of like wampum for Manhattan Island,” she said. “This is not fair compensation for the removal of these properties from our TIF. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.” 

The sum was arrived at, according to developer representative Richard Walters of law firm Spencer Fane LLP, by looking at the assessed value of the properties in 2023 – approximately $559,000 – and multiplying that by the average of the tax levy that has been imposed over the last seven years, equaling a little over $30,000. That sum was multiplied by the seven years remaining on the TIF, Walters said. 

Schilling said the payment is not fair because the property has not been doing anything for the past eight years – something she called a red flag. And once the footbridge is constructed, the values of properties will increase. 

“I feel like the promises we’ve been given about what would happen, including the ability to start Pacific South, have all been empty. Nothing has happened to these properties since he was given permission to fix them,” she said. 

Business and property owner Joseph Gidman said he was in favor of the proposal. 

“I’m ready to see something happen,” he said.  

Gidman asked that council make certain Williams follow through, and that if things don’t happen in a certain time frame the money go back to the TIF. 

Short-term rentals proposal 
Another proposed amendment to an existing city ordinance would prohibit a Type 2 short-term rental dwelling within 500 feet of another. The proposed change would replace a requirement limiting density to one Type 2 STR per eight houses on a block, including both sides of the street, according to an explanation of the bill made to council. 

A Type 2 STR is located within a residential zone, and the owner does not reside on the premises. Type 1 STRs are also in a residential neighborhood but serve as the primary residence of the owner. 

The measure would require an annual business license for both Type 2 and Type 1 STRs, and it would prohibit promotion of an unlicensed STR. Type 2 STRs may not be rented out for receptions, weddings or parties on the property under the proposed ordinance. 

Currently, those applying for a license to run an STR must get the signatures of 55% of owners of properties within 500 feet to show that the neighbors approve of the use of the property for STR purposes. Under current code, applicants who do not reach that threshold may appeal to council for permission to operate. 

Under the proposed ordinance, a new threshold would allow approval if fewer than two or 30% of adjacent property owners – whichever is greater – submit a letter of objection. 

Type 3 STRs – that is, those that are not in a single-family or townhouse residential zoning district but often are located in apartment buildings – would remain limited to one per building. 

The measure would require that hosting platforms, like Vrbo or Airbnb, collect and remit city taxes on behalf of the STR owner. Platforms would be required to disclose to the city every short-term rental listing in Springfield and the names of people responsible for the listing, plus the length of stay and price for each listing. Bookings would not be allowed for unlicensed STRs, the ordinance states. 

Persons found guilty of violations would be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a jail term of up to 180 days, according to the ordinance, which would not allowed suspended imposition of the sentence by a court. Each day a violation continues would be deemed a separate offense. 

Noise ordinance 
A proposed amendment to a city ordinance would allow witnesses to vehicle noise to provide evidence that would result in a fine for a vehicle owner. 

City Attorney Jordan Paul introduced the measure by noting it would not entirely solve the issue of vehicle noise disturbances. 

“I want to be really clear from the outset – this is not a silver bullet,” he said. “This is just an additional tool to supplement your existing noise ordinances.” 

Paul said that currently, both the vehicle and the operator must be identified for a case to be proven. 

“The idea behind this ordinance is to create an additional tool, which would be an alternative civil framework in the event that someone’s able to identify a vehicle in the process of violating the noise ordinance, but you maybe can’t identify who the operator is,” he said. 

The proposed ordinance would create what Paul called a rebuttable presumption that the owner of record is the vehicle operator, and the civil penalty of $100 could be assessed to that person. A person accused of a violation would be able to pay the $100 fine or request an administrative hearing to contest it. 

Springfield Police Department Chief Paul Williams said everyone has heard complaints about noisy vehicles throughout the city. The proposal would work by putting the registered owner on notice of a vehicle in violation of a noise ordinance. 

He added that some residents are very good at taking photographs or videos of instances that the department can then review. 

“The hope would be through those potential penalties that folks would not violate the actual noise ordinance that this comes from,” he said. 

Williams said there has to be evidence provided or the reporter of the violation has to serve as a witness, so a complaint cannot be presented anonymously. The matter would go through the Police Department and the city’s legal department and handled by a letter to the vehicle owner. 

There was no discussion of an escalating fine structure for repeat offenders, Paul said.