To further analyze EAV growth within the 5 terminated TIF Districts, we compared the EAV compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for each of the Districts to the EAV CAGRs for each District’s Township.
To calculate Township EAV CAGRs, we compiled a list of all PINs in each of the Townships that met the following criteria:
- PINs that were not a part of any TIF District or special service area; and
- PINs that existed both in the TIF District creation year and the termination year (and, if amended, the amendment year).
We then calculated the CAGR for each Township based on the total EAV of all PINs in the beginning year and the final year of each analysis period.
Our methodology could not determine whether some Township PINs were excluded because of parcel division or consolidation. Because the EAV of these PINs may have grown significantly, we determined that excluding these PINs could result in an artificial reduction in Township EAV growth. To eliminate this potential bias, we included the total EAV of these PINs in the final year of each Township’s analysis period (we were unable to determine the initial EAV of these PINs, so we could not include such data in the total Township initial EAV calculation). Because our calculation is ultimately based on the total Township initial EAV and the total Township final EAV plus final EAV of certain excluded PINs, we derived a CAGR for each Township that is actually the upper limit of Township EAV growth.
The following is a summary of the CAGRs for each TIF District and Township (when more than one TIF District is located in a Township, the same Township may have different CAGRs because of different analysis periods):
|
TIF District |
Analysis Period |
TIF District CAGR |
Township |
Township CAGR Upper Limit |
| Central Loop |
1984-1996 |
17.80% |
Central |
8.11% |
|
1997-2007 |
8.72% |
9.51% |
||
| Chatham Ridge |
1986-2000 |
21.78% |
Lake |
6.94% |
|
2001-2009 |
5.83% |
10.17% |
||
| Chinatown Basin |
1986-1999 |
39.13% |
Central |
7.49% |
|
2000-2009 |
15.07% |
13.18% |
||
| Ryan/Garfield |
1986-2007 |
19.78% |
Lake |
8.32% |
| West Ridge-Peterson |
1986-2009 |
8.82% |
Lake View |
10.80% |
When we compared the TIF District EAV CAGR with the Township EAV CAGR for each analysis period, the average TIF District EAV growth was approximately 17% while the average township EAV growth was approximately 9% – and 5 out of 8 TIF District EAV growth rates exceeded the Township EAV growth rates. The largest difference between TIF District EAV growth and Township EAV growth was between the Chinatown Basin TIF District and Central Township – between 1986 and 1999, TIF District EAV growth was 39.13% and Township EAV growth was 7.49%.
It is also notable that when a TIF District was amended, EAV growth before amendment was consistently higher than both EAV growth after amendment and corresponding Township EAV growth. On the other hand, TIF District EAV growth after amendment was generally lower than or only slightly greater than Township EAV growth over the same period.
Our observations are based on our analysis of these 5 terminated TIF Districts only. As more TIF Districts in the City terminate, additional TIF District data may be useful in assessing the ability of TIF Districts to stimulate economic growth.