Public Weighs In on Proposed TIF Changes and Beck's Site

At the July 2nd public hearing, the City of Streator laid out its plans to amend TIF District II and create a new TIF District VI, sparking at times a heated and emotional debate among officials, residents, and business owners.

While the city presented the moves as routine steps to keep economic development tools in place, many in attendance saw the proposal as symbolic of a broader identity crisis in Streator’s approach to growth.

A Tool With a Purpose—Or a Shell Game?

City TIF Attorney Herb Klein opened the meeting by reiterating that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) does not increase a resident’s taxes. “Being in a TIF district does not raise your taxes,” he said. “It’s just where the money goes.” The idea, he explained, is that when a property increases in value due to redevelopment, the tax increment goes into a fund the city can use for public improvements and economic development incentives.

The city is looking to shift parcels—including the former St. Mary’s Church site—out of TIF II and into a newly created TIF VI. That change resets the clock, allowing another 23 years of increment financing.

That didn’t sit well with everyone.

“I don't see how that's fair to the school district,” said one resident, who questioned how long tax dollars would be diverted from schools and essential services. Others pushed back more broadly.

“So it’s been in the TIF already for 19 years. And now it’s going to be under TIF for 42 years?” asked another speaker.

Klein responded by reminding the audience that the school districts and other taxing bodies affected by the TIF have already unanimously approved the changes to the boundaries.

Beck’s and the Battle Over Identity

While the city emphasized that the hearing was technically only about boundary changes and not any one project, it was clear that much of the discussion was driven by a controversial proposal: the construction of a Beck’s gas station on the former church site.

City Manager David Plyman acknowledged the elephant in the room. “We do have a development proposal for what’s called the Beck’s block… They’re proposing to build a truck stop at that location,” he said, before clarifying, “They haven’t fully committed to any project in town.”

One longtime resident expressed what many others were feeling: “I understand the town is hurting economically and it needs revenue, but I don't think we need more convenience stores, more gambling locations. It’s just a petty, slimy way to generate revenue.”

Others argued that the church could serve a greater purpose. “Why not utilize that as a homeless shelter or perhaps a rehabilitation center?” asked another speaker.

Plyman reminded the audience, “We don’t own the church… The Diocese of Peoria sold it to a developer. We don’t get to decide what happens to it.”

“Do Not Tear Down St. Mary’s”

In the most passionate testimony of the night, William Phelan issued a pointed and emotional challenge:

“I ask you—what kind of future are we trying to build here in Streator? What kind of story will we leave behind for those who come after us?”

He continued:

“We say we want growth, we say we want tourism—and Beck’s is neither of those.”

“Beck’s is not a catalyst. It is not an anchor. It is not a magnet for investment or imagination. It will not make people want to live here, visit here, or start a business here.
Beck’s is a gas station. Nothing more.”

Phelan contrasted the gas station plan with the story of The Silver Fox, a former eyesore turned event venue that now attracts tens of thousands of visitors to Streator.

“We didn’t tear it down. We built it back up,” he said.

He closed with a plea:

“Do not tear down St. Mary’s. Do not mistake the ordinary for exceptional. And above all, do not lose sight of the story that we’re writing.”

TIFs and Transparency

For a program that’s been around for decades, many residents still aren’t sure where the money from Streator’s TIF districts is actually going. One resident asked directly, “So I can look at every dollar this TIF money was spent on?”

“You can look at the report,” said Herb Klein, noting that the annual filings are submitted to the Illinois Comptroller and available online and at the city clerk’s office.

But don’t expect a detailed receipt. “It shows expenditures line items like water main extensions… It's not going to tell you every contractor and how much they got,” he admitted.

Jeremy Palm pointed to projects like infrastructure near the high school, sewer installation on Benchmark Industrial Drive, and facade grants downtown as some of TIF II’s biggest successes. “All those facades you’ve seen go downtown, and the infrastructure-wise—Benchmark Industrial Drive and the sewer work. Those are kind of the big highlights.”

Still, when asked why specific areas like Bronson Street—home to a key truck route—weren’t included, the response wasn’t infrastructure-related. “The school districts don’t like residences in the TIF,” Palm explained. “So we try to keep the residential out.”

There was also a legal wrinkle: if a city council member lives in a TIF district, they must abstain from votes on related matters. That, too, played a role in drawing the boundaries.

City staff acknowledged the program's limitations but defended its use. “Although Northpoint isn’t a complete success,” Palm said, “the agreements we made there have allowed for businesses like Runnings to locate.” Klein added, “If we make a deal and a developer doesn’t generate any increment, they don’t get anything back.”

But skepticism remains. As one resident put it, “If we’re going to spend public money, give it to private companies… shouldn’t we at least make sure it’s for something that adds real value to our community?”

The concern wasn’t just about dollars—it was about direction. Residents questioned why the city seemed so quick to incentivize chain gas stations, yet slow to support community-focused alternatives or locally driven initiatives.

With little public input on which projects receive funding, and only broad, after-the-fact summaries available to track spending, many left the hearing still wondering: Who decides what qualifies as progress—and who benefits most when the money moves?

As Phelan warned:

“Future generations will look back—not at what we said—but at what we did.”

And in Streator, what comes next may well depend on how seriously that message is taken.