Marshall Council Funds $24,500 Business District Feasibility Study

Marshall City Council | October 26, 2026

Article Summary: The Marshall City Council on Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, approved $24,500 for a feasibility study for a business district, an Illinois financing tool that would levy an additional sales tax inside a defined boundary. The packet contains an October 2026 briefing deck laying out the concept, but no vendor, scope document or contract for the study itself.

Business District Feasibility Study Key Points:

• The council approved the $24,500 study unanimously among members present, on a motion by Green seconded by King, with no recorded discussion.
• A briefing in the packet describes Illinois’ Business District Development and Redevelopment Law, under which a municipality may levy an added sales tax in 0.25% increments up to 1.00%, for no more than 23 years.
• The briefing’s local case rests on two figures: “21,000+ motorists/day” on Interstate 70 at the north end of town and a “$195M+ annual gap” between reported consumer demand and available retail supply in the trade area.
• The briefing identifies three legal tests the city would have to meet — a contiguous area, direct and substantial benefit to included parcels, and a blighted-area determination by ordinance.

MARSHALL — The Marshall City Council on Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, approved $24,500 for a feasibility study for a business district, the first money the city has put behind a proposal to use sales tax collected along the Interstate 70 corridor and downtown to pay for improvements in those same areas.

Green moved approval and King seconded. As with every item on the Oct. 26 agenda, the minutes record the motion carrying on a roll call in which “all council members present voted for.” Swalls was the only absence. The minutes record no discussion.

The council’s own paperwork says little more than that. The agenda and minutes both describe the item only as “a feasibility study for business district in the amount of $24,500.00.” No vendor, consultant, scope of work, engagement letter or contract for the study appears anywhere in the packet. The only other place the figure appears is a handwritten note — “Cost $24,500.00” — on the cover page of a presentation carrying both the City of Marshall seal and the logo of the Marshall Area Chamber of Commerce, headed “Business, Community, and Economic Development, October 2026, Marshall, IL.”

What the Briefing Says a District Would Be

What the packet does contain is a slide deck titled “A Business District for Marshall, Illinois,” subtitled “Exploring an investment strategy that connects the interstate corridor to downtown.” It is dated October 2026, identifies itself as a “Briefing for Marshall Economic Development Committee,” and carries the footer “Discussion draft” on every page along with the caution that it was “Prepared as an exploratory policy discussion—not a legal or revenue determination.”

The deck is explicit that it is using the term in its statutory sense. A business district under Illinois’ Business District Development and Redevelopment Law is “a municipal tool to plan and finance eligible development or redevelopment in a defined area,” and “is not simply a marketing district or a business association.” Its stated purpose is to assure development or redevelopment opportunities “that attract sound and stable business and commercial growth to eradicate blighting conditions.” The incentive, the deck says, “is based on an additional Sales Tax levied within the boundary.”

Three conditions are set out under the heading “The legal gates: what Marshall must prove.” Parcels “must be connected in the legally required sense,” and the proposed corridor “cannot be drawn as disconnected islands.” Only parcels “directly and substantially benefited by the proposed district plan” may be included. And for the sales-tax authority, “the municipality must determine by ordinance that the district is a blighted area under the statute.” The slide closes with a line that a qualified planning and legal team “will map parcels and evaluate statutory conditions before public promises are made.”

On the money, the deck states that the tax may be levied in 0.25% increments up to a maximum of 1.00%; that it may run for no more than 23 years; and that voter approval “is NOT required under the state guidance, but municipal action and statutory process are required.” Retailers’ and Service Occupation Taxes would be collected and enforced by the Illinois Department of Revenue and the money distributed to municipalities, while Hotel Operators’ Occupation Taxes would be collected and enforced by the municipality. “All of the money should be deposited into a Business District Tax Allocation Fund.”

As an illustration only, the deck puts 0.25% at $2.50 per $1,000 of taxable sales and 1.00% at $10 per $1,000. It carries two cautions alongside: that not every sale is taxed, with exemptions including qualifying groceries, drugs and medical appliances, state-titled or registered items and other state-tax-exempt sales; and that “Revenue is not guaranteed,” depending on eligible taxable sales inside the exact boundary, consumer behavior, exemptions, administrative factors and economic conditions.

The Corridor-to-Downtown Case

The local argument rests on traffic and retail leakage. The deck cites “21,000+ motorists/day” on I-70 through the north end of town and a “$195M+ annual gap” between reported consumer demand and available retail supply in the trade area. Neither figure carries a source citation on the pages in the packet, although a sidebar on the title slide states that sources and statutory references appear throughout.

The geography the deck floats is a three-step chain: “Interstate / North Gateway,” then a “Route 1 / Route 40 connection,” then “Downtown / Courthouse Square.” It asks readers to “Think of the district as a connected investment strategy—not just an interstate retail strip,” and lists project themes to test in a plan: gateway identity and wayfinding, access and lighting and sidewalks and utilities and drainage, priority redevelopment sites and vacant or underutilized properties “if they meet the legal criteria,” and downtown-facing improvements “that encourage visitors to stay, shop and return.”

Eligible project costs are described broadly — planning and professional work including studies, surveys, engineering and legal services; site readiness including property assembly, clearance, demolition and grading; public infrastructure; building renovation and rehabilitation; certain new construction; and certain financing and relocation costs.

The deck states on its own local-case slide that the I-70 corridor and downtown districts “are considered ‘blighted'” and that “There is a definite need for improvements and infrastructure.” It also anticipates the questions residents will ask, answering that a district tax would potentially raise the cost of taxable purchases made inside it, but — in the deck’s words — “we believe this will affect the interstate travelers in a much bigger way than our residents.”

A comparison table sets the business district against a tax increment financing district, a special service area, grants and capital funding, and an enterprise zone, concluding that a business district “is one option—not the only tool for corridor and downtown reinvestment. However, a business district is the best option for a self-sustaining tool managed completely by the City.”

Nothing in the record states what relationship the Marshall Economic Development Committee bears to the City Council, what the $24,500 buys, or when a district plan or blighted-area ordinance might come before the council.