Sugar Grove Joint Review Board reaches no conclusion on proposed TIF district
The Sugar Grove Joint Review Board, tasked with reviewing a controversial proposed TIF district, ended its meeting on Wednesday in a stalemate after many board members declined to vote one way or another on the issue.
The TIF district proposal will now move on to the Sugar Grove Village Board without a recommendation either for or against the plan from the Joint Review Board.
The proposed tax increment financing, or TIF, district, which would last 23 years, would help bring a 760-acre mixed-use development called The Grove to the intersection of Interstate 88 and Route 47 by reinvesting tax dollars into public infrastructure, like water and sewer lines, that is needed to support the new development, village of Sugar Grove officials said at the meeting.
Around 20 residents of Sugar Grove and Blackberry Township spoke against the proposed TIF district at Wednesday’s meeting.
While residents’ comments were varied, including concerns about the destruction of natural lands and questions about the site’s eligibility for TIF district designation, nearly every resident who opposed the project said the same thing: Crown Community Development, which proposed the project, should not get financial assistance because it can pay for the project itself without burdening taxpayers.
Sugar Grove Village President Jennifer Konen said the project is not possible without the TIF district because, without it, the village cannot afford to put in the infrastructure needed to support the development. If the village made Crown pay for the needed public infrastructure improvements, then the company would lose money on the project overall, she said.
According to the proposed TIF district budget, the district during its 23-year duration may generate as much as $350 million to invest in the project, with $220 million budgeted for public utility projects and $110 million for site preparation.
The Sugar Grove Joint Review Board brings together representatives from a number of different taxing bodies, such as townships, school districts, fire districts and more, that may be impacted by a proposed TIF district to discuss the proposal and make a recommendation to the Sugar Grove Village Board.
TIF districts are allowed under state law to encourage the redevelopment of areas where development would otherwise not be feasible.
When growth takes place in a TIF district, the extra taxes that come from that growth are placed into a special fund instead of being distributed among all taxing bodies during the district’s duration. The money in that special fund can then be used by a local government to pay costs associated with the development within the TIF district, such as creating or improving public infrastructure.
However, state law has very specific requirements for when and where a TIF district is allowed to be created, and Sugar Grove Joint Review Board members could not decide whether the project proposed by Crown Community Development met those state requirements.
Voting in favor of the TIF district proposal were Sugar Grove Village President Jennifer Konen, Waubonsee Community College Vice President of Finance John Bryant and Susan Smith, who was chosen by the board to be a representative from the public.
Voting against the TIF district proposal were Kane County Supervisor of Assessments Mark Armstrong, Sugar Grove Fire District Chief Brendan Moran and Blackberry Township Supervisor Esther Steel.
The other six board members — Sugar Grove Township Supervisor Tom Rowe, Elburn-Countryside Fire District Chief Michael Huneke, Kaneland School District 302 Superintendent Todd Leden, Sugar Grove Library District Director Genna Mickey, Town and Country Library District Director Megan Shumaker and Sugar Grove Park District Executive Director Scott Nadeau voted “present,” basically declining to vote for or against the proposed TIF district.
The TIF district proposal now goes to the Sugar Grove Village Board for approval. If the proposal had been rejected by the Joint Review Board, it would have taken a supermajority to pass the Village Board; however, since the Joint Review Board could not reach an agreement on whether or not to recommend the TIF district proposal, the plan needs only a simple majority to pass the Village Board.
Carolyn Anderson, who lives near the proposed development and is a longtime advocate against the project, said the result Wednesday was disappointing but better than an overall yes vote. She hopes that Sugar Grove trustees will see the discussion that took place at the Joint Review Board meeting and vote against the proposal when it goes before them, she said.
The Sugar Grove Village Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed TIF district at 6 p.m. June 18 at Waubonsee Community College in Sugar Grove. After that, the TIF district is expected to go before the Village Board for discussion and a possible vote in August, officials said at the Joint Review Board meeting.
Armstrong, Moran and Steel, who voted against recommending the TIF district, took issue with a study by economic development consulting firm SB Friedman, which was presented at the Wednesday meeting by firm partner Geoffrey Dickinson.
Dickinson said his firm’s study shows that the proposed TIF district meets state requirements in part because the project site can be categorized as “blighted” land. This designation applies to the land, Dickinson argued, because water running off of the land contributes to flooding in the Blackberry Creek watershed.
However, the three opposed to the TIF district proposal said they disagreed over the blighted land designation. Armstrong asked Dickinson if the Blackberry watershed actually flooded and, if it did, how much water runoff from the land contributed to that flooding, but Dickinson declined to answer.
The proposed development site is also, at least in part, currently being used as commercial farmland, according to Armstrong’s tax records. He said this disqualifies the land for TIF district designation under state law, but Sugar Grove legal council Kathleen Field Orr said that the land would be subdivided, which would make the new plots “vacant land” under the law, removing that requirement.
Steel said she was not comfortable in setting a precedent of calling farmland “blighted.” Residents who spoke at the meeting against the proposed TIF district agreed with Steel and said the land is naturally managing stormwater on its own but that development would disturb that process.
Early site plans for The Grove posted on the development’s website show nearly 400 acres of residential development, over 120 acres of commercial development and around 240 acres for a business park. The website also says the development may one day hold as many as 1,500 residential units in a combination of single-family, townhouse, duplexes and multi-family homes.
Steel, along with residents speaking during public comment, said these areas would use public services like the police and fire departments, but during the duration of the TIF district would not contribute new tax dollars created by the development to their upkeep, which would put more pressure on other taxpayers to support these services.
Residents who spoke at the meeting were also concerned about the development’s impact on traffic, water and the natural environment of the area. Some nearby residents who live in unincorporated Blackberry Township said they were concerned that they would not have a voice if problems arose from the project because they live outside of Sugar Grove’s boundaries.
A similar project proposed for the site by Crown Community Development in 2018 was shot down by Sugar Grove after significant community pushback.
