Kaneland School District considers legal action against Sugar Grove over development project's TIF district
In the latest backlash to Crown Community Development's 760-acre mixed-use project called The Grove, Kaneland is opposing the development on the grounds that it is being built in a tax increment financing, or TIF, district will limit property tax revenue to the school district.
In a TIF district, property taxes from the new development do not go to taxing bodies as they typically do. Rather, the extra or 'increment' taxes created by the development of the property go into a special fund used to pay for costs related to improving the area. It's meant to serve as an economic development incentive.
According to an original proposal, 10% of the TIF funds were to go to the village for any improvements it needs to make in the area, but in August, Sugar Grove Village President Jennifer Konen said that Crown had agreed to give another 10% of the funds to be distributed among the other taxing bodies, which could amount to $37 million over the TIF district's 23-year lifespan, according to past reporting. Kaneland is expected to get $26 million of those funds. The original agreement also included payments from TIF district funds to offset the cost of schooling for students living in TIF-supported housing.
Kaneland began negotiations with Sugar Grove, the entity that would be disbursing the TIF funds, to create an intergovernmental agreement about the TIF district, according to documents from the school board's Jan. 13 meeting. A final draft of the agreement was presented to the school board in January. It included the stipulation about an additional 10% of TIF funds being allocated to taxing bodies, among other provisions.
Now, not satisfied with the terms of the proposed intergovernmental agreement, the school district is considering a new approach: taking legal action against Sugar Grove over the TIF district.
'We're looking at the … both short-term and long-term health of our district,' Kaneland Superintendent Kurt Rohlwing told The Beacon-News on Thursday. 'The health of our district dictates the experience and the education we're able to provide the students of Kaneland. And so, we don't believe that what is proposed is in the best interest' of the school district.
Rohlwing characterized the proposed intergovernmental agreement as the village's 'last best offer,' and said legal action was the next possible avenue.
On Monday, Kaneland's school board authorized its legal counsel, boutique K-12 education law firm Kriha Boucek, to draft a complaint. While any official legal action must be first approved by the school board, Rohlwing said, this move is the district's latest attempt to fight the TIF district.
The Grove is a proposed 760-acre mixed-use development, commonly referred to as the Crown development in reference to its developer, the Naperville-based Crown Community Development, according to past reporting. The developer, through a subsidiary, owns the site of the planned development and 23-year TIF district, located at the intersection of Interstate 88 and Route 47.
Plans for the development include nearly 400 acres of residential properties, over 120 acres of commercial development and about 240 acres for a business park, according to past reporting. According to its website, the project could hold as many as 1,500 residential units.
As public discussions over the project took place over months and the proposal drew substantial community criticism, a Joint Review Board formed by the village of Sugar Grove reviewed the proposed TIF district and its financial impact on the area in May. It ultimately made no recommendation to the Sugar Grove Village Board.
According to a document from the Kaneland superintendent presented to the school board with a timeline of the district's position on the development's TIF impact, the district's legal representation recommended that the district abstain from voting for or against the TIF district at the Joint Review Board meeting, so as to 'allow ease in working with the village of Sugar Grove and allow for more concessions to be given.' Kaneland abstained in the May vote.
Despite months of public opposition, however, the Sugar Grove Village Board voted in September to allow the Crown project to move forward.
Residents opposing the project have said previously that the development will burden the taxing bodies such as school districts that will have to provide services to the residents and businesses the project draws in without receiving the additional tax revenue the development would ordinarily bring in due to the TIF district, according to past reporting.
'The interest of the (Kaneland) district is intertwined with the interests of our homeowners,' Rohlwing said on Thursday. 'The additional revenue not only … would allow us to provide better facilities, better educational opportunities and experiences for our students, it also would provide us a possible way to alleviate the tax rate on individual homeowners,' saying that, were the development not in a TIF district, commercial and retail properties from the project would provide a greater share of tax money to taxing bodies.
Crown Community Development's Jennifer Cowan previously said their goal was to begin work on the site in fall 2025, completing engineering on the first part of the project and obtaining the necessary permits before then. The first lots for the development are expected to be sold and builders are set to start constructing houses sometime in 2026, according to past reporting.
The public relations firm representing Crown Community Development did not respond to The Beacon-News' request for comment on Friday.
But, even after the Sugar Grove Village Board's approval of the development in September, public opposition has continued. A non-binding referendum on the April 1 ballot will provide residents another opportunity to express their support or opposition to the project.
And Kaneland, for its part, is one entity making a final effort to oppose the current TIF plan, and the terms of the intergovernmental agreement with Sugar Grove.
'If they want this incentive, then they need to, the way I see it, they need to invest money back into the community,' Kaneland board president Addam Gonzales said at Monday's meeting. 'And we are nowhere near what my expectations would be for that.'
Should the school board approve the legal complaint, which would need to identify the defects in the TIF district, the complaint would then be filed in Kane County Circuit Court, an attorney from Kriha Boucek told the board on Monday. But it could take years to make its way through the courts.
Despite the possibility of a legal battle, Sugar Grove, however, does not seem to be going back on its plan for the development or the TIF district.
'While I respect the Kaneland school board's decision and understand their concerns, I stand by the Village Board's approval of the project,' Sugar Grove Village President Jennifer Konen said in a statement to The Beacon-News on Thursday. 'This project creates opportunities for families, children and local businesses while strengthening our tax base and ensuring long-term, sustainable growth that benefits homeowners and the entire community.'
But Kaneland doesn't appear to be backing down, either. The school board noted Monday that, since the district is one of the largest taxing bodies affected by the TIF district, they need to be the entity to take the lead in opposing it.
'Who else can fight the village, right?,' school board member Aaron Lawler said. 'I mean, the fire district probably can't, the library district probably can't, the park district probably can't. So it falls on our shoulders.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
California's gerrymander: a game two can play
California voters have made a couple things clear over the last couple of decades: they don't like partisan manipulation of political maps. And they don't like President Trump. Those two imperatives have collided in recent days, as it appears to Gov. Gavin Newsom and others that one of the only ways to counter a Trump-supported partisan power grab in Texas is with a partisan power grab in California. Newsom and California Democrats essentially are saying they're not going to bring a high-minded civics lecture to a partisan knife fight. The governor and his allies are rushing to assemble a plan that could make it easier to elect as many as five more Democrats from California to the House of Representatives. Newsom clarified on Monday that the party would only pursue the rare mid-decade redistricting plan if Texas and its Republican governor, Greg Abbott, move ahead with their own plan to gerrymander that state's political map to create five additional House districts favorable to Republicans. The bending of political lines to favor one party is almost as old as the Republic. The new trick conjured up by Texas is to complete a remapping mid-decade, rather than waiting for the decennial redrawing of boundaries that occurs after every census. That shift could be critical in deciding which party controls the House (and rides herd on the Trump White House) after the 2026 election. Texans have an easier road to such a power play because the rules in their state allow it. That differs from California, where voters in 2010 dictated that an independent commission draw the boundaries for the U.S. House seats. That's why Newsom and Democrats would need to get voter approval in November to launch California's redistricting sleight of hand in response to the partisan hocus-pocus proposed in Texas. With 43 of California's 52 House seats already in Democratic hands, it's not easy to bend boundaries to make another five districts friendlier to the party. But that's the intention. The still-emerging plan would seek to put more liberal voters in districts currently held by Republican Reps. Kevin Kiley, David Valadao, Darrell Issa, Doug LaMalfa and Ken Calvert, CNN reported. The redraw would also seek to strengthen the hold Democrat Reps. Dave Min, Mike Levin and Derek Tran have on their seats, according to the Associated Press. The Times' political team reported that, to be ready in time for a November election, Democrats in the Legislature have less than a month to draw a new map, hold hearings and negotiate the language of a special election bill. Among those who will fight the move: former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Republican action star campaigned for the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission. And he's made non-partisanship a focus of his political institute at USC. 'His take on all of this is [that] everyone learned in preschool or kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right,' said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesperson for Schwarzenegger. 'It takes power from the people and gives it to politicians. He thinks it's evil, no matter where they do it.' Democrats need to remember that, when it comes to redistricting power in the rest of the U.S., Republicans have a distinct advantage. They hold a 'trifecta' — controlling both legislative bodies and the governor's office – in 23 states. Democrats have such single-party control in 15 states. So if the game of tit-for-tat spreads across the country, the balance of power in the House could shift even more in favor of the GOP. Other must reads Email us at essentialcalifornia@ and your response might appear in the newsletter this week. Today's great photo is from Times contributor Annie Noelker, who captured 23-year-old actor Tavis Kordell. Kordell, who is nonbinary, flips the script as Jerry and Daphne in 'Some Like it Hot' at the Pantages. Jim Rainey, staff writerDiamy Wang, homepage internIzzy Nunes, audience internKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, Sunday writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
Chicago Tribune
7 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Paul Vallas: Raiding TIFs will not close CPS' budget hole
The old saying goes that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is. That maxim certainly applies to the push by Chicago Public Schools and Chicago Teachers Union leadership to look to the tax increment financing program as a cure-all for their $734 million budget shortfall. The reality is simple: Raiding TIFs will not close next year's budget gap, and eliminating them entirely, as the union demands, would worsen the district's long-term financial challenges. After Gov. JB Pritzker declined to provide CPS with additional funding to cover the district's costly contract demands, the district and the union have turned their attention to TIFs. The city's 124 TIF districts remain an attractive target, having collected $1.2 billion by the end of 2023, with a total fund balance exceeding $3 billion as of last fall. The narrative that ending TIFs is a financial solution is part of CTU's broader strategy to cast the business community as yet another villain in blocking CTU leadership and Mayor Brandon Johnson from delivering on unaffordable promises. The CTU's hope is that threatening the TIF program will prompt business interests to pressure state leaders to bail out the schools. Despite the rhetoric, TIFs do not take money away from schools or other local governments. Tax rates for local entities, including schools, rise to meet their levy requests. In practice, TIFs don't divert property taxes from local government; they increase them. Beyond capital improvements, TIFs provide local governments with a budget windfall that would not exist otherwise. The largest beneficiary is CPS, which receives a majority of the annual TIF surplus. If TIFs were suddenly abolished and future TIF liabilities for any projects currently underway magically disappeared, the annual surplus TIF money the district currently receives would go away. This would offset almost nearly half of what the district would receive from the TIF abolition. The net increase to CPS would be about $340 million per year — far less than what's needed to cover even next year's budget deficit. It's fair for the City Council to ask why the city continues to provide CPS a substantial TIF windfall while also providing the schools other major subsidies. The city should direct CPS to use this windfall to pay its own pension costs for nonteacher employees, its own school construction debt and other city services the city currently pays for. This would free up almost $300 million for the city to use to balance its own budget. CPS had billions more to spend in 2024 than it did in 2019. The district went on a COVID 19-era hiring spree, adding thousands of staff members since 2019, even as enrollment declined. Only half of the district's $9 billion budget reaches the schools, and CPS now employs more nonteacher staff than teachers. What does the district have to show for this spending? Academic results remain deeply troubling. There is a way out of CPS' financial crisis, but it does not run through TIFs. The CTU contract should limit salary increases, staffing levels and other costs to available revenues. Central and regional offices and districtwide programs should be dramatically downsized. Nearly empty schools should be closed, consolidated or leased to public charter schools. Elected Local School Councils and their principals should have autonomy over their budgets and the authority to make personnel decisions and select school models that best serve their students. Unfortunately, school leaders remain focused on protecting bureaucracy and controlling budgets and personnel, while the teachers union relies on central administration to enforce its contract and protect its monopoly. Raiding TIFs is no solution — it's fool's gold. There is no substitute for effective financial management, which has been sorely lacking as CPS and CTU leaders collaborate to perpetuate the status quo.
Hamilton Spectator
02-08-2025
- Hamilton Spectator
Liquor tax rates were slashed this week. Here's how your receipt could change
Amid declining U.S.-Canada tariff negotiations , buying local liquor and beer is becoming easier in Ontario. Tax on spirits sold across the province were slashed in half effective Thursday. Here's how this change could affect your bill. Amendments from Bill 24 presented in May took effect this week, cutting provincial tax on a variety of goods, including changes to the spirits basic tax rates . The tax on spirits has been reduced from 61.5 per cent of the retail price to 30.75 per cent. This applies specifically to spirits distilled in Ontario and sold through on-site distillery retail stores. If you shop at the LCBO, don't expect savings, as the Crown agency's purchases are totally exempt from the spirits basic tax rates. Beer lovers will see a price drop, though, as amendments to the Liquor Tax Act will see rates reduced from 35.96 cents per litre to 17.98 cents per litre for draft beer and from 39.75 cents per litre to 19.88 cents per litre for non-draft beer. That amendment will impact the price of beer made in Ontario by microbrewers, and will hit price tags in LCBO stores, as they have been directed to reflect the reduced rate in their mark-up's. According to the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, alcohol taxation is the most cost-effective method of limiting alcohol consumption. 'Taxation and minimum pricing policies are especially effective when they are tied to the alcohol content in the beverage. This means that as the alcohol content of the beverage increases, the price gets higher,' their website reads . Bill 24 also amended the Fuel Tax Act, changing the definition of 'fuel' to exempt propane from such taxes.
