Mundelein board approves Ivanhoe Village term sheet after hours of public comment on school impacts

The Mundelein Village Board on April 14 approved a term sheet with Ivanhoe Village Land Co. governing impact fees for the 25-year Ivanhoe Village development, after an extended public-comment period during which school officials, park-district leaders and dozens of residents urged the board to delay action until taxing agencies and pending state legislation could be considered.

Supporters and opponents packed the council chamber and spoke for roughly two hours. Many speakers told trustees the proposed financial package would undercompensate Fremont School District 79 and District 120 for the student enrollment the project is expected to generate; others said housing supply and long-term tax revenue would benefit the village.

Why it matters: Ivanhoe Village is a proposed mixed-use, traditional-neighborhood project on the Wirtz family�s Ivanhoe Farms that would be built over decades and deliver a mix of apartments, townhomes, single-family homes and senior housing. The term sheet the board approved sets the financial framework between the village and the developer for how and when impact fees will be paid to affected taxing districts; trustees and residents said the decision has long-term implications for school capacity, property taxes and municipal services.

Board action and what it contains

Trustees approved a resolution adopting a term sheet that, according to village staff presentations, includes: a developer commitment to pay $6.6 million to Fremont School District 79 and $4.4 million to District 120 over the life of the project; a $1.1 million up-front cash payment to be split between the two school districts (scheduled to cover the first two years of home development); annual fee escalators after year seven; caps on annual and total unit deliveries (155 total move-ins per year and other unit caps by product type); and a 10-year lookback provision that would re-evaluate student generation and require additional payments if the development produces more students than projected.

Village Administrator Eric Gunther told trustees the most recent offer on the table increased the developer contribution well above the Naperville-style calculations the village staff used as a baseline. Gunther said the villageanalysis, which incorporated school-provided data, still showed the project would generate a long-term net fiscal benefit to the districts.

Developer and planning team representatives described Ivanhoe Village as a long-term, stewardship approach. Don Viete of Wirtz Realty Corporation and Bruce Goldsmith of Dykema said the family expects to invest more than $110 million up front and to steward the project over a 25-year buildout. Goldsmith said the project is designed to create mixed housing and a substantial tax base over time.

What residents and taxing agencies said

School and park officials urged delay. Trisha Cassandra, superintendent of Fremont School District 79, told the board the districts had received revised development datasets only days earlier and lacked adequate time to vet the assumptions, and she asked trustees to hold the vote. "If you do not have a full understanding of the consequences of what you're voting for tonight, please vote no or hold the vote and allow us to work together and protect our students and taxpayers," Cassandra said.

Park-district Director Kyle Burke told the board the Mundelein Park and Recreation District met its legal annexation deadlines and said it was not given adequate opportunity to negotiate impact fees; the district requested a delay and a meeting with incoming village leadership.

Many residents expressed concern that an immediate village vote would pre-empt a pending state legislative change. Public commenters repeatedly referenced a recent Illinois House vote that would allow municipalities to consider construction costs, not just land value, when calculating impact fees; several speakers urged the board to wait until the state Legislature concluded its session. "If a vote must be held tonight, please do vote the measure down," resident Courtney Villatere told trustees.

Several commenters advocated for housing: Bill Shiner, a local property owner and long-time developer, said new residential development would support retail centers and raise property values, and he urged the board to allow the project to move forward.

Legal context and state legislation

Village attorney Kylene Cahill summarized the legal backdrop for impact fees, saying Illinois courts have required that any fee imposed on a developer be "specifically and uniquely attributable" to the development's impact (a standard the attorney traced to Illinois Supreme Court precedent). Cahill said the widely used Naperville method, which calculates fee-in-lieu values based on land value and per-student acreage, has been the industry standard. She also said the House amendment passed April 9 would allow municipalities to consider construction costs in some situations but remains discretionary and, if enacted, would still require fees to meet the same "specifically attributable" standard.

Trustee discussion and safeguards

Trustees asked for binding protections in the final development agreement. Gunther and the developer indicated the final agreement would include a 10-year lookback to reconcile actual student counts against projections and a cap on the number and type of units built per year. Trustee discussion emphasized the long timeline and that the familydeveloper has committed to phased building limits; supporters on the board said those clauses reduce the risk of an unexpected, short-term surge in school enrollments.

Votes at a glance (selected items from the April 14 meeting)

- Resolution approving term sheet for Ivanhoe Village impact fees — Approved (motion: Trustee Wilson; second: Trustee Ross). Recorded roll call: Wilson, Meyer, Ross, Juarez, Lambert, Schwenk — yes. Outcome: approved. Key points: $6.6M to Fremont SD 79, $4.4M to District 120, $1.1M up-front split payment, 155-unit cap per year, 10-year lookback.

- Ordinance revising Chapter 19.12 (impact-fee ordinance for schools/parks/libraries) — Approved (roll call recorded). The amended ordinance implements the villagestandard impact-fee framework the term sheet references; staff said it mirrors fees paid in comparable recent local developments while preserving the legal standards described by counsel.

- Fiscal 2026 annual budget and five-year capital improvement plan ($77,082,500) — Approved.

- Water and sanitary sewer rate increase (4.5%) — Approved.

- MFT roadway improvement contract award (Brothers Asphalt Paving, Inc.) — Approved (purchase order ~$1.74 million).

- Annexation and rezoning of parcels at 28884 and 28936 North Illinois (Route 83) (annexation, map amendment and variances) — Approved.

What remains unresolved

School officials said they will continue to press for a larger contribution and for more transparent, shared datasets. The 10-year lookback and the developer's willingness to cap annual unit deliveries were presented by village staff as mechanisms to reduce the likelihood of unexpected near-term school impacts, but district leaders said the amounts offered remain substantially below the districts' initial estimates of need.

Next steps

Staff said the term sheet will be incorporated into a final, binding development agreement. The board's action was a policy-level approval of the term sheet; the final development agreement and implementing ordinances will return to the board for formal adoption. The state Legislature's action on the House amendment may affect future impact-fee calculations, staff said.

Ending note

The Ivanhoe Village debate dominated the April 14 meeting, with residents, school and park officials pressing trustees to weigh short-term educational costs against long-term tax revenue and housing supply. Trustees said they would include the 10-year reconciliation clause and unit caps in the final agreement and will rely on more detailed, multi-agency data going forward.