School boards, parents and residents urge Mundelein to press developer on Ivanhoe impact as board cites state law limits

MUNDELEIN, Ill. — School board leaders, parents and residents told the Mundelein Village Board on Feb. 24 that the proposed Ivanhoe Village development will create substantial student enrollment pressure and asked trustees to press the developer for more school-related compensation.

Speakers at the Village Board meeting said Ivanhoe Village would be a generational project that will change Mundelein’s long-term enrollment and fiscal picture. "It'll forever transform Mundelein and not just Mundelein, but the surrounding areas," said Peter Rustrelli, board president for Mundelein High School District 120. Rustrelli told trustees the developer’s materials estimate about 3,700 residential units, roughly 7,100 residents and about 1,257 students.

Why it matters: Fremont School District 79 and Mundelein High School District 120 told the board they expect enrollment growth that will require new school capacity and argued that local taxpayers should not shoulder the construction costs. Fremont Board President Gabriella Whipple said the district’s impact study estimates a net loss to District 79 of about $1,560,000 per year (increased revenue minus increased costs) under the developer’s projected housing mix, and that the district would need an additional school to serve the projected student increase.

The public statements and school board presentations followed a letter the Village posted describing legal limits on local impact fees. Mayor Lentz (identified in public comments) told the meeting that "the Village has no choice but to follow that State law" and that the Village will bring an impact-fee ordinance to the Board in coming weeks "similar to those of our neighbors, Vernon Hills, Libertyville, and Grayslake." He said the ordinance will require land donation or cash-in-lieu calculated by a legally valid formula and that the Village cannot demand funds beyond what state law allows.

School and parent comments

Latoya Connors Gray, representing Fremont School District 79, told the board: "We firmly believe that the taxpayers should not have to pay the burden for the development." She said the district expects to reach capacity within a few years and asked the Village to "help drive accountability" and to ensure negotiations consider the districts’ needs.

Kevin Myers, superintendent of District 120, said other communities and developers have negotiated memoranda of understanding that provided more than baseline requirements. "There is a minimum, but we can still bring people together to be able to achieve a common goal," Myers said. He urged Village leadership to allow the districts a meaningful seat at the table with the developer.

Parent speakers reinforced those concerns. Ryan Wohlberg, a Fremont parent and school administrator, said, "This is a crisis waiting to happen," if planning does not account for staffing, facilities and transportation impacts. Resident Sarah Woodman cited the developer’s student projections and said, based on that math, the district would need the equivalent of 34 additional classrooms — a scenario that, she said, points to the need for a new school building.

Developer conduct and state attention

Adrian Dodd, an unincorporated Mundelein resident, read a letter from state legislators that criticized the Wirtz Corporation's attorneys for aggressive letters to school boards. The legislators asked Village leadership to ensure the developer treats community partners respectfully and to consider districts "integral stakeholders" in the planning process.

Village response and next steps

Mayor Lentz told the meeting the Village will introduce an ordinance intended to secure "the maximum amount of money from the developer that we can justify legally." He said other options — such as assessments or requiring payment beyond state-law formulas — were not legally available and could lead to litigation. The mayor encouraged continued talks between the developer and the school districts but said the Village must follow statutory limits.

What was not decided

Trustees did not take a formal vote on an agreement with the developer or on any school funding package at the meeting. Several speakers urged delaying final approvals until negotiations included the districts; the Village signaled it will proceed with an ordinance in the coming weeks but emphasized legal constraints.

Ending note

School-district leaders and parents said they remain open to development that benefits the community but asked for leadership, transparency and a negotiated approach that preserves school quality without overburdening current taxpayers.