Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses on TIF request for Montgomery Countryside Fire Protection District, seeks legal clarity
Summary
Trustees debated a request from Montgomery Countryside Fire Protection District for roughly $65,000 of equipment funded from the TIF. Village staff and the village's TIF attorney advised the expense is not TIF‑eligible; trustees disagreed and asked staff to obtain a legal opinion from the fire district’s attorney before taking action.
Trustees on Jan. 27 discussed a request from the Montgomery Countryside Fire Protection District for funding of fire‑suppression equipment that the district says is needed to replace foam and other firefighting gear. The fire district asked the village to reimburse or fund the purchase from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) proceeds tied to development in the district.
Village staff said their TIF attorney had advised that the requested expenditure is not an eligible TIF redevelopment project cost, and therefore cannot be paid directly from the TIF. Staff instead recommended the fire district pursue state grant programs administered by the Illinois State Fire Marshal’s Office; staff also suggested engaging state legislators for grant advocacy. President Matt Brawley said staff had provided potential alternative funding avenues and had spoken with Representative Hansen on the issue.
Trustee Geier strongly disagreed with the village attorney’s conclusion and said his review of statutes and capital‑expenditure definitions led him to a different outcome. “Based on everything here and a preponderance of the evidence, it’s my opinion that they’re eligible for TIF reimbursement,” he said. Trustee Geier cited that capital expenditures — including machinery and equipment with useful life beyond a taxable year — typically qualify as capital costs.
Trustees expressed concern about precedent and legal exposure. Several trustees noted that if one taxing body receives a rebate or reimbursement from the TIF, other taxing districts could expect similar treatment; staff said the TIF attorney warned that a proportional rebate to all affected taxing bodies could be required and could total roughly $850,000, a sum that would be difficult for the TIF to absorb.
No formal vote was taken. The board directed staff to request a written legal opinion from the fire district’s attorney (the firm and attorney described in the meeting as having municipal and TIF experience) and to continue pursuing state grant options. Some trustees also said, hypothetically, they would prefer a general‑fund payment rather than risk violating the TIF act, while others said they view the expense as a legitimate TIF‑eligible capital cost tied to development in the district.
The board did not take immediate action; staff will return with the fire district attorney’s written opinion and any grant application updates. Trustees also discussed whether to retain the current TIF counsel after the legal conflict surfaced; several trustees asked staff to consider options for TIF legal representation.
