The Village Board discussed hiring the economic consulting firm S.D. Friedman to prepare a Tax Increment Financing feasibility study for a proposed development area near LaFox. A board member summarized that the engagement is "just the first step in a multi layer process" and that the study would assess whether a TIF district is viable and what infrastructure needs and costs the development would trigger.

Why it matters: a TIF, if created, would freeze the equalized assessed value (EAV) for taxing bodies and capture future growth in property tax revenue (the increment) for up to 23 years to pay eligible redevelopment costs, including infrastructure, engineering and consultant fees. The board heard that the water reclamation district warned the village that expanding water and sanitary capacity for a 900-unit development could cost "20 to $25,000,000." A board member said the district did not say it would cost that much, only that it could.

Board members and staff discussed who pays initial study costs and later consultant fees. A staff member said the developer initially agreed to escrow study costs, which would be reimbursable from the TIF if the district is created and increment becomes available. The board discussed an estimate for the initial study fee in the "$30,000 range," with one reference specifically to "$35,000." The staff member said that if a redevelopment agreement and TIF proceed, further consultant services would be reimbursable from the TIF.

Speakers outlined how the increment is distributed: the example used at the meeting showed a hypothetical $10 current tax that could grow to $100 after development; the $90 difference is the increment that could fund projects in the TIF. Board members noted this does not eliminate tax revenue to other taxing bodies for the duration of the TIF; rather, the increment is collected and used per the redevelopment agreement and statutory procedures, and excess or surplus distributions are later prorated back to taxing districts.

School-district impacts and mitigation were discussed. The staff member said the school district had negotiated an upfront land-cash payment and an agreed per-student reimbursement for new students who attend the district: "every child that shows up at their doorstep over the 23 years will get $19,588 today, and that will go up by CPI, kind of a 2% for 23 years." The staff member also said the school district had reviewed the proposal and provided conditions under which it would not object to a TIF.

Board members stressed the multi-step nature of the process: the initial S.D. Friedman engagement would review feasibility; if findings are positive, the developer would prepare a redevelopment plan and the village could engage S.D. Friedman further to review developer cost estimates. A board member said this engagement would put "the premier consultant on our side of the table to examine the dollar request from the developer to determine the buck for $10 being given."

The board did not adopt a TIF or a redevelopment agreement at the meeting. Staff presented the recommended next step of hiring S.D. Friedman to prepare the feasibility study and to return with cost estimates and a scope of work for future actions.