District 211 signs MOU with Bears, Arlington Heights and neighboring districts to protect schools if Arlington Park redevelopment proceeds

Township High School District 211 on Dec. 11 approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) negotiated with the Village of Arlington Heights, the Chicago Bears Football Club (CBFC Development, LLC) and neighboring school districts to set terms should redevelopment of the former Arlington Park site move forward.

Forensic attorney Scott Metcalfe, who helped draft the MOU, told the board the 13-page agreement includes a multi-part formula to address the full per-pupil operating cost for students who would live in new residential development tied to the Arlington Park project. The formula takes the districtoperating expense per pupil for the preceding year, multiplies it by the number of students from the development, and subtracts project-related revenues and any contributions from the village or developer to determine a shortfall the developer or village would need to cover in order to make districts whole.

Metcalfe emphasized the MOUkey protective provisions: if the stadium is not developed in Arlington Heights, the MOU becomes null and void; the agreement expressly restricts the use of a tax increment financing district (TIF) in the stadium portion and creates a Joint Review Board with weighted voting power so the school districts (which represent about 60% of the property-tax bill) effectively control whether a TIF or pilot is adopted over stadium land. The proposal also anticipates negotiations for capital costs if residential development results in a need for new classroom space.

The MOU includes cooperative provisions about any proposed pilot (payment-in-lieu-of-taxes) legislation and gives the districts a seat at the table on identifying base-year assessments and annual PILOT payments. Metcalfe also noted the agreement remains binding on successors should the Bears sell the property.

Board members asked clarifying questions about who would bear impact fees, how votes on a Joint Review Board would be weighted, and which parcels the various districts would represent. The MOU was presented as a protective, negotiating framework rather than a commitment to finance.

At roll call the motion to approve the MOU carried; Miss Cavill voted no. Administration said these protections were the result of months of intergovernmental negotiation and will remain the districts' baseline as further zoning, TIF or PILOT proposals are considered.

What happens next: the MOU does not itself authorize public funding; it sets negotiating positions and processes the districts require before any TIF, PILOT, or other incentives move forward. Any specific financing or pilot agreements would require further approvals and potentially separate public votes.

Vote details: roll-call vote carried with at least one recorded no vote (Miss Cavill); board members asked administration to continue coordination with the village and state legislators regarding any pilot legislation.