Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board discusses TID 5 boundary changes and holds off on costly amendment

Village of East Troy Board · March 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff described Department of Revenue constraints on TID 5 that left a 'gap parcel' issue; the board agreed to delay a full amendment until developer interest justifies the roughly $11,500 amendment cost and related legal fees.

Village staff briefed the board on Department of Revenue feedback about Tax Incremental District (TID) 5 and the options for fixing a 'gap parcel' in the proposed boundary. Staff said the Department of Revenue provided three options, including preparing a legal description, removing the gap and an adjacent parcel from the project plan, or connecting parcels to the south — the latter requiring additional hearings and meetings.

"DOR gave us 3 options," staff member Eileen told trustees, adding the department moved up a deadline so everything had to be finalized by "February 16." Eileen said title work found the square is a right of way, so preparing a legal description would require abandoning the right of way and involve legal complexity. She said an amendment would cost "approximately 11,500 just for Eller Services alone" plus legal review.

Because the village already has a development inside the TID and the DOR had imposed an expedited deadline, staff removed two parcels from the project plan that did not require a joint review board meeting so the submission could proceed on time. Eileen asked the board whether to proceed immediately with a full amendment or wait until there is concrete developer interest.

Trustees indicated they were comfortable waiting and that staff could pursue an amendment later if a developer brings a project forward early enough to allow concurrent planning approvals. No formal motion to amend the TID boundary was made; the discussion resulted in direction to defer the costly amendment pending clearer development interest.

Next steps: staff will hold off on a full TID amendment unless a developer proposes a project that makes immediate amendment necessary.