Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District 214 board debates whether to sell recently acquired Forest View property on Arlington Heights Road
Summary
District officials described options for the vacant property at 2123 S. Arlington Heights Road — sell now at public auction, hold and mothball, lease, or subdivide — while board members split over selling to fund capital needs versus keeping the site for future development in the South Arlington Heights TIF.
The Township High School District 214 Board discussed whether to sell a vacant property the district purchased near Arlington Heights Road, with administrators outlining auction procedures, estimated costs and market constraints and board members sharply divided on the best path.
Administration outlined two primary paths: list the site for public sale with a board-set minimum (reserve) price and a public auction process governed by a sample resolution in the board packet, or keep the property and absorb ongoing holding costs. Staff said the parcel group includes six parcels at 2123 S. Arlington Heights Road and that a recent professional assessment valued the property at about $3,600,000. The district’s 2021 purchase price was stated in the meeting as $5,245,000. Staff also estimated annual utilities and basic operating costs at roughly $90,000 if the building remained vacant and gave a rough demolition cost estimate of $250,000–$300,000.
A district attorney’s explanation of the sale process described a timeline that would run from passage of a board resolution through a 60‑day period and several weeks of public notice before a public auction or sealed-bid sale, with the board able to set a minimum acceptable price and decide whether to lower it or withdraw the property if bids do not meet that threshold.
Board members who favored selling argued the property is an operating drag and could generate capital to help address the district’s list of facility needs. “I am of the opinion that we should sell the property,” one board member said, urging sale proceeds be routed to the capital project fund rather than to request new revenue from stakeholders.
Opposing board members urged patience, pointing to redevelopment activity in the area and the site’s location within a South Arlington Heights TIF. One member argued the parcel could appreciate as nearby redevelopment advances and urged holding the asset, fencing it or raising the building to limit liability in the interim.
Board members also asked about alternatives such as leasing the building or subdividing parcels. Staff said they had not fully investigated leasing and had primarily evaluated selling the six parcels in total, though subdivision could be considered later. Administration said contractual terms could include a $100,000 earnest-money requirement and that negotiations with village officials could restrict certain uses through local zoning and TIF objectives.
No formal resolution to sell was adopted at the Sept. 12 meeting. Administration said they would return with a written recommendation at the next meeting and, if the board directs, present a draft resolution that would set the minimum price and begin the public-sale timeline.
The board’s discussion closed with administration saying it would present a recommended path at the next board meeting for a vote or further direction.
