Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glencoe trustees discuss local impact fees as proposed Illinois 'BUILD' bill could limit local options
Summary
Board members and staff began a policy discussion about creating village-specific impact fees and alternatives after staff described how most local impact fees are statutorily limited to park and school districts and warned a pending state 'BUILD' initiative could standardize or preempt local fees.
At its meeting the village board discussed whether to pursue local impact fees or alternative fee structures while staff monitors a proposed statewide bill known as the BUILD initiative that could standardize — and potentially preempt — local impact regimes. Taylor, who led the memo review, said the village currently collects impact fees only for park districts and school boards and only when development proceeds through a subdivision process.
The conversation matters because village staff said property-tax timing and capital needs could put pressure on local infrastructure budgets. Taylor outlined a narrow code change as “low‑hanging fruit”: require that projects that create a new dwelling unit but do not go through a formal subdivision process trigger the existing park‑and‑school fees so the village is not left uncompensated in rare cases where fees are not collected today.
Taylor also noted legal hurdles. “In Illinois you have to show the impact is specifically and uniquely attributable to the new development,” Taylor said, describing a high evidentiary standard for a municipality to justify an impact fee. Board members asked whether the state proposal might both increase subdivisions and, at the same time, restrict local options by standardizing fees. One trustee likened the risk to a prior state action on local gun rules and urged the village to consider options that could be enacted quickly if the legislature moves rapidly.
Staff sketched alternatives that would not rely on a new village impact fee: separate demolition and building‑permit fees (the village currently rolls demo fees into its building‑permit fee), allocate a percentage of building‑permit revenues to capital projects, or secure commitments through negotiated development agreements or planned-unit developments (PUDs). Staff said those approaches can be simpler to defend and, in some cases, are already used in subdivision negotiations to require off‑site infrastructure upgrades.
No formal recommendation or ordinance was introduced; staff asked for direction and said they will return next month with more analysis and code language options if the board wants to pursue changes. The board also said it will continue outreach with attorneys and regional municipal partners as the state legislative session develops.
