Winfield board reviews settlement timeline with districts after judge's ruling; attorneys dispute 'stop making offers' claim

The Winfield village board reviewed a chain of emails and an attorney-only settlement conference as it sought a settlement with School Districts 34 and 94 following Judge Chapman's March 11, 2025, summary-judgment order. The board's attorney, Dave Freeman, told trustees he received no settlement offer from either district after a May 12 conference and that his March 12 email rescinded the village's previously proposed settlement framework.

The matter matters to the village because the dispute centers on sharing tax-increment financing (TIF) revenue to support Town Center development and because the board said unresolved negotiations are delaying economic activity. The village had earlier referenced a proposed TIF revenue share of 25% (which the village says was off the table after the judge's ruling) and said the districts had discussed lower proposals in private attorney talks, including figures near 20–21.5%.

Freeman, the village's attorney, summarized the timeline: he and co-counsel Neil Smith met with district attorneys on May 12 in Jim Doherty's office; the meeting was informational and produced no binding offer because Freeman and Smith said they lacked authority to settle without board approval. Freeman read the village's March 12 email rescinding the March 6 framework and said the village asked the districts to provide any settlement terms by deadlines timed to permit board consideration at the June 5 meeting.

Regarding whether the village told district counsel "not to make any offers," Freeman said no. "There was never any communication either in writing or verbally that said to the school districts, don't bother talking to us again," he said, and later added, "I would never tell another party, don't make an offer, because you never know what that offer might be." He said his role was to bring any offer to the board.

Vice President Tibble disputed parts of that account, saying the board had repeatedly and publicly told the districts the village was "waiting for an offer" and urged them to respond. "Stop ignoring us," Tibble said, characterizing the problem as lack of response rather than a directive to cease offers.

The Chair read an email from Jason T. Manning, attorney for District 34, dated May 30 in which Manning said the district was "continuing to discuss a revised settlement offer" and would provide an update the following week; the board said it received no substantive follow-up. Freeman said he followed up again on June 20 and did not receive any settlement offers after that date, and that the village board later told him to stop repeatedly asking the same question of district counsel.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on settlement terms during the meeting. The board emphasized it wants written proposals the village can bring to trustees for deliberation, and said it will report settlements or any future offers at a public meeting. For now, the dispute remains procedural: the village says it rescinded an earlier framework after the March ruling and is awaiting concrete terms; district counsel has said they are continuing internal discussions but, according to the village record presented at the meeting, has not transmitted a final offer.