Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tif Challenge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Districts say Village's TIF 2 fails statutory tests; Winfield SD 34 updates board on status
Summary
District representatives told the board they believe Winfield's TIF 2 fails legal requirements — citing lack of demonstrated blight, non-contiguous parcels and a parking garage that would remain on the tax rolls for only 20 years — and said development likely would occur 'but for' TIF funds because of a $65–70 million Central DuPage Hospital investment. The case is in a holding pattern; settlement could come by year end.
District representatives updated the board about legal challenges to the Village of Winfield's Tax Increment Financing District 2 (TIF 2). According to the summary in the minutes, the districts argue the TIF does not meet required statutory criteria, including showing blight, and improperly combines non-contiguous properties. The minutes specifically cite concern that a parking garage included in the TIF would remain on the tax rolls for only 20 years, leaving the district with limited long-term revenue benefit while the TIF remains in effect longer.
The districts raised the "but-for" test: they contend that large private investment—identified in the minutes as a $65–70 million investment by Central DuPage Hospital—indicates the development would occur without TIF assistance. The minutes record that legal proceedings are in a holding pattern and note a possible settlement timeline "as soon as the end of the year." The transcript does not name the individual speaker who presented the legal arguments; the board materials identify the points as positions of the districts rather than quotes from a named attorney in the minutes.
