Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tif Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winfield districts detail legal challenge to Village's TIF 2, warn of revenue risks
Summary
School district representatives told the Winfield SD 34 board that the Village's TIF 2 may not meet statutory tests, citing non-contiguous parcels, a large recent hospital investment they say undermines the —but-for— claim, and an estimated $740,000 potential revenue impact to the districts.
School district officials summarized ongoing litigation over the Village of Winfield's Tax Increment Financing district known as TIF 2, saying the plan "does not meet legal criteria, including the requirement to demonstrate blight," and raising concerns about how the district boundaries were drawn.
Board materials and the meeting summary show the districts' arguments include the inclusion of non-contiguous parcels (a parking garage singled out in the presentation), what the districts describe as a municipal-centered allocation of funds, and an assertion that development would proceed without TIF assistance because of a $65–70 million investment by Central DuPage Hospital. The presentation to the board estimated potential lost school-district revenue of approximately $740,000 and reported that about $2 million has been spent so far on the matter, with roughly 44 percent of that spent on public relations costs.
Attorneys and staff framed several legal questions for further review, including whether the TIF demonstrated blight, whether the —but-for— test was satisfied, and whether non-contiguous parcels were properly combined. The transcript notes that the appellate court reviewed the case without resolving every issue and that the districts are considering asking the Illinois Supreme Court to take up key statutory questions.
No formal board action on TIF litigation was recorded in open session at this meeting. The record shows public commenters referenced TIF 2 during the public comment period and the board discussed the financial and transparency implications; the board later moved into a closed session listing litigation under 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11) among the reasons.
