Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winfield district cites statutory defects in appeal of Village's TIF 2
Summary
Winfield School District 34 and co-plaintiff districts argue the Village of Winfield's TIF 2 fails statutory tests — citing non-contiguous parcels, a short-lived parking-garage tax benefit, and a $65–70 million hospital investment that they say defeats the "but-for" test; a March 11, 2025 ruling for the village is under appeal.
Winfield School District 34 told the board that it and other taxing districts have filed a legal challenge to the Village of Winfield's Tax Increment Financing district known as TIF 2, contending the TIF does not meet statutory requirements. District representatives said the TIF improperly combines non-contiguous properties, directs most funds toward a municipal center rather than expanding the tax base for other taxing bodies, and includes a parking garage that would remain on the tax rolls for only 20 years, limiting long-term revenues for schools.
Board materials report the districts contend the TIF fails the "but-for" test because significant development — notably a $65–70 million investment by Central DuPage Hospital — would occur without TIF assistance. The materials note that Judge Chapman issued a summary-judgment ruling in favor of the Village on March 11, 2025; the districts have appealed to the Illinois 3rd District Court with an appeal filing expected in June. The board noted the case could take six months to a year to resolve. The school district presented the legal rationale to the board as part of the public presentation portion of the May 22 meeting.
