The debate between Mundelein and its school districts over the planned massive Ivanhoe Village development has returned to public view once more after the passing of state legislation earlier this month that opened the door to raising impact fees.
However, it seems unlikely village leaders will revisit the impact fees for the development, with Mayor Robin Meier putting out a letter calling for the community to look ahead rather than continue the controversy that has led to months of late-night meetings, critical public statements by districts’ leaders and residents alike, and even a protest resignation by a member of Mundelein’s Historical Commission.
The controversy centers around Ivanhoe Village, which is expected to bring thousands of residential units to Mundelein over 25 years. The developer is the Wirtz family, which has owned the land for more than 150 years. The family also owns the Chicago Blackhawks, and has partial ownership of the United Center in Chicago.
Fremont School District 79 and Mundelein Consolidated High School District 120 have warned that the development will strain their resources and require the building of a new school. They’ve repeatedly called for the village to increase impact fees on the developer to offset the financial burden.
However, there are disagreements over data and the extent of the development’s potential impact on the schools. According to Meier, the village’s assessment lies between those presented by the districts and the developer, although the districts have criticized the village for overly relying on the developer’s numbers.
The village had previously said that impact fees are determined by state law and could not be raised. However, that has since changed after Gov. JB Pritzker signed HB22 in mid-August, which was specifically aimed at Mundelein and the Ivanhoe Village development.
The bill has been championed by area state legislators. In a press release, Rep. Daniel Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, said the legislation empowers Mundelein to, “protect residents from unnecessary property tax increases.” State Sens. Adriane Johnson, D-Buffalo Grove, and Mary Edly-Allen, D-Libertyville, and state Rep. Laura Faver Dias, D-Grayslake, also issued statements in support of the bill.
The release pushed for Meier to “re-engage with stakeholders,” and reunite the community.
“Leaders are most effective when they say what they mean and mean what they say. At every step, we have taken the Village’s leaders at their word that additional state action was needed to allow the imposition of impact fees that would fairly compensate other local taxing bodies for the specific costs created by the Ivanhoe Village development,” the release said.
In a letter to Meier and the village, with the new legislation passed, the school districts urged them to reopen negotiations with the developer, provide the districts with “the most current and reliable developer data,” push the developer to work on “creative solutions and contingencies” with the schools, and allow the districts to give a presentation to the board on the impact Ivanhoe will have on students and taxpayers.
More Top Picks Lawn Mower
“The Village has the authority and obligation to update the impact fee terms,” the letter said. “This can occur without delaying the developer’s construction timeline. Working together toward a new impact fee agreement would demonstrate a shared commitment to serving the long-term needs of our community and demonstrate that new leadership is making a difference.”
The legislation is the latest turn in the lengthy debate, but for Meier at least it doesn’t fundamentally change the situation. The vote on impact fees, taken back in April, was “the right thing to do at the right time.”
In her letter to the public, she called for a focus on moving forward in a “positive direction,” asking the school districts to provide her a list of “other areas/thoughts that can be explored and discussed.”
“I strongly feel that we have opportunities to work together, explore new ideas, and collaborate to make our communities stronger. I sincerely hope we can all do that,” the letter said.
In Meier’s opinion, the compromises the schools have been calling for have already been made, including several concessions by the developer she considered unique.
She pointed to the 10-year lookback, where the developers will compare their projections for child populations from today and the reality in a decade, paying for the discrepancy and altering projections accordingly. At the time, village staffers and developers called it an “‘11th-hour” agreement.
The developers have also agreed to several concessions to aid the schools, including a cap on units built per year, $1.1 million in upfront cash to be split between the districts, and the paying of fees even on senior-targeted and senior-restricted housing. Meier also pointed to the annual 2.75% increase in impact fees every year for the life of the project after year seven.
“A lot of the things they want done, have been done,” Meier said. “We made a lot of compromises.”
However, the districts have criticized the fee-escalator as too small an increase to keep up with rising construction costs. And Fremont Superintendent Trisha Kocanda previously said the 10-year timeline is too far out to address the issues the districts will face.
Additionally, while it is “something,” Kocanda said, the schools also haven’t seen any of the details of the 10-year look-back plan. Meier said it is still in development.
Kocanda was again left disappointed after Monday’s Village Board meeting, but said she hopes board members will be “willing to reflect.” The districts are awaiting a formal response to their letter by Sept. 9.