Sugar Grove’s engineering firm has quit amid renewed talks about the financial incentive eligibility of a controversial 760-acre mixed-use development originally approved in 2024.
In a resignation letter dated Aug. 27, Sugar Grove-based Engineering Enterprises, Inc. said it no longer believes that a working relationship can be maintained with Village President Sue Stillwell, saying statements she made about the company recently “call into question the integrity and professionalism of (the) firm” and referring to her email communication approach as unprofessional.
In response, Stillwell has said that “it is best” the village separate from the firm and that a third party engineer will be retained in the meantime.
The issue comes amid renewed questions surrounding The Grove, a 760-acre mixed-use development that will sit on what is currently mostly farmland surrounding the Interstate 88 and Route 47 interchange.
Proposed by land owner and developer Crown Community Development, the project has faced significant public pushback — both before the village gave the project the green light in 2024 and since.
Last year, a non-binding referendum question was passed by voters asking the village to reverse its decision on the project. In that same election, former village president Jennifer Konen and an incumbent village trustee — both of whom voted in favor of the Crown project — were voted out.
Additionally, the project has been the subject of two separate lawsuits, one by Kaneland School District 302 that was dismissed in November, and another by an area resident.
Both lawsuits concerned the village’s establishment of a tax increment financing, or TIF, district for the project area, which has been one of the major points of contention for the development.
A TIF district is a sort of economic development incentive, in which the value of a property is essentially frozen, and the extra or “increment” taxes created by developing the property go into a special fund used to pay for costs related to improving the area. The Sugar Grove Village Board OK’d the creation of a TIF district for the area when it approved the project in 2024.
Now, though the project has broken ground and the current village president has said her administration’s hands are tied when it comes to blocking the development moving forward, Stillwell has recently questioned certain aspects of the project — namely, whether it complies with a portion of the state’s TIF requirements.
That conversation is what recently led to the village’s engineering firm coming under fire by Stillwell.
At a recent meeting, Sugar Grove’s Joint Review Board — which brings together representatives from different taxing bodies like townships, school districts and fire districts that may be impacted by a proposed tax increment financing district — considered recommending for approval a resolution that would require additional study of whether the proposed development reduces flooding in the area. That determination has been a key component for the area being deemed eligible for TIF funds that will help the developer pay for costs related to the development.
State statute indicates that, for a vacant site to be considered “blighted” and therefore eligible for a TIF district, the land has to meet certain criteria.
Among the possible grounds for blight are “chronic flooding … as certified by a registered professional engineer or appropriate regulatory agency” or “surface water that discharges from all or a part of the area and contributes to flooding within the same watershed, but only if the redevelopment project provides for facilities or improvements to contribute to the alleviation of all or part of the flooding,” per the statute.
More Top Picks Dolls
That water running off of the land in question contributes to flooding in the Blackberry Creek watershed has long been part of the argument for why the development area meets state TIF requirements. The blighted land designation has also long been questioned by the project’s opponents.
At the meeting of the Joint Review Board in August, Stillwell explained the situation, along with her interest in further study being done on the matter to ensure the state statute is followed — before Crown seeks reimbursement by way of TIF funds. The Joint Review Board will be, in the future, monitoring those TIF reimbursement requests, she noted.
The meeting also included an allegation from Stillwell that a years-old data center study from EEI was not made available to the public, and her questioning whether plans for the Crown project addressed the alleviation of flooding on the land.
Stillwell, at the meeting, claimed that EEI “did not … certify” whether the project meets the state requirement that it contribute to the alleviation of flooding, and said that the firm has indicated that this matter could be evaluated at the time of the developer seeking a TIF reimbursement.
Citing recent storms and those from the past, Stillwell alleged that “the storms that have resulted in downstream flooding exceed the capabilities of the system design required by the Kane County Stormwater Ordinance.”
“Downstream flooding has only occurred in severe and multi-day storms,” Stillwell said. “Improving these conditions appears to require more than the basic county requirements.”
The Crown project’s design essentially could meet the county’s stormwater ordinance, she argued, but may not meet the state’s statutory requirements regarding alleviating flooding.
So, Stillwell proposed the review board make a recommendation that could be taken back to the village board, which could then require further study to show whether the project alleviates flooding in the area.
“Not to invalidate the TIF or breach the contract or anything like that, but to say, ‘We simply do not have enough information to show that this does anything, and we want to meet the state statute,’” Stillwell said at the meeting.
The Joint Review Board, however, punted making such a recommendation, scheduling a meeting for Sept. 2 that has since been cancelled. According to a Facebook post by Stillwell, this is because she has “since been advised the information warrants further review, but from another agency that would be better able to review and provide further direction for the benefit of all involved parties.”
Meanwhile, however, EEI has pushed back on Stillwell’s criticisms.
An Aug. 10 communication from the firm to Sugar Grove obtained by The Beacon-News, for example, says that village staff were, in fact, “made … aware of the results of the … data center study.”
As for the flooding and TIF eligibility determination, EEI has indicated that it was tasked with determining whether surface water from the property contributed to flooding within the watershed, but that legal interpretation of the TIF statute and the final decision on the project’s TIF eligibility were outside of the scope of its work.
At a meeting of Sugar Grove’s village board the following week — at which there was further discussion of the data center study and the flooding alleviation determination — EEI’s CEO Jeff Freeman reiterated that the analyses were shared with village staff and “helped influence the water use constraints in The Grove annexation agreement,” but they were not included in public hearings because the study had “already served its purpose.”
Freeman went on to defend the firm’s work and integrity, saying it is “ready to have a full, factual and respectful conversation” with the village board.
In a response to a request for comment following its decision to resign, Freeman said in a statement that it “was not a decision (EEI) made lightly,” and that the firm “stands behind” its people and its work.
Freeman, in the statement, added that EEI is “committed to handling the transition professionally and responsibly.”
EEI’s letter said its resignation is effective seven days following the notice, and that it will cooperate with the village on the transition and will “fulfill its contractual obligations” for another project that was recently approved with the village.
The recent Joint Review Board meeting to evaluate the development’s eligibility under the state’s TIF statute also garnered some criticism by Crown in a letter from early August.
And a July message from Crown Community Development’s Jennifer Cowan to village leadership, which was obtained through a public records request, alleges “an increasing reliance on unsupported assertions regarding The Grove that are inconsistent with the engineering analyses, approved plans, and conclusions reached by the professionals and regulatory agencies charged with administering this project.”
Crown declined to provide additional comment about the situation on Monday.
In a Facebook post Friday, however, Stillwell continued to defend her recent comments. On the matter of the flooding alleviation, she wrote that “no Engineer is currently willing to sign off on a statement stating this project alleviates any part of the downstream flooding … which has only occurred a few times in recorded history.” This, she says, is because “no studies were done to determine when the flooding actually occurs.”
“I support the development as contractually required,” Stillwell said in the post, “but not to the point that I’m willing to overlook all of this and not ask reasonable questions.”