2020 IL App (3d) 190225
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- The City of Crest Hill prepared a TIF Redevelopment Plan and convened a Joint Review Board (JRB) as required by the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (TIF Act).
- The School Board’s JRB representative and the JRB issued a written recommendation rejecting the proposed Weber Road Corridor TIF District, citing lack of need and negative tax impacts; the City nevertheless adopted three TIF ordinances in November 2017.
- The disputed TIF boundary included three parcels (A, B, C); contiguity between parcel A (the main area) and parcel B depended on "jumping" a 234.9-foot natural gas utility parcel/right-of-way located in an excluded, unincorporated area.
- The School Board filed a verified complaint alleging (1) the TIF district was not contiguous as required by 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-4(a) and (2) procedural violations in the City’s handling of the JRB process.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City, finding sufficient contiguity (over 400 feet between A and B and over 1,000 feet between B and C) and adequate compliance with procedural obligations.
- The appellate court reversed the circuit court on the contiguity issue, holding the TIF Act does not allow "jumping" a public utility right-of-way to establish contiguity; it did not decide the procedural claims as they became unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parcels in the proposed TIF are "contiguous" under the TIF Act | Parcels A and B are noncontiguous; contiguity here depends solely on "jumping" the 234.9 ft utility/right-of-way, which is not permitted under the TIF Act | Contiguity exists (points to Will County maps and prior annexation practice); §7-1-1 of the Municipal Code allows treating territories separated by utility rights-of-way as contiguous, so the City may "jump" the utility corridor | Reversed circuit court: the TIF Act’s contiguity requirement does not incorporate the annexation exception; the City cannot "jump" the public utility parcel/right-of-way, so the TIF district is not contiguous under §11-74.4-4(a) |
| Whether the City complied with the TIF Act’s procedural/JRB requirements (meeting support, meet-and-confer, public hearing) | City failed to provide adequate administrative support, adjourned/closed hearings prematurely, and refused to meet and confer after the JRB’s written recommendation | City made reasonable efforts; JRB statement lacked specificity; City complied with the Act | Not reached on the merits (court reversed on contiguity); appellate opinion notes concern about City’s casual approach but declines to decide procedural claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry County Board v. Village of Orion, 278 Ill. App. 3d 1058 (Ill. App. 1996) (adopts definition of contiguity as touching or adjoining in a reasonably substantial physical sense under TIF Act)
- Western National Bank of Cicero v. Village of Kildeer, 19 Ill. 2d 342 (Ill. 1960) (annexation contiguity defined as tracts that touch or adjoin in a substantial physical sense)
- Geisler v. City of Wood River, 383 Ill. App. 3d 828 (Ill. App. 2008) (applies Henry County Board contiguity standard under TIF Act)
- La Salle Bank National Ass’n v. Village of Bull Valley, 355 Ill. App. 3d 629 (Ill. App. 2005) (point-to-point touching or cornering generally insufficient to satisfy contiguity)
- People ex rel. Village of Long Grove v. Village of Buffalo Grove, 160 Ill. App. 3d 455 (Ill. App. 1987) (characterizes point-to-point touching as a subterfuge to reach outlying areas)
- Skaperdas v. Country Casualty Insurance Co., 2015 IL 117021 (Ill.) (principle that courts should not read exceptions or conditions into plain statutory language)