Bd. of Educ. of Richland Sch. Dist. No. 88A v. City of Crest Hill

2020 IL App (3d) 190225

165 N.E.3d 548

444 Ill.Dec. 902

The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 88A, an Illinois Public School District, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.The CITY OF CREST HILL, an Illinois Non-Home Rule Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal No. 3-19-0225

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed July 24, 2020

JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff filed a verified complaint challenging the tax increment financing (TIF) ordinances approved by defendant to establish the Weber Road Corridor TIF District (TIF District) under the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (Act), 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et seq. (West 2016). Each party filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The material facts are undisputed on appeal. Our resolution turns on an application of those facts to the Act. Before beginning this task, a brief overview of the events culminating in the establishment of the TIF District and the parties' arguments in the circuit court is appropriate.

¶ 4 A. Establishment of the TIF District

¶ 5 In July 2017, defendant, the City of Crest Hill (City), requested and received a TIF Redevelopment Plan and Project (Plan), prepared by Camiros, Ltd., under the Act. The Plan included a conclusion that the proposed project area qualified as a redevelopment project area because it was a "blighted area" under the Act. See id. § 11-74.4-3(a).¹

¶ 6 Consistent with its obligation under section 11-74.4-5(b) of the Act, the City convened a joint review board (JRB). See id. § 11-74.4-5(b). Section 11-74.4-5(b) states a JRB shall include:

"a representative selected by each community college district, local elementary school district and high school district or each local community unit school district, park district, library district, township, fire protection district, and county that will have the authority to directly levy taxes on the property within the proposed redevelopment project area at the time that the proposed redevelopment project area is approved, a representative selected by the municipality and a public member." Id.

¶ 7 Further, section 11-74.4-5(b) states that a JRB reviews "(i) the public record, planning documents and proposed ordinances approving the redevelopment plan and project and (ii) proposed amendments to the redevelopment plan or additions of parcels of property to the redevelopment project area to be adopted by the municipality." Id. The JRB then renders "an advisory, non-binding recommendation" on the redevelopment plan and project. See id.

¶ 8 Plaintiff, Board of Education of Richland School District No. 88A (School Board), selected Joe Simpkins as its representative on the JRB convened by the City in this case. The JRB met for the first time on October 10, 2017, in the City's council chambers, where a vote to approve the TIF District failed. Thus, the City's attorney suggested that the JRB "prepare a statement setting forth the reasons that [the] Plan either failed to comply with the Act or how the property did not meet the [TIF] eligibility requirements." The JRB continued the meeting until November 6, 2017, at which time the JRB reconvened and adopted a written statement that the TIF District

"not be created because the proposed Redevelopment Project Area does not meet the criteria for designation as a TIF District under the TIF Act. The [JRB] finds that [TIF] is not needed to encourage redevelopment within the Redevelopment Project Area, and the Redevelopment Project Area would experience redevelopment in the absence of [TIF]. The [JRB] finds that the creation of the * * * [TIF] District would have a significant negative impact on the affected taxing districts, by the redirection of critical property taxes away from the affected taxing districts into a TIF fund for up to twenty three (23) years."

¶ 9 According to the transcript of the November 6, 2017, meeting of the JRB, the City's attorney asked for more "specificity on how [the TIF District] fails to meet the criteria." Regarding an obligation of the City to respond to the JRB's written statement, the City's attorney stated, "I'm not quite sure, frankly, what we're responding to because it sounds like * * * the TIF [D]istrict doesn't meet the criteria, but there is no specificity as to which criteria aren't met and whether it is needed." In response, the School Board's attorney stated that if the City

"takes the position that it has met all its obligations with regard to [JRB] proceedings and it is going to go ahead any way [sic ], it can do that * * * [but] [t]he more conservative approach for the City would be to interact with the JRB as called for under the TIF [A]ct."

Thereafter, the JRB voted to reconvene on the tentative date of December 4, 2017. Also on November 6, 2017, after receiving the JRB's written statement, the City held and adjourned a public hearing on the TIF District.

¶ 10 On November 20, 2017, the City's mayor, Raymond Soliman, wrote a letter to the School Board's JRB representative, Simpkins, asserting that the JRB did not cite "any specific challenges to the [P]lan" and any determination regarding the need for redevelopment was "a finding to be made by the municipality." In the letter, the mayor stated, "there is no reason for the City to meet with the JRB members on December 4th." According to the mayor, the JRB's written statement recommending a rejection of the TIF District was "legally deficient to the point that there [we]re no amendments the City c[ould] make to address the JRB objections." On this same day, the City unanimously approved three TIF ordinances establishing the TIF District.

¶ 11 When the members of the JRB arrived at Crest Hill City Hall on December 4, 2017, they were informed that the scheduled meeting was cancelled. The JRB conducted a meeting in the hallway of Crest Hill City Hall to affirm the recommendation to reject the TIF District.

¶ 12 B. The School Board's Verified Complaint

¶ 13 On January 2, 2018, the School Board filed a verified complaint against the City, alleging that the three TIF ordinances approved by the City were invalid due to noncompliance with the statutory mandates of the Act. First, the School Board stated that the northwestern portion and the remainder of the TIF District were not contiguous, as required by section 11-74.4-4(a) (see id. § 11-74.4-4(a)). For context, we have included maps of the TIF District, with court notations, immediately below.

Map 2-Enlarged TIF District Map with Measurements and Highlighted Boundary

¶ 14 The School Board's complaint also alleged that the City failed to comply with certain procedural requirements of the Act Specifically, the School Board alleged that (1) the City failed to provide administrative support to the JRB by publishing agendas and providing meeting space and administrative staff on October 10, November 6, and December 4, 2017; (2) the City improperly adjourned a public hearing on the TIF District before the JRB held its meeting scheduled for December 4, 2017; (3) the City failed to meet and confer with or resubmit a revised Plan to the JRB after receiving the written statement recommending a rejection of the TIF District; and (4) the City improperly approved the ordinances establishing the TIF District before meeting and conferring with, resubmitting a Plan to, or allowing the December 4, 2017, meeting to be held by the JRB. As a result of the City's noncompliance with the Act, the School Board requested that the City be enjoined from advancing its TIF District.

¶ 15 C. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

¶ 16 On December 21, 2018, the City and the School Board filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the parties filed responses and replies to the cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties' respective motions and responses are summarized separately below.

¶ 17 1. The City's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

¶ 18 In its motion for summary judgment, the City addressed the verified complaint's allegation that the TIF District was not contiguous, as required by section 11-74.4-4(a). The City pointed out that the School Board's allegation was based on "a map with the superimposed markings [‘noncontiguous’] of an unknown person." In contrast, the City provided official Will County maps, which revealed that the northwestern portion of the TIF District, parcels B and C, share an 1175 foot common boundary along Weber Road that was sufficient during the annexation of parcel C. Likewise, the City relied on "jumping" the natural gas right of way for purposes of the prior annexation of parcel B, as it claimed was expressly allowed by section 7-1-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code (id. § 7-1-1). In addition, the City's motion for summary judgment addressed the allegations pertaining to the Act's procedural requirements.

¶ 19 2. The School Board's Motion for Summary Judgment

¶ 20 The School Board's motion for summary judgment addressed the issue of contiguity. Initially, the School Board rejected as irrelevant the City's contention that "there exists 1,175 linear feet of common boundary establishing contiguity" between parcels B and C. The School Board contended parcels A and B, not parcels B and C, were noncontiguous under the Act.

¶ 21 Likewise, the School Board rejected the City's contentions with respect to past annexations. The School Board pointed out that annexations and TIF are governed by independent sections of the Illinois Municipal Code. In the School Board's view, the portion of the Illinois Municipal Code governing TIF did not allow the City to "jump" the 234.9 foot portion of the natural gas right-of-way to establish contiguity between parcels A and B. Again, the School Board argued that these parcels, not parcels B and C, were noncontiguous under the Act.²

¶ 22 In support of this argument, the School Board relied on the deposition testimony of ...