Historic meeting between the village and school boards
by Greg Cryns
Richmond Report correspondent
BACK to the Richmond News main page

Aug. 31, 2002

Spring Grove village president Bob Martens told the crowd, "This is the first of its kind." The village boards of Richmond and Spring Grove met with the school boards from the middle and high schools on Thursday evening, August 29, 2002. "We need to reach an understanding of each other's issues," said Martens. The meeting was requested by school officials in order to express their fears and concerns about rapid housing growth in the area.
Many topics were discussed.

SCHOOL IMPACT FEES

Impact fees are charges assessed against newly-developing property that attempt to recover the cost incurred by a local government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development.

The developer of a proposed development pays the impact fee, although the developer will, as a practical matter, pass the costs of these fees onto the purchases of the developed property. The local government examines the proposed development, determines what facilities will be required to sustain the desired level of service, and charges the developer a fee to cover a portion of the cost of the needed system improvements. Impact fees are strictly optional.

Village attorney, John Roth, stated that McHenry County relies on the "Naperville" format for impact fees. Its name is derived from the way the village of Naperville set its impact fees years ago. A three-bedroom home with a detached garage would pay $3,713 in impact fees under the Naperville
arrangement.

However, both Richmond and Spring Grove school impact fees are based on the annexation agreements with the developers. Spring Grove has a flat fee of $600 plus $1.50 per square foot. This generates $3,600 for an 2,000 square foot home. Richmond requires a $691 fee plus $1.72 per square foot for $4,100 per new home. All impact fees are paid by the person taking out the
building permit.

Roth emphasized that an annexation agreement is a contract with the developer. All board members are concerned about an ongoing lawsuit brought by developers against Crystal Lake. Roth said it is rumored that the suit may extend to other towns.

EVOLUTION OF IMPACT FEES

Former school superintendent Ron Erdmann explained how impact fees were determined in the past. "We had to have a rationale for determining the  fee," said Erdmann. "We could not just pick a number. We based our decision on the Naperville ordinance back in 1995. We wanted an investment from the
builders."

LAND AND CASH DONATIONS

Brusek questioned the possibility that developers can donate land in lieu of cash. He said, "We must make sure that it doesn't happen. The land cash issue is a problem. A developer could avoid a square foot fee by donating land. We need ordinances in place to prevent this."

Superintendent Zimmer said, "We need to do a thorough study to avoid going to court in the future."

Some discussion involved the Fox lake/Spring Grove border agreement. Fox Lake impact fees are much less than in Spring Grove. The concern is that new homes on the border will not pay enough in impact fees. It was agreed that this situation would be addressed in the future.

ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS

Roth said that once the towns make an annexation agreement with a developer they are locked-in. "We cannot challenge the impact fees after an agreement is reached," he said. "We must be careful."

Erdmann said, "There is healthy dialog here. Our sandbox is small and we have to play nice." He compared local impact fees with Lake Forest where the impact fees are far higher. "We need to think about the kids, not the developers." said Erdmann, "If a developer threatens a lawsuit, as often happens, we cannot be afraid. (to go ahead)."

SCHOOL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

<   1.. Discontinue the CPI (cost/price index) when determining impact fees   2.. Ask the State Board of Education to suggest how much land is appropriate for schools
  3.. Create a definitive formula for impact fees
  4.. Freeze the approval of all annexation agreements until they have been subjected to a Steering Committee report
  5.. Open improved dialog between citizens and board members using town hall meetings and mass mailings
  6.. Plan schools where children can walk to them
  7.. Place board of education people on zoning boards and steering committees
  8.. Limit the number of new building permits issues
  9.. Use alternative school funding methods
  10..  Employ a defined methodology with a real design, not just a report
  11..  Annual committee review on annexation agreements and ordinances

GENERAL DISCUSSION WITH AUDIENCE

Some doubted that developers would accept impact fees with no caps. "Developers will walk away," said one village board member.

President Martens said that he is open to the idea of a freeze on annexations, but that it would be difficult to curtail current annexation procedures. Brusek agreed.

Zimmer asked if the school districts could be involved with current annexation decisions. Martens agreed to listen to whatever the school boards have to say, but he questioned how the villages could plan for all students
to walk to schools.

John Drummond questioned land valuation for developers. "Is the value of the land determined before the annexation or post-annexation? After rezoning land goes up in value by three to four times."

Tom Gough, a builder in Spring Grove, expressed his concerns. "Have you considered the input of the builders?" he said. "I paid $93,000 in impact fees last year for 10 homes. Most teachers cannot afford to live in our communities. Let us be a part of your research if you want us on your team. We need to bring in commercial tax dollars. We cannot build the community without commercial growth."

Brusek said it would take over a year to put a steering committee together; he expressed concern about how to fund the consultants needed. Erdmann countered that it took only two years to plan and build the high school with
only one board doing the work. "That's the problem," quipped one village board member. "Here we'll be dealing with four boards." Zimmer suggested that the committee be developed in stages.

An architect from Spring Grove suggested that the towns appropriate school sites where they are needed rather than on the edge of a school district which is often the case. He said that sensible planning is needed. Martens
said, "I agree. We need to include the parks, too."

Another person from Spring Grove said, "People come to this area for the good schools. We need to look at the school budget and make sure we pay the teachers well. This is most important."

"Our schools are suffering due to the fast growth," another person said.

Rommy Lopat said, "We also need a steering committee to look at the overall property taxes. How can we put the genie back in the bottle? Residential housing never pays for itself. How can we cope with all of the new houses?
We have a huge responsibility now."

It was agreed that two members from each of the four boards would populate a steering committee. The first meeting will be on Monday, Sept. 16th at the Spring Grove village hall at 6:00 pm.

Post-meeting discussion was generally optimistic but guarded.

 "This was a productive meeting," said Martens. "I'm delighted that this happened."

Developer May said, "This is the first step. We will lead the county with ideas for a good educational system. Watch us."

Richmond zoning chairman, Charlie Eldredge, said, "This is a good start. It is essential that the boards cooperate in this complex problem. We will finda solution."

Peter Bell, the owner of the Tamarack Farms, said, "It is wonderful that communities come together. Education improvements are the foundation for values of homes."

But optimism was tempered by realism. A village board member who did not want to be identified said, "We won't do everything the school board asks."

A Richmond resident said, "I want development to slow down, but I don't know if we can persuade the village board to listen."