Northbrook's Downtown TIF: The Full Record

This is the evidence pack. For the findings alone, start with Northbrook's Downtown TIF: A Base of Zero, which is a third of the length.

Tax increment financing is usually reported at the end, when a municipality adopts the ordinance that creates the district. By then the boundaries, the base value, and the developer commitments are settled, and public comment addresses a structure that is already built.

Northbrook is at the other end of that sequence. The Village has not created a downtown TIF district and has not published an eligibility report. It has adopted a resolution and approved a $10.5 million purchase and sale agreement for a Village-owned downtown parcel, an agreement that expressly contains TIF review provisions, and the buyer has requested up to $3.5 million in future TIF reimbursement. A school district has put in writing that the base value would be zero if the district is formed while the parcel remains exempt, and why it believes that shifts cost onto homeowners rather than removing it.

Three things in the public record have not entered the public argument. The first is a consultant's report, commissioned by the high school district and filed in January 2025, that already modeled the student impact of the same Grainger site the Village has now agreed to sell. The second is that Northbrook has done this before, twice, and the record of how it did it is specific and instructive. The third is that the Village has a standard form of words for authorizing a TIF study, used it two years ago for a different district, and did not use it this time.

The record chain

Fifteen records carry the substance. Several are routinely collapsed in summary coverage, four of them predate the downtown proposal entirely, and one predates the Village's TIF resolution by sixteen months.

What the Board adopted on May 26

The Village's published meeting summary describes the TIF action as approving a resolution authorizing the preparation of a report on whether a Northbrook Downtown Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District would benefit the downtown. The explanatory note in the agenda packet says the same: the action will authorize preparation of a report and study on a potential Northbrook Downtown TIF District in accordance with State Statute for future public review and discussion before Village Board consideration.

The instrument carries a different name. Resolution 2026-R-102 is titled Providing for the Potential Reimbursement of Eligible Costs in Connection with the Northbrook Downtown Tax Increment Financing Development Plan and Project.

Both descriptions can be true of a single instrument, and in Illinois practice they frequently are. One resolution can authorize the statutory eligibility study and separately declare a municipality's intent to treat costs incurred before adoption as reimbursable if a district is later created.

What makes the downtown resolution worth a second look is that Northbrook has a form of words for exactly that, and used it two years earlier. On January 9, 2024, for a different proposed district, the Board adopted:

A Resolution Providing for an Eligibility Study and Report and a Redevelopment Plan and Project for a Proposed Green Acres Tax Increment Financing District and for the Potential Reimbursement of Related Eligible Costs (Green Acres Redevelopment)

That title names both jobs. The study and the plan come first, the reimbursement is appended second. Set the downtown resolution's title beside it and the first half is gone: A Resolution Providing for the Potential Reimbursement of Eligible Costs in Connection with the Northbrook Downtown Tax Increment Financing Development Plan and Project.

The Village's plain-language summary of the downtown item describes only the study, which is the half that is not in the title. The Green Acres title describes both. A title is not the operative text, and the agenda note does say the action authorizes a study, so this is not evidence that anything was concealed. It is evidence that the Village had a standard formulation naming both functions, and that the instrument adopted on May 26 was described publicly by one half and named after the other.

The distinction is worth preserving because those two functions carry different weight. A study commits nothing. A declaration of intent to reimburse establishes the reference point for a claim on revenue that does not yet exist.

The sequencing is different too. For Green Acres the Village signed a pre-development agreement with the developer on December 12, 2023, and adopted the study resolution four weeks later, on January 9, 2024. Downtown, the purchase and sale agreement and the TIF resolution were items 10.D and 10.F at the same meeting.

The minutes record the Village Attorney explaining that the proposed TIF process would allow future growth in the tax base in the proposed redevelopment area and the resulting new property tax revenue, under State law governing TIF, is reinvested to support development and infrastructure improvements in that same area. That is an accurate description of the mechanism. It says nothing about the size of the base, which is the part that determines how much money is involved.

District 30 says the base value would be zero

When an Illinois TIF district is certified, the equalized assessed value of property inside it is fixed. The overlapping taxing bodies continue to receive taxes calculated on that frozen base. Growth above the base, the increment, flows to the TIF fund for as long as 23 years.

The size of the base decides how much of a property's tax revenue the other taxing bodies keep and how much is captured. On an ordinary commercial parcel the base is substantial and only the growth is diverted. 1657 Shermer Road is not an ordinary commercial parcel.

The Village purchased the property from W.W. Grainger, Inc. on May 9, 2018 for $8 million, and municipally owned property is exempt from property tax. Under the TIF Act the county clerk determines the initial equalized assessed value from the most recently ascertained value, and totals the district's initial value from taxable real property. District 30's position is therefore that the currently exempt Grainger parcel would contribute nothing to the base if a district were formed under present conditions.

District 30's June 11 memorandum states the consequence directly, attributing the explanation to the Village's Director of Planning and Development: because the Grainger property's baseline EAV is frozen at $0, all new property tax growth generated by this development over the next 23 years will be diverted into the Village's TIF fund rather than flowing to the school district to offset the costs of educating these new students.

The parcel came off the tax rolls when the Village acquired it in 2018. If the county clerk ultimately sets a zero initial value for it, the taxable value created by the redevelopment would generally become increment for the life of the district rather than entering the ordinary base that the schools, park district and library levy against.

That is economically significant. It does not mean the schools receive nothing. Illinois law requires annual payments from a TIF fund for a school district's increased costs attributable to assisted housing units inside the project area, and separately allows a municipality, by written agreement, to pay all or part of an overlapping district's capital costs. What the schools actually receive depends on whether and how the downtown plan uses those provisions, which is the subject of a later section.

Timing could matter a great deal, but conveyance by itself does not guarantee a base above zero. The statute directs the county clerk to use the most recently ascertained value, so the operative question is what taxable value Cook County has established for the parcel at the moment the district is adopted and the initial value is determined. The published record answers neither that nor the Village's intended timing.

The initial-value question could govern a large share of the money. It is also something any resident can ask about in one sentence.

Why a frozen base does not lower anyone's tax bill

A common assumption is that other taxing bodies simply collect less and the burden ends there. Under Illinois' Property Tax Extension Limitation Law that is not how it works for a levying district, and District 30's memorandum states the mechanism plainly:

Under Illinois' Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), our overall operating levy does not shrink when a TIF is created. Instead, because the TIF property's taxable value is locked at zero for taxing bodies, the district's tax rate must adjust across the rest of the community. Consequently, the financial burden of funding the increased operational costs of new students will be shifted directly onto existing residential homeowners outside the TIF area.

Illinois Department of Revenue guidance confirms the underlying mechanism: increment is excluded from the equalized assessed value used to calculate a district's PTELL limiting rate. A school district's levy is a capped dollar amount rather than a rate, so removing value from the base does not reduce what the district asks for. District 30's argument is that this places more of the operating burden on property outside the district. The effect on any individual bill depends on the levy, new property, assessments and the applicable rates.

The student count was already on file

The argument over how many children a 300-unit building produces has been conducted, so far, between a developer's projection and a district's rebuttal. It did not need to be. On January 21, 2025, sixteen months before the Village authorized its TIF study, Glenbrook High School District 225 received a Subdivision Yield Analysis prepared by Woolpert and Cooperative Strategies covering District 225 and every feeder district, including Northbrook 28 and Northbrook-Glenview 30.

That study did two things that matter here.

It measured what Northbrook multifamily housing actually produces. Rather than applying a national table, the consultants placed enrolled students geographically and matched them to the complexes they live in. For District 30 the result is 243 students living in 1,255 multi-family attached units, a measured yield of 0.19 students per unit. For District 28 it is 286 students in 1,248 units, a yield of 0.23. These are counts of real children in real Northbrook buildings, not model output.

It modeled the Grainger site by name. The study's development section lists 1657 Shermer (Grainger Site) as a planned apartment development in District 30 and projects its student impact by bedroom type.

Seventy-one K-12 students, of whom 49 would attend District 30 schools and 22 would attend Glenbrook. The study modeled 383 units. Habitat's current proposal is 300 to 320. Scaled to 304 units on the same bedroom mix, the figure is about 56 students.

Now put the three estimates side by side. District 30's superintendent, applying published mid-rise multipliers to a 304-unit baseline, projected 38 to 50 school-age children. The high school district's consultant, modeling the same site at maximum impact, produces about 56 at that unit count. The measured local yield for District 30 multifamily housing, 0.19 per unit, produces about 58.

Three methods, drawing on District 30's own analysis and on the District 225 consultant study, land in roughly the same place: about 40 to 60 students. The second and third are separate calculations from the same report rather than separate sources, which makes the agreement between them less surprising and the agreement with District 30's independent method more so.

It is worth stating what that range is measured against. For the Sterling Place development at 1910 Techny Road, built in 2018, the developer's impact study projected 15 elementary students. District 30 reports 43 enrolled from that development for 2026-27, an undercount of 187 percent. The lesson the districts drew from Sterling Place is the reason the January 2025 study exists.

Northbrook has run this play before

The same consultant's report contains a second entry that reframes the entire downtown discussion.

Northbrook already has an active TIF district. The Northbrook Court II TIF was approved on October 30, 2023 over the Northbrook Court shopping center site, more than 100 acres.

It is worth being precise about how that happened, because it is the closest thing to a preview of what a downtown adoption would look like. Seven instruments did the work, and they were adopted together:

• Ordinance 2023-67, approving the TIF redevelopment plan and project.
• Ordinance 2023-68, designating the redevelopment project area.
• Ordinance 2023-69, adopting tax increment allocation financing.
• Resolution 2023-180, declaring official intent that certain capital expenditures be reimbursed from the proceeds of obligations to be issued by the Village.
• Ordinance 2023-70, approving and designating the Northbrook Court Business District.
• Ordinance 2023-71, imposing a business district retailers' occupation tax and service occupation tax.
• Ordinance 2023-72, approving the redevelopment and economic incentive agreement with Northbrook Court NewCo LLC and Northbrook Anchor Acquisition, LLC, and providing for the issuance of notes.

A TIF district, a new local sales tax, and a developer incentive agreement carrying note issuance. The minutes record the disposition in one line: On an omnibus vote Trustee Israel made a motion to approve the approval documents, result ADOPTED BY CONSENT VOTE [7 TO 0].

That is not irregular. Omnibus and consent motions are ordinary municipal practice and the items had been through the statutory process that precedes them. It does mean that the public record of Northbrook's largest recent financial commitment is a single consent vote, and that anyone expecting a downtown TIF to arrive as a debate on a single ordinance should expect a package instead.

The January 2025 study models the residential redevelopment planned at Northbrook Court at 2,000 units, and projects the students.

Five hundred and fifty-seven K-12 students, on a site already inside the Northbrook Court II TIF established in 2023.

Set the two sites against the study's own totals. Across the entire Glenbrook 225 area, covering five feeder districts and every development the consultants could identify, the study counted 2,995 planned units producing 928 K-12 students. Northbrook Court and the Grainger site together account for 2,383 of those units and 628 of those students. Roughly four out of five new units, and two out of three new students, sit on two sites that are either already inside a TIF district or proposed for one.

That is the fact that reframes the downtown argument. The question is not simply whether to create a TIF district. It is whether two properties projected to generate a large share of the area's new enrollment will both have substantial portions of their new tax growth captured inside TIF districts, and what enforceable protections the affected school districts get in return.

One more thing about that study: it was completed in January 2025, so it does not include Meadow Plaza at all. Pulte's proposal arrived more than a year later. Whatever the 150 condominiums at 1901 Cherry Lane produce is additional to the 928. Applying District 28's measured multifamily yield of 0.23 gives roughly 35 more K-12 students, though a condominium bedroom mix could move that in either direction.

Northbrook already wrote the schools into a TIF plan

This is the part of the record that cuts the other way, and it is the most useful thing in the file for anyone on either side of the downtown argument.

Start with the smaller precedent. Illinois lets a municipality declare a surplus in a TIF fund, returning money to the overlapping taxing bodies. Northbrook has done it twice. When it terminated the original Northbrook Court TIF in October 2023 and replaced it with Northbrook Court II, surplus remaining in the old fund was declared for distribution. It declared a surplus again in January 2024 on terminating the Dundee Road/Skokie Boulevard TIF. Both are terminating surpluses, which is not the same thing as a guaranteed annual payment.

The larger precedent is in the Northbrook Court II redevelopment plan itself. Its budget of estimated TIF-eligible costs, against a $155 million total, carries two line items aimed squarely at the schools:

Read that second note carefully, because it is the most consequential sentence in Northbrook's TIF record. It names a ceiling and then commits the gap beneath it: between the required statutory payments and 40 percent of the increment generated by the residential portion, the plan directs the difference to the schools as capital payments. Districts 225 and 28 are named in the plan itself.

That changes the question for downtown. It is no longer whether Illinois law lets a TIF pay schools, or whether Northbrook has ever been willing to. It plainly does, and Northbrook plainly has, in a document its own board adopted in 2023. The question is whether the downtown redevelopment plan carries the same provisions, better ones, or none.

It also gives the Village's June 22 report a more precise reading. When school leaders acknowledged the cooperation and accommodations made by the Village of Northbrook during the adoption of the previously approved TIF Districts, the reviewed record does not state which accommodations they meant. The Northbrook Court II plan's school and capital-cost provisions are a stronger candidate than the surplus declarations. No separate intergovernmental agreement between the Village and any school district appears in the Board's agenda record for 2023 or 2024.

There is one more precedent worth holding onto. On January 9, 2024 the Village authorized an eligibility study for a proposed Green Acres TIF district. No ordinance creating that district appears anywhere in the record since. A study does not have to become a district.

What the districts put in their own records

The Village hosted an intergovernmental discussion on June 22 and reported that school leaders stressed balancing development tools against the long-term financial stability of Northbrook's schools. The districts' own files are more specific, and they predate that meeting.

District 30's superintendent brought a written memorandum to her board on June 11, eleven days earlier. Three things in it are load bearing beyond the base-value finding already discussed.

The reimbursement request is documented in a government record. The memorandum states that Habitat has requested up to $3,500,000 in TIF funding to reimburse eligible expenses. It is a request contained in a purchase agreement, contingent on a district that does not exist. It is not an approved award. It does mean the purchase and sale agreement was negotiated with a TIF expressly contemplated, before any downtown eligibility report or redevelopment plan had been published.

The two projects sit in two different elementary districts. The memorandum notes that the TIF directly impacts the old Grainger property (in District 30) and Meadows Plaza (in District 28). Coverage that adds the unit counts into a single figure obscures this. The two projects land on different districts, different buildings, and different balance sheets. Both feed District 225.

The capacity constraint is physical, and capital costs are not automatically covered. The affected elementary building, Wescott School, serves roughly 460 students and, in the district's description, is landlocked, so additions to relieve crowding would consume outdoor play space. The district's concern is that per-student fees address operating costs while the buildings would fall to a local referendum paid by the same taxpayers. Illinois law does permit a municipality, by written agreement, to pay all or part of a taxing district's qualifying capital costs, and Northbrook's own Northbrook Court II plan budgets for exactly that. Whether the downtown plan does is not yet known.

The two projects are not one project

The eligibility question the report will have to answer

Illinois law requires a redevelopment plan to substantiate that the area qualifies and that redevelopment would not reasonably be anticipated without the assistance. The Village's own TIF page states the requirement as documentation of how the area satisfies the 'but for' requirement in order to qualify for TIF eligibility.

The record creates an obvious question for that document. A national homebuilder filed a formal application for a 150-unit downtown project on privately owned land with no identified request for assistance. A second developer agreed to pay $10.5 million for a Village-owned parcel. Both proposals advanced before any district existed.

This does not settle the question. A municipality can argue that the redevelopment program as a whole, including infrastructure, utilities, streetscape, land assembly, environmental work, and public improvements, requires TIF financing even where individual private projects would proceed. That argument is made or not made in the eligibility report, and the report is the document to read when it is published.

The Illinois TIF Act addresses the school problem directly, and its two provisions work differently. Where the statutory conditions in 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3(q)(7.5) are met, payments for a school district's increased costs attributable to assisted housing units in the project area shall be made from the TIF fund, under a formula based on the net increase in students and per capita tuition cost, reduced by increases in State aid and subject to annual caps. Section 3(q)(7) is permissive: a municipality may, by written agreement, pay all or part of an overlapping taxing district's capital costs.

The distinction matters here because the mandatory payment attaches to assisted housing units, meaning units whose developer receives financial assistance through an agreement with the municipality. Habitat has requested up to $3.5 million. Whether Northbrook's downtown plan relies on the statutory formula, negotiates a separate agreement, uses impact fees, replicates the Northbrook Court II provisions, or does none of these, will be visible in the plan's budget.

What the record does not establish

• No TIF district exists. No boundaries, base value, budget, or increment projection has been published. Every figure describing what a district would capture is, at this stage, an estimate by an interested party.
• The $3.5 million is a contractual request contingent on a district being created. It is not an appropriation, an award, or a commitment of public funds.
• The $0 base is District 30's stated understanding of what a Village official told it, consistent with how the statutory base is drawn but not confirmed by any Village statement in the reviewed record. The base is not fixed until certification, and the reviewed record does not establish the intended sequence.
• The January 2025 study's applied yields are deliberately set above measured averages to model maximum impact, and its values are rounded up. Its 383-unit assumption for the Grainger site is larger than Habitat's current proposal, and its bedroom mix is not the mix Habitat has filed. The scaled figures here are approximations.
• The study notes that students generated by new developments may include families moving within the district rather than new to it, and that occupancy occurs over years rather than at once.
• Northbrook Court's 2,000 units are the redevelopment program identified in January 2025 and may since have changed. Parcel-level TIF boundaries were not examined for this review, and the relationship between specific residential parcels and the TIF boundary should be confirmed against the adopted redevelopment plan.
• The May 26 votes were unanimous among voting trustees. All twenty roll calls recorded at that meeting, including routine items such as a taekwondo facility permit renewal, show the Village President abstaining. That reflects presiding practice and should not be read as specific to the TIF or land items.
• Minutes for the August 25 meeting had not been published when this was written. The agenda establishes what was noticed for action, not the outcome.
• The Green Acres and downtown resolutions are compared by their titles as they appear in the Board's agenda and minutes. Neither operative text was read for this review. A title is a label, not the instrument, and the downtown agenda note does state that the action authorizes a study.
• The surplus ordinances are identified by title. The reviewed record does not establish the dollar amounts, how they were apportioned, or how much reached any particular district.
• No Green Acres district appears in the record reviewed here. That is an absence of evidence in the Board's agenda titles, not proof the proposal was abandoned.
• Consent and omnibus votes are ordinary municipal practice. The October 30, 2023 vote is described here to show the shape of a TIF adoption in Northbrook, not to suggest procedural irregularity.
• Illinois law requires school-cost payments for qualifying TIF-assisted housing and permits agreed capital-cost payments, and Northbrook's Northbrook Court II plan budgets for both. The reviewed record does not establish what protections, formulas or agreements a downtown plan would contain.
• The three student estimates are three methods, not three independent sources. Two of them are separate calculations drawn from the same District 225 consultant study.
• The Northbrook Court II budget figures are the plan's stated upper limits on TIF-funded expenditure. The plan says explicitly that they are not a commitment to reimburse any developer, and the reviewed record does not establish what has actually been paid to any district.
• The sale of 1657 Shermer has not closed. The Board approved a purchase and sale agreement whose conditions include zoning approvals.
• This review does not evaluate whether a downtown TIF is good policy, whether either development should be approved, or whether any official has acted improperly. It addresses what the published records show and where they stop.

What to watch, and where

1. The eligibility report and redevelopment plan. They should disclose the proposed boundaries, the value assumptions, the budget, the projected increment, the eligibility findings and the but for justification. Read the value assumptions first, then compare them against the county clerk's eventual certification, which is what actually controls the initial value.
2. The initial-value timing for 1657 Shermer Road. When the property is conveyed, when it becomes taxable, what value Cook County has most recently ascertained, and what initial value the county clerk finally certifies.
3. The Joint Review Board. Illinois requires a board including representatives of the overlapping taxing districts to review the plan before adoption. Its minutes are where the districts' positions enter the formal record rather than correspondence.
4. Whether the January 2025 yield study is put in front of the Village Board. It is the only measured, independent student projection in existence for these sites, and it was commissioned by one of the affected districts.
5. The developer impact fee review. Identified as a Village workstream at the June 22 discussion. Impact fees and TIF reimbursement are alternative routes to the same problem and interact with each other.
6. The Northbrook Court II TIF's school payments and actual performance. What the plan's statutory and capital-cost payments to Districts 225 and 28 have actually produced, what increment the district generates, and separately what became of the surplus from the terminated original Northbrook Court TIF.
7. Whether the downtown plan carries the Northbrook Court II school provisions. That plan budgets statutory school payments and capital-cost payments and names Districts 225 and 28. Whether the downtown plan replicates it, improves on it, or omits it is the single most answerable question in this file.
8. Whether the downtown resolution is followed by a second one. Green Acres shows the Village authorizing a study in a resolution that said so in its title. If a separate study authorization appears for downtown, that answers the question this analysis raises.
9. The Plan Commission hearing on the Pulte application, and whether the Habitat application follows the same route or remains reserved to the Village Board.

Everything here is public. None of it was together.

Not one document in this analysis is confidential, leaked, or obtained by request. Every figure came from a record the Village of Northbrook or a school district published on its own website. The reason none of it has appeared in one place is that the records live in five different governments, on two different publishing platforms, across nearly three years.

The base-value warning is in a superintendent's memorandum inside a school board packet. The student count is in a consultant's report attached to a high school district's board agenda in January 2025. The $10.5 million price is spoken by the Village Attorney and captured in the minutes, not in the meeting summary. The resolution's operative title is in the agenda, not in the description of the agenda. The Northbrook Court comparison requires knowing that a TIF adopted in 2023 covers a site that appears in a table on page 21 of a demographic study.

A resident would have to read all of it, and know to look. A reporter covering a village board meeting has that agenda in front of them and no reason to open a school district's consultant report from the previous year. This is the ordinary condition of local government: the record is complete, public, and effectively unreadable, because the pieces of a single decision are filed by separate bodies that do not index each other.

That is the work GovData does. We read the published record of every overlapping local government, the agendas, the minutes, the attachments, and the consultant reports filed as exhibits, and we connect the ones that describe the same decision. Not only the headline document. The one filed with a body nobody is watching, sixteen months early, that already contains the answer.

Sources

1. Village of Northbrook, Board of Trustees minutes, May 26, 2026. Items 10.C through 10.F, including Ordinance 2026-32 and Resolution 2026-R-102, and the Village Attorney's description of the $10.5 million sale.
2. Village of Northbrook, Board of Trustees agenda packet, May 26, 2026, including the explanatory note on the TIF resolution.
3. Village of Northbrook, Board meeting summary, May 26, 2026.
4. Village of Northbrook, Intergovernmental Partners Hold Planning Discussion, June 22, 2026.
5. Village of Northbrook, Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts, including the Northbrook Court II TIF approved October 30, 2023, the redevelopment plan requirements, and the 23-year limit.
6. Village of Northbrook, Meadow Plaza (1901 Cherry Ln) development information, including the application timeline and project specifications.
7. Northbrook-Glenview School District 30, superintendent's memorandum to the Board of Education, Proposed New Downtown Northbrook TIF, June 11, 2026, with the student-impact projection attachment.
8. Glenbrook High School District 225, 2024-25 Subdivision Yield Analysis Including Feeder Districts, prepared by Woolpert and Cooperative Strategies, dated January 21, 2025, presented to the Board of Education. Measured yields by feeder district at pages 4 and 5; development projections at page 21.
9. Village of Northbrook, termination of the 1657 Shermer purchase agreement with Quarterra, January 21, 2025, for the May 9, 2018 acquisition from W.W. Grainger, Inc. for $8 million.
10. Village of Northbrook, Board of Trustees agenda and minutes, October 30, 2023, item 5.C, establishing the Northbrook Court II TIF and the Northbrook Court Business District (Ordinances 2023-67 through 2023-72 and Resolution 2023-180), adopted by consent vote.
11. Village of Northbrook, Board of Trustees agenda and minutes, December 12, 2023, items 10.C and 11.J, the Green Acres pre-development agreement and the Northbrook Court TIF surplus ordinance.
12. Village of Northbrook, Board of Trustees agenda and minutes, January 9, 2024, item 8.J, the Green Acres eligibility study resolution.
13. Village of Northbrook, Board of Trustees agenda and minutes, January 23, 2024, items 8.C and 8.D, terminating the Dundee Road/Skokie Boulevard TIF and declaring its surplus.
14. Northfield Township High School District 225, 2026-27 tentative budget, informational section on tax increment financing districts and PTELL, presented to the Board of Education.
15. Village of Northbrook, Northbrook Court II TIF designation report, June 16, 2023. Estimated TIF-eligible costs at Table 3.1, including the statutory school district payment and capital cost payment line items and their notes.
16. 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3, redevelopment project costs, including the school district payment provisions at (q)(7.5) and taxing district capital costs at (q)(7).
17. 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-9, determination of the initial equalized assessed value by the county clerk.
18. Illinois Department of Revenue, Property Tax Extension Limitation Law Technical Manual, for the treatment of TIF increment in the limiting rate calculation.

This analysis is based on public records and reflects those records as published when it was written. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice, and it is not an assessment of any official's motives or conduct. Figures attributed to a school district, a consultant, or a developer are that party's own statements, not independent findings. Verify the current official record, and the eligibility report when it is published, before relying on any figure here.