Daily Herald opinion: What was the hurry?: Mundelein board’s action on impact fees disrupted chance for ‘unity’

In early March, Mundelein Village President Steve Lentz expressed the desire for “more unity” regarding the potential impact on school districts from the planned massive Ivanhoe Village development on the village’s northwest side. Last week, his village board took action that would seem to directly contradict that goal.

Mundelein annexed property in late 2022 with plans to work with Wirtz Realty Corporation on a 773-acre megadevelopment called Ivanhoe Village. The project would take more than 25 years to complete, with ultimately more than 3,100 units of various housing types, shops, athletic fields, a village center and more.

School districts serving the area, Mundelein High School District 120 and Fremont School District 79, foresee a massive influx of students — including the possibility of having to build a new school — and want an agreement with Wirtz that recognizes and helps account for their needs.

But a procedural logjam occurred when Wirtz pulled out of negotiations with the school districts after just one session, complaining in a letter to the districts of a “complete failure to act in good faith.”

Lentz said at the time that the village’s “hands are tied” because state law prohibits it from requiring one-time impact fees to cover school construction costs or operational expenses. So, four Lake County lawmakers — Sens. Adrian Johnson and Mary Edly-Allen and state Reps. Dan Didech and Laura Faver Dias — introduced legislation they said in a letter to the village would “untie your hands” so the village could “secure the resources necessary to support our schools.”

That bill had passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.

So, one can’t help wondering, what was the hurry for the Mundelein Village Board to act on its own? The village, the schools and Wirtz have been discussing this property for more than two years. The Wirtz family, also owners of the Chicago Blackhawks, have been assembling it for 165 years. Corporation officials estimate the project will cost $2 billion. No one could wait for another few weeks to see the outcome of the legislation — or, importantly, the transition of leadership to a newly elected village president and a new team on the village board?

When lawmakers issued their letter describing the bill they had proposed, Lentz responded that it demonstrated a bias toward the school districts. If bias is a concern, it can’t help but seem that by acting immediately to come to an independent agreement with Wirtz about compensation for the school districts, the village was demonstrating bias toward the developer.

With only their public comments to go on, it is difficult to know whom to believe when school officials call the developers’ offers “woefully short” and the developer’s attorney cites a “complete lack” of good faith on the part of the schools. But it cannot be denied that a development of the scope of Ivanhoe Village will have a transformational impact on local schools, and school leaders are best positioned to identify resources that will be required to serve new student populations. Whatever their initial demands, they ought to have some influence in decisions that will affect them.

Reflecting on the negotiations before the new legislation was introduced District 120 school board President Peter Rastrelli said, “It’s crucial that we engage our community now and take time to get the development plan right.”

He is right on that score. In 25 years, it will be too late for schools, parks and libraries to make up for any shortcomings that may exist in today’s planning.

And, there is certainly potential for shortcomings in the impact deal the village approved last week. Village officials said the agreement will produce $6.6 million for District 79 and $4.3 million for District 120. School officials want $90 million in District 79 and $22 million in District 120.

It may well be that each side is correct in questioning the predictions of the other, but gaps that wide clearly need to be addressed. The advent of new legislation might have provided more impetus for the two sides to address them.

The village board’s rush to action seems to foreclose that possibility, but it’s important to acknowledge that the deal is still tentative. Hopefully, if the new legislation passes the Senate and a new village board is seated, there will still be opportunities to achieve more of that unity that Lentz called for and an outcome that will demonstrate that all stakeholders have been heard and included.