Sugar Grove Talks Sense about Premature Farmland Annexation

The Village of Sugar Grove has recently published an open letter that outlines what can happen when farmland is prematurely annexed into our communities. Sugar Grove makes a strong case that the premature annexation of farmland is a dangerous practice that will likely result in the substantial loss of millions of dollars of impact and transition fees. Sugar Grove also correctly predicts the loss of municipal control that these premature farmland annexations will forfeit to future development interests.

The Village of Sugar Grove argues effectively that the annexation of large tracts of undeveloped land will likely have the opposite effect than the intended one. That is, instead of controlling growth, premature annexations may actually make the annexing community "incredibly vulnerable" to the very growth they seek to avoid.

I wanted you to see this letter, because it is an important document, one that definitely deserves to be read with careful consideration:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reasoned Growth. An Open Letter from the Village of Sugar Grove.

The Village of Sugar Grove has always supported orderly and reasoned growth of local communities. Recently the Village of Big Rock filed in court a petition to annex about 7,800 acres of land. This effort seeks to annex over 12 square miles to Big Rock, a town of a little over 2 square miles and approximately 750 citizens. It includes the forced annexation of approximately one-half of the area or around 4,000 acres. It will be one of the largest single annexations in Illinois history. Unfortunately this action will have adverse impact on the Village of Big Rock, its residents, the surrounding communities and all the other jurisdictions that serve the Village of Big Rock and surrounding communities (i.e. Schools, Fire Protection Districts, etc). One must question the reason for taking this step and two possible reasons have been suggested: controlling growth and limiting the Village of Sugar Grove’s development.

If the reason is to control growth, the proposed annexation will not have the desired effect. In Illinois, no developer can forcibly annex its property to a Village. This simple rule grants Village’s great power, the power to negotiate the terms of a properties annexation into a Village. If a Village forgoes this power and annexes property without negotiating terms, that Village loses all of that power. Once annexed, a developer is free to develop its property as it sees fit, subject only to the ordinances of the Village. The Village, in effect gives up the following powers, among others:

The power to say no is lost. Without annexation, developers cannot reasonably develop their property. Once annexed, developers can, in fact, build more easily.

The power to negotiate impact fees and require transition fees is lost.

The power to limit building permits per year is lost.

The power to truly control density of developments is largely lost.

The power to control many land use changes is largely lost.

The power to require the developer to put in more that the bare minimum of public improvements is lost.

The power to preserve more than the bare minimum of open space is lost.

In fact, the proposed annexation may a have the opposite effect and actually spur uncontrolled growth in the areas being annexed and surrounding areas.

The solution is not to annex large swaths of land without agreements, but to enter into boundary line agreements with neighboring communities. By doing so, communities get the best of both worlds: knowledge that property on its side of the border will not go to another community while still having the power to say no to development by refusing to annex the property. The Village of Sugar Grove has offered previously to negotiate a boundary line agreement with the Village of Big Rock and stands ready to negotiate such a boundary line agreement now.

If the reason for this annexation is to limit Sugar Grove’s development, this too is misunderstood and misguided. The Village of Sugar Grove only seeks orderly and controlled development. Sugar Grove has not annexed any property in Big Rock Township or entertained a formal annexation request from any property owner in Big Rock Township in over 10 years. Sugar Grove has a long history of working positively with our neighbors to promote well planned, controlled growth that respects the natural environment and supports local schools and government agencies as evidenced by:

Sugar Grove has boundary agreements with five of our neighboring communities and continues proactive efforts to reach agreements with Batavia, Big Rock, Elburn and Kaneville should it incorporate. Sugar Grove won a joint cooperation award for our work with Kane County on our Comprehensive Planning efforts. Sugar Grove made significant changes to our 2005 Comprehensive Plan in response to the input of the Kaneville community. Sugar Grove jointly planned our transportation network with Yorkville, Montgomery and Kane County for the benefit of the region. Sugar Grove was the driving force behind the implementation of capital impact fees for the Kaneland School District and was the first area municipality to collect transition fees for School, Park, Library, Township and Fire Districts. Sugar Grove has a standard requirement of 40% Open Space for residential development. Sugar Grove establishes annual permit limits for each residential development.

As stated above, when a community is on the defensive, and annexes property prematurely, all people are negatively affected. All of the taxpayers and the taxing bodies that count on annexation fees to pay for growth are affected. In Big Rock’s case of annexing approximately 7,800 acres, using a density of just one home per every 1.5 acres and the current Sugar Grove annexation fee schedule, this annexation could cost the Village of Big Rock, Hinckley Big Rock School District, Big Rock Park District and the Hinckley Fire Protection District well over $50,000,000 dollars in lost fees.

The solution is to negotiate a boundary agreement. If a boundary agreement cannot be negotiated, then letting each individual property owner decide which community they wish to be a part of is the best course of action. With so many property owners signing the Big Rock petition, Big Rock should feel comfortable with this approach. In the mean time, Sugar Grove will continue to responsibly plan for the future.

Signed, VOSG

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Village of Elburn and the Village of Lily Lake are dealing with a parallel situation regarding an incorporation proposal originating in Campton Township. Only the "Preserve Campton" proposal is three times the Big Rock request seeking to annex a whopping 36 square miles of Kane County.

Just imagine, the Village of Elburn has been in existence since 1881, and our total incorporated boundaries today are only an approximate 2.5 square miles.

I would like to suggest that our community leaders in western Kane County take a deep breath, and try to calm down. We are beginning to make bad decisions, solely because we are afraid of our neighbors. There are many of solutions available to us. As the Village of Sugar Grove concludes in their open letter, continuing to negotiate boundary agreements is one of those solutions.

Unfortunately, the premature annexation of farmland is a less than desirable solution to controlling growth that our children and grandchildren will not think was very smart.