← Taxes & Financing

Who pays for the impact?

The developer projects new tax revenue for Bannockburn. But large developments can also create public-service and infrastructure costs. What might those costs be, and who would pay them?

Developer projection ~$1.18M Annual Village tax revenue at full buildout Sales, food-and-beverage, hotel and Village property taxes. About 44% depends on hotels the developer’s own consultant calls not currently feasible. P pp. 48–52

Not yet quantified ? Added public-service and infrastructure costs The submitted fiscal analysis projects revenue. It does not estimate added costs for police, fire and EMS, roads or utilities.

That doesn't mean costs would exceed revenue. It means net fiscal impact hasn't been established: projected revenue minus added public costs, for the Village and for the other taxing bodies that serve the site.

What costs should be evaluated?

Potential needs, not predictions. None of these has been estimated, and not every one would materialize.

1 Police and event security Who could bear it: Bannockburn Police Department; event operator, if required by approval conditions

Potential needs
Traffic control on tournament weekends, event security, and calls for service from hotels, a gas station and late-night uses. Whether the operator would fund details for large events has not been addressed.
Uses: P pp. 32, 47
2 Fire and emergency medical services Who could bear it: Deerfield-Bannockburn Fire Protection District, a separate taxing body

Potential needs
Inspections, medical calls during events, and response planning for an air-supported dome, two ice rinks and hotels. The fire district levies its own property tax, so any TIF would affect it directly.
Uses: P p. 47; S p. 11
3 Roads, intersections and pedestrian infrastructure Who could bear it: Illinois DOT (Half Day Road is IL 22), the Village and the developer

Potential needs
Turn lanes, signals or access changes on IL 22, plus sidewalks or crossings. The preliminary traffic memo does not study intersection operations or tournament peaks.
A PDF pp. 86–88
4 Water, sewer and stormwater Who could bear it: The Village, its utility providers and the developer

Potential needs
Capacity for two ice rinks, 226 hotel rooms, restaurants and a car wash, plus stormwater for added pavement and roofs. No utility capacity analysis has been published.
Uses: P pp. 32, 47
5 Public financing and administration Who could bear it: The Village and overlapping taxing bodies

Potential needs
Staff, legal and consultant costs to set up and run a TIF and redevelopment agreement, and any reimbursements or obligations it creates. Terms have not been proposed in detail.
P pp. 60–62

Lessons from comparable communities

All four case studies →

Libertyville, Illinois · Lake County

Libertyville Sports Complex

Village-owned when built (2002)

The village borrowed about $25M to buy the land and build the complex. Its golf and family-entertainment components never met expectations, while the indoor facility broke even. For years the village transferred about $1M a year from general funds to cover the debt, then sold the golf land and, in 2023, the indoor building to an operator for about $3.13M net.

Underperforming add-ons can leave debt on the public books even when the core sports building holds its own.

Daily Herald, Apr 2021: lease to Canlan, $1M+ annual transfers ↗ Daily Herald, Mar 2023: indoor complex sale final ↗ Daily Herald, Jan 2020: entertainment and golf components ↗

Bettendorf, Iowa

TBK Bank Sports Complex area

Privately owned complex; city-built bridge

In August 2025 the city approved a $14.5M pedestrian bridge connecting the sports complex with development across Middle Road, after an earlier $11.7M estimate. It came in about $870K over budget, and the city paused or scaled back other capital projects to cover the difference.

Success can create new infrastructure needs, and new public commitments to pay for them.

KWQC, Aug 2025: $14.5M bridge approved ↗

What should Bannockburn ask?

1 Has the Village commissioned an independent net fiscal-impact or cost-of-service analysis?
2 Have the Village police department and Deerfield-Bannockburn Fire Protection District assessed potential peak-event demand?
3 Who would fund any required road, water, sewer or safety infrastructure improvements?
4 What protections would prevent future operating shortfalls or public financing commitments from becoming unanticipated taxpayer obligations?

Ask on November 2 → Who’s financing it?

Verification report

Verified Libertyville: ~$25M borrowed, ~$1M/yr general-fund transfers, indoor portion breaking even, golf/entertainment underperforming, ~$3.13M net sale (Daily Herald, 2020–2023).
Verified Bettendorf: $14.5M bridge approved Aug 2025 after $11.7M estimate, ~$870K over budget, other projects paused (KWQC, Aug 2025).
Excluded Bettendorf bridge funding source (area tax increment, “no new taxes”): reported in the research but not confirmed in an accessible source, so it is not stated.
Verified The developer’s fiscal projections cover revenue only; no municipal cost estimates appear in the submitted materials (P pp. 48–52).
Qualified Utility arrangements (water from Highland Park, wastewater treated by Deerfield) come from the research report and were not independently confirmed, so providers are not named.
Excluded Other cities’ police and fire staffing increases (e.g., Westfield, IN): not attributable to sports facilities alone.
Excluded Dome deflations, ammonia leaks and criminal cases elsewhere: not presented as likely risks for The QUAD.
Excluded Deerfield-Bannockburn FPD staffing and coverage figures: not checked against district records.