Sugar Grove issues clarification on referendum petition

After Sugar Grove Village Board members voted to annex land for The Grove, a 760-acre mixed-use development planned for the edge of Sugar Grove surrounding Interstate 88 at the Route 47 interchange, community members have been working to find ways to counter the decision.

Village Board members approved the annexation agreement and the creation of a TIF district for The Grove in 4-2 votes at their Sept. 10 Special Meeting, despite a great deal of opposition to the development, including an online petition with over 2,000 signatures.

With multiple petitions circulating in opposition to the development, specifically one calling for the annexation to go to a referendum proposed by Thoughtful Progress Inc., the Village of Sugar Grove issued a statement on Sept. 18 to clarify that a referendum is not applicable to the annexation.

“It appears that misconceptions have arisen regarding the recent annexation of the Crown property. Because this information has been posted directly to the Village’s Facebook page by one or more members of the public, the Village believes it is necessary to provide clarification,” the statement read. “Specifically, members of the community have apparently been advised or are under the perception that by circulating a petition and obtaining a certain number of signatures, the Crown annexation will be placed on a ballot for referendum. However, the annexation of the Crown property was a voluntary annexation, which means that 100% of the property’s ownership sought annexation and the Owner and the Village mutually agreed upon the annexation.”

The statement went on to say that no petition had been filed, but according to the village’s municipal code, a referendum is reserved for other types of annexations, and there is no legal basis for a referendum in the case of a voluntary annexation.

On Sept. 25, Sugar Grove Village Administrator Scott Koeppel said the statement was made in response to comments on the village’s social media posts regarding the petition calling for a referendum. He said they felt the need to make a statement to say, “This is what the village did.”

“We wanted to address what we did as a village, specifically, the annexation that we did with Crown Community Development for The Grove, and whether or not a referendum was applicable to that,” Koeppel said. “I don’t know the details and I have not seen what the plan is from Thoughtful Progress Inc., so I can’t speak to the referendum. All we can say, and what we said in our statement was, there is no legal recourse for a referendum on the type of annexation we did.

“They can do theirs – and more power to them – they can go do all the referendums and all the things that they want, but we wanted to make sure that people were understanding what was happening regarding the recent annexation the village did,” Koeppel said.

After the village issued the statement, Thoughtful Progress Inc. shifted their referendum petition from calling for a binding annexation ballot to posing advisory question of public policy which states, “Should the Village of Sugar Grove’s approval of ‘The Grove,’ a development project by Sugar Grove, LLC / Crown Community Development, located near Interstate 88 and Route 47, be immediately reversed using all necessary and lawful measures?”

Koeppel added that the date to turn in any petition for a referendum on the November ballot has passed, and if anything is submitted, it would be for the April consolidated election. He said he did not know whether or not the public has the right to do that, and deferred questions about the legality of the process and number of signatures that would be required to the Kane County Clerk’s Office.

Kane County Clerk John Cunningham declined to comment on the topic.

Members of Thoughtful Progress Inc. did not respond to messages requesting comment.