HANKES ROAD BRIDGE UPDATE – March 6, 2026
We are pleased to report that our Road District crews assisted Village crews to make much needed repairs to the Village’s road over Hankes Road bridge.
While we are happy to assist the Village with this project, we also want to correct some incorrect or misleading information about the township and road district’s involvement with this. Hankes Road Bridge is owned by the State of Illinois, managed through the Illinois Department of Transportation. The road over the bridge is a Village road, not a Township road. The ownership of a bridge is different than the jurisdiction of the road over the bridge. IDOT wants to make repairs to the bridge, but it cannot do so without permission of the Village because the Village has jurisdiction over the road that runs over the bridge. The Village is refusing to sign the agreement with IDOT unless a long term maintenance agreement is shared by the Village and Township Road District.
In 1964, the Sugar Grove Township Road District entered into an agreement with the State to maintain the road over the bridge. However, when the Village of Sugar Grove acquired the road over the bridge by annexation in 1988, that agreement was mooted and the maintenance of the road became the responsibility of the Village of Sugar Grove. When the Village annexed the golf course, it attempted to carve out the road so that they were not annexing it. However, Section 7-1-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code states that, after an annexation, “The new boundary shall extend to the far side of any adjacent highway and shall include all of every highway within the area annexed. These highways shall be considered to be annexed even though not included in the legal description set forth in the petition for annexation.” Accordingly, the road over the bridge belongs to the Village, and has been the Village’s road ever since the Village’s annexation, whether the Village agrees or not. Other than one year in 2016, the Road District has never had an agreement with the Village to maintain the road on the bridge at any point since the Village acquired it in 1988. Since that time, the Township and Road District have received no tax dollars and no funding whatsoever from the State to maintain the Village’s road over the bridge.
Almost 10 years ago, the Village filed a lawsuit over this issue seeking to have a court rule that the road over the bridge was not the Village’s responsibility. That lawsuit was unsuccessful and was dismissed by the Court. IDOT has repeatedly asked the Village to sign a letter of agreement to allow IDOT to do a multi-million dollar repair to the bridge.
It is also refusing to sign the agreement with IDOT admitting that it has jurisdiction of the road it acquired when it annexed the property into the Village, which would allow IDOT to embark on the bridge repair project. Because this road impacts township residents, the road district has voluntarily undertaken repairs on the Village’s road on the surface of the bridge because the Village refused to do so. However, the assistance the Road District has been providing will no longer continue because the Village is construing those acts against the Township and Road District in an attempt to bolster the Village’s denial of responsibility for its road. Further, the road district and township receive no tax dollars nor any money whatsoever for the Village’s road. The Road District’s tax funds come from all jurisdictions in the Road District – including from tax payments from residents of Montgomery, North Aurora and Aurora. The Road District cannot divert funding from roads in its jurisdiction to help Sugar Grove maintain Village roads. Taxpayers in Sugar Grove would not want their tax dollars going to maintain the City of Aurora’s roads, etc., and we need to be careful custodians of the tax funds we receive and the purposes for which we can use them.
Because this dispute is between IDOT as the owner of the bridge and the Village as the owner of the road over the bridge, our attorney has advised the Township and Road District to stay out of this dispute, which does not involve the Township or the Road District. We plan to stay out of this dispute except when the Village puts out misleading or false information. The parties who own the bridge and road over the bridge must resolve it. Attorneys for all jurisdictions other than the Village agree that the road is the Village’s. The Village told us they are still relying on the old argument that the previous Village attorneys raised in the lawsuit that the court dismissed 10 years ago. If the Village really believes that it does not own its road, it should simply file a declaratory judgment in court. That would be the easiest, most inexpensive way to resolve this. The Village has not done so at this point. The Village is claiming the Road District is required to repair the road over the bridge pursuant to a 1964 agreement between the Road District and IDOT, which the Road District and IDOT agree ended when the Village acquired jurisdiction over the road. The County’s maps also show that the road is in the Village’s jurisdiction.
We believe the Village President means well in trying to work out “a compromise,” but that compromise should not include the Township or Road District any more than it should involve the park district, library, school district, City of Aurora, etc. We do not have a stake in this battle between the Village and IDOT. IDOT wants to install a new bridge with a new road over it. That road will not require maintenance for many years which would allow the Village to reserve a small amount of funds over a long period of time to accumulate funding for its maintenance responsibilities.
Our hope is for the Village to accept its responsibilities, particularly when one option would be for IDOT to simply close the bridge entirely because of the Village’s refusal to permit IDOT to repair the bridge.
We are issuing this statement so the public may have accurate information to counter the misinformation provided the Village. We are hoping that the Road District’s agreement to help the Village for 60 days will provide the Village with enough time to sign the agreement with IDOT.
If you have concerns about the condition of the Village’s road on the bridge, we encourage you to go to the Village Board meetings to urge the Village to immediately undertake the repair of its road and to sign the agreement with IDOT to permit IDOT to repair the bridge under the Village’s road. We have attached correspondence from IDOT to the Village confirming that the road is the responsibility of the Village. The Township and Road District remain united with the taxpayers seeking to have the Village work cooperatively with IDOT on this matter.
Sincerely,
Sugar Grove Township & Sugar Grove Township Road District
Illinois Department of Transportation
Office of Highways Project Implementation/ Region 1 / District 1 201 West Center Court I Schaumburg, Illinois 60196-1096
February 13, 2026
The Honorable Sue Stillwell Village President
Village of Sugar Grove
160 South Municipal Drive, Suite 110 Sugar Grove, IL 60554
Dear Village President Stillwell:
The Illinois Department of Transportation (Department) has proposed advancing improvements to the structure carrying Hankes Road over IL 56 in the Village of Sugar Grove (Village), Kane County since at least 2016. As the Department has informed the Village on January 8, 2016, through various interim communications, and again on March 21, 2022, the Department has long planned improvements to the Hankes Road Bridge, including superstructure replacement, substructure repairs, culvert work, and guardrail replacement.
As the Village is the highway authority having jurisdiction over the portion of Hankes Road that is carried over the bridge, upon completion of the improvement, the Village will continue to be responsible for maintenance of elements above the bridge superstructure. This responsibility includes the roadway wearing surface, bicyclist and pedestrian accommodations, bridge joints, and other appurtenant features serving the local roadway. The Department will retain responsibility for maintenance of the bridge superstructure and substructure, including conducting required inspections of the bridge and associated structural components over IL 56.
Phase II contract plan preparation for this improvement has been initiated. Attached at the end of this letter is a request for your concurrence with the maintenance responsibilities outlined above. This letter will serve as the basis for the development of a formal project agreement between the Village and the Department as the project advances.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Kimberly Murphy, Consultant Studies Unit Head, at (847) 705-4791 or via email kimberly.murphy@illinois.gov.
Jose Rios, P.E.
IDOT Region One Engineer