The following ad appeared in the Northwest Herald Saturday.
It says that the Woodstock Rural Library District wants to spend 8.58% more next year than this year.
A”black box” ad without the black box appearing in the Northwest Herald.
Unless there has been massive new construction outside of the City of Woodstock in the library district, the money for the ad was wasted.
The maximum in additional aggregate property tax money that the Woodstock Rural Library District and any other tax district (except Home Rule units) can extract next year is 7/10 of one percent, plus new growth.
So why did this library district waste the money on the ad?
Don’t the folks in charge understand the Property Tax Cap’s limitations?
And, what about the Northwest Herald’s ad folks.
The law says there shall be a black box around the ad, but this one does not have one.
I wonder if the district will have to publish another ad to meet that statutory requirement.
Is this subject to backdoor referendum?
Do the number of voters’ signatures needed on petition in order to force referendum on ballot have to be printed in the ad?
Time for a referendum to ditch the libraries.
Not aware than any referendum is possible.
Taxpayers seem well protected by the Property Tax Cap law.
Just spoke on phone with Nicholas Weber at Library. (Woodstock Rural Library Taxing District).
He insists that the tax is “a bargain” because on average homes pay $87 tax and $150 is the charge for an out-of-district library card.
I asked him what percentage of households in the Rural Woodstock Taxing District have library cards.
He didn’t know.
(The ‘breakeven’ percentage of households is: .58 or 58%)(because, 58% of people would be getting the discount which the other 42% are paying for entirely).
I told him he was making an emotional argument and he said, no, I was the one who was being emotional.
I asked him how many petition signatures are needed for the ‘backdoor referendum’, in order to force this issue to the ballot.
He insisted that they have every legal right to raise their levy by this amount by virtue of having printed a black box notice.
On my tax bill, the Rural Woodstock Library takes .1288% of EAV, and just above that the Woodstock Fire and Rescue Pension takes .118%
I would much rather (be forced by law to) pay firemen than librarians, and if we want library cards we can go buy them voluntarily.
I asked him to email me the statutory authority for the increase in violation of PTELL, and also the statutory authority for the Rural Library Taxing District’s existence.
I’ll bet I can get a lot of petition signatures to force this referendum onto the ballot…so for all that trouble, maybe WE SHOULD TRY TO ABOLISH THIS TAXING DISTRICT ALTOGETHER.
This is improperly noticed.
I can’t tell about the section of the paper or point size of type, but I can tell you that the surrounding box is not 1/4 inch wide.
See statute below along with link to the page
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=596&ChapterID=8&SeqStart=48900000&SeqEnd=50400000
(35 ILCS 200/18-80)
Sec. 18-80. Time and form of notice. The notice shall appear not more than 14 days nor less than 7 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice shall be no less than 1/8 page in size, and the smallest type used shall be 12 point and shall be enclosed in a black border no less than 1/4 inch wide. The notice shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in substantially the following form:
Notice of Proposed Property Tax Increase for … (commonly known name of taxing district).
I. A public hearing to approve a proposed property tax levy increase for … (legal name of the taxing district)… for … (year) … will be held on … (date) … at … (time) … at … (location).
Any person desiring to appear at the public hearing and present testimony to the taxing district may contact … (name, title, address and telephone number of an appropriate official).
II. The corporate and special purpose property taxes extended or abated for … (preceding year) … were … (dollar amount of the final aggregate levy as extended, plus the amount abated by the taxing district prior to extension).
The proposed corporate and special purpose property taxes to be levied for … (current year) … are … (dollar amount of the proposed aggregate levy). This represents a … (percentage) … increase over the previous year.
III. The property taxes extended for debt service and public building commission leases for … (preceding year) … were … (dollar amount).
The estimated property taxes to be levied for debt service and public building commission leases for … (current year) … are … (dollar amount). This represents a … (percentage increase or decrease) … over the previous year.
IV. The total property taxes extended or abated for … (preceding year) … were … (dollar amount).
The estimated total property taxes to be levied for … (current year) … are … (dollar amount). This represents a … (percentage increase or decrease) … over the previous year.
Any notice which includes any information not specified and required by this Article shall be an invalid notice.
All hearings shall be open to the public. The corporate authority of the taxing district shall explain the reasons for the proposed increase and shall permit persons desiring to be heard an opportunity to present testimony within reasonable time limits as it determines.
(Source: P.A. 92-382, eff. 8-16-01.)
I have sent foia requests to county clerk and library
I spoke to Library director and he insists that this is all legal because of the published notice
I propose that the trouble it takes to garner petition signatures to fight this tax increase
(the same tax rate to pay firemen pensions)
may be the same effort to garner petition signatures to abolish “Rural Woodstock Library” taxing District
This raises a REALLY BIG MONEY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did Woodstock D200 fulfill the legal requirements to get its Ed Fund tax Cap raised to 4%??????????