Perhaps you remember the $80,000 real estate tax increase resolution.
Ther resolution language that spells out the $80,000 hike in the McHenry County tax levy, from $44,351,303 to $44,431,303.
There have been 111 comments on the article, probably a record.
Denial that taxes will increase because of the resolution were made.
How can one believe that taxes weren’t hiked after reading what’s above?
Defenders of Jack Franks point out that he did not vote for the resolution.
Of course, he didn’t.
He has no vote on the County Board.
But it is undeniable that County Board Chairman Jack Franks prepared the agenda for the meeting.
There were no committee meetings, because he cancelled them when he took office.
So, no committee recommended the $80,000 tax hike.
Franks did so by putting the resolution on the agenda.
Now, McHenry County Blog has recevied, through a Freedom of Information request, the resolution with Jack Franks’ signature at the bottom. It is below:
The $80,000 property tax resolution Jack Franks put before the McHenry County Board at the first substantive meeting he chaired has Jack Franks’ signature.
Executive orders?
Where have we seen this before?
yeah this will wanna bring in new people and business, no tax breaks for you!….
bend over on your way into our state when all other states are welcoming business in with cuts….
ha!
un-believe-able.
Gottemoller would have signed it.
Walkup would have signed it too.
Martha?
You are an idiot!
You missed Cal’s point entirely!
What?
That you are an ideologue?
**Executive orders? Where have we seen this before?**
Umm… this wasn’t an executive order.
Valiant effort though.
So why did the County Board vote for it?
Do they just vote yes by default?
Or maybe some of the County Board members who read this blog can answer why they voted for this.
During his election campaign for the inaugural voter elected County Board Chair, Jack Franks campaigned for
to reduce property taxes by 10% in every property taxing district in McHenry County.
Jack Franks was elected County Board Chair on November 8, 2016.
Jack Franks took his oath of office on December 5, 2016, which was his first day in office.
Jack Franks signed the above resolution to hike property taxes for the McHenry County property taxing district by $80,000.
The County Board approved that resolution.
That action results in every single parcel in the McHenry County property taxing district paying hiked property taxes.
The hike was in the name of new growth in Algonquin Township parcels, which means those parcels received hiked assessed value due to new construction or other improvements.
Once again, that Algonquin Township new growth results in hiked taxes for every parcel in the McHenry County property taxing district.
Not just Algonquin Township parcels, and not just Algonquin Township new growth parcels.
The County has not explained exactly how the $80,000 would be spent.
Here has what the County has told the taxpayers it would do with the $80,000:
Revenue: OCA 990005-7020 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Property Taxes $80,000.
Expenditure: OCA 990700-6810 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Fd Bal. Enhancement $80,000.
So what capital project does the County need the $80,000 for?
Jack Franks said he would justify every expenditure, starting from zero (zero based budget).
There is widespread confusion about new growth among taxpayers and apparently county board members.
Why hasn’t there been any chatter about the Hebron Trustee who got a DUI AND hit a pedestrian?!
A resolution by Jack Franks for the sole and specific purpose to hike property tax revenue to the McHenry County property taxing district.
The result of the resolution was a tax hike for every single parcel in the McHenry County property taxing district.
The resolution does not use those words.
But that is the end result.
So the 18 Republicans that voted for it get a pass?
What is a republican anyway someone who can do no wrong? never have to apologize?
can plunder away and point the fingers at others?
Plenty of room for the fake Republicans to plunder away now and point the finger of blame at Jack Franks!
Wish I could answer your first question.
It certainly was a tax hike and I doubt any of the Board members ran on a platform of raising taxes.
That being said, there is an argument that can be made that costs increase and getting some new money from new growth, while attempting to keep the taxes of current property owners constant, is a rational approach.
It does increase a government’s tax take, however.
Only Mike Walkup has put his reasons on the record here.
It was an adjustment of $80k.
You make it seem like it was a 3.4% increase!
Quit lying and deceiving that this is anything more than playing politics Cal!
It was not an adjustment.
It was an increase in revenue of $80,000 to the McHenry County property taxing district.
No one but Moderate thinks it was made to seem like a 3.4% increase.
And, the increase in revenue comes from every single parcel in the McHenry County property taxing district.
The argument can be made from a non new Algonquin Township parcel perspective that the $80,000 levy increase is offset by the $6,965,052 in Algonquin Township new growth parcels.
Which prompts one to ask yet again, from a McHenry County property taxing district perspective, exactly how were McHenry Count costs hiked by $80,000 as a result of the new growth.
Which them reminds one that McHenry County is placing the $80,000 revenue in the fiscal year 2016 – 2017 budget / appropriation in:
Revenue: OCA 990005-7010 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Property Taxes.
Expenditure: OCA 990700-6810 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Fd Bal. Enhancement $80,000.
So what is the proposed capital project resulting from $6,965,052 Algonquin Township new growth?
I’m done debating this.
You all are fools to think this is anything more than a continuation of Cal’s love affair with Jack Franks, you are a political peon.
So Jack Franks put a resolution on the agenda to hike property taxes $80,000 among all parcels in the McHenry County property taxing district and no specific project resulting from the $6,965,052 Algonquin Township new growth was presented to taxpayers to justify the tax hike.
Cal wants to blame Jack it was not Jack but the staff who wanted this on the agenda.
You are being hood winked
Relax moderate.
I agree with you.
Jack Franks had the final say on what items appeared on the agenda.
The elected officials are supposed to represent that taxpayers.
Especially one (Jack Franks) who campaigns on a platform to reduce the property tax levy 10% in every property taxing district in the county, and campaigned to justify every expenditure (zero based budget).
Instead, Jack Franks put a resolution on the agenda to hike property taxes by $80,000 and did not specify how the county would expend the $80,000, other than it is for “Non Department Capital Projects Fund Balance Enhancement.”
As he has done before in 1998 and 2014, Jack Franks said he would do something during the 2016 political campaign, then didn’t do it after he was elected.
1998 – Said he would limit himself to 3 terms as State Representative if elected. He was elected to 9 terms as State Representative.
2014 – Said he would not run for County Board Chair. He did run for County Board Chair in 2016 and was elected to County Board Chair.
What the board, taxpayers, and newspaper have not been asking, and is a very valid question based on his campaign for the position of County Board Chair, is how exactly will the $80,000 be spent on capital projects for Algonquin Township new growth parcels, since the $80,000 tax hike was in the name of Algonquin Township new growth parcels.
New growth tax hikes in general deserve more scrutiny.
Many property taxing districts are taxing for new growth every year with very little if any discussion among elected officials to the public regarding, is the money actually being expended because the property taxing district costs have been hiked as a result of the new growth parcels.
Furthermore, as a result of this scrutiny, it is apparent that elected board members and taxpayers do not understand how the assessment / levy / property taxation works regarding new growth parcels.
Basic problem with voters:
“Cal wants to blame Jack it was not Jack but the staff who wanted this on the agenda.
“You are being hood winked”
This comment is indicative of the basic problem we have with voters.
Did Josewhales vote for staff?
We elect School Boards and County Boards to OVERSEE / CONTROL what staff does.
I could interpret the singled out comment as meaning we should simply remove the elected officials from the equation and let STAFF run amuck!
Why have elections if the people we elect simply do what STAFF tells them to do?
No one on earth walks on water,
Not Jack, not the board, and if allowed to, staff will drown us all.
For the Record, the Board voted, rightly or wrongly, in November, to tax new growth throughout the county.
The Algonquin Township assessor did not get his figures in by the deadline.
They came in three days later.
It has to be included in the next year’s budget so it needed to be voted on by the end of the calendar year.
It made no sense to assess the new growth tax in November for everyone else while not doing so for one township because they were late.
You have to be consistent.
Next year we can discuss whether or not we should continue to take the new growth.
That will be a worthwhile discussion and I have asked staff to give the full Board a presentation on that at some point during the year at one of the 12 or more COW’s we will now be having in lieu of the monthly morning Board meeting.
People should try to attend that and make any comments directly to the Board at that time.
Thanks for the discussion and have Happy New Year.
For the record, the County Board voted to spend more which was wrong if we are ever going to not be the 29th highest taxed county in the nation.
Staff wages works with the amount of tax $$$$$ spent, they will always recommend more spending, it’s a percentage dealy for them.
Hard to enjoy the New Year when spending tax $$$$ is always on the increase, it’s a percentage dealy.
Mr. Walkup, of the following, which applies?
You are a liar?
You are stupid?
You believe the voters are stupid?
What you are bringing forth is what staff wants you to bring forth and it is utter BS!
The $80,000 is an increase in tax and has absolutely no justification!!
Proverbs 5:23
Hosea 4:6
Revelation 21:8
Q: Then we shouldn’t have taken the new growth in November but we did so that was over.
Had AL township gotten their figures in in time, it would have been included in the November vote and we wouldn’t be talking about it now.
We are talking about it now because some people are trying to pin it on Franks who wasn’t on the Board in November.
All of us who voted to take the new growth in November own that for this year.
We will discuss in the future if this is something we want to continue to do going forward.
btw: Under the current Rules, the Chairman has no discretion to not sign something that the Board has passed.
A Chairman At Large can be authorized to have a veto power by Board resolution, but that can be overridden by a simple majority of the Board so it doesn’t mean much and we haven’t conferred that power up to this point.
btw2: We need to stop throwing around distortions of the facts to gin up political issues.
It’s bad enough that we see that at the national level.
Let’s start here at home by telling things like they are and letting the chips fall where they may.
To continue on the other course, which has become de rigueur this year at the national and county level, eventually will destroy our democracy.
Facts matter.
Franks will be hoisted on his own petard soon enough.
Why does one have to be consistent?
Every dollar levied is distributed to every single parcel in the property taxing district.
Was all new growth levied by the County (that occurred in each Township) this year placed in the following budget accounts?
Revenue: OCA 990005-7010 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Property Taxes.
Expenditure: OCA 990700-6810 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Fd Bal. Enhancement.
Maybe on December 31st it’s time to let this one go and concentrate on much more important issues like
“Will Kanye and Kim stay together?”
Maybe we should analyze new growth in every single property taxing district in McHenry County over the last 10 years.
Maybe Jack Franks should do that and release the report to the public as he is a self proclaimed tax fighter and it his stated goal to cut property taxes 10% in every single property taxing district in McHenry County and using the County Board Chair as a bully pulpit assist in accomplishing that goal.
That would include analyzing the new growth levy in every single property taxing district in McHenry County.
And maybe we should be sure every single elected official understands the process of levying for new growth and how every dollar levied is distributed to every single parcel in the property taxing district.
So if the entire amount of new growth is not taken by for instance for Algonquin Township by for instance the County property taxing district, neither the new growth parcels in Algonquin Township, nor any parcel in Algonguin Township, is receiving a special break.
Because every dollar levied, be it for:
– the maximum of the lesser of CPI or 5%
– bonds
– new growth
– etc.
is distributed via the tax rate to every parcel in the property taxing district, and that tax rate is multiplied by:
(EAV – Deductions)
to determine the property tax bill for a parcel.
If the County property taxing district does not levy $80,000 for some of the Algonquin Township new growth, it means:
– The county is not receiving that $80,000.
– The property taxes in each parcel in the county property taxing district were not hiked to generate that $80,000 in revenue.
Maybe a whole chapter on this topic needs to be included in an Illinois Property Taxes for Dummies book.
Maybe questions about this topic need to be included in a test for elected board members, County Board Chair, Mayors, and anyone else who is included in the decision to levy property taxes.
One has to pass the test with 100% accuracy before being allowed to levy property taxes.
It seems levying for new growth is a rubber stamp decision for some property taxing districts with no justification presented to the taxpayers as to whether the hiked assessments for new growth justifies hiking the levy.
The crux of this issue is that elected board members don’t understand that every dollar levied for any purpose by a property taxing district is distributed to every single parcel in that property taxing district via the Tax Rate for that property taxing district.
Mike Walkup for one does not seem to understand that.
We keep saying the same thing over and over in different ways.
And he keeps coming back with basically the same reply.
Lol
Did Mark really just criticize Walkup for saying the same thing over and over again?
Hill-Arious
Mr. Walkup:
You intimate that some property owners in Algonquin Township were going to get a ‘free ride’ relative to property tax when you, as a County Board member and a candidate for Township Supervisor should know full well that is flat out not true!!
The $80,000 is simply an increase in the property tax each and every property owner in the County will have to pay!
Cut out the bull crap and admit you voted to increase our taxes!!
I am attempting to succinctly point out what Mark has gone to great lengths to explain!
Moderate claimed Walkup is correct in asserting the County had to levy for the additional Algonquin Township new growth to be consistent / fair, which is an incorrect belief.
Neither Moderate nor Walkup understand the levy process.
So far the repetition has not worked for either Moderate or Walkup.
The only reason for the County to levy more for any reason (maximum of lesser of CPI or 5%, bonds, new growth, etc.), is if the County wants more money from each parcel in the County property taxing district.
Questioning, no, the problem isn’t indicative of problems with voters.
Rather, turning a blind eye to a County Board that is 96 percent Republican who supported this “tax increase” is indicative of problems with viewers of this blog.
Hold people accountable, not just Democrats who don’t even have a vote, if you want the government to improve.
If Franks asked the board a yes or no question about whether we should kill the first born male of every family, and the Republican County Board voted yes, some of you people would be assigning 100 percent of the blame to Franks and would be completely silent about the people who actually made the decision.
It’s a sad commentary of partisan failure.
I have held all nineteen of the County Board members who voted for the $80,000 tax hike.
You can read the article here:
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2016/12/20/jack-franks-agenda-item-to-raise-real-estate-taxes-sees-nineteen-county-board-members-votes-of-approval/
18 were Republicans, plus the only Democrat on the Board.
The attention is on Jack Franks because he is the one who campaigned to cut the property tax levy 10%.
Jack Franks is the one who put the resolution on the agenda to hike the property tax levy by $80,000 less than one month in office.
Moderate the Jack Franks supporter sides supports Mike Walkup on this issue, and Mike Walkup doesn’t understand the $80,000 levy hike is spread across every single parcel in the McHenry County property taxing district; and not levying the $80,000 provides zero advantage or benefit to any parcel over any other parcel.
Mike Walkup is a Republican.
There is no doubt this was an increase in property tax revenue to the McHenry County property taxing district.
That is irrefutable.
The only claim that can be made from a parcel perspective, is the Algonquin Township new growth EAV offset the $80,000 levy hike, for non Algonquin Township new growth parcels.
And that once again raises the issue, for what exact purpose is Jack Franks supporting the $80,000 levy.
What exactly in the Algonquin Township new growth additional parcels is hiking McHenry Count costs by $80,000.
There has been no such justification to property taxpayers.
An earlier blog post article noted this practice has simply been the practice of the board in the past.
The blog did point that out.
The comment has been made new growth should be looked at going back 10 years in every property taxing district in the county.
New growth is a contributing factor to hike property taxes.
It along with bonds are outside the tax cap.
The maximum of the lesser of CPI or 5% is inside the tax cap.
Those are three levy mechanisms used by boards to hike property taxes.
You have spent nearly two weeks talking about $80k.
This isn’t about good governing, this is about your love affair with Jack Franks.
You are a power hungry old man who was disgraced after pedophilia allegations ruined your career and now want to try and ruin someone’s reputution even if it burns down the McGOP and everyone around you.
McHenry County mean and median property tax rates are above 11% of EAV (3.66% of total home fair market value).
I can find no rationale to support spending at these levels, with ptax rates at crisis levels.
Can any elected official offer evidence-based rationale for spending public money in amounts such that it engenders property tax rates higher than 3.66% of home values?
There is evidence that property tax rates this extraordinarily higher than all national mean and median ranges are extremely harmful to households and local economies.
If elected officials would produce evidence that the benefits of excessive ( relative to the means of the community they were elected to represent) spending outweigh the harm caused by it, we could all come to terms with it.
Moderate?
Reveleation 12:10 is now personal for you.
Ezekiel 23:19 back at ya
Wow, Moderate.
You call me a whore for giving you are message concerning your lack of salvation? (Or are you trying to provide a clue as to who you really are?)
Maybe you had better study the verse I put up, because you just proved yourself to be quite guilty.
Re: “Questioning, no, the problem isn’t indicative of problems with voters.”
Who then authorized the change in the State Constitution relative to public sector pensions?
Who then approved the addition of a County Board Chairman in this County?
Who then approved the Senior tax?
Who then approved the Valley Hi tax?
Who then approved the change for county management from a Board of Supervisors?
Who then elected Jack Franks over and over?
Who then approved bond after bond after bond?
Who then just approved a so-called ‘lock-box’ for transportation funds (- a change which likely haunt us)?
Who then sits at home and does not vote during odd-year elections when most LOCAL tax related office elections and referendums occur?
Who then elected the nineteen people who just approved a tax increase to the County Board?
There were other choices during the primary.
Stuck in OWL mode again today.