Steve Reick passing his first bill. Colleagues have a tradition of asking ridiculous questions tying to make the new member nervous in this rite of passage.
State Rep. Steve Reick offers specific examples of homes taxes in Chicago and in McHenry County’s Woodstock.
Here’s info on the Chicago property in your post. Reick advises entering this into your browser:
http://www.cookcountypropertyinfo.com/default.aspx
and then enter the PIN: 16-22-416-034-0000
A tax link to a property in Woodstock of similar value is here.
An approximate $1,600 tax bill in Chicago versus over $4,000 in Woodstock on properties only a few hundred dollars apart in Fair Market Value.
You might find this link to be of interest as well. Click here.
And here’s a link to a bill on which I’m the chief co-sponsor which caps property taxes for schools at 1.33% of Fair Market Value, or 4% of Equalized Assessed Value. Click here.
= = = = =
Reick says his post is in response to a previous post on this blog:
http://159.89.184.83/2017/06/16/tribune-assessment-article-features-2-effective-tax-rate-for-overtaxed-chicago-homeowner/
The first link in the post is bad.
Enter this into your browser:
http://www.cookcountypropertyinfo.com/default.aspx
and then enter the PIN: 16-22-416-034-0000
The 2016 taxes show only the first installment having been paid, the second bill isn’t due until September.
This post is in response to a previous post on this blog:
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2017/06/16/tribune-assessment-article-features-2-effective-tax-rate-for-overtaxed-chicago-homeowner/
It’s crazy! Well our Mayor doesn’t help-imports poverty to Woodstock who don’t pay taxes.
Who do you think has to pick up that slack!
And the Liberal D200 who look tat the taxpayers as an endless bunch of suckers to pay for their nonsense.
Working on an exit plan is the only answer, folks
Re: “Mayor doesn’t help-imports poverty to Woodstock who don’t pay taxes. ”
FOIA McHenry County Housing Authority relative to Section 8 vouchers being used in McHenry County by residents FROM outside McHenry County.
Thank you, Mr. Reick, for the links.
Story at this link provides some background relative to the funding of public schools in Chicago:
https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Does_Chicago_Public_Schools_receive_$500_million_less_than_their_enrollment_dictates%3F
Great idea, to attack problem from this angle. Some questions,
Can you explain how this amount is calculated:
” …State Board of Ed. To distribute to each school district funds sufficient to cover the revenue that the district would have received but for the reduction in its tax rate.”
Does that mean that districts get the difference between the old cap in each fund and the new cap, whether they have been levying maximum or not?
What about uncapped funds such as TRS and IMRF and Soc. Sec. contributions?
Are they considered to fall under the aggregate 4% of EAV cap?
Good questions.
“Does that mean that districts get the difference between the old cap in each fund and the new cap, whether they have been levying maximum or not?”
No.
The intent is to substitute state money for local property taxes in those districts with low EAV/high levies.
If a district is not taxing up to its 4% limit, it’s not going to benefit from this swap.
To the extent the local levy (for operating costs, not capital costs) exceeds 4%, the state will fund the difference.
If we’re going to get a tax increase rammed down our throats, which I’m afraid is going to happen, I’m going to fight to get something in return, and that something is substantive property tax relief.
“What about uncapped funds such as TRS and IMRF and Soc. Sec. contributions? Are they considered to fall under the aggregate 4% of EAV cap?”
Yes.
But realize that this bill is meant to apply specifically to school districts and not apply to other districts which are participants in the IMRF or social security systems.
The 4% figure applies only to the school portion of your tax bill, and includes normal pension costs.
Another 2 questions,
Is the 4% cap number based upon comparisons to school spending around America, or other evidence based rationale ?
And,
Should the State be unwilling or unable to make future payments to local districts funding those ” shortfalls”, will local taxpayer still be truly protected? Is there a loophole for such an eventuality?
Another question,
Does the exemption for capital spending include any protections from deferred-interest debt instruments such as capital appreciation bonds?
Because there is a maximum debt limit on capital spending by schools (13.8% of EAV) but that rate cap applies to principal only, not accrued unpaid interest, many schools have evaded the debt cap by borrowing with CABs.
For example, Woodstock CUSD 200 borrowed $14 million using such an instrument in 2006.
The $14 million proncipal is the only debt listed ‘above the line’ in the budget, and is the only debt considered when calculating how much more the school may borrow under the debt limit of 13.8% of EAV.
But that $14 million debt has been accruing unpaid interest since 2006.
The total debt due at maturity (less than 20 years after loan inception) will be $64 million: $50 million of interest on a $14 million principal borrowing.
Would your bill address the inclusion of accrued unpaid interest as debt when defining ‘capital expenditure ‘ exemptions ?
Most non-certified employees in school districts participate in IMRF and Social Security.
Teachers and most administrators are certified.