McHenry County Blog

This comment by Algonquin Township Assessor Bob Kunz appeared under an article about assessment appeals and it’s too good not to share more broadly:

We now deal with two competing standards of property-tax valuation, one statutory and one not.

Bob Kunz

The equalization standard: referenced earlier, this statutory standard requires assessed values to be balanced at one-third of the market for the three years prior to the assessment year. For 2012, this means that assessments will reflect the average market for years 2009, 2010, and 2011.

To further simplify to a single date, the date of valuation would, more or less, be July 1, 2010.

The appeals standard as currently applied: the competing standard, not reflected in statute but applied by the board of review, uses a date of January 1, 2012, pretty much BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT PROPERTY OWNERS EXPECT THE MARKET-REFERENCE DATE TO BE.

However, the assessor is unable to use that date, as expanded upon below.

Separated by 18 months, the two standards conflict in any market that is not flat-line, whether an up-market or down-market.

Thus, the statutory equalization date is almost 3 years old by the time a taxpayer opens their real estate tax bill and refers to the “Fair Cash Value” on the bill.

Further, when he or she receives the assessment notice, that number is more than two years old.

This is not an issue in an up market, because it leads most property owners to think the assessed value is lower than it should be were the market at the time the notice or bill is opened used.

This is where the old folk wisdom the-assessment-system-purposely-undervalues-property came from.

However, from a down market, a new folklore springs, the if-the-assessor-was-doing-the-job-right-there-woud-be-no-reason-to-appeal wisdom.

The fact is that, if the assessor were to value property at one-third of January 1, 2012 (for the 2012 year), the statutory equalization system would auto-correct to walk all values back 1½ years to July 1, 2010.

Actually, this is something Mr [Bill] Ottley attempted in 2010 after local equalization, with the approval of the chief county assessment officer, I might add, and a great deal of havoc was raised.

The only way the board of review can deploy the non-statutory January 1 standard is if a subset of all property owners files complaints.

We can notice the effect the form of a state equalization factor that is positive in 2010 and 2011 for the first times since 1982, as the state factor corrects for the board of review reductions that throw the overall values out of synch with the statutory equalization standard.

The more owners who file complaints successfully, the higher the corrective state factor.

So, due to the current conflict between statutory and non-statutory valuation standards, the board of review offers a deal the assessor cannot offer.

Those who do not appeal suffer for it, and they are right to think it should not be that way.

The state constitution, in Article IX says one thing about property taxes, that they “shall be levied UNIFORMLY by valuation ascertained as the General Assembly shall provide by law.”

This is not what we have right now.

And, as I was preparing to post the above, Grafton Township Assessor candidate Al Zielinski posted the following comment:

Mr. Kunz is the Algonquin Township Assessor who, by properly doing his job, REDUCED his township’s Urban Equalized Value $294,000,000. Yes, Algonquin Township DECREASED almost $300,000,000.

The Grafton Township Assessor, who, by NOT properly doing his job, forced an INCREASE in his township’s Urban Equalized Value of $60,000,000.

Three neighboring township Assessors were also properly doing their jobs:

• McHenry Township had a reduction of $154,000,000
• Nunda Township had a reduction of $129,000,000
• Door [Dorr] Township had a reduction of $60,000,000

Source: McHenry County Office of Assessments Annual Report Assessment Year 2011.

Property values aren’t that variable among these neighboring townships; some even share the same subdivision developments.

Three neighboring township Assessors who did their jobs very well properly REDUCED their townships’ Urban Equalized Values by hundreds of millions of dollars.

If I lived in any of those, I wouldn’t run for election.

To the contrary, I’d shake their hands and thank them for their exemplary service.

Grafton Township suffered because its Assessor wasn’t doing his job and forced an INCREASE in the township’s Urban Equalized Value of $60,000,000.

Conveying accurate data isn’t mud-slinging; it’s reporting facts of which all Grafton Township taxpayers should be aware.

Rather than conducting classes informing residents how to compensate for his poor performance, perhaps it’s the Grafton Township Assessor who should take classes so he’d at least be on par with our neighbors.

16 of 17 McHenry Township Assessor’s properly reduced their urban taxpayer’s EAV last year.

Only Grafton Township had an increase.

The data clearly show “the guy DOES NOT know his stuff.”

On the heels of Grafton Township Supervisor candidate Marty Waitzman’s comments about electrical needs in the Assessor’s Office comes this response from Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore in this memo to Assessor Bill Ottley:

Memo: It would be best if people had all of the facts before advocating for the expenditure of tax dollars. I am hopeful to receive a response to the letter which I gave the Assessor soon. An additional copy is being provided to Assessor Ottley today for his response.

Linda Moore, Grafton Township Supervisor

8/17/2012

RE: Electrical Service Update and Electrical Related Losses in Town Hall

Dear Bill,

I would like to accommodate your desires, but I have some problems with your request. I have specified them in this letter. You have provided the following information:

To Do:

7 – 20 amp dedicated circuits
Upgrade – 120/240 single phase panel from 20 circuits to 40 circuit panel

Plus permit fees, which are yet unknown. The owner will be responsible for.

Surge suppressor for new panel.

Total Job:

$3,500, 50% down for cost of materials up front.

Submitted by:
Brian Johnson

Please read this letter and get back to me to see if there is some way that we can reach an agreement and satisfy these requirements. As promised, I have taken the board’s action under advisement on the following agenda item:

“B. Discussion and potential action on possible solution for electrical problems in the Assessor’s Office”

DEFICIT BUDGET

Currently, Grafton Township has a deficit budget and an obligation to the Road District to pay $300,000 plus rent. Any funds that are not spent in the Office of Assessment budget can be utilized to relieve the deficit and the obligations of the township. It would be prudent to determine if an electrical upgrade is an effective and least cost method to resolve the issues that have caused you to request this work to be done.

INSURANCE COVERAGE

For insurance purposes, I am requesting a list of the electronic equipment and software that has been damaged. You gave an informal estimate value of $2,000 at the July Board meeting. No insurance claim has been filed. We may have coverage for this type of loss which would need to be submitted in a timely manner.

DOCUMENTATION NEEDED

The documentation that you provided to me at the August board meeting did not include many important pieces of information. Because the supervisor is the only official who is bonded, I am requesting the following documentation.

TOIRMA REQUIREMENT FOR TOWNSHIP CONTRACTORS

1.Certificate of insurance for no less than $1,000,000.00.

2.Certification of workman’s compensation coverage.

VILLAGE OF HUNTLEY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

3.Proof of contractor’s required registration with Huntley, currently Huntley has 61 electricians that are registered. A copy of the list will be provided to you.

4.Copy of documentation required by Huntley to acquire permit, including a floor plan showing where the additional circuits and electric panel will be located, description of the work to be covered by the permit, and the valuation of the proposed work.

5.Copy of contractor’s receipt for payment of permit fee to Village of Huntley.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

6.A letter from contractor agreeing to be in compliance with (60 ILCS 1/85-45)
Sec. 85-45. Pecuniary interest in contracts, stating the total cost of the project will be less than $20,000, agreeing to pay prevailing wage and that all work and moneys received will not violate the Gift Ban Law (cited below).

7.Vendor’s W-9 including business type, sole proprietor, partnership or corporation.

8.Detailed proposal from the contractor on the company’s letterhead including the timeline and the total cost for this project with a business telephone number, fax number, email address, business location and mailing address.

9.Letter from you with the township code citation that allows for a township to pay funds in advance of work or services received.

10.Adopted board minutes showing approval for an Electrical Upgrade Contract.

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS NEEDED

11.The contractor’s references.

12.Proof of due diligence showing multiple bids from electricians for the same project specifications.

13.A pre-inspection report from the Village of Huntley.

I would be happy to meet with you to address any of your concerns.
Sincerely,

Linda Moore, Grafton Township Supervisor

Supplemental Information (See here.)

• State Law Citations
• list of registered electricians in the Village of Huntley
• Village of Huntley Code and Enforcement Requirements

A press release from Grafton Township Supervisor candidate Marty Waitzman:

Marty Waitzman – Position Statement on Grafton Township Building

ALGONQUIN, IL – I have had many conversations with residents and news reporters who wanted to know whether or not I believe there is a need in Grafton Township for the acquisition or construction of a new Township Building.

I will not criticize, nor applaud, the opinions of those individuals who were involved in the past controversy surrounding the proposed Township Building.

Finger- pointing, mudslinging, and polarization need to stop.

I am committed to running a positive campaign, so I will leave the past where it belongs—in the past.

To quote the press release which announced my candidacy, I stated in pertinent part,

“Marty’s objective is to build a Grafton Township government that will work hard, smart, and efficiently for the community.

“Marty is a fiscal conservative who knows how to do more with less, and how to work collaboratively and respectfully with both community members and government officials and employees.”

I wish to clearly state my position on the acquisition or construction of a new Township Building.

Consistent with the objective quoted in the previous paragraph, I believe that with today’s disastrous economic conditions and the current suffering endured by Grafton Township’s citizens, the acquisition or construction of a new Township Building today would be fiscally irresponsible and unnecessary.

Accordingly, I do not support or advocate such an undertaking.

I believe that township activities can be accomplished with some minor improvements and updates to the present Township facility. These can be done over time and as funds are available.

By way of illustration, it has been publically disclosed that the Assessor’s office is currently operating with an electrical system that is dangerously inadequate.

The potential loss of real estate data due to an electrical calamity is very real.

The horrific impact on property owners in the Township and on all of McHenry County would be enormous.

The costs and time that would be necessary to rebuild the Assessor’s data base would undoubtedly be gigantic.

I understand the electrical inadequacies can be fixed for under $4,000.

That is the type of necessary, responsible, and reasonably priced improvement and update that I not only support, but highly recommend.

For more information, please contact Marty Waitzman at (847) 450-4950, marty@waitzman2013.com, or visit www.waitzman2013.com.

= = = = =

Waitzman is running against incumbent Linda Moore and fellow challenger Pam Fender.

A response from Moore concerning the electrical needs portion of the press release above can be found here.

Bill Ottley’s secret admirer provides this criticism on Al Zielinski’s opposition to Ottley for Grafton Township Assessor in the First Electric Newspaper:

September 1, 2012 4:00 PM
Anonymous said…

Assessor Bill Ottley

The current Assessor, Mr. Ottley, has been doing a great job for years. He is one of the most aggressive assessors around when reducing assessments during this economy.That is why Grafton Township was the only township in McHenry County to receive a positive multiplier last year from the County Assessor.

Mr. Ottley has, and will continue to support Grafton residents as our assessor.

Mr Zielinski does appear to have have a solid background for appraisals, but he has no experience with mass assessments, and I have seen nothing to say he has done any commercial assessing. You can not “appraise” 21,000 properties a year using his appraiser techniques, you could not afford to budget the man power needed to do that many properties individually. You will also NEVER have zero appeals. If you lower assessments to make us tax payers happy, the county adds a multiplier. Either way, some people will file an appeal to look for a further reduction of taxes.

To say that you will have no appeals… shows Mr. Zielinski does not fully understand the actual job of the assessor.

I would feel better, if he worked as a Deputy Assessor somewhere first, and really understood what job he is trying to win.

September 4, 2012 9:30 AM
Anonymous said…

Mr. Ottley wasn’t at my appeal he left it to his deputy who sided with the appeal board. I would expect the guy I elected to be present at my appeal but Ottley choose to leave it to his chubby little minion.

This year the county made me an assesment offer NOT OTTLEY! Ottley should work a little harder at that 60K job of his and not give so much authority to his deputy.

Al Zielinski’s reply:

Al Zielinski

Grafton residents have had their fill of acrimony so I requested civility at the Special Meeting and spoke in that tone.That professionalism continues by my running a clean, courteous campaign.

In that same context, all postings here and elsewhere have been personally made by me, never by unnamed surrogates.

I personally wrote the press release announcing my candidacy and created my own web site. It’s important that voters see the candidate as deeply and in as many varied lights as possible.

Grafton residents have also had their fill of partial truths so my campaign will correct misrepresentations with clearly-cited data sources.

I never said a single word to Ms. Moore at the Special Meeting.

If you have proof to the contrary, please provide it.

Competent appraisers always have plenty of work regardless of the real estate market because our opinions are sought beyond the mortgage industry.

My clients includes attorneys for estates and divorces, appraisal reviews, expert witness testimony, employee relocation, home improvement guidance, federal, state and property tax issues, etc.

The core of my campaign is bringing a courteous, qualified and professional presence to the assessor’s office.

Beyond that are innovative, taxpayer-centric ideas like a Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Finally, I promise to save taxpayer’s money by reducing the bloated, recently approved assessor’s budget of almost $576,000!. (Source: Grafton Township Special Board Meeting Minutes, April 23, 2012.)

Incumbent Grafton Township Assessor Bill Ottley told me he was running for re-election a couple of months ago.

Now, he has an opponent named Alan Zielinski. His press release is below:

Alan Zielinski Announces Candidacy for Grafton Township Assessor

Lakewood – Property owners can look forward to more accurate and, therefore more fair, assessments when Alan Zielinski wins election as Grafton Township Assessor in the April 2013 election.

“I’ve seen too many taxpayers treated unfairly by a broken system and decided it was going beyond helping them as an appraiser,” said Zielinski.

Property taxes are the main expense of most households and a fair allocation of the tax burden is Zielinski’s primary concern.

“My appraisal experience, coupled with my business perspective and moral compass, will help taxpayers get a fair shake each and every year.  Working together, we can achieve my goal of zero appeals by the end of my second term.”

In addition to improving the accuracy of assessments, Zielinski intends to champion legislation in Illinois similar to Georgia’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights which carries two significant benefits for property owners:

• being awarded legal fees if their appeal prevails in court and
• that Boards of Review must provide specific grounds for their rejections of property owners’ appeals

Zielinski’s qualifications include the following:

• Certified Illinois Assessing Officer
• Illinois and Wisconsin Certified Real Estate Appraiser
• B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University
• MBA from Michigan State University
• More than a decade of residential, commercial and industrial appraisals in Illinois

In addition to education and highly-refined analytical perspective, Alan also has a heart as evidenced by one of his campaign promises:

“10% of my gross salary to the Grafton Food Pantry.”

In his own words:  “Government service is about service, not building wealth. My promise will stay in effect at least through my first term until times really improve for everyone.”

His web site can be found here.  His business web site can be found here.

His web site contains the following statement:

A letter sent by Attorney Robert Hanlon to the Grafton Township Trustees:

August 2, 2012
Grafton Township Offices
Messrs. LaPorta, McMahon, Moore, Murphy, Zirk,
Unit B
10109 Vine Street
Huntley, IL 60142

Via Personal Delivery at Grafton Township Offices

Re: Termination of Prior Offer of Free Mediation

Last month I made an offer to attempt to mediate the issues between the Grafton Township Trustees and the Grafton Township Supervisor.

The offer was made as a result of what I believe to be a complete waste of judicial and taxpayer resourses arising from the disputes in Grafton Township government by individuals with no direct pecuniary stake in the litigation.

When I extended my offer, I truly believed there was legitimate interest on all parties to pursue the avenue of mediation.

Initially, based on what I had heard about these disputes I was concerned about a lack of good faith by the respective parties.

Because of that I had asked Mrs. Moore for a simple concession demonstrating her good faith.

That concession was granted.

I came to the Grafton Township offices[Thursday night] with two letters, one congratulating you all for your willingness to mediate. Of course the other letter is before you.

The personal animus which I perceive still exists and is eroding the very concept of governance by consent in Grafton Township.

As of right now, Mrs. Moore and Mr. Ottley via their counsel are the only ones to have accepted my offer of mediation.

I had been in contact with some of the trustees and in particular Mr. McMahon, Mrs. Zirk and Mrs. Murphy.

Both Mrs. Zirk and Mrs. Murphy expressed an interest in the mediation process.

Approximately two weeks ago I provided dates to Mrs. Zirk so that in the event the trustees were interested in mediation a special meeting could be called.

The dates I provided her were 7/30 and 7/31.

The Trustees did not call a special meeting.

I understand from Mrs. Zirk that she was under the impression that Mrs. Moore was going to schedule a special meeting of the Grafton Township Board.

I also understand that the trustees were not willing to make a decision on my offer to mediate in the absence of their counsel.

Nevertheless, at this time I have no acceptance from the trustees and I doubt very much given Mr. LaPorta’s statement to the press and Mr. McMahon’s statements expressing concerns about success in mediation that such an approval will be forthcoming.

As such, my offer to mediate for free between the Trustees and the Supervisor is now withdrawn.

The offer of mediation accepted by Mrs. Moore and Mr. Ottley will proceed unless terminated for other reasons.

Hopefully that process between Mrs. Moore and Mr. Ottley will result in a positive result for the parties and the people who are paying for the ongoing litigation.

Respectfully,

ROBERT T. HANLON

It’s that time of year when township officials have to make up their minds whether they are running for re-election.

It’s also time for those thinking about challenging township officials to be making similar calculations.

When I last saw Grafton Township Assessor Bill Ottley if he were running for re-election, I got an affirmative reply.

Assuming Ottley decides to run in the Republican primary election, he (and others) can begin circulating petitions for the February 26th election on August 28th.

Partisan primary election petitions for township office must be filed between November 19th and 26th.

Thanksgiving is November 22nd.

Last time around Algonquin, Dorr, Grafton, McHenry and Nunda Townships held Republican primary elections. The deadline for filing a notice to the County Clerk of such a primary election is November 15th.

No township Democratic Party central committee did so.

Parties in townships of more than 15,000 people may also select their candidates in a party caucus. If a caucus is held, state statute says it must be December 4th.

Township Trustee Robert LaPorta shares this letter from Grafton Township Assessor Bill Ottley in a comment under my article about the two court cases that received perfunctory treatment at the Courthouse Monday:

Ottley has posted a letter to the township about why he filed his lawsuit.

http://www.graftontownship.us/files/LettertoTaxpayers.pdf

It is worth reading.

Grafton Township Assessor’s Office
10109 Vine St. Unit C. Huntley, IL 60142 – Phone: 847-669-3383 – FAX: 847-669-8233 – Website: http://www.graftontownship.us

June 6th, 2012

Bill Ottley

A letter to the taxpayers:

There seems to be a misperception as to why I instituted the law suit against the supervisor of Grafton Township. Supervisor Moore claims it’s about the windows I wanted to install that could be opened, so we could reduce using expensive air conditioners. The windows were the 4th item on the list when the suit was filed. The main reason for the suit was the phone bill was going unpaid, followed by DCI, and Brown & Co. When the assessor’s office received a phone bill for more than $800, I called AT&T to find out why the usual $200 bill had grown to this amount.

I was told that it had not been paid in a few months. I then asked at what point they disconnect or discontinue providing services. The response was, “I don’t know why they haven’t disconnected the phones already.” Phone service is a vital link between our office and the public, between our office and the courthouse, and provides our high speed internet service. Lack of a phone would cripple the activities of our office and jeopardize our work. Delays would force Grafton Township to turn in our books late, thus forcing the need for the county to possibly work overtime to get the tax bills out on time, or send them out late. This in turn would mean the governmental bodies would receive their tax dollars late. I ask you, how it would be perceived if I knew this could happen and I did nothing about it?

The next important bill that has not been paid was to DCI. This repair/service bill has gone unpaid even though it was presented and approved more than once by the trustees to be paid. It has now been sent to a collection agency. DCI is a company that has serviced our computer wiring and internal phone system for about 20 years. They have now dropped us as a client due to non-payment of invoices. This company knows our whole system and could respond faster than any other provider to issues that arise. During my terms as assessor, our buildings have been hit by lightning at least seven times. It has blown out our phone service in the past. It has also blown out our computer network. A few years ago, that happened twice within two weeks. DCI was right there to help us get up and running within hours and repaired the system within days. We have not found another company that will service our current phone system. One of the reasons they provide is because they afraid that they won’t be paid.


Grafton Township Assessor’s Office
10109 Vine St. Unit C. Huntley, IL 60142 – Phone: 847-669-3383 – FAX: 847-669-8233 – Website: http://www.graftontownship.us are

The Brown & Co. bill was brought about by the threat of the supervisor to claim reimbursement of expenses as additional income to my employees and myself. The opinion letter was requested to either confirm or refute these possible actions by the supervisor. The letter from Brown & Co. stated that these expenses were reimbursement of properly incurred expenses and not income. This bill was also presented more than once and approved for payment by the trustees each time, and still is not paid.

I could continue with the twelve additional bills that have all been approved by the board of Trustees and are not paid. Instead, I would like to make the following additional comments.

As I mentioned before, our building has been hit by lightning many times. Whether this is a cause of our electrical problems or whether it is the need for more circuits, still needs to be determined. However, the three contractors that I have contacted don’t want the job because they are afraid of not being paid. I believe that these electrical problems have already cost more than $1500 in damages this year. At risk is our computer data backup system, the phone system, and our internet. Continued problems of this nature will definitely affect the timely manner in which the books are turned in. This in turn will affect the entire county and the governmental bodies that are in it.

Ironically, the supervisor has filed a law suit against the trustees for not approving her bills, when she already doesn’t pay the ones that they do approve!

DO WE HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD?

Sincerely,

William Ottley, CIAO-S
Grafton Township Assessor
Your comments are welcome at assessor@graftontownship.us

Grafton Township Assessor’s Office
10109 Vine St. Unit C. Huntley, IL 60142 – Phone: 847-669-3383 – FAX: 847-669-8233 – Website: http://www.graftontownship.us


There were two cases involving Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore in Woodstock this morning.

Not much happened in either except setting new court appearance dates.

In one, Moore was seeking sanctions (a contempt of court ruling) against the four Trustees who lost their attempt to usurp the power of the Chief Executive Officer in a lengthy trial before Judge Michael Caldwell.  (See articles about the decision:  Part 1 & Part 2.)

John Nelson continues to represent Moore, while Ancel Glink’s Thomas DiCianni continues to represent Trustees Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta, Barbara Murphy and Gerry McMahon.

Actions after that decision by the four from the Township’s legislative branch to limit Moore’s executive power led to attempt to gain punishment from the Court.

In Judge Thomas Meyer’s courtroom, Assessor Bill Ottley was suing Moore to get her to pay bills to remodel his office.  As I understand Moore’s position, she is arguing that Ottley is trying to string out various aspects of the project to avoid going out for bid.

The case was originally before Judge Caldwell, but Ottley attorney Mike Poper successfully moved for a change of venue, that is, another judge to hear the case.

Nelson represents Moore in the Assessor’s case.

An IRS finding handed down January 31st will surely be the talk of the next meeting of the Township Officials of Illinois.

It says that heretofore fringe benefits, such as the Grafton Road Commissioner’s vehicle and the reimbursement for dinners at the McHenry County Council of Governments, are income for Federal tax purposes.

And, since the state tax code is built upon the national one, probably subject to state income tax as well.

The Internal Revenue Service writes that Grafton Township owes the Federal government $2,030.36 for 2010 for income, Social Security and Medicare taxes.

“Fringe Benefit Issues” is what the Internal Revenue Service investigator was looking at.

A topic subject to a tirade by Trustee Gerry McMahnon at one of the last meetings I attended was the taxability of reimbursements for dinners at the McCOG. [I have to tell you, except for the volume of his voice, he seemed to be making sense.]

But the IRS Specialist disagreed.

The “audit,” for lack of a better term, specifically addressed this topic:

“In 2010, the elected officials and trustees of the Township received a stipend varying from $26 to $40 per month to attend monthly dinners for the McHenry County Council of Governments. The Township does not require these members to attend these meetings. The total amount of stipends issued to all officials and trustees was $1,300 for the year. These stipends were provided under a non-accountable plan.”

If I am interpreting the documents correctly, the Trustees, in toto, will owe taxes on an additional $729 because of the McCog dinner reimbursements.

Road Commissioner Jack Freund had similar $200 of non-accountable reimbursements, Supervisor Linda Moore $253 and Clerk Harriot Ford $118.

Freund was also cited for $3,125.70 which he received for “medical reimbursements made to the elected official. However, there was insufficient substantiation provided to receive reimbursement. Thus, the payment falls under a non-accountable plan.”

Freund was further cited for getting reimbursement for his spouse’s travel expenses. This included $120.56 for a number of meals, plus “a $35 spouse fee for the conference.”

Township Road Commissioner Jack Freund’s Ford F250 pickup truck was the subject of the final finding.

Purchased on December 8, 2010, “for the Road Commissioner’s use. The vehical was inspected by the Specialist and the vehicle is not deemed to fall into the category of a Qualified Nonpersonal Use Vehicle.

“There was no adequate substantiation of business uses v personal use of the vehicle.

“Therefore, the automobile lease value for this vehicle is $7,250 (see tables in Publication 158). As it was used for 23 days in 2010, the calculation is as follows:

• Annual Lease Value = $7250
• Days of Use in 2010 + 23.365
• %7,250 X (23/365) = 456.85

Also targeted by the IRS were meals provided by Assessor Bill Ottley’s office when employees were not away overnight. Called “Day Meals” by IRS Examiner John Lauer, the reimbursements of those and non-overnight meals for Ottley and Moore totaling $369.28 have been deemed taxable.

Also mentioned are uniforms costing $480.01, but detail is not given regarding the employees affected. The report sys that “under an nonaccountable plan” are considered “wages and are treated as supplemental wages”…”reportable as wages on the employee’s Form W-2.”

“It as been determined by the FLSG Specialist that the taxpayer is wiling to correct all the above mentioned isues found during the examination,” one report concludes.

Implications for the 2011 tax year were not addressed in the report.

“I was instructed to follow the precedent sent by the 2010 audit when amending the 2011 W-2′s,” Supervisor Moore said.

“All taxpayers know they that have to comply with IRS regulations.

“It’s important that township officials are IRS compliant, too, but I don’t look forward to delivering this bad news to my colleagues.”

It is not clear whether the elected officials will have to repay the township the cost of the fringe benefits targeted by IRS.

The State Constitution says that no elected official can earn no more or less than what was set before he or she was elected:

Illinois Constitution Article 7
Section 9 Salaries and Fees
(b)An increase or decrease in the salary of an elected officer of any unit of local government shall not take effect during the term for which that officer is elected.

Some of the documents can be found here.