McHenry County Blog

Guess my

• article about the motivation for Democrat Jack Franks’ Real Estate Tax Cap bill and
• the one about his Senate sponsor’s outright rejection of the idea and
• the posting of the email from Crystal Lake Grade School District 47 bemoaning the House passage of Senate Bill 2073

must have caught the attention of someone at the paper of record in McHenry County.

There were three paragraphs in the article resulting from the interview with Brett Rowlan:

“One local political observer dismissed Franks’ bill as being just for show.

“’It’s a [media] headline bill,’ said Cal Skinner, a former state legislator and local blogger. ‘It has no chance of passage.’

“He suggested it might be an election year stunt by Democrats to distract voters from last year’s income tax increase. Nonetheless, Skinner said the bill ‘certainly catches the mood of the taxpayers.’”

My little part made the first page of the internet edition, but not on the print edition, where the story was top right on the page.

But there was no link to McHenry County Blog.

A email has been sent this morning soliciting parental opposition to State Rep. Jack Franks’ bill to prohibit the collection of more property tax dollars when assessments go down.

Apparently Superintendent Donn Mendoza and School Board President Jeff Mason were not privy to the widespread understanding among state representatives that the legislation was just another “headline” bill to enhance the re-election chances of Democrats who voted to hike state income tax rates by 67%.

As one suburban Republican joined at the hip with the Illinois Municipal League put it, “It’s all for show.”

In any event, below is the use of District 47 tax dollars to try to get you to contact State Senator Pam Althoff and State Reps. Mike Tryon and Mike Gaffney to allow the school district to be able to collect more money (3% next year), even though the value of your home has tanked.

It should be noted that Tryon and Gaffney have already voted for the bill.

Donn Mendoza

Dear District 47 Families:

Crystal Lake School District 47 had been closely following recent legislation (Amendment 6 of Senate Bill 2073) approved in the Illinois House of Representatives on February 21, 2012, which, had it passed in the Senate and been signed by Governor Quinn, would have had a significant impact on our ability to provide high quality educational services for students for whom we are responsible.

Jeff Mason

This is the third time in the past few weeks that this sort of law has been proposed.

Based on that, there may be additional attempts in the future.

We wanted to make you aware of the potential impacts, as we see them in District 47, were this type of legislation to eventually become law.

Currently, local taxing authorities, such as District 47, are limited to increasing taxes by the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 5%, whichever is less.

Simply stated, the Franks Amendment to Senate Bill 2073 would have capped the ability of local taxing bodies, such as District 47, to raise the tax rate when property values decline unless approved by voters.

Effectively, the legislation would have capped the increase to 0%.

District 47 has lost over $8.6 million in revenue since the 2006-2007 school year with interest income down $2.3 million and State revenue down $6.3 million.

New property, which adds to the district property tax revenue, is down from $54 million in the 2003 tax year to $7 million in the 2011 tax year.

Since the current economic crisis began, our school district has managed its finances by cutting approximately $6.2 million in expenditures.

By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, we will have:

• Eliminated 72.5 positions through attrition and layoffs
• Frozen salaries
• Eliminated or reduced benefitsRestructured programs and contracts to secure savings
• Utilized $6 million in reserves to weather the loss of revenue in order to maintain our current level of programs and services

Should this type of proposed legislation eventually become law, we estimate given the current economic climate, that District 47 would have to initiate a discussion regarding

• the possibility of closing a school,
• significant staff layoffs thus further
• increasing class sizes and would consider a reduction in programs and services which have become part of District 47’s culture. Examples of these programs include but are not limited to Art, Music, Health, Clubs and Activities, Extended Curriculum, Reading Recovery, Band, etc.

As part of the community, we understand the property tax burden being placed upon everyone in a time of declining home values.

However, we cannot pull back from investing in our children’s future.

We believe that legislation such as Amendment 6 to SB 2073 damages the ability of local schools to provide quality education and would potentially be devastating to District 47’s students.

We encourage you to contact your state senator and state representative to discuss this. Local legislators include

• Representative Mike Tryon-mike@miketryon.com,
• Senator Pamela Althoff- Pamela@pamelaalthoff.net  and
• Representative Kent Gaffney- repgaffney@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Donn P. Mendoza, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
dpmendoza@d47.org

Jeff Mason, School Board President
jmason@d47.org

= = = = =
Although State Rep. Jack Franks and Dan Duffy represent parts of District 47, their email addresses were not included in the message.

As I mentioned in my short article Saturday, the records of incumbent County Board members and the positions of challengers on holding real estate taxes constant or even lowering them could become the issue of the March 20th Republican primary election.

Since I have already done an article on the Board’s vote on the tax levy for next year, let me point you to it first:

Who Voted to Raise Your County Taxes?

If you don’t want to see the 11-11 tie vote (two absent) on the motion that lost (because it was a tie) and just want to focus on those incumbents who voted to hike your taxes, here’s the list, included those who could be considered to have voted both ways.  Those running for re-election are in boldface type.

• Robert Bless
• Scott Breeden
• Sue Draftcorn (a switch)
• Mary Donner
• Jim Heisler
• Tina Hill (a switch)
• John Jung
• Donna Kurtz
• Mary McCann
• Pete Merkel
• Anna May Miller (a switch)
• Marc Munaretto
• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Ken Koehler

The McHenry County Young Republicans, stepped up to fill the shoes of

• Patriots United,
• the McHenry County League of Women Voters and
• the Northwest Herald,

by sponsoring forums Friday night for District 2, 3 and 4 candidates and for District 5 and 6 hopefuls on Saturday night.

The level of interest evidenced by local citizens was low, much lower than the turnout will probably be next Saturday night when

• State Rep. Kent Gaffney,
• Dave McSweeney and
• Danielle Rowe

face off at McHenry County College.

The YR’s asked the same first question Friday and Saturday.

It was about positions on raising taxes for challengers and how incumbents voted on the 1.5% tax hike all will see this spring when the tax bills come out after the primary.

The 1.5% increase, by the way, is the maximum allowed by the Property Tax Cap law (called PTELL by the technocrats) passed in 1992.

Let me add here that folks disturbed about tax districts that hike taxes ought to be focusing on school districts.  That’s where the big money is.

But there is no monetary incentive for anyone to run for school board because members don’t get paid.

There is rarely any competition and even rarer for there to be a candidates’ night.  To have a candidates’ forum sponsored by any group that would question the maximization of tax collection by school districts is unheard of locally.

Let me set the stage of the County Board tax hike question by telling what the 1.5% tax hike will be used for.

According to District 4 County Board and longest serving Finance Committee member John Hammerand of Wonder Lake, the extra money will be used to purchase software to link them State’s Attorney’s Office to the rest of the court system.

= = = = =
What the candidates said tomorrow.

An email from State Rep. Mike Tryon:

Our second week of veto session has ended, and while typically this would signify the end of the fall veto session, legislators are being called back to Springfield on Tuesday, November 29 to consider additional business. However, during the last few weeks several noteworthy votes have occurred.

House Bill 3793: Limits Property Tax Increases in Declining Housing Markets

Limiting property tax increases during times when housing values are declining is a discussion that needs to occur. The same tax cap laws that protected taxpayers in the years of unprecedented growth and prosperity in this area are now causing property taxes to increase while housing values are going down.

I am very sensitive to the issues faced by taxpayers in this declining economy and believe the taxing laws must be changed to protect taxpayers when their property values are decreasing.

As I have said many times, the economy is contracting and people are adjusting their budgets and getting by on less.

I believe the public sector needs to do the same.

This week I voted in favor of House Bill 3793.

The bill failed by a large margin.

The bill would have amended the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) to prevent any taxing body in a tax capped county from collecting an increase in funding during a year when the area’s total assessed value decreases.

There was fierce opposition to the bill by

• school districts,
• municipalities and
• other agencies which rely on public funding for their operations.

I understand this opposition because property taxes are a primary funding source for these agencies, which provide important services that we all expect and rely upon.

At a time when the State is not making timely or full payments to them, the passage of House Bill 3793 would have created a significant hardship.

I have plans to file a bill which will require taxing bodies to publish in the newspaper the percentage increase of their tax rate as budgets are being finalized. I believe this new level of transparency would allow stakeholders to have additional information and an increased opportunity to be involved as taxing bodies’ budgets and levies and finalized.

Senate Bill 77: Unemployment Insurance Reform

It was with pleasure that I joined all other members of the House of Representatives in supporting Senate Bill 72, which reforms Illinois’ unemployment insurance system. Today the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund has a projected deficit of $2.4 billion. This staggering sum threatens the very sustainability of this important safety net for working families. Through this bill, the fund will become fully solvent by 2018 and it will provide $400 million in cost savings for employers across the state. Most importantly, these reforms will be accomplished without raising taxes. The provisions of the bill should also help create private sector jobs and reinvigorate the Illinois economy.

Senate Bill 2147: Funding for Regional Offices of Education

Governor Quinn used his veto power several months ago to eliminate funding for Regional Offices of Education (ROEs) and their employees. Because of his veto, Regional Superintendents have not been paid since June. In fact, in McHenry County, the veto led to the current Regional Superintendent retiring early and the individual who had been elected to replace him declining the job. As a result, Lake County officials have been taking care of McHenry County’s ROE needs for the last five months.

I am a strong supporter of Regional Offices of Education and the statutory services they provide, and I voted in favor of restoring the funding for the remainder of this year from the personal property replacement taxes that are distributed to local governments each year. At the conclusion of this fiscal year funding for ROE’s will revert back to the General fund where I believe it belongs. The bill also creates a 15-member streamlining commission that will look for opportunities to consolidate some offices and duties. I favor the creation of this commission and look forward to learning about how we can increase efficiency and save money in these offices.

Senate Bill 1701: Emergency Medical Services Access

This bill amends the Illinois Controlled Substances Act and the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act by providing that any person who, in good faith, dials 911 or seeks medical treatment for someone experiencing a drug overdose shall not be charged with a crime. I voted against this bill because I know that today in our area those who call in an expected overdose are usually not charged with a crime.

The bill creates a situation where drug dealers who administer a fatal dose of a tainted drug could escape prosecution. I believe strongly that drug dealers need to be prosecuted. The “common sense” approach currently used in our area appears to be working and I think we need to continue to look at each drug overdose case individually. However, the bill passed in the House and is now pending in the Illinois Senate.

Senate Bill 1652: Com Ed Smart Grid

Today, 44 states have some level of smart grid technology in place, and when Illinois lawmakers approved a bill several months ago to modernize Illinois’ grid, Governor Quinn vetoed it. During the first week of veto session, members of the House and Senate voted to override Governor Quinn’s veto. I voted in favor of the override and did so in part so that Illinois could become more competitive in attracting new businesses and jobs.

The override means that once the improvements are in place, Illinoisans will have fewer and less widespread power outages than we have today. It will also provide the framework for Commonwealth Edison and Ameren to respond more quickly to network problems.

The need to upgrade our electrical grid was never more obvious than earlier this year when many collar county residents were without power for extended periods of time due to storms. But Oak Park, which has been using the smart grid technology on an experimental basis since 2010, escaped the summer’s widespread storm outages while communities all around it suffered significant power outages. The Smart Grid improvements would not only help prevent widespread outages, but it would also provide for a wholesale technology upgrade that will eventually lower overall electrical costs.

A trailer bill presented the first week of veto session included language that lowers the profit rate for Commonwelath Edison and Ameren to rates that are lower than what the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has allowed in the past.

The new language also toughens the performance standards they must meet and increases the amount of money they must spend to improve the infrastructure. The trailer bill also calls for the creation of a fund to help those of lower socioeconomic circumstances pay their electric bills. Based on the changes included in the trailer bill, a consortium of 42 suburbs withdrew its opposition to the bill prior to the override votes.

Gaming Expansion in Illinois

A new gaming bill that scaled back a gambling expansion package approved by the General Assembly several months ago was soundly defeated by the House last week. I voted against the gambling expansion bill when it was originally presented almost six months ago and I voted against the scaled back version last week. The new bill dropped a provision that would have allowed for slot machines at Chicago airports and the state fairgrounds, and addressed concerns by some that regulations were not stringent enough. However, the new plan still allowed for five new casinos in Illinois and permitted racetracks to operate slot machines.

I am not opposed to a modest expansion of gaming in our state such as the addition of slot machines at racetracks. The racing industry is a large part of the McHenry County economy. In my current legislative district, there are 13 thoroughbred farms and several other farms which supply crops and feed for the horses. My issue with the bill was the large nature of the expansion and the way in which the revenue would be spent. It is my hope that a new, scaled back version can be considered when we return to Springfield on November 29.

Coming Up… The Status of Pension Reform and, the Proposal to Close Seven State Facilities and the Sears EDA

Pension Reform…

There are a few other issues that may be debate and/or resolved when the General Assembly returns to Springfield on November 29. I am a member of the pension reform committee and we have met many times to discuss ways to stabilize the state’s pension system.

Today’s pension system includes an $86 billion unfunded liability. Those negotiations are ongoing and I look forward to reading Senate Bill 512 when it reaches its final form.

It is imperative that we solve the pension crisis, but we must do so in a manner that once and for all stabilizes the system without placing the $86 billion liability onto the backs of the taxpayers.

Facility Closures…

As you have probably heard, Governor Quinn recently recommended closing seven state facilities due to budget shortfalls. His announcement was premature, ill-thought out and included no plan for how the patients and inmates would be transitioned to new facilities.

It was nothing more than a political move on his part, and yet another attempt to press for additional funding by using some of Illinois’ most vulnerable citizens as pawns.

I also serve on the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, and as a group we have been visiting these facilities and holding hearings over the last several weeks.

On Oct. 27 we voted against closing the Murphysboro juvenile detention center, Mabley Developmental Center in Dixon, Singer Mental Health Center in Rockford and Chester Mental Health Center.

Last week we voiced similar concerns by recommending against the closure of the Logan Correctional facility in Murphysboro, the Jacksonville Developmental Center and the Tinley Park Mental Hospital.

I am very much in favor of looking for opportunities to blend services so that efficiencies for providing services can be optimized. I also welcome an opportunity to review a comprehensive plan which includes a thorough cost-benefit analysis. To date, we have seen no plan and no cost-benefit analysis.

As the issue moves forward, I feel strongly that any ultimate changes would need to include a provision for a smooth transition for the individuals served by these facilitates.

Sears EDA…

Lastly, there has been much discussion and debate lately about Sears EDA in Hoffman Estates. As the 23-year tax incentive that brought Sears to Hoffman Estates approaches its 2013 expiration date, Sears is looking to the General Assembly to extend the terms of the EDA for an additional 15 years.

I am firmly opposed to the 15-year extension.

For the last 22 years, Sears has operated out of their space along I-90 between Beverly Road and Route 59 while enjoying significant property tax relief. I favor those original incentives and believe that at the time they were a necessary “carrot” that lured Sears and other businesses to the Hoffman Estates location. Jobs were created and the economic impact was very favorable.

District 300 officials have waited for the day when the EDA would expire so they could begin collecting the property tax revenue that rightfully belongs to them. Some legislators are trying to push through an incentive package that places the lion’s share of the sacrifice onto the backs of District 300 taxpayers. Simply put, it isn’t fair. It is my hope that my colleagues in the House and Senate slow down, take a step back, and create a piece of legislation that entices Sears to stay in Illinois while still being fair to the District 300 taxpayers.

I believe strongly that the next incentive package should be structured like the package we used to keep Motorola and its jobs in Illinois. The State gave Motorola a $100 million incentive package based on “EDGE” credits, whereby a percentage of the income taxes paid by Motorola employees was rebated back to the company. It was an incentive that was very lucrative for Motorola, and it wasn’t done at the expense of local taxpayers.

Clearly, all of Illinois is enriched by the economic activity that Sears brings to our state.

Therefore it is not equitable for the taxpayers of one school district to provide the overwhelming majority of the financial incentive that keeps Sears here. Since everyone benefits if Sears stays in Illinois, everyone should share in contributing toward making that happen.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve you in Springfield and at home. If I, or a member of my staff, may be of assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact my Crystal Lake office at (815) 459-6453 or at mike@miketryon.com.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Tryon
State Representative, District 64

No doubt which side of the taxpayer Downstate Republican State Representative Roger Eddy is on.

It’s not the taxpayers’.

This is the legislator who wanted to loosen the Real Estate Tax Cap in the early 2000′s in order to allow local governments, including the one for which he serves as School Superintendent, to pry more money out of citizens’ pockets.

As I remember the bill, Eddy wanted to tie the rate of increase not to the Consumer Price Index, but to an index that pretty much measured public employee salaries.

That would, of course, set up circular process whereby high teacher salaries would have triggered the ability of schools and other local governments to get more taxes than would be allowed under the CPI.

That was the case in four out of five years I looked at back then.

Well, now double-dipper Eddy has filed a couple of requests for notes that will slow down the consideration of House Bill 3793, as you can see below:

From the McHenry County email last Friday:

10 Questions to a Fair Assessment:
An Explanation of the Assessment Appeal Process in McHenry County

After you have received your 2011 assessment notice please use the commonly asked questions below to better understand your assessment.

1. What’s my first step to determine if my assessment is accurate?

Make sure the information about your property is correct. The local assessor may also be able to show you other properties similar to yours in your neighborhood. You can determine if your property is equitably assessed. He or she may also have comparable sales information. If you have lived in your home for a long time you may not realize how much it is worth now.

2. I didn’t agree with the assessor, what do I do now?

If you are unable to get your assessment satisfactorily resolved with the Assessors’ Office, then get prepared. You only have 30 days from the publication date to file an appeal, so you need to start doing your research early. Go to the county web site at www.co.mchenry.il.us. Then go to departments, then to assessments, then to forms. Bring up the county appeal form and familiarize yourself with it. While there, look at the Board of Review Rules. You will also need to check out recent home sales by going to the county or township assessment office to view recent sales in your area. You might also want to talk to a realtor or appraiser.

3. How will I know what my new assessment is?

You will be receiving a letter in the mail later this summer or fall from the McHenry County Assessor’s Office. This is your new official assessment notice and this is the second year the notice is in letter format that includes more assessment and property information. At the same time you receive your letter, all assessments are published in the local newspaper. That publication date marks the beginning of the 30-day appeal process for your township.

4. I’m filing an appeal. What now?

Don’t miss the deadline. By state statute, your appeal cannot be accepted after the deadline. Determine if your appeal is to be based on equity or market value. Your home could be assessed at the correct market value, but if all the other similar homes on your street are assessed below market value, then you are over assessed because you are carrying a larger share of the tax burden. In an equity complaint, you must supply the assessments of comparable properties in your neighborhood. In a market value complaint, you must supply recent sales data to support the fact that your home may be over-assessed.

Remember, you need to use comparable properties. That means properties of similar size, story height, quality of construction and style. You must use the comparable property form to show the differences between the comparable properties and your home. Be sure to file this information with your complaint form. This is your “evidence” to prove that your assessment is incorrect. You want to provide the most convincing case that you can. This means that you also need to show where your information came from. Pictures of your comparables and your own home are very, very valuable evidence. After receipt of your appeal, in most instances, you will receive a Notice of Hearing.

In addition, the option to have your assessment appeal based on the evidence without a formal hearing is available by checking the box indicating no hearing required. In this case, you would submit your evidence to the Board of Review. The township assessor would then submit their evidence. The Board of Review would then review the evidence from both parties and base their decision on the weight of the evidence provided by both parties.

5. I purchased my home during this past year. Will the Board of Review consider that?

If you recently purchased your home and the Board of Review determines the sale to be an “arms length” transaction between unrelated parties, this may be considered good evidence. Short sales and foreclosures that are advertised on the open market may be “arms length.” The Board of Review reserves the right to adjust all sales for market conditions/time and terms of the sale.

6. What happens at the hearing?

The hearing is somewhat informal. Present will be two or three Board of Review hearing officers, a clerk to handle the paper work, a representative from the township assessor’s office, and you, the property owner. You may be represented by an attorney if you choose. You must include the Authorization to Represent form if you have someone represent you at the hearing.

The Board of Review will ask you about the evidence that you submitted to prove your assessment should be changed. If you go to the hearing and all you have to say is that your taxes are too high, the Board of Review will tell you that they have no jurisdiction over your tax bill. They can only discuss your assessment and the fair cash value of your property. After hearing your arguments and asking you questions about your evidence, then the Board will ask the township assessor to respond to your evidence and information and provide any additional information he or she may have.

7. When will I know the decision of the Board of Review?

In almost all cases, the Board of Review will make their decision at the conclusion of the hearing. The Board of Review does not issue official written decisions until all hearings have been held which is usually early March.

8. What if I’m still not happy?

Once you receive that written Final Notice of Findings, you will have 30 days from the date of the postmark to file with the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB). Those forms are available in the county office.

9. What can I expect if I do that?

You will be expected to provide evidence and proof of your contentions regarding your assessment. Determination of hearing date and all correspondence will originate from the state. However, PTAB hearings are held at the county office for the convenience of the taxpayer. The state sends a hearing officer to preside over the hearing, which is recorded. The hearing is a little more formal than the local hearing.

Again, you are allowed to present your case first. The Board of Review is there to explain their reasons for the assessment they placed on the property. The township assessor may be there to provide information and act as a witness for the Board of Review, if the Board made their decision based on information provided by the assessor. Remember, the appeal to PTAB is “de novo” which means all new. You can provide additional information that you may have neglected to provide at the county level. The Board of Review can also provide new information.

10. I don’t think the Property Tax Appeal Board made the right decision. Is there anything more I can do?

Since you have exhausted all of your administrative remedies, you can now file a court action. Contact your attorney.

Sorry for the delay in pointing out that homeowners can appeal their assessments in McHenry Township.

It looks like the deadline is the day before the election.

The sparsely populated Dunham Township, on the south edge of Harvard, also has a November 1st appeal deadline.

Other deadlines that have not already passed are listed below:

Chemung (Harvard) - November 5th

Coral (Union) – November 5th

Dorr (Woodstock) – October 29th

Marengo – November 12th

Nunda (Northern Crystal Lake & Southern McHenry, Island Lake, Prairie Grove) – November 15th

Grafton and Algonquin Township’s assessments have not been published yet.

Many people appeal their own assessments.

Other hire attorneys.

Those appealing find 5 comparable houses with recent sales that show prices less than the fair market value of their homes and ask to be assessed comparably.  Sales listings can be found here.  They can be found in any township.

Appeal forms are here.

The Supervisor of Assessments explains the appeal process here.

Appeals this year will affect next year’s real estate tax bills.

Credit my Google search for “Jack Franks” name for this story.

I wrote how the Illinois Department of Aging, now in charge of the Senior Citizen and Disabled Person Property Tax Relief program, was cutting benefits in half.

The cutback takes total benefits back to the level distributed in the early 1970′s, when I was closely watching the program in my first eight year stint in Springfield.

Today, a story in the Murphysboro American reports on a meeting of State Rep. Jack Franks’ House Government Administration Committee.

It seems that having taken control of the Circuit Breaker program from the Revenue Department that Aging Department officials have decided that they have to have those 38 ex-Revenue folks sitting right next to the other 140 employees.

The solution?

Take them out of the two state-owned buildings and put them in rented office space that will cost over $3 million over five years.

But, not to worry, the landlord, Springfield’s Charles Robbins (who was around when I was campaign manager for failed mayoral candidate Denny Kelley in 1971), will cut the price from $662,000 a year to $532,000 a year the first twelve months.

Well, we can certainly see the priorities of the Department of Aging:

Employees first; seniors later…if we don’t spend it all on the employees first.

Almost forgot.

Since Jack Franks’ name in the article led me to this story, it’s appropriate for me to tell you what he thinks of the idea.

As he put it succinctly,

“Absolutely ridiculous.”

That’s what Pat Quinn’s Department of Aging put in the Circuit Breaker forms being mailed out to seniors and the disabled.

That’s what I learned in Sunday’s article by Daniel T. Zanoza of Republicans For Fair Media.

Here’s the announcement on the departmental web site:

NOTICE: In past years, the Department on Aging has been able to issue Circuit Breaker grants at the maximum allowable amounts. However, the state budget for fiscal year 2010 (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010) did not fund the Circuit Breaker program at those levels. In order to continue to provide the Circuit Breaker grant benefit to older adults and persons with disabilities on and after July 1, the Department made the difficult decision to cut each grant awarded in half. This decision based on budgetary cutbacks cannot be appealed.

Thank you for your understanding.

That’s what happens when the General Assembly moves a program out of a big department—the Revenue Department—to a little one—the Department of Aging.

Revenue might have been able to find money elsewhere, but no Aging…at least not while keeping everyone on the payroll.

And, that’s what Illinois government is all about, isn’t it?

Let me note that when I was running for State Representative in 1972, the circuit breaker real estate tax relief program was being pushed by the Richard Ogilvie administration. The 2 1/2% income tax had been imposed in 1969 and money was pouring in so fast that Ogilvie couldn’t spend it all.

So, he allocated $29 million for the program.

It the program has only grown to $40 million (before being cut in half by Governor Quinn), it certainly has not kept up with inflation.

My first year in office, I figured out that the entire $29 million had not been spent.

That’s because not everyone eligible for benefits had applied.

So, I figured out how much the benefits could be increased without spending more than $29 million, wrote a report explaining what I wanted to do and introduced a bill.

It passed through the Illinois House—as did 11 other of my bills, more than any other freshman state rep—and took it to the Senator Revenue Committee, chaired by Terrel Clarke of Western Springs.

He was impressed with the presentation and the bill got out of committee, passed the Senate and was signed.

At the time, Pat Quinn was a patronage employee in Dan Walker’s Department of Local Government Affairs.

Now, under his leadership, the property tax relief is about what it was in 1972 before I passed the bill to increase benefits. I would not that property taxes have not decreased.

Yesterday, I took a look at what legislation State Rep. Mike Tryon (R-Crystal Lake) had managed to move toward passage. He has nine bills that will pass, if called for a vote.

Today, let’s take a look at State Rep. Jack Franks’ bills. The Marengo Democrat has five on track toward passage.

House Bill 22 amends the Line of Duty Compensation Act requiring earlier payment of whatever the minimum amount would be. No one has voted “No” yet.

HB 272, which requires that the Illinois High School Association shall require that each athletic coach complete an educational program on the prevention of abuse of performance-enhancing substances developed by the association and complete an exam, is in the Senate ready for passage. . Athletes not passing the test would be fined $50. Only “Yes” votes on this one.

HB 338 reduces the eligible size of a renewable energy plant to receive state grants from 30 million to 5 million gallons per day. This is the third completely non-controversial bill for Franks.

HB 366 legislatively shifts the Circuit Breaker program from the Revenue Department to the Department of Aging. It loosens the definition of household income, allowing a second eligible person’s income to be ignored in the formula. It also increases the cut-off level from $14,000 to $23, 218 for a one-person household for this tax year and $27,610 for next year. The law allows, but does not require the Aging Department to adjust the income levels to keep up with increases in the cost of living. The maximum grant for those earning over $14,000 still seems to be $70. If so, that means the bill will have little benefit, as far as property tax relief goes. It appears to have more impact as far as assistance in buying pharmaceutical drugs. Applications may be made over the internet and appeals are allowed to benefit decisions.

HB 3859 may turn out to be a bill that Franks concludes he should not have sponsored. As the Federal Environmental Protection Agency rachets air quality standards higher and higher, the areas along the edge of the currently mandated emission testing area, which end at Crystal Lake and McHenry, but exclude populated areas like Huntley, end up being in the Feds’ sights. The Illinois General Assembly held off expansion of the boundaries in the 1990′s, but, reading this bill makes me think the heat has gotten so hot and the penalties so high (probably no Federal road money) that a fast-tracking of areas where people must get their vehicles tested is the purpose of this bill. If so, we’ll see if Franks’ catches political heat for sponsoring this bill. I remember the boundaries made no sense whatsoever when my then-intern Pete Castillo put together a nationwide coalition to fight what the Bill Clinton Administration proposed.

HB 4078 is his highly publicized bill to prohibit Rod Blagojevich from benefiting financially from his attempts to cash in on his notoriety.

Maybe House Speaker Mike Madigan imposed a five bill limit on his Democrats.

You can find out how other state representatives are doing on their bills here.