McHenry County Blog

The 2010 assessed valuation has been totaled for McHenry County and it’s down almost 10%.

That’s what a comparison of raw figures from the McHenry County Supervisor of Assessments Office indicate.

McHenry County real estate taxes this year will be based on assessed value of $10,132,926,407 unless the State Department of Revenue decides that figure does not reflect one-third of a three-year average  of assessed value to market value.

$10.1 billion reflects a significant drop from last year’s total of $11,210,739,442.

Grafton, Chemung (Harvard) and Marengo Townships led the devaluation race. Grafton property decreased in value over 17%, Chemung over 13% and Marengo over 3%.

Because tax districts overlap the Grafton-Algonquin Township lines, it is conceivable there ill be significant shifts of tax burden in such tax districts as Lake in the Hills, the Huntley School District and the Village of Lakewood.  Those on the Grafton Township side of the line may end up paying much less taxes to the overlapping districts than those on the Algonquin Township side of the line.
With assessed values down throughout McHenry County, one might think that tax bills will decrease.

My prediction is the same as the first year home prices started sinking.

Your tax bill will most likely increase.

McHenry County Townships.

That’s because virtually every tax district (include schools here) asked for the maximum amount they could get under the Tax Cap law.

That maximum is the amount the Consumer Price Index increased.  This year that means +2.7%, as I read this Illinois Revenue Department chart.

As long as assessed valuation was growing rapidly, tax district officials bragged about how their tax rates were less than the year before.

What complete dribble!

The way the Tax Cap (PRELL are the initials of the law’s title) works, if a district’s tax assessment base increases more than the increase in the cost of living, the tax rate must be cut so the district’s tax take will not exceed the increase in the cost of living.

Conversely, if last year’s tax rate multiplied times the new assessed value does not bring in last year’s property tax revenue, plus the increase in the CPI almost universally requested by tax district board members, the tax rate goes up.

That’s what happened last year.

It’s what I predicted over three years ago.

So, don’t think that a lower assessment figure will necessarily mean you will get a lower tax bill.

It could have meant that if tax district officials had not been greedy enough to request the maximum they could receive this year.

I have written about two districts where one board member tried to ratchet back the tax request for this year.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore made the suggestion, but lost the vote. A second vote was taken. This article has Rob LaPorta’s explanation. LaPorta notes that it will cost “11 cents per $100,000 home value.”

LaPorta is correct that township government takes relatively little of the total real estate taxes people pay.

But when every (or virtually every) tax district takes the 2.7% maximum amount allowed by state law, don’t be surprised if your tax bill is 2.7% higher than last year.

A similar request was made by John O’Neill at the levy meeting of the McHenry Grade School Board. I wrote about the unsuccessful effort in this article:

The Primal Urge of Government: Take As Much As It Can Get

A comment under that article leads me to believe that Aileen Seedorf made a similar unsuccessful suggestion to the Huntley School District 158 Board with similar results.

Two local governments got recommendations from a board member to go easy on taxpayers.

No need to extract as much as possible from taxpayers was the suggestion of Grafton Township Supervisor and McHenry Grade School Board member John O’Neill.

Linda Moore

Moore suggested that the Grafton Township Board not increase its levy.

The other members present disagreed, not wanting to leave any money in taxpayers pockets that could be legally extracted under the Tax Cap law.

While the increase in the Consumer Price Index was 2.7 %, the board voted to increase its levy by 4.999%.

Any higher and Grafton Township would have had to place one of those rather meaningless black-bordered ads.

Why?

As Township Trustee Betty Zirk said, “I just want to make sure we get as much tax money from growth as we can get.”

John O'Neill

If the township board had just decided to increase its levy by 2.7%, that would not have been possible, if there was any growth in assessed valuation.

Jump to McHenry Grade School District 15, where board member John O’Neill argued that the levy should only be increased 1%.

O’Neill presented the litany of economic woes which have befallen McHenry;

• The “Worst Recession since the Great Depression.”
• Unemployment at 10%
• Property Values plummeting whiles our friends at D156 are trying to hike our property taxes.
• The McHenry City Council recently approved increasing it’s share of sales tax by 50%.
• The day before the School Board’s levy hearing, the McHenry City Council was discussing raising water rates.

Every time McHenry’s residents turn around, they’re being “nickeled and dimed to death.”

“Let’s give the taxpayers in McHenry a break,” O’Neill said.

The board opted for increasing the levy 2.7%.

Administrators pointed out that O’Neill’s proposal would cause the district to lose $6-7 million over the next five years.

O’Neill pointed out that the district might need need to dip into our reserve, although it was originally meant for future buildingand expansion much the same way that the taxpayers have had to dip into their savings and 401K plans just to keep on paying the bills and avoid foreclosure although those savings were originally meant for retirement.

O’Neill was subjected to comments about his not really understanding school finance.

It seems to me he understood it, but decided in these hard times that taxpayers deserved a break.

Meanwhile, in Downstate Jonesboro, the school board rejected administration recommendations that its levy be increased by 4.5%.

The school board meeting was videotaped.

No votes appeared for the raising the levy. The board decided to forego the 2.7% increase in taxes that it could have gotten.

And Crystal Lake’s city council decided to take a pass on increasing its levy, but Crystal Lake has lots of money in the bank and is not limited by the Tax Cap because it is a Home Rule city.

As it did about two years ago, Crystal Lake could just increase its sales tax again.
= = = = =

Are there other elected officials in McHenry County who have tried to get their boards not to max out on next year’s taxes?  Please let me know in the comment section.

In the Republican Party, each congressional district has a member on the State Central Committee. Currently the 16th District State Central Committeeman is Rockford State Senator Dave Syverson. This is the district Congressman Don Manzullo represents in Washington.

16th Congressional District Map, Illinois

When I got tired of not ever seeing a Republican precinct committeeman knock on my door or even leave literature at my door, I ran again and was elected.

This past week I received this statement of candidacy for the office from Joe Wiegand. Wiegand has run for state representative twice and served on the DeKalb County Board. He spearheaded the Tax Cap referendum in DeKalb County. Wiegand impersonates Teddy Roosevelt and has even appeared in Crystal Lake.

Republican precinct committeemen select state central committeemen.

Here is his Statement of Candidacy:

My name is Joe Wiegand, and I am a candidate for the post of 16th Congressional District Republican State Central Committeeman.  The election for this position will be held on March 3, 2010, at the Republican Conventions occurring in the nine Northern Illinois counties of the 16th Congressional District.

As Republican State Central Committeeman, it would be my goal to help Republican County Chairmen, Precinct Captains and candidates to win elections and, in turn, to bring better, common-sense, conservative public policies to the people of Illinois.
In 1982, as a Northern Illinois high school student, I campaigned for Congressman Phil Crane in McHenry County, the eastern-most portion of today’s 16th District.  In 2008, I led the Mike Huckabee effort in Illinois and appeared on the primary ballot as a candidate for 16th Congressional District Presidential Delegate.

In the three decades that I have been active in the trenches for Republicans and good government, Illinois has gone from the Reagan Revolution which promised greater freedom to the dominance of a one-party, Chicago-Democrat fiefdom which portends only greater servitude.  In the name of all that is decent and good, it is time to take back Illinois.

Like many of you, I have decided that it is time to put the future of our families, friends and neighbors first and to answer the call of “all hands on deck!”

It’s time for us to save the Land of Lincoln from this terrible fate of higher taxes and failed jobs.

Like you, I have tried to do some good.  I served on my DeKalb County Board and its finance committee, bringing the property tax cap to a successful referendum in 1999.  In 2007, I led the successful opposition to the proposed McHenry-Boone-DeKalb property-tax-fed water district.  I am pro-life, pro-Constitution and pro-traditional marriage, and I believe Republicans will do better in elections when we stand four-square in favor of these cornerstone issues.

We can all do more in the way of service to our neighbors in Northern Illinois, and I know I can help to bring the people of Northern Illinois together in support of party candidates that believe in lower taxes, smaller government, more freedom and respect for human life and our treasured institutions.  I believe we can join together to change the course in Illinois and to bring our fiscal house in order.  Together, as Republicans, Independents and former Democrats, let us strive to make a brighter future for the people of Illinois.

Joe Wiegand
868 State Route 72 – Fairdale                                                                                                 Kirkland, IL 847-373-0691  jwiegand@tbc.net

More About Joe Wiegand

Family – After a college romance, Jenny and I married in 1987.  In June, we celebrate or 23rd Anniversary.  Our daughter, Sam, is a soccer playing 6th grader.

Roots –I was raised in Elmhurst, Illinois (DuPage County) and graduated from Palatine High School in Palatine, Illinois, (Cook County), I have lived in DeKalb County since 1988.

Joe Wiegard on Applachian Trail

Profession – After a twenty plus year career in politics, campaigns and public policy, I am excelling as the nation’s premiere Theodore Roosevelt reprisor.  I performed for President and Mrs. Bush in the East Room of the White House, live on C-SPAN for TR’s 150th birthday in 2008.

Faith – A conservative Christian, I have enjoyed worshiping in churches throughout the 16th district.  I am a former senior warden of Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Belvidere, Illinois.

Education – I graduated from The University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, with a degree in political science emphasizing American government and economics.  At Sewanee I was named a Thomas Watson Fellow in honor of the founder of IBM, Corporation and I traveled in Europe, Africa and Asia, interviewing national legislators about republican government.  I also received a Harry S Truman Scholarship, the official memorial for Give ‘em hell, Harry, for promise for a career in public service.  I pursued graduate studies in American government and public policy at Northern Illinois University, where I served as a graduate assistant in the Center for Governmental Studies.

Public Service – My public service ethic came from good teachers and great parents.  I served for six years as an elected member of the DeKalb County Board.  Representing seven western townships, I served on the finance committee, sponsored property tax caps and spearheaded their ultimate passage at referendum. I offered myself twice for the state legislature from Fairdale, a decade apart in two very different districts.  In 1994, I endorsed Rep. Ron Wait to take the 69th House seat back from the Democrats, after he bested me 67-33 in the primary.  In 2004, I endorsed Rep. Bob Pritchard after he bested me 55-45 in the primary.

Party Service – A former Vice-Chairman of the DeKalb County Republican Party, I have served as a precinct committeeman in the City of DeKalb and in rural Franklin Township about half of the time since 1988.  I served as a campaign professional for Nancy Beasley for State Senate, Chris Lauzen for State Senate, Jim Oberweis for Governor and Mike Huckabee for President, and as a campaign volunteer for Pat O’Malley for Governor, Peter Fitzgerald for US Senate and Jack Ryan/Alan Keyes for US Senate.  I have been a delegate to the State Republican Convention, an attendee of Republican Day at the State Fair and a frequent enthusiastic supporter and modest contributor to good candidates.

This is the second part of a three-part article on McHenry County College’s MAP meeting Tuesday. Part 1 in here. The Northwest Herald’s take, complete with shifting headline emphasis, is here.

My notes have “one cent sounds like nothing.” The “referendum” word was used.

Referring to the Property Tax Cap, Ally said,

“It’s costing the college millions of dollars each year.”

Ally impressed me with the increase in reserves that have been built up since he took office.

But his Tax Cap comment led me to reflect how differently those in government see the Tax Cap from those who are the taxpaying base.

We consider those millions “lost” to government as “savings” for us.

We know that government can spend every dollar it manages to pluck from our pockets (and from our children’s).

Factoring in the recently signed four-year faculty contract, Ally presented the chart you see above.

Coupled with the “look what just a penny increase in the tax rate will bring in,” it seems to me that the presentation was skewed toward a tax hike before the fund balance target begins to dip under the weight of the new faculty contract.

But the people at the tables didn’t bite.

One table mentioned how surprised they were at how much a penny would raise, but didn’t go so far as to recommend that taxes be raised. I think it was the one pictured above.

Questions were taken from the floor.

Kurt Begalka from the Northwest Herald asked whether increasing expenses would result into dipping into reserves.

“Not yet,” Ally replied.

“Reserves should not be used for ongoing expenses,” he continued. “That’s just not sustainable.”

Ally noted that health insurance costs were growing faster inflation. The college’s attempt to control costs resulted in employees paying 25% of the cost of insurance (50% for dental and visual) “to form a true partnership.”

I asked the total annual cost for an employee and was told that for a family it would be about $5,000. The college is self-insured, which means whatever the college cost of the health care plan the taxpayers foot the bill.

Later Begalka, at whose table I sat, pointed out that employees at many private enterprises pay 100%.

Ally said college enrollment this year is “the perfect storm.

Part 3 will address enrollment tomorrow.

A funny thing happened on the way to the end of the calendar year.

The Consumer Price Index has been decreasing.

It’s still up 1.1% for the last twelve months.

That is probably enough to earn an

from many tax district officials.

Why?

The “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average” is the percentage increase (until now) upon which the property tax cap is based.

This coming year, tax districts are allowed an increase in their “tax take” of 4.1%, plus new construction.

But look what is happening since August. It’s on the table below:

The cost of living was the same in September as it was in August.

From September to October, however, it decreased a seasonally adjusted 1%.

And from October to November, the seasonally adjusted CPI fell 1.7% more.

That’s good news for consumers, but very bad news of tax districts.

Will the CPI fall more than 1.1% from November to December?

Will the schools, non-home rule villages, junior colleges, townships, fire protection districts, park districts, etc., get no increase whatsoever in property taxes collected in 2010?

Will their friends in the General Assembly change the tax cap law?

Will that offer legislative challengers the opportunity to label supporters of gutting the tax cap the title of “tax hiker?”

Stay tuned for the “sturm und angst.” (And, no, I don’t know how to lay in an umlaut above the “u” in “sturm.”)

And the tip for this story? It came from CPA and Nunda Township Supervisor John Heisler.

For those in the Chicago metropolitan area, here is a press release telling what happened locally in the last month.

A funny thing happened on the way to the end of the calendar year.

The Consumer Price Index has been decreasing.

It’s still up 1.1% for the last twelve months.

That is probably enough to earn an

from many tax district officials.

Why?

The “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average” is the percentage increase (until now) upon which the property tax cap is based.

This coming year, tax districts are allowed an increase in their “tax take” of 4.1%, plus new construction.

But look what is happening since August. It’s on the table below:

The cost of living was the same in September as it was in August.

From September to October, however, it decreased a seasonally adjusted 1%.

And from October to November, the seasonally adjusted CPI fell 1.7% more.

That’s good news for consumers, but very bad news of tax districts.

Will the CPI fall more than 1.1% from November to December?

Will the schools, non-home rule villages, junior colleges, townships, fire protection districts, park districts, etc., get no increase whatsoever in property taxes collected in 2010?

Will their friends in the General Assembly change the tax cap law?

Will that offer legislative challengers the opportunity to label supporters of gutting the tax cap the title of “tax hiker?”

Stay tuned for the “sturm und angst.” (And, no, I don’t know how to lay in an umlaut above the “u” in “sturm.”)

And the tip for this story? It came from CPA and Nunda Township Supervisor John Heisler.

For those in the Chicago metropolitan area, here is a press release telling what happened locally in the last month.

I didn’t know that writing that a tax levy is designed to make certain that a tax district would get the maximum it could from property taxpayers’ pockets would be such a startling concept.

In his comment on my article yesterday, Carpentersville School District 300 board member John Ryan makes that very point in his first paragraph (his entire comment is published at the bottom of this post to give it more prominence than it would receive as a comment):

“Because we have no way of knowing what our actual tax receipts will be, we are put in the unenviable position of having to ask for an amount much higher than needed to ensure we will not fall short of budget expectancies.”

Overlevying has been part of the property tax process since well before I collected taxes in 1967 as McHenry County Treasurer.

The reason is that people running most tax districts think their role in life requires they extract every dollar from your check book to which they are legally entitled…for the common good, as they define it, of course. They don’t put it that crassly, of course.

In my article yesterday, I tried to put in perspective the black-bordered notice (which you can click below to enlarge) District 300 published which stated that next year the District 300 levy would be 38.64% higher than this year’s.

(The meeting, by the way, is next Monday night at 7:30 at Neubert Elementary School at 1100 Huntington Drive in Algonquin. I would not encourage you to attend unless you are a masochist. At such meetings I have attended, the trustees have sat and listened to anything people say, but haven’t answered any questions. A pretty unsatisfying situation, if you are expecting a dialogue.)

I was trying to point out that there was no way District 300 tax bills could increase by over one-third.

Next, Ryan uses the argument that I have seen consistently used by tax districts since the tax cap went into effect:

“Had you bothered to check D300′s actual proposed budget for 2009-2010, you would have found we are actually forecasting a slight DECREASE in our tax rate for the next academic year.”

That sounds good, but it doesn’t mean much.

Since the tax cap, the rate has not been the thing to watch.

In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a condition, except prolonged deflation and voter approval of higher tax rates or bonds, which would result in a higher tax rate.

That’s because the tax rate is a balancing number.

If assessments go up faster than the Consumer Price Index, then the tax rate must go down.

So a falling tax rate is not a reason to praise a tax district.

It’s a function of real estate assessed value having increased more than the Consumer Price Index.

The number to watch is the extension. That is the amount the county clerk tells the county treasurer to collect.

The extension determines the amount of taxes to be pried out of our pockets.

Assuming that a tax district wants to maximize its income from us property taxpayers next year, a district needs to levy enough to make certain that its extension is what it got last year, plus the increase in the Consumer Price Index, which was 4.1% last year.

Below is John Ryan’s blog comment that launched this article. In it he accurately notes that I misread the permissive nature of the request to call Cheryl Crates, if one wanted to attend the hearing. I noted that mistake under yesterday’s article.

Cal,

It is most disappointing that I once again find myself in a position of having to correct yet another inaccurate story regarding District 300. As you are undoubtedly aware considering your long tenure in these matters, based upon current law in Illinois (and silly as it may seem), public entities that rely on property tax revenue must declare their requested levy prior to actual EAV’s being released. Because we have no way of knowing what our actual tax receipts will be, we are put in the unenviable position of having to ask for an amount much higher than needed to ensure we will not fall short of budget expectancies. Had you bothered to check D300′s actual proposed budget for 2009-2010, you would have found we are actually forecasting a slight DECREASE in our tax rate for the next academic year.

You also asserted that anyone wishing to speak on the matter at the upcoming BOE meeting “MUST” contact Dr. Crates prior to the meeting in order to be allowed to do so. That also is incorrect – if you would have read the notice carefully, you will see it reads “MAY”, and was intended to provide a knowledgeable point of reference in case any questions arise.

What is most disheartening to me is that, in the correspondence we have shared since the publication of your first post last week, you assured me that you would publish an article featuring my repudiation of the falsehoods contained in that post. You also promised that you would afford me the courtesy of checking with me if anything that seemed unusual regarding D300 caught your attention prior to future publications in order to offer a balanced perspective.

Imagine my surprise then, when I read your latest post this morning. Although it genuinely pains me to have to say so, because you have chosen to once again rely on misleading information, lack of diligent verification, sensationalism in your inference to a clandestine plan for another referendum and in reneging on your word to me, serious doubts are now raised in regard to both your personal and the McHenry County Blog’s credibility and integrity. Surely, in your tenure as a state and county official, there were times when the press chose “not to let the facts get in the way of a good story”, so to speak, in their portrayal of you. Such actions on your part now, therefore, can be viewed as nothing short of hypocritical.

For example, where was a story about multi-year budget projections showing balanced budgets for D300 into the future? Where was a story on how D300 saved our taxpayers over $2 million in the recent bond sale because of the unprecedented 5-tier increase in our credit rating due to the fiscal disciplines that have been instituted? Residents of D300 can be assured that BOE campaign pledges and D300 Strategic Plan objectives of transparency and accountability are being fulfilled.
It certainly is not my intention to engage in an ongoing and escalating war of words with you. I am compelled though, to respond to unprovoked and false accusations – especially in light of our recent discourse. I will put an end to this by simply stating a wish that you remain true to your word I look forward to a balanced perspective in the future.

Sincerely,
John Ryan
Board Member
CUSD 300

More on the Thanksgiving Week comment Ryan refers to above, which I promised I would feature in an article, in a while.

I didn’t know that writing that a tax levy is designed to make certain that a tax district would get the maximum it could from property taxpayers’ pockets would be such a startling concept.

In his comment on my article yesterday, Carpentersville School District 300 board member John Ryan makes that very point in his first paragraph (his entire comment is published at the bottom of this post to give it more prominence than it would receive as a comment):

“Because we have no way of knowing what our actual tax receipts will be, we are put in the unenviable position of having to ask for an amount much higher than needed to ensure we will not fall short of budget expectancies.”

Overlevying has been part of the property tax process since well before I collected taxes in 1967 as McHenry County Treasurer.

The reason is that people running most tax districts think their role in life requires they extract every dollar from your check book to which they are legally entitled…for the common good, as they define it, of course. They don’t put it that crassly, of course.

In my article yesterday, I tried to put in perspective the black-bordered notice (which you can click below to enlarge) District 300 published which stated that next year the District 300 levy would be 38.64% higher than this year’s.

(The meeting, by the way, is next Monday night at 7:30 at Neubert Elementary School at 1100 Huntington Drive in Algonquin. I would not encourage you to attend unless you are a masochist. At such meetings I have attended, the trustees have sat and listened to anything people say, but haven’t answered any questions. A pretty unsatisfying situation, if you are expecting a dialogue.)

I was trying to point out that there was no way District 300 tax bills could increase by over one-third.

Next, Ryan uses the argument that I have seen consistently used by tax districts since the tax cap went into effect:

“Had you bothered to check D300′s actual proposed budget for 2009-2010, you would have found we are actually forecasting a slight DECREASE in our tax rate for the next academic year.”

That sounds good, but it doesn’t mean much.

Since the tax cap, the rate has not been the thing to watch.

In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a condition, except prolonged deflation and voter approval of higher tax rates or bonds, which would result in a higher tax rate.

That’s because the tax rate is a balancing number.

If assessments go up faster than the Consumer Price Index, then the tax rate must go down.

So a falling tax rate is not a reason to praise a tax district.

It’s a function of real estate assessed value having increased more than the Consumer Price Index.

The number to watch is the extension. That is the amount the county clerk tells the county treasurer to collect.

The extension determines the amount of taxes to be pried out of our pockets.

Assuming that a tax district wants to maximize its income from us property taxpayers next year, a district needs to levy enough to make certain that its extension is what it got last year, plus the increase in the Consumer Price Index, which was 4.1% last year.

Below is John Ryan’s blog comment that launched this article. In it he accurately notes that I misread the permissive nature of the request to call Cheryl Crates, if one wanted to attend the hearing. I noted that mistake under yesterday’s article.

Cal,

It is most disappointing that I once again find myself in a position of having to correct yet another inaccurate story regarding District 300. As you are undoubtedly aware considering your long tenure in these matters, based upon current law in Illinois (and silly as it may seem), public entities that rely on property tax revenue must declare their requested levy prior to actual EAV’s being released. Because we have no way of knowing what our actual tax receipts will be, we are put in the unenviable position of having to ask for an amount much higher than needed to ensure we will not fall short of budget expectancies. Had you bothered to check D300′s actual proposed budget for 2009-2010, you would have found we are actually forecasting a slight DECREASE in our tax rate for the next academic year.

You also asserted that anyone wishing to speak on the matter at the upcoming BOE meeting “MUST” contact Dr. Crates prior to the meeting in order to be allowed to do so. That also is incorrect – if you would have read the notice carefully, you will see it reads “MAY”, and was intended to provide a knowledgeable point of reference in case any questions arise.

What is most disheartening to me is that, in the correspondence we have shared since the publication of your first post last week, you assured me that you would publish an article featuring my repudiation of the falsehoods contained in that post. You also promised that you would afford me the courtesy of checking with me if anything that seemed unusual regarding D300 caught your attention prior to future publications in order to offer a balanced perspective.

Imagine my surprise then, when I read your latest post this morning. Although it genuinely pains me to have to say so, because you have chosen to once again rely on misleading information, lack of diligent verification, sensationalism in your inference to a clandestine plan for another referendum and in reneging on your word to me, serious doubts are now raised in regard to both your personal and the McHenry County Blog’s credibility and integrity. Surely, in your tenure as a state and county official, there were times when the press chose “not to let the facts get in the way of a good story”, so to speak, in their portrayal of you. Such actions on your part now, therefore, can be viewed as nothing short of hypocritical.

For example, where was a story about multi-year budget projections showing balanced budgets for D300 into the future? Where was a story on how D300 saved our taxpayers over $2 million in the recent bond sale because of the unprecedented 5-tier increase in our credit rating due to the fiscal disciplines that have been instituted? Residents of D300 can be assured that BOE campaign pledges and D300 Strategic Plan objectives of transparency and accountability are being fulfilled.
It certainly is not my intention to engage in an ongoing and escalating war of words with you. I am compelled though, to respond to unprovoked and false accusations – especially in light of our recent discourse. I will put an end to this by simply stating a wish that you remain true to your word I look forward to a balanced perspective in the future.

Sincerely,
John Ryan
Board Member
CUSD 300

More on the Thanksgiving Week comment Ryan refers to above, which I promised I would feature in an article, in a while.

I received the following email yesterday:

Just saw the attached in the public notices in the paper.  D300 will be discussing a 38.64% increase in property taxes to be levied for 2008.  Is this the lead-in for another referendum?

OUTRAGEOUS!

I can find no further information on the D300 website.

Of course the percentage increase is outrageous.

But you have to remember that most people in charge of tax districts want to make sure they can wring as much money out of us as possible.

No matter that the economy is tanking.

The services public officials think the services they provide–especially for special purpose districts like schools–must be the most important way to spend your money, otherwise why would the officials be spending their time trying to provide them.

OK, I’ll grant some play the role of taxpayer watchdog, but I can’t think of any local governmental entity where such folks are in control.

Having said that, the levy is meaningful in only a limited way. 

It represents the maximum that a tax district can collect.

In the best of circumstances.

In a really big building boom.

Fortunately, there is this little thing called the tax cap.

It is the real limit on spending.

Unless folks are silly enough to approve a tax rate referendum or bond issue, tax districts cannot collect more than they did last year, plus whatever the Consumer Price Index goes up to a maximum of 5%. They can also get all the new money that new construction or a dying Tax Increment Financing district gives up.

Now, school districts say that their costs go up faster than the CPI.

“Oh, well,” is about the only reaction I have to that.

Welcome to the real world where “wants” have to be distinguished from “needs.”

So, why not levy for what one expects to receive?

Why ask for a 38.64% increase when you know there is virtually no new construction and the inflationary increase in limited to 5%, even if inflation is higher than that?

That is the question I would ask next Monday night at 7:30 at Neubert Elementary School at 1100 Huntington Drive in Algonquin.

The notice says that those wanting to testify have to call Cheryl Crates ahead of time.

That, of course, is nonsense.

People don’t have to pre-register for a public hearing.

I wonder how much the irrelevant 7 lines of type cost the taxpayers.

Click to enlarge the public notice.

= = = = =
District 300 school board member John Ryan has been kind enough to point out my mistake in not figuring out the notice said people “may” contact Cheryl Crates. I saw “must” for some reason.

I received the following email yesterday:

Just saw the attached in the public notices in the paper.  D300 will be discussing a 38.64% increase in property taxes to be levied for 2008.  Is this the lead-in for another referendum?

OUTRAGEOUS!

I can find no further information on the D300 website.

Of course the percentage increase is outrageous.

But you have to remember that most people in charge of tax districts want to make sure they can wring as much money out of us as possible.

No matter that the economy is tanking.

The services public officials think the services they provide–especially for special purpose districts like schools–must be the most important way to spend your money, otherwise why would the officials be spending their time trying to provide them.

OK, I’ll grant some play the role of taxpayer watchdog, but I can’t think of any local governmental entity where such folks are in control.

Having said that, the levy is meaningful in only a limited way. 

It represents the maximum that a tax district can collect.

In the best of circumstances.

In a really big building boom.

Fortunately, there is this little thing called the tax cap.

It is the real limit on spending.

Unless folks are silly enough to approve a tax rate referendum or bond issue, tax districts cannot collect more than they did last year, plus whatever the Consumer Price Index goes up to a maximum of 5%. They can also get all the new money that new construction or a dying Tax Increment Financing district gives up.

Now, school districts say that their costs go up faster than the CPI.

“Oh, well,” is about the only reaction I have to that.

Welcome to the real world where “wants” have to be distinguished from “needs.”

So, why not levy for what one expects to receive?

Why ask for a 38.64% increase when you know there is virtually no new construction and the inflationary increase in limited to 5%, even if inflation is higher than that?

That is the question I would ask next Monday night at 7:30 at Neubert Elementary School at 1100 Huntington Drive in Algonquin.

The notice says that those wanting to testify have to call Cheryl Crates ahead of time.

That, of course, is nonsense.

People don’t have to pre-register for a public hearing.

I wonder how much the irrelevant 7 lines of type cost the taxpayers.

Click to enlarge the public notice.

= = = = =
District 300 school board member John Ryan has been kind enough to point out my mistake in not figuring out the notice said people “may” contact Cheryl Crates. I saw “must” for some reason.