Under the Property Tax Cap, a non-Home Rule Unit (think municipalities over 25,000 people like Chicago, Crystal Lake and McHenry, plus municipalities who have approved Home Rule by referendum vote lie Barrington Hills) may not raise its tax levy by more than the increase in the cost of living.
This year the inflation rate of 7/10 of 1% governs school district, park districts, non-Home Rule municipalities, etc.
So, when I read that the Village of Union was proposing to raise its tax bill 15%, it made no sense.
State law will not allow more than a 7/10 of 1% tax hike.
About the only folks to win by Union’s passing this ordinance work at the Northwest Herald, because a village has to publish the big black box you see here, if its board asks for more than a 5% increase.
The Village asked for $77,698.82 this year.
According to the ad, it is asking for $89,353.43 next year.
It is likely to get an extra $500, plus change.
I wonder how much the ad cost.
Coincidentally, the ad listing all Coral Township assessments for next year was published in the NWH yesterday.
Folks have 30 days to appeal their assessments.
Coral Township homeowners can find their assessment here.
Cal, you caught the tax-hogs and/or incompetent officials once again.
Who’s Union’s legal counsel who reviewed the bolo-increase (if any), Jacko Franks or Mr. Friviolity (aka Flavin)?
Whenever I think of Union (or ALden) muni officials, I think of Hooterville’s Fred and Doris Ziffel from the old “Green Acres” sitcom …. you know, the offbeat farmers who raised the prize pig “Arnold.”
Alden is unincorporated.
Its only general government is Alden Township.
What do you suppose would happen if nobody caught this?
This isn’t a referendum anyway, it’s through the village officials.
So what would happen if they voted to increase it by that illegal rate?
Would they just collect the money, against the law, if all the officials were complacent and there was no protest from citizens?
The reason this is done is to capture new growth.
Taxes on existing homes would be limited to the rate of inflation.
Any new construction would be taxed at the higher rate.
If you don’t want to pay the higher rate, then Union would not be the place to build.
Although my pig named Cleo was not a first place prize winner, she would play her electric piano for peppermint candies.
Surely no one believes new construction in Union is more than 5% of last year’s assessment base.
For next year’s taxes the County Clerk would cut the request back to the 7/10 of 1% increase allowed by the state law commonly called the “Property Tax Cap.”
Do you think Ron Sandack will be talking taxes in Volo or maybe he might prefer a more photogenic topic.
The Illinois Comptroller’s Warehouse website has information about local taxing districts including Union.
Illinois Comptroller ID # 063/110/32.
Fiscal Year 2015
CEO – Robert Wagner
CFO – Larry Beebe
Population – 580
EAV – $14,534,529
Employees – 32
Revenues – $586,510
Expenditures – $635,416
Click on, “Show me the Data” tab for lots more data.
Preston Rea has it correct:
Why has the State of Illinois not changed PTELL to exclude new growth?
The practice Preston describes simply generates revenue for newspapers and makes the tax levying more complex than it should be!
Every year each township Assessor prepares the assessments for all property.
Those assessments are reviewed – and modified – by the County Supervisor of Assessments plus changes made at taxpayer request via the Review Board.
Then the assessments are reviewed – and possibly modified – by the State via a multiplier.
Why is new property treated differently?
If the property is new, will it not simply be included in next year’s assessment?
Why is the process made more complex than it has to be?
End the current process of special treatment for new property and you will end this idiotic black box b.s.
I believe that Preston is correct regarding the notion that over stating the request helps to insure all assessment increases and growth dollars are captured for the upcoming fiscal year.
Since they will most likely not collect the entire amount requested based on the cap, it’s strictly a method to not get in a lose position.
There is no negative consequences to this tactic.
If one levies more than 5% more than the year before, one has to buy a black bordered ad.
I guess one could say the expenditure for the ad is not a “negative consequence,” but I would not agree.
Our representatives and senators have not even introduced such legislation, as far as I can remember.
Re: “Our representatives and senators have not even introduced such legislation, as far as I can remember.”
The State Legislature under Madigan’s control would never allow legislation which simplifies Illinois’s ridiculously complex property tax system.
Example: Cook County assesses at 10 % of market while the rest of the State assesses at one third.
New property is treated different than existing property. The County can add a multiplier to assessments and then the State can add another multiplier.
It is true, the law does permit negative multiplier but they are rarely used.
Chicago schools levy low property taxes because the rest of the state funds their schools.
We have this ridiculous assessment review board process which has enriched attorneys like Mikey Madigan.
I wonder how many assessment appeals the Franks law firm has filed (probably at a hefty fee) over the years?
Here is the notice.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX INCREASE FOR VILLAGE OF UNION, MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
1. A public hearing to approve a proposed property tax levy increase for the Village of Union, McHenry
County, Illinois for the 2016-2017 fiscal year beginning May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 will be held on August 16, 2016 at 7:00p.m. at the Union Village Hall, 17703 O’Cock Road, Union, Illinois 60180.
Any person desiring to appear at the public hearing and present testimony to the taxing district may contact Josie Riley, Village Clerk, Union Village Hall, 17703 O’Cock Road, Union, Illinois 60180, telephone number 815-923-4153.
2. The corporate and special purpose property taxes extended or abated for the 2015-2016 fiscal year
beginning May 1, 2015 and ending April 30, 2016 were $77,698.82. The proposed corporate and special
purpose property taxes to be levied for the 2016 – 2017 fiscal year beginning May 1, 2016 and ending April
30, 2017 are $89,353.43.
This represents a 15.00% increase over the previous year.
3. The property taxes extended for debt service and public building commission leases for the 2015-2016
fiscal year beginning May 1, 2015 and ending April 30, 2016 were $0.00.
The estimated property taxes to be levied for debt service and public building commission leases for
the 2016-2017 fiscal year beginning May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 are $0.00.
This represents a 0.00% increase over the previous year.
4. The total property taxes extended or abated for the 2015-2016 fiscal year beginning May 1, 2015 and
ending April 30, 2016 were $77,698.82.
The estimated total property taxes to be levied for the 2016-2017 fiscal year beginning May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 are $89,353.64.
This represents a 15.00% increase over the previous year.
Josie Riley. Village Clerk
Publication Name: Northwest Herald
Publication URL: http://www.nwherald.com
Publication City and State: Crystal Lake, IL
Publication County: McHenry