Franks Finally Supports Walkup’s Effort to Kill Valley Hi Tax

The end of August I told you of Jack Franks’ answer to my question regarding whether the would support elimination of the property tax for Valley Hi:

“I would probably support a zero levy at this point and if we need more money we can ask for it going forward.”

At the time, I thought that was a pretty weak answer for someone advertising himself as a “Tax Fighter.”

A month later, in the only joint appearance with opponent Mike Walkup (Franks skipped the League of Women Voters forum), Franks told the Northwest Herald Editorial Board he favored elimination of the tax, according to the NWH’s Sunday article.

Now Republicans on the County Board have to decide whether to vote to kill the tax before the election or not.

If they don’t and Franks wins, you can bet he will be beating the Republican-dominated board over the head until they vote to end the Valley Hi real estate tax.

= = = = =
For those of you who need reminding, below is the story about Mike Walkup’s second week of August statement to the McHenry County Board’s Finance and Audit Committee calling for the abolition of the Valley Hi tax:

Walkup Calls for Abolition of Valley Hi Tax

During the public comment period before the McHenry County Finance and Audit Committee Thursday morning, Republican McHenry County Board Chairman candidate Mike Walkup called for the abolition of the Valley Hi tax.

Walkup led the fight last year to zero out the $3 million levy for the Valley Hi Nursing Home, arguing that having over $40 million of money in Valley Hi bank accounts proved there was no need to extract more tax dollars from property owners.

If the County Board levies nothing for Valley Hi for a second year in a row, as Walkup recommends, the authority to tax property for the facility will end.

Walkup admitted that, but pointed out before there would be any need for more money, he might well be a resident of the nursing home.

On Wednesday the Public Health and Human Services Committee approved a budget that approved for a $2.75 million levy for Valley Hi.

If the enterprise fund continues to break even or almost break even, levying $2,75 million next year would just increase the bank balance by about that much.

A new tax could be approved by referendum, if the need ever became recognized by voters.

Valley Hi Statement

Mike Walkup proposing the County Board abolish the Valley Hi tax.

Mike Walkup proposing the County Board abolish the Valley Hi tax.

I come before you today to ask that you not approve the suggested property tax levy of $2.75 million, that was approved yesterday by the Public Health and Human Services Committee.

Last year the County Board cut the real estate tax levy from $79 million to $76 million.

That was done by zeroing out the Valley Hi Nursing Home levy.

This year we should do the same.

Let’s not raise taxes this year by taxing people $2.75 million that is not needed.

I know that means the taxing authorization approved by referendum will disappear.

With $41.7 million in Valley Hi bank accounts, we owe the taxpayers nothing less.

To be frank, all of us should be embarrassed so much unneeded money has been extracted from homeowners and businesses.

I know that those who think more about maintaining and growing government will give the same old tired argument,

 We’ll lose it forever.”

 With the excellent financial administrator we have at Valley Hi, it will take a decade or longer to eat up the $41.7 million balance.

It could take twice that long.

So, I say, “Let’s give the taxpayers a permanent break.”

Now that the bonds are paid off—and that was the purpose of the tax in the first place—let’s end the tax.

If a decade or two from now, the Board on which none of us will be serving,  decides that more property tax subsidy is needed, those members can put another referendum on the ballot to subsidize Valley Hi…at which time I might be living in it.


Franks Finally Supports Walkup’s Effort to Kill Valley Hi Tax — 12 Comments

  1. I don’t understand why so many of the county board candidates believe if we eliminate the levy, we are “privatizing” Valley Hi; it would just be removing the tax burden.

    Privatizing is a whole different topic.

  2. Leeery, I said the same thing.
    They were clueless Everyone of them.

    But, when we’re talking about the Kerri Barber’s of the county, who proclaim that we can lower property taxes by “reducing spending and leveraging our assets” it’s apparent how clueless they really are.

  3. All but one Democrat candidate at the forum last night said they want to borrow money against Valley Hi!!!
    They’re all spending money already!

  4. And is Jack going to come clean about his ‘cut 10’.

    It can’t be done as 10% of our tax bill is the county budget. You’d have to get rid of all the county’s services.

    At the forum even most of the Dem Candidates admitted that it can’t be done. (those that knew the 10% of your tax bill IS the county’s portion of our Real Estate Tax bills)

    The one’s that didn’t shouldn’t even be considered as they didn’t even know that.

    Carrie Barber was whispering to Potter on how to answer and Barber was griping that she didn’t get to answer a question when in fact they STARTED with her!

    This is bad folks!

    How would either of those two make it thru a standard board meeting???!!!!

    Wilbeck and Barnes for that district !

  5. Since the County is about 10% of the property tax bill for someone residing in a municipality, and a 10% cut to 10% of the property tax bill is 1%, cutting the property taxes of the county taxing district 10% results in a 1% reduction on ones property tax bill.

    Thus Cut 10 becomes Cut 1.

    Thus a $10,000 property tax bill would be reduced $100.

    That’s not too exciting, which is why the Cut 10 program was invented.

    $1,000 is more exciting than $100.

    But $1,000 when and how, well, Jack Franks refuses to tell voters, so it’s vapor, nothing, in terms of voters making a logical decision, because there’s nothing upon which to make a decision.

    Furthermore, Mike Walkup, the Republican candidate for County Board Chair, is already proposing to eliminate the Valley High portion of the county levy, and may have other tax savings ideas.

    So its unknown if Jack Franks would save the property taxpayers one penny over Mike Walkup, since Jack Franks refuses to release his property tax plan until after the election.

    Any politician could say they can reduce property taxes in the entire county and not release their plan until after the election.


    In simple terms here is how the levy relates to the property tax bill one receives in the mail.

    The taxing district submits the property tax levy request to the County Clerk who converts it to an Extension by accounting for new construction in the district and performing other tasks.

    The County Clerk then divides property value in the entire taxing district (EAV) by the Extension to determine the Tax Rate.

    Your property value is multiplied by the tax rate, resulting in the amount of taxes you pay to the taxing district.

  6. Taking it a step further.

    Jack Franks is a high tax candidate.

    The biggest cost of government is labor.

    Jack Franks is an organized labor (union) friendly candidate.

    Unions have contributed over $900,000 to Jack Franks since he has become a State Representative as a result of the November 1998 election, taking office in January 1999.

    What do unions want from politicians?

    Hiked pay, benefits, union friendly legislation and policy, and better working conditions.

    To support he is a higher tax candidate, Jack Franks called Republican Governor Bruce Rauner a union buster.

    And Jack Franks does not support the Rauner administration’s Turnaround Agenda, other than to say his for lower property taxes, then refuses to release his plan for lower property taxes until after the election.

    To make matters worse, Jack Franks served on the Governor’s Consolidation and Unfunded Mandate Task Force, yet does not discuss how unfunded mandates for which he has voted hike government costs.

    Hiking government costs usually results in hiking taxes.

    An example of an unfunded mandate which hiked government costs was his vote on Senate Bill 856 on May 26, 1999 in the 91sth General Assembly.

    SB 856 hiked the accrual rate in the Downstate Fire pension Plan.

    Governor George Ryan signed that into law as Public Act 91-0466 (PA 91-0466) on August 6, 1999.

    Downstate fire pensions are a huge problem now for many McHenry County property taxpayers.

    There are many severely underfunded downstate fire pensions in McHenry County, and the problem has been getting worse, not better, in absolute dollars.

    The hole has been getting deeper and deeper.

  7. So let me understand, the McHnery County tax payers of yester-year who were overcharged by the Board are being called upon to subsidize the McHenry County taxpayers of today and tomorrow who are not being taxed anything at all for Valley Hi. Nice deal you worked out for yourselves off the sweat of others.

    Hey you conservatives, isn’t this a form of transfer of wealth resuting from unlawful confiscation of money by MCB incompetence from the compulsory tax system they are part of creating?

    Is it only me who sees the irony in all of this. . .

    McHenry County residents continue to vote in Republicans behaving like Democrats. Return the money to its rightful owners, those tazxpayers who it was stolen from!

  8. monkey see, monkey do. Jacko’s been plagiarizing off of other’s ideas since HS.

  9. One of the problems with the 2002 Valley High referendum is that it was apparently just a tax rate referendum, as opposed to having a bond referendum only, or a bond and tax rate referendum simultaneously.

    In a bond referendum, once the bonds are paid, that portion of the property tax goes away.

    If a bond referendum was included, the tax rate referendum, if any, would have been much smaller.

    So today’s surplus would be less.

    Maybe the board at the time didn’t want to have two referendums on the same ballot (bond and tax rate)?


    Northwest Herald

    McHenry County Board chairman candidate wants to nix Valley Hi Levy

    August 12, 2016

    by Kevin Craver


    The Jack Franks cut 10 program that John Bartman is also supporting (what other political candidates support cut 10?) may simply be a way for the Democrats to gather names of prospective voters.

    The website has no content about how property tax cuts would be achieved.

    No content about pensions, one of the biggest drivers to hiked property taxes.

    No content about retiree healthcare, which will be a cost driver to hiked property taxes in the future, as several taxing districts have private retiree healthcare plans that are mostly unfunded, and those benefits are included in the state constitutional guarantee on retirement benefits (along with pensions) to not be diminished or impaired.

    It’s a one page website with five hyperlinks.

    Clicking on one hyperlink (facts about McHenry County property taxes) leads one to the Jack Franks campaign website.

    Clicking on another hyperlink (send this message) sends the name, email, and zip code inputted by the website visitor.

    Clicking on another hyperlink (Northwest Herald: McHenry County Property Taxes: Residents Vote with Their Feet) links to that Northwest Herald article.

    Clicking on another hyperlink (Contact Jack Franks) leads one to Jack Franks’ campaign website.

    Clicking on another hyperlink (Facts Speak for Themselves) leads on to Jack Franks’ campaign website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.