Tax Protest Suit Against Algonquin Township – Part 1

With Algonquin Township’s newly-elected officials meeting tonight, here is a recent filing by tax protest attorney Timothy Dwyer that will probably not be discussed:

Here is the latest tax protest suit filed by Attorney Tim Dwyer against Algonquin Township:

TAXPAYERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO
ALGONQUIN TOWNSHIP AND THE ALGONQUIN TOWNSHIP ROAD DISTRICT

NOW COME the Plaintiffs/Tax Objectors, Taxpayer, Wolf Realty Inc., et al., by and through its counsel, The Dwyer Law Office, and for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1005, states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

The instant claim involves a tax objection alleging that the Township, in 2014, levied for funds which were wholly unnecessary and therefore excessive under Illinois law. Algonquin Township issues two separate levies, one for the Township and one for the Township Road and Bridge District. The same Township Trustees vote for each levy, as the Road District does not have a board. Both entities, the Township and the Township Road District, are audited under one audit according to the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Township Code. While the audit delineates separate funds, all of the funds come under the purview of the Township, and are treated as Township Funds. Under the facts and the law set forth below, the levies issued by the Township are excessive both cumulatively and from an individual fund perspective.

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

1. In fiscal year 2012, the Township increased its net position by $605,527. Exhibit A, page 3.

2. In fiscal year 2013, the Township increased its net position by $1,221,573. Exhibit C, page 4.

3. In fiscal year 2014, the Township increased it net position by $852,956. Exhibit C, page 4.

4. At the end of its fiscal year, March 31, 2014, the net position of the Township was $11,711,225. Exhibit C, page 4.

5. Because the end of its fiscal year was March 31, 2014, the Township still had its 2014 levies to collect, which was $1,800,379.53 for corporate and public assistance, and $4,048,991.16 for I.M.R.F., Road and Bridge, Equipment and Building, Audit, Liability Insurance and Social Security.

6. The net amount as of the end of the 2014 fiscal year, coupled with the taxes receivable in June and September of 2015 was $11,711,225. Exhibit C, page 4.

7. As of the end of the fiscal year 2014, the Township had $1,484,967 in unrestricted funds. Exhibit C, page 4.

8. As of the end of fiscal year 2014, the Township had investments of $1,057,174. Exhibit C, page 23.

9. The overall expenses for both the Township and the Road District were $4,836,600 in 2014, $4,545,747 in 2013 and $4,412,869 in 2012. Exhibits A-C.

10. The average annual expenses for both the Township and the Road District were $4,598,404 for a three-year annual average prior to the 2014 levy, for taxables payable in 2015. Exhibits A-C.

11. All the entities on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B to its Fourth Amended Complaint paid their taxes in full.

12. The net position of the Township’s funds at the end of the fiscal year 2014 was 2.54 times the three-year average annual expenditures of $4,598,404. Exhibit C, pages 4, 5, and 14.

13. As of the end of fiscal year 2014, the Town Fund had $3,166,393 in its coffers. Exhibit C, page 13.

14. For the three previous years, the total expenditures of the Town Fund was $1,504,564 in 2013, $1,463,885 in 2014, and $1,593,421 in 2012. Exhibits A-C.

15. The annual average, three-year expenditures of the Town Fund were $1,521,385, which is 2.08 the amount of expenditures the Township had in reserves over the previous three-year period. Exhibits A-C.

16. When it issued its 2014 tax levy, the Township had $175,468 in its Insurance Fund. Exhibit C, page 20.

17. The average three-year expenditures for the Township relative to its insurance fund were $57,567 in 2013, $70,372.50 in 2014 and $47,992, or $58,643, or 2.99 times the average annual cost. Exhibits A-C.

18. The balance in the I.M.R.F. Fund, as of fiscal year 2014, was $212,763. Exhibit C, page 20. The total expenditures, average over a three-year basis was $77,557 in 2013, $82,684 in 2014 and $79,169 in 2011, and 2012. This was 2.66 times the average, annual, three-year expenditures.

19. Thus, even without the 2014 tax receivables, the Township I.M.R.F. Fund was over twice that of which was necessary for the ensuing fiscal year.

20. As of fiscal year 2014, the Township audit fund had $74,271.

21. The three-year average annual cost of the audit was $3,083.

22. Thus the audit fund had 24 times that which was necessary for the ensuing fiscal year, but the Township still levied $10,000 for said fund.

23. As of the end of fiscal year 2014, the Township Social Security Fund had $164,187.

24. In 2013, the Social Security Fund expended $57,272; in 2014, it expended $60,342; in 2012 it expended $55,349, for an average, three-year cost of $57,654.

25. Prior to receiving any 2014 taxes from its levy of $71,082, the Township had $164,187, or 2.84 times that which was necessary to pay Social Security expenses in the ensuing year. Exhibit C.

26. For its Building and Equipment Fund, the Township had a balance of $2,653,927 as of the end of

fiscal year 2014. Exhibit C, page 13.
27. In 2013, this Fund expended $1,248,112; in 2012, this Fund expended $1,176,903; and in 2014, it expended $1,004,490, for a three-year average annual expense of $1,143,168. Exhibits A-C.

28. Thus, the existing balance, as of the end of fiscal year 2014, was 2.32 times the necessary funds needed for the ensuing year. Nevertheless, $1,229,181 was levied from its taxpayers in 2014.

29. The Road and Bridge Fund, at the end of fiscal year 2014, had a balance of $2,282,451.

30. The Township levied $2,576,080 for the Road and Bridge Fund in 2014.

31. In 2012, the expenditures of the Road and Bridge Fund were $2,181,353; in 2014, the expenditures were $1,980,920.

32. The average, annual, three-year expenses for the Road and Bridge Fund was $2,013,670.

33. Not only did the Township have $2,823,451 in reserve, but the Township had $1,057,174 in investments. In 2014 alone, the Township accrued $15,897 in interest income from its investments. Exhibit C, page 5.

34. In addition to over one million in investments, the Township had 12.68% of its funds, or $1,484,967 in unrestricted funds to be used at its discretion. See Exhibit C, page 4.

35. Thus, the Road and Bridge Fund actually had $2,822,451 plus $1,484,967 (unrestricted funds) and $1,057,174 (investments) for a total of $5,364,592, or 2.66 times the necessary funds for the ensuing fiscal year. Exhibit C.

36. Even without the investments, the Township would have 2.13 times the necessary funding, using the existing fund balance in addition to the unrestricted funds.

37. For purposes of this motion, there are no issues of genuine, material facts.

= = = = =
More to come.


Comments

Tax Protest Suit Against Algonquin Township – Part 1 — 10 Comments

  1. One hates to say it, but unless the over-taxation, and the give everything to everybody that asks syndrome that is so common in government these days stops this type of lawsuit is likely to become more frequent instead of less frequent.

    There’s only one thing to do first put a tourniquet on it and two, do some surgery on the people that are causing it, that’s why we have primary elections.

    Personally my hat’s off to Andrew Gasser.

    He’s the first one to take a very sharp political knife to a very big tumor.

  2. Re: “do some surgery”

    Careful!!

    That can be considered a serious threat!

  3. Atty Tim Dwyer is famous for going after those that are guilty of illegally overtaxing citizens.

    He doesn’t attempt cases that aren’t slam dunk guilty verdicts.

    When he’s done, His clients can expect a check in the mail!

    Wonder if Alg twnshp residents will be able to do a class action suit to get back the monies they were overtaxed?

  4. Oh sorry, didn’t see the ‘more to come’ part in the article.

    I can assume the residents will jump on getting Dwyer to do a multiple parallel suits for them.

  5. But is this suit perhaps about recovering funds related to alleged fraudulent payments by township, and the limiting timeclock to file suit only begins to toll when the alleged fraud is uncovered?

  6. The case was filed November 12, 2015.

    This latest series of posts is the most recent paperwork filed by the plaintiff for that lawsuit?

    A hearing for a summary judgement is scheduled for August 17, 2017 at 10AM in Room 201 of the McHenry County Government Center.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.