SUN CITY – Below are questions submitted to Kane County Supervisor of Assessments Mark D. Armstrong, CIAO by Sun City residents following the Saturday, June 18 meeting held in Drendel Ballroom that addressed the recent increase in property taxes. The questions presented here were unable to be answered at the time of the meeting, but were submitted to Armstrong on sheets, which he responded to. Below you will also find those answers. SC stands for Sun City, MA stands for Mark Armstrong. This is a follow-up to last editionâs similar Q&A with McHenry County Chief County Assessment Office Robert H. Ross, ASA on the same matter.
SC: Shouldn’t Janet Siers be here? Why not?
MA: Rutland Township Assessor Jan Siers was an active participant with the Kane County team that developed the presentation, and she confirmed her presence at the meeting as late as June 17. However, her husband was hospitalized in the early morning hours of June 18 with a dangerous case of viral pneumonia, and she was still at the hospital with him at the time of the forum.
SC: I have heard that 55 and over communities in some states were able to get a referendum done where they were able to end paying school taxes. How do we go about doing this?
MA: I donât know whether such a scenario exists in other states, but in Illinois, this could not be done by referendum under the current law. There would need to be a change in state statutes to accomplish this.
SC: D-158. What is the justification for accumulation of excess reserves equal to 2-3 times the annual budget?
MA: While Iâm sympathetic to your concerns, no one in Township or County Government has any authority over school district budgets; this question is best directed to the District 158 administration.
SC: Why are appeals arbitrary? A neighbor got a substantial reduction because he said noise came from the open space behind him (there is a road). Why was I not automatically given the same decrease?
MA: I would need a little more information to give a precise answer, but let me answer in general terms. If one neighbor files a complaint and another does not, the neighbor who did not file would not receive a changed valuation unless the Board of Review decided to raise an issue on its own motion. However, to do so the Board would need evidence of the scope and geographic limits of a particular issue, which may not have been in evidence at the original hearing.
SC: The PTELL levy increase in 2010 was 2.7%. Some taxing districts exceeded this amount. Please explain haw a levy increase in excess of 2.7% could have occurred.
MA: The Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) permits increases for inflation (up to a 5% increase in CPI-U, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics); for the 2010 property tax year, the 2009 measurement was used. However, this is not the only increase permitted under PTELL; increases to account for new growth (i.e., properties with improvements that are assessed for the first time) are also permitted. Finally, it should be noted that bonds are not covered by PTELL. For a more complete explanation of a particular levy increase, one should contact the taxing district that certified the levy.
SC: Why havenât assessment values not go down when home/land values have dropped over half?
MA: Most assessments have dropped; 94% of the parcels in Rutland Township had lower values in 2010 than in 2009. (The 6% that received increases generally consisted of farmland, properties that no longer qualify for a preferential assessment, and properties with changes due to new construction.) If taxpayers have questions about specific properties, they are best addressed by the Township Assessor who certified the assessment roll.
SC: Am I correct that assessments within a sub division must be comparable by model. Therefore all three Sun City townships must be comparable by model.
MA: State law provides Township Assessors with broad discretion in developing assessed valuation. While there is no statutory requirement that assessments be segregated by model type, there is nothing would prevent a township assessor from developing assessments by model type, either.
SC: The Kane County Board of Review does not allow Rutland residents to use comparables in Grafton, even though they are the exact same models when we limit ourselves to Sun City. This is contrary to provisions in the Illinois constitution and prior judicial decisions, including at least one IL Supreme Court decision. Kane assessors and its BOR claim that only comparables in the same township may be used, citing previous PTAB decisions of theirs as justification. When challenged on this point at PTAB, they invoke the aid of the Kane County Stateâs Attorney to support their position. Will you take steps to have the Kane County Board of Review follow the state constitution in the future?
MA: To the extent that this question refers to a complaint on the basis of overvaluation (comparing an assessment to the market), the Board of Review will consider any comparables that are submitted. However, just because a property is submitted as evidence does not automatically mean that the evidence is persuasive. In the case of a contention of overvaluation, the Board of Review will consider all evidence and make whatever decision âappears to be justâ as required by 35 ILCS 200/16-65. To the extent that this question refers to assessment complaints made on the basis of equity, the issue has been litigated, and the Property Tax Appeal Board addressed the precise point. In a 2008 ruling, the PTAB found that âthe assessments of similar properties located in Grafton Township, McHenry County, are not relevant or probative of whether the assessments established by Kane County assessment officials are correct.â (The full text of the decision can be read on page 34 of the PTABâs 2008 Synopsis of Representative cases at www.state.il.us/agency/ptab/pub/Synopsis2008.pdf.) However, the Board of Review always wishes to follow all applicable state statutes, administrative rules, and judicial decisions. If anyone knows of any of these which would overrule the direction of the PTAB, that person is invited to file a brief, with citations with the Board of Review.
SC: Why canât Kane County adjust the EAV now and reissue second half tax bills for this year? You have 3 months to do this.
MA: To the extent the question is about EAVs, the record shows that the Rutland Township EAVs are at the correct median level, but the Grafton Township EAVs are artificially low. As a practical matter, the process for such a mid-year correction would take longer than three months. For instance, if the statutes permitted such a correction and the 9,348 Grafton corrections were reversed, each one of those taxpayers would be legally entitled to a hearing before the McHenry County Board of Review, which would delay the process well into the winter, at best.
SC: How many homes in Rutland have senior freezes?
MA: 893 households qualified in 2010, up from 837 in 2009.
SC: What is the size on the average for the small adjustment that will be made because of wrong tax rates?
MA: Iâm afraid itâs too early to tell. The analysis will be done by the Illinois Department of Revenue; currently five taxing districts are scheduled for apportionment. Each of these taxing districts have different boundaries, and they include anywhere from two to five townships in two counties. Because of this, the apportionment formula for each taxing district will differ. Furthermore, there is a wide range of assessed valuations in the various townships which must also be factored in. Finally, the amount could be altered if some or all of the local taxing bodies object to the apportionment before the end of 2011.
SC: When will be reassessed?
MA: State law provides for a full reassessment for the 2011 year; the next reassessment is scheduled for 2015. During the intervening years, assessors can ârevise and correctâ values; in all years, assessments are subject to equalization at the county and state level.
SC: Will the Kane County Board of Review use 1 year data as the McHenry Board of Review does? If not, why not? And if not, do you consider this fair towards Rutland and other similarly situated townships in Kane.
MA: No. State law requires that township assessors consider three years of data in developing assessments. A Board of Review is required to make whatever decision âappears to be justâ (35 ILCS 200/16-65). The Kane County Board of Review believes it is unjust to value property at the Board of Review by a different standard that is required of the Township Assessor, as this would result in taxpayers who filed complaints being treated differently than taxpayers who did not.
SC: I disagree with the statement the moderator made for the amount recommended by school District 158. I have information that places this at 2.7% and not 2.1%.
MA: This question is best directed to District 158; as previously stated, no one in Kane County Government has any authority over the school districtâs certified levy.
SC: Why were we not mailed notification of a 17% increase in time to appeal?
MA: By the time that tax bills are mailed, it is too late to file an assessment complaint. State law requires that âthe complaint shall be filed on or before 30 calendar days after the date of publication of the assessment list.â (35 ILCS 200/12-30) While that date is generally sometime in the fall, it does vary from year-to-year. Taxpayers can find out the publication date (and the appurtenant filing deadline) in one of several ways:
If your parcel has its assessment changed by the Township Assessor, you will receive a mailed notice of the change.
The notice will be printed in a newspaper that is published in Kane County (in the past, it has been published in the Elgin Courier-News).
The notice is available on www.KaneCountyAssessments.org for those with internet access.
The information will be available by calling the County Assessment Office at (630) 208-3818.
The information will be available by calling the Township Assessorâs Office at (847) 428-5219.
Persons with e-mail can go to www.KaneCountyAssessments.org, select the âsubscribeâ link, and register their e-mail address to receive e-mail notice whenever a townshipâs assessment roll is published.
SC: Why canât we receive a refund this year?
MA: I presume this question refers to the $500 Thousand over extension of taxes in Kane County due to the use of estimated EAVs from McHenry County. By state law, taxes collected by a County Treasurer are passed on almost immediately to the Taxing Districts; the current statutory remedy is to credit the over extension against the following yearâs levy. It would take enabling legislation getting through the state legislature in the fall veto session to provide for any refunds earlier than next year.
SC: What percent of complaints in Kane County heard by the Board of Review had their assessments lowered on appeal? Someone told me it is 70% in McHenry.
MA: In 2010, 62% of all class 0040 properties who filed a complaint with the Kane County Board of Review received a reduction.
SC: How is the tax rate determined and what can a taxpayer do to reduce the tax rate?
MA: The tax rate is based on the formula of (Certified Levy á Billable EAV). Some (but not all) tax rates have upper limits. Since this is a mathematical formula, tax rates are reduced when one of two things happens:
Billable EAVs increase at a faster rate than certified levies. Certified levies decrease at a faster rate than billable EAVs.
Taxpayers who have concerns about specific tax rates should address the issue with the specific taxing body for which the rate is set.
