Residents seeking answers to their heightened tax bills and discrepancies in the tax burden between Rutland and Grafton Townships packed Drendel Ballroom on June 18.
The crowd, which was so large it poured into the nearby lobby to watch on TV, listened as officials involved with assessments, tax levies, and government, spoke on the issue.
The Volunteer Civics Committee and the Property Tax Assessment Group hosted the event. Hermann Faubl, Chairperson of the Civics Committee, N.18, moderated the presentation.
Kane County Supervisor of Assessments, Mark Armstrong, took the podium to address the four main points he believed to have caused Rutland’s high tax bills.
The biggest reason on the list was the inequitable tax burden caused by differing methods of assessment across the townships. Rutland Township Assessor Janet Siers used a three-year average to give a value on homes, which Armstrong said is required by state law.
Grafton Township Assessor Bill Ottley valued homes based on their current market value, and according to Armstrong, the assessor made mistakes on 9,348 parcels. After the McHenry County Board of Review took action, the aggregate value of real property in the township dropped 18 percent – Armstrong called this the “principal source” of the disparity.
“When somebody decides they’re going to do something different, that’s when inequities happen, that’s when situations like this happen,” Armstrong said.
McHenry County Assessor Bob Ross apologized for how the lowered assessments affected the tax burden.
“Anytime the board of review makes a reduction in assessments or any assessment official for that matter, it does affect the burden, and I believe that was one of the unintended consequences that occurred,” he said.
Armstrong pointed to higher allocation for senior freeze properties as another reason for higher bills. He said declining property values can cause homes with a senior freeze to pay higher taxes than the previous year, though the tax bill will never be higher with a senior freeze than it would be without.
Increased tax levies by the five taxing bodies that overlap Kane and McHenry Counties – namely District 158, the Village of Huntley, the Huntley Fire Protection District, the Huntley Area Public Library District, and the Huntley Park District – contributed to the higher taxes. The use of estimated equalized assessment values in McHenry County was another factor.
The solution Armstrong believes can balance 2011 tax bills is apportionment. Apportionment looks at the value of homes in the previous two years rather than using a percentage of their EAV.
After apportionment, Grafton residents will see an increased tax burden in their 2011 tax bills, but Armstrong said it would be a smaller increase than what Rutland residents saw in their bills this year, since there are three Grafton taxpayers for every one Rutland taxpayer in Sun City.
“Rutland assessments are going to drop again, this time by an aggregate value of 6.14 percent. That does not mean that everybody’s assessment is going to drop 6.14 percent. Some may drop more, some may drop less; it’s a general assessment year, so the entire township gets revalued. On the Grafton side, because they were lowered far below where they should be by the board of review, they’re going to have to increase by 5.31 percent,” Armstrong explained.
Armstrong filed a request for apportionment to the Illinois Department of Revenue the day before the presentation. The request for apportionment can be blocked if one of the five inter-county taxing bodies files a resolution to stop it by Dec. 31.
“I had a conversation with Mark Altmayer over in the school district, and the willingness was there, and one of the things that I think everybody has come to the conclusion in this room is that we don’t want the tax agencies in McHenry County objecting to the apportionment,” State Sen. Chris Lauszen, who represents Illinois’ 25th District, said.
After the panel discussion, Faubl read questions written by residents to the panel. One asked why corrective tax bills are not being issued for second-half adjustments.
“I’m not even quite sure we have the legal authority to do that, but I don’t have any objection to you approaching your county board and asking if they want to fund the budget to pay for that and want to issue corrective bills, but legally I don’t think we can do that,” Kane County Treasurer Dave Rickert said.
Representing the area’s largest taxing body, D158 Superintendent Dr. John Burkey made a statement to the crowd, stressing how the district has remained financially responsible. He told of how the district spends the least per student of schools in McHenry County and how its teacher and faculty salaries are below the state average.
He added that although no residents in Sun City have children in D158, their tax money is going to support the education of children in the community, yet his statements were met mostly with boos from the crowd.
“Nothing upsets a taxpayer more than if that hard-earned money that’s your money gets wasted, and I can assure you it’s not being wasted,” he said.
D158 Chief Financial Officer Mark Altmayer told the crowd the district is not budgeting for the extra revenue brought on by Rutland Township’s increased tax burden, as they will not likely have it next year.
Lauszen urged the crowd to take action themselves if they really wanted to see change.
“Look at the manpower, womanpower, that you have in this room,” he said. “You have to run for office to change these boards.”
