Home

General Information

About Us


CVC Audit Information Download


Contact Us


Display Advertising


Ad Sizes and Samples


Classified Advertising

Communities

Communities Served


Community Resources

-$- Online Store -$-

Digital Online Subscription


Order A Classified Ad Online


Place Assumed Name Notice


Cook County Legals Printed Here


Kane County Name Change - $85


Place Obituary Notice


Download Sample Paper

Submission of News

Engagement Submittal


Birth Announcements


News & Photos


Sports Scores

Lifestyle Features and Videos

Food and Lifestyle


Lifestyle Videos


Seasonal Widget


Crossword and Sudoku Puzzles


Mug Shot Mania News

Online News and Commentary

The Examiner U-46 News Feed


Cheap Seats 2024 By Rich Trzupek


Cheap Seats 2023 By Rich Trzupek


Cheap Seats 2022 By Rich Trzupek


Guest Seat By Harold Pease, Ph.D.


Cheap Seats 2021 By Rich Trzupek


Cheap Seats 2020


Cheap Seats 2019


Cheap Seats 2018


Cheap Seats 2017


Cheap Seats 2016


Cheap Seats 2015 B


Cheap Seats 2015


Cheap Seats 2014


Cheap Seats 2013


Cheap Seats 2012


Cheap Seats 2011


Cheap Seats 2010


Ramey DUI Video


Representative Randy Ramey pleads guilty to DUI


Bartlett Volunteer Fire Department Street Dance


The Truth about Global Warming


Examiner Editorials and Cheap Seats from the past

Forms and Newsstand Locations

Newsstand Locations


Carriers needed


Legal Newspaper

The Examiner U-46 News Feed

U-46 pursuing tax relief that likely will not come


By Seth Hancock
  The Board of Education in School District U-46 unanimously approved of a property tax relief grant application at its meeting on Monday, Dec. 17 but it came with markedly different expectations then what was presented at the Dec. 3 meeting.
  The board’s vote comes after a Dec. 3 vote approving of the district’s 3 percent hike in the 2018 property tax levy via a 5-2 vote, board members Phil Costello and Jeanette Ward voting no.
  Regarding the grant application, U-46 is now asking for $10 million in property tax relief from the state instead of the original request of $43 million while the district expects to not see a dime from the grant.
  Jeff King, deputy superintendent of operations, said he didn’t “see any downside to it whatsoever” on Dec. 3 when board member John Devereux raised concerns he’d heard, such as districts possibly “trading dollars away.” Those concerns may now appear to be true.
  The state set aside $50 million total for the grant open to all school districts through its new so-called “evidence-based” education funding formula. Using the state’s formula, U-46 is eligible to request $43 million with King originally expecting $1 million to $5 million from it.
  After further review, King said 851 school districts in the state are applying for $3.2 billion from the grant with $2 billion of eligible requests. Furthermore, if U-46 were awarded the now $10 million request it would only receive $9.4 million from the state while the district would have to cover $610,000 which King described as a “loss.”
  “For every dollar that we would be awarded in the abatement, we’ll actually only receive about 93.9 cents on the dollar,” King said. He said each district would have a different rate.
  Responding to a question from Ward, King said “it’s a calculation that the state provided when they sent out basically the sheet with the information on what each district could apply for.” King said a district’s tax rate was the top factor for determining the calculation.
  Asked about other districts by board member Sue Kerr, King said another nearby district would only receive 40 cents per dollar from the state which led that district not to apply.
  King said the entire $50 million will probably be disbursed to the top 22 school districts, and based on tax rates U-46 is ranked 189th. He said there’s $505 million in requests in front of U-46 and “after looking at it this way, I find it pretty unlikely we’ll get anything.”
  “So this whole property tax relief is really symbolism over substance,” Ward said. “It’s not really property tax relief at all because first off you don’t get the full amount you asked for and second off you’re unlikely to get any.”
  King responded: “Unless they funded it with a higher dollar amount, correct. So you would have to be the most needy. Your tax rates would have to be the worst in the state in order to really have a high probability of qualifying.”
  What should be noted is the grant will not provide any real substantive tax relief as the property tax relief would be paid for by another tax, state income and corporate taxes, rather than a taxing body, in this case government schools, presenting fiscally responsible budgets. To pay for the “evidence-based” formula, the state hiked its personal income tax rate by 32 percent and the corporate tax rate by 33.3 percent which U-46 CEO Tony Sanders lobbied for.
  Costello asked for a further explanation of the process to which King said if U-46 received the full grant it would abate the $10 million, provide proof to the state of the abatement and the state would reimburse $9.4 million. Costello said the scheme “makes no sense.”
  Board members Veronica Noland and Melissa Owens expressed skepticism that U-46 was 189th and that the “neediest” districts could abate, but King said they could.
  Noland later said: “It feels like school choice…. You had to be the neediest school in the neediest district and be the student who needed the most in order to actually be able to make a choice.”
  Ward, who said she was “still going to vote yes for this because I believe we should try to abate property taxes,” noted this year’s budget process when the administration and board’s majority justified increasing the budget despite enrollment declines in part because “we were going to apply for property tax relief, and now it turns out this isn’t really property tax relief.”
  “Well, it is,” Sanders said. “It’s just not a dollar for dollar property tax abatement.”
  “Well, it’s not if we’re not going to get any,” Ward said which Sanders said: “True.”
  U-46 saw a decline in enrollment for the third straight year, a trend it continues to project, but hiked spending in its current budget by $40.2 million and added 54 new positions. Costello and Ward voted no on the budget.
  Regarding the Dec. 3 tax levy vote, the board approved the certificate of tax levy and a tax levy resolution after approving two related resolutions in November. Costello and Ward consistently opposed the tax levy resolutions citing the concerning trends as Devereux, Kerr, Noland, Owens and Donna Smith voted for the tax hikes.
  “We’re spending more and we have a lower census,” Costello said. “We have a lot of taxpayers that are leaving the district and I just get concerned. So I don’t know if we’ve considered the options here.”
  The total approved levy is $279.8 million, an $8.2 million increase from the 2017 actual levy of $271.6 million. That is a defensive levy as U-46 expects a $6.8 million increase, or 2.5 percent, for a $278.4 million total.
  Additionally, a $42.2 million levy for debt service and public building commission leases brings the 2018 total proposal to $322 million, a 2.2 percent increase from the 2017 total extension of $315 million.
  The board did unanimously approve a pair of itemized bills at its December meetings, $7.9 million on Dec. 3 and $9.9 on Dec. 17.

.

.

.




©2024 Examiner Publications, Inc.

Website Powered by Web Construction Set