The Madison County Board last week voted 25-1 to allow taxpayers to decide whether or not the county’s maximum tax levy for the general fund should be lowered from .20 to .18 per $100 of assessed value by including a binding referendum on the November 3 ballot, but noted that the decrease would not lower current tax rates.
Board members pointed out that the current levy is .163 per $100 of assessed value; so if the maximum rate is lowered by voters, taxpayers would not immediately see any savings.
Doc Holliday (D) was the only one to vote against the referendum. Board members Kristen Novacich Koberna (D), Jim Dodd (D) and Jack Minner (D) were not present.
Several board members said the taxpayers should be the ones to decide if the maximum tax levy should be lowered.
“I think the primary thing is to remember what we’re doing here. That is putting it on the ballot as a binding referendum and giving the voters the opportunity to make a decision about their own taxes,” said David Michael (R), who is running for county auditor.
“As representatives of the people,” he added, “we should always try to do that when we can, and this is a great example of that, so I’m completely for it.”
“I’m for limiting spending and for smaller government,” added Phil Chapman (R).
Ray Wesley (R) agreed, saying “it’s their money,” and the “most appropriate” way to handle the decision is to put it “in the hands of the taxpayers.”
In a press release, Democratic candidate for Madison County Board Chairman Bob Daiber called the referendum “rhetoric,” saying it doesn’t actually save taxpayers any money.
“As we struggle with the economic consequences of a global pandemic, we need more than lip service from our elected officials,” he stated. “If Kurt Prenzler wasn’t so distracted by the scandals and corruption of his administration, he would have time to focus on delivering real property tax reform, not just rhetoric.”
Several board members also suggested that the referendum is misleading.
“Right now we won’t save anything,” said Chris Hankins (D). “It sounds like we will but we won’t.”
Hankins explained that the lowered levy would save him approximately 75 cents per month.
“I can’t even buy a can of soda for that,” he said.
“I think this is a lot about nothing,” he added.
Mike Parkinson (D) called it a “political ploy” and said he is “in no favor” of raising taxes, but said the referendum “isn’t a real cost-effective savings for anybody.”
“This referendum is going to give the voters false pretense that it’s going to save them a lot of money, and it’s really not,” he said.
He agreed to put it on the ballot, but said he didn’t want to portray a “lie.”
“Probably the headlines that will be in the paper will be that we’ve reduced people’s taxes by this great margin when really it doesn’t,” he said. “We’re already below what we’re reducing it to and operating below those costs.”
“And I dare any of you to come back later when an emergency happens and come back and say that the next regime had to raise taxes when we kept them flat,” Parkinson added.
In response, Mick Madison (R) said the resolution is not political.
“As far as this being a ‘political ploy,’ I think it’s a political ploy to say that,” he said. “We have in the past cut taxes. We have cut budgets, and I just want to keep taxes from going up in the future. It’s not a political ploy, and I would be willing to bet that the taxpayers would rather have the money in their pockets than see it go into ours.”
Several board members noted that they are aware the referendum won’t save taxpayers money now, considering the current tax levy is lower than the proposed maximum; but it does prevent the levy from increasing beyond the proposed .18 maximum in the future.
They also said they understand that lowering the general fund levy won’t affect other tax levies. However, Chris Guy (R) said each line item is important. Even lowering just one helps taxpayers and sends a message to other taxing bodies.
“It all adds up,” he said.
Tom McRae (R) said that while the resolution won’t save taxpayers money now and only affects one of several different levies taxpayers see on their bills, lowering the cap shows leadership.
“Although it’s true that we don’t have control over other taxing bodies, I think it’s good for us to show leadership,” he said.
There were also some concerns raised over cutting the maximum tax levy at such an unpredictable time, including the Covid-19 financial hit and potential catastrophes.
“With recent events going on, I want everybody to consider one fact,” Parkinson said. “At any point, our county could have a major catastrophe like what we’ve seen throughout the country recently with riots and those types of things that cost a ton of money to mitigate and work through. Without any kind of reserves on hand … I fear what could happen to our county.”
Matthew King (D) said they still aren’t sure how the economy will be affected by Covid-19, and they aren’t able to anticipate unexpected expenses. He said this is just bad timing.
“I just feel like we’re handcuffing … the future boards from making any decisions,” he said.
Michael explained that items such as pension funds, social security, and road construction needs are “all completely separate levy requests.” He said none of those potential issues will be affected by lowering the maximum tax levy for the general fund.
He said that if an unforeseen catastrophe were to happen, Madison County has approximately $20 million on hand. Those funds are also continuing to grow by earning roughly 3.5 percent interest.
Michael added that even if maximum tax levy is lowered, the county can still increase the current tax levy more than 10 percent and still not reach that new threshold.
“So when you put that in the full context, I don’t really see any way that we can be against this,” he said. “The full picture: $20 million in the bank, this doesn’t affect roads and bridges, doesn’t affect IMRF, you leave yourself a 10 percent cushion, to me this is a no-brainer.”