April ballot propositions abound

Questions address home rule, term limits, taxes

Depending on where they live in the south and southwest suburbs, voters will see ballot propositions next month on issues such as home rule, term limits and tax-levy limits.

Hazel Crest voters will be asked to partly undo what they approved in November 2017 in setting term limits for the village’s mayor, clerk and trustees.

In the November 2017 general election, 64 percent of voters supported limiting elected village officials to no more than two consecutive four-year terms, while 36 percent were opposed.

In a binding question on next month’s ballot, voters will be asked whether the two-term limit should be replaced, with elected officials able to serve a maximum of four consecutive four-year terms.

A resolution approved by the Village Board in Octo- ber putting the question on the ballot noted that, in advocating the four-term limit, village officials “recognize that there are many benefits to allowing elected officials enough time to provide quality leadership to the Village and its residents.”

After voters in Lemont in November turned back a proposal tomake the village a home-rule community, a question on the April ballot will ask whether a 1 percent non-home rule local sales tax should be established.

The tax would be a revenue source to pay for infrastructure improvements or providing property tax relief to residents, according to the village.

Lemont has had to put offwork to repair roads and utilities and pay for other capital projects, and the village is projecting a budget deficit of more than $1 million for fiscal year 2020, according to Mayor John Egofske.

“The village needs a new and stable revenue stream that can be relied upon to cover our existing and ongoing capital needs,” he said.

Without the revenue

from the local sales tax, Egofske said, Lemont could be looking at higher vehicle sticker fees as well as “substantial” fees tacked on to water and sewer bills to pay for utility work.

Voters in South Chicago Heights are again being asked to approve home rule authority for elected leaders. Residents rejected a home rule measure in that suburb in 2013.

Mayor Terry Matthews said home rule would give the community more authority in enforcing crimefree housing ordinances covering rental housing in the village, although local real estate groups have said such rules could impose burdensome regulations on landlords. The groups have also warned residents in mailings about expanded taxing authority home rule would allow, although Matthews insists taxation isn’t the aim of getting home rule passed.

“Taxes are not even a thought,” he said Friday.

Groups representing real estate interests vigorously oppose home rule measures, in part due to the ability of local elected officials to impose new regulations such as real estate transfer taxes.

“They get all the power with home rule,” said Tom Joseph, government affairs director with the Mainstreet Organization of Realtors. “It’s an expanded authority. It’s municipal power on steroids.”

Matthews said he is well aware of the “fear” of increased taxation that anti-home rule mailings have instilled, and figures that right now residents are probably split 50-50 on the issue.

As a safeguard, he said, an independent review board would be established comprised of two residents, two local business owners, two property landlords, two elected officials and an atlarge member that, should any new tax be proposed, would evaluate it and make a recommendation to the Village Board.

Steger voters are being asked to approve a tax levy increase thatwould finance public safety improvements, including one additional 24-hour paramedic shift and hiring an additional police officer.

If approved, the increase would add $163 to the annual property tax bill for the owner of a home with a market value of $100,000, according to the village.

Three area fire protection districts are seeking voters’ help in shoring up their finances.

Homer Township Fire Protection District voters will be asked to give the district approval for selling $4.5 million in bonds to pay for fire station improvements and purchase equipment. The district covers most of Homer Glen and Homer Township, and portions of Lockport, Mokena and New Lenox.

Voters in 2014 rejected a request to sell $4.7 million in bonds, and the district has cut expenses by reducing the number of full-time firefighter/ paramedics, selling a tower ladder and restructuring health insurance for employees, according to Chief Chris Locacius.

After a failed attempt in November to win voter approval for a tax increase, the North Palos Fire Protection District is again seeking to gain more breathing room in how much it can levy in property taxes.

The increase would add $52 annually to the tax bill of the owner of a home with amarket value of $100,000, or $104 annually to the tax bill of the owner of a home with a market value of $200,000, according to the district. In November, 74 percent of voters turned down a tax increase.

The district covers all or portions of Hickory Hills, Palos Hills, Worth and areas of Cook County Forest Preserve District.

District Chief Paul Mackin said the district has cut costs by reducing staffing and putting off equipment replacement, and would “be forced to make significant reductions” in service levels if this latest tax request is rejected, something the district doesn’t want to see happen.

“There are toomany calls and too much need” for services, he said.

Staffing levels have been reduced at each of the district’s three stations and the district hasn’t had the money to establish reserves to pay to replace aged equipment or make needed repairs at fire stations, Mackin said.

His fire district and other taxing bodies that don’t have home rule authority need voter approval to increase their levy amounts due to the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law, which restricts from year to year how much in additional property taxes they can levy.

Often referred to as a “cap,” the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law limits those non-home rule taxing bodies, including municipalities, school districts and fire protection districts, to levy increases that are either 5 percent above the prior year’s levy or an amount equal to the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower.

The Property Tax Extension Limitation is meant to protect property owners from big increases in tax bills when property values and assessments are rising faster than the rate of inflation, according to the Illinois Department of Revenue.

But with modest inflation rates — the same reason Social Security cost-ofliving adjustments have been meager — additional property tax revenue hasn’t kept up with costs, Mackin said.

“That’s really the problem for a lot of fire districts and (government bodies) in general,” he said.

The Palos Heights Fire Protection District also seeks in a referendum question to increase its property tax levy limiting rate, with the owner of a home with a fair market value of $100,000 paying an extra $38 a year in property taxes, according to the district.

The confusing language of tax limiting rate questions on the ballot has prompted taxing bodies such as fire districts, school districts and park districts that have propositions on the ballot of hold a series of community information sessions in an effort to decipher them.

Mokena School District 159, for example, points out that what it’s seeking isn’t necessarily a tax increase, but repurposing taxes now collected for debt service that would be used to pay for repairs at the district’s three schools.

The district now levies about 30 cents per $100 of equalized assessed valuation, which generates about $1.8 million a year, Supt. Don White said at an informational session. District 159 has identified between $5.1 million and $14 million in work at the schools that should be done within the next five years, with longerterm repairs, extending to 20 years, that could cost as much as $21.2 million, he said at the meeting.

“It’s time to do some major work,” he said.

The district will pay off bonds sold to build the junior high school in two years, and, should the limiting rate question not be approved next month, homeowners would see hundreds of dollars shaved off their property tax bills. The owner of a home valued at $300,000, for example, would see a $300 drop in taxes paid annually to District 159, White said.

He said the district’s budget “cannot withstand” the multimillion-dollar repair bill, which includes replacing leaking school roofs and outdated electrical equipment.

Should voters approve the increase in the limiting rate, property taxes wouldn’t go up, but that tax revenue collected to retire bond debt would pay for the schoolwork, White said.

What the Mokena district wants to do is similar to what officials with the Tinley Park-Park District hope to achieve in getting voter approval for a tax limiting rate increase.

The district now levies about $2.3 million a year to pay bond debt, and with the district retiring that debt this year and next, it wants to continue to capture about $980,000 a year to pay for ongoing park and facility maintenance and improvements, according to Shawn Roby, director of parks and recreation.

Residents’ property tax bills “are going down no matter what the vote is” on the limiting question, he said. Property owners would pay about 44 percent of what they now pay to cover debt service, which, according to the district, would mean about an extra $21 a year for the owner of a home in Cook County valued at $100,000, or just under $24 for the same home in Will County. The district covers parts of both counties.

District voters last November soundly defeated a similar ballot proposition regarding the limiting rate and capturing a portion of tax money residents pay for debt service.

In Crete-Monee School District 201-U, voters will weigh in on an advisory question asking whether the district school board be “required to prove through voter referendum that any fundamental restructuring of the school district is the best plan for children and families, including any plan which would close schools within our neighborhoods?”

District residents had collected signatures, presented to the school board late last year, to put the question on the April ballot after district officials proposed a controversial restructuring plan thatwould have closed two schools in Park Forest and University Park while pouring millions of dollars into improvements at other district schools.