I was floored earlier this week when I received my real estate tax bill for tax year '11 (payable in '12) and it called for a 11.6% year-over-year increase which is by far the largest increase I have had in my 11 years of living in the comunity. I fully understand all the issue involved but where is the accountability from the various jurisdictions that had much larger than normal increases. How does this happen with no discussion or wide spread early messaging to the tax payers?
This is just not right process......and surely when people are all being faced with less everywhere how does our tax burden rise with no connection to the real economics of the world we face?

David Greenberg
4:04 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
If you want your tax bills to go down, then you have to actively demand that your taxing bodies focus on actual needs instead of wants, that they practice fiscal restraint, and perhaps - offer less services.
Many taxing bodies also need to get past the "give a raise every year" to all employees just because they're still on the job. I have no problem giving people who are high performers and who's work covers the cost of their raises, but simply giving raises to everyone is disingenuous and quite costly. It's long past the time for Governmental bodies to move to a performance-based evaluation system, and only consider those who have met or exceeded their goals for pay raises. I say "consider", because part and parcel in this process is to also limit the amount of money available for pay raises, and all raises should come out of that pool.
Just like in private enterprises. The amount of money available is limited. Simply because governmental bodies have taxing authority does not mean they have unlimited funds to expend.
Getting your bills to go down will require active participation throughout the year with the taxing bodies. You need to attend their meetings, read their published minutes, figure out what they want to spend on, and make yourself heard BEFORE they decide on a tax rate. It's not easy, it takes time, but unless you want to be on the taxing body's board, it's the only way to get your bills lowered...
Karen Krug
10:26 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
Disgruntled property owners should note that the State Multiplier for Lake County increased again this year. Last year the Lake County State Multiplier was 1.0199%. This year the Lake County State Multiplier was 1.0281%. By increasing the Multiplier the State is artificially inflating the value of your property by 2.8%.
Of course it's completely legal ... gotta love Illinois. The inflated Multiplier coupled with Tax Rates that continue to climb - forces our property taxes through the roof.
It's time to - - - - - - - - Push back!!!!! Folks should file a property tax assessment appeal. Significant, multi year, savings can be realized with a winning appeal.
David Greenberg
1:24 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Karen, I'm not defending the State Multiplier increase by any stretch of the imagination. But it's my understanding that it went up because so many of the properties around here had decreased values (or had successful assessment appeals), which were supposedly too different from the rest of the State. Under some portion of the State property tax code, the multiplier was hiked to "equalize" that...
Again, not what we want to hear, and I don't agree with that premise at all, but until we elect different Legislators, it is what it is...
Only in Illinois...
Tony Horwitz
7:50 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Also note that there was a one time spike in the tax to pay off the expiring bonds in d113. If the previous referendum had passed, we would not have seen that spike. That portion of the tax bill will now go away until the next plan for d113 is finalized and goes to referendum in the next year or so. We voted to not continue to pay for capital improvements in the high schools at the time of the last referendum. The needs of the two high school buildings won't go away (see the leadership committee's recommendations to the Board of Ed. on the d113 website). This is how we pay for the bricks and mortar of our educational system. Everyone should become informed about this ongoing discussion.
RonnieTheLimoDriver
8:50 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Are you sure about that one time spike? I do not think that is accurate. The bonds were scheduled to be paid off based on the current payment schedule. You are correct in that future d113 payments will now go down because the bonds are paid off.
Please, lets not go down this flawed road again where we somehow try to convince everybody that by paying more money some how their taxes will go down. The district has needs (and a whole list of wants) and that is being addressed.
If anybody wants a place to look, start with the library. Does it bother anybody that we pay more for a library than a whole village?
RB
6:25 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
I've advocated combining the Park District with the Village. There's no reason for these two taxing bodies to be separate. By rolling the Park District into the Village we could save significant overhead if some labor cuts were made. Right now, we have duplicated effort and expense. Next, combine the two school districts. Then, do something with the township...another unnecessary overhead we can't afford in this economy.
This Village is only 18,000 people....way too much Government expense.
Karen Krug
7:51 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Illinois has 6,994 local government units, with the majority of those wielding taxing authority. We pay into multiple taxing bodies. Based on our population - we lead the Nation. Are all these levels necessary? Can you even imagine how much redundancy there is, how much overlap of services?
I recently reviewed a client's property tax bill and showed her that she pays into 10 different lines of pension. It's absurd. How many property owners are paying into your pension? Or mine?
It's an election year - we must end the status quo. We have an antiquated property tax system and our State is broke. Educated voters need to vote for change, accountability and fiscal management.
John Russillo
8:20 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
And which candidates are proposing taxing body consolidation? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone, so "change" would be no different from the "status quo".