Kane County property tax cut may lack poltical support

A proposal to shrink one of Kane County’s property tax levies may not generate enough of a savings for homeowners to make a tricky political vote attractive to the county board.

Kane County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay pitched a plan earlier this month to cut the county’s $2.54 million tax levy targeted specifically for capital projects down to $100,000. The proposal lacked details, but McConnaughay pitched the cut as a way to keep county residents from paying more tax dollars to the county in 2012.

But new numbers released Monday show the one year of savings might amount to little or nothing. Kane County Finance Director Cheryl Pattelli said a home with a cash value of $150,000 would shave about $8 off the county portion of their property tax bill under the plan. A home with a cash value of $350,000 would save about $17. The numbers assume no other local taxing bodies alter their levies to wipe out the savings.

The county uses the capital levy to fund non-transportation, county-based construction projects. For instance, an expanded judicial center with more parking is at the top of a $39 million construction wish list for the county. Staff members told the county board’s finance committee the big projects can be put on hold for a year. There is enough money in the capital fund right now to pursue a $1 million to-do list that covers some basic maintenance and repair work.

But the wish lists may not be the big worry for county board members. McConnaughay’s proposal only drops the levy to create the property tax savings for one year. That means board members would find themselves responsible for voting to increase the levy, and local property taxes, back to the current level right about the time all of them are running for re-election. McConnaughay is leaving the county to run for a state senate seat.

With that in mind, committee members peppered county staff members with how the proposal might impact the county’s bond rating (it will not) and the true construction needs of the county. Committee member Phil Lewis suggested the only value of the plan is setting an example for other taxing bodies that would generate bigger tax savings and, perhaps, provide a shield for the political bullet.

“The $8 to a taxpayer is minuscule,” Lewis said. “I’m in a bit of a dilemma. This would be a wonderful thing to do if it got tracking through the other governmental bodies. I want to take this to the school systems and say we’re willing to do this, what are you willing to do?”

The full county board will further discuss the plan at an upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting about capital projects.