Buffalo Grove discussing how to limit tax levy increase

Tax abatements and the cost of taxpayer subsidies to the Buffalo Grove Golf Course were among the issues debated as the Buffalo Grove village board discussed how much the tax levy might go up next year.

Buffalo Grove's finance director presented trustees Monday with a preliminary tax levy figure, warning that surplus revenues may not be readily available to abate property taxes as has been done in the past, mainly due to the budget problems in Springfield.

Finance Director Scott Anderson told trustees that, with abatements, the village is looking at a levy of $16.7 million, which would be a 3.1 percent increase. However, without approximately $650,000 in abatements, the increase would be 7.3 percent.

Anderson wrote that because of the village's capital needs and the 10 percent reduction in income tax distribution from the state, as well as a 2 percent service fee charged on sales tax distributions, "staff does not anticipate any surplus will be readily available for abatement purposes."

He added, "Any diversion of revenue will have an impact on services and/or the amounts available to fund reserves for capital replacement."

Or, as Trustee Jeffrey Berman translated it, "In a nutshell, given the shenanigans of the state, they have absconded with 10 percent of our money and are imposing a fee on sending us our money. (And) that staff does not anticipate any surplus will be readily available for abatement purposes."

Berman quizzed Anderson, "Do you mean that?"

Anderson said he can bring back the abatement, likely through expenditure reduction rather than revenue enhancement.

Berman said a 7.3 percent levy increase is unacceptable. "We have to do better than that."

He suggested eliminating the village's subsidy to the Buffalo Grove Golf Course. He said that in 2013, the village transfer to the golf enterprise was about $74,000, but in recent years, it has been about $700,000.

"The levy in later years would be increased for the golf enterprise subsidy if, and only if, the public is fully informed as to the amounts of the required subsidies and it responds favorably to a referendum question that specifically asks, 'Should your property tax bill be increased by that amount to support the golf (enterprise) subsidy?'"

However, Trustee David Weidenfeld pointed out, "Even if we didn't subsidize the golf course, we would have to maintain the expense of keeping it (for) flood control, without any revenues at all to do that."