Sleepy Hollow to ask voters for 82% tax hike

Sleepy Hollow again will be seeking a roughly 82 percent property tax increase on April 7 after a similar request failed last November by a 3 to 1 margin.

Officials say this time they plan to educate voters better about the village's financial needs through a public meeting and newsletter in March.

"We wanted to get the conversation started," Village President Stephan Pickett said, referring to referendum information posted on the village's website. "It's a snapshot of where we are financially. It's a lot of information. This is going to be refined within the next couple of weeks ... (making it) simpler and easier for people to comprehend."

The village is seeking to collect an additional $428,571 yearly from its more than 3,300 residents - nearly double what they pay now.

If approved, the owner of a $200,000 home would pay roughly $316 more in property taxes in 2016.

The extra money would be used to replenish the village's five-year capital fund - expected to be depleted by 2018 - and for road improvements.

Pickett said the money is needed to meet long-term expenses, such as buying police squad cars and equipment, dump trucks, snowplows and salt trucks, and for building maintenance.

Sleepy Hollow operates on a $1.3 million yearly budget and typically maintains reserves. Officials project costs increasing over the next five years across various departments, while the village's sales tax revenue is expected to decline starting in 2016 after a sales tax-sharing agreement with Elgin for Randall Road businesses expires.

Mike Tennis, a member of the village finance committee, said the board placed the referendum question on the April ballot without consulting with the committee.

"They need to sharpen their pencils and roll up their sleeves and look at exactly what is needed," he said. "They are asking for easily twice as much as I believe is needed. I do believe there is a need for additional funding for long-term projects, especially for roads, but not to the magnitude they are asking for."

Tennis said the timing of the referendum is premature as there are uncertainties with what could happen at the state level affecting funding for municipalities.

Pickett said if officials had passed up this opportunity, there would not be another chance this year to go out for a referendum.

"It was now or wait another year and two months," he said. "If it passes this April, it would be levied in 2015 for collection in June and September of 2016."