Will income, spending pressure force different approach to Kane tax freeze?

New barriers to maintaining Kane County's property tax levy freeze for a sixth year may fuel debate about adopting a strategy that's already proven unpopular.

County board members learned Wednesday they must cut non-payroll expenses by 15 percent to balance the 2017 budget. That's $2.6 million in reductions from departments that have already slashed spending multiple times since 2012.

There are abundant threats to keeping the levy freeze in place.

Several departments, including the coroner and court system, have made regular requests for more money toward the end of the budget years throughout the freeze. The public defender began a push to hire more employees last month. The state's attorney's office added more than $600,000 of new costs to the budget by getting the county board to subsidize child support collection efforts in lieu of absent state funding.

County officials already agreed to 2.5 percent raises for most of the county's employees. Health and dental insurance costs will rise another 5 percent.

Several pending lawsuits against the county may also come with large price tags. Those include federal claims involving a failed liquor license application for Blackjacks Gentlemen's Club and a suit filed just this week to stop Longmeadow Parkway construction.

On the income side, county finance officials forecast growth of only 0.5 percent per year for the next five years.

Despite those pressures, finance committee Chairman John Hoscheit said the "overwhelming majority of board members are in line with keeping the freeze in place." But it may also be time to consider what type of levy freeze to keep in place, he said.

The current levy freeze keeps property tax income flowing to the county flat because it doesn't include any new taxable property or structures. As a result, people who built new homes during the freeze are shouldering less of a tax burden than neighbors with older property. It also means the county gets less money than it would by including those properties.

"The way I look at it, our freeze to date, it's not only a freeze; it's actually been a reduction because we haven't included the new construction," Hoscheit said. "If (the new construction) pays into the tax, it lightens the burden on everyone else."

Hoscheit has both promoted and supported the concept of including new construction in the Kane County Forest Preserve District tax levy. Kane County Board members also serve as commissioners for the forest preserve district. But, with prodding from county board Chairman Chris Lauzen, the forest commission has voted down including new construction in the levy the past two years. Lauzen doesn't support including new construction because average taxpayers will just see that as an increase in the tax levy and a breach of the promise to keep the levy frozen.

Hoscheit said keeping the levy frozen will get tougher each year as long as the county keeps giving employees raises.

"A large percentage of the budget is payroll related," Hoscheit said. "So you have to have a revenue source for (wage increases). There's other options: cut programs, reallocate resources, become more efficient and look for alternate streams of revenue."

Hoscheit didn't have any specific program cuts in mind yet. County officials are seeking new revenue sources through the leasing of county light poles to cellphone service providers and using county trash to make money through new waste-to-fuel programs. Both of those ideas have legal hurdles to overcome.