Last month the Daily Herald provided candidates vying for office in all contested suburban races a questionnaire to complete providing their individual positions on a variety of topics, including property taxes, and whether they thought taxes were too high, low or at an appropriate level in their respective communities.
Following, in alphabetical order, are the six Barrington Hills Trustee candidates’ responses to the Daily Herald’s question regarding property taxes:
Brian Cecola: “I believe that government should operate in the same way that a family or a business does. Over the last few years most families and businesses have had to pay close attention to revenues and expenses and tighten their belts. Government entities should as well. I am a believer that the village government can operate in a more fiscally efficient manner and I have been impressed with the changes established by the new administration under President McLaughlin’s leadership, particularly in the area of reduced legal fees and general administrative expenses. I am a strong advocate for continued spending controls and will support any agenda items that improve village operations while maintaining or improving the level of services to taxpayers. I believe current tax levels can be reduced, especially with families needing some tax relief, most importantly when it comes to their property tax bills. The cost of our village government only makes up about one fifth of the total of our local property tax bill. If our village can reduce spending and show the school district, library district, fire districts, and townships that smaller government IS possible, perhaps we can establish a new pattern of behavior for all taxing bodies to emulate.”
Bryan Croll: “In Barrington Hills, property taxes are the main source of revenue, but of the amount homeowners pay in property taxes to the counties, the village itself only receives about 18 percent of the total. That 18 percent is the area trustees have influence over. My focus would be to look for areas to trim the budget. I think there is room to reduce the budget by about 7 percent from $8.4 million to $7.8 million over the next few years by saving on expenses like legal fees and 911 consolidation. Last year, the first full year under new village leadership, spending came in $448,000 under the $8.4 million budget. That’s the good news. The bad news is that these savings needed to be added into the 2015 road repair budget because the prior administration consistently underfunded its 10-year road maintenance plan, spent the money elsewhere, and created a backlog of 4.79 miles of road that will cost taxpayers $4 million-$5 million to fix. This is on top of the regular $1 million the village spends on road repairs every year. Just clearing that backlog at the same rate of $448,000/year will cost the village over 5 percent of its budget every year for the next 10 years. The village saved enough money last year to offset one-tenth of this deferred maintenance, but will need to continue to come up with extra money each year for another decade just to catch up, making it more difficult to reduce overall spending and deliver the budget reductions our taxpayers deserve.
Michelle Nagy Maison: “I think property taxes in Barrington Hills are too high. Local taxes only account for 18 percent of the total bill but the goal is always to increase efficiencies to get taxes lowered for already overburdened taxpayers. We can achieve this by continuing to work to reduce the village’s spending.”
Patty Meroni: “Barrington Hills has no sales tax. Property taxes are high. First, Barrington Hills is in four counties and two school districts, so taxes vary. The property tax portion that our village government controls is less than 20 percent of a resident’s property tax. School districts represent about 60 percent of a resident’s property tax bill. Nevertheless, our property taxes are high and need to be addressed.”
Mary Naumann: “First, we don’t have sales tax. But property taxes are very high in our village. Unfortunately, the bulk of our property taxes, schools for example, are out of our village government’s control. However, while the part of our property tax bill controlled by our village government is below 20 percent, I feel we must be willing to trim where we can without detracting from the public services our residents rely on.”
Karen Selman: “There is no sales tax in Barrington Hills. Property taxes are high in the village. First, Barrington Hills is in four counties and two school districts, so taxes vary. The property tax portion that our village government controls is less than 20 percent of a resident’s property tax bill. School districts represent almost 60 percent of residents’ tax bills. Nonetheless, our property taxes are high and need to be addressed.”
Looks like Patty, Mary and Karen are all reading from the same script. Can’t they be a little bit more original?
Agree. It’s like they were sitting together in the back of Bobby’s classroom, copying off of each others papers.
Thanks, Observer! This is easy. Do I want to be lectured on the obvious (first, we don’t have sales tax in BH), or do I want to elect people who grew up here and have a vested interest in how my residential neighborhood is perceived? The (same) answer of the SOS party scares me. “First, we don’t have sales tax”. No we don’t. I think the residents are crystal clear on that point, but thanks anyway for the tip. Does this mean that you are going to institute some kind of “sales tax” so that you can spend more? And what type of “sales” could go on in a residential village exactly? Does SOS really mean SOL??? I’m pondering what exactly do they mean by the lockstep answer? No sales tax because no businesses. And we want it that way. That’s why we live here. To imply anything else is absurd. Remember this at the polls. No wonder the BOT meetings are 5 hours long! Scary.
Does SOS mean SOL? seems a reasonable conclusion based upon the last few years actions and results.
You would think after listening to Bob’s excellent oratory skills, that it might rub off on his SOS party apparently not. Repeating obvious facts, like no sales tax doesn’t make you a candidate of the people. The most important of these is what ideas to do you have; and are you able to articulate them.
To parrot the the same speak, anyone can do that! Politics, is also a game of finesse, and how to get a message across in a way that will create and inspire people to vote for you! Obviously there’s more work to do in that department, back to the drawing board. More lessons in the classroom I suppose.
MESSER SAYS TO MERONI, “[Village] ROADS SUCK”
Unfortunately, SOS candidates, Meroni and Selman cannot run on their less than stellar record of service to VBH Taxpayers, so all they have are empty and shallow “nonsense slogans and platitudes” prepared by “J’accuses” himself, Steven Knoop coining the phrases: “no sales tax”, “save open spaces”, “consider the horse”, “manure management” and “Stieper is for feathering”. Real substance for the VBH voter, “Save 5 Acres” fashion.
Those of you who were in attendance at the recent BOT meeting heard the hidden campaign slogan of SOS Meroni and Selman stated by “Save 5 Acre” teammate Trustee Gohl who said in response to the 4.8 Million Dollar short-fall on VBH road repairs, VBH taxpayers will have to realize there are “no free lunches” and the “[tax] levy must be raised”.
I should note, Gohl made this statement after “Save 5 Acres” teammate and retiring VBH Trustee Messer stated to R&B Meroni, “the [village] roads suck”. Of course we, the taxpayers, know this already and is why R&B Meroni and finance BOT Selman refuse to prepare and make public a report of the results of the prior 10 year road repair project which expired on 12-31-14. This is why “Save 5 Acres” BOT Harrington only wants BOT and taxpayers to “look forward” even though Harrington takes counsel from the “rejected past” in former VBH Pres. Robt. G. Abboud.
The truth is the 22% percent increase in the levy during the period of 2005-2007 promised to be allocated exclusively to village road repairs/replacement was actually squandered by Save 5 Acres BOT on “frivolous litigation”, “pension debacle and cover-up”, “fight police unionization” and “mismanaged of 911 system” to name a few. Just look at each VBH “annual budget” and “audited financial statement” for each of these
“Save 5 Acres” BOT years.
Even the bitter end, through passage of “Anderson II”, for the sake of 1 commercial boarding operation, Meroni and Selman could not even “Save 5 Acres” but instead betrayed R1-5 acre residential zoning for big business interests.
In response to VBH being the #1 taxed municipality per capita in the State of Illinois, Trustee Gohl admonishes village taxpayers by saying, it is time VBH taxpayers recognize there is no “free lunch” and it is time to “increase the levy”. Meroni and Selman do not object . . . . . . . . . . In fact, Meroni and Selman approved Anderson II overriding Pres. McLaughlin’s veto without even requesting a “village tax” be levied on these big business proprietors.
In Meroni’s and Selman’s vision for VBH, residents not only have to live adjacent to “unregulated” commercial enterprises but they have to subsidize these business operations as well.
Meroni and Selman, each an empty vessel sounding SOS distress! Time VBH voters allow them to sink.