So the Mayor wants more of our money.

So the Mayor wants more of our money.

Posted in the Justice Forum

“26 year Midlo resident”

Since: Feb 09

Wichita, Kansas

#1 Feb 6, 2013
Seems their will be a new referendum on the ballot. It has not been published at least not at this point. Unless they put it in the Messenger. Who really reads that. It should be posted in a real paper like the Southtown.

The facts are little light so far it seems it may be advisory. Maybe it is because we are home rule. But seems the Mayor wants to raise our taxes more than is currently allowed. Well since only a few of the trustees actually know the meaning of being frugal good luck with that. My taxes with the increase which I did vote for went up almost 7 times.

Well it seems it is worded strangely and seems if by glancing at you would pick the opposite of what you may want. So approving an increase when you want the opposite. Probably our live in attorney set it up this way.

So this may be something that needs to get out to the voters. But so far it seems to be run as a covert op. More information is needed.

5yr Midlo Resident

Since: Apr 09

Midlothian, IL

#2 Feb 6, 2013
I haven't found that yet, and voter 411 doesn't have the ballot information yet to confirm. I'm guessing you got this word of mouth so if you hear more post back!

“26 year Midlo resident”

Since: Feb 09

Wichita, Kansas

#3 Feb 6, 2013
For sure.
timmy

Lemont, IL

#4 Feb 6, 2013
Seems there will be a new referendum on the ballot. It has not been published, at least not at this point. Unless they put it in the Messenger. Who really reads that? It should be posted in a real paper, like the Southtown.

The facts are little light. So far it seems it may be advisory. Maybe it is because we are home rule. But seems the Mayor wants to raise our taxes more than is currently allowed. Well, since only a few of the trustees actually know themeaning of being frugal, good luck with that. My taxes, with the increase, which I did vote for, went up almost 7 times.

Well, it seems it is worded strangely and seems, if by glancing at, you would pick the opposite of what you may want. So, approving an increase when you want the opposite. Probably our live in attorney set it up this way.

So, this may be something that needs to get out to the voters. But so far it seems to be run as a covert op. More information is needed.

“26 year Midlo resident”

Since: Feb 09

Wichita, Kansas

#5 Feb 7, 2013
I received a little more information on this.

It is an advisory referendum. It is something to change the wording of the tax cap ordinance we voted on 4 years ago. This what was explained to me. Seems it is to maintain the original amount that was needed or was voted on. It is a little complicated for me but I get the drift.

At the time of the Property Tax Increase Referendum, the powers that be, figured the Village needed a $3.5 million levy from property taxes, to make up for the loss of revenue from the loss of the car dealers, to run the Village. This calculated into a 1.309% of assessed value tax rate for every property owner in Midlothian, residential and business. This is what was voted in that year. Now the Tax Cap Ordinance that was voted in to help get Home Rule passed states, the Village would abide by the State Tax Cap Laws. The State Tax Cap Laws state, in part, a non-home rule municipality can only raise property taxes, without a referendum, 5% or the Rate of Inflation, which at this time is around 1.5%, whichever is less. So, at this time, the Village could only raise property taxes 1.5%, from year to year, by law and Village ordinance without a referendum. Now last year, the Cook County Assessor’s Office reassessed Midlothian, and the assessed value of property in Midlothian dropped 13-15%. This meant Cook County had to raise the limiting tax rate for the Village of Midlothian portion of the tax bill to around 1.45%, to maintain that $3.5 million levy to run the Village. This of course is a much higher jump in the tax rate than the 1.5% allowed by law and ordinance. This means that the Village would have to rebate almost $600,000 to make the effective tax rate equate to only a 1.5% rise. Which means the Village would only receive $2.9 million from property taxes instead of the $3.5 million that was agreed upon. The advisory referendum is basically asking, can the wording of the ordinance be changed from limiting tax rate (percentage of assessed property value) to amount levied (dollar amount received from property owners).

5yr Midlo Resident

Since: Apr 09

Midlothian, IL

#6 Feb 7, 2013
I'm confused. 1.45 is LESS than 1.50.

Otherwise I think I was following what you were saying except that I still don't get what they want to change in the wording. You didn't quite cover that, but if you find out more this is certainly good information!
cant beleive it

Tinley Park, IL

#7 Feb 7, 2013
More smoke and mirrors by our mayor and his village people and a special thanks to all those residents who voted in the tax hike and home rule.
Vote Yes

Coldwater, MI

#8 Mar 18, 2013
A yes vote limits the amount we can be taxed.
No Vote

United States

#9 Mar 18, 2013
You vote yes than the village keeps the 600,000 dollars that was over taxed. They want that money.
Referendum

Chicago, IL

#10 Mar 18, 2013
Midlo resident wrote:
I received a little more information on this.
It is an advisory referendum. It is something to change the wording of the tax cap ordinance we voted on 4 years ago. This what was explained to me. Seems it is to maintain the original amount that was needed or was voted on. It is a little complicated for me but I get the drift.
At the time of the Property Tax Increase Referendum, the powers that be, figured the Village needed a $3.5 million levy from property taxes, to make up for the loss of revenue from the loss of the car dealers, to run the Village. This calculated into a 1.309% of assessed value tax rate for every property owner in Midlothian, residential and business. This is what was voted in that year. Now the Tax Cap Ordinance that was voted in to help get Home Rule passed states, the Village would abide by the State Tax Cap Laws. The State Tax Cap Laws state, in part, a non-home rule municipality can only raise property taxes, without a referendum, 5% or the Rate of Inflation, which at this time is around 1.5%, whichever is less. So, at this time, the Village could only raise property taxes 1.5%, from year to year, by law and Village ordinance without a referendum. Now last year, the Cook County Assessor’s Office reassessed Midlothian, and the assessed value of property in Midlothian dropped 13-15%. This meant Cook County had to raise the limiting tax rate for the Village of Midlothian portion of the tax bill to around 1.45%, to maintain that $3.5 million levy to run the Village. This of course is a much higher jump in the tax rate than the 1.5% allowed by law and ordinance. This means that the Village would have to rebate almost $600,000 to make the effective tax rate equate to only a 1.5% rise. Which means the Village would only receive $2.9 million from property taxes instead of the $3.5 million that was agreed upon. The advisory referendum is basically asking, can the wording of the ordinance be changed from limiting tax rate (percentage of assessed property value) to amount levied (dollar amount received from property owners).
"Village of Midlothian, Limitation of Tax Levy" "Shall the Village of Midlothian, Cook County, Illinois limit any increase in the Total Tax Levy to the amount levied for the previous year plus the lesser of 5% or the increase in the Consumer Price Index (Urban) for the previous calendar year for 2012 and subsequent years?"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Justice Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Racist Midlothian 1 hr umm yeah 71
who GEORGE SCHLEYER? (May '12) 2 hr Bugaboo 38
Recall Rybak 3 hr Gman 24
and there off The 2017 race for Mayor. 4 hr No spin zone 35
District 142 Board Member out of control 5 hr Marcos 169
What a Joke Chief of The year 5 hr Happy resident 4
A cowardly excuse for a man 14 hr taxpayer 23
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Justice Mortgages