This month's Champaign County Board meeting actually has several things that may be of interest to IlliniPundit readers. Among agenda items for Thursday's meeting, the board consider approving plans for finally finishing the Champaign County Courthouse.
Many people may not realize it, but the Courthouse project, started over 7 years ago, is still not done. In fact, the plans that the board will consider on Thursday call for nearly $6 million to finish the project. A quick glance at News-Gazette articles from 1998 (when the quarter-cent sales tax was passed) to more recent stories shows that the Courthouse project has seen price estimates go from $18-$20 million in the first stories, to $27-$28 million in stories from 2002-03, to today's final cost of $33 million (if the project is ever finished).
The $6 million that the board will authorize Thursday will be used for exterior work and restoration of the Clock & Bell Tower. Specifically, $2,858,441 will be used for masonry restoration of the 1901 Courthouse and $3,483,890 will be used for the Clock & Bell Tower part of the project. The project will be funded through new bonds financed by the quarter-cent sales tax.
The Courthouse needs to be finished - no one will debate that. The exterior is falling apart. If you have a chance this weekend during the Sweetcorn Festival, walk up to the building and look at it. Touch the bricks, they crumble to the touch. There are large cracks in the second floor exterior. Window sills look to be ready to fall apart.
What I have a problem with is the exploding costs associated with this project. The original project included a paltry $400,000 to restore the exterior. That was bad planning by County leaders in 2000. Now it costs over $2.5 million to fix what should have been done years ago.
The Clock and Bell Tower part of the project was originally going to be done at no cost to the County taxpayer - all private donations and memorials, that's what we were told for the better part of 7 years by County Facilities Chairman Steve Beckett and other County Board leaders. It would cost $1 million at the most.
Today, the County taxpayer is footing the bill. The private donations haven't hit the million dollar goal. They've raised several hundred thousand dollars and should be commended for that effort. But now that the public till is being used for this project, the effort will end. Champaign County residents will pick up the additional $2.5 million to finish the project.
But the thing that bothers me the most about all Champaign County construction projects remains that the County Board, its leadership, and highly paid county administrators, refuse to develop a comprehensive plan for long term upkeep and maintenance of the nearly $70 million in construction our government has erected in the last 15 years.
Oh well, as usual, its just other people's money.
Thanks for blogging this.
When the clock-tower restoration idea was first floated, I thought it sounded like a waste of money to me, but if people were willing to donate their own dollars for it then I wish them luck.
However, this new idea that the restoration is somehow not just important, but important enough to warrant spending taxpayer dollars is irresponsible and offensive. When I voted to approve the 0.25 tax, it was not for some group's desire to rebuild a tower to a height which it hasn't been my entire life of living here. It was to build the courthouse. The courthouse is built. If maintenance needs to be done, then do it. But don't spend my hard-earned and -saved dollars on your pet project that has absolutely no function and is of questionable aesthetic value to boot.
That's what happens when you elect boobs like Ron Bensyl.
I would agree that an operational belltower, although desireable, is not necessary, and should not be a priority for our tax dollars. Tuck pointing it, and the rest of the building should, but GET IT DONE before the costs get even higher!
JJ - Great post. I echo your sentiments.
I am recalling a public forum last year where I was publically called a liar for pointing out the County Courthhouse was not completed on time or on budget, as all of your numbers above suggest. It's laughable that now those same people are proposing yet another big fat bond issue to solve all the wants and needs of a select few.
Would a restored clock tower be nice? Sure. But is it needed? Absolutely not. Will that clocktower bring more industry to CU? More jobs? Lower taxes? Reduce crime? Improve education? Enhance the quality of living? Not much more than the new downtown Champaign fountain, I suspect.
Is anyone else tired of elected officials WASTING our tax dollars? Is anyone in elected government being held accountable for anything these days? I think not.
"However, this new idea that the restoration is somehow not just important, but important enough to warrant spending taxpayer dollars is irresponsible and offensive. When I voted to approve the 0.25 tax, it was not for some group's desire to rebuild a tower to a height which it hasn't been my entire life of living here. It was to build the courthouse. The courthouse is built. If maintenance needs to be done, then do it. But don't spend my hard-earned and -saved dollars on your pet project that has absolutely no function and is of questionable aesthetic value to boot."
Cosign.
"I am recalling a public forum last year where I was publically called a liar for pointing out the County Courthhouse was not completed on time or on budget, as all of your numbers above suggest. It's laughable that now those same people are proposing yet another big fat bond issue to solve all the wants and needs of a select few."
Mark,
I recall that as well. It was the Chamber of Commerce candidates' forum, and Steve Beckett called you a liar for pointing this out - specifically for pointing out that the Courthouse is neither complete nor within budget.
You blogged about the dispute on your campaign website shortly after it happened. Now Steve Beckett is leading the charge to spend another $6 million on a project that last year he was vehemently maintaining was already completed within budget.
Here are two other IP.com threads about the 2006 Chamber Forum and the exchange between Mark Randall and Steve Beckett regarding the Courthouse.
Chamber Forum Highlights
And
The Courthouse Debate:
I wonder if Mr. Beckett is still going to argue that the project is both completed and still under budget?
I wonder if Mr. Beckett is still going to argue that the project is both completed and still under budget?
Based on his track record, I think it's safe to assume that for all projects, his definition of budget is "enough to get it done" and of timetable is "until it gets done." So, all projects are within budget and timetable...
"That's what happens when you elect boobs like Ron Bensyl."
That's entirely uncalled for. It was only because of Ron's persistence that we found out about the mold at the nursing home when we did. If you have specific complaints, perhaps it would be better to discuss those issues individually rather than engage in vague, blanket slanders.
"That's what happens when you elect boobs like Ron Bensyl."
IP,
I thought this was the type of comment that you were now deleting from the site. Please be consistent.
I believe Ron was one of only a few votes that opposed/is opposing this new expenditure. John Jay also spoke out against it.
"I thought this was the type of comment that you were now deleting from the site. Please be consistent."
I'm not deleting much of anything from the site - as I've said repeatedly, I've deleted less than a dozen comments since January.
And, frankly, the Bensyl comment above is second-rate trolling at best. It's barely germane, and I'm sure that Ron is smart enough to ignore it, as should rest of us. When we reward idiotic comments with more attention, all we get is more iditoic comments. If I were to start deleting them, all we would get is unwarranted cries about censorship.
It's pretty easy to distinguish between meaningful comments and comments from idiots. Engage the former, ignore the latter.
I believe Ron was one of only a few votes that opposed/is opposing this new expenditure. John Jay also spoke out against it.
True, but that was only the vote of the facilities committee. More will certainly oppose it at the full board meeting tomorrow. Maybe you should watch/attend the meetings before making unfounded comments RSW.
If it was a vote at the facilities committee, then it wasn't unfounded. Nice try though.
Let your board members know how you feel - come to the meeting and speak during public participation or call/email them today. Here's a link to their info.
http://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/government_bodies/countyboard_info.html#district1
A little off topic, but Thursday night the board will also consider Denny Inman's contract (it expires August 31). I know board members already know my feelings on this county administrator's (lack of) ability.
If it was a vote at the facilities committee, then it wasn't unfounded. Nice try though.
Your post obviously attempts to claim that only two county board members oppose this courthouse/belltower boondoggle. My point is that this is simply not true. You, of course, are free to keep slamming the county board all you want if it makes you feel better. Perhaps you should take Farney's advice and come to the meeting and voice your opinion in person instead of the anonymous put-downs on this website.
Your post obviously attempts to claim that only two county board members oppose this courthouse/belltower boondoggle.
What I was trying to convey was that there was a vote when Bensyl did oppose this - I just couldn't recall where that vote was - so my post was a little fuzzy. You refreshed my memory - it was indeed the facilities committee. I don't mean to state that there are only 2 members that will oppose this when the full board meets - my apologies.
However, in my defense, I was defending Bensyl who was attacked - it seems that my response, while poorly worded, does show that Bensyl is hardly to blame for this current "boondoggle".
You are correct -- Bensyl is in no way to blame for the courthouse boondoggle. We'll see who supports it at tomorrow's meeting. Then I hope you place the criticism where it's warranted, instead of at the county board as a whole.
I look forward to the discussion.
I looked at the agenda from the August 7 Facilities Committee meeting to see more of the detail for the plans, and to see what "Option 4" entails. Pages 11-19 are the report and options for the tower. What sticks out to me is on page 15 an estimate to simply repair the existing tower is $895,896. Of the reconstrucion projects, found on page 19, "Option 4" is the highest cost project.
Let me get this straight... Restoring the handsome clock tower of the seat of our county government is a wasteful expense, but hundreds of billions to build a new Islamic theocracy in Iraq is worth it? If the Capitol's dome collapsed, you people would probably want to shingle over the hole and use the money to build a new mosque in Baghdad.
Let me get this straight... Restoring the handsome clock tower of the seat of our county government is a wasteful expense, but hundreds of billions to build a new Islamic theocracy in Iraq is worth it? If the Capitol's dome collapsed, you people would probably want to shingle over the hole and use the money to build a new mosque in Baghdad.
I must admit I am impressed you managed to interject yet another flaccid critism of the war in Iraq into a discussion of repairs to the county courthouse.
I think a more apt point would be to ask how this LOCAL money could be better spent on other LOCAL projects.
Or how 'bout this one Mark. How 'bout we don't spend that money at all. How 'bout we shoot for just not raising taxes for even one year. Just a thought. Crazy I know.
As I recall, the voters approved the quarter cent to build the new courthouse area and FIX the original building, including the tower. So fix it. It would be a dirty rotten trick if the County Board pulled the rug from under the Belltower Committee at this last stage, after the good faith efforts of Bruce Hannon and other citizens. It's not Hannon's fault it took so long to get here with new earthquake codes and other delays.
Well, you recall wrongly. The referendum was for the tuckpointing, but the tower was specifically not mentioned and was only brought up afterward. And you're right. It's no one's "fault". What we have is the public speaking loudly that they don't believe this is worth the money. The belltower folks made a nice effort. They came up short. Now they can take the money and apply it to some other nice historic preservation project, like putting the pieces of the Jacques House back together.
It would be a dirty rotten trick if the County Board pulled the rug from under the Belltower Committee at this last stage, after the good faith efforts of Bruce Hannon and other citizens.
You've got to be kidding, right?
This clocktower project is nothing but a monument to the glory of lawyers. If there was actually any justice emanating from the courthouse itself, I'd be all for. Instead, they're doing their best to fill the jail with black folks and other people who irritate the system.
The only thing that happens in the courthouse as a building that really rates my taxes are the weddings -- and there's plenty of churches and other venues who would be glad to rent their halls out for that.
Most obscenely, the only part of the whole stupid drug war that's even close to working -- the drug court -- will now have to limit those it serves, because they don't have enough funds. Those who'd otherwise qualify for it will now simply be warehoused at the taxpayer's expense, a waste of money that would be better spent on either the drug court or educational opportunities. The taxpayers have financed the building of this monument to the excesses of the law. The least we should be able to expect is that there's enough money left to make the systems housed inside it to function. Until they do that, why spend any more money on bricks and mortar?
ANNON 8:50 pm said "If there was actually any justice emanating from the courthouse itself, I'd be all for. Instead, they're doing their best to fill the jail with black folks and other people who irritate the system." If those folk irritating the law would clean up their act we could probably use a Court House half the size of the one we have! A very small
% of the population doing most of the "IRRITATIN"!!
what happened with the courthouse tower at the board meeting?
"If those folk irritating the law would clean up their act we could probably use a Court House half the size of the one we have! A very small % of the population doing most of the "IRRITATIN"!!"
Depending on the exact behavior we're talking about, that may or may not be true. Murders, assaults, drunken drivers, domestic battery, yeah, Lots of other stuff, including otherwise non-violent involvement with drugs, no.
My point, which you seem to have missed, is that we can no longer afford the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mentality your POV represents. It's not only too expensive, it doesn't work. That is why I made a point of noting that one of the few bright spots in such misguided and ineffective policies like the drug war, the drug court, suddenly finds itself without enough money to accomodate all who could benefit from it. That's tragic, for those who could benefit from it, for taxpayers who will be asked to continue funding ineffective imprisonment policies, and for society as a whole.
It never ceases to amaze me how many fiscal conservatives focus in on ineffective policies as needing their budgets cut, but always seem to exclude from equally principled criticsm failed government programs and policies that fall most heavily on minorities. You're perfectly happy to lock up African-Americans, but don't even try to talk about their need for food and health programs, education, etc. You're so busy cutting of your nose to spite your face that you also shoot yourself in the foot.
Until the county can come up with money to fully fund the drug court, making the clocktower a priority is both an obscenity and a waste of funds better spent elsewhere.
What happened with the courthouse tower at the board meeting?
The board approved Option 4 and authorized bonding for $6 million to finance the project. The bonds will be paid with public safety sales tax money for the next 30 years or so.
Voting against the plans were Jay, Jones, Hunt, Doenitz, and Benzyl.
Most Republicans weren't thrilled with the options, but they simply wanted the project to be finished (the option of simply doing the masonry work to the existing building & tower was not offered). Most Democrats supported the project and made their argument that this is a wise use of public safety sales tax money (because a big new tower really enhances the safety of the citizens of Champaign County).
By the way - for the historians and preservationists. Please note that Option 4 calls for the complete demolition of the current tower and the complete construction of a new tower. There will be nothing historic about this project. Its simply new construction that will be attached to an old building.
In other spending news (warning - snarky comments to follow), the most laughable item of the night was the actions of Mike Richards (D-6). Richards pulled a budget amendment for the Coroner's Office off of the consent agenda. He wanted to argue the necessity of an additional $65,000 for the office (this coming moments after Richards voted to spend $3.5 million on a tower that serves no purpose and moments before he voted to spend $115,000 on furniture for the nursing home - it’s amazing how fast one can become a fiscal conservative . . .). Coroner Northrup explained that his office has already performed more autopsies this year than it did in all of 2006 and that his office's budget would be exhausted when the August bills come due. The additional funds should allow his office to function without having to come back to the board each month (like the Nursing Home does with its monthly crisis du-jour). Richards argued that the Coroner shouldn't ask for so much money and that the Coroner would probably just spend the money because its there (I literally had tears in my eyes as Richards made his arguments). Northrup responded that he understands that Richards "lacks experience" on the board and wouldn't know that the last two years this same turn of events had taken place and in each case the Coroner's Office returned funds to the County General Corp. account. Richards finally quit arguing when Steve Beckett had the quote of the night - "Death is an unfunded mandate." The amendment passed 24-1 with Richards voting no.
Glad to see Mike's watching out for our tax dollars!
Finally, Greg Knott's ill-conceived pro-Second Amendment resolution was sent back to committee. Several people spoke in favor of the resolution (which basically says that Counties are tired of Chicago and Cook County making the laws for the whole state - if the gun laws in Cook County work so well, why is the crime rates so much higher there rather than in C-U, etc). A few spoke against it. Probably the smartest argument against it was that this isn't an issue the County should be taking up.
Glad to see Mike's watching out for our tax dollars!
Let's see, what were Rocket's qualifications for being appointed to Fabri's old county board seat. That's right--political hack and buddy of political hack in chief, Tony Fabri, who recommended his appointment. First, we get Fabri rarely bothering to show up to meetings, and now we get to watch Rocket make a complete fool of himself with ridiculous political posturing. What a couple of boobs. I hope you people who live in District 6 are proud of yourselves for completely abdicating your right to elect qulaified representation.
All you are doing is being negative, ant- anti-, why not be like Republicans and offer solutions instead of just whining and attacking?
Those of you who hate partisanship should absolutely love the current County Board!
A small minority of Republicans voted against the clocktower bonds, but the majority -- including Scott Tapley, Greg Knott, and Steve Moser -- voted for it. The pro-Second Amendment resolution was sent back to committee for a quiet death (or castration), seemingly on a unanimous vote. Most Republicans joined Rocket and the Democrats in spending that money for furniture at the nursing home, too. And if you wonder what happened with Denny Inman's contract last night, rest assured that the two parties came together once again to extend his contract another two years.
Partisanship no longer plays any real role on this County Board, either with the majority Dems or minority GOP. Instead, Beckett & Moser (and McGinty & Knott) run the Board, and do whatever Busey & Inman want. If you're among the misguided majority who blame partisanship for all that is wrong with government, then you should celebrate the recent actions of the Champaign County Board. I, for one, would rather have Republicans acting like Republicans and Democrats acting like Democrats, and voters choosing the course of their government by choosing between the two.
Beckett's Board - I would assume you are in the Fabri/Avery/Kircherner camp of politics. I am sure it is disappointing to not have any control over anything, but that is life. GET OVER IT.
Looks, like the issue is a done deal, but let's see if they have learned from the arbitration clause in the Nursing Home mess and enter into a contract that has only court solutions. Also hire an outside agent to inspect and supervise the construction.......period. Any county decisions concerning scheduling or significant cost changes should be made by a development committee and not and administratiive officer.
Restoration projects are historically subject to cost overruns and time and material changes because of the uncertainty in what really lies underneath what is being restored.
Should be interesting. Any bets?
Make no mistake about it, the new assessment evaluations are directly tied to the overruns in the last project. There is no more effective way to raise taxes than raising assements, protects every politician and increases revenues.
Simply stated we don't increase the tax rate, we increase the rate which we are taxing.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
"Make no mistake about it, the new assessment evaluations are directly tied to the overruns in the last project. There is no more effective way to raise taxes than raising assements, protects every politician and increases revenues.
Simply stated we don't increase the tax rate, we increase the rate which we are taxing."
I honestly don't see any way that could be true. Assessments are solely the province of the individual township assessors, the overwhelming number of whom are Republicans, and who owe no allegiance or favors to the county board or county government..
In addition, any home or business owner who feels they have been over-assessed has the right to bring their case to the Board of Review (on which my wife sits), which is a bi-partisan board with no political agenda. The things that the Board of Review pays the most attention to are actual purchase prices and professionally licensed privately performed appraisals, followed by established values of comparable properties.
Finally, anyone who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Review may appeal to the state Property Tax Appeal Board, and ultimately the courts.
Actually, increased assessments have nothing to do with the overall property tax revenue of any government bodies except for the home rule municipalities of Rantoul, Champaign, and Urbana. Every increase in assessed value of homes in the County results in a decrease in the tax rate. You can thank tax caps for that.
Every increase in assessed value of homes in the County results in a decrease in the tax rate.
Don't you mean every increase in assessed value above the rate of inflation results in a decrease in the tax rate?
In addition, any district whose boundaries extend into a County that has not passed tax caps is not capped.
Bob Loblaw
Loblaw, thanks for clarifying that. You are right on both of your points.
Greetings all! I’ve been MIA on here for a while (been awful busy!) Anyhow, I heard that there was some discussion about property taxes going on in this thread and I figured I’d jump in while I had a short bit of time.
Rex, to answer your question, property tax assessments are driven by sales data. Contrary to popular myth, we don’t just make it all up, we don’t use a dartboard, and we are not answering any demands from taxing bodies for increases in revenues. In fact, Illinois Laws prohibit just about all of those activities--except for the use of dartboards, which is not specifically outlawed as far as I can recall even IF it is lousy appraisal practice. :) **Warning—that last sentence was an attempt at humor!!***
Values for new construction are calculated using a cost construction manual put out by the Illinois Dept of Revenue adjusted for local costs. Values for land and existing buildings are derived from sales data (excluding farmland which in Illinois is in NO WAY reflective of actual sales prices) applied to groups or categories of properties (called neighborhoods by Assessors even IF they aren’t located in immediate physical proximity to each other.)
The laws are constructed the way they are, in part, to protect taxpayers from being singled out. (That isn’t a completely BAD thing, if you stop to consider how awful your life could be if you lived anyplace where the assessor was allowed to mess with you individually!) What we have in Illinois isn’t an ideal system, and I will tell you that I have seen more than a few times where local assessors tell taxpayers to come file with the Board of Review because we are the only ones allowed to look at individual properties rather than groups of properties.
The Township Assessors in Illinois are bound by the tax laws to use a system called “Mass Appraisal” and I’ll tell you freely that anything with “Mass” in the title is gonna see something get fouled up. Not all houses are ”average” and not every buyer is either. The very existence of the Board of Review in the state tax code would seem to indicate that the lawmakers are cognizant of that same fact and they wanted to create some sort of review mechanism, or maybe I could call it a reset switch.
We tell taxpayers that if you look at your latest property tax notice and the estimated market value just seems too high to you, come file an assessment complaint with the Board of Review. The percentage amount of increases you got is not a factor, nor is the fact that you feel your tax bill is too high. The ONLY thing we can go on is your market value and are you being treated like everybody else in the jurisdiction.
I have seen all the same articles in the financial pages about the current housing market, and I will tell you that there IS property selling in this county. The market time may be longer on average, but it IS selling. From what I am seeing it is still selling (on average) for about the same percentage of listing price as it was last year. What I am not seeing as much of, however, is the stuff selling for higher than it was originally listed at. (Real Estate Agents or dedicated searchers can probably find evidence to refute any of what I’ve just said, so don’t take it to the bank—ok? This is just Laura’s opinion here.)
If anybody has questions or wants to learn more, we love these types of conversations! Right now it is kind of busy in our office, but if you want to come by and visit with us we’ll find a way to stay late or something so we can go over it with you. None of this is a mystery, nor is it rocket science…
Regards!
Laura
Rocket Richards for president
Rocket for President of Mars!
Well if Rocket runs, I'm going to challenge his petitions.
Mark, will the bonds for the tuckpointing and clocktower project be subject to a potential back door referendum?
Bob Loblaw
Yes, they are subject to backdoor referendum. I doubt it will happen, but it certainly would be interesting. I will mention though too that with as flush as the quarter cent money is they could contract for this in pieces and likely do it with cash.
The backdoor referendum would need 854 signatures on a petition in the next 30 days or so.
Thanks to all those who responded the to tax statement in my post. Certainly some points of which I was not aware and will check out.
Laura, I do have a question that is based on personal experience and wonder if you can enlighten me.
".....Values for land and existing buildings are derived from sales data (excluding farmland which in Illinois is in NO WAY reflective of actual sales prices) applied to groups or categories of properties...."
I recently purchased a property that was sold according to the appraised value, as appraised by a licensed appraisor in the State. The appraisal included a group of properties in the same neighborhood and similiar type. Some higher by about 15%, and a few lower by the same amount. When I reviewed it and my lender reviewed it, we determined it to be a reasonable appraisal. But when my new assement came out, it was based on the highest (almost to the dollar) value of the highest value in the appraisal package.
It increased my property value to nearly $20,000 more than the sale price (only a year earlier). Now you see but one reason for my statement.
Bob and Mark,
My questions deals with real dollars and not rates. A reduced rate on a much higher assessed rated can result in actual increased taxes, could it not?
Now for everyone:
What about the other part of my post concerning the abritration part of the issue? Mark, you had a thread specifically addressing that issue, what does everyone think?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
A reduced rate on a much higher assessed rated can result in actual increased taxes, could it not?
An individual property might pay increased taxes as a result of an assessment increase but it would not result in the taxing district operating under tax caps receiving any extra money. The amount that a capped district's tax extension can increase annually is limited to the rate of inflation with an allowance for new construction. You might pay more to the capped district on the reassessed property but somewhere along the line someone else pays less on another piece of property.
Bob Loblaw
Rex,
You need to file an assessment complaint on that. Seriously.
Come see us or give me a call at the office. Bring along whatever you have including the appraisal, and we'll work with you to get it right.
By way of a general explanation, any property tax assessment (by law) is supposed to be one third of the estimated market value. When anyone has either an arm's length purchase price or an appraisal (both of those are seen as compelling evidence for an appeal for a period of two years) that is LOWER than the estimated market value show on the assessment notice they need to file with us.
I promise we'll make it as painless as possible, and barring a crowd of people we can probably get it done in about ten to fifteen minutes. If getting in to our office is impossible for you during our regular office hours,(9-3) get hold of us and we'll make arrangements for you to come when you can or else file via US Mail.
You have up to Sept 10 to get that filed and that last week is ALWAYS a madhouse. Don't put it off!
Laura
Laura,
Thank you, were do I get the appeal forms, internet?
Bob:
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
Not a lot of consolation if you are the one paying the additional taxes.
I am still having trouble grasping what is the mechanism that polices the
"The amount that a capped district's tax extension can increase annually is limited to the rate of inflation with an allowance for new construction."
part of your post. Seems impossible considering Laura's statement on the taxing methods and the group methods of determining value for the properties. If the estimating methods and book suggestions they use generate too much tax, then what happens? They give it back universally distributed?
I was trying to remember if I ever heard of government giving back property taxes, or any taxes for that matter, save your income tax return check.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I am still having trouble grasping what is the mechanism that polices the...
It is a mathematical formula.
See if this helps.
http://www.revenue.state.il.us/Publications/LocalGovernment/PTAX1080.pdf
Bob Loblaw
Rex: Laura's at work right now (and doesn't post here during that time) but has asked me to let you know that, yes, the form you need to start with is online at the Board of Review pages on the county website. She suggests that you call the Board at 384-3758. Anyone who answers can help get you started, but feel free to ask for Laura in particular if that's more comfortable.