* Earlier today…
* The mayor was asked about this today in Springfield…
I heard that there was noise made this morning by Ray Lopez and Ald. Rosa claiming that our new proposal has a $65 million property tax increase, which is not correct. The property tax increase was actually voted upon by the prior city council and this is just incrementing what they’ve already done. This budget does not contain anything anywhere close to that.
* Greg Hinz explains…
Mayor Lori Lightfoot today rolled out a “Plan B” package comprised mostly of spending cuts that will be implemented in the event the Illinois General Assembly does not pass her proposed $50 million hike in the real-estate transfer tax.
On the list: a hiring slowdown, cuts in health spending and Fire Department overtime and increased savings from low interest rates in city debt.
And in the middle of that, city Chief Financial Officer Jennie Huang Bennett conceded that the year-to-year proposed hike in the city’s much-watched property tax actually will be $65 million, not the previously advertised $18 million. […]
Bennett said $33 million of that [increased property tax revenue in the budget] already had been approved by the City Council many months ago to pay for a capital works bond issue, so the money is not “new.” And the city always gets a property tax bump from new construction, in this case $15 million. Add that all up and you get roughly $65 million.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:17 pm:
“It’s all baloney. I said no such thing, no one I know said anything like that. It’s baloney.”
- Mayor Lori …Rauner, probably
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:26 pm:
===Mayor Lori …Rauner, probably ===
Nope. Not on this one. She’s right. Natural revenue growth and a tax that automatically increased passed in a previous fiscal year. That’s not her fault.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:28 pm:
If she comes back from Springfield empty-handed, we’re all going to wish the looming property tax hike was only $65 million.
- sewer thoughts - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:28 pm:
so the property tax was always $65 million if its $33m already voted / $18m Sunday libraries / $15m new construction - why did they ever try to say it was “only” $18m
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:29 pm:
=== That’s not her fault.===
Point taken.
=== Add that all up and you get roughly $65 million===
Yep. Math.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:33 pm:
===Yep. Math. ===
If income tax collections rise, you don’t say it’s a tax hike. Same here.
- Thomas Paine - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:35 pm:
Her budget relies upon $65 in additional revenue from property taxes, the rest is fingerpointing.
However, if she is going to blame increases in revenue occuring on her watch on her predecessor, she should not refuse to accept responsibility for the impact of TIFs just because it occurs down the road.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Nov 12, 19 @ 2:42 pm:
“the impact of TIFs”
Just wait 23 years