Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessors’ performance and rising multipliers dominate LaSalle County discussion; state’s attorney cautions on prosecutions
Summary
County assessment staff warned of high multipliers and uneven assessments in several townships; board members pressed for stronger enforcement of assessor duties and suggested letters or other action, while the state’s attorney said criminal prosecution of elected assessors would be legally complex.
At the May 20, 2025 meeting, the LaSalle County official who oversees assessment reporting told the Taxation, Election & GIS Committee that the county’s final multiplier for the 2024 tax year is 1 and that the sales‑ratio data the office received showed growing market values and uneven assessment work in multiple townships.
The assessment official said some townships lacked sufficient sales data (25 sales required to receive an independent township study) and that lower counts force the state grouping “all others” for ratio calculations. The official said Rutland Township had 56 sales in 2024 but that a cluster of sales tied to a new subdivision (Heritage Harbor) made comparability uneven; she reported a roughly $2.37 million difference between expected assessed value and sales totals in that township’s sample and said the pattern points to assessors not completing required quadrennial duties.
Board members pressed for accountability. One board member asked if the state would pursue enforcement; a representative of the State’s Attorney’s Office (referred to in the meeting) said criminal prosecution of elected assessors is legally fraught and would require careful fact‑finding and identification of victims. He suggested a targeted, documented letter to township boards and potential meetings involving county leadership and the state’s attorney to make deficiencies public and describe potential consequences.
Committee members recommended stepped responses: documentation of deficient townships, direct letters under county leadership and, if warranted, a meeting with the state’s attorney to discuss legal remedies. Several board members urged the county to consider misdemeanor or felony statutes for official misconduct where appropriate, but the state’s attorney cautioned that charging an elected official is a serious action that requires substantial proof and legal evaluation.
The assessment office also briefed the committee on internal staffing and an upcoming retirement timeline: the assessment official said she will retire on Aug. 8 and that a staffing and training plan is in place. The office said training and a state‑administered certification test schedule will follow the Department of Revenue calendar.
No formal enforcement motions were adopted at the meeting; the committee asked staff to compile documentation of problematic townships and to pursue a meeting with the state’s attorney to determine next steps.
