Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery board holds first reading of $3.14 million property tax levy as trustees debate freezing rate
Summary
Montgomery trustees heard the first reading of Ordinance 2101, a proposed $3,143,632 levy for FY2025–26. Staff said the proposal would net roughly $120,000 at a 3.4% increase (about $10 per household); trustees were split between freezing the levy and taking the full allowable amount.
Montgomery’s village board on a regularly scheduled meeting conducted a first reading of Ordinance 2101, proposing a total property tax levy request of $3,143,632 for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 2025 and ending April 30, 2026. Director Malewski told trustees the recommendation includes a $2,750,000 general levy and SSA levies totaling $393,632 and that the public hearing and final vote will be at the board’s Dec. 9 meeting to meet county filing deadlines.
The board discussed whether to “freeze” the levy or take the maximum allowable. Malewski said the village projects that a 3.4% levy would yield roughly $120,000 more than last year, and estimated the residential impact at about $10 per household annually. “My recommendation will always be to take as much of the levy as possible,” Malewski said, citing obligations including the police pension, aging buildings and equipment needs, and planned facility management work.
Several trustees said they favored holding the levy steady to provide relief to residents. One trustee noted the village has increased its property tax rebate program over time and said the community has received nearly $1 million in rebates historically. A contrasting view emphasized fiscal flexibility: trustees could levy the maximum now and rebate money later if revenues allow. “We can always rebate that money back,” one trustee said.
Trustees also pressed staff for detail on how county processing affects the levy: because Montgomery spans Kane and Kendall counties, both counties receive the same levy request and then determine overlapping equalized assessed value to produce the village’s total dollar collection. Trustees urged staff to pursue nonresidential development and annexation options — including TIF opportunities — to expand the commercial and industrial tax base and reduce pressure on residential taxpayers.
Director Woloski confirmed he had the board’s direction to prepare materials for a second reading and for department heads to present a lean budget, as requested by several trustees. The board did not take a final vote on the levy at this meeting; the ordinance will return for a public hearing and potential adoption at the Dec. 9 meeting.
