Residents urge county review after steep tax revaluations on Lincoln Park North lots

Kevin Krysher, who identified himself as president of Marmot Greens LLC and a Marmot Court resident, told the Knox County Board during public comment that he and several neighbors bought the Lincoln Park North subdivision in December 2022 and were surprised when the parcels were reassessed at a developer rate rather than the farmland or preferential rate they had been told would continue. "We all currently live on Marmot Court within the subdivision...In December 2022, we purchased the Lincoln Park North Subdivision for $150,000," Krysher said, adding that the tax change was explained to him as stemming from an Illinois Department of Revenue publication and that the group "would not have purchased this land had we known the taxes would increase 12000%." (speaker 8)

John Watson, who said he is a neighbor and friend of Krysher’s, described the appraisal and appeals process that followed. Watson said the property was appraised at $600,000 after the purchase and that an appeal produced only a partial reduction: "We went to the state. The state did give us a reduction... '25 tax bill is a little bit less, but 6 of the properties went up anyway," he told the board. Watson said the jumps in assessed value make development or resale unviable for their lots and warned the board that the new assessments threaten owners’ financial viability. (speaker 7)

Krysher told the board he had asked the assessor’s office how such large increases were possible and was referred to a state rule he described as Illinois Department of Revenue publication 134 concerning developer preferential assessment for subdivision property. He said contemporaneous notes from meetings before closing led him to believe the tax treatment would remain unchanged until lots sold to individuals. The residents said they pursued appeal procedures locally and at the state and that some relief was granted but not for all parcels.

Board members who heard the comments did not take immediate action on the matter during the meeting; speakers presenting the appraisal and appeal chronology urged county staff or the assessor to review the facts and to clarify how the properties were classified. The public-comment speakers said they are available to answer follow-up questions.

The board’s packet and staff reports referenced tax‑year estimates and a levy discussion later in the meeting, but the public commenters framed their concern as a property-classification and disclosure problem tied to individual sales and appeals rather than a single board vote. The record shows the owners raised the issue during the public‑comment period; the transcript does not record an immediate formal response from the assessor in the meeting minutes. (Provenance: topic introduced at SEG 188; topic last discussed in these public comments at SEG 319.)