Madison County Board postpones decision to place PTELL referendum on November ballot
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
After hours of debate and submitted public comments opposing PTELL, the Madison County Board voted 18–6 on Aug. 10, 2020 to postpone for 60 days a resolution that would have placed the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) question on the Nov. 3 ballot.
The Madison County Board on Aug. 10 voted 18–6 to postpone for 60 days a resolution that would have authorized the County Clerk to place a binding referendum on the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) on the Nov. 3, 2020 general election ballot.
Chairman Kurt Prenzler opened the special, telephonic meeting by framing the vote as a procedural question: whether voters — not the board — should decide if PTELL applies to non‑home‑rule taxing districts in Madison County. "The only thing this county board can do about the rest of people's property tax bill is to put PTELL on the ballot," Prenzler said, adding that county government accounts for less than 8% of property taxes in the county.
The resolution presented to the board would have asked voters: "Shall the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (35 ILCS 200/18-185 through 18-245) ... apply to non-home rule taxing districts with all or a portion of their equalized assessed valuation located in Madison County?" Sponsors of that resolution included members of the executive and government relations committees and were listed in the meeting packet.
Board members split on whether to place the question before voters now. Supporters argued voters should have the choice. Don Moore, a sponsor of the measure, said limiting future tax increases was preferable to taking no action: "I do believe it will benefit the taxpayer," he said. Opponents warned PTELL can produce higher tax bills in the short term in some districts and questioned whether the board had enough factual information to send a countywide question to voters who live in home‑rule municipalities that would be unaffected.
"History shows that if PTELL passes, special taxing districts rates will immediately rise," said County Board member Philip Chapman, noting figures prepared in 2018 that projected double‑digit percentage increases for certain municipalities and services. David Michael and others said board members lacked consistent answers about who would be affected and how PTELL would work in Madison County.
Board member Ray Wesley moved to postpone consideration of the resolution for 60 days pending study; the motion was seconded by Tom Parkinson. The chair initially questioned whether postponement would move the decision beyond the statutory deadline for the November ballot, but county counsel and other members said the appeal and postponement motion were procedurally proper. The ayes and nays on the motion to postpone were recorded as follows: AYES (18): Chapman, Dalton, Dutton, Foster, Glasper, Hankins, Holliday, King, Malone, Michael, Minner, Mueller-Jones, Novacich-Koberna, Parkinson, Petrillo, Pollard, Trucano, Wesley. NAYS (6): Gray, Guy, Harriss, Madison, McRae, Moore.
After the vote the chairman declared the resolution postponed. The board then recessed the special session until Sept. 16, 2020; the motion to recess was moved by Mick Madison and seconded by Tom McRae and attested by County Clerk Debra Ming‑Mendoza.
The resolution and the discussion cited the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) and the statutory authority in the Illinois Compiled Statutes (35 ILCS 200/18‑185 through 18‑245), but the board limited its action on Aug. 10 to whether to place the question before voters, not to adopting policy changes. A number of written public comments submitted in advance urged the board not to put PTELL on the ballot, including letters from educators and a group of regional school superintendents who said the timing amid the COVID‑19 pandemic is not appropriate.
Next steps: because the board voted to postpone, the question did not proceed to an immediate vote to put PTELL on the Nov. 3 ballot; proponents said they may return with more information or a revised timing for placing the question before voters.
