Tag Archives: Bob Baietto

Peoria County, Taxes

Unhappy taxpayers should follow appeals process

63 Comments

The Peoria Times-Observer is reporting that a bunch of North Peoria residents are “upset with the practices of the Peoria County Board of Review” and may file a lawsuit. Among those upset are realtors Michael Maloof and Brian Monge and county board member Bob Baietto.

One member of the group, who requested to be anonymous, said it appears the only way to affect change is a lawsuit.

“What it comes down to is politics,” he said. “I was incredibly naive. I thought we could win this by going through channels and giving them proof. I was wrong. We need to make noise. We need to find more people who are mad.”

The remaining members of the group agreed. A consensus was reached that efforts now need to concentrate on finding an attorney who can advise the group on what grounds they can use to sue.

Of course, the politics runs both ways. Some members of the county board attempted to resolve the situation by removing two Board of Review members: Gary Shadid and Nancy Horton. Having failed in that attempt, they’re now looking at a possible lawsuit.

But here’s my question: Have they indeed gone through all the channels, as was implied? Or have they only gone as far as the local Board of Review? According to a state publication called “The Illinois Property Tax System,” there are a couple of ways to appeal the decision of the local Board of Review:

  • The decision may be appealed (in writing) to the Property Tax Appeal Board, a five-member board appointed by the governor. The Property Tax Appeal Board will determine the correct assessment based on equity and the weight of the evidence. Taxes must be paid pending the outcome of the appeal.
  • The taxes can be paid under protest and the county board of review’s decision can be appealed directly to the circuit court by filing a tax objection complaint. Taxes and levies are presumed to be correct and legal, but this presumption can be rebutted. The taxpayer must provide clear and convincing evidence.

If the Board of Review’s actions are so unfair, then it should be a cinch to get them overturned on appeal. A large number of successful appeals could then be used as evidence of the local Board of Review’s alleged poor decisions and presented to the full County Board for appropriate action. On the other hand, if the decisions are upheld on appeal, then the local Board of Review will be exonerated.

Bottom line, the complainants should follow the appeals process, not resort to political and/or legal strong-arm tactics to force the Board of Review to render decisions in their favor.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Advocacy by any other name is still advocacy

49 Comments

The first town hall meeting on the Peoria County public facility sales tax referendum took place Thursday night at Kickapoo Creek Winery. The event was sponsored by County Board members Carol Trumpe and Bob Baietto. Presenters were Jim Richerson for the museum group and Scott Sorrell for the County. Questions had to be written out ahead of time, so attendees weren’t allowed to verbalize the questions themselves. Everything was highly controlled.

The meeting is billed as informational, not advocating for or against passage of the referendum. But if Thursday’s meeting wasn’t advocacy, I sure don’t know what is. Richerson gave his pitch piece for the block and used phrases like “when [not “if”] the referendum passes.” Questions were answered by board members, Sorrell, Richerson, and Mark Johnson from Caterpillar. Obviously, Richerson and Johnson are for the referendum. No one who is against the referendum was allowed a place at the table. The county did not present any risks, cons, or critical information. Everything shared at the meeting was positive toward the referendum. Yet we’re expected to believe we’re hearing an unbiased and fact-based presentation.

In the back of the room was a table full of materials from the the pro-referendum advocacy group Friends of Build the Block, including a flyer that said flat-out, “Vote Yes.” No advance effort was made to contact the anti-referendum advocacy group Citizens for Responsible Spending and offer them a table for their materials.

So, we have an event at which only pro-referendum presenters are invited, only pro-referendum materials are provided, and passage of the referendum is only shown in a favorable light. There’s an old saying: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” So if the event looks like advocacy and sounds like advocacy, guess what?