SG Village Board approves 2013 proposed tax levy
SUGAR GROVE—The Sugar Grove Village Board on Tuesday passed the proposed 2.4 percent increase for the 2013 Tax Levy with five yes votes, and two no votes from trustees Sean Herron and Kevin Geary.
Sugar Grove will collect $6.50 more from each property owner in the village. Board members participated in a discussion regarding the benefits and disadvantages of passing the proposed tax levy.
Geary said he wasn’t in favor of increasing the property taxes this year.
“I would like to see us hold the line on the tax levy. I think we need to tighten our belts,”
he said. “I want to send the message to residents that we can live in our means.”
Village President Sean Michels noted Geary’s comment, and then stated why he thought the board wouldn’t be able to keep the taxes flat this year.
“I would like nice streets and sidewalks and good quality of employees like we have,” Michels said. “In order to have that, we need to get out of the recession completely to get ahead. For this year, it’s going to require an increase; but in years to come, an increase in property taxes might not be required.”
Sugar Grove resident Joe Wolf added his two cents to the discussion.
“I understand how taxes affect us. The long-term effect on the village will deter us from not passing the tax levy,” Wolf said. “The quality of life is more important than lowering taxes. I hope you continue to use the money wisely. The $6.50 is worth taking.”
Herron then explained why he was not in favor of the proposed tax levy.
“As the newest member of the board, I walked on every single doorstep of the village,” he said. “Although, I didn’t talk to every village resident, I did speak to a lot of people. An overwhelming majority of the people said they weren’t interested in a 2.4 percent increase.”
Trustee Rick Montalto reiterated that the small tax increase wouldn’t affect residents negatively, but would help to increase the quality of life in Sugar Grove.
“The $6.50 doesn’t mean a lot. I’m afraid if we don’t levy it, people would notice the streets not being salted or new trees not being planted where other trees had died,” Montalto said. “I think the taxpayers would much rather see us taking care of the village than saving them $6.50. The problem is they look at the 2.4 percent increase and don’t realize how small of an amount that is delegated to the village board.”