Bradley Elementary Board OKs tentative 2024 tax levy

Bradley School District 61 Administrative Center

BRADLEY — Taxpayers in the Bradley Elementary School District can expect an increase on their bills, with the district seeking to collect about $12.9 million for its 2024 tax levy.

Last week, the Bradley Elementary School Board OK’d the tentative 2024 levy, which includes a requested 7.86% increase.

This means the owner of a $200,000 home would pay about $92 more per year.

Since the increase is greater than 5%, the district will be required to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing.

The hearing is set for 6:50 p.m. Dec. 12, before the board gives final approval of the levy.

District 61 Finance Director Nicole McCarty said property taxes make up the district’s largest funding source, about 43% last year.

“School districts receive no more than we request, but also no more than we’re entitled to,” she said.

The district is requesting $12,867,012 for its 2024 levy, a 7.86% hike from its 2023 levy of $11,929,258.53.

When including the estimated property taxes for debt service and public building commission leases, the total property taxes to be levied for 2024 are about $13.16 million, up from about $12.2 million in 2023.

Kankakee County is subject to property tax limitation law, so tax increases are limited to 5% or the change in CPI the previous year, whichever is less.

In December 2023, the CPI was 3.4%.

CPI had exceeded 5% in 2021 and 2022.

School districts typically request a greater amount than the limit in order to capture all the revenue available from new property in the area.

“Our district has been a beneficiary of significant growth in new property over the past eight years,” McCarty said.

From 2017 to 2024, the area has seen just over $44 million in new property, for an average of $5.5 million per year, she said.

During that time, most of the new property, about 82%, has been industrial, with CSL accounting for much of the growth.

District 61′s tax extension 10 years ago in 2014 was just over $8.4 million.

The area’s current EAV is estimated to be just under $324 million. The previous high was $237 million in 2010; it has seen steady growth, mostly due to new property.

“New property revenue has really helped the district make significant improvements to facilities,” McCarty said.

Board members asked what difference it might make to taxpayers to request a smaller increase, considering the referendum that passed in November to fund building improvements at Bradley-Bourbonnais Community High School will also result in tax increases for Bradley residents.

“I understand we’re different districts, but is there something that we can do to help people in our community?” said board member Dan Whalen.

Whalen said that if staying below the 5% cap could save taxpayers significant money, like $50 or more, the board should consider it.

McCarty said that if the district were to only ask for the increase in CPI, or 3.4%, without accounting for the increased EAV and new property, the district would receive about $300,000 to $350,000 less.

This money would be lost for the upcoming year and every year going forward.

For the owner of a $200,000 home, it would mean an annual increase of $84, meaning they would save about $8.

Superintendent Chris Hammond noted the district can look into options to provide tax rebates for certain demographics of residents, such as senior citizens.

Districts typically do this when they have particularly healthy fund balances, he said.

Because District 61 just spent about $6 million in reserves on a modular addition at Bradley East, the district would likely look into issuing rebates in future years, not for this upcoming year.

“There are options that still allow you to maintain the integrity of the levy, but still provide some relief for taxpayers,” Hammond said.

Hammond said the Bradley East project, which is expected to be completed in December, should be the last major facilities upgrade for the district for a while.

However, the district still needs to build its fund balances for routine maintenance and other needs that may arise.

“The levy process is difficult because you’re asking taxpayers for more money, but we also have a lot of need,” he said.