Manteno homestead property owners will, after all, receive a tax reimbursement for the 2025 tax year, as the ordinance was approved 4-3 at Monday’s village board meeting.

The ordinance was brought back up for a re-vote after it failed to pass at the June 1 meeting, and it passed 4-3 with Mayor Annette LaMore casting the deciding vote.

The action means about $650,000 will go back into the hands of Manteno home owners.

The rebate is only in regards to the village’s portion of a property tax bill, meaning it does not alter taxes earmarked for schools, Kankakee County or Kankakee Community College or other governmental bodies.

It will be a 50% rebate of the village of Manteno’s property tax. The village had given a full rebate on the local tax for the past four years.

It was a night full of reversals, as the board also voted to override Mayor LaMore’s vetoes on two other measures.

The rebate was something Trustee Mike Barry fought hard to keep in the budget.

“We’re not able to give a full 100% rebate, but I thought that at least 50% of a rebate this year would help out some homeowners that do need it,” he said before the vote. “Then we could always look to the future to see what comes in, but I just think that there’s people that do depend on this rebate, it’s a nice thing to give.”

Barry added that residents have been through a lot the past couple of years with decisions that have been made by the board.

“I think that to show them that ‘Hey, we are trying to work for you guys, we are trying to give something back to you, despite all the negativity surrounding the board,’” he said.

Barry voted for the rebate along with Trustee Peggy Vaughn, while CJ Boudreau, Todd Crockett and Annette Zimbelman voted against. Trustee Joel Gesky, who voted against it on June 1, switched his vote to yes for a 3-3 tie that LaMore broke with her vote.

Gesky said he had concerns about issuing the rebate during discussions in the committee meetings and that he probably surprised some people with his vote.

“I believe that we’ve got one of two ways that we correct the deficit in the budget: one, we stop spending, or two, we bring in new revenue,” he said. “I am confident that this board and leadership realizes that even if we stop spending completely, don’t do anything, and allow this place to run into nothing, we can’t.

“We have to look for other sources of revenue. I am confident that this board is exploring and is working on other projects in order to increase the revenue accessibility, so that’s why I voted the way I did.”

The 50% rebate will cost the village about $650,000 that will be added to the expected deficit of $1.2 million to the budget for fiscal 2026-27.

Applications to receive the rebate will be due by 4 p.m. Oct. 30, and the rebates will be made by the end of February.

More reversals

The board voted to override the mayor’s vetoes of the approval of a remote attendance policy; and the appropriation of $9,350 for Scenic Landscaping to replace nine trees on Main Street. Both of those measures were approved at the May 18 meeting.

LaMore’s main objection to the remote attendance policy is that it should only be used by trustees for family emergencies and not while someone is away on a business trip.

“I think we all got voted to be elected officials, so that we would be present here to have our discussions, and that people could ask us questions, and we could respond in person, which is so much better than being on the television screen,” she said.

Barry wanted the ordinance to include a limit of two to four times a year that a trustee could attend remotely through a Zoom link.

“Right now, the way that this ordinance sits is, I can go and say that I’m gone for the next year and a half and get on a TV,” he said. “There’s not any maximum attendance policy. There’s nothing on there stating how many times you could use it.”

Boudreau said the ordinance was based on what was allowed by state statute, and he said the voters will let them know if they feel like the policy is getting abused.

The motion to override the veto was 4-2. Boudreau, Crockett, Gesky and Zimbelman voted yes, and Barry and Vaughn voted no.

LaMore’s veto of the motion to replace the trees was based on the fact that she said there was no plan in place and the decision was arbitrary.

Superintendent of Public Works Jim Hanley said at Monday’s meeting that there are 138 trees on village property that are dead or dying. The nine to be replaced on Main Street were the most pressing.

“I still think it’s a good price,” Gesky said. “It’s a local contractor, and we went out to bid.”

The motion to override the veto passed 5-1 with Boudreau, Crockett, Gesky, Vaughn and Zimbelman voting in favor.