The McHenry County Board is considering raising its next property tax levy to what it was before voters approved a sales tax increase to fund the county Mental Health Board – a measure that passed with the promise that the property tax levy would be lowered.

County officials have said they’re considering the property tax levy increase because – even if the board chooses to take the maximum inflationary increase allowed – expenses are anticipated to outpace revenues next year.

But state law allows the county to do what’s called a “lookback,” which allows a taxing body to reset its levy to the highest level over the last three years, which for county was the 2023 levy of about $73.8 million.

The levy last year was just under $65 million. As had been promised to the voters, the levy was reduced to account for the new sales tax, though the board voted to add back some of levy decrease to fund three new sheriff’s deputies.

Now, just one budget cycle later, the board is considering a return to its pre-referendum level.

Some board members have said they support the lookback tax increase. Others have said the board would be going back on its promise to voters that the levy amount that previously funded the Mental Health Board would go away because it was replaced with a 0.25% countywide sales tax increase.

“We asked the constituents to essentially trust us on that,” board member Eric Hendricks said. “And now we’re saying, ‘Oopsy daisy’ one year later, ‘Let’s stack it back up again.’”

Hendricks said he was against the lookback and that said that if the board raises the levy back to pre-referendum levels, then the board “lied to the voters.”

“I appreciate the ... financial, I guess, predicament we’re in, but my goodness,” Hendricks said.

Board member Mike Shorten said he didn’t like the lookback idea but was struggling to find county spending cuts that he and most residents would support.

“I don’t think we lied to the people of the county,” Shorten said about the referendum, adding that there was no intent when the question was put to voters last year to deceive them. Rather, he said, the county is dealing with the “cost of doing business.”

Board member Gloria Van Hof also said she didn’t think the board was dishonest about the sales tax referendum. She said that then, like now, the board was looking for ways to cut property taxes and it seemed like a “good option.”

Van Hof voted against placing the sales tax on March 2024 ballot, not because she didn’t back the idea but because, as she said at the time, she felt there wasn’t enough time to educate voters.

The potential reset is coming as the county works to close a potential $3.7 million hole in the budget.

County officials laid out a couple of budget and levy scenarios recently, but each of them assume the board will take the maximum inflation-based increase allowed. In the past couple of years, the board has narrowly chosen to take some of the inflationary increase. The board voted to raise its property tax levy for the first time in a decade in 2022.

One of the scenarios, the “green option,” would lead to a gap of just over $2 million, while what officials said was a harder “yellow option” would lead to a roughly $650,000 hole.

The yellow option includes cuts like eliminating County Board health insurance, though that wouldn’t take effect until 2027, and using RTA funds to replace squad cars.

Historically, the county has allocated such funds solely for transportation. Some of the board expressed support for using those dollars for public safety purposes, but others opposed it.

County Board Chair Mike Buehler said the county should be cautious about doing that, citing uncertainty with the RTA and legislation.

“We’re taking a pretty big gamble on, on spending those funds in other areas if we don’t know that all those funds are going to be there,” Buehler said.

Board member Michael Skala, who chairs the county’s finance committee, said all the green option items would happen with the lookback while yellow option items would only happen if the board told the staff to do them.

Some board members also expressed an interest in seeing a scenario that would rein in spending even more than the yellow option, but a couple members felt they needed more information before they could decide where to go.

Board member John Collins said he felt it made the most sense to levy the lookback amount, as well as what’s allowed for inflation and new property assessment growth, and then abate anything more than what was needed.

If the lookback levy happens, county staff is proposing a $1 million abatement, or lessening of the tax burden.

But some on the board said that amount was too small. Board member Matt Kunkle called it a “joke” and said the board would need to abate $3 million to $4 million if the lookback goes through “to actually be doing our jobs up here.”

Board member Joe Gottemoller said he didn’t think $1 million was enough.

It appeared to be close when Skala sought informally to gauge the board’s support on the lookback, but he said he saw more thumbs up than down.

The County Board’s finance committee is due to take up the budget and levy at its meeting Thursday. The budget and levy will go on 30-day review later this month ahead of the November vote. The county’s new fiscal year starts Dec. 1.