I received a response today from the same homeowner, which is embedded here ...
At issue is how homes on Wooster Lake should be assessed, and specifically, whether or not the lake is subject to no-wake restrictions. Properties on no-wake lakes are typically assessed at lower values than comparable homes on lakes without restrictions.
April 26 2015 letter to EOLC
The Grant Township Assessor currently regards Wooster Lake as unrestricted, and gives properties there higher assessed values than comparable properties on other lakes. Prior to 2014, Wooster Lake properties were valued the opposite way -- as restricted.
The Grant Township Assessor cites a 2014 court ruling (in favor of the aforementioned homeowner) as the reason for the change in policy. Because of this court ruling Wooster Lake is now assessed as an unrestricted lake:
DENZ VS WOOSTER LAKE CONSERVATIONReaders may notice that the court ruling in question is actually a civil judgement. The court awarded the homeowner some $4000 in damages over a Wooster Lake related dispute.
JUDGEMENT ORDER
I am not certified to assess property nor am I an attorney. But it seems to me very questionable that a stated policy of a Township Assessor's Office could be based on the outcome of a civil lawsuit.
This is the question that the aforementioned homeowner raises. Wooster Lake has traditionally been appraised as being restricted. The Grant Township Assessor recently changed that policy, and now appraises Wooster Lake as having no restrictions. Does the Grant Township Assessor have a court ruling to justify this change in policy? Or is the change in policy based solely on the outcome of a civil lawsuit?
4 comments:
If the Home Owner is not aware, they must know their favorite Commissioner BTC will be running for Grant Township Supervisor in 2017. Where else but in Lake County do former County Board Commissioners serve 20 years, earn a pension and then leave office for township supervisor to pad their pension with salaries double of what they were making as County Commissioner. A new trend in Lake County.
Excerpt from the Village of Fox Lake Meeting Minutes, February 14, 2006. The misspelled words have been corrected.
"...A lot of the people who have spoken up in opposition of the (new no-wake) ordinance (adopted by Round Lake on Wooster Lake in 2005) have spoken up on the basis that they don’t feel that government should be involved in this issue. I am here to say that government has been involved in protecting Wooster Lake for many, many years. If we take the history all the way back to Tanneron Bay and when it was developed without the involvement of Grant Township and Lake County, Tanneron Bay may not likely have had to attach the Wooster Lake Convenants to its By-Laws and Declarations. We thank Grant Township and Lake County for getting involved to do that. During the development of Holiday Park Fox Lake structured the annexation agreement to ensure that the Wooster Lake Convenants would be attached to the Holiday Park Declarations and By-Laws...."
- President of Tanneron Bay Penny Cummings
Being thanked for its historical contributions towards restrictions were "Grant Township and Lake County."
The first known government ordinance wa in 2001, recorded the same year. The first known covenants and restrictions were subsequently recorded in 2003. At that time who was the Deputy Assessor? Lorry Spencer. Who was the County Board Member? Bonnie Carter
Taking a step back: if the Grant Assessor now really wants people to believe she is changing the properties' status from restricted to not restricted, she would be admitting her own Office incorrectly assessed properties with restricted status for all those years, incorrectly assessed them while being thanked for helping get them to that recorded restricted status.
Now, instead of changing the status legally via a court order with a judge's opinion about the restrictive status, the Assessor now gets out her crayons and scribbles a note on some paper claiming "not restricted".
Nothing to see here, folks. Please disperse.
Totally incompetent at the very best. More likely just another lying, cheating politician in Lake County.
"I am not certified to assess property nor am I an attorney. But it seems to me very questionable that a stated policy of a Township Assessor's Office could be based on the outcome of a civil lawsuit."
The Assessor relies on a June 2014 small claims Court Order. The SA opines in January 2015 that a judge's opinion of the restrictive status of the properties is still required.
The SA wouldn't have written the 2015 letter if the 2014 Court Order already said what the Assessor claims it says.
The Assessor is posturing to have fixed this long-standing issue when it's not fixed at all.
Eye on Lake County asked:
"The Grant Township Assessor recently changed that policy, and now appraises Wooster Lake as having no restrictions. Does the Grant Township Assessor have a court ruling to justify this change in policy? Or is the change in policy based solely on the outcome of a civil lawsuit?"
EOLC already has its answer from the Lake County State's Attorney, letter dated January 16 2015.
If that's not enough, all EOLC can simply call the Small Claims Court in Lake County. They'll flat out tell the caller a Small Claims Court Judge can only award money. Nothing else.
If that's not enough, EOLC can just go online at the Lake Co Circuit Court website. Their rules and limitations of the Small Claims Court are very clear in the Circuit Court manual:
"Important: The Small Claims Court can order a judgment only for
money."
See "page 2" at the following link of the Circuit Court.
www.lakecountyil.gov/CircuitClerk/Publications/County%20Forms/Small%20Claims%20Guide.pdf
Isn't it time to hold the Grant Township Assessor accountable for these meritless letters and opinions she's pumping out on your website, EOLC?
Post a Comment