The Kane County Forest Preserve District will be asking voters in the upcoming general election to approve a property tax increase to fund improvements to its preserves and the protection of more land. The proposed property tax increase would be around $10 per $100,000 of home value, which comes to about $3 per month for the average Kane County property owner, according to the district’s webpage on the referendum. The district would receive around $6.9 million next year if the voters approve the tax increase, staff said at a recent Forest Preserve Commission meeting. The commission can only raise taxes by a certain amount each year as determined by state law, but the referendum question would allow the district to raise taxes higher. Commissioners voted in July to put the referendum question on the ballot in the Nov. 5 general election. Previous Kane County Forest Preserve referendums over the past 20 years have focused on taking out bonds to protect more of Kane County’s land, according to a presentation given by Kane County Forest Preserve District Executive Director Benjamin Haberthur at an Oct. 9 League of Women Voters forum held in Batavia. The district’s land holdings have tripled from 7,842 acres in 1999 to 23,517 acres today, according to the district’s website. However, Haberthur said during his presentation that the district’s staff and operational funds have not grown equally with the amount of land the district has taken on. The funds generated by the proposed tax increase, if approved by voters, would support forest preserve maintenance, improvements and educational programming, according to the district’s webpage on the referendum. The Kane County Forest Preserve District would also be able to move forward with a number of large projects if voters approve the tax increase, Haberthur said. One of the projects he talked about was a program to reintroduce bison to the Burlington Prairie Forest Preserve. Bison are already coming to the preserve whether or not the tax increase is approved, but the tax increase would allow the forest preserve district to expand the program beyond just putting bison in a pen to be a full wildlife reintroduction program, according to Haberthur. He said another project that would only move forward with funds from the proposed tax increase is improvements to the Rutland Bog that would allow it to be opened up to the public. The improvements would include trails, restrooms and picnic areas, he said. Aurora’s Arlene Shoemaker Forest Preserve would be getting an Urban Ecology Field Station if the referendum is approved, Haberthur said during his presentation. This field station would help to expand the district’s educational offerings and would be open to both the district’s naturalists and area educators, he said. The last project to be supported by the proposed tax increase that Haberthur mentioned during his presentation was a multi-level wildlife observatory at the Muirhead Springs Forest Preserve, where a wetlands mitigation bank was recently completed. If approved by voters, the proposed tax increase would also go to replenish the district’s Land Acquisition Fund, which currently has been fully spent or committed, according to a Frequently Asked Questions sheet from the district about the referendum. The sheet said this means the district cannot expand current preserves or create new natural areas, which is a “key part” of the district’s mission. The funds from the proposed tax increase would allow the district to acquire up to 125 acres of open space and natural areas per year, the district’s webpage about the referendum said. Other benefits of the proposed tax increase include up to an additional 250 acres per year of restored wildlife habitat, new trails, new recreation areas, increased flood protection and more, according to the webpage. The Kane County Forest Preserve currently looks for grant funding to supplement its local funding and has brought in around $6 million in the past seven years, according to the Frequently Asked Questions sheet. However, it said the district missed out on around $1 million in funding because it did not have the matching funds needed to qualify for the grant. Without the proposed tax increase, the district’s “ability to apply for and receive future grant funding is extremely limited,” the sheet said. If the majority of voters are against the proposed increase, then the district would still bring in an extra $289,517 in property taxes, plus an additional amount between $105,000 and $135,000 from new construction, Chief Financial Officer David Petschke said at the Oct. 8 Forest Preserve Commission meeting. However, even if voters approve the proposed tax increase, property owners will see the Forest Preserve District  portion of their property taxes lowered over the next few years as bonds previously approved by voters get fully paid off, according to Haberthur. For a $300,000 house, yearly property taxes will go down roughly $55 by 2027, Haberthur’s presentation said. The same house would see a $30 property tax increase if voters say yes in the district’s referendum, which would still result in a $25 per year property tax decrease by 2027. [email protected]