In a seven to four vote last week, Crane County officials decided to raise property taxes when it might have been expected for it to be reduced.

A. it might have been expected for it to be reduced
B. they might have been expected to have reduced them
C. they might have been expected that it should be reduced
D. its reducing might have been expected
E. there might have been an expectation for them to be reduced

In a seven to four vote last week, Crane County officials decided to raise property taxes when it might have been expected for it to be reduced.


A. (County officials) it might have been expected for it(property taxes) to be reduced
B. (County officials)they might have been expected to have reduced them(property taxes)
C. (County officials)they might have been expected that it(property taxes) should be reduced
D. its(property taxes) reducing might have been expected
E. there might have been an expectation for them to be reduced <== this is unidiomatic

But IMHO even B does not make sense. You cannot say something like
"officials decided to raise property taxes" - an action that happened, so the taxes are higher-
when
"they might have been expected to have reduced them" - if you use present perfect you are saying that this action (expect/reduce) is still going on in the present somehow: even though the taxes are higher they still expect them to be lower (does not make a lot of sense).

I feel that B also have error. It is not clear what "they" and "them" refers.
Crane County officials - Plural
property taxes - Plural
Both are plural.

By considering the meaning, We can say that they refers to Crane County officials and them refers to property taxes. it also awkward.
_________________