* Press release last week…
State Representative Dan Ugaste filed legislation today designed to help Illinois compete for transformative private investment while advancing meaningful property tax reforms that benefit homeowners and businesses across the state. The legislation has been filed as House Bill 5802 (HB 5802).
While the legislation was prompted by the ongoing discussion surrounding a new Chicago Bears stadium, Rep. Ugaste said the debate caused the public to begin discussion of a much larger issue: Illinois’ property tax system is broken, property taxes are too high, and they need to be fixed now.
“The Bears stadium discussion highlighted a problem that extends far beyond one project,” said Rep. Ugaste. “Illinois has some of the highest property taxes in America. Not only do those taxes make it harder to attract major investments, they also make life more expensive for every homeowner and make it difficult for our businesses to compete. This legislation addresses all these challenges.”
The proposal modifies the prior Megaprojects/Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) framework to strengthen taxpayer protections, improve government transparency and accountability, and provide property tax reform for the rest of the state.
The two statewide property tax reforms included that will benefit every Illinois property owner—not just communities hosting a megaproject are:
• All property tax referendum questions would appear only on the November General Election ballot, ensuring the greatest possible voter participation.
• The practice of “back-door” bond rollovers would end, meaning there would be no more rolling over of bonds once they are paid. The local taxpaying body would instead have to go back to the public with a referendum if they wanted to again bond for more funds.
“The Bears helped expose a flaw in our system, but this legislation is about much more than football,” Ugaste said. “Illinois should be able to compete for major employers, corporate headquarters, advanced manufacturing, entertainment venues, research campuses, and other transformational investments without asking taxpayers to write a blank check. At the same time, we should be giving taxpayers property tax reform to help lower taxes.”
“While we need to create more economic development, we need to help and protect taxpayers,” Ugaste said. “This legislation does both. It creates a responsible framework for attracting world-class investment while strengthening local control, improving transparency, and advancing property tax reforms that benefit families and businesses throughout Illinois.”
“The Bears may have started this conversation, but the reforms in this bill are just the start of more reforms needed so Illinois can compete for other investments and give taxpayers across the state the property tax relief they need to make life more affordable.”
The legislation now awaits consideration in the Illinois General Assembly.
Rep. Dan Ugaste serves Illinois House District 65, which includes parts of Kane and DuPage counties. For more information, contact Rep. Ugaste’s office at 630-797-5530 or visit his website at repugaste.com.
The enclosed fact sheet is here. Please consult that before asking questions in comments.
* I asked our resident school-related expert commenter “JS Mill,” to give me some thoughts…
1. Limiting property tax referendums to November general elections really handcuffs schools. These issues take years to pass and when you genuinely need revenue, this reduces the chances and puts a big strain on schools and could lead to seriously unsafe facilities. as it is, most referenda take multiple attempts to pass these days, raising taxes is never popular no matter how much it is needed. Referenda for building bonds usually do better than Education Fund referenda but that isn’t saying much. Every election the IASA/IASB publish a spreadsheet with referenda results and it also includes they type of referenda. The results are not pretty. Districts do know that we do better in the off year elections but sowhat? That is usually when pour efforts pay off because motivated interested and informed voters vote most often, at least when it comes to school referenda. It isn’t our fault people are lazy or too disinterested to get out and vote.
2. I really don’t get the bond rollover issue. You definitely cannot do that with just any bond, and not all bonds require referenda. Working cash bonds and Health/Life/Safety bonds do not. New buildings always require referendum, additions do not. If you really want property tax reform, fund all schools. We get 83% of our funding through local property tax and 1% sales tax in Lee County. If the state even funding 50% (currently about 12% for us) we would drastically reduce our levy, but we can do that since we are not a PTELL district. PTELL needs to go as well. PTELL districts won’t lower their levy because it is so hard to capture the rate again when you need it. Bring back the school construction grant. That went away in the early 2000’s (I am pretty sure some districts are still waiting for their money from 2007). Those grants were as much as 50% of costs. Or extend the 1% facility sales tax tpo the entire state like Iowa does.
In the end, districts like ours wonder why the state has any business meddling in this stuff since they are barely a factor in funding for districts like ours. All they do is regulate but they have nearly no skin in the ga,
Ugaste is actually a pretty decent legislator, but his proposals would make a hard task nearly impossible.
Discuss.
- Save Ferris - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 9:53 am:
“Limiting property tax referendums to November general elections really handcuffs schools”
100% correct. Also, it would force decouple the funding vote from the board member vote. At present, school board votes are all at the March cycle, no? I’d think it would be in the voters’ interests to have the bonding on the same ballot as the people who propose it.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:16 am:
This is a relatively straight forward policy problem. Property taxes are high because the State Government does not adequately fund K-12 education. State Government does not adequately fund K-12 education because they do not collect enough income tax and also have other legislative priorities. The only real meaningful fix to this is to raise income taxes. There are a lot of ways to do that, and we even tried to change the constitution to make a progressive income tax structure. At that time, of course, someone told all of the stakeholders “don’t worry, I’ve got this” and then did in fact not have it, not get it, and is so burned by the experience he has communicated an interest that approaches zero in supporting another attempt. Oh, by the way, the most expensive tax expenditure for the state is the “third rail of politics” because in Illinois we believe on letting the folks most responsible for our fiscal concerns and unfunded pension liabilities run out on the check and are quite brazen about it.
In some fashion, you can say “your property taxes are high because we don’t want millionaires to pay taxes on their federally taxed retirement income” and it is an accurate statement.
Our state is challenged in that so many of our elected officials are only interested in leading from behind and unfortunately a lot of the folks severing in leadership positions are also interested or at least making a best effort to lead from behind.
Comprehensively addressing our tax structure which causes property taxes to be very high is something that requires the leaders to be in front and the folks that would be most appropriate to lead that effort to the front seem to be no where near the procession.
Besides our leaders preferring to follow where folks are already headed, another big problem we have here is that we seem to be willing to enact policy that screws younger folks for the benefit of older age cohorts and the wealthy. I get that, though, folks need to fund raise and the older cohorts tend to be more involved in the electoral process. Now that I write that out, I realize that is also just another example of leadership from behind.
Fixing the reliance on local property taxes to fund K-12 education has never been a priority. The discussion as to why just gets uglier the farther back in history we visit.
- Think Again - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:24 am:
=In some fashion, you can say “your property taxes are high because we don’t want millionaires to pay taxes on their federally taxed retirement income=
Is that you Frerichs ?
- Paul Powell - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:41 am:
Limiting property tax referendums to high turnout elections is not anti democratic, it’s common sense
Low turnout primaries are dominated by special interest groups
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:42 am:
Not being able to roll over a bond and putting new funding to a referendum is a great idea
- ChicagoBars - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:44 am:
I don’t know if there were exit polls on the millionaire tax amendment but I think one of its big problems was people didn’t believe a new progressive income tax would remain a millionaires only tax for long. And that was before Covid. Seeing how CPS handled that windfall would be further oppo gold if some coalition could even somehow get it on a ballot.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:47 am:
===Is that you Frerichs ? ===
Nah, I’m just someone who doesn’t favor a tax code that allows millionaires to pay zero income tax after a career of paying income tax rates that were so low because the state refused to adequately fund their pension systems and ran up other debt.
There’s no good defense of the tax expenditure. It only exists because our elected officials are too cowardly to ask people to pay to support their grand kids education and pretend like it is smart politics.
So, don’t be shocked when people who were born after 1980 don’t have a whole lot of respect for their elders. Why should they?
- Jack in Chatham - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:48 am:
I have read the labor contracts for a couple school districts. I was bothered that there was no pay differential for areas of chronic shortage. I believe Math, Science, Computer Programming and Special Education certified teachers should be earning a premium. I also don’t believe there is much to support higher salaries for teachers with Master’s degrees. Teachers used to be playground attendants but there are part-time employees for that now. $110,000 for a Social Studies teacher in Chatham seems pretty rich for downstate for a 180 teaching effort.
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:53 am:
If Ugaste really wants to focus on lowering property taxes he should run for the local school board on a platform of slashing teacher compensation and reducing curriculum.
Gotta hand it to him, nice job capitalizing on the Bears hype for a property tax media stunt.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:58 am:
===$110,000 for a Social Studies teacher in Chatham seems pretty rich for downstate for a 180 teaching effort. ===
There is a handy website for you “back when coke was a nickle” folks that will help you understand that $110,000 now has the same buying power as ~56,000 in the year 2000.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 11:05 am:
There shouldn’t be a teacher, anywhere teaching anything from math, science, to basic automotive that isn’t making six figures.
If this bill handcuffs a district’s ability to receive funding thereby paying competitive wages, (and if JS Mill says it, I believe it) then the Bears can point their noses east and hit the gas.
- TNR - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 11:25 am:
Some reasonable proposals here from Ugaste that obviously would engender a lot of oppo from school districts and the teachers’ unions. Back in the day, I could see how elements of his bill could be pulled into some sort of old-fashioned compromise with a structured, bipartisan roll call. But I’m not sure there’s a will to do that for what is essentially the “Bears bill.” And besides, such an agreement would require the Speaker to jettison or suspend his 60-Dem vote rule.
- Walker - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 12:13 pm:
Ugaste is a fair critic of our property tax system, but of course, this posting has nothing to do with any Bears proposals.
- thisjustinagain - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 12:15 pm:
Why does property tax reform have to be rolled into a Bears giveaway bill? Single subject clause, anyone? And the proposal are only the tip of a giant iceberg of property tax problems. We cannot piecemeal property tax reform this way.
- Garfield Ridge Guy - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 1:11 pm:
One of the reasons the Fair Tax failed is that it included a marriage penalty. Democrats have to show that they are not anti-family; giving people financial incentives to avoid marriage, as the kids say, “ain’t it.”
Our politicians should never speak to any representative of the Chicago Bears about any matter ever again.
- very old soil - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 1:29 pm:
Just thinking. Aren’t property taxes an inefficient way to tax retirees and, in most cases, get more tax dollars from the wealthy? I am retired and pay more in property taxes for my two-bedroom house than I would if my retirement income was taxed.
- Annon'in - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 1:33 pm:
Does this imply the representative might be willing to support an effort to keep the Bears?
BTW neither item lowers taxes. Could make future hikes tougher.
- JS Mill - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 1:56 pm:
=At present, school board votes are all at the March cycle, no? I’d think it would be in the voters’ interests to have the bonding on the same ballot as the people who propose it.=
The November cycle, while increasing turnout, is not locally focused like the Spring elections. These issues are local and should stay. If people are too lazy to come out top vote on local issues it isn’t a schools fault. If you want to pejoratively call schools “special interests” that is up to you, but they serve everyone and kids deserve to be in a decent building even if the state won’t finance it. I always laugh a very cynical laugh when politicians talk about good schools but, in my career, have never stepped up to make a substantive improvement in rural Illinois. Rather, they always say taxes are too high, want locals to be paid more while cutting off the funding.
=We cannot piecemeal property tax reform this way.=
Amen.
=Some reasonable proposals here from Ugaste that obviously would engender a lot of oppo from school districts and the teachers’ unions.=
School districts (boards) represent the local populations that they serve and are elected by. The same that can be hurt be this approach. If you need to use “teachers’ unions” unions as your boogeyman then you probably have no other rationale. Aside from CTU, most unions represent the working class/middle class of our communities. They might be challenging to work with at times but, in my experience, they are well intentioned people dedicated to serving our kids. That is a lot more admirable than spending hundreds of millions to avoid taxes and suppress the wages of workers. But you do you.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 2:10 pm:
=== If people are too lazy to come out top vote on local issues it isn’t a schools fault===
OK, you’re a prized commenter, but you very well know that’s the biggest reason why these elections/referenda are held in the spring.
Tax increases involve all residents. The maximum number of people should be voting on them.
- Captain Obvious - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 2:58 pm:
While I am not prized commenter, I agree that tax votes should only be allowed in November and I’ll go even further. Every property owner should get a notice in the mail about the upcoming referendum. This spring I was informed of a local school referendum by seeing it on the ballot. First I had heard about it. No way to make an informed decision at that point so no choice but to vote no. Would that be expensive? Yep. But it’s the least they could do considering the amount of money they generally are asking for.
- Save Ferris - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 3:42 pm:
“I agree that tax votes should only be allowed in November”
Forcing a school district to wait up to 2 years to get funding for a rate or capital referendum is not a good idea. If the money is needed and a board see fit to go for a referendum, don’t make them wait.
- Stix Hix - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 4:12 pm:
–This spring I was informed of a local school referendum by seeing it on the ballot.–
Another reason I prefer voting by mail. It gives me time to study the ballot.
- Bond, Star Bond - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 4:15 pm:
As I recall, the megaproject bill only expanded and changed some of the ratios of public-private investment and borrowing caps for the existing STAR Bonds program (which actually capture sales taxes to pay for the bonds) for this new class of “megaprojects.” Did STAR bonds have required a referendum or public vote required, or were municipalities just able to issue STAR Bonds with a vote of their board?
- JS Mill - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 4:33 pm:
=but you very well know that’s the biggest reason why these elections/referenda are held in the spring.=
Rich, sorry for getting a bit workled up there, my bad I will do better. And, as I acknowledged to you district do know that. Strangely, I am 0-2 in Spring referenda and 1-0 in November. One was a sales tax referendum which we thought would have the best chance in the spring, it eventually passed in November (years after I left the district). But circumstances, communication, and how the local public perceives their district matter more than timing. I was able to pass an Ed Fund referendum during a November cycle which we initially assumed would fail but wanted to begin communicating need. The very real possibility of cancelling elective classes and extracurriculars (which we could show a real financial need with very transparent financials) led to a solid win thanks to a teacher and parent coalition. No district I know tries an Ed Fund or Building referenda under the radar. We usually get the word out in a big way.
=First I had heard about it. No way to make an informed decision at that point so no choice but to vote no. Would that be expensive? Yep. But it’s the least they could do considering the amount of money they generally are asking for.=
So you don’t read the paper or show much interest in the published ballot samples? Do you have internet? The schools website is worth checking in on it was absolutely listed there. Tons and tons of public information. Especially if you know an election is coming up. We know from data and experience that in 2026 a mailer is almost worthless.
=Forcing a school district to wait up to 2 years to get funding for a rate or capital referendum is not a good idea. If the money is needed and a board see fit to go for a referendum, don’t make them wait.=
Yep. Inflation for construction is big these days. My current district saw a project go from $900k to $1.5 million in 4 years. It was a renovation, they decided to wait on and it cost big.
=Another reason I prefer voting by mail. It gives me time to study the ballot.=
Which is publicly available well ahead of the election. Good on you.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 6:13 pm:
===Democrats have to show that they are not anti-family; giving people financial incentives to avoid marriage, as the kids say, “ain’t it.”===
Won’t someone think of the married households whose Federal Gross Adjusted Income exceeds one quarter million dollars?
You can believe what you will, but a slight tax hit of less than 3% for incomes over a quarter million dollars isn’t why the progressive tax amendment failed.
It’s the fact that you were allowed to develop that opinion were allowed to pretend like it was a valid criticism of the law.
Especially considering that the Illinois Income Tax does not exist in a vacuum. There are still significant federal advantages to being married.
While tax policy might be causing lower rates of marriage and lower rates of everything else among the young folks, it is the tax policy that allows billionaires to exist and promote the concentration of wealth that is the problem, not this fantasy that folks would avoid getting married over less than a 3% tax on their income exceeding a quarter million dollars. Just ball parking here, but you’re talking about a figure that is going to be less than 10% of households and an income that most people don’t realistically see until mid career at best.
I sincerely hope this isn’t the reason why you were duped into voting against it.
- Two Left Feet - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 6:24 pm:
Indian Prairie 204 recently passed a $420m bond referendum with 73% approval in the November 2024 election. Maybe the district intentionally avoided the April election so there would be greater voter participation which would dilute the power of special interests. They got greater voter participation. While not all voters are property owners, the property owners are benefiting with remodeled schools. Did the greater voter participation help, who knows?
- BigPicture - Monday, Jul 13, 26 @ 10:04 pm:
Having served on a school board for 3 terms (12-years) and voted to put three referenda on the ballot (Ed-Fund in 2011, and Ed-Fund and separate Building in 2017) that all passed, I know very well the (bad and good) rationale for the municipal elections (spring of odd years).
It is easy to connect the dots in this way —- property taxes are too high -> they’re too high because too many referenda pass -> too many referenda pass because they are allowed to run in the municipal elections.
It is also not hard to connect the dots this way — people want quality schools for their communities -> the state hasn’t had a school capital program for two decades and while EBF has provided more equitable funding, it, by design, has all tier 3 and tier 4 districts (313 districts over a 1/3 of all districts) so state funding isn’t even trying to keeping up with inflation for these districts -> while no one wants higher property taxes, voting yes on referenda is the only viable option for people wanting quality schools.
All the debate about restricting referenda misses the bigger picture - schools need money and, at the moment, local school boards have only one option - raise property taxes.
Any realistic proposal to prevent property taxes from being too high has to include sources of revenue to replace property taxes for school districts.
—-
Captain Obvious wrote “No way to make an informed decision at that point so no choice but to vote no. Would that be expensive? Yep”
The cost to get through the noise of a general election in November, especially a contested presidential or senate race, would be very expensive — it seems ironic that the recommended solution to a funding problem for local school districts is to spend significant money to reach and educate low information voters. It is also telling that “at that point so no choice but to vote no” - why shouldn’t the default option be to trust the elected school board members and vote yes.
I totally agree in principle with Rich’s comment “Tax increases involve all residents. The maximum number of people should be voting on them”. However, I could argue that municipal elections (that have the greatest impact on local residents taxes, especially those with referenda on the ballot) should be the elections that have the most people voting. Unfortunately, I not naive enough to think that will happen.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 26 @ 1:53 am:
===However, I could argue that municipal elections (that have the greatest impact on local residents taxes, especially those with referenda on the ballot) should be the elections that have the most people voting. ===
I am in favor of moving every election to even-numbered years. No exceptions. This has become ridiculous.
- BigPicture - Tuesday, Jul 14, 26 @ 7:07 pm:
=== Rich wrote: “I am in favor of moving every election to even-numbered years. No exceptions. This has become ridiculous.” ====
I can get on board with that. Forcing the separation of the school board elections from the school referenda that doesn’t make sense (or in Rich’s word “ridiculous”.