Table of Contents

I.

Introduction: “Property Taxes”

II.

The Property Tax System: How bills are generated
A. Levies: Determining the Cost of Local Government Services
B. Assessments: Determining the Value of Property
C. Rates: Sharing the Cost of Government
D. Bills: Funding Local Government Services

III.

How Property Taxes Can Be Reduced
A. Attacking Levies
i. Government Consolidation
ii. Additional state support for schools
B. Attacking Assessments
i. Better Data for More Accurate Valuations
ii. Exemptions
C. Attacking Rates
i. Expanding the Base
ii. Directed state support for schools
D. Attacking Bills
i. TIFs
ii. Assessment Appeals

 Table of Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Enabling Legislation
Members of the Task Force
Subcommittees and their Members
List of Subcommittee Meetings
Subcommittee Reports

 Introduction

Most people are familiar with the phrase “property taxes” and for most people the
phrase has extraordinarily negative connotations. Illinois residents face the second
highest effective property tax rate of any state in the country, according to the Tax
Foundation.1 Wallethub echoed those findings 2, and a USA Today story reported that,
relative to property values, Illinois collects more than double the national median
rate.3 That property taxes are a source of pain is hardly news to Illinois property
owners. Indeed, this field has been plowed before. The state has created property
tax study commissions in the recent and not-so-recent past, including in 1982, 4
1996,5 1998,6 and 2009.7 None of them solved the problem.
Property taxes remain a problem because the state relies so heavily on them to
fund public services. Local governments in Illinois collect about $30 billion each year
in property taxes, about 38% of total tax collections in the state. 8 The state ranks
12th among other US states for its percentage of tax collections drawn from
property taxes.9 About half of Illinois property taxes are raised within Cook County
with the balance split between the collar counties and the rest of the state. 10
Illinois relies more heavily on property taxes to fund public services than nearly
every other state. Property taxes fund the activities of just over 6,000 units of
government, including 102 counties, 1,400 townships, 1,300 municipalities, 900
school districts and 2,200 other districts. 11 The process is both vital to the delivery
of local government services and so opaque that the people who pay the bills often
do not know why they owe what their bill seeks to collect.
The property tax process is grounded in the state constitution. Article IX, Section 4,
declares that “taxes upon real property shall be levied uniformly by valuation
ascertained as the General Assembly shall provide by law.” State law outlines
procedures and local governments each play different parts, but in general, units of
1 The Tax Foundation defines a state’s effective property tax rate as the average amount of
residential property taxes paid as a percentage of owner-occupied home value. Their
analysis finds that the effective property tax rate in Illinois hovers around 2%, almost twice
the national average. See, generally, https://patch.com/illinois/across-il/illinois-property-taxrate-among-highest-nation
2 https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/
3 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/11/property-taxes-us-state-state-lookwhat-youll-pay/38909755/
4 https://vufind.carli.illinois.edu/vf-isl/Record/isl_119653
5 https://vufind.carli.illinois.edu/vf-isl/Record/isl_671452
6 https://vufind.carli.illinois.edu/vf-isl/Record/isl_892211
7 Property Tax Reform and Relief Task Force, Report to the General Assembly, December
2009
8 IDoR Tax Statistics: Property Tax Statistics 2018 Table 1
https://www2.illinois.gov/rev/research/taxstats/PropertyTaxStatistics/
9 https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-property-tax-reliance-2019/
10 IDoR Tax Statistics: Property Tax Statistics 2018 Table 1
11 IDoR Tax Statistics: Property Tax Statistics 2018 Table 4
https://www2.illinois.gov/rev/research/taxstats/PropertyTaxStatistics/

 government determine the levy, the total amount they need to meet their
obligations, and those levies are then distributed among property owners, based on
the taxable value of their property. State law and local ordinances address more of
the specifics, but what most property owners understand is the bill that arrives is
often among the largest bills they pay each year.
Property taxes have long been contentious. Property taxes have been in use since
the state was founded as a farming giant, but as the state’s economic engines
move farther and farther away from land, the connection between property
ownership and ability to pay has become increasingly tenuous. Where an owner’s
land value was once a reasonable proxy for the land owner’s ability to generate
income to pay taxes, today most jobs and most household income are removed
from any direct connection with the land. For many people, their home is their
largest capital asset. The taxation of people’s homes creates a level of insecurity
when families are constantly questioning whether they are able to afford the
property taxes and stay in their homes.
Today’s reliance on property taxes underscores how broken the system of funding
local government services has become. Too many units of government rely too
heavily on property taxes, which are predicated on the value of something that is
most often unrelated to the owners’ ability to pay.
School funding accounts for the lion’s share of local property taxes 12, despite the
1970 Constitution’s guarantee that “[t]he State has the primary responsibility for
financing the system of public education.” 13 School funding reflects the state’s
historic commitment to educating children, maintaining the state’s competitiveness,
and preparing our citizens to lead productive lives in a wide and changing mix of
occupations. But schools derive most of their support from local property owners 14
and the ability of local property owners to support schools varies greatly around the
state. In areas with declining populations and weak business sectors, funding
schools by taxing property, which is unconnected to ability pay, places schools on
unsteady footing. New revenue sources will be needed to ensure that schools can
continue to meet Illinois’ needs. New funding sources for schools could also go a
long way toward reducing school levies and thereby reducing property tax bills.
The Illinois General Assembly created this Task Force, charged to:
utilize a racial and economic equity lens to identify the causes of
increasingly burdensome property taxes across Illinois, review best
practices in public policy strategies that create short-term and longterm property tax relief for homeowners, and make recommendations
12 In 2018, property taxes extended reached $31.8 billion across Illinois, and schools
accounted for $19.7 billion of that, or 62%. The ratio was even higher in the collar counties,
where schools accounted for 69.9% of the $9.4 billion extended. Downstate reported 63.7%
of the $7.4 billion extended was for schools, while Cook County, which has the largest share
of the state’s property tax base, reported 56.3% of the $15.0 billion extended was for
schools – still a majority, but smaller than in other areas. See Table 06, Comparison of Total
Taxes Extended.
13 Art. X, Sec. 1
14 See Illinois State Board of Education

 to assist in the development of short-term and long-term
administrative, electoral, and legislative changes needed to create
short-term and long-term property tax relief for homeowners. 15
This Task Force was convened during the summer of 2019 to explore ways the
legislature can create meaningful change in the property tax bills homeowners
around the state face each year. The Task Force proved extraordinarily popular
among legislators: while the enabling legislation did not require any number of
members, nearly half of all legislators asked to serve. To accommodate this
groundswell of interest, the Task Force expanded to 88 members, and performed
most of its work through its seven subcommittees. These subcommittees held
nearly three dozen hearings around the state between early August and late
December.

15 PA 101-0181, codified at 35 ILCS 200/24-36

 The Property Tax System: How bills are generated
Illinois’ property tax system is a regular punching bag, and for good reason. The
process is opaque, the bills are large, and there is wide belief that the system is
rigged against ordinary homeowners.
The modern process of generating funds through a tax on property traces to an
Illinois Supreme Court ruling in 1901, which upended the system the state had used
for its first eight decades. Under the prior system, each property was assigned a
value and taxes were based on a fixed fraction of that value. This system relied
heavily on accurate valuations: improper or insufficient valuations would result in
reduced revenue by the units of government relying on that revenue. In late 19 th
century Chicago, the Teachers Federation determined that swaths of commercial
and industrial property were grossly undervalued, resulting in significant budgetary
shortfalls at the Board of Education. They sued, claiming that the assessment’s
deficiencies were unfair to both property owners whose parcels were overvalued
relative to other similar parcels and to units of local government who were deprived
of anticipated revenue when the property tax process failed to assess properties
uniformly.16
In 1901 the Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the teachers’ contentions and
ordered the state to develop a new way of generating revenue through property
taxes. This reformed process is still in use, with some variations, to this day. The
reformed process directs local governments to levy a fixed amount representing the
revenue they determine to be necessary. This levy is what property tax bills should
generate, regardless of how properties are valued. The new process also allows any
property owner to challenge the fairness of their assessment based on a variety of
reasons, including a lack of uniformity relative to comparable parcels. 17
To better understand how property tax bills are generated, consider this graphic 18
from Lake County which summarizes the property tax process now in place in most
counties:

16 See, generally, State Board of Equalization v The People 191 Ill 528, 61 NE 399 (1901)
17 Ibid
18 https://waucondatownship.com/assessors-office/

 Illinois’ procedures for spreading the levy among property owners has not been
copied in many other jurisdictions and remains widely misunderstood in Illinois. But
in broad strokes, here is how property tax bills are generated in Illinois:
I.

The property tax process starts with units of local government.
Thousands of service districts, schools and municipalities, among others,
levy taxes to support their work. These levies may be initially approved by
voters or may, as in home rule communities, be set without a popular
vote. A single parcel may be within the bounds of a dozen or more local
authorities, such as school boards, villages and counties, and each of
them may set levies. The levy represents the anticipated property tax
revenue for that unit of government, and regardless of how properties are
assessed, the process strives to make revenue more predictable for units
of local government. In this way, local units of government are protected
against sudden shortfalls in revenue should the assessor suddenly reduce
the taxable value of properties in the jurisdiction.

II.

Simultaneously, assessors determine the valuation of each parcel
within their jurisdiction. For the most part this process is conducted by
county assessors, but others have a role as well. For example, the Illinois
Department of Revenue sets the value for farmland and some parcels,
including those used for State and local government, cemeteries and
charities, are exempt from taxation entirely. Assessments are based on
the fair cash value of a property, modified according to the law. Any
property owner may challenge an assessment based on similar
comparable properties and appeals may be lengthy. Regardless of how the
properties are assessed, the process is designed to generate the same
amount of revenue. It is important to note that assessments are divorced
from levies. If the value of all property goes down, it is entirely possible
that bills will see only negligible changes. Similarly, if assessments
increase across the board, individual tax bills may not change appreciably.

III.

Once levies and assessments have been set, the county clerk will
compare the total levy for each unit of government with the total assessed
value of property within that unit’s jurisdiction to determine the tax
rate for that unit of government. If there are several municipalities in the
county, the clerk will look at each one in turn: if one municipality’s levy is
X, and the total value of property in the municipality is Y, and then the
rate for that municipality is X divided by Y. Looking at a different
municipality, the clerk will repeat the process: if the next municipality’s
levy is B, and the total value of property in the municipality is C, then the
rate for property in that municipality is B divided by C. The clerk repeats
this process for every municipality, school district, library district, and so
forth until rates have been calculated for all jurisdictions within its
boundaries, subject to the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL)
and other statutory considerations.

 IV.

Finally, the county treasurer will generate the actual property tax bill
for each parcel in the county. The treasurer will look at each parcel,
determine which jurisdictions contain the parcel, and apply the rate for
each of those jurisdictions to the taxable value of that parcel. The
treasurer will collect payments and disburse funds to units of government.
Treasurers also issue refunds based on appeals.

This system has several features that deserve attention. First and perhaps most
importantly, note that tax rates change every year. Unlike in states where the rate
is a fixed percentage, in Illinois the rate is determined annually by comparing the
total levy for a jurisdiction with the total taxable value of property within the
jurisdiction. All else being equal, if only the levies change but assessments do not,
or if only the total value of property changes but the levies do not, then the rate will
change every year.
The way Illinois determines tax rates has significant effects on bills that are sent to
each property owner. For instance, on a jurisdiction-wide basis, if the value of all
property stays the same but the levy increases, then the rate will also increase even
though no property is worth more than it was previously worth. Similarly, if all
property increases in value, but the levy stays the same, the rate will fall even
though each property is worth more. By itself, the value of an individual property
may have little impact on the bill that property receives; what matters more is the
relationship between the value of that property and the total valuation of all
property in the jurisdiction and the levy for that jurisdiction. If every property sees a
significant reduction but one, and that one sees a minor reduction in valuation, and
if the levy stays the same, then most properties may see a slight reduction in taxes
while the one that saw a smaller reduction will see an increase in taxes. This is
because taxes are apportioned based on the relative worth of each parcel when
compared with other properties in the jurisdiction. If a property represents one
percent of the total valuation in a district, then that property will pay one percent of
the levy in that district. If every other parcel decreases in value while that one
parcel stays the same, such that the relative worth of that property increases from
one percent to one and a half percent, the taxes owed by that one parcel will
increase because its share of the total value of property, and therefore its portion of
the total levy, will increase.
Floating tax rates, itself the result of historical reform to the system, has
implications for many of the concerns raised to and discussed by members of the
Task Force. From exemptions to TIFs to equalization to consolidation, translating
changes to part of the system into changes in tax bills is a complicated process. To
the extent anyone is seeking to reform the system primarily to reduce bills paid by
most or all property owners across the state, that reform will be difficult to
guarantee. Rather, it will take several reforms, each targeted at the unique issues of
different localities around the state, to bring change to most property owners.
Let’s look at each part of the property tax billing system in turn, to better
understand how the whole system can be reformed so that tax bills can come down.

 Levies: Determining the Cost of Local Government Services
Illinois’ 6,000+ units of local government derive $30 billion in revenue each year
from property taxes. While some of these have other sources of revenue, many are
excessively dependent on property taxes to fund their operations.
Local governments face constraints on what levies they may set. They may be
bound by the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) which, as the name
implies, limits increases in local government levies. They may need to seek voter
approval for increases, though many may raise levies themselves in line with
inflation. Home Rule units have the broadest latitude in setting levies, but even they
are bound by restrictions.

Assessments: Determining the Value of Property
The 1970 Constitution provides that “taxes upon real property shall be levied
uniformly by valuation ascertained as the General Assembly shall provide by law.” 19
State law directs assessors to determine the “fair cash value” of each parcel,
defined as “[t]he amount for which a property can be sold in the due course of
business and trade, not under duress, between a willing buyer and a willing seller.” 20
Assessing property is essentially predicting what a willing buyer would pay and what
a willing seller would accept.21 The requirement that taxes be levied uniformly does
not require that all property be assessed the same way, only that the rules be
applied uniformly. Just as buyers and sellers may consider a variety of factors when
agreeing to an arms-length transaction, so too may assessors consider a variety of
factors when predicting what value that transaction would reach, were it to take
place. Assessors can base these predictions on recent property sales, taking into
account the different characteristics of each property, but look at other factors as
well. When looking at commercial property, for instance, assessors rely more
heavily upon income and expense records than sales data for setting valuations
because sales data may be spotty, inconsistent, or not suitably comparable.
Where property is properly assessed, the cost of government may be distributed
fairly among property owners according to the law. But where assessments do not
reflect fair cash values, the burden of paying for government is shifted from some
property owners to other property owners. Most recently, analysis by the Civic
Consulting Alliance,22 buttressed by reporting by Pro Publica and the Chicago

19 Art. IX, Sec. 4(a)
20 35 ILCS 200/1-50
21 For a more thorough discussion of assessing procedures, see the Illinois Property
Assessment Institute’s Property Valuation (2018)
22 https://www.ccachicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-Residential-PropertyAnalysis-Final.pdf

 Tribune23 found that in Cook County lower valued-properties were over-assessed
relative to higher-valued properties and that residential properties were overassessed relative to commercial properties. This had the effect of shifting the cost of
government services from high-value owners to low-value owners, and from
commercial properties to residential properties. Geographically, these researchers
and reporters found that the downtown business district paid too little in taxes
relative to true property values while the neighborhoods, especially lower-income
neighborhoods, were overtaxed. This instance highlights how failures in the tax
system can result in tax bills that are unrelated to a property owner’s ability to pay.
It also shows how unjust the process can become.
Residential property owners file for exemptions with assessors, but the exemptions
are applied and the value taken from a property’s equalized assessed value by
clerks to produce the final tax rates. The dollar value of an exemption does not
come off of the property tax bill; rather, the dollar value is deducted from the
equalized assessed value of the property, prior to setting rates. That is to say,
exemptions shrink the base and increase rates. If every property owner in a
jurisdiction gets the same exemption, then the base will shrink, the rate will rise,
and the net effect of the exemption may be negligible.
If exemptions reduce the taxable value of a property to zero, then that property is
effectively removed from the rolls and taxes that it would have paid are shifted to
remaining property owners.
State law provides for the following exemptions: 24
1. General Homestead Exemption (Sec. 200/15-175): The General
Homestead Exemption reduces the Equalized Assessed Value
(EAV) of eligible homes by $10,000 in Cook County and $6,000
on other counties. To receive the Homestead Exemption, the
applicant must have owned and occupied the property as of
January 1 for the tax year in question. Note: The Alternative
General Homestead Exemption (Sec. 200/15-176) phased in an
increase in assessment in 7% increments over a ten-year period,
for assessment years 2003-2005. It is no longer available, but
counties must have opted into the Alternative in order to provide
the Long-Time Occupant Homestead Exemption under Sec. 15177, below.
2. Senior Citizens Homestead Exemption (Sec. 200/15-170): The
Senior Citizens Homestead Exemption reduces the Equalized
Assessed Value (EAV) of eligible homes by $8,000 in Cook
County and $5,000 in other counties. To receive the Senior
Citizens Homestead Exemption, the applicant must have owned
23 http://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-tax-divide-investigation-20180425storygallery.html
24 For a more thorough discussion of exemptions, see the Illinois Property Assessment
Institute’s Illinois Homestead Exemptions (2016)

 and occupied the property as of January 1 and must have turned
65 years of age or older during the tax year in question.
3. Senior Citizens Assessment Freeze Homestead Exemption (Sec.
200/15-172): The Senior Freeze Exemption allows qualified
senior citizens to apply for a freeze of the Equalized Assessed
Value (EAV) of their properties for the year preceding the year in
which they first apply and qualify for this exemption. In most of
the state, the exemption freezes the assessment of the property
at the year prior to the owner turning 65, provided that they
meet income requirements. To receive the Senior Freeze
Exemption, the applicant must be a senior citizen with an annual
household income of $65,000 or less. In the event that a senior
citizen dies, leaving a surviving spouse who is not otherwise
eligible for the exemption, the freeze continues for the tax year
in which the eligible spouse died and also the next tax year. As
this exemption is income-based, it must be applied for annually.
4. Long-time Occupant Homestead Exemption (sec. 200/15-177):
The Longtime Homeowner Exemption affords qualified
homeowners an expanded Homeowner Exemption worth the
difference between the base year and the current year, with no
maximum exemption amount. To qualify, the homeowner must
have owned and occupied the property as of January 1 for the
tax year in question, have an annual household income of
$100,000 or less, and the increase from the property’s base year
assessment must have exceeded 10% for households with
incomes up to $100,000 or 7% for other households. The
homeowners may not receive both the long-term occupant
exemption and the general homestead exemption. Homeowners
must be apply for this exemption annually, and the county must
have elected to be subject to the Alternative General
Homeowners Exemption under Sec. 15-176.
5. Homestead Improvement Exemption (Sec. 200/15-180): The
Home Improvement Exemption allows a homeowner to make up
to $75,000 worth of improvements without increasing the
home’s taxable market value for the new improvements for at
least four years.
6. Returning Veterans’ Homestead Exemption (Sec. 200/15-167):
Veterans returning from active duty in armed conflict are eligible
to receive a $5,000 reduction in the Equalized Assessed Value
(EAV) of their property for only the taxable year in which they
return.
7. Homeowner Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities (Sec.s
200/15-165 and 169): Veterans with a service-connected
disability as certified by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

 are eligible for this annual exemption. It the Equalized Assessed
Value (EAV) on the qualified veteran's primary residence,
depending on the degree of the veteran’s disability.
8. Homestead Exemption for Persons with Disabilities (Sec. 200/15168): This exemption provides qualified homeowners with an
annual $2,000 reduction in the Equalized Assessed Value (EAV)
of the property.
9. Natural Disaster Homestead Exemption (Sec. 200/15-173): This
exemption shall be granted for homestead properties that are
rebuilt following a natural disaster. The amount of the exemption
equals the difference between the assessed value in the
assessment year immediately following repairs made within two
years of a disaster and the pre-disaster assessed value.
Although the assessment may continue to climb in ensuing
years, the exemption is fixed at the difference between those
two years. The exemption is available until the owner sells or
transfers the property.
10.Community Stabilization Assessment Freeze Pilot Program (Sec.
200/15-174): This exemption is available only from tax years
2015-2029. Under this program, the assessor may reduce the
assessment for residential properties that meet certain
requirements: they must be newly acquired owner-occupied
properties of six or fewer units; at least one residence on the
property must have been vacant for six months before the
owner purchased the property; the parcel must be clear of liens;
the purchase price must not have exceeded the Federal Housing
Administration’s loan limits then in place for the area; the new
owner must improve at least two primary building systems
(including electrical, heating, plumbing, roofing, etc); among
other criteria.
11.Exemption for Leaseback Property and Qualified Leased Property
(Sec. 200/15-185): Provides that property that is exempt from
taxes because it is owned by certain units of government will
remain exempt from taxes once the property is sold to a nonexempt owners and immediately leased back by the exempt
governmental body.
Some of these exemptions are “stackable” in that a property owner who qualifies for
more than one may claim more than one. Others are exclusive: a property owner
who qualifies for the Long-Term Occupant Exemption, for example, must choose
between taking that exemption or the General Homestead Exemption.

Rates: Sharing the Cost of Government

 In many states, property taxes are based on a fixed percentage of property values.
Not so in Illinois. To ensure that units of government have predictable funding
sources, Illinois backs into tax rates. County clerks are charged with comparing the
amounts levied by each unit of government with the total taxable value of property
within their boundaries, and setting the rate sufficient to derive the levy from
property taxes on those assessed values.
For example, a clerk might start with the levy assessed by one school district,
compare that with the value of property within the school district, and then derive
the rate by dividing the levy by the taxable property values. The clerk may then
move on to another school district and repeat the process, moving through every
school district with in the clerk’s jurisdiction. The clerk might then repeat the
process with municipalities, comparing each individual village’s or city’s levy with
taxable property values in that village or city, and so forth. For each jurisdiction and
in every year, tax rates are set each year to generate the levy from the economic
base.
The 1970 Constitution allows any county with a population of 200,000 or more to
assess property differently, and there are currently 10 counties with a population of
200,000 or more who are eligible to treat residential property preferentially. If
residential property is assessed as a smaller percentage of fair cash value than
other properties, residential owners make up a smaller share of the taxable base
within the jurisdiction than they would otherwise, and therefore owners of
residential property are responsible for a smaller portion of the levy. Currently, only
the largest, Cook County, assesses residential property at a lower share of fair cash
value than other classifications.

Bills: Funding Local Government Services
The final step in the property tax bill generation process is performed by county
treasurers. After the clerk has determined the rate for each unit of government, the
treasurer will issues bills for each parcel within their jurisdiction. The treasurer will
collect the total taxes due from each parcel, based on the rate for each jurisdiction
that contains the parcel and the taxable value of each parcel has.

TIF
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts are a development tool intended to generate
money to support economic development in areas that otherwise lack resources.
The goal of the TIF is to channel tax revenue generated by the incremental growth
in the value of properties within the district back into economic development
projects for the district.

 TIFs are authorized by state law dating back decades. 25 There are many different
kinds of TIFs authorized by state law, each with different goals and procedures.
Broadly, however, they all involve collecting the taxes resulting from incremental
growth within their boundaries and funneling that revenue to local use within the
district.
A TIF is not designed to raise taxes on any property owners but sometimes TIFs do
lead units of government to increase levies earlier than they otherwise would.
Because the process has sparked concern and confusion, it is worthwhile to lay out
how TIF districts affect tax revenue and tax bills.
The property tax process works the same regardless of the presence of a TIF,
inasmuch as units of government continue to set levies, property continues to be
assessed based on fair cash value, and taxes are collected so that each property
owner pays their proportionate share of the various levies.
Once a TIF has been created, however, the treasurer will divert the amount of the
bill that results from incremental growth within the district and reserve that portion
of tax payments within the TIF. That is to say, the tax rate for each unit of
government, multiplied by the change in total taxable value within the TIF, will be
deducted from payments to each unit of government and instead paid to the TIF.
Other units of government will continue to draw revenue from the TIF, but the
amount of that revenue is frozen at the amount raised at the start of the TIF;
additional revenue is attributed to growth and is siphoned off to pay for
development projects.
TIFs have been cited for creating several problems. TIFs reduce funds available to
other units of government by reserving that portion of the tax bills for properties
within the TIF for the development purposes of the TIF. Where the new development
attracts new residents, who may need additional or different local public services,
the TIF can result in new strains on public budgets without providing new revenue to
pay for those services. Because TIFs reduce the net income received by units of
government, some units may decide to raise their levy sooner than they otherwise
would, raising taxes for all property owners. Some TIFs have also seen slow growth
in valuation, meaning that there is little incremental tax revenue to be diverted to
the TIF. Some TIFs have been in place for so long that they continue beyond the
point where they are needed to pay for the initial economic development projects;
in this instance, the TIF may be hoarding money that would otherwise go to local
government for little or no apparent public purpose.

Appeals
Treasurers collect the taxes and deliver to each unit of government their share of
each payment. Treasurers also issue refunds to property owners whose assessment
appeals run beyond the setting of rates by the clerk.

25 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4 et seq.

 Total payments to each unit of government may be reduced to an amount less than
the levy for one or more of several reasons. While the property tax system is
designed to ensure that each unit of government has reliable funding and is
intended to deliver the full levy every year, there are circumstances that might
reduce total revenue for each unit of government. In addition to reductions based
on TIF district, the principle reasons total revenue might not match the levy are:




Non-payment of tax bills. Where property owners fail to pay taxes on time,
treasurers automatically charge interest and will ultimately offer the taxes for
sale to buyers who may, ultimately, take title to the property.
Errors in assessments. If a property owner challenges their assessment and
their challenge continues beyond the time when the clerk sets rates, then a
reduction in their assessment will reduce the amount generated by payment
of that rate. An assessment reduction under these circumstances will mean
that the property owner will be refunded the difference and total payments to
each unit of government will be reduced proportionately. If an appeals takes
several years, the total overpayment for all years the overassessment was
applied may be refunded at once, and the entire refund deducted from the
next distributions of property taxes collected for the local governmental unit.

Each component of the property tax system works together to raise funds for public
services, and each component could be reformed to reduce the cost of those
services. Changes to the system will affect different parts of the state differently
and no one change will effectively reduce property tax bills for all Illinois property
owners. This Task Force recommends that the General Assembly consider a variety
of reforms which, collectively, will attack each part of the property tax system and
help to ensure that property owners do not pay more than is needed.

 How Property Taxes Can Be Reduced
Starting from a clear understanding of how property taxes are calculated and how
bills are generated, the Task Force recommends a few steps at each point in the
process that can have a clear and lasting impact on the tax bills that property
owners receive each year. No one of these proposals will fix the problem by itself,
and no one proposal will reduce taxes for all property owners across the state.
Problems vary from region to region and a comprehensive package is the only way
to address the disparate problems that result in higher than necessary property tax
bills. If there were a silver bullet, someone would have found it. It will take multiple
changes to effect real change for the largest number of Illinoisans.

Attacking Levies
Illinois is now somewhat infamous for having so many units of government.
Governing Magazine reports that Illinois leads the nation in units of government
with 2,828.26 Governing’s list, however, does not count special districts. The US
Census Bureau concurs with Governing’s ranking, but places Illinois first with 6,968
units, “approximately 2,000 more than second-place Pennsylvania.” 27 Academic
observers cite several reasons for the proliferation of units of government, including
immigration, constitutional issues, and financial considerations. 28 Each unit was
formed for a specific purpose and goal, and in time that purpose and goal may
diminish in significance. It is not easy to create a unit of government, and neither is
it easy to eliminate one.
While many electoral boundaries in Illinois are redrawn every decade, jurisdictional
boundaries of units of government may seem to be fixed in stone. And yet, all
boundaries were drawn by higher units of government. At statehood in 1818, there
were just 15 counties, and Cook, now the largest, was not among them. Today’s
governmental boundaries have been drawn and redrawn over time. 29
The process of redrawing governmental boundaries has gone by various names
including “consolidation” or “annexation.” It has sometimes run smoothly and
sometimes been contentious but it has always required action by a higher level of
government. Counties, townships and municipalities are creations of the State, and
so the General Assembly must set rules for creating or merging units of
government. Indeed, the State has done so since nearly the beginning.

26 https://www.governing.com/gov-data/number-of-governments-by-state.html, accessed
November 19, 2019
27 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb12-161.html, last
accessed November 19, 2019.
28 https://www.cgs.niu.edu/Policy_Profiles/policy-profile-volume13-number1-Too-ManyGovernments-.pdf
29 See, generally, John H. Long, ed., Illinois: Atlas of Historical County Boundaries (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2000)

 

Consider the City of Chicago. At its founding in 1833, fifteen years after the
Congress formed the State of Illinois, the city was four blocks square on the
south side of the Chicago River. The city expanded through its early years,
adding land between 12th Street, Chicago Avenue and Halsted in 1837 and
continuing to expand again so that by the time of the Great Fire, the city was
bounded to the north by Fullerton Avenue, to the west by Pulaski Road (then
Crawford Avenue) and to the south by 38th Street.30 While most historians
today do not blame her cow for the Great Fire, Mrs. O’Leary lived near what is
now the intersection of Roosevelt and Canal streets, in an area that was not
part of the city until that first expansion in 1837. As the city expanded,
formerly independent units of government merged through a process of
annexation into one larger unit of government.



Consider the example of the Town of Austin. Part of Cicero Township, Austin
was an independent municipality founded in 1865. By the late 1890’s, the
town boasted a sizable and affluent population. The law at the time allowed
for annexation based on a popular vote in each township. In a referendum
held in the City of Chicago and in Cicero Township, most residents of both the
city and of the township voted to approve the annexation, even as most
residents of the Town of Austin voted against. Despite opposition from the
Town of Austin, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the annexation.

There can be inherent political complications to merging units of government.
Existing units of government have elected officials, and they may have friends and
family together with vendors and contractors who rely on its continued existence.
Too, especially when the object is to merge elementary and high school districts,
non-contiguous boundaries can be problematic. Voters in districts with low debts
may object to merging with districts that have higher debt levels, especially if the
old debts must be paid by voters across the newly expanded district.
Consolidation can create administrative efficiencies that reduce costs and eliminate
the need to increase the levy. Consider, particularly, school districts. There are over
300 elementary school districts and nearly 100 high school districts. Each of these
has administrative staff and combining them into unified school districts will result
in efficiencies of scale. The degree and scope of savings will vary from district to
district and from school to school, but in parts of the state, merger will make great
financial sense, and without raising concerns about geographic dislocation for
students.
Policymakers today can set rules for combining units of government. But there are
also several eventualities that any consolidation plan should address, including:
1) What to do with legacy debts and bonded obligations. If a unit of government
borrowed funds for operations or capital maintenance or development, those
debts will continue. To the extent possible, it would make sense that debts

30 By Blomgren Bros & Co. - https://archive.org/details/historyofchicago02andr, Public
Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51403951

 follow the improvements they purchased, but where that is not possible,
other arrangements will be necessary.
2) What to do with legacy real property. Some units of government own property
that is leased to or otherwise used by other units of government. How will the
merger of one unit with another affect the disposition of that property? If the
leasee merges with the leasor, problems may resolve themselves but
otherwise complications may arise.
3) What to do with legacy functions. If some of the duties of a unit of
government are to be transferred to another unit, then the enduring unit of
government may see increases in operating costs. Where this happens,
perhaps some of the expiring unit’s tax levy can be transferred along with the
transferred duties.
These issues and others like them can be thorny and particular. Codifying a general
rule to urge consolidation is therefore rife with risk. This is not a one-size-fits-all
situation. Nonetheless the legislature has enacted provisions to facilitate
consolidation in some areas and this Task Force encourages future General
Assemblies to apply the same enthusiasm to other situations. These bills implicitly
acknowledge that general rules are difficult to formulate where local conditions are
so varied. Rather, the two bills enacted in 2019 specify how to handle situations
that do not fit the ordinary cookie-cutter approach.




SB90 (PA 101-0298) sets procedures for the merger of drainage districts with
municipalities. Drainage districts may serve multiple municipalities and so
allocating tax revenue to the newly responsible towns and villages is not as
simple as shunting all of the levy to one unit of government. Instead, SB90
provides a framework for dividing the revenue from a dissolved taxing district
among the agencies that will assume responsibility for the work,
proportionate to the amount of utility they will absorb.
HB348 (PA 101-0230) provides a process for townships in two counties to
dissolve and distributes the associated levies.

While distinct, in both of these cases the appropriate level of government was left
up to the voters31. The Government Consolidation Subcommittee, chaired by
Representative Jonathan Carroll, supports this approach and, further, believes that
voters should have access to as much information as possible to make an educated
decision at the ballot box. One effective way to collect the necessary contextual
information about potential consolidations would be to perform an audit of all
governmental bodies in Illinois, including school districts and policing districts. For
this reason, the Subcommittee recommends giving more power to the Comptroller
so that they can both collect information and perform audits. Related, it will first be
necessary to determine the exact number and function of all bodies of government
in the state, as this is currently subject to debate.

31 The proposed Citizens Empowerment Act (HB 307) would take this a step further,
allowing voters to petition for a referendum to dissolve a unit of local government,
transferring all real and personal property, assets, etc. to a determined receiving
government.

 One area of especially great opportunity for consolidation is school districts. The
Government Consolidation Subcommittee, the School Funding Subcommittee, and
the Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee each recommend the
consolidation of school districts into unit school districts, in which both primary and
high schools are operated under the same district control. The Subcommittees
believe this will help lower the property tax burden by reducing overhead
administrative costs contributing to the levy. These mergers should be implemented
over a 10-year period to minimize disruptions to the schools, but the end date
should be firm. Merging so-called “feeder” schools with their associated high
schools would provide the economies of scale while minimizing disruptions to the
educational paths of students and their families. As mentioned above, this transition
would require an audit of current school districts to identify areas of potential
workforce consolidation, eliminating redundancies and expensive mandates
currently required for school districts.
Beyond consolidation, the School Funding Subcommittee, co-chaired by
Representative Fred Crespo and Representative Stephanie Kifowit, recommends
additional strategies to reduce the overall property tax levy and more efficiently
fund education in Illinois:






Close the loophole allowing districts to engage in continual bonding after a
bond issue has expired
Allow school districts to petition for increased state funding to lower their
levy
Mandate that school districts with significant cash reserves must either abate
the excess reserves by lowering the levy or identify the purpose and
utilization timeline of the funds
Instruct the Illinois State Board of Education to establish best practices for
school districts with regards to debt and reserve ratios and mandate longterm planning goals to assess the financials of a district

Additionally, the School Funding Subcommittee and the Assessments and
Exemptions Subcommittee both recommend the identification of new revenue
streams to fund education and the Evidence Based Model to shift the financial
burden away from property taxes. Both subcommittees recommend expanding the
sales tax base to achieve this goal.
The Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Mary
Flowers, recommends the removal of school districts from the property tax system
so that the State of Illinois has sole funding responsibility for K-12 schools.
As discussed earlier, TIFs reduce the net income received by units of government,
leading some units to raise their levy sooner than they otherwise would, raising
taxes for all property owners. For this reason, the School Funding Subcommittee
recommend legislation that would mandate a provision of 25% of all newly-created
TIFs to be set aside for the school districts. School districts are often the largest
units of government affected by TIFs, and protecting them from the full cost of TIFs
may reduce the pressure to raise levies in response to TIF creation. This School

 Funding Subcommittee also recommends the enactment of legislation to release all
uncommitted TIF funds to public service providers if not used within five years.
The Pensions Subcommittee, co-chaired by Representative Kathleen Willis and
Senator Robert Martwick made these recommendations, which may reduce upward
pressure on local government levies:




Enact SB 1300 (now P.A. 101-0610): Consolidation of nearly 650 downstate
and suburban pensions into two, enabling greater investment power and
alleviating the burden of property tax payers. After the subcommittee
delivered their recommendations, the bill was signed into law December 18,
2019.
Explore alternative methods of amortization so as to provide greater
transparency regarding the level of funded liability as well as the true amount
of annual employer contributions necessary to meet the long term funding
goals of the pension fund.

The PTELL Subcommittee, co-chaired by Representative Mark Walker and
Representative Amy Grant, recommends:









Allow “recapture” of lost opportunities for tax extension increase by
extending ability to compute current PTELL limits as if the maximum levy was
taken within previous years
Consider allowing voter referenda to lower taxes in all PTELL taxing bodies
Study and remove, spread out, or limit growth elements in the PTELL formula
for new construction and possibly TIF expiration, in order to reduce growth
and volatility in our tax burden
If the overall Commission wishes to propose a Tax Freeze, extend PTELL to all
home-rule and non-home rule taxing districts, and establish 0% CPI and allow
0% for other growth rates, using the PTELL formula. (See SB 0316, 2015). If
the overall Commission wishes to propose a Reduction to previous lower tax
rates, then one simple potential move would be to allow the PTELL formula to
calculate a new extension based not on the current year extension, but on
the lowest extension of the previous five years
Do not rule out eliminating PTELL entirely and relying on local governments
and local voters to produce responsible funding and taxing levels

Attacking Assessments
State law charges assessors with determining the “fair cash value” of a property but
does not always give assessors the best tools for making that determination.
Quickly determining the fair cash value of a property, though the assessor and any
appeals, makes possible the collection of the fairest tax bills and the distribution of
the most accurate levies to fund local services. Steps to increase the accuracy of
assessments can make sure that no one pays more than they should, and that
services are not interrupted by sudden shocks to revenue.

 Further, state statute emphasizes the need for fair and uniform assessments.
Without uniformity, value estimates for similar properties become too variable and
neighbors in similar homes pay different property tax rates and amounts. This result
is not only unfair, but also undermines trust in the system. In July of 2017, the Civic
Consulting Alliance, a non-profit, non-partisan consulting firm, at the request of the
Cook County Board President and the former Cook County Assessor began
conducting an independent, pro bono evaluation of Cook County’s property tax
assessment system, with a focus on residential properties. 32 One of their primary
recommendations was to take measures of uniformity and regressivity at every step
of the property assessment process: from initial valuations to appeals with the
Board of Review. Requiring these evaluation metrics at the state level would ensure
that properties throughout Illinois would be assessed fairly and uniformliy.

Income-producing property
Particularly with income-producing properties, it can be near impossible to make an
accurate determination of what price a building would fetch in an arms-length
transaction without knowing the income and expenses associated with owning that
building. While residential properties, especially single family homes, can usually be
fairly valued with sales data, commercial properties may not change hands for
years, may not be situated near comparable properties, and may have unique
features that complicate comparisons with the few properties that are sold in any
given year.
Where assessments are inaccurate, the cost of local government is unfairly
distributed among property owners; if lower-valued properties are overvalued and if
higher-valued properties are undervalued, the result is a regressive assessment
system that transfers wealth from owners of lower-value properties to owners of
higher-valued properties This is particularly true across classifications: where
income-producing properties are underassessed, family homes receive higher bills.
The International Association of Assessing Officers recommends that all building
owners be required to submit income and expense data every year and this Task
Force concurs with the recommendation. Making more and more timely information
available to assessors will increase fairness and accuracy in the property tax
system.
The Assessments and Exemptions Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Will
Davis, recommends data transparency in the assessment process to ensure fair and
accurate assessments.

Exemptions
32 Civic Consulting Alliance: Residential Property Assessment in Cook County (February
2018)
https://www.cookcountyassessor.com/assets/forms/CivicConsultingAllianceStudyResults.pdf

 As noted earlier, residential property owners file for exemptions with assessors, but
the exemptions are applied and the value taken from a property’s equalized
assessed value by treasurers.
Exemptions serve to protect some property owners from the full liability they would
otherwise face, but the portion of the levy not paid by one owner is shifted to other
owners, so the savings can be illusory. If every property in a district gets the same
reduction, then the taxable base shrinks, the rate increases, and bills may not be as
low as property owners may expect.
Because exemptions result in a fixed-dollar reduction in the taxable value of a
property, the benefits are greatest for properties with the lowest fair cash value.
This is to say, as a percentage of taxable value, exemptions have the greatest
impact at the lower end of the valuation range. Especially because some
exemptions are stackable, property owners may see their total taxable value greatly
reduced.
Exemptions can be a great boon for property owners who qualify for the largest
amount of exemptions, but there can be unintended consequences to higher
exemptions. In some instances, exemptions can reduce the total taxable value of a
home to zero, effectively removing the property from the tax rolls. And if enough
homes are removed from the tax rolls, then the base will shrink to a point where
rates appreciably rise for homes remaining with taxable value. While exemptions
are commonly understood as a benefit for homeowners, in some parts of the state,
raising exemptions could result in noticeably higher, not lower, bills for homeowners
who remain on the rolls.
The Assessments and Exemptions Subcommittee recommends:






Increase homestead and senior exemptions in the collar counties to the same
levels as Cook County. All other counties should have a right to increase their
exemptions to the same levels by county board.
Provide properties that qualify for a homestead exemption a 10% state rebate
on the total amount of the property tax bill.
Share industrial and commercial assessed value across the county for school
funding.
Increase training requirements of township assessments who represent
townships with over $1 billion of valuation.

The Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Mary
Flowers, and the Assessments and Exemptions Subcommittee recommend that the
legislature restructure the Long-Time Occupant Homestead Exemption to assist
residents in rapidly gentrifying areas. It is worth noting that this gentrification
predominantly affects communities of color.
Further, the Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee recommends:


Remove financial bonus incentives for assessors paid by the State of Illinois
for non-farm assessments, as this is a conflict of interest

 



Ensure that assessors are using a new valuation model based on fair
practices as recommended by the International Association of Assessing
Officers and refund erroneous assessments or overpayments
Provide homeowners that have been disenfranchised to the point of losing
their homes with access to a land records audit. Additionally, place homes
that have been foreclosed upon into a land bank rather than selling them
through auction, allowing these families to regain assets that were improperly
taken from them.

Attacking Rates
We discussed consolidation above as a way of attacking levies, but consolidation
can also result in lower rates. In regions that have lost economic pillars, where the
value of property has declined and rates have increased as a result, consolidation
with neighboring units of government can expand the base and may reduce the rate
that property owners must pay. Indeed, combined with administrative savings, a
decline in the levy may mean that all property owners, in both of the old districts,
pay less.
The Assessments and Exemptions Subcommittee recommends sharing industrial
and commercial values across the county for school funding, which would tend to
reduce rates on commercial and industrial property in many districts.

Attacking Bills
Property tax bills are generated by county treasurers, who collect the proceeds and
distribute revenue to local units of government. While this part of the process may
appear mechanical, there are reforms that would help reduce bills even at this late
stage.

Appeals
Property owners have multiple opportunities to appeal an assessment, and in some
parts of the state, including Cook County, the sheer volume of appeals is
astronomically high. Units of local government are penalized for assessor’s
inaccuracies. Better assessments up front might reduce the volume of appeals, but
the appeal process itself should move faster so that rates can be properly
calculated and the size of refunds can be held to a more reasonable level.
Appeals should also be held to higher standards. Outside observers have found that
appeals increase inequality in the system by lowering assessments on high-value
properties far greater than on low-value properties, relative to fair cash value. Not
only should assessors have better data (see above) but all parts of the review
process should have stricter deadlines and more resources so that assessments can
be correctly set at objective fair cash value in a timely manner.

 The Assessments and Exemptions Subcommittee recommends:





Fund the Property Tax Appeals Board (PTAB) to its required levels to complete
its backlog of appeals
Explore the possibility of moving industrial and commercial appeals in Cook
County away from PTAB and place them under the sole authority of the
Circuit Court
Extend the assessment appeals timeline from 30 days to 90 days

TIF
The Task Force’s TIF District Subcommittee, co-chaired by Senator Ann Gillespie and
Representative Rita Mayfield, explored TIF policy and performance in Illinois. The
Subcommittee hosted two hearings, with presentations from a number of subjectmatter experts and stakeholders in the TIF process. They have distilled this input
into three main recommendations for reforms to TIF district laws:

1.

Shorten the timeframe for TIF districts from 23 years to 10-15 years.

Data analyses presented to the Subcommittee indicate that the benefits of a wellstructured TIF district are typically realized within 10 years of its creation. While
some TIFs may require additional time to satisfy bondholder repayment
requirements, a 15-year term would still allow enough time for this process. The
Subcommittee recommends requiring periodic reports on the TIF’s performance and
the distribution of its surpluses, to address concerns about transparency and
effectiveness.

2.
Tighten the definition of “blighted” to incorporate objective standards rather
than an open interpretation of the “but for” requirement.
The Subcommittee finds that the term “blighted” is used too expansively and that
the “but for” standard is applied too loosely. Creating objective standards around
characteristics such as average household income or foreclosure rates in the
proposed district would help ensure that TIF districts are created in areas that truly
would not see economic growth and development without the assistance offered
through the TIF.

3.
Increase transparency around the TIF district’s impact on the property tax
collection process in other taxing bodies.
The Subcommittee recommends that the impact of the TIF district on other taxing
bodies should be an ongoing process of documentation made public to taxpayers.
This recommendation aligns with the School Funding Subcommittee’s
recommendation to enact legislation establishing a full disclosure of the impact on

 taxes for any referendum to increase property taxes on residents. It is the belief of
both committees that residents deserve to know the long-term impact on their
property taxes beyond the incremental increase in the levy.

The Task Force gratefully acknowledges the aid of the Department of Revenue, the
State Board of Education, and the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, all
of whom provided key logistical and other support throughout this process.

 Appendices
Authorizing Legislation
The Property Tax Relief Tax Force was created with the General Assembly’s approval
of SB1932 (now P.A. 101-181), which was signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker
on August 2, 2019. The statute states:
(35 ILCS 200/24-36)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on December 31, 2020)
Sec. 24-36. Property Tax Relief Task Force.
(a) The Property Tax Relief Task Force is created. The Task Force shall utilize
a racial and economic equity lens to identify the causes of increasingly
burdensome property taxes across Illinois, review best practices in public
policy strategies that create short-term and long-term property tax relief for
homeowners, and make recommendations to assist in the development of
short-term and long-term administrative, electoral, and legislative changes
needed to create short-term and long-term property tax relief for
homeowners.
(b) The members of the Property Tax Relief Task Force shall include and
represent the diversity of the people of Illinois, and shall be composed of the
following:
(1) members appointed by the Governor;
(2) members of the House of Representatives appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(3) members of the House of Representatives appointed by the
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives;
(4) members of the Senate appointed by the Senate President; and
(5) members of the Senate appointed by the Senate Minority Leader.
The members of the Task Force shall serve without compensation and
shall elect co-chairs from among their number.
(c) The Department of Revenue shall provide administrative support for the
Task Force. The State Board of Education and the Governor's Office of
Management and Budget shall collaborate with the Task Force as requested
by the Task Force.
(d) Within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st
General Assembly, the Task Force shall submit an initial report to the
Governor and General Assembly outlining short-term and long-term
administrative, electoral, and legislative changes needed to create short-term
and long-term property tax relief for homeowners.

 (e) The Task Force shall submit a final report to the Governor and the General
Assembly outlining short-term and long-term administrative, electoral, and
legislative changes needed to create short-term and long-term property tax
relief for homeowners by December 31, 2019.
(f) This Section is repealed December 31, 2020.
Appointed Members
The Property Tax Relief Task Force is comprised of the following members:
Appointed by the Illinois House of Representatives:
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Gershowitz
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Amy Grant
Ann M. Williams
Anne Stava-Murray
Barbara Hernandez
Bob Morgan
Celina Villanueva
Charles Meier
Curtis J. Tarver, II
Dan Brady
Dan Ugaste
Daniel Didech
David Welter
Deanne Mazzochi*
Deb Conroy
Debbie Meyers-Martin
Delia C. Ramirez
Diane Pappas
Frances Ann Hurley
Fred Crespo
Grant Wehrli
Jeff Keicher
Jennifer GongJoe Sosnowski*
Jonathan Carroll
Joyce Mason
Karina Villa
Kathleen Willis
Katie Stuart

Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Kelly M. Burke
Kelly M. Cassidy
La Shawn K. Ford
Lamont J. Robinson, Jr.
Lance Yednock
LaToya Greenwood
Marcus C. Evans, Jr.
Mark L. Walker
Martin J. Moylan
Mary E. Flowers*
Mary Edly-Allen
Michael J. Zalewski
Michael Unes
Michelle Mussman
Mike Murphy
Monica Bristow
Nathan D. Reitz
Rita Mayfield
Robert Rita
Sam Yingling*
Sara Feigenholtz
Stephanie A. Kifowit
Terra Costa Howard
Thomas Bennett
Thomas Morrison
Tim Butler
Tom Weber
William Davis

Appointed by the Illinois State Senate:
Senator Andy Manar
Senator Ann Gillespie
Senator Bill Cunningham

Senator Christopher Belt
Senator Craig Wilcox
Senator Cristina Castro

 Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator

Dale Righter
Dan McConchie
Don Harmon
Donald DeWitte*
Elgie R. Sims Jr.
Heather Steans
Iris Y. Martinez
Jil Tracy*
Julie Morrison
Laura Ellman
Laura Fine
Laura Murphy
Linda Holmes

Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator

Mattie Hunter
Melinda Bush
Napoleon Harris III*
Rachelle Crowe*
Ram Villivalam
Robert Martwick
Robert Peters
Steve Stadelman
Suzy Glowiak Hilton
Terry Link
Toi Hutchinson
Tom Cullerton

Appointed by Governor Pritzker:
Emily Miller, First Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Governor Pritzker
Cameron Mock, Chief of Staff Governor’s Office of Management & Budget

 Task Force and Subcommittee Meetings & Presenters
The Task Force and its seven Subcommittees met a total of times from
August – December of 2019:
1. Property Tax Relief Task Force – August 12th, 2019
Elected Co-Chairs and Subcommittee Chairs
Adopted Rules and Procedures
2. Property Tax Relief Task Force – August 29th, 2019
Presenters:
Illinois Dept. of Revenue – Adrianne Suits Bailey, Property
Tax Division Manager
3. School Funding Subcommittee – September 12th, 2019
Presenters:
Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) – Robert Wolfe, Chief
Financial Officer
4. Government Consolidation Subcommittee – September 12th, 2019
5. Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – September 13th, 2019
Presenters:
Cook County Assessor’s Office – Fritz Kaegi, Cook County
Assessor
6. PTELL and Local Governments’ Tax Levy Subcommittee –
September 16th, 2019
Presenters:
Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois (TFI) – Carol Portman,
President
KDM Consulting (on behalf of TFI) – Mike Klemens, Founder
Illinois Association of Park Districts – Jason Anselment,
Legal/Legislative Counsel
Illinois Library Association – Scott Pointon, Director of White
Oak Library District
Illinois Township Officials of Illinois – John Towbridge, Lisle
Township Assessor
Illinois Municipal League – Brad Cole, Executive Director
7. TIF Districts Subcommittee – September 18th, 2019
Presenters:
Center for Tax and Budget Accountability – Ralph Martire,
Executive Director
Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois – Carol Portman, President
Illinois Policy Institute – Adam Schuster, Director of Budget
and Tax Research
8. School Funding Subcommittee – September 19th, 2019
Presenters:
Vision on Issues and Choices in Education (VOICES)
ED-RED – Sarah Hartwick, Executive Director
Large Unity District Association (LUDA)
South Cooperative Organization for Public Education
(SCOPE)
Legislative Education Network of DuPage (LEND) – Peg

 Agnos, Executive Director and Jennifer Figurelli, Assistant
Director
Illinois High School District Organization (IHSDO)
9. Government Consolidation Subcommittee – September 19th, 2019
Presenters:
Illinois Policy Institute – Adam Schuster, Director of Budget
and Tax Research
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning - Lindsay
Hollander, Sr Policy Analyst
Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois – Carol Portman, President
Illinois Association of Drainage Districts – Richard Lyons,
Director
Northfield Township Highway Commissioner – Tim Rueckert
Illinois Township Officials of Illinois – Taylor Anderson,
Lobbyist and Jerry
Crabtree, Assistant Director
10.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – September 20th, 2019
11.Pensions Subcommittee – September 23rd, 2019
Presenters:
City of Chicago – Suzy Park, Budget Director
Department of Insurance – Elba Acevedo, Manager of
Compliance
University of Illinois at Springfield – Prof. Kenneth Kriz,
Public Administration
12.Government Consolidation Subcommittee – September 24th, 2019
Presenters:
Illinois Policy Institute – Adam Schuster, Director of Budget
and Tax Research
Metropolitan Planning Council – Adam Slade, Associate
Illinois Board of Education – Amanda Elliot, Co-Director of
Legislative Affairs
ED-RED – Sarah Hartwick, Executive Director
Legislative Education Network of DuPage (LEND) – Peg
Agnos, Executive Director
Illinois Association of School Boards & Illinois Statewide
School Management Alliance
Deanne Sullivan, Director of
Governmental Relations
Illinois Principals Association – Alison Maley, Governmental
Relations/Public Relations Director
Illinois Education Association – Larry Frank, Director of
Educational Policy Research
13.School Funding Subcommittee – September 25th, 2019
Presenters:
Advance Illinois – Robin Steans, President
Community College Board – Matt Berry, Chief of Staff
Association of Community Trustees and Illinois Council of
Community College Presidents – Jim Reed, Executive Director
14.TIF Districts Subcommittee – September 25th, 2019
Presenters:
ED-RED – Sarah Hartwick, Executive Director

 Illinois Municipal League – Brad Cole, Executive Director
Illinois Education Association – Larry Frank, Director of
Educational Policy Research
Illinois Tax Increment Association – Thomas Henderson,
Executive Director
Northwest Suburban Teachers Union – John Braglia,
President
Illinois Economic Development Association – Rob French,
Executive Director
Invest Aurora – Bryan Gay, President & CEO
City of Aurora – Martin Lyons, Finance Director
City of Rockford – Mark Williams, Economic Development
Manager
Chicago Teachers Union – Kurt Hilgendorf, Legislative and
Policy Director
University of Illinois at Chicago, Urban Planning & Policy –
Prof. Rachel Weber
South Suburban School Districts – Peg Agnos
15.Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee – September 25 th,
2019
Presenters:
National Black Agenda Consortium – Revin Fellows, CoFounder/Vice Chairman
Concerned Residents of Matteson – Anton Seals and Brian
McGraw
Takes a Village 1, Inc. – LaShondra Graves
South Suburban Housing Center – John Petruszak, Executive
Director
16.PTELL and Local Governments’ Tax Levy Subcommittee –
September 26th, 2019
Presenters:
Chicago Teachers Union – Kurt Hilgendorf, Legislative and
Policy Director
Illinois Association of School Business Officials – Michael
Jacoby, Executive Director
ED-RED – Sarah Hartwick, Executive Director
Arlington Heights School District 25 – Stacy Mallek, Chief
School Business Official
17.School Funding Subcommittee – October 1st, 2019
Presenters:
County Assessors:
Warren Dixon, Naperville Township Assessor
Mark Armstrong, Kane County Supervisor of Assessments
John Emerson, Director of Tax Extension, Kane County
Clerk’s Office
Brit Hitchins, Director of Tax Extension, Will County
Clerk’s Office
Kip Wilson, Tax Extender, Lake County
Fritz Kaegi, Cook County Assessor

 Tatia Gibbons, Chief Legal Counsel, Cook County
Assessor’s Office
Illinois State Board of Education – Robert Wolfe, Financial
Officer
and Amanda Elliot, Executive Director of Legislative
Affairs
18.PTELL and Local Governments’ Tax Levy Subcommittee – October
4th, 2019
19.School Funding Subcommittee – October 4th, 2019
20.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – October 4th, 2019
Presenters:
Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) – Ron
Tabacynski, Director of Government Affairs
Train Research and Advocacy Education Network (TRAEN) –
Andrea Raila, President
Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois – Carol Portman, President
21.Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee – October 4 th, 2019
Presenters:
National Black Agenda Consortium – Revin Fellows, CoFounder/Vice Chairman
Takes a Village 1, Inc. – LaShondra Graves
22.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – October 11 th, 2019
Presenters:
University of Illinois at Chicago – Prof. David Merriman,
Public Administration
23.Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee – October 12th,
2019
Presenters:
National Black Agenda Consortium – Revin Fellows, CoFounder/Vice Chairman
Takes a Village 1, Inc. – LaShondra Graves
24.Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee – October 15th,
2019
Presenters:
Concerned Taxpayers of Coles County – Rob Perry, James Di
Naso, Anthony Travis
25.Government Consolidation Subcommittee – October 17 th, 2019
Presenters:
Civic Federation – Laurence Msall, President
26.Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee – October 17th,
2019
Presenters:
National Black Agenda Consortium – Revin Fellows, CoFounder/Vice Chairman
Anthony Travis, The Tax Doctor
Brother’s Keepers – Lakia Colquitt, Chief Operating Officer
27.Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee – October 23rd,
2019
Presenters:

 African-American Chamber of Commerce – Sherwin Jenkins,
Chairman of the Board
State Representative Barbara Hernandez
City of Aurora – Chuck Nelson, Deputy Mayor
National Black Agenda Consortium – Revin Fellows, CoFounder/Vice Chairman
Brother’s Keepers – Lakia Colquitt, Chief Operating Officer
Anthony Travis, The Tax Doctor
28.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – October 25 th, 2019
Presenters:
Holly Kim, Lake County Treasurer
Cook County Assessor’s Office – Sarah Garza Resnick, Chief
Deputy Assessor
and Tatia Gibbons, Chief Legal Counsel
29.Property Tax Relief Task Force – October 28th, 2019
Presenters:
Property Tax Relief Tax Force Subcommittee Chairs
30.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – November 1st, 2019
Presenters:
Stephanie R. Kennedy, LaSalle County Chief Assessment
Officer
Chicago Rehab Network – Kevin Jackson, Executive Director
31.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – November 15 th, 2019
Presenters:
Cook County Board of Review – William O’Shields, Chief
Deputy Commissioner;
Timnetra Burruss, Chief of Staff; Larry Rogers, Jr.,
Commissioner
32.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – November 22 nd, 2019
Presenters:
Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB) – Mauro Glorioso,
Executive Director
and Steven Waggoner, Chief Administrative Law Judge
33.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – December 6 th, 2019
Presenters:
Illinois Property Assessment Institute – John Horbas,
Analyst (Retired)
34.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – December 13th, 2019
Presenters: (SCHEDULED)
McCracken, McCracken, & Behrens, PC – Jennifer B.P.
Truong, Attorney
Siegel & Callahan, PC – Jerry D. Brown, Attorney
O’Keefe, Lyons, & Hynes, LLC – Whitney Carlisle, Attorney
35.Assessments & Exemptions Subcommittee – December 20th, 2019
Presenters: (SCHEDULED)
Shawnee School District 84 – Shelly Clover-Hill,
Superintendent
Housing Action Illinois – Bob Palmer, Policy Director
36.

 Property Tax Relief Task Force Subcommittees
Assessments and Exemptions Subcommittee
Chair: Representative William Davis
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Daniel Didech
Deanne Mazzochi
Debbie Meyers-Martin
Delia C. Ramirez
La Shawn K. Ford
LaToya Greenwood
Rita Mayfield

Representative Sam Yingling
Senator Christopher Belt
Senator Dale Righter
Senator Jil Tracy
Senator Laura Ellman
Senator Robert Martwick

Government Consolidation Subcommittee
Chair: Representative Jonathan Carroll
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Gershowitz
Representative
Representative

Anne Stava-Murray
Dan Ugaste
David Welter
Jennifer GongJoyce Mason
Lance Yednock

Representative Michelle Mussman
Representative Sam Yingling
Representative Thomas Bennett
Senator Dale Righter
Senator Dan McConchie
Senator Julie Morrison
Senator Laura Ellman

Social and Economic Disparities Subcommittee
Chair: Representative Mary E. Flowers
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Delia C. Ramirez
La Shawn K. Ford
Lamont J. Robinson, Jr.
LaToya Greenwood
Marcus C. Evans, Jr.

Representative Sam Yingling
Representative Thomas Morrison
Senator Christopher Belt
Senator Robert Peters

Local Pensions Subcommittee
Co-chairs: Senator Robert Martwick and Representative Kathleen Willis
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Dan Ugaste
Jeff Keicher
Joe Sosnowski
Karina Villa
Mary Edly-Allen
Sam Yingling

Representative Thomas Morrison
Senator Craig Wilcox
Senator Cristina Castro
Senator Steve Stadelman
Senator Suzy Glowiak Hilton

 PTELL and Local Governments’ Tax Levy Subcommittee
Chair: Representative Mark L. Walker
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Amy Grant
Bob Morgan
Diane Pappas
Marcus C. Evans, Jr.
Mike Murphy
Sam Yingling

Representative Terra Costa Howard
Senator Craig Wilcox
Senator Dan McConchie
Senator Don Harmon
Senator Laura Fine
Senator Linda Holmes

School Funding and School Property Taxes Subcommittee
Co-chairs: Representative Fred Crespo and Representative Stephanie Kifowit
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Gershowitz
Representative
Representative
Representative

Anne Stava-Murray
Barbara Hernandez
Dan Brady
Deanne Mazzochi
Diane Pappas
Jennifer GongJoyce Mason
Lance Yednock
Marcus C. Evans, Jr.

Representative Michelle Mussman
Representative Mike Murphy
Representative Nathan D. Reitz
Representative Sam Yingling
Representative Sara Feigenholtz
Representative Terra Costa Howard
Representative Tom Weber
Representative William Davis
Senator Donald DeWitte
Senator Jil Tracy

TIF Districts Subcommittee
Co-chairs: Representative Rita Mayfield and Senator Ann Gillespie
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Deanne Mazzochi
Frances Ann Hurley
Grant Wehrli
Katie Stuart
Kelly M. Burke
Kelly M. Cassidy
Lamont J. Robinson, Jr.
LaToya Greenwood
Mary E. Flowers
Mary Edly-Allen

Representative Monica Bristow
Representative Sam Yingling
Representative Sara Feigenholtz
Representative Stephanie A. Kifowit
Senator Cristina Castro
Senator Dan McConchie
Senator Donald DeWitte
Senator Laura Murphy
Senator Mattie Hunter
Senator Rachelle Crowe

 Subcommittee Reports