The Illinois House Revenue and Finance Committee met on February 26 to consider two significant measures with potential implications for counties across the state: a property tax transparency proposal (HB 1818) and a new “megaproject” economic development incentive tool (HB 910, House Amendment 1). The latter bill is critical to the possible Chicago Bears' stadium project in Arlington Heights.
Both measures advanced out of committee following lengthy discussion and testimony. Each will next be considered by the full House and be subject to possible amendments.
Property Tax Transparency Proposal Advances
The committee first considered House Bill 1818 (Representative Tarver, D-Chicago), a measure described by its sponsor as a transparency reform focused on property tax assessments.
The bill would require county assessors to make electronic assessment records publicly available and, in counties with populations exceeding 3 million, to publish valuation inputs and computations used to determine a parcel’s value. The sponsor emphasized repeatedly that the measure does not change levy authority, does not modify PTELL (Property Tax Extension Limitation Law), and does not alter school funding formulas.
Supporters argued that taxpayers should be able to see how assessments are calculated and that improved transparency could reduce confusion and litigation. Commercial property representatives testified that easier access to valuation data would modernize recordkeeping and promote fairness in the appeals process.
Opposition testimony came from the Cook County Assessor’s Office and the County Assessment Officers Association of Illinois. Representatives of the Cook County Assessor warned the bill could significantly alter long-standing tax objection procedures and potentially increase litigation, particularly by revisiting methodology used in assessments. They expressed concern that the bill may unintentionally shift burdens of proof in court proceedings and create additional legal costs for local governments.
The Illinois State Association of Counties (ISACo) filed a witness slip in opposition to certain provisions within the bill.
The County Assessment Officers Association voiced support for transparency goals but raised operational concerns, particularly around compliance with new federal ADA digital accessibility requirements for online records. Assessors cautioned that meeting both expanded publication requirements and federal accessibility standards may require additional time and technical resources.
During committee discussion, the sponsor acknowledged that clarifying language may be needed regarding burden-of-proof provisions.
HB 1818 was reported to the House floor on a unanimous vote of 20–0. The bill may be further amended to address concerns.
Potential County Impacts
If enacted, HB 1818 would:
- Require expanded online publication of assessment data.
- Potentially alter litigation procedures in tax objection cases.
- Increase administrative and IT demands on assessment offices.
- Raise questions about staffing, legal defense costs, and ADA compliance.
- Counties, particularly larger counties and those maintaining older record systems, may face implementation challenges if additional resources are not provided.
Committee Debates “Megaproject” Incentive Tool
The second major item was House Amendment 1 to HB 910 (Representative Buckner, D-Chicago), creating a new statewide “megaproject” incentive structure. This legislation would be used by the Chicago Bears should they elect to construct a new stadium in Arlington Heights, but may be used for other major projects as well.
The proposal would allow municipalities to negotiate special agreements with large-scale developments meeting certain thresholds (e.g., $500 million in investment; or $250 million plus 50 new full-time jobs; or $100 million plus 100 new full-time jobs).
Under the proposal:
- The project’s assessed value could be frozen at a base-year level.
- New value created by the project would not be added to the tax base during the incentive period.
- Instead, the company would make a negotiated “special payment” annually.
- A local review board, including affected taxing districts with weighted voting based on tax share, would approve agreements.
- Labor agreements and minority contracting goals would be required.
- The Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) would certify and oversee compliance.
Supporters characterized the bill as a competitive economic development tool to attract transformational projects while keeping negotiations transparent and structured.
Opponents raised significant concerns about potential property tax burden shifts. One opponent argued that freezing a megaproject’s assessed value while allowing levies to continue could shift tax liability onto surrounding taxpayers and school districts.
Committee discussion focused heavily on:
- Whether the tool could lead to property tax increases for other taxpayers.
- The role and negotiating strength of local taxing districts.\Sales tax exemptions for building materials.
- Whether safeguards are sufficient to protect school districts and smaller communities.
The sponsor emphasized that negotiations would occur locally and that taxing districts would have representation in approval decisions. The bill was advanced out of committee on a party line vote, with Democrats supportive and Republicans opposed.
Potential County Impacts
If enacted, HB 910 would:
- Possible impacts on county tax bases and levy dynamics.
- The role of counties on local review boards for megaproject agreements.
- Risk allocation between project developers and existing taxpayers.
- Long-term fiscal forecasting challenges for counties and school districts.
ISACo will continue monitoring these measures and working with members to assess impacts and identify areas requiring clarification or amendment.