SB0216 amends the Illinois Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) to create a new voter-initiated process for reducing a taxing district’s aggregate extension base, which would lower the district’s limiting rate in future years. Under the bill, if a petition signed by at least 10% of voters from the most recent gubernatorial election is filed, the question must be placed on the ballot at the next general or consolidated election. If approved by a majority of voters, the district must reduce its aggregate extension base by the amount and for the levy years specified in the petition.
The bill also changes the definition of PTELL’s annual extension limitation for taxable year 2025 and thereafter. Instead of using the prior year’s Consumer Price Index increase, the limitation would be the lesser of 5% or the average percentage increase in the CPI over the 10 years immediately preceding the levy year, unless voters approve a different rate through referendum. The bill retains the existing referendum process for increasing the extension limitation and for establishing or increasing a debt service extension base, while adding the new reduction referendum procedure.
Impact
SB0216 would amend Sections 18-185, 18-205, and 18-212 of the Property Tax Code and add new Section 18-207. Its practical effect would be to give voters in a taxing district a direct mechanism to force a lower property tax growth base, which could reduce future levy capacity for affected local governments, including school districts, municipalities, park districts, and other non-home rule taxing districts subject to PTELL. It would also alter how the annual PTELL cap is calculated beginning in 2025 by tying it to a 10-year average CPI measure rather than the prior 12-month CPI change, potentially smoothing year-to-year inflation effects and changing future property tax growth limits statewide for covered districts.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcripts and no recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal legislative sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears designed to appeal to property tax reduction advocates and voters seeking more direct control over local tax growth. At the same time, it would likely be viewed cautiously by taxing districts that rely on PTELL revenues and by local officials concerned about reduced fiscal flexibility.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s effect on local government revenue authority. Supporters would likely emphasize taxpayer control, lower property tax growth, and a voter-driven check on taxing districts. Opponents would likely argue that allowing voters to reduce the aggregate extension base could constrain funding for schools, public safety, pensions, infrastructure, and other local services, especially because the reduction would affect future limiting rates. A secondary issue is the shift from a one-year CPI measure to a 10-year average CPI for the extension limitation, which could be seen either as a more stable cap or as a change that may not track current inflation conditions closely.