SB2030 would create a new optional county-level property tax reporting program for income-producing real estate. In counties that choose to opt in by ordinance or resolution, owners of qualifying income-producing properties would have to submit physical description information about their properties to the chief county assessment officer when requested. The bill defines the kinds of properties covered, excludes several categories such as smaller residential buildings, lower-value property, hospitals, nursing homes, and certain other assessed property classes, and specifies detailed information that may be requested for different property types, including office, retail, industrial, data center, and hospitality properties.
The bill also sets procedures for notice, response deadlines, compliance, penalties, review, and appeal. A property owner would generally have 90 days to respond, and failure to do so could result in a penalty of up to 0.025% of the prior year’s market value, capped at $1,000 per property, with waiver provisions for later compliance and exceptions for good-faith or substantially compliant responses. Decisions by the chief county assessment officer could be reviewed administratively and then appealed to circuit court under the Administrative Review Law. The bill would take effect immediately and would apply only during specified reassessment periods tied to county population and general assessment cycles.
SB2030 would amend the Illinois Property Tax Code by adding a new Division 6 to Article 9 authorizing counties to require physical description filings from owners of income-producing property, and it would amend the Freedom of Information Act to exempt from disclosure financial records and data on real estate income, expenses, and occupancy submitted to county assessors, except when submitted as part of an assessment appeal. The bill preserves disclosure of compiled and anonymized data and methodologies used in property valuation, while protecting owner-submitted property-level financial information from public release. It would affect property owners of commercial and other income-producing real estate, county assessment officers, and county boards that choose to adopt the program.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at improving assessment information for income-producing properties while also adding confidentiality protections for sensitive financial data. The overall framing suggests a technical property-tax administration bill rather than a broad policy overhaul.
The main likely point of contention is the balance between assessor access to detailed property information and property-owner privacy/confidentiality. Supporters would likely argue that the bill helps counties obtain better data to value commercial and other income-producing properties more accurately, while opponents may object to the reporting burden, penalties for nonresponse, and the breadth of information requested. Another possible point of debate is the FOIA exemption for income, expense, and occupancy records, which could be criticized by transparency advocates but supported by property owners concerned about proprietary financial information.