DuPage panel says no to cap on assessments
Robert Sanchez, Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sept. 8, 2004

An annual 7 percent cap on residential property assessments that's already been adopted in Cook County is getting the cold shoulder from DuPage County politicians.

It simply isn't the right idea for DuPage homeowners, a county board committee concluded on Tuesday. The panel is recommending that the full board reject the cap, which is an optional part of a new state law.

"People in Cook County are getting a break," said board member Patrick O'Shea of Lombard. "That's good for them. But the (assessment) cap doesn't work here."

DuPage County leaders' reaction to the 7 percent assessment cap came despite state Rep. Lee Daniels pushing the idea earlier this year. Daniels made the suggestion after suburban assessors reported large increases in home values. In DuPage County, some neighborhoods saw home values shoot up 30 percent.

The state-imposed tax cap already limits the amount many governments can levy, but rising assessments often mean higher tax bills, anyway.

But DuPage officials say that while the new law caps assessments for a three-year period, it doesn't restrict the amount of money taxing bodies can raise. Therefore, an assessment cap only rearranges who pays for it.

Supporters of the assessment cap argue the tax burden would shift more toward businesses and landlords, whose properties wouldn't be protected by the assessment cap.

But, assessors say, DuPage doesn't have enough businesses to absorb all the cost of giving some homeowners tax breaks. So, they are predicting a jump in tax rates.

That could mean bigger property tax bills for the owners of lower-priced homes and senior citizens who have their property assessments frozen.

"We believe that those who are least able to afford it will be paying the taxes of people who are most able to pay," O'Shea said.

In fact, county officials predict that only 5 percent of DuPage's homeowners would see a significant tax break if the county board adopts an assessment cap.

"What you would probably have is a relatively small number of people getting tax relief and a larger number of people having an additional tax burden," county board Chairman Robert Schillerstrom said. "And I don't think that's what the intent of the legislation was."