Agenda - 01-10-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.nent and porulatnon moving into the DuPace's impressive expansion, what In this context•the stud\•concluded count%• to occur\ newl\- created jobs, drove the study was the 13; percent that, for the years 1966 to 1989, taxes the GFRC authors proiecte, a negative increase to property taxes during the I', increased by a greater amount to areas fiscal impact for most of the 20-year period compared to 10: percent for ' of the count•with significant nonresi- stuav period. the other counties. More specifically, 'i dential development property than to In 1991,the DuPage County Devel- the simultaneous increase in nonresi- areas \..•ithout such development. The opment Department undertook a ma- dential development (as evidenced by I study used standard multiple regres- jor study that paralleied GFRC's work. employment gains) and properr taxes I sion analysis techniques to assess the The study was conducted at the initia- i spurred the county planning depart- I growth in tax revenues for each tax . tive of the department's staff during ment to investigate the relationship code. In DuPage Count•, each parcel the height of an unprecedented build- between the two. of real estate is taxed hv approximately tng boom in the county. DuPage, The department's study took place 10 separate taxing districts, all of home to almost 800,000 residents, is in a highly charged environment. Du- which have different district bound- part of the metropolitan Chicago area Page is one of two Illinois counties au- aries. A tax code comprises all proper- and is located wes: of Cook County i thorized to levy impact fees,and it be- ties that are taxed by the same,untoue and downtown Chicago. During the gan to do so only in 1989—to the usu- I set of taxing districts. Because of the 1960-1980 period, DuPage County ex- I al protests and threats from develop- many taxing districts in Illinois. all perienced a 110 percent growth in ers. One maior developer stated, "We with different boundaries,the counn population. VVhile county growth are not embracing doing business in a encompasses several 'hundred tax code slowed during the 1980s to 18.8 per- community that doesn't embrace us. areas. This large number of tax code cent, it still exceeded the average 16.3 There's plenty of vacant land in other areas made it possible to perform a percent growth of metropolitan areas around Chicago." At the same quantitative analysis of the effect of Chicago's other four suburban coun- time,a municipal planner in the coun- different levels of nonresidential de- ties. Employment expansion was even ty lamented that "you can go to the velopment.Other variables considered more rapid;the number of jobs in Du- Planning Department and see them by the analysis included the change in 'Page County grew by 72 percent be- reviewing plans and writing studies, total residential assessed valuation;the i tween 1979 and 1988 compared to 26 but none of this activity has any effect change in the number of firms; the percent in the other counties. Despite on the world." change in the ratio of nonresidential to Ufl OF I B ]),ST,'�TES TMIT2 IVIi � I � - f"t�;, Land Development/Spring-Sumner 1993 11