Proceed with caution on property tax

There's little doubt that imposing its first-ever property tax is the best short-term option for the village of Schaumburg's operating budget.

We question whether it's the right thing now or for the future of the village's residents, businesses and the long-term outlook for the village that relies on commercial success.

Trustees will vote Tuesday on a property tax levy that includes nearly $24 million generated from property taxes - the first property tax in Schaumburg's 53-year history. Until now, the people who traveled to Schaumburg to shop, dine and do business have paid enough in sales and other taxes to support village operations.

The village had enough reserves to carry it through previous downturns, but not this one.

The new tax would increase tax bills about 8 percent and cost the owner of a $250,000 house about $252 per year. Trustees are trying to offset the impact on residents by eliminating its $20 vehicle sticker and about $170 in garbage fees.

For businesses, however, there is no compensation. Businesses contract with commercial haulers and most do not have enough vehicles to feel the impact of the loss of the vehicle sticker.

The Schaumburg Business Association opposes it and SBA President Laurie Stone suggests new breaks for businesses if the tax passes. We encourage village leaders to work with the SBA to help offset some of the burden.

This is a terrible time to add to the cost of doing business. When businesses suffer, their employees suffer. And, ultimately, the village's coffers suffer.

Mayor Al Larson is quick to note he cast a tiebreaking vote against a property tax 20 years ago. This time, though, he says this is the village's only way out. His critics challenge that and suggest trustees promise to pass the tax only for a year, then put the question to voters before the board would have to decide whether to collect the tax for a second year.

If trustees pass this tax on Tuesday, we like the idea of an accompanying resolution to specifically reconsider the necessity of the property tax next year. In fact, we like this idea for all local governments.

Schaumburg Trustee Marge Connelly dismissed this idea, noting that the annual required public hearing and vote on a levy is essentially a public hearing and vote on every tax that funds it. We disagree.

Many residents and businesses selected Schaumburg because of its low taxes. Trustees owe it to them to take a public vote on the property tax before it's even worked into the budgeting process. Don't just assume it's a source of revenue in future years.

We're less enthusiastic about the referendum suggestion. It's unrealistic to ask residents to vote on every tax, and a referendum would not measure the support of the group that's most affected, the business community.

Schaumburg grew and thrived partially because of its no-property-tax status. If trustees approve this proposed levy, trustees should strive to eliminate the tax in future years. Without a resolution and process that encourages that, we fear the tax will be renewed year after year after year.