Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glenview trustees weigh keeping 1% grocery tax to avoid $2.7 million cut
Summary
Facing a state repeal that ends the 1% grocery tax on Jan. 1, 2026, Glenview staff told trustees the loss would cost the village about $2.7 million annually; trustees debated continuing the tax by local ordinance, imposing alternative consumption taxes, or closing the gap through capital and operating cuts.
Glenview — Facing the state’s scheduled elimination of a 1% grocery tax on Jan. 1, 2026, village staff told the Board of Trustees on July 15 that losing the levy would reduce Glenview’s general revenue by an estimated $2,700,000 a year and asked the board for direction on whether to adopt a local ordinance to continue the tax.
Staff analyst Jillian Kookerly Dietrich summarized the options: adopt a local ordinance by Oct. 1, 2025, to continue the 1% grocery tax (which would preserve an estimated $2.7 million annually), or accept the state repeal and cover the shortfall through combinations of (a) reducing the capital improvement program (the staff analysis indicated potential annual CIP transfers could fall from about $7.6 million to roughly $4.9 million to save $2.7 million), (b) cutting operating expenditures, or (c) raising other local revenues. Staff also listed revenue alternatives in the packet: a 0.25 percentage-point increase in the home-rule sales tax (staff estimated roughly $3.97 million annually), an 18% increase in the property tax levy (estimated about $2.82 million), or a 1% food-and-beverage tax (estimated about $1.75 million). Dietrich noted municipalities that adopt an ordinance must submit it to the Illinois Department of Revenue by Oct. 1, 2025, for the tax to be effective when the state expiration takes effect.
Trustees split on the best path forward. Trustee Sidoti said maintaining the 1% grocery tax is the most reliable way to avoid service reductions and preserve planned capital projects. Trustee Bland argued for exploring consumption-based taxes (for example, a food-and-beverage levy or targeted “sin” taxes on alcohol and sugary beverages) as less regressive alternatives, and noted SNAP purchases are exempt from the grocery tax. Trustee Doran and others emphasized that raising the home-rule sales tax would reach a broader base and could exceed the grocery-tax gap, but cautioned about economic and enforcement tradeoffs. Trustee DeBoni and other trustees said they preferred preserving the status quo (Option 1) rather than cutting infrastructure or social services.
No formal ordinance vote was taken. Staff said it will return with ordinance drafts and additional data for board consideration before the statutory deadline. President Jenny and staff framed the discussion as a consequence of state action shifting long-standing municipal revenue choices to local officials.
The board asked staff to model several scenarios, including multi-year effects across economic cycles and how consumption patterns (eating out versus buying groceries) could alter revenues in downturns. Trustees also requested clarity on which grocery items are subject to the tax, and staff reiterated that application depends on statutory definitions and that SNAP purchases remain exempt. The board signaled urgency to decide before the Oct. 1 filing deadline but requested more analysis on distributional effects and potential alternatives before directing staff to prepare an ordinance.
What comes next: Staff will return with ordinance language and revenue models for the board’s consideration ahead of the Oct. 1, 2025 submission deadline.
