Sales tax, tobacco tax push doom Nebraska's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' for property tax relief

State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth, at podium, with Gov. Jim Pillen and State Sen. Barry DeKay of Niobrara, from left. Brandt serves as chair of the Legislature's Natural Resources Committee. DeKay chairs the Agriculture Committee. May 7, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — Nebraska's version of 'One Big Beautiful Bill' for property tax relief went up in smoke Monday despite an effort to narrow new revenues to increased taxes on cigarettes and vapes.
It becomes the third property tax package in the past year to propose and fail to garner traction to use new sales tax revenues to lower property taxes. It also deals a significant blow to Gov. Jim Pillen's pledge to keep property taxes flat this year as he eyes reelection.
Legislative Bill 170, led by State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth, failed 30-15. It needed 33 votes to overcome a filibuster from opponents across the political spectrum who opposed the tax 'shift.
The proposal originally sought to add sales taxes to 20 currently exempt goods or services, including pop, dating services, chartered jets, swimming pool cleaning and maintenance services and pet grooming. It also sought to hike the taxes on cigarettes (up to $1.36) and vapes (up to 40%).
The original package anticipated $110 million in new revenue, with $100 million directed to property tax credits to offset property taxes paid to local K-12 school districts.
'Property taxes remain one of the most painful burdens our residents face, impacting everyone from family farmers to first-time homeowners,' Brandt said. 'This legislation is a responsible, targeted effort to address the burden by broadening Nebraska's tax base.'
However, as happened at the end of both the 2024 regular session and an 18-day special session Pillen called last summer, lawmakers ultimately rejected expanded sales taxes on several goods and services, which could have raised about $53 million, Brandt's estimates indicated.
'It's just rebranded or repackaged from the prior two failed attempts that this Legislature has not moved forward for a variety of different reasons, with strong support across a politically diverse coalition,' said State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln.
Brandt sought to narrow LB 170 to a lower revenue target of $80 million for new property tax relief each year by striking any broadening of the sales tax base. Instead, he proposed to increase cigarette taxes to $1.64 per 20-pack, which he said would raise nearly $60 million each year, and to increase vape taxes to 40% wholesale, which he said would raise about $15 million.
Both versions of LB 170 also included a proposal from Fremont State Sen. Dave Wordekemper to capture a 20% tax on cigars, cheroots and stogies purchased online, which senators estimated would raise $100,000 in revenue.
That left roughly $5 million that would have needed to be made up later, such as by adding back a handful of expanded sales taxes to the package.
State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward, who has fought for increased taxes on vapes, said property tax relief is necessary for the grandmas or grandpas across Nebraska, as well as retirees and veterans, who are being priced out of their homes because of property taxes.
Hughes, State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte and a handful of other conservatives in the officially nonpartisan Legislature defended the shift to new sales tax revenue as targeting 'optional' goods or services.
'We are so dang lazy we can't even go to the McDonald's drive-through by ourselves to go pick up our food. We hire someone to pick it up, and that's a service, and we're not even talking about taxing that service,' Hughes said.
A vote against LB 170, supporters said, was a vote against property tax relief.
'Don't tell me you're representing your constituents when you say you don't want to lower property taxes, because you aren't representing your constituents,' said State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte. 'You're representing some ideology.'
Much of the pushback to LB 170 was bipartisan, including from Republican State Sens. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area, chair of the Legislature's Revenue Committee, and Stan Clouse of Kearney, who said the bill was not 'sustainable' relief.
Clouse, a former longtime Kearney mayor, said the relief was 'not real' and was 'simply increasing revenue streams.' He suggested eliminating unfunded mandates was a better focus.
Added von Gillern: 'This is putting dollars into the top of a bucket that has a hole in the bottom of it.'
State Sen. Beau Ballard of Lincoln, a Pillen appointee, criticized LB 170 and its narrower components as a 'tax increase with no end in sight' that wasn't the right path forward, even as he identified property tax relief as a top priority for his district.
Von Gillern and State Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman said the increased revenue also wouldn't keep up with property tax growth, which was nearly $300 million in two of the past three years. The exception in annual increases that high was last fall, after the state took on the tab for property taxes previously levied by community colleges.
The state budget passed last week included about $57 million in expanded property tax credits for next year, and about $11 million more for homestead exemptions. Even combined with the $80 million in Brandt's bill, property taxes would likely increase statewide next year.
That stands in direct contrast to Pillen's pledge to hold property taxes flat. He has said that, without 'a shadow of a doubt,' he and allies would find additional property tax relief this year.
Storer, a rancher in north-central Nebraska, said she was concerned that the continued reliance on property tax credits was 'feeding the demon' and taking away accountability from local taxing authorities.
'We still haven't pulled the right triggers,' Storer, a freshman lawmaker, said.
Another path forward for property tax relief includes buying down property tax levies directly, an approach led by Hughes in a Pillen-backed LB 303, which also sought long-term changes to how the state funds K-12 schools.
However, the provision to lower property taxes directly has since been stripped out of LB 303 to give time for senators to further study the approach before returning next January.
On the Democratic side, State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln, who has consistently opposed expanding the sales tax to exempted items without lowering the 5.5-cent statewide sales tax rate, said the latest package would pick 'winners and losers.'
Dungan criticized repeated efforts for a 'grand slam swing' at tax policy when expansive adjustments need more time to be effective.
State Sens. Ashlei Spivey and Terrell McKinney, both of Omaha, noted LB 170 wouldn't have helped renters.
Conrad and State Sen. Dunixi Guereca of Omaha cautioned that an increased tax on nicotine products also wouldn't be paid by 'Big Tobacco' executives, but everyday Nebraskans.
Dungan and State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha added that increasing taxes on cigarettes and vapes would hopefully decrease tobacco usage, which could lead to less tax revenue.
'If we continue to just try to put a piece of tape over the hole in the boat,' Dungan said, 'it's not going to fix the actual problem.'
After the vote, Brandt said he was disappointed and that he had made his 'run' for more relief.
'If the Legislature doesn't want to give property tax relief, I don't know what else I can do,' Brandt told the Nebraska Examiner.
Voting to move forward on LB 170: Democratic State Sens. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha, Jason Prokop of Lincoln, Dan Quick of Grand Island, Jane Raybould of Lincoln and Victor Rountree of Bellevue.
Voting against LB 170: Republican State Sens. Bob Andersen of Sarpy County, Beau Ballard of Lincoln, Stan Clouse of Kearney, Glen Meyer of Pender, Tanya Storer of Whitman, Jared Storm of David City and Paul Strommen of Sidney.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

7 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Mass. considers scrapping religious exemptions for vaccinations

Advertisement In Massachusetts, parents can write a letter stating that a vaccine conflicts with their 'sincerely held religious belief' in order to exempt their children from vaccination requirements needed to enroll in public schools. State Rep. Andy Vargas and State Sen. Edward Kennedy both Advocates who oppose the exemptions say that religious exceptions are being misused by parents who are hesitant about vaccinating their children. Advertisement 'It's definitely a general pattern of people abusing the exemption, especially since But parents across the state came to Beacon Hill to testify in support of religious exemptions at a hearing of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Health. They said exemptions were essential to their first amendment right to practice their religion and to honor the concept of informed consent. 'I'm curious why diversity, equity and inclusion is not being applied to those with sincerely held religious beliefs,' Lisa Ottaviano said while testifying at the hearing. Some speakers at the hearing said they were uncomfortable with the components of certain vaccines. 'We should not be forced into violating our moral conscience by injecting products developed from aborted fetuses such as the MMR, the varicella vaccines,' said Nicholas Kottenstette, a Catholic father of four from Sterling, Massachusetts. Vaccines don't contain fetal cells, Others testifying against the bill said they wanted to protect religious exemptions because they felt that accountability measures for vaccine manufacturers were insufficient. 'I started meeting more people whose children had reactions to vaccines that were adverse, so I started doing my own research and learnt a lot of concerning things like how pharmaceutical companies have legal protection against being sued,' Maureen Trettel, a grandmother from Milford said. Advertisement Similar bills have been filed in previous sessions, so the debate over religious exemptions for vaccines in Massachusetts has been going on since at least 2019, well before the COVID-19 pandemic that made vaccines a polarizing issue. The elevation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic, to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services has drawn even more interest to the issue. Last week, Kennedy Logan Beyer, an aspiring pediatrician pursuing an MD/PhD degree in public health at Harvard, spoke in favor of eliminating religious exemptions. While volunteering at a Special Olympics event, Beyer spoke to a parent who told her that she was worried that vaccines caused autism. The mother told Beyer that she was planning to apply for a religious exemption because she was unsure about vaccinating her children. 'She told me that her family 'didn't really go to church' but you don't have to prove anything to get the exemption,' Beyer said. Beyer said that this incident made her concerned about growing vaccine hesitancy and inspired her to testify. 'At the hearing, so many parents said they just want to do what's best for their children … I love that instinct,' Beyer said, 'But I know that passing policies that help facilitate more kids getting vaccinated is really what can keep children safe.' Advertisement Harrison, mother of cancer-survivor Miranda, also understands the instinct of parents on the other side of the issue, even if she disagrees with them. In addition to Miranda, Harrison has twin six-year old boys who both have autism. 'I can know the grief and shock that parents experience when they find out their kid has autism. I get it,' Harrison said. 'But vaccines are not to blame ... autism is a result of Around 16,000 children in Massachusetts are unvaccinated without claiming an exemption — a group that the state describes as 'noncompliant students' in its documents. Many parents in opposition to the bills questioned why the bills were trained just on the 2,000 students who did have religious exemptions. 'I'm curious why the Legislature is targeting the small percentage of children with religious exemptions and ignoring the huge gap population,' said Ottaviano testifying at the hearing. Advocates for the bills said the new provisions that mandate that all schools must report vaccination numbers to the state's department of public health would address these noncompliant students as well. 'That's what the data reporting is about, we want to make sure that schools have accurate records,' Blair of Massachusetts Families for Vaccines said. 'If there is a gap … they should reach out to those students to find out why the records are not on file.' Speakers in favor of the bills were focused on eliminating religious exemptions in order to protect children who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons like allergies or problems with their immune systems. 'It's actually those people … that we're really doing this for, because they're the ones who depend on herd immunity,' Blair said. Advertisement Angela Mathew can be reached at

Yahoo

9 hours ago

• Yahoo

How Trump's big bill will directly impact your wallet — from paying your taxes and healthcare to raising a child and owning a home

While Capitol Hill wrangles over the tax-and-spending package that President Donald Trump has dubbed the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' Americans are trying to understand what the sprawling legislation could mean for them. Republican lawmakers are wrestling with the bill's multitrillion-dollar cost. They also face questions — from both within their party and outside of it — about who would win and who would lose as a result of the measure. My sister and her husband died within days of each other. Their banks won't let me access their safe-deposit boxes. What now? Investors brace for 'unpredictable spillovers' in markets after Trump announces Iran strikes 'I'm at my wit's end': My niece paid off her husband's credit card but fell behind on her taxes. How can I help her? Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. How can I buy my niece a home in her name only — without alienating or upsetting her husband? But there's no question the legislation would be a big deal for millions of Americans. The bill would keep the 2017 tax cuts enacted in the first Trump administration, and make more changes. The costs to raise a family, own a home and afford healthcare would be directly impacted by the bill. Its specifics matter to the parents of little kids and to people who are age 65 and older. The bill also has implications for car buyers, gig workers and millions of employees who make money from tips and overtime pay. On top of that, the bill would place new restrictions and requirements on public assistance programs — including Medicaid, the state-and-federal program offering health coverage to low-income people. The bill could cut a person's taxes 'by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on the situation a taxpayer is in,' said Andrew Lautz, an associate director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'Folks on both sides of the aisle will debate the beautifulness,' Lautz told MarketWatch. 'But the bigness of it cannot be debated — both the impact on Americans and its budget impact.' The Senate now has the bill after the House of Representatives passed it by a single vote last month. Differences between the House bill and the Senate version are taking shape; some are stark and some are subtle. Lawmakers have to bridge the gap, which they are trying to do quickly. President Trump wants the bill on his desk by the Fourth of July, but that deadline might be more aspirational instead of ironclad. Nearly half of people (47%) said the bill would negatively affect them and their families, while 24% foresaw a positive impact, according to a Pew Research Center poll, Another 26% said the bill would not impact them much, said the survey released this week. Taxes are complicated, and political talking points make it even more confusing for the public to understand, said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. 'It's this big education gap that makes it difficult for talking about what's at stake and what's important.' York gives the bill mixed grades. It could have been a chance 'to build on what the 2017 law did really well,' she said. Instead, the legislation is 'spending way too much money on political carve-outs and gimmicks.' Here's a look at how the tax-and-spending bill would affect Americans' wallets. The bill's core move is keeping income-tax rates where they are now. It's maintaining the status quo, but with some tweaks. Though income-tax brackets have long been adjusted for inflation, the House and Senate are offering some extra inflation indexing. But it's not for everyone. Six of seven brackets, sparing the top 37%, would get the extra adjustment under the House bill. The Senate Finance Committee text applies those extra inflation protections to the bottom three rates of 10%, 12% and 22%. Most taxpayers are in multiple brackets, and taxed at higher rates as their income increases. So if the bottom rungs of the income ladder get more adjustments, 'it means that more income is subject to the lower bracket than the higher tax brackets,' Lautz explained. That's a good thing for someone minding their tax bill, he noted. Instead of a simple extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts' rates, that adjustment 'is a tax cut for the brackets that get it,' he said. There are other unflashy but important potential changes. The widely used standard deduction is poised to become more generous in both the House and Senate versions. There are differences on timing, but the general idea is to add another $1,000 to the standard deduction for single filers and another $2,000 for married couples. This year, the standard deduction is $15,000 for individuals and $30,000 for married couples filing jointly. The 2017 tax law doubled the standard deduction, and more than 90% of taxpayers use it now instead of itemizing. Any changes will be far-reaching considering how many people use the standard deduction to lower their taxable income, Lautz said. For example, an extra $2,000 for a household in the 22% bracket would shave over $400 from that tax bill, he noted. Staying healthy costs more money than ever, but the tax bill's impact is a sore spot. An open question is how far the bill will go on changes to Medicaid. That includes certain new requirements for recipients and possible new tax formulas for states in the program. Lawmakers supporting the cuts say program costs have to get under control. Critics say millions of people could lose health coverage as a result. The bill's healthcare impacts aren't just about Medicaid. An enhanced tax credit that helped people pay for coverage purchased on the Affordable Care Act's exchange is set to expire at the end of this year. These changes to Medicaid and the lapsed enhancement for the premium tax credit could add 16 million more people to the country's uninsured population by 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the House and Senate are taking different paths on health-savings accounts. The House bill is trying to make these tax-advantaged HSAs more generous and easy to use; the Senate text, for now, doesn't include those provisions. 'Not including the HSA expansion provisions in the initial Senate draft represents a significant missed opportunity to address America's healthcare affordability crisis,' said Scott Cutler, president and chief executive of HealthEquity, an administrator of HSA plans. If Congress allows the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to expire, the child tax credit would shrink to $1,000 from its current $2,000 level. The House bill would avoid that by increasing the credit to $2,500 from 2025 to 2028, and then indexing the amount to rise with inflation beginning in 2029. The Senate version would permanently increase the credit to $2,200, and peg its payout with inflation rates. The country's immigration debate also makes its way into the credit's possible alterations. Children already needed to have Social Security numbers for their households to claim the credit. The House bill says all parents on the return need to have a Social Security number; the Senate Finance Committee's text takes one step back, saying the taxpayer must have a Social Security number and at least one of the two people on a married couple's return need a Social Security number. Additionally, both the House and Senate versions would create tax-advantaged 'Trump accounts' and seed them with $1,000 for children born between 2024 and 2028. Both chambers' bills would also enhance tax credits for employer-sponsored childcare — but some observers have said these credits are inefficient and little-used. No taxes on tips and no taxes for overtime pay were two rally cries during Trump's campaign. Now, the House and Senate are delivering related tax breaks. These are deductions — not outright exemptions. In a bill where some provisions are still in flux, the two deductions seem destined to become law in at least some form. The House version offers a deduction equal to the amount of tips or overtime. The Senate caps the tip deduction $12,500 per individual or $25,000 for a married couple. Both versions have income limitations that would prevent wealthier taxpayers from taking the deduction. For the House, 'high-compensated employees' who are paid $160,000 or more this year wouldn't be eligible for the deduction. For the Senate, it's a $150,000 threshold for single filers and $300,000 for married couples. Homes are the source of some of the bill's most contentious spots. The big thorn in the side is how large a break should be for homeowners who want to deduct their state and local taxes. The SALT deduction, as it's known, is now limited to $10,000. The House bill would bring the deduction to $40,000 with certain income restrictions. The Senate text keeps $10,000 for now, noting it's the topic of 'continuing negotiations.' If the 2017 tax cuts expire, the cap would go away, and several Republican House lawmakers believe they have leverage in a thin majority to insist on a $40,000 cap. It's not the only big-ticket purchase at stake in the bill. Both the House and the Senate have tax subsidies for people buying cars assembled in the U.S.; it comes as a deduction on the car-loan interest for eligible vehicles. At the same time, both chambers end a $7,500 credit drivers can claim when they buy a new electric vehicle, and a separate credit for used EVs. The Senate text would end the credit months after enactment, but the House bill would let the credit drive along for the rest of 2025 and possbily 2026 in some cases. Both the House and Senate bills offer 'bonus' deductions for people age 65 and above. The deductions come in place of Trump's campaign proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security income, which can be imposed on as much as 85% of a recipient's benefit. The Senate suggests a temporary deduction of up to $6,000 for individuals 65 years and older, with a phaseout rate of 6% for a single person with a modified adjusted gross income of more than $75,000 (or $150,000 for those who are married filing jointly). The proposal is an increase from the House bill's $4,000 deduction. Meanwhile, both the House and Senate are setting the new estate-tax exemption limit at $15 million for an individual (and $30 million for a married couple) for 2025. This top-line amount will be adjusted for inflation starting in 2026 and going forward permanently. This avoids a sunset of the estate-tax exemption levels set in 2018, which would have cut the current amount roughly in half to about $7 million for an individual ($14 million for a couple). Neither proposed version strips the estate tax out of the system altogether. However, it is high enough that very few estates will be over the limit, and of those, only a few thousand per year will likely owe any federal estate tax. Israel-Iran conflict poses three challenges for stocks that could slam market by up to 20%, warns RBC I'm 51, earn $129K and have $165K in my 401(k). Can I afford to retire when my husband, 59, draws Social Security at 62? 'I'm 68 and my 401(k) has dwindled to $82,000': My husband committed financial infidelity and has $50,000 in credit-card debt. What now? I'm 75 and have a reverse mortgage. Should I pay it off with my $200K savings — and live off Social Security instead? 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? Sign in to access your portfolio

Chicago Tribune

11 hours ago

• Chicago Tribune

Despite proposed selloff of federal land, survey shows support for parks unifies people from all walks

On one of their last school days this year, Collins Academy High School students shot hoops at the Douglass Park basketball courts. Their shoes squeaked on the concrete, hot from the noon sun, as they enjoyed the summery weather. Across Route 66, which bisects the West Side park, a couple people played tennis, a man walked his dog and two nurses from a nearby hospital, dressed in scrubs, chatted during a stroll. It's a common scene in public parks across a nation that feels increasingly divided, where studies show Americans trust each other less than they did a few decades ago. Such havens for coexistence and encounters between people from different walks of life are particularly numerous in Chicago, where 98% of residents live within a 10-minute walk to a park. 'It's where people go to connect, and it's one of the places that democracy happens,' said Carrie Hauser, president and CEO of the Trust for Public Land. 'When you are in a park, when you strike up a conversation with somebody else walking a dog or playing a chess game or pickup basketball games — it doesn't matter what your political party is, what your income is, what your background is — parks and open spaces are places where we come together.' Over the last few months, the future of national public lands has been precarious because of staff shortages and funding rollbacks under President Donald Trump's massive federal overhaul. The latest version of the president's One Big Beautiful Bill, introduced by Utah Sen. Mike Lee last month, would sell off over 2 million acres of federal land in 11 states. But almost 75% of Americans oppose the sale or closure of any kind of public land. And, across the board, they demonstrate consistent support for their local parks. In November, almost two dozen local measures in support of public lands on ballots across the country, including two in Illinois, received overwhelming support; all of them passed with a majority vote, even at a time when the presidential choice proved divisive. 'In communities that were large and small, red and blue, and all over the country geographically … people at the local level voted for their parks, open space, climate resilience, trail-building,' Hauser said. 'I think it's a proof point that this is something that people will stand up for, that they will vote for. And not only will they vote for it — they'll also vote to help pay for those spaces.' In a nationally representative survey this March, the organization found that Americans across demographic and ideological lines value parks and use them frequently; two-thirds of people who said they voted for Kamala Harris and two-thirds of people who voted for Trump said they've talked with someone else at a park that they didn't know before, and over half said it was with somebody of a different social or economic background. 'When you actually peel back the data, this is where people can really agree. And it's where there is unity in our country,' Hauser said. '(Parks are) one of those last places that, it seems like, we can come together as Americans.' In Illinois, about 97% of the state is privately owned The federal government, mainly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service, owned 1.2% as of 2020, making it the eighth state with the least federal land. State and local governments own the remaining public land. But, as tiny a percentage of Illinois land that locally managed parks and preserves represent, they attract strong interest from a public that is heavily invested in issues that affect these spaces. For years, some North Lawndale neighbors protested loudly against hosting one of Chicago's biggest multiday music festivals in Douglass Park — where it was moved in 2015 following community complaints at a previous Humboldt Park location. That is, until early last summer, when organizers decided to move Riot Fest to suburban Bridgeview, blaming what they characterized as a constantly delayed planning process and moving goalposts with the Chicago Park District. Reactions to the sudden move varied: Those in the community who considered the festival a nuisance were relieved. Others worried about losing the economic activity the event provided. Then, a little over a month before the festival, organizers and the city announced it was back at the West Side park. As polarizing as these kinds of issues might be, they show that people are invested in what happens to and in public spaces, according to Brian Gladstein, executive director of Friends of the Parks, a local environmental watchdog and advocacy group. 'The people who were for Riot Fest being there, the people against Riot Fest — they are all caring about the park,' Gladstein said. Over 360 park districts in Illinois run and maintain municipal parks separately from their cities, which is 'quite unique,' said Suzi Wirtz, executive director of the Illinois Park and Recreation Association. 'The fact that we have those allows a little more autonomy within the entity, rather than just being a branch of the government.' Chicago's park system — and its more than 240 field houses — was modeled after the Jane Addams Hull House social settlement on the Near West Side in the late 1880s, which offered kindergarten and day care, employment support, clubs and activities, citizenship classes, cultural events and more to Italian, Irish, German, Greek, Bohemian, Russian and Polish Jewish immigrants and, in the 1920s, also to Black people and Mexicans. 'They existed to provide the kind of social network and social infrastructure that people in a growing city needed,' said Caroline O'Boyle, Illinois state director and associate vice president at the Trust for Public Land. Nowadays, many park systems continue to offer more than just green spaces, including day camps to support working parents during the summertime and jobs to thousands of seasonal workers, including lifeguards, landscapers and camp leaders. 'It's a really important part of the nitty-gritty functioning of our city, beyond the beauty of the beaches and the fun festivals that everybody wants to go to,' O'Boyle said. As an uncertain economic future looms, park systems face the expiration of federal COVID-19 funds and local government budget shortfalls. But they also wield widespread public support: Seven out of 10 Americans in the national survey said they support programs that improve the quality of existing parkland — even if it means a tax increase. That support has played out on local ballot measures nationwide in recent years. Across Lake County, 67% of voters approved a measure in November enabling the forest preserves to issue up to $155 million in debt: $65 million to acquire land; $30 million to improve air and water quality, as well as flood control, through habitat restoration; and $60 million to enhance trails for hiking and biking, other recreational areas and infrastructure, and public access. 'The referendum, of course, happened and passed on the same day that the major change happened at the federal level,' said Rebekah Snyder, director of community engagement and partnerships at the Lake County Forest Preserves. 'Ever since, it's kind of like — oh, thank goodness. I think we see a lot of relief, enthusiasm, comfort. We feel it. … The users of the forest preserves, apparently, still feel grateful to have this strong county system, and I'm sure that is applying to local parks too.' The property tax on a $300,000 home in Lake County would be less than $33 per year, Snyder said, calling it a 'sweet spot' for the median home price in the area. Almost every Lake County resident lives less than a 10-minute drive from one of the forest preserves, according to officials. So it became essential for staff to ensure an efficient use of funds in the time they had. Under state law, the county can issue the debt over five years and complete its projects in another five. 'We had to be very careful about (deciding) what we could achieve in those 10 years with the pot of money,' Snyder said. 'Because the worst thing we could do is tell the voters we're going to do something and then not be able to do it.' The 2-to-1 margin during the referendum vote was heartening for district staff. 'We're really proud of that,' Snyder said. 'It was supported by a majority of Democrats and Republicans, men and women, in every part of the county.' In adjacent McHenry County, just over 50% of voters approved a 0.027% property tax for the county's Conservation District to protect sources of drinking water, as well as the water quality of rivers, lakes and streams; to provide accessibility to parks; to preserve wildlife habitat and forests; to plant trees; and to improve and maintain existing conservation areas. McHenry County officials said the cost for a $300,000 home would be $27 per year in property taxes. But because the increase will take effect in 2026, at which point the county will retire some debt, homeowners will actually see a 45% reduction in their taxes. Through similar, well-backed ballot measure campaigns, other Illinois county forest preserves have passed property tax increases to secure funding, including DuPage County and Kane County in 2024 and Cook County in 2022. 'People vote with their feet, and they stand up for parks and open space — every single time,' Hauser said. It's a positive cycle, according to park advocates: Strong park systems lead to higher rates of civic participation, which in turn lead to more investment in green spaces. Snyder said visits at the Lake County Forest Preserves increased by 70% during COVID-19 and have since remained some 30% to 40% above pre-pandemic levels. The agency also has hundreds of regular volunteers each year. While there might be some hesitance from prospective donors worried about a possible economic recession, for the most part, the district has seen contributions increase. 'Is it because we're doing a really good job as a staff? We probably are. But it may also be a reaction to the uncertainties, … to the federal concerns,' Snyder said. 'I do think that there's anecdotal evidence of individuals becoming donors not just because they love the forest preserves and trust them, but because they're having a reaction.' She hopes people feel reassured by taking action in support of local public lands. 'This is a place where you can not only make your investment, you can have control over your local agency, you can live in it and feel comforted and secure that our nature in Lake County is stronger because of your participation,' she said. In recent years, the Chicago Park District has had to address shortcomings. Friends of the Park published a scathing report in 2018 that found resources — from park space to programs — continued to be unequally distributed across the city, failing Black and Latino neighborhoods in favor of whiter, richer ones. According to the watchdog group, one North Side park region had almost four times as many programs as a park region of similar size and population on the South Side. At the time, the Park District pushed back against the findings, with officials saying the report 'blatantly' disregarded investments made across the city. This year, the district's park system ranked 11th among the country's 100 most populous cities, with the highest score of any city of over 1 million people, according to the Trust for Public Land's annual ParkScore index released in May. It ranks cities on five characteristics: acreage, access, investment, amenities and equity. As it relates to park space, specifically, the Chicago Park District scored a 95 out of 100 in equity this year, indicating fairness in distribution and size between neighborhoods by race and income. That score, however, doesn't include an evaluation of available programming. Over the last year, Chicago has spent $227 per person on parks, up $27 from the previous year and almost $100 more than the average per capita investment among major U.S. cities. However, it was bumped down to 11th place as investment in parks ranked Denver 10th this year. 'As a longtime athlete, I love a little healthy competition,' said Hauser, the Trust for Public Land CEO. 'The ParkScore, I think, sort of prompts that. Cities of similar size … look at each other and see what they're doing, field good ideas, keep up, improve over time, and continue to move the needle on this really important work.' Out of the five factors that average into the final score, Chicago was severely lacking in one. But it didn't come as a surprise to park officials and advocates. The city scored 41 out of 100 points on the percentage of its overall area dedicated to parkland — that is, 9.1% — and 16 out of 100 points on median park size, which in Chicago is 2.2 acres and well below the national average of 11 acres. 'The challenge for Chicago is that, compared to other cities, we lack acreage,' said O'Boyle, the Illinois state director. 'And, unfortunately, there aren't really very many opportunities to add land. Chicago is a fully built-out city.' To park advocates, these limitations represent a creative challenge to increasing park acreage. Ideas include transforming spaces that might not be conventionally thought of as potential parks, such as contaminated industrial properties and brownfields, or even long and narrow routes next to rivers, railways or roads. O'Boyle said the nonprofit's local office recently heard from a group interested in creating a walking trail out of unused rail lines. Still, these transformations can be resource-intensive. Heather Gleason, director of planning and development at the Chicago Park District, said the agency can issue up to $40 million in capital bonds annually under state law, which means they need to secure additional funding by other means. 'One of the things that we're constantly doing,' she said, 'we'll hustle for grants. We'll hustle for anything that we can apply for.' These include federal grants, but now more than ever, the Park District is focusing on state-level funding from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The local agency has averaged $100 million in capital projects each year over the last decade, more than two-thirds of which comes from members of Congress, state legislators' district investments and aldermen's menu funds. During his first two months of leadership, Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, the Chicago Park District's new general superintendent, has met with residents and park staff at parks across the city, where Chicagoans come together for family picnics, neighborhood celebrations and civic events. 'Parks are something that people love across the board,' Ramirez-Rosa said. 'And with good reason: Because they are at the confluence of public health, public safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, tourism and economic development. … People love their parks, and people champion their parks. And we are all better off because of that.' Real community engagement with public parks happens when residents see parks as an extension of their own living space, according to Gladstein. Ramirez-Rosa said many residents do see themselves as stewards of their public parks. For instance, hundreds of Chicagoans volunteer to serve on park advisory councils. Others volunteer to be tree keepers. At the district's annual Earth Day event in April, a record number of people — in the thousands — volunteered to clean and spruce up the spaces ahead of the start of summer, he said. Douglass Park, in particular, has become an example of how a public green space can offer common ground and unity during fraught times. It's a story less widely known than the Riot Fest debacle, but one that the community and park advocates hope will inspire others. In the summer of 2020, when the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests against police brutality, racial tensions ran high between the predominantly Black neighborhood of North Lawndale and the mostly Latino and Hispanic community area of South Lawndale, specifically the Little Village neighborhood. Residents say misinformation and rumors spread across social media about upcoming street fights, leaving many on edge. So members of the North Lawndale Community Coordinating Council and the OPEN Center for the Arts in Little Village came together to put a stop to the hostility and distrust; they asked three artists from each neighborhood to create six poster designs that represented unity between both communities. It was the beginning of One Lawndale, a project to bridge differences between their people and foster community development through art. Omar Magaña, executive director and founder of the center, said many homes in the neighborhoods had signs saying, 'We call the police.' They asked residents to replace those with the One Lawndale posters. Douglass Park then became the stage for the project's next phase, hosting two so-called peace parties at the park in the summer, essentially big cookouts. Coming into their fifth year, these parties bookend the season and draw a crowd of hundreds. In between, an arts fest at the park also keeps the neighborhoods busy — the parties have created an 'unseen energy' of anticipation, according to Magaña. 'There is music, there is art, there is food,' he said. 'You're having a great celebration of people coming together from both communities to enjoy being out in green space and connecting with nature and resetting. I mean, just look at this.' It was a misty weekday morning as he looked southward over a miniature golf course located next to the cultural and community center on the park's north side. It felt like an urban oasis, with its lush trees, where singing birds perched, and with the still, quiet water of the ponds. 'It's tranquility,' he said. 'It just feels good to be here.'