The Home Rule Referendum and City Ordinances

Earlier this year the City of Freeport received certified notice that the city's population had fallen below 25,000, triggering an Illinois Statute which requires the municipal clerk to place a referendum on the next general election ballot asking residents if they wish to remain a home rule unit.

Suddenly, now that home rule is a ballot issue subject to a forthcoming referendum, the Freeport City Council wants to "talk" about the vast and liberal powers home rule bestows upon the Freeport City Council.

Despite the fact the Freeport City Council has been using home rule powers very liberally for the past 30-years, they've never wished to discuss how home rule was being used until it became a referendum issue.  Tutty can only remember one time home rule was publicly discussed on the council floor in the past three decades.  That time was during the Jim Gitz administration when he, as Mayor, vetoed the budget brought forth by the council because it contained a home rule sales tax increase.  Mayor Gitz publicly proclaimed that he thought raising the sales tax without referendum approval was an improper use of home rule powers.

Now, suddenly the City Council is adamant amount discussing home rule authority, as a matter of fact, as part of the Strategic Plan being brought forward at the November 15, 2021 Council meeting using city resources for a "Home Rule Campaign" is part of the strategic plan.

What's more,  according to approved meeting minutes from the City Council's strategic planning sessions on September 10 and 11, "Protecting and promoting Home Rule....is important."

And then there are all the public utterances recorded during council meetings citing the importance of retaining home rule powers.

The Freeport City Council, and perhaps more importantly, their high-paid legal counsel from Rockford, do not seem to realize that it's very likely unlawful for the Freeport City Council to take a stand on a referendum issue. 

Did any member of the Freeport City Council or their attorney even consider these facts?  Has the attorney being paid by public dollars even bothered to review Freeport ordinances regarding the subject?  To Tutty, it appears not.  Here's why.

Chapter 218 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Freeport is meant to keep the Freeport City Council from using their official duties and our tax dollars to play politics and is vividly clear. 

Chapter 218 defines "Prohibited political activity" as "Campaigning for any elective office or for or against any referendum question." as well as "Managing or working on a campaign for elective office or for or against any referendum question."  Among many other things.  Tutty would encourage, the Freeport City Council, the Mayor, the City Manager and their attorney to familiarize themselves with the City of Freeport's Codified Ordiances.

Tutty sure wants to know how the City Council plans on "Protecting and promoting"  home rule and not be in violation of local ordinance and state statute.  Will the Council also hold a vote to endorse congressional candidates?

Last Spring our state's attorney as well as our state senator and representative went crazy with public pronouncements at the mere complaint of electioneering.  How is this not a clear violation of Freeport City ordinances as a public body is blatantly using public resources to "protect and promote" a referendum issue.

Also of note,  Chapter 218 also states that "A person who intentionally violates any provision of Section 218.02 may be punished by a term of incarceration in a penal institution other than a penitentiary for  period of not more than 364 days, and may be fined in an amount not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).

So perhaps the mayor and city council might want to think long and hard before officially approving any documents claiming to support a "Home Rule Campaign".  

As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker, tutty.baker@gmail.com 

Facts or Fiction about Home Rule in Freeport, Illinois?

Since learning that the certified population of Freeport, Illinois has fallen below the 25,000  threshold the Freeport City Council has publicly talked more about home rule the fast few months than in all the preceding 30-years, despite using the vast powers of home rule regularly and liberally.

A year from now, at the general election, Freeporters will be voting on whether or not they want to remain an Illinois' home rule unit of government.  As such it will be imperative for citizens to have credible and accurate information about the topic at hand.

Our current city manager has been seen on Rockford TV news and has written an article for the City of Freeport Newsletter for November on the topic of home rule.  In both these instances Freeport City Manager Randy Bukas has purported that losing home rule would cause the city to lose the sales taxes that the city council has created without referendums.  According to the city manager, this will cause property taxes to rise.  Here is an excerpt from Manager Bukas' column from the city newsletter.

First, Tutty, and the public at large deserve a more authoritative source than the current city manager.  Maybe this is true, maybe it is not, but in either instance the public should know how and why.

Second, Manager Bukas implies that property taxes will rise.  How will this happen?  Stephenson County voters approved the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) many moons ago.  PTELL limits how much local units of government can raise property taxes.  Because the City of Freeport is home rule they have not been bound by PTELL.  Losing home rule would cause the City Council to be bound by the same property tax laws as every other unit of local government and school district wholly contained within Stephenson County. 

What's more, if the citizens actually see a need for more revenue the Freeport Council could hold a real referendum and ask the public themselves how they feel.  Despite the fact Freeport has a page full of taxes and a mountain of public debt, there has not been one binding referendum on a tax and spend issue in Freeport in 40-years, thanks completely to home rule powers.

Third, in 1992 the Freeport City Council used home rule to create the property transfer tax.  Many other home rule municipalities had or did create similar taxes.  This caused the Illinois' realtor lobby to push for a change in state statute which would preempt the power of home rule units to create such taxes.  Just because the law has changed to now require a referendum to create such a tax, Freeport did not lose the ability to enforce a previously enacted tax.

The citizens of Freeport need authoritative answers to numerous questions, most of which the city manager alone is not equipped to handle.  Of course he wants home rule, what city manager wouldn't?  Home rule has been a financial get out jail free card for the Freeport City Council for the last 30-years.

Can citizens of Freeport count on the City Council to get us authoritative answers to these questions and many others?  What do you think.

As always, yours in honesty, tutty.baker.gmail.com 

"A Government Works Best When it Values Citizen Input" Really?

Most every registered voter in this vicinity received a mailing, at taxpayer expense, from State Representative Andrew Chesney, a Republican residing within Freeport.

Representative Chesney's oversized postcard urged his constituents to take a survey and noted that "A government works best when it values citizen input."  Here is a photo of the pertinent part of the mailing.

Tutty agrees wholeheartedly with our state representative, citizen input should not only be valued, it should be the driving factor behind the operations of any unit of local government, especially locally.

That said, can Tutty and his fellow citizens expect our representative to come out against retaining home rule power for the City of Freeport?  Clearly--and Representative Chesney has first hand knowledge--the City of Freeport has used home rule every way possible to completely exclude "citizen input" from the decision making process.

Without home rule Freeport would have a general obligation debt limit of  8.625% of its present equalized assessed valuation. (1)  Home rule units, because they have the power to tax, have no debt limit, therefore the Freeport City Council blew through this debt limit several years ago.

And not one single dollar of Freeport's massive debt load came as the result of a referendum of the taxpayers.  Not one single dollar.

Because of home rule the Freeport City Council  can not only borrow money without a referendum.  They also use home rule to skirt the requirements of Bond Issue Notification Act and don't even provide formal notice to Freeport citizens that they are borrowing money.

Now that Freeport's population is officially certified to be below 25,000 the "municipal clerk shall certify for submission to the voters of the municipality at the next  general election following such determination of population, in the manner provided by the general election law, the proposition of whether the municipality shall elect not to be a home rule unit" 65 ILCS 5/1-1-9.  This is the first time since Illinois adopted the Constitution of 1970 that a home rule municipality has fallen below this threshold, activating the cited statute. 

If Representative Chesney really wants to lead by example why does he not move to modify the Bond Issue Notification Act to preempt the power of home rule units? The General Assembly has the power.  Then, at the least, the City Council would have to provide himself and his fellow citizens with notice that they are borrowing money against our ability to pay taxes.

This is a perfect opportunity for Representative Chesney to walk his talk and to prove to his constituency that he,  and his fellow Republicans in Stephenson County actually do believe in limited government influence over our lives.

As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker tutty.baker@gmail.com

1) Home Rule and Intergovernmental Cooperation and Conflict, Kurt P. Froehlich, 2000, Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education.