Home rule back on River Forest agenda

Trustees will re-visit the controversial debate from 2006 and eventually vote to place a referendum on the November ballot

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012 10:00 PM

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

By Devin Rose

Staff Reporter

The River Forest village board will re-open a contentious debate in the coming weeks about whether to ask voters in November if they want the village to become a home rule community, which would give the board broader powers to address local concerns than the state constitution allows non-home rule communities.

Supporters say the move to home rule—which is made automatically for communities with a population over 25,000—is beneficial because it gives the village more control in solving its own problems instead of relying on the state. But many are against the effort because they say it would give current and future board members authority to raise property taxes beyond the tax cap that non-home rule communities are limited by.

Municipalities such as River Forest that are non-home rule derive any power they have from the state, according to village attorney Lance Malina. If a municipality can't find authority to do something in the state's municipal code, it can't be done.

A memo that he put together about the issue was introduced to the board at its meeting June 18.

But the state's 209 home rule communities, which include neighboring Oak Park, have all the same powers as the state except those specifically denied by the Illinois Constitution of 1970 or subsequent laws, the memo said. So home rule municipalities can take any action except those specifically limited by the state.

"It comes down to controlling your own destiny," said Village Administrator Eric Palm.

Trustee Jim Winikates, chair of the village's Finance and Administration Committee, said it would help economic development efforts because it would enable the village to give loans to developers, which they can't do now. It would also allow for the simplification of zoning variances, he said. The board could grant staff permission to approve minor variations so they don't have to hold meetings for hours to decide themselves.

But one of the biggest dividing points about home rule is the fact that it would allow the village to impose new taxes and raise current property taxes above the tax cap.

"If we have home rule, it's giving the village carte blanche to do things that, as a small village, they should not do," said River Forest resident Rosemary Johnson. Johnson was part of a committee in 2006 that studied the impact of home rule, and she was the co-writer of a report detailing why it was bad for the village.

That committee voted 5-4 in favor of home rule, but an effort to put a referendum on the 2007 ballot was stalled.

Johnson referenced a Chicago Tribune article earlier this month about Toyota Park in Bridgeview, which is a home rule community. The village almost tripled property taxes in less than a decade to cover debt payments for the soccer stadium built in 2006.

Home rule also opens the door for a real estate transfer tax, which Johnson said is detrimental to Oak Park. She added even though the current trustees may not raise property taxes, it remains unknown if future trustees will.

"I have no idea if they're ever going to abuse it, but it's there to be abused," she said.

Village President John Rigas said trustees could always be voted out if they do something residents don't agree with. He said legislators in Springfield have been talking about taking away portions of certain taxes, and an increase in property taxes or the implementation of a gas tax, like Oak Park has, could replace that lost revenue.

Winikates said River Forest could adopt the measure with an ordinance saying they'll still adhere to the tax cap, which other communities have done.

The board will discuss the matter at its July 9 meeting. If they want to place a referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot, they must adopt a resolution by Aug. 20.

Reader Comments

11 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

RF Achievement

Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:39 AM

@ Mayor Rigas - this Home Rule Discussion needs a open meeting to just disucss this and let residents ask questions before anything is put up for a ballot suggestion. Not at the Village hall - Dominican or Lincoln or Roosevlet has room for such a meeting - and by this move would show that you are looking for taxpayer Views. Put the item on a "discussion" meeting - the same that was done for the Historic homes open discussion held at Lincoln school or the one held regarding the Sales tax.

Gladys RF

Posted: June 29th, 2012 10:48 PM

Where is this information from Just because you are not in support of HR you attack and make up stories. The Trustees would not and can not raise our taxes like that. I am a senior living on a fixed income. Could the village really raise by taxes by over 20%

RF Achievement

Posted: June 29th, 2012 10:28 PM

@Taxed to Max. The rates are out for RF Property Taxes. The Village and President Paris has raised the Property Taxes by 22% !! These bills will be in the mail box this week. How is that for handing it to yeah and telling you to bend over. Now he wants to hide behind Home Rule to raise taxes further for his developer friends. He and Winikates. This village is out of control!!

Taxed to the Max

Posted: June 28th, 2012 5:34 PM

So let's see...with HR the board can raise fees even more, it can raise taxes even more, and it can lend money we don't have to developers. Didn't we learn our lesson with the sweetheart deals to the Town Center, the deal that was supposed to involve the properties on Bonnie Brae near Concordia and the bank deal for Lathrop & Lake. Why oh why would we oppose home rule??? Oh yeah...and if you don't like how you got screwed you can vote them out of office -- several years later. LOL

Tom from River Forest

Posted: June 28th, 2012 9:06 AM

RF: I wasn't passing on the relative merits of the home rule vote, I was only pointing out that the law had changed since Ms. Johnson considered the issue of home rule in 2007. And I think that you are referring to the town of Bridgeview, not the Chicago neighborhood named "Bridgeport." Chicago has been a home rule unit since the approval of the 1970 constitution.

RF Achievement

Posted: June 28th, 2012 6:39 AM

@Tom, what about money given away for developers - as Tr. Winikates. What about an UNLIMITED ability to raise taxes. Essentially, HR allows a town to do anything that the State does NOT allow. As far as Rigas, wise comment to make. He is NOT going to run again anyway. HR is often used as a ruse - as it was in Bridgeport. Unfortunately stated, this is the same RF resident that helped the HS sidestep the fine print to enrich the HS to a jackpot that is money that belongs to the Taxpayers.

Q from Oak Park

Posted: June 27th, 2012 10:45 AM

Has anyone gone by the cheese place at Marion and South blvd.? The village used tax payers money to build the 5 million dollar street and gave the cheese store the right to build on the public sidewalk. Are taxpayers sharing in the profits? Stop by the cheese shop and ask for your share of the profits.

Unfortunately

Posted: June 27th, 2012 10:25 AM

This is the same John Rigas who gouged OP and RF residents a couple of years ago when he was on the OPRFHS board and "discovered" that they could raise taxes even more than originally believed after the OPRF referendum! RF residents, look at your prop tax bill for OPRF and "thank" Mr. Rigas for this - and the $100,000,000 (yes, MILLION!) surplus that they have today. They can't be trusted on taxes - just re-read the Winikates quote about "loans to developers!" Yep, the OP way!!! Beware!!!

Done from Oak Park

Posted: June 27th, 2012 9:53 AM

"Village President John Rigas said trustees could always be voted out if they do something residents don't agree with." Or move out.

Tom from River Forest

Posted: June 27th, 2012 9:23 AM

Regarding Ms. Johnson's comment on the ability of a home rule unit to increase the real estate transfer tax, I believe that the General Assembly preempted that home rule power in 2008. I do not think that a home rule entity can raise the transfer tax any more.

RF Achievement

Posted: June 27th, 2012 12:04 AM

Rosemary Johnson is correct and can be trusted 100 %. All citizens want the truth and transparency. She knows the facts - it was stuided for over 18 months. It is not needed and would be used by Trustee Winikates - has he has admittted - to raise taxes and raise funds for developers, just as was done in Bridgeport? Now their taxes have been tripled. This is NOT an issue that deserves any more debate - and President Rigas is again masking this issue - just like Paris did before him.

Find a garage sale near you!