A New Look For The 1980's

By DAVID A. LEEZER, Director of Administration
City of Canton

There has been a great deal of controversy recently regarding home rule. This is especially true in the region of central Illinois. During the past general election, no less than three municipalities placed the question on the ballot. In all three cases, (Canton, East Peoria and Lincoln) the public resoundingly defeated the measure. Shortly thereafter, a small contingent in Pekin attempted to rid that community of its home rule status. The citizens of Pekin felt otherwise and decided to keep the system.

Ever since its inception in the State of Illinois, home rule has been a hotly debated issue. The 1970 Constitutional Convention felt this tool was necessary in an effort to help municipalities retain some functions which Dillon's Rule had diminished. With the possibility of another constitutional convention in a few short years, it is time to review home rule and attempt to adapt its use into a state that has undergone many major changes since the enactment of the measure some seventeen (17) years ago.

This article is not intended to condemn home rule and its effect on Illinois communities. On the contrary, home rule has been proven as a productive tool that has benefitted many citizens. It is my contention, however, that modifications should be considered to address concerns some voters have regarding home rule.

One of the major reasons for opposing the question in Canton was the misconception that home rule gave municipalities too much power. No matter how much local officials attempted to alleviate those fears, the citizens did not feel the municipal government should have such a "broad range of power".

Whether or not opponents are correct in their understanding of home rule is not the question. Rather the question should be how can municipalities obtain parts of home rule to provide basic public services without creating an uproar by the citizens. Maybe now is the time to redirect our efforts to modify the current statutory language in an effort to satisfy both proponents and opponents. Please remember, the decision to acquire home rule status is an all or nothing proposition. Presently, there is no room for negotiations.

Should it be that way? It is my opinion that it should not be a black and white proposal. Local governments mostly deal in a variety of issues that fall within a number of gray areas. What if modifications were developed that would allow some flexibility through home rule without complete turnover to a home rule system.

This is the basis of the modification that I propose. As stated previously, local governments have had to undergo some vast changes in the past years; home rule should be updated to allow it to deal with those changes. I would like to propose changes to the current statutory language that would not detrimentally affect those municipalities that presently have home rule. It would, however, set up a tiered program of home rule benefits without causing any undue concern over allowing too much power.

My proposal is as follows:

(1) LIMITED HOME RULE: A very reduced form of home rule which would "limit" a municipality in its use of the program. A community could place a user tax

July 1987 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 13

on any three (3) of five (5) areas: cigarettes, gasoline, retail sales, amusements and/or hotels/motels. The maximum amount of the tax would be 5% with a guarantee that residential property taxes be abated by a percentage set by the General Assembly. Limited Home Rule would also allow a local government to earmark up to 40% of the revenues from the new receipts for general obligation bonds for the purposes of economic development and public benefit. The remaining monies must be placed in the general fund to operate the municipality. The local government would also have the ability to license and regulate for the public's protection. A community using this proposal would not be entitled to any other benefits and/or powers enjoyed by home rule communities.

(2) HOME RULE: The same legislation that currently exists in the state would apply. Any municipality that currently has home rule would not see any change. Communities who chose Home Rule over Limited Home Rule would be able to govern their communities just like any other home rule municipality.

Again, this proposal is not intended to oppose the idea of home rule. It is rather intended to use some of its provisions to insure better government and greater economic development potential for the people without creating concern over the fear of "too much power". I ask local and state officials to seriously review this proposal in an attempt to mold it into legislation that would benefit the majority of Illinois communities. •

Page 14 / Illinois Municipal Review / July 1987