Home rule is on the ballot in Richton Park, triggering a battle between Realtor groups that say this will be used to increase taxes while village officials promise more development.
Local governments with fewer than 25,000 people have many of its powers restricted but can pass a home rule ballot measure to gain greater flexibility on issues of “local finances … building, zoning, sanitation,” and “certain criminal offenses,” according to the Illinois Municipal League.
“More and more communities are electing to become home rule communities,” said Village President Richard Reinbold, citing Matteson’s recent adoption of the measure. “For Richton Park, we are now, for the most part, surrounded by home rule communities and that puts us at a competitive disadvantage.”
University Park, Park Forest and Matteson also have adopted home rule, according to the Illinois Municipal League. Reinbold argues Richton Park loses out on projects because it has less negotiating ground with prospective developers.
For example, the president said land owned by a municipality without home rule cannot sell that lot unless the developer buys the land for at least 80% of its appraised value.
With home rule, Reinbold said “you can negotiate a much lower price if the municipality feels that the business coming in is beneficial to the village in terms of creating jobs and sales tax.”
But Realtor groups have historically fought home rule and are doing so in Richton Park. A website paid for by Realtors in Opposition to Home Rule specifically asks Richton Park residents to vote no, warning that a yes vote grants the town the ability to increase property and sales tax without voter approval.
Reinbold rebutted the group’s qualms and said the Village Board has committed to not impose a sales tax.
“I would argue that they don’t know Richton Park. They are from Springfield, Illinois, they live in Springfield, Illinois,” he said of the opposition group. “It’s just a kind of a canned opposition approach.”
Reinbold and Richton Park leaders are hoping to coax voters into a vote for home rule by promising to not unilaterally impose a sales tax, to cancel park fees for residents and freeze property tax and water fees.
Despite his promise that leaders do not want to impose a sales tax, another referendum on the ballot opens the door for a sales tax. It asks if the village should dedicate sufficient funds it receives from a home rule sales tax for investments in its public infrastructure., Reinbold said this is a poll of whether voters want to have a new sales tax.
“The board is committed to not doing a home rule sales tax. But if we were to do a home rule sales tax would you want us to spend money on what was listed?” Reinbold said of the nonbinding referendum. “We don’t think we need it right now. But if our residents were to give us the feedback that says ‘hey, no we should do that,’ we would be irresponsible if we didn’t go back.”
A third referendum, also nonbinding, asks residents whether the village should implement policies and actions to enhance public safety, economic development and beautification.
The opposition group said these two advisory referendums open the door to impose more taxes. They write the ballot has “three ballot questions that – if Home Rule passes – allows the Village to immediately implement a Home Rule sales tax and implement vaguely defined ‘public safety, economic development and beautification efforts for the Village.’”
Reinbold said he believes passage of home rule will decrease costs for residents by increasing development, thereby growing revenue without relying on property taxes and other taxes and fees on residents.
“We’re just trying to get the pulse of the community to say ‘hey, are we on the right track?’”
hsanders@chicagotribune.com
