Glencoe's Future In Voters' Hands With Referendums On Village Home Rule, $14.7M Parks Bond

GLENCOE, IL — Voters in Glencoe will face a pair of significant referendum questions on the ballot in the upcoming Nov. 5 general election. One proposes borrowing money to pay for park district improvements, while the other seeks to designate the village as a home rule unit.

The Glencoe Park District board is asking voters to allow it to issue $14.7 million in bonds to fund improvements to Glencoe Beach, Takiff Athletic Field and other facilities.

Proposed upgrades include renovations to the Safran Beach House, the playground, boardwalk, sun shelters, ramps and stairs leading to the beach. The plan also calls for the construction of a community greenhouse and a new parks maintenance facility.

For local homeowners, the cost equates to about $261 per year per $1 million of assessed fair market value, though the expiration of earlier park district bonds means approving the referendum will effectively keep property taxes flat — preventing them from declining now that money borrowed to pay for Takiff Center renovations has been paid off.

Read more: $14.7 Million Referendum Heads To Ballot In Glencoe Park District

---

In addition to the park district bond issue, voters will also decide whether Glencoe should become a home rule unit.

Under state law, home rule status gives local governments more flexibility in managing their own affairs without requiring state approval.

Currently, Illinois municipalities achieve home rule status if their population exceeds 25,000 or if voters approve the change by referendum. Glencoe and Kenilworth are the only non-home rule towns on the North Shore.

Glencoe held a referendum on the subject back in 1988, but it failed by a nearly 3-to-1 margin, according to village staff.

If voters approve the 2024 home rule referendum, village trustees would gain greater financial and legislative power, including the ability to impose local taxes, such as a real estate transfer tax, without needing approval from the state legislature.

Village officials would also gain authority to enter into multi-year contracts, a tool that officials have argued would give them better purchasing power and more flexibility in planning long-term infrastructure projects.

Supporters of home rule argue that it could help Glencoe shift some of its tax burden off residents by introducing new fees or taxes targeting non-residents, such as those who visit or work in the village.

This would provide a new revenue stream to fund public services and projects, which are currently financed largely through property taxes. This reliance on property taxes to fund Village Hall means the share of local tax bills going to the municipality is higher than in home rule towns, according to village staff.

Home rule status would also give village officials more power to enact zoning changes, land use regulations and other various other types of local laws.

Despite these potential advantages, some residents have raised concerns about home rule, particularly its expanded taxing powers.

Opponents worry that granting the village more authority could lead to higher property tax rates or the introduction of new local taxes that could increase the cost of living in Glencoe.

Village officials have attempted to assuage such fears by promising to keep in place Glencoe’s existing property tax cap even if home rule is adopted.

In August, trustees passed a resolution declaring their intent to stick with the state-imposed property tax extension limitation law, which caps annual increases at 5 percent, or the rate of inflation.

Village staff prepared an informational website about referendum question describing the benefits of home rule status in great detail and briefly brushing aside purported concerns about it.

"Not a magic wand," is one of the listed concerns. "Home rule doesn’t solve all problems, but it does provide additional flexibility."