Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter

Disclaimer

Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Thursday, January 16, 2025

Guidance on New Rental Use Tax Amendment


A new law went into effect on January 1, 2025, that amended the state's Use Tax Act (Act) regarding taxation of leases of personal property. This post explains how this Act may affect units of local government.

The major change to the Act is a new provision that requires the taxation of leases between a retailer and consumer. "Lease" is now defined in the Act as:

a transfer of the possession or control of, the right to possess or control, or a license to use, but not title to, tangible personal property for a fixed or indeterminate term for consideration, regardless of the name by which the transaction is called.

Prior to this legislative change, Illinois did not impose a tax on leases of personal property. Instead, the State would tax the retailer for their initial purchase of tangible personal property (TPP), and then the retailer could lease the TPP tax-free. The amendment to the Act flips this scenario. Now, a retailer does not need to pay tax on the initial purchase of TPP but will have to pay use tax on the lease of that TPP.

For example, it used to be that a retailer would purchase a set of golf clubs and pay sales tax on that purchase. Then, when the retailer rented those golf clubs out to consumers, that rental transaction was not taxed. As of January 1st, that same retailer will not pay sales tax on the purchase of those golf clubs they intend to lease but will pay a use tax each time they lease those clubs.

The amendments to the Act have raised some questions which are addressed below:

Are units of local government subject to the Act?

Yes. The Act applies to all persons (including public corporations) who engage in the business of retail leases, and that would include units of local government that lease out personal property to others.

What is TPP?

TPP is not explicitly defined by the Act. However, Illinois courts have defined TPP to mean things that are seen, weighed, measured, and that are capable of being possessed. Examples of TPP include objects that consumers possess and/or use such as paddle boards, rackets, balls, shovels, lawnmowers, chairs, bicycles, scooters, iPads, and other physical items. The Department of Revenue has also provided some examples on its website here.

Does the Act apply to leases of real estate?

No, the Act applies to leases of personal property, not real property or real estate. The Illinois Department of Revenue has published guidance stating that real estate is not TPP for the purpose of the Retailers Occupation Tax. Also see DOR websiteBased on how courts have interpreted TPP in applying similar taxes, the use tax would not apply to real estate, only personal property. Therefore, the rental of a pool, cabin, cabana, course, court, banquet space, office, meeting room, or other physical space should not be subject to the Act. The Department of Revenue may issue guidance to clarify this issue as this has been a frequent question since the Act took effect.

Are there other exceptions to what is considered TPP?

Yes. The definition of TPP under the Act expressly exempts motor vehicles and watercraft. For the purposes of the Act, motor vehicles and watercrafts mean a machine that is required to be registered with an agency of Illinois. 

You can read the Department of Revenue's bulletin on this new law here. If the Department of Revenue does issue additional guidance on this legislative amendment, we will update Municipal Minute. 

Post Authored by Daniel Lev & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Join Ancel Glink at the IAPD/IPRA Conference Jan 23-25, 2025


It's almost time for the IAPD/IPRA annual conference which takes place January 23 - 25, 2025, at the Hyatt Regency, Chicago. Ancel Glink attorneys will be speaking at 13 sessions this year, so if you are attending the conference, please come find us!

Date

Time

Session

Speakers

Thursday, 1/23/2025

10AM – 11AM

Session 112

Real Estate 101: What You Need to Know About Acquiring, Selling and Using Property

Scott Puma and David Silverman, FAICP (Ancel Glink)

 

Thursday, 1/23/2025

1:30PM – 2:30PM

Session 120

Can We and Should We Have Video Surveillance in Parks and Facilities?

Megan Mack and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Thursday, 1/23/2025

3PM-4PM

Session 133

Large Event, Festival and Parade Security

Derke Price (Ancel Glink) and Chief Steven Schindlbeck (Naperville Park District)

 

Thursday, 1/23/2025

3PM-4PM

Session 116

Social Media & The Law: Facebook? Instagram? X?

Julie Tappendorf (Ancel Glink)

 

Friday, 1/24/2025

8:30AM-9:30AM

Session 110

Legal/Legislative  I

Derke Price (Ancel Glink) and Jason Anselment (IAPD)

 

Friday, 1/24/2025

10AM – 11AM

Session 123

Direct & Deliberate: How to Successfully PASS a Referendum

Keri-Lyn Krafthefer (Ancel Glink), Lauren Raspanti (Lemont Park District), Louise Egofske (Lemont Park District) and Paul Hanley (Beyond Your Base)

Friday, 1/24/2025

3:30PM-4:30PM

Session 119

Regulating Controversial Park Activities

Megan Mack, Erin Monforti and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)


Saturday, 1/25/2025

10:30AM-11:30AM

Session 117

Having a Healthy and Prosperous Relationship with your Executive Director

Derke Price (Ancel Glink)

Saturday, 1/25/2025

10:30AM-11:30AM

Session 134

So You're Thinking About Going Solar

Adam Simon (Ancel Glink), Karen Larson (Park Ridge Park District) and Shawn Ajazi (Progressive Business Solutions)

Saturday, 1/25/2025

12:30PM-1:30PM

Session 122

Affiliates: A Blessing or a Curse?

Derke Price (Ancel Glink) 

Saturday, 1/25/2025

12:30PM-1:30PM

Session 118

Park District Finance - It's Not Intuitive

Adam Simon (Ancel Glink) and Mari-Lynn Peters (Park District of Highland Park)

Saturday, 1/25/2025

12:30PM-1:30PM

Session 135

Crossing the Line:  What Park Districts Need to Know about the Migrant Crisis

Keri-Lyn Krafthefer (Ancel Glink)

Saturday, 1/25/2025

2PM-3PM

Session 140

Board Policy Manuals: Why They Are Essential For Your Agency

Scott Puma and Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)


Friday, January 3, 2025

PAC Finds Public Body Violated FOIA in Denying Request for Public Record


In its last binding opinion of 2024, the Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's Office (PAC) found a public body in violation of FOIA, rejecting all of the exemptions relied upon by the public body in denying the request. PAC Binding Op. 24-016

A requestor submitted a FOIA request to a City Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability (Commission) seeking a copy of a letter sent to the Commission by former and current Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) employees requesting the Commission to investigate a COPA administrator. The Commission denied the request in its entirety, citing several FOIA exemptions. After the requestor filed a request for review with the PAC challenging the denial, the PAC issued a binding opinion finding that the Commission improperly denied the FOIA request.

First, the PAC rejected the Commission's reliance on the "invasion of personal privacy exemption" of Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. The PAC determined that the public's considerable interest in disclosure of the requested record (which involved allegations of impropriety by a COPA administrator in performing their public duties and the abilities of other public employees to perform their public duties) outweighed any privacy interests involved in the letter because the letter did not contain any highly personal details about private affairs. 

Next, the PAC rejected the Commission's reliance on the "ongoing law enforcement investigation" exemption of Section 7(1)(d)(iv) of FOIA, finding that the Commission is not a law enforcement agency, and that the Commission did not possess the letter as part of its participation in a law enforcement investigation or proceeding.

The PAC also concluded that the letter was not exempt under Section 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA, because the Commission did not demonstrate how disclosing the letter would endanger anyone’s life or physical safety.

The PAC further found that the Commission did not demonstrate that the letter fell under the "deliberative privilege" exemption of Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA. The PAC noted that the letter was an unsolicited communication prepared by employees of a separate public body and third-party former employees who were not involved in a joint decision-making process with the Commission and, therefore, it was not issued as part of the Commission’s predecisional intra- or inter-agency deliberative process, so disclosing the letter would not expose the contents of any Commission deliberations.

The PAC also rejected the Commission’s argument that the letter was prepared and compiled with respect to an internal audit that would be exempt under Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA, noting that the letter was issued by third-parties independent of any Commission audit, and the Commission could not transform a letter created outside the context of an audit into exempt audit material just because the Commission might consider the letter when potentially auditing COPA.

Finally, the PAC rejected the Commission’s argument that the letter was protected under the employee grievance adjudication process protected by Section 7(1)(n) of FOIA, finding that the Commission did not demonstrate that the subject of the letter was being adjudicated as an employee grievance and, in any event, records created well before any adjudication takes places are not exempt under Section 7(1)(n). 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Thursday, January 2, 2025

Monday, December 30, 2024

PAC Issues 14th Binding Opinion Finding a Public Body in Violation of FOIA


In October 2024, a reporter submitted a FOIA request to a State’s Attorney’s Office (“SAO”) asking for policies on police-involved shootings and in-custody deaths, as well as SAO reports regarding these cases since 2019. The SAO responded stating that it performed a search, but did not identify any responsive records. The same requestor submitted a second FOIA request to the SAO seeking records reflecting SAO findings about bringing charges in a specific police-involved shooting case from 2021. The SAO identified a responsive letter between the SAO and the Illinois State Police, but denied the letter in its entirety. The requestor then filed a request for review with the PAC claiming that the SAO’s FOIA responses were inconsistent, because the first response said that the SAO did not have any responsive records, but the second response identified a responsive record which the SAO withheld from disclosure. 

After the request for review was filed, the SAO provided the record to the requestor, and the PAC closed the file. Then, the requestor renewed his first request, and the SAO again responded that it did not possess any responsive records. After the requestor submitted a new request for review, the PAC requested the SAO to explain how it searched for responsive records to the first request. The SAO responded by claiming that it was unduly burdensome to search for and compile records responsive to the first request.

In PAC Binding Op. 24-014, the PAC concluded that the SAO violated FOIA by not performing a reasonable search for records, and improperly denying a FOIA request.

First, the PAC said that the SAO failed to explain how it conducted its search for records responsive to the first request, did not describe its recordkeeping systems, or why the SAO could not electronically search its recordkeeping systems (e.g., e-mail accounts) or consult with employees who would have been authorized or aware of these type of reports.

The PAC also rejected the SAO’s argument that it was not required to search for responsive reports unless the requestor named the subjects of the reports, because a requestor is only required to identify the records being requested by describing their contents.

Finally, the PAC rejected the SAO’s claim that the first request was unduly burdensome because the SAO did not follow the proper statutory procedure, including providing the requestor with an opportunity to narrow the request to manageable proportions. As a result, the PAC determined that the SAO forfeited the ability to deny the request on that basis in response to the request for review.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Monday, December 23, 2024

Day Ten: The New Year Countdown – The Equal Pay Act


This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2025.

Public Act 103-0539 made several changes to the Equal Pay Act. Starting on January 1, 2025, all employers (including units of local government) with 15 or more employees must include a pay scale for all positions and job postings. Employers who create external job postings must also share information on vacant positions internally, including for promotional opportunities, within 14 days of the public posting.

The Act also provides that all employers, regardless of the number of employees, must disclose the pay scale and available benefits to all applicants before the applicant makes a request for the information.

Finally, in addition to current record keeping requirements, employers must document the pay scale and benefits for all positions.

Employers may be subject to fines of up to $500 for the first offense if they are found in violation of this new statutory requirement.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink


Friday, December 20, 2024

Day Nine: The New Year Countdown – Permit Fees for Disabled Veterans


This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2025.

Public Act 103-0621 amends the Counties Code, Township Code, and the Municipal Code. The Act provides that veterans with a disability will not be charged for building permit fees for improvements required to accommodate their disability. A veteran or their caregiver must provide proof of veteran status and attest to the fact that the improvements to the veteran’s residence are for disability accommodations. 

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Thursday, December 19, 2024

Day Eight: The New Year Countdown – Conservation and Education Program


This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2025.

Today, we are covering the Illinois Youth & Young Adult Conservation and Education Act that was passed by the General Assembly to provide education and employment opportunities for youth and young adults between the ages of 15-25.

The Act provides for creation of the Youth & Young Adult Conservation Pilot Program (Program). The Program will provide grants to units of local government to provide conservation education, job training programs, and internship opportunities with the Department of Natural Resources.

The curriculum of this program will be aimed at the development and maintenance of natural resources, environmental stewardship and civic responsibility, and improving the public land in Illinois.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Day Seven: The New Year Countdown – Police Officer Disability


This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2025.

Public Act 103-0929 amends the Illinois Municipal Code to expressly state that a physical or mental disability that constitutes the basis of an application for benefits may not be used as a cause, either in whole or in part, for a municipality to discharge a police officer. The Act also provides that the chief of police must order an immediate reinstatement into service when an officer provides a receipt of certification that the officer is no longer disabled.  

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

Day Six: The New Year Countdown – First Responder Insurance


This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2025. Today, we will be covering two Acts passed by the General Assembly that made amendments to the Municipal Code, State Employees Group Insurance Act, and Counties Code.

Public Act 103-0818 requires insurance coverage for joint mental health therapy services for police and fire officers in Illinois. In order to be covered, the mental health therapy services must be provided by a licensed physician, therapist, psychologist, or social worker. Municipalities, including home-rule municipalities, must provide insurance coverage for these type of services to members of municipal police and fire departments and their spouses or partners residing with them if they are a self-insurer for health insurance. Similarly, counties that are self-insurers for health insurance must provide insurance coverage for members of the sheriff's office and any spouse or partner of the member who resides with the member, and fire protection districts that are self-insurers for health insurance must provide similar insurance coverage for members of the fire district and their spouses or partners residing with them.

Public Act 103-1011 makes similar amendments and requires coverage for mental health counseling services for first responders starting on June 1, 2025. The term “first responders” includes all police and corrections officers, deputy sheriffs, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, medical dispatchers, public safety telecommunicators, and mental health professionals dispatched in response to emergency services. Municipalities, including home-rule municipalities, must provide insurance coverage for these services if they are a self-insurer.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Monday, December 16, 2024

Day Five: The New Year Countdown – Illinois Department of Transportation Studies


This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2025.

Public Act103-0694 provides that the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) must provide traffic and environmental studies or surveys to units of local government on request. The Act also provides that any study performed by IDOT may be substituted for a study required by construction projects affecting a state right-of-way.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Friday, December 13, 2024

Day Four: The New Year Countdown – Pesticide Notices


This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2025.

Today, we are covering Public Act 103-0976 which regulates the use of pesticides in municipalities. This Act provides that municipalities and government actors must provide 24-hours of notice to the public before applying a pesticide on a public right-of-way. The notice must include intended location, name of the product, the reason for application, any special instructions on the product label, and contact information for the Department of Agriculture. A violation of this act may result in fines up to $1,000. The notice must be written and is sufficient if posted in newsletters, websites, calendars, or other correspondence published by the government entity. Posting on a bulletin board is not sufficient.

The Act also provides that a municipality is exempt from these notice requirements if the pesticide application is in response to diseases in mosquito populations or a natural disaster recovery effort.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink