Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

  Friday, May 29, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

As the Illinois General Assembly draws closer to concluding its 2026 spring legislative session, there are a number of outstanding bills likely to be considered that would have a significant impact on local governments throughout Illinois. The General Assembly has been busy so far in the 2026 spring session passing a number of bills that will affect local government operations as well as a bill on regulating electric mobility devices. With three days left until the General Assembly recesses on May 31^st, the Governor’s BUILD Plan legislation, and other bills impacting local governments, may still be considered.

Below is a list of bills we’re tracking with updates on the bill’s status through May 28^th. 

Housing Legislation 

House Bill 5626: BUILD Plan Housing Omnibus Bill (First Reading; referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 4060: Middle Housing & Statewide Standards (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4061: Single-Stair Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4062: Statewide Impact Fee Calculation (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee)

 Senate Bill 4063: Third-Party Plan Review (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4064: Parking Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4071: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 0331: Restock the Block Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 introduced on May 21^st and recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 0608: Federally Assisted Tenant Protection Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 635: Faith-Based Housing and Mixed-Use By-Right Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No.1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5765 / Senate Bill 4200: REAL Housing Act (Frist Reading; referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

Other Legislation Affecting Local Governments 

House Bill 1429: Amendments to IL Homeless Bill of Rights (Second Reading; House Floor Amendment No. 1; House Floor Amendment No. 2 recommended for adoption by House Housing Committee; House Floor Amendment No. 3 recommended for approval by House Housing Committee; Bill and all House floor amendments re-referred to House Rules Committee)

House Bill 5513 / Senate Bill 4016: Power Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 5326: Digital Library Protection Act (Passed House; House Floor Amendment No.1 and House Floor Amendment No. 2 adopted; First Reading in Senate; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 4712: Amendments to Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 1796: Body Worn Camera FOIA Requests (Senate Committee Amendment No. 2 adopted; Passed Senate; Second Reading in House) 

Senate Bill 2715: OMA and FOIA Amendments: (Passed Senate; Second Reading in House; House Committee Amendment No. 1 adopted by House Executive Committee; House Floor Amendments No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7 recommended for adoption by House Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5784 / Senate Bill 20: Joint Omnibus CBD and Cannabis Regulatory Reform (First Reading in House and referred to House Rules Committee; First Reading in Senate; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Legislation Passed By Both Chambers 

Senate Bill 3336: Electric Mobility Devices (Passed both houses as of May 27, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2836: Government Account Audits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2826: IMRF Pension Benefits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2769: Transfer of Funds Among Municipal Business District Tax Allocation Funds (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2102: Taxing District Budget and Appropriations Ordinance Filing (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 638: Municipal Postemployment Benefit Trusts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2761: Service Animals and In-Service ADA Trainings (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2913: Teacher Evaluation Plans (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2914: Procedure for Removing/Dismissing Teachers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 3361: Religious Hairstyles in Schools (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4375: School District Interfund Transfers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5542: Park District Disconnection Petitions (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5166: Dissolution of Special Districts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5167: Township Weed Cutting (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4788: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Curriculum (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4862: School Staff Mental Health Policies (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4491: Amendment to Public Employee Disability Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 2137: Amendment to Governmental Account Audit Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4397: School Psychologist Qualifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 3743: School District Handbook Railroad Safety Messaging (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4137: Amendment to Education for Homeless Children Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4361: Building Inspector Certifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 1353: Amendment to Volunteer Emergency Worker Job Protection Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4541: Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Passed both houses as of May 14, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

Status of the Digital Library Protection Act

Status of the Digital Library Protection Act

  Monday, April 27, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

As many of our library readers already know, the Illinois House has passed House Bill 5236, the Digital Library Protection Act. If approved by the Illinois Senate, and signed by the Governor, this new law would prevent Illinois libraries (and any library consortium acting on behalf of a library) from entering into contracts with publishers regarding "electronic literary materials" (defined as e-books and digital audio books) that would:

1. restrict a library from licensing literary materials from publishers; 
2. restrict a library from employing technological protection measures necessary to loan e-books and digital audiobooks; 
3. restrict a library from making preservation copies of e-books and digital audiobooks; 
4. restrict a library from loaning e-books and digital audiobooks through interlibrary loans; 
5. restrict a library from loaning e-books and digital audiobooks to borrowers; 
6. restrict a library from determining loan periods for licensed e-books and digital audiobooks; 
7. require a library to obtain a license for e-books and digital audiobooks at a price greater than what is charged to the public for the same item;
8. restrict the number of licenses for e-books and digital audiobooks that the library can acquire after the item is available to the public;
9. require the library to pay a cost-per-circulation fee for loan e-books and digital audiobooks, unless the fee is substantially lower in aggregate to the cost of purchasing the item outright; 
10. restrict the number of times the library can loan an e-book or digital audiobook over the course of the contract if the contract imposes a time-based limitation on the duration of the license; 
11. restrict or limit the library's ability to virtually recite text or display artwork to library patrons that would be more restrictive than what is recited or displayed at the library facility;
12. restrict the library from disclosing the terms of the contract to any other Illinois library; and
13. require, coerce, or enable the library to violate the Library Records Confidentiality Act.

If passed, the bill would also prohibit any provision in a contract that would require a different state law to be applied in any dispute. Note that the bill would not apply to any existing contracts with publishers.

The bill has been sent to the Illinois Senate for its consideration.

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Local Government Lift-Assist Services

The New Year Countdown – Local Government Lift-Assist Services

  Thursday, December 18, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

Public Act 104-0057 amends the Municipal Code and the Fire Protection District to allow municipalities and fire protection districts to collect reasonable fees from assisted living facilities and nursing homes to cover lift assistance services provided to residents of these facilities. Lift-assist service fees can be imposed for every service after the sixth service provided to that specific facility in one year.

A lift assist service is a response by first responders in order to lift a patient from their current position to a desired position. While these lifts do not occur in response to a request for an ambulance ride to the hospital or emergency room, they can still utilize limited resources of municipalities and fire protection districts. This legislation will allow fire protection districts and municipalities to recover some of these costs and alleviate some strains on limited financial resources of government bodies.

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Illinois Student and Equity Act Expansion

The New Year Countdown – Illinois Student and Equity Act Expansion

  Tuesday, December 16, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

The Retention of Illinois Students and Equity Act provides that students who are Illinois residents and are not eligible for federal financial assistance (such as certain undocumented students and transgender students) are eligible to apply for all forms of state financial aid. Public Act 104-0164 was passed to expand student eligibility to include assistance, aid, or benefits offered by units of local government. These students are now eligible to apply for assistance programs provided by local governments.

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

Local Grocery Tax Filing Reminder

Local Grocery Tax Filing Reminder

  Thursday, September 04, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Just a quick reminder to those municipalities or counties that have adopted or are considering adopting an ordinance imposing the 1% local grocery tax that was authorized by the Illinois General Assembly after the legislature repealed the state grocery tax, that a certified copy of the grocery tax ordinance must be filed with the Illinois Department of Revenue no later than October 1, 2025 in order for the tax to take effect on January 1, 2026, and the revenue stream to continue. P.A. 103-0871.

Read More

Residents of Mobile Home Park Entitled to Injunctive Relief for Water Shut Off

Residents of Mobile Home Park Entitled to Injunctive Relief for Water Shut Off

  Thursday, July 31, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently ordered a city to restore water service to a customer whose water had been shut off for nonpayment. Holmberg v. Kewanee Partners.

Residents in a mobile home park pay a monthly fee to the mobile home park owner for their water service, along with their rent payments. The owner of the mobile home park was then responsible for paying the water bill to the city for the entirety of the mobile home park's water service, which was served by a consolidated water service line. The mobile home park became the subject of a foreclosure action, and the park was placed in receivership. While in receivership, the city issued a water bill to the mobile home park for $500,000, reflecting delinquent payments for water service to the mobile home park and other properties. The city's notice stated that water service would be shut off to individual mobile homes in eh park if payment was not received by June 3rd. A few days prior to that deadline, one of the residents of the mobile home park filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming that terminating her water service would violate her constitutional rights. She also filed a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the city from shutting off water to her mobile home. Other residents joined the lawsuit.

The trial court granted the original plaintiff's TRO, stopping the city from shutting off water to the residents' mobile homes. However, the trial court denied relief to some of the other plaintiff-residents in the mobile home park, and one of those residents appealed to the Appellate Court.

The Illinois Appellate Court determined that the trial court should have granted injunctive relief to other plaintiff-residents whose water service was disconnected. In this situation, the court determined that the mobile home park owner was the party responsible to pay for water service, and the residents who filed a lawsuit against the city had the right to receive water from the city while the lawsuit proceeded. The court rejected the city's argument that the residents whose water was already disconnected were not entitled to relief. The court also noted that the residents had established that they were making payments for water service to the receiver. 

Read More

Court Upholds Late Fee for Vehicle Sticker Tax

Court Upholds Late Fee for Vehicle Sticker Tax

  Monday, June 09, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

 An Appellate Court upheld Chicago's city sticker tax (wheel tax) in Zibrat v. City of Chicago.  

The City adopted a "wheel tax license fee" in 2011, and vehicle owners who failed to purchase the city sticker were assessed a late fee. After a vehicle owner purchased the city sticker after the deadline and was assessed a late fee, she filed a lawsuit claiming the late fee was an unconstitutional tax or impermissible fee. The circuit court dismissed the case, finding that although the late fee was a tax, it was not unconstitutional. She appealed, and the Appellate Court upheld the dismissal, finding that whether the late fee was considered a fee, penalty, or tax, it was permissible.

Read More

Court Interprets Procedural Requirements in Civil Forfeiture Statute

Court Interprets Procedural Requirements in Civil Forfeiture Statute

  Thursday, April 17, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Last January, police arrested a driver for driving under the influence. The driver was charged with aggravated DUI because he was driving with a suspended license from a prior DUI offense, and his truck was not insured at the time of the arrest. The police also seized the truck the Defendant was driving pursuant to state civil forfeiture of vehicle laws. 720 ILCS 5/36-1.5(a)

A month after the arrest, the State filed notice and a petition for preliminary determination of probable cause at the court’s next available hearing, which was 18 days after police seized the driver's truck. State law required the State to “seek” a preliminary determination over whether the police had probable cause to seize property within 14 days of taking it. 

At the hearing, the driver asked the court to dismiss the action, arguing that because more than 14 days had passed since police seized his truck, it did not comply with state law. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the petition was filed on time, and that probable cause existed for the police to seize the vehicle. 

On appeal, the main question was whether the State was required to obtain a preliminary determination of probable cause within 14 days of seizing the truck, or if requesting a hearing within that time frame was enough to satisfy the statutory requirement. This question turned on the meaning of the word “seek” in the statute. The driver argued that “seek” meant the State had to obtain a court ruling on probable cause to satisfy the requirement. However, the Appellate Court determined that the word “seek” only required the State to “request or try to acquire” a preliminary determination on probable cause within the 14-day time frame. As a result, the Appellate Court held that the State satisfied the statutory requirement by requesting a hearing within the 14-day period. Illinois v. 2008 Ford F-250 Super Duty, 2025 IL App 3d 240194.

Post Authored by Rachel Defries & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Tax Misallocation Dispute

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Tax Misallocation Dispute

  Thursday, March 20, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Last year we reported on an Illinois Appellate Court decision in a tax allocation dispute between two municipalities where sales tax revenues generated from a restaurant located in the Village of Arlington Heights (Village) were mistakenly paid to the City of Rolling Meadows (City) for almost a decade. In January of last year, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case because the trial court did have jurisdiction to hear and decide this dispute.  

That ruling was subsequently appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which issued a decision this week reversing the Appellate Court and upholding the trial court's previous dismissal of the Village's lawsuit against the City. The Illinois Supreme Court determined that the Illinois Department of Revenue has exclusive jurisdiction over tax matters, including misallocation disputes, so the trial court's dismissal of the Village's case against the City for lack of jurisdiction was proper. Village of Arlington Heights v. City of Rolling Meadows.

Read More

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Push Tax Ordinance

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Push Tax Ordinance

  Monday, March 17, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Illinois Gaming Machine Operators v. The City of Waukegan, the Illinois Gaming Machine Operators Association (IGMOA) and a group of plaintiffs sued the City to challenge an ordinance that imposed a one cent tax per push (push tax) on players of video game terminals. The City’s push tax ordinance required every terminal operator (a company that leases video gaming machines to bars or restaurants) to register as a tax collector and imposed a duty to secure the tax from their customers. The trial court upheld the ordinance and ruled that it was a permissible use of municipal authority. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the City's ordinance, rejecting the terminal operators' challenge.

First, the Appellate Court ruled that the push tax ordinance did not impose an unconstitutional occupation tax because the tax burden rested solely on the player and could not be transferred to the terminal operator.

Second, the Court ruled the push tax ordinance was not a license for revenue because enforcement provisions only imposed penalties and merely ensured compliance.

Third, the Court ruled that the ordinance did not contradict the uniformity clause of the Illinois constitution that requires taxes to be uniformly imposed across classes of goods. The terminal operators had argued that because the ordinance only imposed taxes on push machines, and not on automatic machines, the ordinance violated this clause. The court rejected that argument, finding that the City had provided sufficient justification for the ordinance and imposition of the push tax.

Finally, the Court ruled that the tax collection mechanism did not exceed the City’s home-rule authority. The terminal operators had argued the funds inserted into the gaming machines were outside of the City’s grasp because they did not pertain to the City’s government and affairs. The Court discussed the different ways the tax could be collected and ultimately ruled that there are permissible mechanisms for the City to collect the tax funds.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Cook County Tax Exempt Affidavit Information

Cook County Tax Exempt Affidavit Information

  Wednesday, February 19, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

For all of our Cook County government bodies who read Municipal Minute, we wanted to remind you of the requirement to file a tax exemption affidavit with the Assessor’s Office on or before January 31 of each year for property owned by the government body for the 2024 assessment year. In the past, the Cook County Assessor's Office sent out a notice to each Cook County taxing body with each taxing bodies’ unique agency control number, password, and a link to complete the application. Based on discussions with some Cook County government bodies, it isn't clear whether the Assessor’s Office has sent this notice for the 2025 filing or if some government bodies have not yet received the notice.

Fortunately, Cook County taxing bodies can still sign in to complete the 2025 affidavit by using their 2024 agency control number and password credentials at the link provided below. Since it is uncertain when Cook County government bodies will receive their 2025 notices, they should ensure that they complete their 2025 affidavit filing as soon possible.

The link to the 2025 tax exempt affidavit application can be found here. 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

Guidance on New Rental Use Tax Amendment

Guidance on New Rental Use Tax Amendment

  Thursday, January 16, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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 website. Based 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

Read More

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

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

  Monday, December 23, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

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

Read More

Day Six: The New Year Countdown – First Responder Insurance

Day Six: The New Year Countdown – First Responder Insurance

  Tuesday, December 17, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

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

Read More

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Code Enforcement Agreement in Favor of Village

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Code Enforcement Agreement in Favor of Village

  Tuesday, November 19, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a court order awarding a Village $45,000 in fines against a company that failed to timely install a fire alarm system in breach of a compliance agreement. Village of Plainfield v. Ionia Real Properties, LLC

In 2017, a real estate company purchased a vacant building within the Village. For the following year, the company repeatedly failed fire safety inspections for failure to install a proper fire alarm system. In 2018, the company and the Village entered into an agreement to resolve the issue. The compliance agreement required the company to install a fire alarm system within 60 days. It also provided that a $500 per day fine would be assessed if the company failed to install the system. 

When the fires system was not installed in the time period required by the compliance agreement, the Village filed a lawsuit against the company, asking the court to impose the fine for the company’s late compliance. Initially, the court ruled against the Village but in response to the Village's motion to reconsider, ultimately ruled ruled in favor of the Village and awarded it $45,000 in fines pursuant to the compliance agreement.

On appeal, the company argued the circuit court erred when it:

(1) ruled in favor of the Village;

(2) denied the company’s motion to disqualify the Village’s attorney;

(3) granted the Village’s motion to stop the company’s subpoenas for witnesses; and

(4) entered a $45,000 judgment against the company.

The Appellate Court upheld the circuit court's ruling in favor of the Village, finding that the delay on installing the fire alarm system was due solely to the company’s failure to sign a price quote with the installation company until four days prior to the agreement’s 60-day deadline, which led to the late work and resulted in a material breach of the compliance agreement. The Appellate Court also rejected the company's argument that the Village attorney should have been disqualified or that the subpoenas were necessary. Finally, the Appellate Court noted that the compliance agreement clearly stated the company would be fined $500 per day if it failed to install the fire alarm system by the agreement's deadline, which amounted to a $45,000 penalty. 

Post Authored by Daniel Lev & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

General Assembly Sends Major Changes to Sales Tax Laws to the Governor

General Assembly Sends Major Changes to Sales Tax Laws to the Governor

  Tuesday, June 18, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

As part of Governor Pritzker’s proposed budget, he lobbied for the elimination of the “grocery tax,” which the Governor argues is a regressive tax which disproportionately affects members of the community with the lowest income. The grocery tax is a part of the State’s sales tax that applies to “food purchased for consumption off the premises where it is sold,” or groceries. By comparison, a “food and beverage tax” applies to food purchased for immediate consumption on the premises from where it is purchased – like from a restaurant.  Because the grocery tax comprises a part of the tax revenue the State shares with cities and villages, the elimination of the grocery tax would result in a reduction of local revenues.

House Bill 3144 was adopted by the General Assembly on June 3, 2024, and would eliminate the grocery tax as of January 1, 2026. HB 3144 would also create the Municipal Grocery Occupation Tax Law that permits all Illinois municipalities to levy a local grocery tax of up to 1% beginning after January 1, 2026. The Municipal Grocery Occupation Tax would be administered, collected, and distributed by the State, as with other local sales taxes. October 1, 2025 is the proposed deadline for municipalities to adopt and file a tax ordinance with the Department of Revenue if they want to begin collecting the local grocery tax on January 1, 2026.

While the local grocery tax is designed to achieve revenue neutrality, House Bill 3144 makes an even more important change for non-home rule cities and villages. Currently, Section 8-11.1-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code requires non-home rule municipalities to obtain referendum approval as a condition of levying a local sales tax. Upon the enactment of HB 3144 into law, non-home rule municipalities will be able to levy a local sales tax without voter approval. The non-home rule sales tax can be levied in 0.25% increments and remains capped at 1%. The local sales tax can be commenced either January 1 or July 1 each year, provided the ordinance enacting the tax is filed with the State by October 1 or April 1, respectively. 

Keep an eye on the status of HB 3144 to see whether the Governor approves this legislation.

Post Authored by Adam Simon, Ancel Glink

Read More

Time is Money: U.S. Department of Labor Raises the Bar on Overtime Exemptions

Time is Money: U.S. Department of Labor Raises the Bar on Overtime Exemptions

  Monday, June 17, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

The U.S. Department of Labor (Department) has issued a final rule that changes the salary threshold necessary for white-collar employees to be classified as exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For a white-collar employee to be considered exempt under the FLSA, the following three criteria must be met:

   (1) The employee must be paid a fixed salary;

   (2) The salary must meet a minimum specified amount; and

   (3) The employee must primarily be engaged in executive, administrative, or professional duties.

The overtime rule raises the salary-threshold levels in two phases. Beginning July 1, 2024, the threshold initially increases from $684 per week to $844 per week. The second phase begins January 1, 2025, at which time the threshold increases to $1,128 per week (equivalent to $58,656 per year).

But the increases don’t stop there. In drafting the rule, the Department recognized the need to update earnings thresholds regularly. As a result, the threshold will automatically increase every three years beginning July 1, 2027. The automatic increases are based upon wage data at the time of the update.

While lawsuits challenging the Department’s authority to increase the overtime threshold have been filed, it would be prudent for employers to examine the salaries of existing exempt employees and remain prepared to affect salary increases should those challenges fail. 

Post Authored by Kevin Sterk, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Upholds Injunction Against Water Shut Off to Mobile Home Park

Court Upholds Injunction Against Water Shut Off to Mobile Home Park

  Wednesday, June 12, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

In 2023, a municipality sent notice to the owner of a mobile home park and the residents in the park that it would be shutting off water to the park for nonpayment of water services. At that time, the mobile home park had a delinquent water account with the city for $858,447. The mobile home park was served by a single water main, and the owner of the park was responsible for payment of water services, not the individual residents of the park, and a shutoff of water would impact all residents in the mobile home park. One of the residents of the mobile home park filed a motion for a temporary injunction to stop disconnection, which was granted by the trial court. 

The city appealed the injunction to the Illinois Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court's order. Hammer v. City of Blue Island. The Appellate Court held that the status quo in this case was the continued provision of water service to the residents in the mobile home park, and that the balance of the equities in this case favored the residents because of the substantial harm if the water were shutoff while the case moved forward because that would render the residences uninhabitable. The Court also noted that the City's delay in taking action on the unpaid bill for two years, without notice to the tenants, exacerbated its own injury and harmed innocent tenants who were not aware that the park's water bill was delinquent. Finally, the Court acknowledged that the injunction was just preliminary relief, and that the city would still have the opportunity to defend the case. 

While this case only involved preliminary relief and the case will now move forward for the city to present its defenses against the lawsuit, this court ruling may provide some guidance to municipalities in similar situations to consider seeking legal remedies sooner rather than letting a delinquency continue for several years and to notify both the owner and tenants of water bill delinquencies.

Read More

Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Pension Consolidation Act

Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Pension Consolidation Act

  Wednesday, January 24, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

Pursuant to P.A. 101-610, the Illinois General Assembly consolidated local police and firefighter pension fund assets into two statewide pension investment funds, one for police and the other for firefighters. In February 2021, 36 individual active and retired beneficiary members from a few suburban and downstate police and firefighter pension funds filed a lawsuit against the Governor and other state officials. The lawsuit claimed the Act diminishes and impairs their pension benefits because (1) prior to the Act, the local funds could “exclusively manage and control their investment expenditures and income”; (2) their “voting power and thereby an effective say in the selection of investment managers, investments, risks, rates of return, costs and expenses” was diluted by the participation of members of other local funds; and (3) the Act constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of their property.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, rejecting plaintiffs' arguments. The case made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court which also ruled in favor of the defendants. Specifically, the Illinois Supreme Court found that plaintiffs had no constitutional right to how the local pension funds are invested (whether at the state or local level) or in the selection of investment managers. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional "takings" claim, holding that while participants have a right to receive their promised benefits, they do not have a private property right in the source of funding for those payments. Arlington Heights Police Pension Fund v. Pritzker, et al.

Read More

Court Considers Sales Tax Misallocation Case Between Two Municipalities

Court Considers Sales Tax Misallocation Case Between Two Municipalities

  Monday, January 22, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court permitted a Village to sue and seek reimbursement for over $1M in sales tax revenue that had been erroneously allocated to a different municipality, and held that the Village was not limited to a reimbursement of only the last six months of misallocated revenue. Village of Arlington Heights v. City of Rolling Meadows.

In 2011, a restaurant opened in the Village. The Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) mistakenly located the restaurant in a neighboring City. As a result, the restaurant’s sales tax revenue that should have gone to the Village instead was allocated to the City. In March 2020, the Village discovered the error and alerted IDOR. Although the City had received over $1.1M dollars from the restaurant’s sales tax from 2011 to 2020, the Village was only reimbursed for $100K of that misallocated revenue based on the IDOR's claim that state law limited reimbursement of funds to only the prior six months since the error was discovered. When the City refused to return the remaining $1M in unfairly received sales tax revenue to the Village, the Village sued the City. The trial court dismissed the Village's lawsuit on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the tax case, and the Village appealed.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court on three bases. First, the Appellate Court held that the trial court did, in fact, have jurisdiction to calculate the sales tax amount that should have been allocated to the Village. Second, the Appellate Court held that the City was obligated to monitor its tax rolls to discover the mistake within the initial six months of IDOR’s error, so allowing the City to keep the $1M in misallocated tax revenue would be an unfair windfall to the City. Third, the Court determined that the Village was not precluded from suing the City because the issue was not only about the IDOR's error, but also the return of the misallocated funds to the Village. 

Post Authored by Dan Lev, Ancel Glink

Read More