Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Rule Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs home-rule charter as option to expand local revenue options
Summary
Franklin Park council members discussed whether to pursue a home-rule charter and possible revenue changes such as adjusting the realty transfer tax; members emphasized messaging, timing for a November ballot and public outreach before any charter question appears on a ballot.
Franklin Park Borough Council members discussed beginning a home-rule charter process that could allow additional local revenue tools, including potential changes to the realty transfer tax.
Council members said the borough currently collects roughly $500,000 per year from the transfer tax and noted that modest changes could materially affect borough revenue. "Most of the people currently on councils are pretty happy with free council," one council member said, but added that the discussion centers on finding "new sources of revenue that don't disenfranchise anybody in the borough." Another council member observed, "we get about a half a million dollars per year, currently, as it's currently being transferred. Yes. So that's a pretty big... something close to 5% of our budget."
Members discussed timing and messaging. They agreed the borough missed the deadline to place a change on the upcoming primary ballot and that a November referendum would be the practical target. "I think if we're serious about doing it in the fall, we have to probably start the process really soon," one member said. Several members stressed public education and clear messaging to avoid confusion that could make voters think the borough would immediately change its form of government. "The more open we are, the more transparent we are, the better we can review," one member said.
Council members considered alternatives to hiring expensive consultants, noting that some statutory home-rule templates can adopt the current governance structure while enabling revenue options such as a transfer tax change or stormwater fee. Concerns were raised about the commission charged with drafting a charter drifting from the council irection, but members said the commission can be guided and that charter language could be limited to incremental changes. The council did not vote to form a commission or place a charter question on a ballot at the meeting; members asked staff to prepare messaging and materials for future meetings and to begin outreach in advance of a fall ballot if the council decides to proceed.
Ending: Council members agreed to continue work on messaging, to involve the solicitor and to revisit the timeline and draft materials at future meetings.
