As McHenry County officials express frustration at state legislation they say erodes local control, they’re considering asking the voters for permission to become home rule.
Home rule is a classification that allows a local government to enact laws as it sees fit, as long as they’re not in conflict with state laws. That includes more leeway to impose fees, restrictions and taxes.
Though some municipalities in McHenry County have home rule powers, Cook County is the only county in Illinois with such powers.
In McHenry County, solar farms have been a source of frustration since state law has in recent years limited the county’s ability to regulate such facilities, and opened the county up to lawsuits when they’ve been denied.
More recently, officials at the county and in several municipalities have expressed frustration at the proposed BUILD Act, Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s plan that would limit local authority on what types of housing structures can be built on residential zoned land.
Some McHenry County officials believe home rule can offer the chance to reclaim some powers, though officials acknowledged public education would be necessary. County officials also said the state could pass bills overriding home rule.
While the ability to impose taxes is one reason home rule is often opposed, county officials said they felt their track record as fiscally restrained would mean they would not abuse that power.
Officials are considering going to voters with a home-rule request during the November election. When asked about the timing during a discussion at county law and government committee meeting, Republican County board member Joe Gottemoller said, “Springfield’s in the middle of taking away our rights.”
Board member Matt Kunkle, also a Republican, said the level of taxation in Illinois is “egregious.” And if there is one county that can get home rule, it might be McHenry, he said, adding he thinks the board would continue to look for ways to reduce spending and taxes even if home rule is adopted.
“I love this idea,” Kunkle said.
GOP board member Brian Sager said he was involved when Woodstock became home rule in 2016.
Sager said people were vocal in opposition.
“The argument was that this would give us more power to impose more taxes on people. And we didn’t need any more, we had enough,” Sager said.
Sager said he would support a binding referendum, but a lot of people would be voting without information on it. He said if the county puts home rule before the voters, “a large vocal unit” will oppose it because they don’t understand.
Woodstock chose to limit its tax increases to the property tax cap when it became home rule, even though having home rule status means a governmental body is not bound by the state tax cap.
Republican board member Mike Shorten pointed out Cary had a home rule referendum that got voted down in 2024. Shorten acknowledged there is a perception that home rule means governing bodies can create taxes.
Shorten also mentioned the SAFE-T Act and the loss of the McHenry County jail’s contract with ICE. He said that has cost tens of millions of dollars in revenue and it’s part of why county finances are tight. The Illinois Way Forward Act took effect in 2022 and forced the county to cancel its contract with ICE to house detainees.
Shorten asked whether some of those things could have been stopped had the county been home rule.
Gottemoller said the county might have kept the ICE contract if it had home rule because of the wording of the law.
Democratic board member Gloria Van Hof said in regards to the ICE contract, if the county board is trying to represent constituents, “How many of our constituents like the idea of ICE?”
She questioned whether the idea of home rule was what people want or whether it’s what a few people in government want. She said the county needs to look at what home rule would mean for the county before moving ahead.
Board member Pamela Althoff, a Republican, said in response that is why the county wants a referendum, so people can express their opinion about home rule.
Althoff said the referendum also provides local lawmakers a tool to show their colleagues in Springfield the impact of state laws back home.
“It’s so bad that McHenry County decided that they were going to do this,” Althoff said. She added that the county taking time to review it means “you have to be at a breaking point.”
Kunkle said he was elected to represent his constituents and what they want. He was supportive of a binding referendum and said he likes having the authority to “actually govern our county.” But he said he is fine with a nonbinding referendum too.
“It’s not what I like; it’s what my constituents like,” Kunkle said.
However, the board has not yet made a final decision on whether it would be binding or not.
Two additional committees are expected to take up the matter, but the full County Board would need to approve it by Aug. 17 for it to get onto the November ballot.