Pending Legislation could have devastating impact on Municipalities subject to Tax Caps

HB3793 would eliminate inflationary increases if EAV has declined

By Richard M. Joseph

HB3793 affects taxing districts in counties subject to PTELL (tax caps). Under current law, increases in the extension of real estate taxes levied by a tax capped district are limited to the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is  less. (The extension is the total amount of a real estate tax levy actually billed to the taxpayers).

HB3793 would amend PTELL to provide that if the total EAV of all taxable property in a taxing district for the current levy year (after excluding new property, recovered TIF property and annexed or disconnected property) is less than the total EAV for all taxable property in the district for the previous levy year, then the authorized increase in the extension is 0%.

One might argue that if the assessed value of property is not increasing, then property owners should not pay a higher real estate tax. Unfortunately, even in a mild inflationary economy such as we are now experiencing, the cost of labor, material and services purchased by taxing districts continues to increase. PTELL in its current form recognizes that reality and makes a reasonable accommodation for the effect of inflation. However, if HB3793 becomes law, a decrease in EAV of even $1 would deprive an affected taxing district of the authority to receive a necessary inflation based increase in the extension of its real estate tax levy.

There is some concern that this legislation may be presented during the fall 2011 veto session.  If your municipality is subject to PTELL, you may wish to contact your state elected representatives and alert other units of local government within your municipality.  The impact of this legislation is much too severe for it to become law without substantial input from affected taxing districts and their constituents.

Municipal Electric Aggregation

Law allows voters to grant Municipalities the right to choose who supplies residential electricity

By Richard M. Joseph

How would you like to offer the benefit of lower utility rates for the citizens and small commercial establishments in your municipality?  Many Illinois municipalities have recently responded yes to this question and are in the process of investigating and implementing procedures for Municipal Electric Aggregation for their residents and small commercial electric users.

Municipal Electric Aggregation is the process of pooling residential and small business electric users to take advantage of the resulting economy of scale in order to help facilitate lower rates.  For a number of years, businesses and governmental bodies have, through various pooling arrangements, sought to purchase electricity from a retail electric supplier for themselves at a cost savings.  Individuals residing in Illinois have had the same ability, but have not been fully able to take advantage of the cost benefits of deregulation due to lack of negotiating power.  Simply put, one individual lacks the “buying power” to effectively negotiate a lesser rate, much less effectively analyze and compare the costs and alternatives from retail electric suppliers.

Recently, however, the Illinois Power Agency Act was amended to give municipalities and counties the right to solicit bids and enter into service agreements to facilitate the purchase of electricity for their residents and small commercial retail electric users.  If the existing energy supplier is not chosen, the local utility (ComEd or Ameren for most in our area) remains the distributor of the electricity, but the new supplier sells the electric power.

There are two methods allowed by the Act:  the “opt-in” method and the “opt-out” method.  Under the “opt-in” method, residential users and small commercial users must contact the municipality and “opt in” by signing up for the program.  Under the “opt out” method, the matter is first presented to the voters at referendum and, if passed, the municipality has the authority to negotiate electric service agreements for all residential and small commercial users within the municipality, except for those individuals who “opt out” by notifying the municipality that they have chosen not to participate.  While both the “opt-in” and “opt-out” methods give the municipality authority to accomplish electric aggregation, we recommend the “opt-out” method as that provides a larger group; which gives the municipality more bargaining power.

The “opt-in” method is commenced by the municipality adopting an ordinance under which the municipality may aggregate residential and small commercial retail electric loads located within the municipality and, for that purpose, solicit bids and enter into service agreements to facilitate the purchase of electricity for those residences and small commercial users who have opted in as part of the program.

The procedure for the “opt-out” method is started by the municipality first adopting an ordinance providing for a referendum to allow voters to decide if the municipality should have authority to arrange for the supply of electricity for its residential and small commercial retail customers.  If the referendum passes, the municipality can then adopt an ordinance providing for the aggregation of residential and small commercial retail electric loads within the municipality, soliciting bids and entering into service agreements to facilitate the purchase of electricity for all residences and small commercial users (other than those that have provided an “opt-out” notice to the municipality).

The first opportunity for this referendum question to be submitted is at the general primary election to be held on March 20, 2012.  In order for the municipality to have that referendum question presented to the voters on March 20, 2012, the municipality must adopt the ordinance and the municipal clerk must certify the question to the County no later than January 12, 2012.

Approval of the question at referendum merely vests the municipality with authority to negotiate and enter into service agreements for electric providers on behalf of its residents – it does not provide the obligation.  Thus, there is no downside to the municipality.

Regardless of the method (“opt-in” or “opt-out”) if the municipality wishes to utilize electric aggregation, it must adopt a plan of operation and governance for the aggregation program.  The Act specifies that this is done with assistance from the Illinois Power Agency.  Before adopting such a plan, the municipality is required to hold at least two public hearings on the plan.  Any aggregation plan must (i) provide for universal access to all applicable residential customers (no discrimination); (ii) describe demand management and energy efficiency services to be provided; and (iii) meet such other requirements as are established by law.  With that plan in place, the municipality then can solicit bids for electricity and other related services.

If the municipality is utilizing the “opt-in” method, then, within 60 days after receiving the bids, the municipality must allow residential and small commercial users to commit to the terms and conditions of the bid selected by the municipality.

If the municipality is utilizing the “opt-out” method, then it is the duty of the chosen electric supplier to notify the residential and small commercial users that they have the right to “opt-out.”  This notification must state all charges and include a full disclosure of the cost to obtain electric service.

Many municipalities lack the expertise or staff to handle the aggregation process on their own.  Additionally, the bigger the “pool” the greater bargaining power.  Accordingly, it may be prudent for the municipality to consider retaining a consultant.  The consultant should work closely with the municipal staff and legal counsel to provide assistance in analyzing load data, facilitating the bidding process, negotiating agreements with suppliers and, if chosen prior to the referendum question, educating the voters on the referendum.

Municipal Electric Aggregation provides an opportunity to benefit the residents and small commercial users of your municipality by providing an opportunity for savings with little cost to the municipality (assuming the right consultant).


Mandatory Open Meetings Act Training for Members of Local Government

Recent amendment to Open Meetings Act requires all elected and appointed members of public bodies to receive training

By Robert B. McCoy

A recent amendment to the Open Meetings Act, which becomes effective January 1, 2012, requires all elected or appointed members of a public body to receive mandatory training regarding the various requirements and responsibilities established by the Act.  Although compliance with this mandatory training requirement should not create a heavy burden on local governments, we recommend that each local governmental entity take time to identify the persons required to undergo the training and take steps to ensure that those persons complete the training by their statutory deadline.

The Act clearly applies to members of city councils, village boards, park district boards, school boards, etc.  However, persons not serving on a local governmental entity’s governing board might also be required to undergo training, depending on how the entity conducts its business.  The Open Meetings Act applies to all “public bodies,” which is defined broadly to include subsidiary bodies, “including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue.”  Common examples of such subsidiary bodies are zoning boards and planning commissions.  If a local governmental entity sets up any committee or subcommittee that is supported by any tax money, or has authority to spend tax revenue, that committee or subcommittee’s members, whether they are employees or community volunteers, its members are arguably required to undergo training.

Who are the members of a public body, or the members of a public body’s committee or subcommittee?  The Act does not say, but the most natural reading of the Act is that anyone with voting rights and anyone who is counted to form a quorum is a member.  Non-voting attendees are not required to undergo Open Meetings Act training.  For example, a local governmental entity might have a clerk, treasurer and attorney, all of whom regularly attend meetings, but do not vote and do not count towards establishing a quorum.  Unless and until the Act is clarified by the Illinois Attorney General or the courts, it appears that the clerk, treasurer and attorney in this example are not required to undergo training.  Of course, they may find the training beneficial, and online training is free and available to any interested person.  In contrast, an unpaid volunteer on a park district committee supported by tax dollars, even though she may not consider herself a public official, should complete the training.

For presently-serving members of a public body, the mandatory training is to be completed by January 1, 2013.  Persons elected or appointed to a public body after January 1, 2012 are to complete the training within 90 days of taking their oath of office.  (Members of a public body who do not take an oath of office are to complete the training within 90 days of assuming their public duties.)

The mandatory training is available online, at the website maintained by the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor, located at:  This website is already up and running because the Open Meetings Act has, since January 1, 2010, required all public bodies to designate at least one official or employee to undergo online training.  There is no reason to believe that the format of this online training will change now that it has been expanded to cover all members, not just a single designee of a public body.  The online course currently consists of 58 pages of information regarding compliance with the Open Meeting Act, interspersed with multiple choice questions.  The training can be completed in about one hour.

Elected school board members are given the option to attend a school board association sponsored training session, instead of training online.  There is no equivalent option for other elected officials; municipal officials cannot complete the training by attending any municipal association session.

Once a member of a public body completes the training, he or she is required to file a certificate of training with his or her public body.  Likewise, every member of committee or subcommittee established by the public body should file a certificate that he or she completed the online training.

Currently, the mandatory training for all members of a public body is on the honor system.  If the training is not completed, the member faces no penalties.  Other violations of the Open Meeting Act still carry a stiff penalty, including criminal sanctions.  Nevertheless, the Act has received much attention, and it is certainly possible that the Act will be amended yet again to include penalties for officials who fail to undergo training.

FOIA Changes in Regards to “Recurrent Requesters”

Change in legislation allows governmental bodies more time to respond

By Richard M. Joseph

On August 26, 2011, Governor Quinn signed into law an amendment to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (the “Act”) designed to provide additional time for public bodies to respond to requests of “recurrent requesters”.

The new law is being criticized, both by governmental bodies, as not providing enough protection from nuisance requesters, and by watchdog groups as having a chilling effect upon an individual’s right to seek information from governmental bodies.

The “recurrent requester” provision of the law allows governmental bodies to delay responses for up to 21 days in the event the person requesting the response (i) has filed 50 requests for records within the year, (ii) filed 15 requests for records within a 30-day period, or (iii) filed 7 requests for records within a 7-day period.  Without such modification, the governmental body was required to respond within 5 days or, under certain limited circumstances, request a 5-day extension.

The modification defines a “recurrent requester” to exclude news media and non-profit, scientific, or academic organizations where the principal purpose of the request is to access and disseminate information concerning news and current events, for articles of opinion, or features of interest to the public, or for academic, scientific, or public research or education.

Within five business days after receiving a request from a “recurrent requester”, the public body is required to notify the requester that the public body is treating the request as a request from a recurrent requester under subsection (g) of Section 2 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, set forth the reasons why the public body is treating the request as a request from a recurrent requester, and that the public body will send an initial response within 21 days after receipt in accordance with the Act.

In addition to sending the five-day notice discussed above, when a Freedom of Information Act Request is received from a “recurrent requester”, the public body must respond within 21 days.  Such response must (i) provide to the requester an estimate of the time required by the public body to provide the records requested and an estimate of the fees to be charged, (ii) deny the request pursuant to one or more of the exemptions set forth in the Act, (iii) notify the requester that the request is unduly burdensome and extend an opportunity to the requester to attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions, or (iv) provide the records requested.  The public body may require the requester to pay in full any fees to be charged before copying the requested documents.

The law then provides that, unless the records are exempt from disclosure, the public body shall comply with the request “within a reasonable period considering the size and complexity of the request”.

Anyone who is deemed by a public body to be a “recurrent requester” can appeal their status to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.

In addition to the recurrent requester modification, the law has also been changed to now allow a public body to charge a search fee up to $10.00 for each hour spent by personnel in searching for and retrieving records requested for a commercial purpose, although no fee shall be charged for the first eight hours spent by personnel in searching for or retrieving a requested record.  Thus, this fee modification will not be of significant import to most governmental bodies in responding to typical requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Finally, the law was changed to provide that a person whose request to inspect or copy a public record is made for a commercial purpose may not file a request for a review with the Public Access Counselor.  That having been stated, when a person whose request to inspect or copy a public record is treated by the public body as a request for a commercial purpose (as opposed to being identified by the requester for a commercial purpose) the requester may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor of the Attorney General’s Office for the limited purpose of reviewing whether the public body properly determined that the request was made for a commercial purpose.

Drafting a Social Networking Policy

Issues for districts considering whether and how to regulate employees’ electronic communications

By Joshua D. Herman

Social networking platforms and personal technology devices provide unique opportunities to educate and interact in the modern age. Unchecked, the same technology can also lend itself to unprofessional behavior by employees and the publication or exposure of records and information to the public that could subject the district or its employees to liability.

Most districts considering a social networking policy are concerned with preventing misuse of district resources and preventing inappropriate communications by employees.  In drafting a social networking policy, a district may want to consider starting with the new Illinois Association of School Boards’ PRESS policy 5:125. This policy attempts to establish the boundaries of professional behavior by district employees without going astray of the First Amendment. Depending on your district’s goals, you may find that the PRESS policy goes too far, or not far enough.  Regardless of what position your district takes, the following matters should be considered when drafting a social networking policy.

Ethical Conduct

A district should consider how to help ensure district employees do not violate their legal and ethical obligations when using social networks or personal technology. One way is to require district-related communications be open and transparent, as well as accessible to relevant district employees, including supervisors and administrators.  Additionally, noting within the policy that the district may search for and review any social networking or other electronic posts to ensure compliance with the policy may help to prevent inappropriate conduct by employees.

Types of Communications Allowed

A district might also consider requiring employees to use only district-supported technology for district- related communications (district email, homework forums, etc.). This restriction should help to avoid misuse of district resources while giving the district greater opportunity for investigation and review if any issues arise. Further, restricting employee communication with students to only district-supported technology should greatly reduce the potential for unprofessional or peer-like interactions to occur. However, some districts do not have such technology and others may allow or even encourage employees to engage students using other common methods of communication. Districts should consider whether and when an employee may conduct district business outside of district-supported technology and explicitly address these exceptions.

Private Contact Information

To prevent private, personal, and peer-like communications between employees and students, a district may also want to consider prohibiting employees from providing their private contact information, such as email and personal phone numbers, to students. Such a provision would likely require specific exceptions because, for example, traveling sports and competitive teams often benefit from the quick communication allowed by mobile phones. If a district authorizes such communications with private devices, a policy may require prior approval by administration before private contact information is shared with a student. A policy may also require that a copy of the information given to the student is given to both the employee’s supervisor and the student’s parent, with an explanation of why the information was shared, as well as when and in what circumstances that form of contact will be used.

Responsibility For Publicizing Information

While a district cannot prevent an employee from using social networks, it can notify employees that they are responsible for what they post. Consequently, a district should consider explicitly stating within the policy that employees who use social networks are responsible for the content and consequences of their communications. A social networking policy may make clear that it is the employee’s obligation to read and understand the terms of use for each forum used. A social networking policy should also make clear that employees shall not post information that would violate student records laws or privacy concerns, or divulge other confidential district information.

Professional v. Peer

Usually, the primary purpose of a social networking policy is to avoid an appearance of impropriety by district employees.  To this end, many districts consider restricting social networking and personal technology use during the school day.

A district may also consider prohibiting a direct social networking relationship with current students (such as “friending”), with some exceptions. A total ban would likely violate the First Amendment, as the state of Missouri recently discovered when it recently passed a law stating: “No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a non-work-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student.” In August 2011, a circuit court judge issued an injunction, preventing the new law from going into effect because its restriction was so sweeping that it would have a chilling effect on speech. In addition to potentially violating the law, a total ban might also have the unintended effect of preventing a district employee from “friending” their own child or other relative, church youth group member, etc. Consequently, any limitation on social networking interaction must be carefully crafted.


Although the district has an interest in providing a framework for employee behavior in the public arena, the First Amendment prevents the district from completely banning an employee’s use of social networking sites. However, districts need not become associated with every public word posted by their employees. Thus, many districts require social networking employees to provide a disclaimer.  This provision would require district employees who, through their use of social media, refer to the district or may be identified as a district employee, to provide a disclaimer that any opinions are those of the individual and are neither endorsed by the district nor representative of the district’s views or policies.


Any policy a district does choose to implement regarding employee use of social networking and personal technology will likely touch upon, if not change, the terms and conditions of employment; therefore, such a policy may have to be bargained.  A district may avoid issues at bargaining by seeking input from employees who regularly use social networking prior to the policy drafting stage.


A district implementing a social networking policy can avoid legal missteps by remembering throughout the process that the policy is not meant to control all on and off campus communications, but to ensure professional relationships between district employees, students, and their parents.


Joshua Herman - Young Lawyer of the Year

Joshua Herman named Young Lawyer of the Year by ISBA

Miller, Hall & Triggs LLC congratulates Joshua D. Herman on being named the 2011 Young Lawyer of the Year by the ISBA.

Selection is based upon the lawyer’s particular achievements in the practice of law, including excellence in advocacy, counseling, or litigation; contributions to the advancement of the Bar of Illinois and the legal profession generally; and service to the community.

One of the letters in support of Josh’s nomination wrote, “Joshua is respectful to the litigants as well as to opposing counsel. He is always well prepared and provides competent guidance to the Court when there is a unique or complicated legal issue.” Another supporter wrote, “Joshua Herman possesses all of the necessary qualities embodied in this Award. His hard work ethic and tough-minded, yet realistic approach to the law make him an excellent candidate.”

Congratulations, Joshua!

Appellate Court Rules No Claim Against City for Violation of Illinois Antitrust Act

Miller, Hall & Triggs LLC Partner, Jeffrey Krumpe, represented the City of Henry, Illinois in the case of Edwards v. City of Henry.  In that case, Mr. Krumpe successfully obtained an appellate court ruling that held a litigant could not assert claims against the City for alleged violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act.  The court also granted the City’s request for sanctions based on a frivolous appeal.

Click here to read the appellate court’s opinion.

Central Illinois Elec. Services v. Slepian

MHT Partner Jeffrey Krumpe represented an electrical contractor asserting mechanics lien rights against a homeowner.  The appellate court interpreted provisions of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act in a way which invalidated the contractor’s mechanics lien rights.  This decision was ultimately overruled by later court decisions and amendments to the law.

Read the appellate court’s now-invalid decision here.

Appointment of Municipal Officials and Agency Board Members

Appointment of Municipal Officials and Agency Board Members

By Richard M. Joseph

After municipal elections pass, or upon vacancies in municipal office, it is often helpful to review the manner of appointment for various municipal officials and agency board members, such as the:
  • municipal manager or administrator,
  • municipal attorney,
  • clerk (when the position is not elected),
  • treasurer,
  • fire and police chiefs,
  • Board of Fire and Police Commissioners,
  • members Zoning Board of Appeals, and
  • members of the Planning Commission.

Read more – Appointment of municipal officers to non-elected positions elected