Cabello Seeks to Expand Local Government Powers for Non-Home Rule Cities
April 24, 2026 | Freeport, IL
HB1025 would grant many home rule authorities to municipalities without allowing new taxing, fee, or debt powers
A proposal introduced in the Illinois General Assembly could significantly reshape how many cities and villages across Illinois govern themselves.
House Bill 1025, filed by State Representative John Cabello, would grant non-home rule municipalities many of the same powers currently reserved for home rule units under the Illinois Constitution. The measure would exclude three major authorities: the power to tax, the power to impose fees, and the power to incur debt.
If enacted, the bill would take effect immediately.
Understanding Home Rule vs. Non-Home Rule
In Illinois, municipalities generally fall into two categories: home rule and non-home rule.
Home rule communities—typically larger cities or municipalities that have adopted home rule status by referendum—have broader authority to govern local affairs without needing specific permission from the state legislature for each action.
Non-home rule municipalities operate with more limited powers. In many cases, they must rely on authority expressly granted through state statute before taking certain actions.
This distinction can directly affect how communities address housing, nuisance properties, economic development, staffing structures, and day-to-day governance.
What HB1025 Would Change
HB1025 would provide that non-home rule municipalities may exercise all powers granted to home rule units under Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution, except for:
Taxing authority
Imposing fees
Incurring debt
That means qualifying municipalities could gain broader authority over local affairs while remaining restricted from creating new taxes, new fees, or new debt under this proposal.
The bill appears designed to increase local flexibility while preserving limits on direct revenue expansion.
Potential Benefits
Supporters of HB1025 may argue that the bill gives communities more tools to solve local problems without waiting on Springfield.
Potential advantages could include:
Greater local control over municipal affairs
Faster responses to emerging issues
Less dependence on state lawmakers for enabling legislation
More flexibility in housing, nuisance, and administrative matters
Expanded authority without granting new tax or borrowing powers
For smaller communities, the proposal could create opportunities to act more quickly and tailor solutions to local needs.
Potential Drawbacks
Critics may raise concerns that broader powers can still expand government authority, even without new taxing powers.
Potential drawbacks could include:
Increased regulatory reach at the local level
Legal disputes over where authority begins and ends
Different rules from town to town creating inconsistency
Expanded responsibilities without funding sources to carry them out
Concerns over oversight, transparency, and accountability
Opponents may argue that granting broader powers only works when local governments are already operating effectively and responsibly.
What It Could Mean for Freeport
Freeport is already a home rule community, having adopted that status through referendum.
That means HB1025 would not directly change Freeport’s legal authority. However, the proposal invites a broader discussion about how home rule powers are used in practice.
In recent years, residents have seen increases in local fees, fines, and taxes, while many have also voiced concerns about service levels, efficiency, transparency, and accountability.
For some residents, that raises a larger question: if additional powers are granted to municipalities, what safeguards ensure those powers are used effectively and in the public interest?
For others, Freeport may serve as a reminder that authority alone does not guarantee strong governance.
Similar debates would likely emerge in any community granted broader powers under HB1025.
Legislative Status
HB1025 was prefiled in December 2024, received its first reading in January 2025, and was referred to the House Rules Committee, where it remains as of the latest update.
Bills assigned to Rules Committee often await further movement before receiving hearings or floor votes.
Why This Matters
HB1025 centers on one of the most important questions in Illinois government:
Should more decisions be made locally—or remain limited by state law?
For non-home rule communities, the answer could determine how quickly they respond to challenges and how much flexibility local leaders have.
For home rule communities like Freeport, the debate may be less about authority—and more about how that authority is exercised.
Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson, Chairman, Fighting4Freeport
I have long supported home rule authority. In principle, local communities should have the power to solve local problems without waiting on Springfield.
However, after watching how home rule powers have been exercised in Freeport, I have begun to question that support.
Residents have seen rising fees, fines, and taxes, while many believe they have received less in return through reduced services, weaker efficiency, limited transparency, and declining accountability. That experience naturally leads to a broader question: does more authority always produce better government?
At the same time, I continue to believe that government is only as good as those elected to govern. The issue is not always the system itself or the powers available through it. More often, it is how the people entrusted with those powers choose to use them.
Because of that, I would rather see Springfield modernize home rule law by attaching measurable standards communities must meet in order to obtain or maintain that status.
For example, I would support requiring home rule municipalities to maintain a minimum reserve fund based on a per-resident formula, ensuring they are financially prepared for emergencies and unexpected costs.
I would also support minimum staffing standards for police and fire protection. Communities granted broad governing authority should be expected to maintain dependable core public safety services.
Likewise, municipalities with home rule powers should be required to maintain emergency housing capacity, either through a local shelter or a formal regional partnership.
There is also a legitimate argument that communities claiming the benefits of self-governance should not become overly dependent on state grants to sustain basic operations. Greater autonomy should come with greater responsibility.
To me, the future debate should not simply be whether more cities receive home rule powers.
It should be whether Illinois is willing to demand performance, stability, and accountability from communities that already have them.
Home rule should not be a badge of status. It should be earned through performance.