The city of Geneva is again considering a bond referendum question meant to help it pay for a new police station, which may be put to voters in the March 17, 2026, election.
The possibility of selling bonds to construct new public safety facilities is not new in Geneva — the city had initially planned to put the question to voters last April, but pulled it from the ballot in January after discovering a calculation error that would have doubled the projected property tax payment.
Now, the Geneva City Council is again considering a referendum — with a particular emphasis on constructing a new police station for the city.
Geneva’s current police station is located just off the Fox River at 20 Police Plaza. At a City Council Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, City Administrator Alex Voigt said that the current building had previously housed the police department, fire department and Tri-Com Central Dispatch, but the latter two entities have since gotten their own facilities.
Discussing the city’s need for the new station, Voigt explained that the “profession of policing has changed so substantially over the past five years,” pointing to investments in equipment and technology that require additional space. That’s in addition to training requirements, which the current facility “just does not accommodate,” she said.
The new police station is one of the projects in a major facilities overhaul the city has been planning for over a year. City staff has previously pointed to issues like a lack of office space, flooding, sewer back-ups and a partial roof collapse at the police station.
As a result, the city has been weighing the construction of a new, 45,000-square-foot police station on a city-owned property adjacent to the Public Works site on South Street.
Now, almost a year after the initial bond referendum was pulled off the April ballot, the council has picked the idea back up.
In recent discussions, the council has also been weighing a switch to a home rule form of government, which could also be brought to voters in an upcoming election via referendum — though it’s not expected to be on the March ballot.
An Illinois municipality with a population greater than 25,000 automatically receives home rule status, according to the state constitution. Communities with a population lower than 25,000 can become home rule units by putting the matter to voters.
Geneva’s population currently stands at a little over 21,000, per the most recent available U.S. Census Bureau figures.
Being a home rule municipality allows local governments more flexibility in lawmaking, as the Illinois constitution allows them to essentially exercise any power not specifically limited by the state.
The city has also been in talks for some time about whether to switch to home rule.
City staff previously explained that having this authority would allow it to issue bonds for each of its facility improvement projects separately and over time, instead of having to rely on a single referendum to borrow all of the money upfront. It would also allow them to access new streams of revenue, like business licenses and impact fees on new development, and to have broader powers around economic development, according to past reporting.
Both were being considered by the council as options for the March ballot, but the council has since landed on pursuing only the bond referendum for public safety facilities in the coming election — but planning for a vote on home rule by 2028.
At a meeting of the council’s Committee of the Whole in early November, Voigt presented the two referendum options. The presentation notes that while a bond referendum would fund the new police station project, it wouldn’t create a source of funding for other facility projects the city intends to undertake in the future. Home rule, on the other hand, allows the city to generate funds not limited to just that project and generally opens up more options for the city, according to Voigt’s presentation.
But the council was divided on the right pathway forward.
At the November meeting, Ald. Anaïs Bowring noted the possibility of having both questions on the ballot, but said she has become “increasingly skeptical that that would be a wise move.” She said she thinks it makes the city “look uncertain about the right path forward” and makes educating voters about the measure more difficult.
Ald. Larry Furnish added that the home rule referendum was going to be “a long shot,” and Ald. Brad Kosirog said the city “need(s) to stick to business” and pursue the bond referendum, but said he wasn’t opposed to pursuing home rule in the future.
Ald. Amy Mayer added that there was “no question” that the council was on board with the police station bond referendum, but whether to switch to home rule is not unanimous.
However, Mayer noted that she thinks voters expect the city to “be able to act in ways that are enabled by home rule.” So, she said, educating voters on home rule could be “a much better endeavor” than “continually … having to tell people that we can’t do things that they would like us to do because we’re not home rule.”
Ald. William Malecki noted that home rule is “not just … for funding mechanism(s) for your city,” and suggested putting the bond referendum on the March ballot, and educating the public on home rule between now and the election in November 2026.
But Ald. Martha Paschke said staggering the two referendums would mean educating the public twice on the issues. In favor of the home rule idea, she cautioned that pursuing a bond referendum doesn’t give the city a path to “really, solidly plan for all of the other things that need to be fixed down the road,” and said that approach would be “incredibly short-sighted.”
“I think we need to trust that the public can be open to learning, and we need to be committed to helping teach the public,” Paschke said.
The council then addressed the matter again at a Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, where it recommended approval of language for a bond referendum in March to fund the public safety facilities improvements.
At that meeting, Bowring indicated her concerns with the bond measure, although she said she supports the new police facility.
“I feel like my job on this council is to think about the entire city, not just one department,” Bowring said. “And I’m concerned that at this point, we don’t have a clear enough plan for how to achieve the rest of the needed investments in our facilities that are part of the plan that we have all agreed to.”
She suggested the council wait and talk with the community and put one of the measures on a future ballot.
Mayer, on the other hand, noted that the police facility “just doesn’t serve the police well anymore” and said the city should go to a referendum to fund the new station “as soon as possible.” She said she supports home rule, but suggested the city address that separately.
“I think there’s that urgency now to move forward and that certainty,” Ald. Jeff Palmquist added, “and I think that that starts with the police station and the bond referendum.”
Ald. Mark Reinecke said there’s “many good things to be said” about home rule, but questioned whether a measure on it would succeed in March.
But Paschke took a different approach, in favor of putting the question of home rule to voters in November.
“I believe our task here is to set the best policy for the city and to trust the consultants and the staff to do the work,” Paschke said. “And I think a lot of the questioning and doubting and the fear around the idea of home rule gets really down to the tarmac about whether consultants can educate the public about home rule and the flexibility that it gives us to pay for these facilities improvements.”
Bowring questioned why council members in support of a bond referendum in March think it will pass, saying the dollar amount is one the city is “pretty sure” residents are “not comfortable with” in terms of property taxes.
Kilburg responded that since the police station has been a topic of consideration for some time, many voters would likely identify it as a priority.
“We can only dance on this issue so long,” he said. “And then we look ridiculous if we don’t come forward with a referendum in the spring.”
Kilburg then proposed another pathway: putting a non-binding advisory question on the March ballot about whether residents want Geneva to become a home rule municipality.
Malecki said it wouldn’t give the city enough time for education efforts, and Bowring said she felt the idea was “really in bad faith” for the same reason.
Kilburg defended the suggestion, calling his idea “a compromise,” but Mayer said an advisory question would distract from a bond initiative.
Ultimately, after considerable discussion, Mayer asked the council to consider the bond referendum for the police station — with a set amount of roughly $59 million, on the top end of estimates for the project. The upper-range estimate would enable the project to include an indoor firing range and indoor parking for all vehicles at the station, officials have said.
Voigt clarified that the bond language indicates that the money can be spent on public safety, so any excess funds could be used on other public safety projects, like Fire Station 2 on the city’s west side, which has been identified as a priority for the city.
Paschke clarified that the anticipated annual property tax increase on an average home would be about $272 if the referendum question was approved, and Kosirog clarified that that number referred to the property tax amount for a $350,000 house.
The Committee of the Whole ultimately moved forward the bond referendum proposal, with Paschke and Bowring voting against it. That matter is set to come to the City Council for final approval at a meeting in December. The city must select a referendum question by Dec. 29, according to Voigt, for it to be included on the March ballot.
As for the city’s home rule plans, the Committee of the Whole voted on Monday in support of a draft resolution initiating education efforts on the issue, but the council again debated the timeline for a future referendum.
Paschke said putting a home rule referendum on the ballot one year after the bond referendum is “way too soon,” and Ald. Richard Marks said that while he supported an education push on home rule, he wanted some flexibility as to when they ultimately decide to put the issue to voters.
Kosirog said the “spirit” of the measure they were discussing is education, and that the council would, through the education process, “decide whether (home rule is) a good idea at a later time.”
The draft resolution initially stated that the City Council schedules a vote on home rule no later than the April 6, 2027, election, but the council ultimately opted to change the language to say they would put the home rule question to voters no later than the 2028 general election.
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
