REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
FROM:

Dorothy Ann David, City Manager

DATE:

June 21, 2019

SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE UPDATE - SS 2019-026
A. Introduction: The purpose of this report is to provide information on Section 17-4.5 of the
Champaign Municipal Code. The Human Rights Ordinance prohibits discrimination in housing
based on convictions unless there is a business necessity. Section 17-4.5 is the provision that
provides a business necessity exemption relating to the leasing of housing to persons with prior
forcible felony and felony drug convictions unless the person has resided outside of prison for
five (5) years after release and had no additional convictions. The Administration seeks Council
direction.
B. Recommended Action: This Study Session was scheduled at the request of members of the
City Council. The Administration requests that City Council provide direction to staff on
whether to draft modifications to Section 17-4.5 of the Human Rights Ordinance for
consideration by Council at a future Regular Meeting.
C. Prior Council Action:
•
•

•

•

On July 13, 1977 Council approved Council Bill 77-222 an ordinance to prohibit
discrimination in the City of Champaign.
On three study sessions dates on March 1, April 4 and May 2, 1994 Council heard public
comment from the Human Relations Commission regarding updates from three public
hearings to discuss proposed amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance.
On May 20, 1994 a Report to City Council was developed with proposed amendments to the
Human Rights Ordinance. The proposed amendments were based on the Community
Relations Office and Legal Department working together to determine what changes to the
ordinance would need to be made to ensure it was “substantially equivalent” to the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards under the Fair Housing
Act.
On June 15, 1994 Council reviewed the proposed amendments which included outlining new
language to allow an exception for business necessity when leasing residential property to
those with prior convictions related to felony drug convictions or forcible felonies as outlined
in the Illinois statutes.

 •

On July 5, 1994, Council approved the proposed amendments to Section 17-4.5. (CB1994167)
"Sec. 17-4.5. - Same—Same—Conviction.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit discrimination in the leasing of residential
property based upon a person's record of convictions for a forcible felony or a felony
drug conviction or the conviction of the sale, manufacture or distribution of illegal
drugs or convictions which are based upon factors which would constitute one of the
categories of convictions listed above under Illinois law; provided, that the conviction
shall not be allowed to be the basis of discrimination if the person convicted has resided
outside of prison at least the last five (5) consecutive years without being convicted of
an offense involving the use of force or violence or the illegal use, possession,
distribution, sale or manufacture of drugs. This exception is not a restriction on the use
of conviction information for other necessary business reasons.
This exception shall not be construed to authorize the use of conviction information to
achieve racial or ethnic discrimination or discrimination on the basis of a disability or any
other protected basis other than conviction and landlords are encouraged to consider the
rehabilitative efforts of individuals and the period since the conviction and circumstances
of the conviction when deciding to discriminate on the basis of conviction information.
The landlord is not relieved of any obligation of making a reasonable accommodation for
persons with disabilities by this exception."

•

•

Council Goals 2015-2017 and Council Goals 2017-2019 include a key project to support
community efforts to establish a reentry program for offenders exiting the criminal justice
system.
On February 2, 2019 Council circulated a petition requesting a Study Session to discuss
reducing the length of time for landlords to take in account a felony conviction and
examining which forcible felony or drug felony conviction should apply to Section 17-4.5 of
the Human Rights Ordinance.

D. Summary:
•

•

•

The Human Rights Ordinance was developed to prohibit discrimination in the City of
Champaign and to ensure the Community Relations Office and the Human Relations
Commission (HRC) could enforce protections as outlined.
In 1994, proposed amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance included outlining additional
language to allow an exception for business necessity when leasing residential property to
those with prior forcible felony convictions and felony drug convictions. The exception is
not applicable if a person has resided outside of prison for five (5) consecutive years without
additional convictions as outlined in Section 17-4.5.
The Human Relations Commission conducted three public hearings on January 3, January 31
and March 1, 1994 to review the proposed changes to the Human Rights Ordinance. The
Human Relations Commission recommended that the business necessity not be added to the
ordinance, due to the ordinance allowing “too much” discrimination against people with
2

 •

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

conviction history.
Staff determined in its presentation of the change to Council that the changes would
streamline the processing of housing complaints, provide clearer direction to landlords in the
leasing process and eliminate a lengthy investigation.
Reentry as a national issue began receiving attention in 2011 by the federal government to
collaborate at the federal level for solutions around the challenges of reentry. One major
barrier identified was housing.
Reentry efforts by Council included Council Goals between Council Goals 2015-2017 and
Council Goals 2017-2019 to support community efforts to establish a reentry program for
offenders exiting the criminal justice system.
On April 4, 2016 The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed
guidance on Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Real
Estate Related Transactions. The document outlines identifying significant barriers to
housing for those with criminal histories across the country.
While HUD allows policies allowing exclusions to persons with criminal history, HUD
emphasizes any such policy requires the burden of proving that the exclusion is justified.
Additionally, of note is the higher rate of incarceration for African Americans and Hispanics,
thus inferring careful consideration should be maintained when developing exclusion policies
based on prior convictions of any kind, due to the disproportionately high rates of arrest and
incarceration for racial and ethnic minorities.
Guidelines for federally assisted housing allow for two permanent bans for lifetime registered
sex offenders and persons involved in the manufacturing of methamphetamine on federally
assisted housing property. No other permanent or time-limited bans exist within federally
assisted housing for persons convicted of other offenses.
Review of other communities does not indicate a similar policy as is stated in Section 17-4.5.
Policy alternatives for Council to consider will range from leaving the ordinance intact to
modifications designed to provide guidance around length of time and conviction type based
on current federal housing act guidelines.

E. Background:
1. Human Rights Ordinance. Both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of
1968 outlined protections against discrimination on the basis of race, color, disability, religion,
sex, familial status and national origin. The City of Champaign established a Human Rights
Ordinance locally to align with the Civil Rights Act but provided additional protections within
the jurisdiction of the City of Champaign. In 1977 (Council Bill 77-222), the ordinance was
developed with the intent to secure an end to discrimination in the areas of employment, housing,
public accommodation and extending and/or securing credit. The ordinance includes protections
on the basis of age, sex, race, color, creed, religion, matriculation, physical or mental disability,
marital status, national origin, political affiliation, sexual preference, personal appearance, family
responsibilities, source of income and prior arrest or conviction record.
2. History of Section 17-4.5 of the Human Rights Ordinance. Prior to 1994, the general
practice was to allow landlords to claim business necessity when denying access to housing
due to prior convictions. However, the practice was not explicitly allowed in the code. At that
time, the City reviewed policies and standards of landlords that were considered as following
3

 federally assisted housing guidelines, and found that the policies allowed for screening
tenants out based on prior drug convictions and convictions for violent crimes against other
tenants. During the study sessions dedicated to this issue, staff proposed amendments to the
Human Rights Ordinance to align with federal housing guidelines so the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would favorably consider the City’s request for
grant funding to investigate fair housing complaints locally. The City was actively pursuing
federal funding and needed to ensure the amendments were “substantially equivalent” to
HUD guidelines. In addition, it was believed the addition of Section 17-4.5 would resolve the
ambiguity of business necessity, assist staff in determining what cases met the standard for
probable cause in investigating housing complaints and ensure the City met HUD standards
under the Fair Housing Act.
Staff met with the Human Relations Commission in late 1993 to discuss and present the
proposed amendments and the HRC conducted three public hearings in 1994. HRC
recommended City Council not adopt proposed amendments as they believed the proposed
amendments were to discriminatory to the formerly incarcerated. This recommendation was
based on input from HRC and the public hearing process.
3. Request to Revisiting the Human Rights Ordinance Section 17-4.5. The City Council has
requested that the City Administration schedule a Study Session to review the provisions of the
Human Rights Ordinance that provide for a business exception in the leasing of housing to
persons with prior forcible felony or drug felony convictions. As in 1994, revisiting the
provisions of the code today allows the City to clarify intent, address ambiguous provisions, and
to assure that the code language meets current community needs and the City’s intent to prohibit
discrimination. The specific language of the study session request from Council asked to discuss
“reducing the length of time for landlords to take into account a felony conviction and examining
which forcible felony or drug conviction should apply to Section 17-4.5.” In response to this
request, staff has used an approach similar to that used in 1994. This report provides information
about policy considerations to better address Council goals, align local policy with federal fair
housing guidelines, and respond to current trends and issues within the community.
4. Public Interest. City Council and The Human Relations Commission have both heard
extensive public comment around Section 17-4.5 dating back to October of 2016. Members of
the public who have addressed this issue to the City have included the formerly incarcerated,
landlords, housing providers, community-based advocacy groups and governmental entities both
for and against the current language in Section 17-4.5.
5. National Reentry Trends. National efforts have been made to decrease the level of
recidivism by ensuring that individuals returning to communities after incarceration are provided
with the necessary supports to achieve successful reentry. In January 2011 the federal
government convened 20 federal agencies to form the Federal Interagency Reentry Council after
acknowledging an approximate 600,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons
yearly. The group was tasked with reducing recidivism and victimization, assisting those
returning with becoming productive citizens and saving taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct
and collateral costs of incarceration. Since 2011 the Interagency group has taken steps to remove
federal barriers to successful reentry and have grown to an approximate 30 federal agencies
4

 collaborating on challenges faced by individuals reentering the community after incarceration.
The group maintains that gainful employment and stable housing assist in supporting families of
the formerly incarcerated and contribute to the overall community.
6. Reentry in Champaign. Since 2015, Council has stated a key project under Council goal
“Our City Ensures Community Safety,” as supporting community efforts to establish a reentry
program for offenders exiting the criminal justice system. In addition, The City's last Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing, completed in 2014, includes anecdotal information regarding
reentry and prior criminal history as a housing barrier. The Analysis concluded that reentry is
becoming a significant issue that would need to be considered in future housing studies.
Champaign County has an established Reentry Council in which membership includes members
of the Champaign County Board, law enforcement, the States Attorney's Office, Champaign
County Mental Health Board and other social service and governmental agencies in Champaign
County. This group has identified access to housing as a significant barrier in Champaign County
to those reentering the community after incarceration.
7. Racial Disparities in Incarceration Rates. African Americans and Hispanics are arrested,
convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. A
national study completed by the Sentencing Project in an article The Color of Justice: Racial and
Ethnic Disparities in States Prisons, states African Americans are incarcerated 5 times more than
whites. The study also shows Hispanics are incarcerated 1.4 times than whites. Illinois is listed as
one of 12 states in which more than half of the prison population is African American. Therefore,
policies that limit access to housing for those with prior criminal convictions would have a
disproportionate impact on minorities and would be considered as a disparate impact.
8. Public Housing Exclusion Policies. Public Housing Authorities are required by law to
screen and exclude applicants with certain convictions on their records. Until there is a change in
regulations, a policy by a private housing provider that excludes individuals for any of the
following reasons should still be permissible:
•
•
•

Conviction for producing methamphetamine in federally assisted housing
Applicant is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender
registration program
A history of drug related activity, violent criminal activity, crimes that threaten health,
safety, or peaceful enjoyment of property are at the discretion of the agency.

9. Federally Assisted Housing Programs and Criminal Convictions. Federally assisted
housing programs have varying degrees of the use of criminal history in making housing
decisions. A permanent ban on admission includes a conviction of the production of
methamphetamine at a federally assisted housing site and a lifetime registered sex offender.
History of drug related activity, violent criminal activity, crimes that threaten health, safety or
peaceful enjoyment of property are at the discretion of the agency. This is specific to public
housing and voucher programs. Other federally assisted programs which include project-based
Section 8 and funds appropriated for homeless populations allow the public housing agency
and/or owner to use discretion to admit the applicant. There are no specific federal requirements
5

 regarding admission of individuals with criminal background for low income housing tax credit
units, shelter plus care, supportive housing programs or Housing Opportunities for Persons With
AIDS (HOPWA).
10. The Fair Housing Act and HUD guidelines. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Texas Dept.
of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. 135 S.Ct.2507 (2015)
that disparate impact claims are within the jurisdiction the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided guidance on the application of
FHA standards for the use of criminal records by housing providers. Criminal history-based
restrictions on housing opportunities violate the FHA if, without justification, their burden falls
more often on one race or national origin over another. The HUD guidelines do not ban housing
providers from conducting criminal screenings on applicants. They simply outline HUD’s
position on how disparate impact lawsuits could proceed against housing providers whose
policies may result in an unjustified discriminatory effect.
The same criteria which applies to public and private housing providers, applies to the City.
Private housing providers would likely adopt the City’s ordinance as their policy, so it is crucial
that the ordinance conforms to the federal Fair Housing Act. The HUD guidelines provide an
objective standard to make this analysis and to minimize subjective determinations.
11. Discriminatory Effects Liability Under the Fair Housing Act. A seemingly neutral
policy or practice which has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national
origin, or other protected class is a violation of the FHA unless it is necessary to serve a
substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest of the housing provider. HUD issued a final
rule formally establishing a 3-part test to determine liability under the FHA:
a. Step 1. An applicant must prove the policy has a disparate impact. The complainant
would satisfy this step by supplying evidence proving that the challenged practice
actually or predictably results in a disparate impact. There must be a causal relationship
between the policy and the disparate impact. The housing provider is entitled to refute the
claim.
b. Step 2. A housing provider must then prove that the policy is justified, and cannot be
achieved by a different, non-discriminatory method. The housing provider must prove
that the challenged policy or practice is justified. That it is necessary to achieve a
substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider. The provider must
provide hard evidence that the policy actually achieves that interest. Bald assertions
based on generalizations or stereotypes will not suffice.
c. Step 3. If the housing provider successfully proves Step 2, the applicant must prove that
even if the policy or practice is necessary to achieve its substantial, legitimate,
nondiscriminatory interest, this interest could be served by another practice with less
discriminatory effect.

6

 12. Comparisons with Other Municipal Human Rights Ordinances. Additional
communities (See Attachment A) were reviewed to determine if other policies exist that are
similar to the business exception as stated in the Champaign Human Rights Ordinance.
Several of the communities including Evanston, Iowa City, Iowa, Bloomington, Indiana do not
address discrimination based on prior arrest or conviction. Other communities such as
Springfield, Urbana and Peoria do not have a provision like the City of Champaign.
In April 2019, Cook County passed the Just Housing Amendment which will go into effect in
November 2019. The amendment provides protection for those with past criminal histories and
requires housing providers to provide an individual analysis on each applicant. The ordinance
ensures appropriate notice be provided to the applicant in order to dispute the information and
any subsequent denial of housing. Cook County does not provide any specific language
regarding types of convictions to consider nor does it provide a specific length of time to
consider conviction records.
13. Policy Alternatives for Consideration. In evaluating Section 17-4.5, Council can opt to
maintain the current code language, repeal the exception, or amend the ordinance to modify
various elements of the exception. Amendments could modify the term of the exception or types
of criminal offenses that are included, or Council could add requirements for property owners
who apply the exception within their leasing practices such as allowing an applicant to appeal a
denial for criminal conviction.
a. Term of the Exception - Number of Years Screening Policies Should Look Back. To
the extent that the City determines a continued need to allow for a business exception to
the Human Rights Ordinance that allows for the use of criminal background checks in
screening potential tenants, there is no clear, objective standard to establish the term limit
for such an exception. As stated previously, the current language of 17-4.5 allows
screening for prior conviction for forcible felonies or felony drug convictions unless the
person has resided outside of prison for five (5) years after release and had no additional
convictions. There is no bright line as to how many years back a criminal background
check can or should look. Recidivism rates vary widely by type of crime and there is no
magic number of years that will indicate a perfectly rehabilitated and risk-free resident.
According to April 4, 2016 HUD guidance evidence suggests that the likelihood of future
criminal conduct decreases after 6 or 7 years after release to approximate the risk of new
offenses among persons with no criminal record.
One possibility is that Council could amend the Human Rights Ordinance to align with
length of time associated with other City policies such as the requirements for applicants
for taxi licenses. Provisions of the City Code that apply to taxi license applicants restricts
licenses for those convicted of specific crimes within the past four (4) years and outlines
specific violations in the past three years related to moving offenses only. This provides
for the policy to be specific to the business necessity and provides parameters regarding
the number of additional offenses that prohibit an applicant from receiving a license.

7

 b. Types of Offenses Included in the Business Exception. Currently, the offenses
included in the business exception provided for in 17-4.5 include “record of convictions
for a forcible felony or a felony drug conviction or the conviction of the sale,
manufacture or distribution of illegal drugs or convictions which are based upon factors
which would constitute one of the categories of convictions listed above under Illinois
law.” A list of forcible felonies as defined in the Illinois statutes is included in
Attachment B to this report. Council may consider amending the Code language to
modify the offenses that are provided for within the exception; however, it is important
that modifications to this code language be narrowly defined to meet the standards of
the Fair Housing Act and prohibit the use of the exception for discriminatory purposes.
Potential amendments might include restricting the exception to property-related forcible
felonies along with violence occurring as specific housing-related offenses.
c. Consideration of Dispute/Appeal. Similar to the Just Housing Amendment adopted in
Cook County, Council could amend the code to require that property owners provide for
a dispute or appeal process when denying a housing applicant based upon prior criminal
convictions. This would be similar to the appeal process provided for when an applicant
for a taxi license is denied based upon prior criminal conviction. If Council would like to
consider adding such a requirement to the code, staff would recommend further research
on how this has been implemented and monitored in other communities. It would also be
critical to establish standards that can be objectively investigated when allegations of a
Human Rights Ordinance violation were reported related to such a dispute/appeal.
14. Next Steps. Staff seeks Council direction on what, if any, modifications should be made
to the Human Rights Ordinance Section 17-4.5. Depending on Council input, staff can draft a
code amendment and bring it directly to a Regular Meeting for adoption. Or, if Council would
like additional research or public input to be considered, another Study Session can be
scheduled in advance of finalizing code language for consideration. The timeline for additional
research and/or public input to be considered may take 3-5 months. If additional research,
public input or another Study Session is not deemed necessary by Council, draft code language
can be completed and scheduled for Council consideration on a Regular Meeting agenda
within the next 60 days.
F. Alternatives:
1. Direct staff to draft modifications to Section 17-4.5 of the Human Rights Ordinance,
incorporating Council input, for consideration at a future Regular Meeting.
2. Do not direct staff to make modifications to Section 17-4.5 of the Human Rights Ordinance
and provide further to direction to staff.
G. Discussion of Alternatives:
Alternative 1 would direct staff to make modifications to Section 17-4.5 of the Human Rights
Ordinance based on Council feedback.

8

 a. Advantages
•
•
•

Provides an opportunity to more narrowly focus the business necessity exception and
provide better access to housing options for the persons with criminal histories.
Would align with Council goals to support reentry efforts for the formerly incarcerated.
Updates the ordinance to align with recent Fair Housing trends related to access to
housing for the formerly incarcerated.

b. Disadvantages
•
•
•
•

Proponents of eliminating barriers to housing for the formerly incarcerated will likely
oppose any continuation of a business necessity exception.
Owners of rental property may oppose any narrowing the current exception.
Potential to determine new language that does not align with Fair Housing Standards.
New standards may require a public education effort to assure that property owners and
residents understand changes in the Human Rights Ordinance.

Alternative 2 would not direct staff to proceed with modifying proposed ordinance changes.
a.

Advantages

•
•

No further action needed from Council.
Maintains consistency with past practice which is generally understood within the rental
property management community.

b. Disadvantages
•
•
•

Does not address the potential of disparate impact of the business necessity exception on
African American and Hispanic residents in the community.
Does not respond to recent public comments and interest in this issue, and community
input to reduce barriers to housing access for the formerly incarcerated.
May hinder reentry efforts community wide.

H. Community Input: Over the past several years, Council, the Human Relations Commission
and City staff have received input from various community stakeholders about this issue. In
addition, the Office of Equity, Community and Human Rights has received phone calls, letters
and email correspondence from citizens and organizations regarding Section 17-4.5 of the
Human Rights Ordinance. Both groups and citizens for and against the ordinance have shown
great interest in the subject matter and contend their views improve and/or maintain the quality
of life for the City of Champaign.
In a letter dated August 5, 2016, the Reentry Council of Champaign County requested that the
Human Relations Commission consider recommending that the Human Rights Ordinance reflect
former language prior to the amendments adopted in 1994. The Reentry Council asked in the
letter if the City of Champaign had conducted any local research to justify denying housing for 5
years to those with felony convictions as described under the ordinance. The research referenced
9

 in the letter was specific to any data collected regarding reduction of crime rates. The letter and
recommendations from the Reentry Council were presented to the Human Relations Commission
on October 3, 2016, during the regular monthly meeting. On October 3, 2016, the Champaign
Human Relations Commission unanimously voted to “ask that staff begin to draft a letter to City
Council stating the Human Relations Commission supports the change of language in the Human
Rights Ordinance, to protect people with prior criminal records in their housing search.”
On July 24, 2018 several organizations and groups spoke in support of repealing Section 17-4.5
during the public comment portion of the City Council meeting. On March 12, 2019 the Rental
Property Investor’s Forum hosted a meeting with City Council, Human Relations Commissioners
and concerned rental property owners to discuss their insights and views regarding judgment and
discretion of landlords to refuse someone with a felony criminal background, tenant driven
issues, discrimination policies, the concern of repealing the ordinance language and the impact
the ordinance changes would have on landlords and housing providers.
The Champaign Tenant Union in a letter dated May 2, 2019 sent potential questions to address
for the Study Session related to data for specific convictions, demographics of those convicted
and other areas.
I. Budget Impact: There are no current or long-term budget implications.
J. Staffing Impact: Approximately 100 hours of staff time has been spent on this topic.
Prepared by:

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Rachel Joy
Community Relations Manager

Laura Hall
Assistant City Attorney

Joan Walls
Deputy City Manager

Attachments:
Attachment A: Research from Comparable Communities
Attachment B: Illinois State Forcible Felonies

10

 Attachment A
Comparable Community Information
•

State of Illinois – Allows for “Conduct against a person because such person has been
convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a
controlled substance as defined in Section 102 of the federal Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802)” within the Sec. 3-106 of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5).

•

City of Springfield – Allows for “Conduct against a person because such person has been
convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a
controlled substance as defined in Section 102 of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802)” as a civil rights violation (Fair Housing).
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

City of Chicago – Human Rights Ordinance states “The city council finds that prejudice and
the practice of discrimination against any individual or group because of race, color, sex,
gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital
status, parental status, military status, source of income, credit history (as to employment only),
or criminal history (as to employment only) menace peace and public welfare.
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

County of Cook - Does not allow for discrimination based on arrest or conviction record;
though there are few exceptions. (Housing Ordinance; click on the “Reports” tab).

•

City of Champaign – Allows for housing discrimination based on conviction records if the
individual was released from prison within 5 years of a lease application (Human Rights).

•

City of Urbana – Human Rights Ordinance states its intent as securing “…an end, in the city,
to discrimination, including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of…prior arrest or
conviction record…rather than evaluating a person's unique qualifications relevant to an
opportunity in housing, employment, credit or access to public accommodations”. It further
defines discrimination as “Any practice or act which is unlawfully based wholly or partially
on…prior arrest or conviction record”.
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

City of Evanston – Does not address discrimination based on arrest or conviction record
(Human Rights Ordinance   Fair Housing Ordinance)
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

City of Peoria – References Sec. 3-106 of 775 ILCS 5.
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

 Attachment A
•

City of Bloomington – Cannot find a Human Rights or Housing Ordinance

•

Town of Normal – Human Relations Ordinance does not specifically prohibit discrimination
based on prior arrest or conviction record regarding housing or real estate transactions.
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

City of Aurora - References Sec. 3-106 of 775 ILCS 5.
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

Village of Schaumburg - Cannot find a Human Rights or Housing Ordinance

•

City of Decatur – Unlawful Discrimination references Sec. 3-106 of 775 ILCS 5.
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

City of Bloomington, IN – Does not address discrimination based on arrest or conviction record
(Housing Discrimination).
o Ordinance does not have a specific clause like Champaign’s.

•

City of Iowa City, IA - Does not address discrimination based on arrest or conviction record
(Discriminatory Practices)

 Attachment B

Illinois State Forcible Felonies
(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)
Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means
treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory
criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual
assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary,
residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated
kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great
bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any
other felony which involves the use or threat of physical
force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 529-96.)