IML wants fed aid to bypass state
Tuesday, Mar 2, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Center Square
With the U.S. Senate preparing to take up a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, the Illinois Municipal League wants local governments, not the governor, to control dollars local governments are meant to get. […]
The federal spending plan the U.S. Senate could take up this week could include $7.5 billion for the Illinois state budget and an additional $5.7 billion for local budgets. [Illinois Municipal League Executive Director Brad Cole] doesn’t want Gov. J.B. Pritzker to capture dollars meant for local governments as was done last year.
“If there is a federal relief package, we’re hoping the money will flow directly to communities and without additional restriction put on by the state which was the case with the federal CARES Act last year,” Cole said.
If federal funds are distributed directly to locals, Cole said the state shouldn’t use that as an excuse to cut state funding for local governments.
“That money can’t be in lieu of our regular state-shared resources that provide for the operations of the community just in regular times,” Cole said.
The governor’s proposed state budget has around $152 million in cuts for local governments statewide unless state lawmakers approve ending $930 million in tax incentive programs. Cole said even if those incentives were closed, there’s no guarantee the state would generate that much money.
Thoughts?
- Commisar Gritty - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:29 am:
If we’re making moon shot requests, I want the federal aid to bypass IML and go directly to my meager savings account.
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:37 am:
Isn’t it really up to the federal government and how the legislation is written as to how the money flows? I really don’t understand IML’s argument here.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:39 am:
Cole is a liar. There was no “capture” of money last year. Federal law sent some money to large local and county governments (500k+ residents) and did the rest through states. Illinois, wisely, set rules so that the state wasn’t forced to pay back money from misspending locals.
Iowa misspent money and was forced to pay it back. West Virginia spent money on highways and might have to pay it back. On a state level, Alabama tried to build a new state capitol building, which they wisely dropped because, wait for it, they would have had to pay the money back.
- Captain Obvious - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:39 am:
I can’t think of a legitimate reason why aid earmarked for local government should have to flow through the state. It just adds another layer of expensive and inefficient bureaucracy (especially in Illinois) to the process.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:41 am:
If there is money explicitly designated for units of government below the state level I would want to state not to take any of it if I ran a local unit of government.
I would not want the state to say ‘well you got $350,000 from the feds so we are going to cut $200,000 from what we give you’.
Seems like a logical argument from the IML.
Cutting back on funding something because you got federal funding seems like a very Illinois thing to do.
- the Edge - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:44 am:
Local governments that openly defied the EO’s should be held accountable.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:47 am:
This will be an interesting maneuvering between IML and the governor’s office’s plan… and that’s if this is passed as is, no surprises in the Senate.
In reality, why should any money go to munis who have leaders who don’t want to “bailout” Illinois.
How did the Trunpkins in the House vote on the package, and how could any of them now advocate for any monies going to any munis?
My point?
This idea that Illinois needs not any money or it’s a “bailout” as others wanted to gripe about… how many now want to “dictate” the terms as to how monies are now distributed.
My hope is all the monies are indeed finally gotten to all, as the House passed, and relief is given not only to the munis but to Illinois.
A once a century pandemic shouldn’t be seen as a partisan money framing.
I, indeed, will watch to see who is vocal about what after the bill is, hopefully, passed.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:47 am:
- If federal funds are distributed directly to locals, Cole said the state shouldn’t use that as an excuse to cut state funding for local governments. -
This is exactly why I don’t see how it matters one way or the other.
That said I’m fine with this as long as the money is properly accounted for and there is enforcement of bad actors.
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:48 am:
Captain Obvious, traditionally that is how things work though. That is the “federalist system.” I don’t disagree with your take on the extra layers, that is just not how it has worked in the past.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:48 am:
The more the IML talks, the more I realize how much of a source of problems they are.
- former southerner - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:49 am:
Is the IML good with having the federal funds going direct with the amount based purely upon population within that governmental unit? That should net some of the downstate rural villages about $10 total regardless of actual needs.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 9:51 am:
=== Local governments that openly defied the EO’s should be held accountable. ===
Agreed.
And before anyone complains about it - it’s not a punishment. It’s a consequence.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:01 am:
Old enough to remember when Brad Cole was a “rising star” in the ILGOP.
Now, just another small gubmint conservative drifting from one lobbying outfit to another.
- DuPage Guy - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:06 am:
While I understand where Cole is coming from, Illinois has 102 Counties and 1,300 municipalities. That would be a massive undertaking for the Feds to distribute funds to individually before even getting to other States.
It’s much easier (and faster) for them to give it to just 50 States and have them distribute it per guidelines.
- EssentialWorkingMom - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:11 am:
== it’s not a punishment. It’s a consequence.==
So glad to read this that I literally sighed with relief. Especially in light of the whole “cancel culture” drama. Actions have consequences. Accountability is important. I don’t know where these things got lost in our society, but hopefully they come back soon.
- Perrid - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:13 am:
The feds aren’t going to earmark dollars for every county, city, or town in every state. They’re gonna get the big cities and then give states a lump sum to disburse. Do they really think Congress is gonna pass a bill that says Peoria, IL, gets $XXX?
And as far as I know it’s an exxageration, if not an outright lie, to say the governor/state held up money. The state tried to follow the law Congress passed, which came with restrictions. I’m sure the IML would just love a fat check with no oversight or questions, but c’mon.
- Masker - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:15 am:
How about a systemic overhaul in the way Illinois and its layers of government does business? Where’s the push to consolidate? We can keep screaming here about fundings and defiects but the current system isn’t working and without systemic change its business as usual.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:20 am:
Curious to see if Brad Cole had any working relations with the now ex-mayor of Columbia.
- M - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:20 am:
If the money goes directly to the locals, will they guarantee accountability by reporting to the state government on how the money was spent? In turn, the state government will report to the federal government how their money was spent. This should provide a good federal database for the future needs.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:32 am:
==Now, just another small gubmint conservative drifting from one lobbying outfit to another.==
You forgot to add he’s the best enforcer of onerous parking restrictions in Downtown Springfield. /S
- Huh? - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:35 am:
“I can’t think of a legitimate reason why aid earmarked for local government should have to flow through the state.”
Happens all the time. The federal government depends on the State for stewardship and oversight of how the funds are spent.
For instance, IDOT has formulas for distributing FHWA funds to the various local agencies. IDOT ensures that the funds are used on eligible projects according FHWA’s policies and procedures.
There is no way that the FHWA is equipped to handle 102 counties, 1,298 municipalities, and 1,432 townships.
- Above It All - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:46 am:
To Perri’s post. Rich had a previous post to a google doc https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ndvD3AzXHQ4FrES_o3LATEjK51Q1YvLC/view that to me contains every city in America. The legislation doesn’t have to name specific cities, but can authorize and direct the Treasury to distribute funds directly to local gov’t.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:56 am:
==It just adds another layer of expensive and inefficient bureaucracy==
I’ll take inefficiency over graft…like the $1.1 million diverted to Brett Favre instead of welfare recipients.
- GA Watcher - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:15 am:
There is language in the bill passed over the weekend by the House which prohibits states from changing the allocations to local governments with populations less than 50,000. It also prohibits them from adding requirements for the funds. May not be as good as the direct payments provided in the legislation to munis larger than 50,000, but this provision is better than what was in the CARES Act passed last Spring.
- Nick - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:36 am:
Weren’t some of the rules last time around related to counties and municipalities purposefully not following state health guidelines, or is my memory escaping me.