Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan forms new committee to “study” Rauner’s new economic development agency
Next Post: Welcome to Chicago, now go away
Posted in:
* The Illinois Municipal League released its legislative wish list yesterday…
Automatic Appropriation Authority for Local Funds
Expansion of Home Rule Eligibility
Constitutional Amendment to Limit Future State Mandates
Public Safety Arbitration Reform
Pension Cost Relief and Structural Reform
Opt Outs for Future Unfunded Mandates Affecting Communities With Fewer Financial Resources
Local Control Over Prevailing Wage Decisions
Workers’ Compensation Reforms
Annual State Review of Mandates
* Its main priorities…
Automatic Appropriation Authority for Local Funds
The common sense approach to managing local revenue sources (motor fuel tax, 9-1-1, use tax and gaming revenues) is to put the distribution power back into the hands of local governments - and make that a seamless approach with automatic distributions to local entities. Currently, these fund distributions are dependent upon the state budget process even though these are non-General Revenue Funds and do not affect state government budgets. “Moving Cities Forward” recommends policy reform eliminating the need for annual appropriation enactments.Expansion of Home Rule Eligibility
Municipal leaders across the state support expanding home rule eligibility to include communities of 5,000 residents and above. The current Illinois Constitution only grants automatic home rule status to municipalities in excess of 25,000 residents, or to municipalities that pass a local home rule referendum. Currently there are 211 home rule governments in the state, and if passed, the expansion would elevate another 173 communities to home rule status.Public Safety Arbitration Reform
Arbitrators are rendering decisions in labor disputes that compel local governments to offer wage and benefit awards that exceed available revenues. What’s needed is more transparency in the arbitration process and a requirement that those decisions be based on actual revenues available to the city. The current process has led to financial hardships on local governments including budgeting difficulties, service reductions and employee layoffs.Local Control Over Prevailing Wage Decisions
Municipalities are in favor of locally-elected boards and councils establishing exemptions up to a certain dollar amount for which prevailing wage rates would not be required. IML supports an update to the policy to allow the opportunity to establish cost reductions for projects currently covered by the Prevailing Wage Act, as well as exemptions for certain types of work entirely.Workers’ Compensation Reforms
Employers are already faced with ever-increasing costs for doing business, and current workers’ compensation policy has only contributed to the “It’s hard to do business in Illinois” mentality. IML members are in support of reducing employer costs by amending Permanent Partial Disability benefit payouts, lowering the number of weeks that benefits are paid for shoulder injuries by clarifying the definitions of “Man as a Whole” and requiring arbitrators and/or the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (IWCC) to strictly adhere to American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines when determining permanency ratings under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
The proposed arbitration reform makes some sense and has been bandied about lately as a possible compromise on the Turnaround Agenda.
The prevailing wage stuff will need to be fleshed out much further, but it’s interesting.
And the workers’ comp ideas could also provide an avenue for discussions.
* Finke reports on the group’s top two priorities…
Brad Cole, executive director of the Illinois Municipal League, said some ideas on the list have been pushed by the IML for years and others are the outgrowth of last year’s task force on government consolidation and mandate relief. He acknowledged that some of the ideas have received a cool reception in the General Assembly in the past. […]
While saying all of the items on the agenda are important to local governments, he said two are “critically important.” One is to make state assistance to local governments a continuing appropriation so that the money owed is paid automatically, even without a budget in place. Last year, the local government share of state income, gasoline and gambling taxes was held up for months because of the budget impasse. The issue only got resolved when lawmakers passed a separate bill authorizing those payments to be made and Gov. Bruce Rauner signed it.
The other critical issue, he said, is allowing more communities in the state to become home rule, meaning local governments have the ability to pass laws to govern themselves (so long as they obey the state and federal constitutions). In Illinois, only cities with more than 25,000 residents or those who approve it by referendum can now be home-rule units. Only 211 of the state’s 1,297 cities are home rule.
The IML agenda wants any town with more than 5,000 residents to have the option of voting in home-rule powers. One town that could be affected is Chatham, whose village board president, Tom Gray, is president of the IML.
They know Rauner has been keen to sweep their revenue sharing, so the group’s number one priority is no surprise. That home-rule thing is interesting, to say the least.
Your thoughts on all of this?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 9:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan forms new committee to “study” Rauner’s new economic development agency
Next Post: Welcome to Chicago, now go away
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How many IML members voted for Rauner’s RTW proposal?
Comment by Hedley Lamarr Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 9:50 am
===Municipal leaders across the state support expanding home rule eligibility to include communities of 5,000 residents and above. The current Illinois Constitution only grants automatic home rule status to municipalities in excess of 25,000 residents, or to municipalities that pass a local home rule referendum===
While I am in general a proponent of home rule aspects, I think that the ask for communities as large as 5,000 could be some what risky given that the size of those communities may make them significantly less robust and could create more potential issues with regards to public debt and potential for mismanagement.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 9:55 am
One big advantage to being a home rule community is that home rule communities are not subject to PTELL. If the Governor is successful in getting his so-called “property tax freeze” passed, it will be interesting to see if home rule communities will be exempted.
Comment by Old Shepherd Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 9:58 am
After their hostage experience this fiscal year, and given the growing, unprecedented deficit in GRF, I’m guessing they’d take the automatic appropriation authority and do a victory dance.
Any revenues currently subject to appropriation are in danger of getting scooped up to fix the GRF mess.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 9:59 am
Seems like a good turnaround agenda. But since it isn’t Rauner’s “Turnaround Agenda” he’ll say it’s not good enough.
Comment by bwana63 Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:02 am
When you have an unstable state government, it threatens local governments. When you have a governor vowing to shake up state government, yet fails to produce any plans or transparency, local governments must protect themselves with tax increases and more demands for these types of proposals.
I am concerned that wealthier enclaves will calf-off from the cities they live off of, which will only increase if they are allowed to become home rule.
The purpose of governments and citizenship is to united us in order to address issues larger than any one individual and to pool our resources in order to financially pay for those solutions. In this age, it seems that as citizens give up on their citizenship and become more consumer and market focused, we will lose our abilities to do this.
Fragmentation and disunion is unhealthy for everyone, except for the rich.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:05 am
Home Rule at 5000 citizens. Uh…No.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:05 am
On Home Rule Status: It sounds like the IML wants to push for an automatic declaration of home rule status for communities that fail to pass or do not wish to put a referendum to become home rule on the ballot. Politically, going “home rule” is viewed as “tax increases” by voters engaged in the referendum. Very difficult for muni’s to become home-rule right now.
I can’t see why Rauner would disagree with any of the items put forward by the IML. Reasonable compromise to the turn-around agenda. Public Safety arbitration is financially atrocious to munis. That’s probably why any mayor would advise their respective State reps to vote against any AFSCME arbitration bill.
Comment by NixonHead Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:08 am
A decent start. But will the wise, ancient speaker who never compromises even with his own party finally display a willingness to compromise for the benefit of Illinois over himself?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:12 am
“Home Rule at 5000 citizens.”
Why is this a problem?
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:13 am
Someone might want to ask Bridgeview how home rule worked out for them:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-09/news/ct-met-debt-bridgeview-main-20120609_1_bridgeview-soccer-stadium-chicago-fire
Comment by nixit71 Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:13 am
Rauner would not object to any proposal from IML…but Madigan would. Labor most certainly would. One of the work comp bills in the IML plan is SB 2154 - Rauner/Radogno work comp plan. Brad Cole has helped Rauner quite a lot in his first 13 months.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:14 am
===Home Rule at 5000 citizens. Uh…No.===
Why not?
Gov. Rauner touts local control all the time. Can you… expand… on your drive-by?
To the Post,
This list seems to scream “talk about common ground on Turnaround Agenda items, and we have no hostages”
Even the Labor and WC discussions could lead to some common ground agreements, without it being presented as a hostage demand being met.
The Home Rule for 5,000, I can see the ask, and I’m sure the last few months, all the way around, is driving a new thinking to Home Rule as well.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:14 am
@Mama - the proposal would be a major process change. When muni’s become home rule they obtain, among other powers, the authority to increase property tax beyond the rate of inflation. That’s why so many local voters oppose it. Currently, local voters must approve home rule status. The proposal would have the STATE declare home rule status automatically.
Comment by NixonHead Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:19 am
Why not expand upon the concept of Home Rule and allow other units of government more latitude to govern themselves? Rauner wants “mandate relief” for schools, so take this concept farther and let communities decide for themselves.
Comment by Go Farher Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:19 am
I think Rauner will have a big problem with the “Automatic Appropriation Authority for Local Funds” part.
I think Madigan & Cullerton may have a problem with “Public Safety Arbitration Reform”.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:20 am
Home rule units also have the ability to implement increased sales taxes without getting voter approval.
Comment by Old Shepherd Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:21 am
OW, I do not understand why ‘Home Rule at 5000 citizens’ would be a bad idea. Why does Home Rule ’size’ matter?
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:22 am
Even as a democrat, most of this seems reasonable. The one objection is some of the change in public arbitration. It makes sense that any agreement have a basis in reality, but it would seem that this would make it easier for cities to say “we just don’t have the money.” That may be true, but they may have also decided to prioritize something else that sucked up funds, rather than prioritizing the negotiation. Could an arbitrator tell a city to fund a labour contract instead of building a golf course or building its own water treatment system?
Comment by xxtofer Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:22 am
Interesting they want to increase local units of gov. Of course that is what they do. They also want their funding guaranteed. Probably a better idea to stop the cost shifting and let local taxes pay for local services.
Prevailing wage seems like a non-issue as Illinois needs to pay down it spending not build more buildings.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:23 am
“Expansion of Home Rule Eligibility…to include communities of 5,000 residents and above.”
This is a power grab that citizens in my area have already voted to reject.
Thanks but no thanks!
Comment by Enviro Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:26 am
OW, Not that I agree with A guy on just about anything, but I am with him on this.
Every municipality with a population under 25,000 already has the ability to be home rule via referendum.
Let’s say that over half of Illinois already lives in home rule municipalities (every city larger than 25,000, minus Rockford, plus all the others that have adopted the referendum).
Changing the threshold from 25,000 to 5,000 would require a constitutional change, thus a statewide referendum. I don’t know how I feel about half of the population of the State voting to grant home rule authority to communities between 5,000 and 25,000 when the residents of those communities already have the power to do it themselves. Maybe that’s a little too naive on my part, but it just doesn’t seem right to me.
Comment by Juice Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:27 am
NixonHead @ 10:19 am:
Thank you.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:27 am
- Mama -
I hit the Google key on “Illinois Home Rule population reasoning”, this camd up first.
http://www.citizenadvocacycenter.org/uploads/8/8/4/0/8840743
/homerulebrochure.pdf
Lots on both sides of the issue, I’m only advocating the discussion right now, I’m not choosing one side or the other, but a discussion now, yeah, I’d like that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:28 am
The Home Rule 5K scheme is seen as a way to bring out anti tax wing nuts in the fall. Towns are not really pushin’ the issue…most believe Cole dreamed this one up to appease $upper$tars still angry that nearly 100 towns voted down the’Genda resolution.
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:36 am
xxtofer, not sure how frequent the problem you mention is, but it certainly is plausible. One solution: first, have all public safety arbitrations in a particular taxing district occur simultaneously. Second, the taxing district has to come up with specific planned budget cuts if available revenue is exceeded. Third, if the arbitrator rules in favor of public safety contracts that exceed taxing district revenue, then submit a referendum with three options: increase taxes sufficient to fund the shortfall, cut the budget in the manner set forth by the taxing district, or revise the payment downward to meet the budget. Thus, the people (including public safety employees if they live within the taxing district, of course) will decide what approach to take. If that is too much direct democracy, perhaps there should be a council/board vote on those three options so politicians are held accountable.
Not more simple, definitely more process, but much more participatory and probably more fair.
Comment by Unnamed Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:46 am
Lose the “pension cost relief” and I could support it.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:47 am
I am hearing this was put out by the executive committee without full board approval. Some are not happy about it. I wonder if the E-board is full of Rauner supporters.
Comment by Augie Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 11:06 am
Finke’s article was incorrect. Currently, cities under 25,000 can already be home rule if voted via referendum. Over 25,000 is automatically home rule unless taken away via home rule. The proposed legislation moves the automatic home rule status to 25,000.
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 11:07 am
Home rule does open the door to different taxes, no necessarily more taxes. Many non-home rule cities would love to have the option to raise sales tax or create a food and beverage tax rather than the raising the property tax to fund the growing fire and police pension obligations, but that is not an option. So cities keep increasing the uncapped fire and police pension levies.
Also, non-home rule cities are restricted on regulating things. Non-home rule can’t enact the same types of noise ordinances for instance. Non-home rules can’t do the same type of rental inspection programs home rule cities can.
There are more reasons than just taxes, but cities would like to get away from property taxes as much as anyone else!
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 11:13 am
+++ Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:14 am:
===Home Rule at 5000 citizens. Uh…No.===
Why not?
Gov. Rauner touts local control all the time. Can you… expand… on your drive-by?+++
Since you asked…in addition to the taxing authority it gives to the individual municipality (which the argument could swing either way), the enormity of the bonding authority and borrowing is often well beyond what a municipality can truly afford to pay. In a community that small, the possibility of gaining a rogue board with that kind of borrowing authority is greater. There are some positives in ‘home rule’ as well. It makes it easier to enforce zoning and occupancy ordinances that are routinely ignored or abused. 5000 people is clearly an important break point considering the sizes of communities around the state. I don’t believe it was just arbitrarily arrived at. There’s a reason it was set at 25,000 to become automatic. Many communities rescind it very quickly via referendum. This also opens the doors for counties to be home rule; which as of now only one is.
You guessed it; Cook. You’ve seen the sales-tax-o-rama that’s played out there, right? For me the borrowing authority is the biggie. That’s where every little community that thinks it’s got the resources and assets of Rosemont can borrow into insolvency.
Less “drive by” enough for you?
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 11:23 am
Great. Now we will see every small town with a different minimum wage, tax rate, etc making it even more difficult for employer compliance especially if they have multiple locations.
Comment by 1776 Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 11:23 am
Shemp: According to the Quad City Times “Another priority is lowering the population required before a municipality is granted home-rule authority, which gives local governments more control over taxes and other issues.
Currently, the power is given to towns with more than 25,000 residents or those whose voters approve a local referendum. A Municipal League-backed amendment to the Illinois Constitution, sponsored by Rep. Mike Smiddy, D-Hillsdale, would automatically grant home rule to towns with more than 5,000 residents.”
Comment by Enviro Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 11:23 am
Thanks - A Guy -
Now I know what you were trying to say with your Drive-by.
That wasn’t that tough, was it?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 11:27 am
Local Control Over Prevailing Wage…. You might as well say Right to Work. MJM will never cede this.. None of these items balance the state budget.
Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 12:02 pm
Prevailing wage caps is just a side door slam to get rid of Organized Labor and skilled workers. only 20% of contracts covered under prevailing wage requirements go to salaries and benefits for people performing the work.
Comment by Spliff Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 12:05 pm
===
- Liberty - Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:23 am:
Interesting they want to increase local units of gov. Of course that is what they do.===
Where is that in the IML Agenda?
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 12:20 pm
- Liberty - Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 10:23 am:
Prevailing wage seems like a non-issue as Illinois needs to pay down it spending not build more buildings.===
Right, because cities don’t pay magically determined prevailing wages for fixing sidewalks, reconstructing roads, replacing water and sewer lines…. /sarcasm
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 12:23 pm
I’m a little apprehensive about lowering prevailing wages and would like to see estimates on how this would help the economy. I am concerned about the lowering of wages at a time of struggling incomes.
There have been good proposals the last few days on this blog. This is why I’m a little wary of outsiders in general becoming elected officials, because they may not have the experience to come up with proposals that experts could come up with quickly.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 12:40 pm
Shrmp @12:23. Why stop at prevailing wage. Let’s lower minimum wage. Maybe we can get those folks now producing Oreos and Ritz down in Mexico to come up for a spell and get all these little projects cleaned up!
Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 12:48 pm
===lowering the number of weeks that benefits are paid for shoulder injuries by clarifying the definitions of “Man as a Whole” and requiring arbitrators and/or the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (IWCC) to strictly adhere to American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines when determining permanency ratings under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.===
A recent Appellate Court case shot a major hole in the recent statutory requirement that AMA guidelines be mandated in Workers Comp cases. Now it appears that following this decision that AMA exams are optional or maybe even superfluous. Rather than blaming Arbitrators and Commissioners for following Appellate Court rulings, or attempting to codify law (both sides are guilty of this), force the legal issue of the fact finders being Arbitrators and Commissioners again, (not just AMA evaluating physician opinions) and return to the standard of appeal of whether their decisions are “against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Insist that the Commission also return to the use of prior precedent in decisions of which they have 40 years of documentation to follow. The prior precedent decisions would need to take into account improvements in medical care and surgery, such as arthroscopic procedures. When I started in this field, arthroscopic procedures were rare. Now they are commonplace with better results that yielding diminishing PPD values, awards and settlements, to account for those better results. Attempting to codify AMA guidelines to be strictly followed will more than likely lead to another Appellate Court slap down and added frustration.
For “Man as a Whole” I previously argued for return of credits for prior injuries under 8(d)2 in exchange for determining certain body parts falling into that category to receive a number of weeks of PPD. Shoulders are now part of MAW, soon hips will be, and will join the majority of 8(d)2 cases of upper back (cervical) and lower back (lumbar) injuries. Give each “body part” a value, and move them into 8(e) schedule of benefits, where there is already a long list of “body parts” with a schedule of PPD benefits. Then credit can be given through Section 8(e).
For curbing excessive lost time benefits, better claims handling is often the only real cure. Legislating common sense solutions rarely seems to work with those who refuse to apply common sense to solve issues. Legislating cut off periods of TTD also often does not factor recovery rates that vary from patient to patient and from injury to injury. For years, certain orthopedic doctors would insist that 6 weeks of lost time was the rule of thumb for back strains. Major fights often developed if it took a patient 9 weeks to recover with more funds spent on lawyers than what the three weeks of TTD actually added up to. Overpayments of TTD also often exist when employers refuse to accommodate work restrictions, or delay approval of prescribed medical tests and treatments.
There is more but I will stick to what the IML mentions. With a little bit of work, some of these issues can be resolved.
Comp used to be “simple and summary in nature” in adjudicating issues. (That often ignored language still appears in the Act).
Benefits can be tightened up using common sense solutions in rewriting portions of the Act that would adequately compensate the injured in a timely fashion.
In this environment
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 12:58 pm
“Home Rule at 5000 citizens. Uh…No.”
—————-
A couple of practical reasons… for both sides of the issue.
In Favor:
01 Foreclosures / bank owned properties. During our ‘last’ financial crisis (assuming it ever ended), municipalities found that many empty homes subject to foreclosure were ending up in ‘limbo’ and were becoming eyesores in neighborhoods. Some real problems there.
Home rule jurisdictions were able to address the problems far easier than non-home rule jurisdictions.
In Favor / Against.
02 License plate readers (data accumulation); Red Light cameras; automobile tracking / auto disabling technology (repossession).
Right now, it’s pretty much a totally free wheeling environment. I’m not normally a big fan of more government regulation, but I also tend to look at things from a “What Can Go Wrong?” and “What Could Be Some Anticipated Consequences?” perspective.
Just as a FYI, here’s the list of Home Rule municipalities (See pages 32-36):
At the bottom, pages 32 - 36
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/ipub11.pdf
Comment by Judgment Day Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 1:17 pm
Just looking around the south suburbs you can see a number of home rule authorities that have dug themselves a deep deep hole of debt, with very little press or community oversight (Harvey, Markham, . . .). That would be my worry with automatic home rule.
As to the benefits, remember that the whole idea of home rule was to give those communities the right to do whatever was necessary unless a state statute prohibited it (the earlier rule had been, you could not do anything unless a state statute permitted it). So, if a good thing from home rule would be to allow municipalities to better deal with foreclosed homes, as Judgment Day suggests, a state statute could allow municipalities that right, without regard to their being home rule.
Comment by Rasselas Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 1:51 pm
It helps that the IML is pushing this and that they have a former mayor of a large town (Brad Cole) at their helm. If this were purely on the heels of a push by the Chamber or NFIB or some anti-union group, then it would be a bit more difficult to pass off these proposals as legit and as a consensus.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 2:08 pm
–If this were purely on the heels of a push by the Chamber or NFIB or some anti-union group, then it would be a bit more difficult to pass off these proposals as legit and as a consensus.–
The chamber and NFIB don’t have dedicated big money subject to appropriation that could be plugged into the GRF disaster.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 2:11 pm
Come on, Word, you know as well as I do that the Chamber and NFIB support the Turnaround Agenda. Some of what the IML is supporting is pretty close to the TA points of contention, but they are better suited to “soft peddle” the points than a pro-biz group whose concerns are completely one-sided. Plus, as Chris Wetterich has posted before on this site and elsewhere, mayors and village/city officials have a lot of influence in Illinois and can be much more effective at lobbying a cause or a bill that otherwise might be DOA. The question is whether they can put those advantages (overt and covert) to the test and make this happen.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 2:31 pm
Word - sorry for not acknowledging that you are correct in the approp concern/push. My point was that the IML going on this alone would be better than a “coalition” trying to do it - because then it would look like a backdoor attempt to break through part of the TA via a figurative Trojan horse. Just my two cents and point.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 2:40 pm
Louis Atsaves make some good points above. In regard to the AMA Guides 6th edition - there appears to be a trend around the country rejecting them. Pennsylvania found that adoption of them violated their constitution because of inconsistency with earlier editions. Wisconsin used to use the guides and got rid of them. Another neighbor state, Iowa
Comment by Marcus Agrippa Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 4:32 pm
Hmmm - not sure what cut it off, but Iowa rejected the AMA Guides that Illinois uses as being scientifically unsound and written in secret. One of the task force reports is at http://www.iowaworkcomp.gov/sites/authoring.iowadivisionofworkcomp.gov/files/dakereport.pdf
Comment by Marcus Agrippa Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 4:34 pm
Is it possible that IML and the Governor agreed to this whole deal? But that the Governor wants an outside party to initiate it. Today, municipalities are one of the Governor’s hostages, because their share of taxes is uncertain. The Governor would release this hostage who would begin to get their share automatically, but in exchange IML would agree to support some turnaround agenda items as part of the package?
Comment by James Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 4:53 pm
IML snd Brad Cole=toothless tigers.
Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 7:38 pm
I say yes to 911, motor fuel and gaming, but not sales tax.
Local governments need to have some skin in the game. While the others are non-GRF, they are for a designated purpose. Sales tax share are unrestricted funds.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 7:59 pm
There are communities that have repeatedly voted down home rule and for good reason. It gives the local gov’t authority to impose additional significant taxes, regulations and fees etc. We should not expand home rule. If you can get it by referendum already, let the local voters decide.
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Feb 25, 16 @ 8:13 am