Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: From 23 down to 0
Next Post: Did Rauner kick a big can?
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz writes about the proposed “lockbox” amendment for transportation dollars…
The union’s Marc Poulos, who heads the Fight Back Fund, says the amendment merely would require that money raised for transportation go toward transportation. Some groups like the Metropolitan Planning Council agree.
But according to Chicago Budget Director Alex Holt, the city might lose discretion over at least $250 million a year in local taxes—not counting the $49 million it gets annually in state gas taxes. (Poulos confirms that’s the case.) That money gets used for many things, including libraries, she says. At the same time, it’s not certain that expenditures for snow removal, streetlights and other items would be eligible under the proposed amendment. “The language just isn’t clear,” Holt says.
The folks at the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning raise other concerns. Though Wisconsin and other states have adopted “lockbox” amendments in recent years, the Illinois version fails to specify planning as a qualified cost, gives little attention to increasingly important intermodal transportation and makes roadwork a higher priority over transit work, according to the agency. It’s also unclear how passage would affect state capital bond issues that depend on various revenue streams.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:06 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: From 23 down to 0
Next Post: Did Rauner kick a big can?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Might lose discretion”. Hmmm, you mean to missal locate funds from their intended purpose?
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:17 am
**“Might lose discretion”. Hmmm, you mean to missal locate funds from their intended purpose?**
No, actually. Many of those fees/taxes were not intended to fund transportation related services/projects.
But this constitutional amendment would require them to be used on those services - CONTRARY to their intended purposes.
For example, IL has a license plate fee intended to fund DNR. This amendment could mean that said money could no longer be used for DNR, even though that was the original, explicit, intended purpose. And the problem grows when you look at all the different municipalities that have transportation related taxes/fees used for non-transportation things.
Comment by JoeMaddon Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:24 am
If those who had been elected in the past, had performed the duties as they had sworn they would. We would not have some of these people and/or amendments on the ballot. But since they did not, the voter/taxpayer is left to deal with the consequences.
Comment by NobodysAccountable Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:34 am
One item of note missing from this debate is that due to fuel efficiency the money collected by the motor fuel tax is going down, and due to inflation the purchasing power of the money that is collected is worth less than it was when these taxes and fees were implemented.
In other words, the money in the Road Fund is even more precious than it used to be.
P.S. - The MPC is calling for a motor fuel tax increase, but I am uncomfortable supporting that without guarantees the money won’t get diverted at the last second, but I would say that planning expenses should be covered as transportation expenses.
Comment by Not It Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:38 am
I would argue that fees such as the DNR fee never should have been added to the plate fee. Our plate fees are much higher than surrounding states and that is not business friendly. Perhaps when the road fund is flush and our roads are in good repair, some business friendly Illinois leaders can reduce plate fees to be more competitive to surrounding states. But that won’t happen while the road fund is a piggy bank for GRF shortfalls.
Comment by A Jack Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:52 am
This amendment is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard of. But this is Illinois, so it is likely to pass.
Comment by Ron Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:57 am
**I would argue that fees such as the DNR fee never should have been added to the plate fee. **
Perhaps… but that is an entirely differently argument.
**But that won’t happen while the road fund is a piggy bank for GRF shortfalls.**
Again, perhaps, but this constitutional amendment goes WAY beyond just the road fund.
Comment by JoeMaddon Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 10:59 am
Serious, here. On its face, this sounded like a good idea to me. I am sure there are consequences I am unaware of. Whenever I try to examine this, I get bored out of my skull. How should I vote on this, and why? (I’ve got no horse in this race, just want to vote for whatever is best)
Comment by AlfondoGonz Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 11:00 am
Not It makes a good point. There’s little support for raising the Motor Fuel Tax or other similar fees as long as the Road Fund is raided.
In my opinion it’ll pass. The proponents have made the case with simple, straightforward arguments. The opponents use more complicated arguments that require more understanding of budget details or “what if” scenarios.
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 11:09 am
It would be nice if the road fund amendment was not needed. But it is. Of course SOS drivers facilities, streetlights, snowplowing, police traffic patrols, and other LEGITIMATE transportation expenses would be covered. Libraries, IDNR, etc., may be worthwhile, but should not be funded from the road fund.
Comment by DuPage Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 11:27 am
When DNR fees were added license plates, the intended use was for DNR roads. The fees allowed DNR to continue to maintain its roads, while using General Funds for other purposes. Therefore, the fee could continue to be used on DNR roads.
Also, as far as MPOs are concerned, 23 USC Section 134 requires MPOs - https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title23/html/USCODE-2011-title23-chap1-sec134.htm. The Safe Roads Amendment or “lockbox” clearly allows funds to be used for federal approved programs (let alone federally required programs).
Comment by Highway Engineer Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 11:30 am
On first thought, it does look to be a prudent measure. However, when you start looking at all the pots that aren’t properly funded, ala pensions for working people, the clarity starts to fade. Should we really amend our constitution to legislate where dollars go? There should be a long, long, long line of groups screaming to get their fair share of dedicated monies.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 11:59 am
Not exactly the scalpel/precision method here. It has some minor flaws, but it seems better than the alternative (aka current system). Transportation funds go to fund only transportation. If lawmakers feel that education and other areas need more funding, they can pass specific taxes or increase the income tax. Not that complicated.
Like it or not, participatory governance is all the rage these days
Comment by BK Bro Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 12:10 pm
The DNR funds get $2.00 of the registration fees, and was created in legislation called the Bikeway Act. These funds do assist DNR in trails maintenance, but the vast majority go to local governments in bike path grants. The funds also assist DNR in matching other grants, as I’ve done a bit of consulting. Road funds come from IDOT to DNR, and can continue to do so under this bill…whether or not any of the other funds do is a mystery…
Comment by Captain Illini Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 12:11 pm
After reading this, I’m thinking Hinz would be better suited on the Tribune editorial board than Crain’s.
Comment by phocion Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 2:30 pm
A Jack ” Our plate fees are much higher than surrounding states and that is not business friendly.”
You’re only looking at state fees. When you add local fees (which the Illinois Constitution of 1970 bans), neighboring states are higher.
https://www.stlmag.com/news/Missouri-Residents-Avoid-Taxes-Inspections-by-Driving-With-Illinois-Plates/
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 3:57 pm
A simple reason to vote no? This is not the kind of thing that belongs in any Constitution. A Constitution is about hopefully permanent rights, powers, process, and structure. Specific taxation and spending are legislative decisions, implementation is an Executive function. To add these kinds of rules to our Constitution will only lead to its falling from its own weight.
For Madigan to support such a restraint on Legislative power carved in stone, reflects a political desperation driven by Rauner’s added millions. Ironically, this restrains Rauner in costructing a difficult budget as well.
This is a classic case of going to public referendum for short term favor, rather than supporting good government for the long term. Very disappointing.
Comment by walker Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 4:33 pm
== Should we really amend our constitution to legislate where dollars go? There should be a long, long, long line of groups screaming to get their fair share of dedicated monies. ==
First they protected the pensions because they weren’t being properly funded.
Next they created a while bunch of speciality license plates to fund nice to have projects that didn’t get any / enough funding.
Then they created a number of other special fees and funds.
Now they’re going to protect the highway funds because they are bring “stolen” for other purposes.
Anybody else see a pattern here of the voters reacting to the lack of trust of the politicians?
On the other hand, if this trend continues, the GA will soon have no choice but to implement specific taxes for every line item in the State budget.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Oct 24, 16 @ 9:56 pm