*** UPDATE - 9:53 am *** The governor has quietly signed SB 790, the $220 million special funds sweep bill that will provide funding to keep parks, historic sites and social service programs open and running. The governor’s budget office had repeatedly signaled opposition to the sweeps bill, complaining that some of the sweeps just couldn’t be done.
Developing…
*** UPDATE - 9:55 am *** The appropriations bill, which would spend the money from the funds sweep bill, has apparently not yet been signed.
*** UPDATE - 10:52 am *** The SJ-R gets a quote from the administration…
“The governor did sign the funds sweep bill yesterday. However, there are some funds included in the bill that agencies have expressed concern over. At this point, we don’t know how much will actually be available, so it’s too soon to say how far this money will go,” [spokeswoman Kelley Quinn] said in the statement.
Quinn said the governor had not decided yet what action to take on Senate Bill 1103. That’s the measure lawmakers approved last month to restore spending so two-dozen state parks and historic sites wouldn’t have to close and hundreds of state workers wouldn’t be laid off.
Blagojevich now has until early December to decide what to do with that bill.
“At this point, we have to see how much money is available to spend,” Quinn said.
***************************
[Everything below was written before I - or anybody else, for that matter - realized that the sweeps bill was signed yesterday.]
* Several conservation groups want the governor to veto a bill that would keep state parks open. Sound strange? Well, it is, kinda, but they do have a point. The bill they want vetoed is the special funds sweep proposal, which skims a bit over $9 million from funds benefitng sportsman’s groups, like the Wildlife and Fish Fund, the Illinois Habitat Endowment Trust Fund and the Illinois Habitat Fund…
Members of Pheasants Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation, Delta Waterfowl, Illinois Audubon Society, among others, are urging Blagojevich to look for another way to fund the state parks, he said.
“It’s not fair to pit two similar groups against each other,” [Dave Grass, president of Winnebago County Pheasants Forever] said.
State park supporters and hunting and fishing supporters are all conservation organizations, said Tom Clay, executive director for the Illinois Audubon Society.
“Funding sources shouldn’t be coming from other dedicated groups,” he said.
They all support land and habitat conservation, he said — several supporters represent both camps.
That’s why he’s hoping Blagojevich vetoes the bill.
“You shouldn’t have to be using habitat money to keep the state parks open,” Clay said.
The problem is that the groups aren’t offering up any alternative. “Don’t cut me, cut the other guy,” ain’t gonna work. There’s a plan on the table that passed both chambers (after weeks of opportunity for public input) and almost nobody uttered a peep until the deed was done.
* Encouraging a veto won’t just hurt state parks and historic sites, as this Bloomington Pantgraph editorial rightly points out…
The bill also provides revenue sources to reverse severe cuts to mental health providers and social service agencies, including money for treatment of substance abuse.
It’s not just about the people facing layoffs because of the governor’s cuts - although that is certainly important.
The bill protects people who need services from these agencies.
Without the additional revenue, they may face longer waits for help or receive no help at all. And when the help needed involves mental health or substance abuse issues, a delay can have a significant negative impact.
* A Rockford Register-Star editorial lays out how payment delays and a big gubernatorial budget cut - which was partially restored with special funds money - is impacting local social service agencies…
The governor cut $55 million — 50 percent — from the Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse, which sends money on to local agencies such as Rosecrance, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, and PHASE/WAVE. The General Assembly voted to restore some of those cuts, but the approved legislation has yet to reach the governor.
Those cuts and the payment delays have been devastating to agencies such as Rosecrance.
“Without the restoration of funding and the timely payment for services already provided, these providers of essential service like Rosecrance will have no alternative but to discontinue a number of life-sustaining and life-changing services to people who are most in need of them,” said Susan Rice, Rosecrance public relations director.
* More carnage…
Some group homes for developmentally disabled adults in Central Illinois are closing or are not reopening, partly because of the state’s budget crisis.
“It (the problem) is far greater than the public imagines,” said Dreux Lewandowski, executive director of Macon Resources, based in Decatur. “I haven’t seen it this bad since the ’90s.”
Marcfirst, the Bloomington-based agency, is closing two of its nine group homes — one home in Bloomington and one home in Normal, said CEO Rick Glass. Two residents have relocated outside McLean County, five residents will move into Marcfirst apartments, and three residents will be assimilated into the remaining group homes, Glass said. […]
The agency heads said group homes for the developmentally disabled — called CILAs (community integrated living arrangements) — have been underfunded in Illinois for several years. Funding has worsened recently with delays in state reimbursement payments and with a 2.5 percent rate cut for group homes, they said.
The Illinois Senate and House have voted to restore that cut but final action is up to Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Tom Green, of the Illinois Department of Human Services, said late Tuesday that the governor’s office is reviewing the legislation.
* And the world financial crisis is having an additional impact…
agencies that have attempted to delay layoffs in hopes funding will be restored cannot deal with continued uncertainty. That’s especially true in these tough economic times when trying to borrow money can be costly - if a business is able to get a loan at all.
So, in the end, does it really make sense to veto the fund transfer bill and worsen an already horrible situation over money that wasn’t being spent in the first place? These conservation groups need to reconsider their decision.
* Related…
* Efforts to stop budget cuts back in hands of governor
* State sends letters to parks detailing what will happen if they close
* Prison guard union testifies to stop transfer
- Leave a light on George - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:18 am:
I don’t want to see people loose their jobs nor do I want vital social services cut back but it ain’t right. When I check that box on the bottom of my state tax return I expect the $ to go where the state said it would. These funds should not be used for everyday expenses.
- Anon - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:28 am:
Rich- what exactly are fund sweeps anyway? Thanks
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:34 am:
Do I look like Google? lol
Look it up.
- gucci loafers - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:36 am:
The governor has quietly signed ??????
As opposed to loudly, signed from the bunker.
- Anon - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:37 am:
I did look it up… I just figured you might be able to provide a better explanation, with all your wit and wisdom. I guess not!
- Beancounter - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:42 am:
Anon, “fund sweeps” is government-speak for robbing Peter to pay Paul.
- Robbing Peter to pay Paul - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:50 am:
Seems Blagojevich has been doing just that since he’s held public office.
- Cassandra - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:50 am:
Unfortunately, this probably means that cuts which should have been made in these social service agencies in the interest of efficiency and good
government–like unloading some overpaid and superfluous managers in agencies like DHS and DCFS,won’t take place….and the gravy train will continue. Not much of an incentive for nonprofits to reign in the executive salaries and perks either. Or to raise fees on, say, out of state
or out of country users of state parks as in many
other locales.
$200 million plus, on the other hand, isn’t that much money. And if the funds weren’t using it, why not sweep it out to save services to needy clients. Maybe the funds which are complaining should look at why the money was just sitting there, apparently uncommitted. I doubt the guv could sweep out funds that had been formally promised to this project or that.
And our taxes didn’t go up. But it seems unlikely
that Illinois will escape the current economic storms so this seems likely to only be a temporary reprieve.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:51 am:
The environmental folks are living in a dream world. Given this economy, they should be thankful that the money is going to something even remotely associated with their causes.
- 618er - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 10:53 am:
Why am I getting an uneasy feeling that a Rewrite to do Right is coming…..
“Thanks for the fund sweep but the appropriations bill doesn’t quite align spending with MY programs…”
Or something like that
- Bruno Behrend - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:10 am:
Given that most (or many) legislators and insiders read this blog, one hopes that they can see the writing on the wall.
There isn’t any room for tax and spending increases in a declining economy, (a viewpoint even Obama seems to be warming to) and gambling expansion likely merely cannibalizes customers from other casinos.
It’s time to start talking deep spending cuts, or freezes, at the very least.
- Capitol View - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:13 am:
I’m not a big fan of the governor, but let me remind my fellow bloggers that the FY 09 budget was passed with a $600 million or more deficit, compared to revenues. The Special Funds “Sweeps” bill was intended to close that gap by raiding the dedicated funds, most of which are from fees paid to the state and some by donations. The swweep was supposed to be for surpluses above what was needed for the current fiscal year.
However, the legislature chose to pass a supplemental appropriation that spent a good piece of the revenues supplied by the Sweeps bill (mitigating some of the worst or most severe of his vetoes and imposed “reserves”. Therefore, less of it it available to simply balance the FY 09 budget.
The legisltive response was not surprising, and the governor’s expectation of using all the Sweeps revenues was naive. But the end result is that many health and human services providers still have no idea what their reimbursement rates are, back to July 1st of this year.
Hopefully, most of the community based non-profit direct service provider network will not fiscally collapse before the Veto Session clarifies what the rates actually are, or they may collapse and close their doors after confirmation of the ongoing rate abuse as they serve state agency clients and wards.
- Bluefish - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:14 am:
618er - I don’t believe Blago can do an amendatory veto on an appropriation bill. However, I think he could line item out some spending.
- Capitol View - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:21 am:
one more thing - banks now understand the precarious State funding situation for community based providers, and the interest loan to such agencies has increased in rate from 3.8% to 8% in the past month.
- Capitol View - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:22 am:
Bluefish, he can wipe out a line item in an approp bill which takes a 3/5 vote to override, or he can redice a spending level, which takes a bare majority in each chamber.
- Doug Dobmeyer - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:23 am:
It is without a doubt a deceptive practice by Illinois government to raise money for one purpose and use it for another - as the sweeps legislation does.
If the state cannot raise money legitimately, then it should cut its budget to compensate.
That may mean cutting legislative and constitutional officers salaries in half, reducing prison population to just house those convicted of violence, cutting transportation budgets, pensions to former state employees etc. This would cause government to live within its means.
Doug Dobmeyer
- Lake County Lady - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:32 am:
So it seems they’re “rescuing” some programs just in time for the election, hoping the average voter has their head turned in ignorance to where the money actually comes from.
Anyone with a “Y” next to their name on these bills needs to be voted out of office. They’re the same ones who’ve had a “Y” next to their name for the last 5 years sweeping funds for their pet projects and the reason we’re in this mess to begin with.
Their election strategy is to create a state crisis with their bickering, go into special session, and “save the day” with last minute rescues and pat themselves on the back for a job well done protecting taxpayers.
Vote them out.
- Just the Facts - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:42 am:
Response to Dobmeyer - cutting legislative and constitutional officer salaries in half might have some symbolic effect but it certainly isn’t material in the context of the state budget. “Reducing the prison population to just house those convicted of violence” would appear to require legislation and would also probably not be terribly material in the short term scheme of things as it would seem to require an increase in services to those who are being released back into the community and future alternatives to incarceration, unless you just want to dump these folks back into situations in which the behavior that resulted in them being placed in jail would continue. “Cutting transportation budgets” - what specifically would you cut? The AMTRAK subsidies so that more people have to drive? The limited amount of road construction that is currently occurring? Expenses for maintenance of existing roads? “Pensions to former state employees” - you have that pesky problem of the Illinois constitution that prevents you from taking this step. But even if you get around that “problem” then what happens to the folks who have their pensions cut - these aren’t “lavish” pensions - they are, more often, subsistence amounts. Perhaps they slip into poverty, and have a greater need for social services which state can’t fund at current populations.
If you are going to suggest budget cuts - let’s be realistic - your comment strikes me as unrealistic.
- Cassandra - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
Well, Lake Lady has a point, but unfortunately, most of them are running opposed, or essentially unopposed, so we can’t”vote them out.” State and US legislator has become a lifetime job.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:25 pm:
If the sweeps will use $200M, how long did it take for all those accounts to build up to this number? If those accounts are now back to $0 and if it took 3 years to total $200M then this is simply another temporary bandaid that has avoided the real issue. If state rev is projected down $200M, sales tax/investments/gambling dropping, home values down, special funds empty, people driving/shopping less, state owed payments hitting $2B, new state prograsms being ruled as illegal, inflation hitting 5.5%, unemployment rising, and now property tax up, where will the bucks be coming from to match these dollars next year? There are only so many state resources can be leased or sold before really tough decisions can no longer be avoided.
- Oberon - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:17 pm:
Cassandra, state revenues go into the Treasury, where they are placed in specific funds designated by State law. However, those funds cannot be spent without first being appropriated, regardless whether a need exists for them. A “surplus” can be produced by reducing or vetoing appropriations from those funds, and then the argument can be made, at least to the public, that it is time to “sweep” these funds of their “surpluses,” which are actually nothing of the sort. Some of these revenues are from the federal government, or are linked to federal matching funds, and cannot be spent on any other purpose than for which they are designated, a requirement too often overlooked by this Administration and the Assembly. So “sweeps” can result in unanticipated consequences, such as being forced to repay past expenditures from those funds due to violations of the stated conditions of their use. And cancellation of future revenues. It’s tantamount to pulling your finger out of one leak in the dike to push it in somewhere else, only to leave behind a hole that is quickly going to get bigger. It is not a fix at all. Nor is it the fault of agencies responsible for spending those funds, whose requests for more appropriations are never approved. The State Treasury is not like your personal checkbook, though people who should know better persist on behaving as if it were.
- Princess - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 5:28 pm:
Interpretation, please?
But he hasn’t signed a companion bill that would use the money to spare 325 layoffs and 24 state site closures.
A Blagojevich spokeswoman says that depends on whether Democratic Comptroller Dan Hynes transfers all the money from special state funds to a “budget relief fund.” [AP from ABC ch7]
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 6:10 pm:
AA would like to understand the definition of “surplus” or “excess” that was used to justify the sweep of $5 million out of the State Pensions Fund. The SPF is funded through sales by the Treasurer of unclaimed property. Revenues in the Fund are used to fund, duh, the State Pensions.
AA would like to have this definition handy to explain to Mrs. AA that there are “excess” funds in the AA Family Retirement & College Fund (after the worst quarter in years) so old AA can buy a new Corvette with the “surplus” funds.
- Bill - Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 8:53 pm:
AA,
Sounds like a mid-life crisis. I’d wait until after the con con vote for the Corvette if I were you. If it passes you may be looking for work.