69 Comments - Excessively Rabid - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 6:42 am: Yes. Having the county board approve it implies that they have an interest in the issue that is separate from the voters’. They don’t. They are just elected officials, not custodians of some higher good. - tubbfan - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 6:45 am: School boards/park districts/library boards are separate units of local government and have no obligation to seek approval of the county board. Would a county board seek to approve all tax increases of any kind including bond issues? I don’t think so. - OneMan - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 7:11 am: I think ‘approval of the voters’ is the key here so if the voters say ok, why should the county board be involved. - Wensicia - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 7:18 am: I can’t see the county board’s interest in this, yes, put this to the voters. - Justice - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 7:42 am: Never did understand why a county board thought it was up to them to interpret what they thought the voters were really thinking. If we the voters approve, or disapprove, then aren’t we best suited to make the decision? As far as I knew, the county board is there to do the will of the people. - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:15 am: The School Board should be authorized to levy the tax, but it would be better if the people voted on the tax via referendum. The School Board must then also take responsibility for any book keeping requirements associated with the levy without any assistance from the existing mechanisms contained in the County Board to distribute other taxes. - anon sequitor - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:20 am: Yes. I agree with Excessively Rabid’s first comment above. It is a voter imposed tax. Who has more authority on this than the people who will be paying the tax? Why should County Board have veto power? - Anon - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:24 am: The county board should not be involved. Big deal if it is county wide. If someone thinks that when voters approve of a tax, there needs to be review and oversight, and by which they may veto the decision, maybe I should have the power to “review” the voter’s decision when they elected him. - thechampaignlife - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:45 am: I voted yes but my sarcastic response is that we need extra layers of approval to keep us #1 in units of local government. It’s a job building program. In fact, we should have boards appointed for the sole purpose of administering this law! - Johnny USA - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:54 am: And when the taxpayers vote for sky high taxes, and the schools use this to bond out uberdollars…. Then what happens when the county needs to borrow money? The bond underwriters look at the how much debt / what the tax rates are for the entire tax base, not just the county. Sounds to me like this is another way for Wall Street Fatcats to make more money…lobby the voters directly so the schools can borrow more money. - Small Town Liberal - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:54 am: Yep, if the people vote for it, they can have it. Glad to see Sen. Cultra advocating for smaller government… - Anonymous - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:56 am: I haven’t noticed that my county board takes a sincere and deep interest in the well-being of the kids. I’d rather the school board take the issue directly to the voters. - railrat - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 8:59 am: I voted yes but one downside would be if the community has a large retiree or older aged residents that are on fixed incomes and or with no children - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:04 am: Railrat, The common argument (and I’m not taking sides here) to your point is that older residents benefit in quality of life and property values because of better schools. They also then equate more money to better schools. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:05 am: Am I missing something here? Currently, voters approve a tax via referendum, but the county board has final say? I didn’t know that. Seems backwards. I voted yes. - Robert - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:08 am: absolutely yes - it is pretty difficult to get voters to go for a tax hike even for education - forcing another obstacle in the way of what the people prefer seems unnecessary. not sure if I can think of examples where you’d want a check on a voter referendum. - Anonymous - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:11 am: Obviously, if county board members live in the school district, they’ll have the same say as everybody else. - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:15 am: Wordslinger, Could this somehow be associated with the fact they are talking about state sales tax disbursements and not straight-up taxes like property taxes and bonding issues? - Pool Boy - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:20 am: Not a fan of higher taxes but this one works well, especially for counties that are retail hubs. Funds go only to school construction, not salaries. The counties should have no role in this tax, there only reason to interject themselves is to keep some of it for themselves. - x ace - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:25 am: No - Checks and Balances Needed - School Districts are at the Forefront of Fiscal Irresponsibility lead by Superintendents who have created fiefdoms and have extracted outrageous salaries from the Taxpayers. Keep County Board Approval. - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:30 am: The definitive document about sales taxes in Illinois, http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/Upload/2010mayilsalestax.pdf Right now, it does not appear there is any mechanism for anything other than the State, Municipalities or Counties to receive money (there are a couple of special exceptions, schools not being one of them). This may explain why the counties are in the mix, there are few entities that can administer the funds. Right now, it looks that if a school district wants funds from sales tax, the money must funnel through either a town or the county. Having anticipated this was why I said if the school district wants a sales tax revenue stream, they should be prepared to pay for its administration and not to rely on the county (or town) to handle it for them without cost. - cover - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:34 am: I voted no, only because a sales tax referendum may be approved in a vote that has a very low turnout, such as an April municipal election. Would you be comfortable having as little as 10% of the electorate (51% voting “yes” at 19.6% turnout) imposing a tax on everyone else? I would prefer that ANY tax referendum be placed on a November ballot, when turnout is as high as it’s going to get. If voters approve a tax then, there is no reason for the County Board to say otherwise. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:39 am: –Could this somehow be associated with the fact they are talking about state sales tax disbursements and not straight-up taxes like property taxes and bonding issues? – Huh? Who’s talking about state sales tax disbursements? - Inishmean - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:42 am: I am not sure there is a compelling reason for the county board to have the final say over the voters- while I agree with the earlier comment that schools are not the most fiscally conservative-I think that voters are brutally so- in this climate- if something gets by the voters- the bar was set high enough - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:43 am: wordsliner, “School sales taxes approved….” - Logic not emotion - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:46 am: I’m not up to speed on it. Would it have to be passed via a county wide referendum? How would tax revenues be distributed among various school districts within a county? - langhorne - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 10:04 am: co bd approval should not be required. this is a direct referendum. the voters affected have the opportunity to approve or disapprove, and the sales tax increase applies to their geographic boundaries. allowing county board involvement allows for interference and screwing around by some for their own purposes not related to the question at hand. - Frankie - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 10:09 am: If its a county-wide tax, the county board should be invovlved, they are the county corporate entity. How would this even work with school districts that are in multiple counties? If county A passes the tax and I am in a district that is in both county A and B, and county B does not pass the tax, are the levies by that school district adjusted to reflect county A’s additional contribution of sales tax proceeds, or do the residents of county B get a free ride? - titan - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 10:10 am: Isn’t the county board involved because the tax is a county sales tax? The money is used for school purposes, butthe tax is i,mposed as a county sales tax. I don’t think it would be possible to do it school district by school district (certainly not practical), because of the irregular boundaries of the districts. - Judgment Day - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 10:27 am: I’m against this - because the devil is in the details, and making this thing work in a modern world just does not seem practical. When you are one of the folks who have to make this all possible, it just does not fly (I know, I’m one of the folks who would have to make this work). School District sales taxes? Ok, let’s try and figure out how these taxes are going to be administered. It’s workable (not easy, but workable) as long as the school district sales taxes are only applied to sales from physical locations (say, your local Home Depot), but now imagine trying to apply these taxes to internet sales. Remember, school district boundary lines are a whole lot like redistricting boundaries, although not as clear cut. I actually know of cases where individual properties are bisected by school district boundaries (not supposed to happen, but it does). So let’s say a school district gets one of these sales tax referendum passed. Now somebody (most likely the County Clerk’s office in each County, because they are the official keeper of the tax district boundary records) somehow has to be able to tie each physical property eligible to pay sales taxes which is located within the specific school districts boundaries back to that school district, acquire the necessary information for transmittal to the Department of Revenue, and do the same thing for all Internet based businesses (????) located within the school district boundaries. IMO - Completely Hopeless. The only way this thing should fly is if you make the school district 100% responsible for all the administration of the sales tax - no pawning the workload off onto any other governmental body. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 10:59 am: Just another ploy to find a new revenue stream. County Board should be involved because it is comparatively easy to influence a school district election. When brought to a county wide level, it would force a more fair examination of the effort. It should not be easy to open up an endless new revenue stream. - GoldCoastConservative - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 11:27 am: I voted no. If you don’t like the way members of the County Board votes, then vote them out. And if you don’t like the way the government interactions are structured, petition for a change. We live in a republic, not a direct deomcracy. - lollinois - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 11:28 am: I don’t understand - when would a county board not want to approve a tax increase the voters themselves have voted for in this day and age? - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 11:35 am: –Just another ploy to find a new revenue stream. County Board should be involved because it is comparatively easy to influence a school district election. When brought to a county wide level, it would force a more fair examination of the effort. It should not be easy to open up an endless new revenue stream. – They’re countywide referendums. according to the linked bill. So in other words, a county board currently has the authority to ignore a measure that was passed by a majority of county voters. Very House of Lordsy. - siriusly - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 11:37 am: County boards should be responsible for county business, and issues over natural resources and transportation that require inter-city cooperation, etc. No reason they need to approve a locally approved, locally financed tax issue. - siriusly - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 11:39 am: Wordslinger - I totally disagree. People who live in my neighborhood pay attention when the school district wants to approve something - but 2/3 of them could’t even pick our county board representative’s name if I gave them a multiple choice question. County boards may matter in some places, but I think in the collars - they are obscure to most. - Scott Summers - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 12:14 pm: I voted no — but for reasons entirely apart from the “let voters have their say” logic. Let’s get a handle on the underlying premise. Rather than continuing to over-rely on property taxes for education — we should amp up the sales tax instead? Ummmmm…….no thanks. Of all levies, sales taxes are THE most regressive: princes and paupers alike pay at the same rates. (And it’s not exactly like we under-rely on sales taxes here in Illinois as it is!) IMHO — education funding should instead fall most heavily upon income taxes. And yes, I know: having just passed one income tax increase merely to equilibrate state finances, the prospects for another increase any time soon are obvious. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 12:16 pm: In this case it is the tone deaf political class who are members of the House of Lords. Their spending needs are superior to the needs of the taxed. Why should the County be sucked into collecting money for a different governmental body? Seems to me that not all school districts are contiguous with County borders. It is a fantasy to expect the voters to approve another new tax in this climate. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 12:28 pm: ===Why should the County be sucked into collecting money for a different governmental body?=== I don’t know where you’re from Pluto, but that’s what many counties do. In Cook and the collars for instance, the County collects property taxes for schools, forest preserve districts, municipalities, etc. Why is this an unnecessary burden? And for someone who thinks it’s a fantasy to think voters would approve a sales tax referendum, you’re spending an awful lot of time opposing the concept, aren’t you? Just say you don’t like taxes, period, and stop twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to use logic to back up your emotional reaction to the cost of living in an organized society. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 12:29 pm: Sorry, I meant to add that I voted yes and can’t understand those who are opposed to this based on some weird, new form of respect for county commissioners. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 12:42 pm: Pluto, if I’m following you correctly (and that’s a big if), a referendum passed by popular vote would be the result of an elite “political class” while a County Board blocking it would actually be exercising the popular will? - Damfunny - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 12:43 pm: don’t we have a ‘representative’ form of government, where we elect people to make decisions on our behalf? - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 12:59 pm: Thanks for the analysis, Judgement Day. This is as I thought. The school districts will have to administer the tax (there is a rather significant book keeping requirement now performed by the county concerning the local portion of the sales tax) or they will have to contract with the county to have those services performed. While not against the sales tax per se, I am against shuffling the administration of the program to another entity without funds to perform the effort. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 1:25 pm: –don’t we have a ‘representative’ form of government, where we elect people to make decisions on our behalf?– Elected representatives of the General Assembly are drafting law on local referendums. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 1:26 pm: I voted yes because I read this in the Onion this morning courtesy of Paul Krugman: http://www.theonion.com/articles/budget-mixup-provides-nations-schools-with-enough,20350/ A quarter point from local sales–that’s 25 cents out of every $100 spent–could be the difference between a music program/no music program or no/some/better special ed services for the district. I’m all for it. - Cal Skinner - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 1:37 pm: School districts are special interest governments which most assuredly could use a check and balance from those elected to a general purpose government, such as the county board. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 1:40 pm: ===special interest governments which most assuredly could use a check and balance from those elected to a general purpose government,=== Another small government advocate heard from. You don’t think a referendum provides a check and/or a balance? - Logic not emotion - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 2:22 pm: @Scott Summers: You have a valid point. In my opinion, both sales and property taxes are somewhat unfair. I know many farmers who may have a lot of land and pay a lot of property taxes; but make very little money (or even lose). Why should they have to pay far more to support the school and community services than the wealthy individual with millions in stock but no real estate. In colonial days, property taxes may have been fair. No longer. - Judgment Day - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 2:30 pm: “You don’t think a referendum provides a check and/or a balance?” Not when the tax district (schools) that gets the referendum passed can then pawn all the hard work created as a result off on another tax district (County Government, in this example). Nothing fair in that. - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 2:41 pm: An unfunded mandate by any other name… - 47th Ward - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 2:53 pm: ===gets the referendum passed can then pawn all the hard work created as a result off on another tax district (County Government, in this example).=== ===unfunded mandate=== Doesn’t the state collect sales taxes? How is this an unfunded mandate if the state is the agency allowing it and doing the extra work? Again, if the opponents would just man-up and say they don’t want taxes of any kind, it would make it easier for the rest of us to have a conversation. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 2:55 pm: –An unfunded mandate by any other name…– On whom? - Cincinnatus - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:02 pm: 47th and Wordslinger, There is a lot to the administration of the sales tax. These efforts are currently performed by county assessors and other officials at the county levels. Some municipalities are also set up to administer the sales tax revenues. With the exception of certain other entities, there are no other authorized units of government allowed to administer sales tax revenues. This means that either the existing entities (mainly counties) must administer and report the paper required by the state, or the new taxing body (in this case school districts) must. You cannot demand that the county administer the program without allocating funds to them. Either the school district must contract with the county, or be prepared to set up its own organization to do the paperwork. Is that not a decent explanation of an unfunded mandate in your world? - 47th Ward - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:16 pm: Cinci, we live in a modern information economy. The businesses collect the sales tax (except Amazon) and pay them over to the state. The state then sends an electronic payment to the corresponding unit of local government. If an intergovernmental agreement is needed to faciliate an additional wire transfer to a school district, how burdensome is this? Here’s a handy chart from IDOR that explains how various counties charge various rates. http://tax.illinois.gov/Publications/Bulletins/2011/FY-2011-12.pdf See? It’s not that difficult. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:36 pm: –Is that not a decent explanation of an unfunded mandate in your world?– No, it’s not. It’s their job. They’re already doing it. But your concerns about protecting public employees and political elites on county boards from the great unwashed vox populi are duly noted. You think anyone’s buying the papers you’re peddling? You’re against popular tax referendums because public employees would have to process a little more paperwork? Next thing we know, you’re going to be wearing a knit cap in summer, playing hacky-sack and banging drums up in Madison. On Wisconsin! - Irish - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:38 pm: If the county contributes to the school system they get a say. If they don’t then they got no say. Money talks, BS walks. - bman - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:41 pm: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE? THERE IS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT AND POLITICIANS WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THEIR SAY. THEY HAVE HAD THEIR SAY AND LOOK AT THE MESS WE’RE IN ! - Judgment Day - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:45 pm: 47TH Ward, nice try, but for school districts, it’s a whole lot more complex. First off, realize there are 102 county governments located here in IL. In each County, there is a specific county office charged with the administration and maintenance of the parcel inventory (a/k/a “Tax Base”) located within the boarders of that County - See County Assessor or Supervisor of Assessments. Each County governments spends a substantial amount of money yearly to maintain that real estate property tax database. It’s a continuous, ongoing expenditure of a considerable amount of $$$$$ to accomplish this, and when you take into account the digital GIS (Geographic Information Systems), it really gets costly. Oh, and btw, not everyplace in IL has operational, up-to-date GIS Systems in place. What you are talking about doing is as follows: 1) Electronically tying each operating business to at least one, if not more than one single physical location located within the State of Illinois. Prefer by County, identified by the county’s real estate parcel identification number (PIN). Note: Probably also need Mobile Homes, because people do run businesses out of Mobile Homes. 2) Then you have to identify what school district(s) each of these locations are in. Digital records referred. 3) Then you have to create a common digital reporting environment to the Department of Revenue. 4) Then you have to get all County Governments to undergo the expenditures and put in place the ongoing data maintenance efforts to keep the databases updated at the local level, and sychronized statewide. Ok, there’s a really short, short, short summary of what has to be done. Now, here’s reality: #1 does not exist statewide. In fact, does not exist in probably 70% to 80% of the state. #2. If you get the Real Estate PIN#’s, you are probably good to go. Mobile Homes will be a much different story. #3. Good luck with that - If you know the story behind the story, see the whole process involving the county VR/election updates to ISBE. #4. Big money. Virtually nothing that I can see is currently in place. Some serious $$$, people, and time required to get this done. That’s reality. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:48 pm: What does a PIN number have to do with sales taxes? - Amuzing Myself - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 3:51 pm: There are already enough instances in government - particularly at the state level - where voters’ wishes are easily ignored by elected “representatives.” If a community decides it wants to put this to the voters, then it’s up to the opponents to convince voters it’s a bad idea. Don’t remember what margin is necessary, but I wouldn’t be opposed to 60 to 75% being required to increase taxes - even at the local level - if that’s not already a requirement. - Judgment Day - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 4:01 pm: “What does a PIN number have to do with sales taxes?” You have to have some way to ‘tie’ a business’s physical location (the location on the ground) to the specific group of tax districts associated with the physical location. Otherwise, what school district(s) is the location of the business located in? If you have a real estate PIN#, then you have that physical ‘tie’, which can be digitally associated to the tax districts (i.e.; County, Township, Community College, School districts, municipalities, fire protection districts, etc.). Without the real estate PIN #, good luck. Also, with state collections of sales taxes as they currently exist, the sales tax receipts are either identified as being in a specific municipality, or else the money is directed to the appropriate county (”If Not A, then B” style logic). It’s a light switch approach (on or off) - either specify Municipality, or else it’s County. Most Counties have more than one school district, so it will be considerably more difficult. - Anon - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 4:22 pm: The businesses already send information as to where the sale took place to the Department of Revenue. That is how municipalities get the local share of the Sales Tax. Of the base 6.25% rate, 5% goes to the state, .25% goes to the county where the sale was made and 1% goes to the local government where the sale was made. It goes to the municipality if the sale happened in the municipality and if it was in an unincorporated area, the county gets it. So all that information is currently being supplied. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 4:53 pm: Judgement Day, what’s your point? You have a tough job? Cry me a river. Join the rest of the six billion on the planet. If you want to make the argument that county governments just can’t deal with collecting and remitting a .25% sales tax to school districts, then maybe someone else can. And maybe Illinois ought to start wrapping its collective mind around the fact that half of its 102 counties, boundaries drawn before the Mexican-American War, have fewer than 30,000 residents. Of those, 17 have fewer than 10,000 residents. That never gets mentioned in the “Dems only won four counties” discussion. All that county government is just the bees-knees of efficiency? Where do you think this bill came from? - Demoralized - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 5:16 pm: If the public votes for the tax then the county board should not have the option of implementing it. The people have voted. Just do it. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 5:27 pm: I’m fascinated by some of the opposition to a popular referendum by folks who want more money for their schools. It’s their money and their schools, right? Back in the 1970s, a radical from the Bolshevik enclave of Charleston named Jim Edgar tried to get the GA to approve a bill that would allow local governments to raise an income tax for schools. I pay out the wazoo in property taxes for my schools. It’s in my interest for my kids, and for the resale value of my home — a real value, business deal. If folks want to tax themselves for their schools — for their kids, for their property values — why should someone else stand in the way? - DOWNSTATE DEM - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 5:52 pm: I can’t see any fairness in the proposal. The assumption is that the school district would be able to garner more revenue, without going through the county board. Reality for rural areas is that “your” school district may have no real sales tax base, so a raise in the tax is meaningless. The district next door however, may have a Wal-Mart store and a ton of business. If you are to raise the tax you need to spread it out over the school districts that exist in that county. - Judgment Day - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 6:17 pm: Word: My point is that you all seem to think this local school district sales tax is a really cool idea and all it takes is for the voters to snap their collective fingers and the magic just “happens”. It’s not that simple - if you believe that, then maybe you should go to Hogwarts. One of the reasons we’re have such a tough time here in IL is because in the past, we’ve done such an incredibly poor job of implementing all these ‘cool ideas’. There’s never much, if any planning by the legislature (and certainly none by the advocates) for what can happen when things don’t quite go as planned. As far as a tough job, I thrive on stuff like this. This local school district sales tax spells both “opportunity” and “$$$$” for me (outsourcing of services). But you better figure out that it’s going to create additional costs that are going to have to be paid for. I’m just pointing what should be obvious out, because eventually when it happens and folks get our bills for implementation (and their heads start spinning), well, “we tried to tell you”. - wordslinger - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 6:55 pm: JD, I wasn’t aware this was such an issue. And in all honesty, I don’t think it is. If the voters say levy the tax, deal with it. That’s the job. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Monday, May 23, 11 @ 9:05 pm: Figure the voters can directly decide what they want. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.