Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Reforming schools and cutting their budgets
Next Post: AFSCME sounds alarm on budget cuts
Posted in:
* The complaining from local governments about proposed state budget cuts targeting them is really heating up…
In a story earlier this week, Tinley Park Trustee Greg Hannon encapsulated that outrage.
“They haven’t done their job in 20 years-plus,” he said. “So now they’re going to balance their budget on the backs of municipalities and the citizens who are already taxed too high, and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.”
The locals not only didn’t help lobby for the income tax increase, many mayors (like Mayor Daley) publicly bad-mouthed it. That didn’t go down too well at the Statehouse. So when the Senate Republicans floated the idea of cutting payments to local governments by $300 million (almost 30 percent) the Democrats began to take notice.
* Their arguments have some holes…
“We have already shared the pain,” said Kerry Cummings, village president of north suburban Glenview. “We have already made the tough decisions.” […]
Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner said lawmakers must rein in “the culture of spending” instead of raiding funds promised to cities and towns.
“This is a transfer of responsibility for state overspending to local communities and to local taxpayers,” Weisner said. “It’s time for Springfield to clean up it’s own mess.”
They’re right that they’ve already experienced pain. Everybody has in Illinois. They’re wrong that they’ve already shared the pain at the state level other than late payments.
And, if the state is overspending, as Mayor Weisner rightly contends, then that state spending problem would logically include local government cash. It’s not a great argument.
* More rhetoric…
Oak Park Mayor David Pope said it would be robbery to withhold it.
“Robbing Peter to pay Paul, that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about robbing Peter and Paul, to pay them,” Pope said.
“Them” would be schools, hospitals, prisons, sick people, poor people, elderly people, etc.
* This “cut somebody else” argument really is not very good…
Municipalities say it’s time for the state to solve budget problems.
Ritter suggest lawmakers do it by cutting spending, but not at city hall.
“They’ve made their bed, but they want municipalities to lay in it. They don’t want to because it’s not a very comfortable bed,” Ritter said.
What would they have the General Assembly do? Pay the locals out of their own personal pockets?
* Barrington Hills President Bob Abboud…
“We either have to dip into reserves, which affects the asset performance of our reserves. Or in some cases we have to go out and borrow this money. So we’re now paying interest on this money, real interest,” he said.
Here’s a bit of lobbying advice: Never tell the General Assembly that you have cash reserves.
* Look, I don’t like this at all. Passing problems down the line is not a good way to govern whatsoever. But schools are being cut and so is everybody else. I don’t see how you can cut schools and not touch municipalities. These cuts are totally unacceptable, but these are totally unacceptable times.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Reforming schools and cutting their budgets
Next Post: AFSCME sounds alarm on budget cuts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Grrr. Were all of those municipal officials standing shoulder to shoulder with the Governor, supporting the income tax increase and asking him to bump it up an extra quarter point to cover the needs of towns and cities?
Do these guys not read the papers? Do they not know the size of the hole the State is in? The magic beans approach to fiscal management has to stop.
Comment by soccermom Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:12 am
I’m wondering if a compromise could be reached on fire and police pension mandates (passed by the general assembly) for a small (maybe temporary) reduction in the income tax cost sharing. The biggest problems with a lot of municipalities is their police and fire pension costs, which probably far outweigh any reduction the general assembly would pass.
Comment by Ahoy Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:16 am
Ahoy….I see the same argument made by mayors applies here. You havent funded your local pensions for 20years and now you want to steal from Peter,Paul, and Mary to pay for the bed you made on the backs of the …..etc…
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:22 am
Are these “cuts” (reductions in the amount local municipalities are supposed to receive) or the state flat-out refusing to pay at all?
The Southtown makes it sound like the state may refuse to pay any funds these local municipalities are supposed to receive, rather than simply reducing/”cutting” the amount they are to receive.
Comment by S Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:24 am
Ok, goofy idea. What about the State repealing some of those unfunded mandates on schools and municipalities they’ve past recently? (Can’t think of concrete examples, but you get the idea.) The logic being that the State is throwing a bone to the locals, while the locals can save (or rather not spend) some money. Everybody (almost) wins.
Comment by What planet is he from again? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:25 am
Cut. Them. All.
Then cut the subsidy to TRS too.
Comment by John Bambenek Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:26 am
Kind of tough to feel sorry for municipalities when one reads about a west suburban village that wasted $40 million on a real estate boondoggle, and paid their village manager an annual salary of over $400,000 to boot. That community’s mayor, incidentally, is on the IML’s board of directors.
Many, many units of local government haven’t even begun to seriously tighten their belts. When the combined mayors express their outrage at a fellow mayor’s profligate ways, then maybe they’ll be taken seriously. For now, they sound like whiners and hypocrites. Advice for the mayors: “Physician, heal thyself.”
Comment by phocion Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:27 am
Is this just another one of Gov. Quinn’s “exercises”? Like “closing” the IL School for the Visually Impaired & School for the Deaf? Or is he “serious”… this time?
Comment by S Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:32 am
WPiHfA.
“- What planet is he from again? - Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:25 am:
“Ok, goofy idea. What about the State repealing some of those unfunded mandates on schools and municipalities they’ve past recently?”
This was precisely part of the comment I was about to make. These funds that are being proposed to be cut are part of the money required to offset costs to the localities for state mandates. I have no problem with reducing these transfers, if the what would be then unfunded mandates are also eliminated. Otherwise, we are allowing the GA to make mandates on localities without any other skin in the game.
Call this proposal anything you want, but without mandate relieve, this is nothing more than a tax increase, plain and simple.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:32 am
So many people take for granted the basic services that they get from local governments. And they take it for granted because those services are there when they need them. The local portion of the state income tax helps to pay for these services. Taking money from local governments doesn’t ultimately hurt “local governments.” It is a direct slap at the residents that live in each community. The very people that legislators are supposed to be representing in Springfield.
It also needs to be remembered that the local government portion of the income tax belongs to cities and counties. It doesn’t belong to the state and is not a “goodwill” payment. Every Illinoisan benefits from the local government portion of the income tax money regardless of whether a person makes one million dollars or the minimum wage. All Illinoisans drive on the local roads, expect fire and police protection, get water and sewer service, and expect prompt snow removal. These services are actually more important to more people than any services that are provided by the state.
Also keep in mind that municipal governments have already approved their budgets for the current fiscal year. If the state takes away their money, they would have to re-open their budgets and cut deeply into basic services.
Finally, how can it be permissible for the state to impose mandate after mandate on local governments over the years, only to decide that local governments must now “sacrifice” by having their money taken by the State? Are the General Assembly and the Governor going to provide a “mandate relief” window during any period of local government revenue loss? Somehow I highly doubt it.
Comment by Illannoyed Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:34 am
Time for municipalities to take their hits, as well.
Go to the grassroots. Start some fiscal responsibility at the point nearest taxpayers. If the folks want more spending in their towns, they can pay for it on the local level.
I agree with John: CUT THEM ALL.
It’s painful, but necessary.
Comment by Anonymouse Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:35 am
- John Bambenek - Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:26 am:
Cut. Them. All.
———————————————-
The key word there being “Them”.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:35 am
I disagree that local government has not shared the pain other than late payments. For years the Legislature has routinely found that measures they pass do not trigger the Unfunded Mandates provisions under Illinois law, even though many of the measures (read pensions) routinely do.Springfield routinely passes legislation, some of it even bordering on “good”, but then provides that local government pick up the tab.So local governments are not unlike Curly at the end of the ‘Stooge” line behind the Feds and the State with no one left to slap, except the taxpayer.
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:36 am
This heinous idea must be tamped out. Do lawmakers have no hearts? I mean Barrington Hills might have to tap the cash reserves. I can think nothing worse that could possibly ever occur in this state. What’s next? Lake Forest having to downgrade to the 5-series sedan?
Oh the horrors! Don’t want to even think about it let alone read about it.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:37 am
So we going to return the grant money we got from the state for the river park then Mr. Mayor? Also in terms of ‘culture of spending’ where is restaurant row, been over a year and still no Billy Goat last time I checked (yes, kids that is what is economic development in this city) did we give those guys any money?
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:37 am
Illannoyed,
There are several great points in your post.
“It also needs to be remembered that the local government portion of the income tax belongs to cities and counties.”
I would like to take exception to one thing. The local portion of the income tax does not belong to the cities and the counties, it belongs to the taxpayers. Government has no money of its own, something too many of the elites in government forget.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:40 am
Not only are schools being cut, but state funding for local school districts has fallen to nearly 25 percent, HALF of what it should be.
I’ve never been a fan of pass-throughs. State lawmakers take the heat for the tax rate, but there’s no accountability at the state level for how the money is spent.
If it were up to me, we’d abolish the state pass-through to municipal government for the income tax AND the sales tax and put all of that money into fixing our schools.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:40 am
Yeah, it’s tough all over.
Oak Park Village President Pope might not want to get too high up his horse about one branch of government robbing another.
The Oak Park school districts have had to sue the village over some accounting razzle dazzle on TIF funds. The village acknowledges it owes them some $1.8 million (whoops), but the schools say it’s a whole lot more.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:40 am
@ Michelle: Not every town is Barrington Hills or Lake Forest, to cherry pick two affluent communities ignores the plight of poorer suburbs and downstate communities who depend on this money to try and provide their residents with basic services…So next time there’s a pothole on your street or water main break you’ll find it an acceptable if it doesn’t get fixed right away? Everyone seems to take these services for granted until they have a problem and then it must be fixed immediately!
Comment by PW Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:49 am
=== Taking money from local governments doesn’t ultimately hurt “local governments.” It is a direct slap at the residents that live in each community. ===
Those residents want cuts in state government spending, which is why lawmakers’ phones aren’t ringing off the hook with phone calls from angry residents over these cuts.
WHERE were all of these Mayors when Republicans and editorial boards were bashing state government and calling for cuts?
Where were they when we needed GOP votes for a tax hike?
If Tom Cross had come to Mike Madigan and said “We have ten votes for a tax hike, but we want municipal pass throughs preserved” then we might have passed a 5.25% increase with PLENTY of money to fund local government.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:54 am
Cincinnatus,
Local governments are the essential providers of core services to taxpayers. When taxpayers pay the income tax, the money returned to local governments is probably the best return on investment that the taxpayers get. They actually benefit from that money through local services. But they don’t think about those services unless the services are for some reason interrupted. Then they get angry!
So yes, the money belongs to the people, but insofar as people pay taxes, the money is better spent on their health, safety, and welfare in their local communities.
Comment by Illannoyed Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:56 am
“So many people take for granted the basic services that they get from local governments. And they take it for granted because those services are there when they need them. The local portion of the state income tax helps to pay for these services. Taking money from local governments doesn’t ultimately hurt “local governments.” It is a direct slap at the residents that live in each community. The very people that legislators are supposed to be representing in Springfield. ”
Ummm…one could easily swap “local government” for “local school district” and one could substitute “general state aid” for “local portion of state income tax” and make the exact same argument. Yet, GSA is still being cut for school districts. You could make that argument for all sorts of things funded by the state, and that wouldn’t change the fact that the entities that receive State funding are still hurting. Why should muni’s be immune? Raise property taxes. Put in or raise the local sales tax. Or cut services. Everyone else is doing it. It sucks, but unless the Feds pass another stimulus package to save the states and munis from cutting, that’s the way it is. Isn’t Austerity fun?
“It also needs to be remembered that the local government portion of the income tax belongs to cities and counties. It doesn’t belong to the state and is not a “goodwill” payment.”
Unless the state passes a law that says that the local portion is no longer the local portion. Unless they’re constitutionally obligated to give that portion to the locals (forgive me, I don’t know the Illinois Constitution), then they can easily change the law.
“Every Illinoisan benefits from the local government portion of the income tax money regardless of whether a person makes one million dollars or the minimum wage. All Illinoisans drive on the local roads, expect fire and police protection, get water and sewer service, and expect prompt snow removal.”
Ummm…and every Illinoisan benefits from money that the State spends on State highways, state police activities and protection, state environmental laws that keep the water clean, and all sorts of other things. Those things are being cut. Why should munis be immune?
“These services are actually more important to more people than any services that are provided by the state.” One could easily make dozens of arguments that many of the services provided by the State are just as, if not more, important. And, since the State is helping pay for these local programs through the revenue sharing, then these are, in part, STATE programs anyway. State funding for local schools, for colleges and universities, for medicaid, for state roads, for criminal justice, for the disabled, for all sorts of other things are key to individual development, or even key to maintaining lives or a dignified lifestyle. Yet those are programs are being cut.
“Also keep in mind that municipal governments have already approved their budgets for the current fiscal year. If the state takes away their money, they would have to re-open their budgets and cut deeply into basic services.”
So what? All sorts of agencies that have their budgets settled are in danger of losing funding (social service agencies, school districts, colleges and universities, hospitals, etc) and will have to make budget amendments accordingly. Everyone else is doing it, why should Munis be immune?
“Finally, how can it be permissible for the state to impose mandate after mandate on local governments over the years, only to decide that local governments must now “sacrifice” by having their money taken by the State? Are the General Assembly and the Governor going to provide a “mandate relief” window during any period of local government revenue loss? Somehow I highly doubt it.”
State imposes unfunded mandates all the time. Life’s not fair. Do you think that Colleges and Universities or School Districts who have new unfunded mandates foisted upon them appreciate it? They’d like some mandate relief.
The State has a massive budget hole. Lots of pain to go around. No one is immune. The Feds delayed the inevitable with the Stimulus package, but that’s pretty well tapped out. So, now the pain comes.
Comment by jerry 101 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 10:58 am
If a bunch of mayors are screaming this bad over municipal handouts, wait until the harsh cuts come.
Comment by 42nd Ward Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:03 am
Silence from Chicago.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:06 am
Why does everybody except,the GA have to take cuts? When is it their turn? Their, let them eat cake additude has to stop. Bravo! PS lets get “THEM” involved.
Comment by mokenavince Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:08 am
another bit of lobbying advice: don’t use Barrington Hills’ mayor as your point man on the issue.
Comment by winco Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:09 am
Shame on the munis for being so reliant on funds provided by the State for their core essential services, for the State is a deadbeat. Eliminate some of the non-essential services to the extent that you can. Embrace intergovernmental cooperation with your other local governmental neighbors. Pray.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:14 am
Word — I would be happy to join you in an intervention with Pope at Village Hall.
http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/04-01-2011/Price_tag_to_fix_Oak_Park_parking_garage:_$750,000
http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/11-05-2010/Oak_Park_trustees_raise_questions_on_’cap-the-Ike’_lobbyist
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-03-08/news/0603080244_1_sales-tax-revenues-bonds-million-loan
Comment by soccermom Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:17 am
Thanks Wordslinger and Soccermom. I’d forgotten about how wasteful Oak Park has been. It’s been engaged in “core” municipal services like dabbling in real estate speculation, TIF outrages, and hiring a DC to impair regional transportation.
And I do agree with the other comments about unfunded mandates from Springfield. Maybe the Mayors can negotiate relief from those (like free health insurance for life for police officers who hurt their shoulders), to lessen the pain of the tax cut.
Comment by phocion Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:27 am
Should read “DC lobbyist.”
Comment by phocion Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:27 am
PW I was unaware that all these mayors were so reliant on state taxes. Perhaps we should consolidate them if they merely exist to spend state money. If balancing the STATE budget means a couple potholes in my street, that’s a price I’m willing to pay. If it gets bad enough I might even consider going to Ace and buying some asphalt patch and fix it myself. Then again, I’m a big supporter of local decisions for local issues, not waiting for big state government to save the day.
But at a time when the state is talking about cutting classroom funding and whether to keep the school for the blind open, I think the good mayors both rich and poor might want to consider parsing their outrage with a bit of reality.
It’s not their money. It’s taxpayers money. State taxpayers money collected through taxes state lawmakers and state governors enacted.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:41 am
Municipalities have already made cuts and reduced spending many have laid off over 5-10% of work force. How many layoffs is the state calling for??? The mandates are another issue, but should not be part of this discussion. It is not a trade off, to have state shared revenues reduced at a local level because of poor budgeting and lack of fiscal control. The state and the Gov need to realize where essential services are being provided.
Comment by the Cardinal Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:43 am
so, municipalities are NOT legally entitled to the money?
Comment by amalia Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:49 am
Itt really is too bad that Municipalities have to follow the prevailing wage rates because of the state. Unfunded mandates are always a problem
Comment by Bond_Player Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:11 pm
“Shame on the munis for being so reliant on funds provided by the State for their core essential services, for the State is a deadbeat.”
It needs to also be remembered that the State has seen fit to impose property tax caps on municipal governments. While certainly politically popular, the tax caps coupled with the mandates place a huge revenue pinch on cities, villages, and towns. That makes the local government portion of the state income tax all that much more critical to basic operations.
Comment by Illannoyed Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:39 pm
The well has been poisoned on this issue by the manner in which the Governor raised it. If it had been raised in the context of sharing the pain, then the municipalities would have been put in the pool with everybody else, negotiating over what is the most equitable way for everybody to contribute to solving the problem. But it was posed in in a coercive way and with the B word; i.e., “Support more borrowing or you will get hurt.” And in the context in which it was raised, the borrowing was not just to pay off overdue bills, but to put the state even deeper in debt for operating expenses. The other factor is that the cities have already been taking a hit, since this revenue sharing is based on the size of the revenue stream as opposed to being a dollar amount. Thus the money coming to the cities dropped during the recession.
This raises an interesting strategy. Wouldn’t it make sense to make a budget where appropriations to state agencies were a fraction of revenue, rather than a fixed dollar amount. There would be an estimated dollar amount, based on expected revenues, but the exact amount would vary a bit. This would remove the whole funny business of short term borrowing, putting off payments, etc. There would be a bit of uncertainty on the part of the recipients, but much less than there is now. And the budget would automatically balance.
Comment by jake Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:42 pm
@ Jake: Couple that in with the fact that muni’s took a reduction when the income tax rate was raised and they did not see a share of the new money…effectively dropping their 10% share to 7%.
Comment by PW Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:10 pm
– It’s (Oak Park) been engaged in “core” municipal services like dabbling in real estate speculation,–
Yes, you can add the commercial real estate speculation, which goes on with a lot of local governments, that keeps me from breaking into tears about the state pulling back in time of crisis.
LOL, with the Colt Building in Oak Park, that whole buy high, try to sell low strategy WAS counter-intuitive. Sure was a big muddy hole, literally and fiscally, right there on Lake Street, though.
But if you want to sit through a Village Board meeting until about 2 a.m. while each board member desperately tries to get in the last, brilliant word, you might be mesmerized by the explanation.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:19 pm
I can give you a real world example of why small municipalities are so dependent upon their share of these revenues from the State.
My hometown has an EAV around $22 million. Here is what the State Statutes allow you to Levy for Police protection:
Police Protection 65 ILCS 5/11-1-3, 5/11-1-5.1 DOR Code 014 - 0.075%
$22,000,000 x 0.075% = $16,500. How much police protection can you buy with that? The projected reductions for a town of 3,000 residents is just shy of $70,000, so that equates to full-time officers salaries in my hometown.
Comment by BW Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:41 pm
Typo: 2 full-time officer salaries. Not even looking at benefits and pension… just salary.
Comment by BW Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:42 pm
42nd Ward, I agree. It may well be a long, hot summer on the streets of Chicago.
Comment by Bubs Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:45 pm
The fact is, there is no chance (I think) for the legislature giving the Governor authority to take money from the fund for the municipalities’ share of the income tax and moving it elsewhere. The real question is whether the Governor will simply not release the money in a timely way and release money for backlogged bills first. Predicting what this Governor will do is pretty hard.
Comment by jake Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:05 pm
BW — you raise an excellent point. Why does a town of 3,000 need a full-time police officer? Could you join forces with a couple of your neighbors and share a few officers? Every community does not need a full complement of municipal workers — and if this downturn forces efficiency and consolidation, that’s a good thing.
Comment by soccermom Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:52 pm
–But it was posed in in a coercive way and with the B word; i.e., “Support more borrowing or you will get hurt.” –
Politics ain’t beanbag. Everyone saw this coming.
As Rich pointed out, when the Man on Five and other municipal officials were sanctimoniously bad-mouthing the tax increase, and talking about efficiencies and living within means, they certainly knew the other shoe was going to drop.
I like clean streets. I like my garbage being picked up. I like coppers and firefighters on the job. I don’t know that Illinois income taxpayers have to kick in for that.
My village, Oak Park, has lost a bundle playing the commercial real estate market and has a row of 20 brand-new cars for inspectors and such sitting in the lot 24/7. I’m not talking about snowplows and street sweepers. Just cars.
Everyone has to bite the bullet.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:55 pm
Soccermom, among the legendary “other” 101 counties — arbitrary, 19th Century creations — I believe about half are under 30,000. And a good dozen are under 10,000.
I’ve coached youth football teams drawing on a bigger population base.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 4:09 pm