Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Today’s number: 8
Posted in:
* From the governor’s State of the State address…
Illinois has the most governments in the country – nearly 7,000 local units, and the taxpayers of Illinois can no longer afford all of them.
DuPage County Executive Dan Cronin is with us today. He has already achieved significant government consolidation. To date, his reforms have generated a projected $100 million in taxpayer savings through shared services, joint purchasing, employee benefit reforms and modifications to procurement practices.
Congratulations, Dan. You are a role model for all of us.
* Not mentioned is that those savings are projected over a 20-year time period…
The most up-to-date initiative figures supplied by DuPage County officials show savings of about $116.4 million over the next 20 years. But much of the projected savings doesn’t come directly from what could be called “consolidation” of local governments.
The largest area of projected savings – 31 percent – is $36.5 million from budget cuts made since fiscal year 2011, which included the termination of 45 employees, according to initiative figures. Cronin pushed for those reductions after his election as county board chair in 2010 after serving 20 years in Springfield.
A 2010 state measure, sponsored by Cronin when he was a senator, will repeal a DuPage County Water Commission sales tax in 2016. The repeal will result in $33 million worth of tax savings for residents – another 28 percent of the “consolidation” savings – according to initiative figures.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Today’s number: 8
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Cheery picking data without the context. Got a feeling that is becoming the pattern for the next 4 years.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:58 am
Rauner will create jobs in Illinois- for fact-checkers
Comment by truthteller Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:58 am
So Cronin saves some money over time, but little of it is from consolidation. Still probably a good model for local boards to follow.
No worries. Sanguinetti is in charge of government consolidations. We await her comprehensive plan. Now we know why she needs a Chief of Staff. /snark
Comment by walker Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:59 am
To quote the fearless leader of your party, “What difference does it make?”
Comment by Neglected stepchild Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:05 am
every governor has to shape his message to generate support among the public, the press, and legislators. when any issue gets hot, there are “magic numbers” that stick in your mind, and convince people.
some cherry picking is expected, but with rauner, the distortions seem to occur every time. people may stop believing him.
Comment by langhorne Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:05 am
WHY? is there such a big deal about the number of local governments that Illinois has??? Most of them were voted in by LOCAL voters in response to a need. Most of them resist consolidation at the voting booths, now. While some voluntary consolidations do pass, it is usually under extreme financial duress, and voters vote for it complaining all the way.
Yes, I will admit that some pass-through agencies, such as fire districts and a few others could be consolidated, I really don’t see what the noise is all about, when in many cases, there will be little or no savings, or actually increased costs to maintain the same level of service…
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:09 am
One more fact that needs checking: wasn’t this consolidation enabled by legislation sponsored by Democrats - Sen. Tom Cullerton and Rep. Deb Conroy? They were in the chamber for the SOTS, too. Rauner must have forgotten to mention them.
Comment by RJ Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:11 am
And if I project my income over the next 20 years I’m a millionaire. Boo-ya!
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:12 am
I have a great idea for consolidating governments: eliminate all school districts and have ISBE run schools on a statewide basis. 800 units of government would disappear and the school funding controversy would be much less complicated.
Comment by no prob Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:15 am
The big deal is because the overhead costs of a department head, staff, benefits are cozy places to hide fronts and provide political payback while masking the costs from the taxpayer
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:16 am
Many of those “extra” Illinois local government entities are townships in rural counties. These rural townships maintain certain local roads and bridges. They also provide property assessment for the township.
Eliminating most of these townships would not save the State government any money, as some people seem to think. The services they provide would have to be absorbed by the County. It would seem like the county governments would have to hire some extra employees to take care of the township roads and the property assessments. So eliminating these rural townships would not be a total savings.
Many in rural areas are also concerned if the county snow plow would make it down these remote township roads as often as the township snow plow would. That effects school bus routes as well as medical emergencies, etc. during snow storms. Just a few things to think about
Comment by Joe M Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:22 am
No policymaker should ever utter the phrase “have generated a projected $X…” Wow. Head. Desk.
Comment by Commander Norton Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:24 am
Tax reductions and expense reductions cannot be added to calculate total savings. While a government that takes in $1,000 less and spends $1,000 less has been financially responsible, it has not saved $2,000!
Comment by PublicMath Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:26 am
++So eliminating these rural townships would not be a total savings.++ Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he wants to eliminate towns and keep the townships.
Comment by Mama Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:33 am
I echo Downstate Commissioner’s point. While it’s easy to hate on these local taxing districts, the vast majority were created by the local voters because a need existed. As such, there is already a mechanism to dissolve those local districts if the voters choose to do so. Some people in their disdain for all-things government forget that some proposed changes (i.e., term limits, forced consolidation and/or dissolving of local governments) actually take away the rights of voters. I can’t understand why some voters are so eager and willing to give up some of their rights to self-government.
Comment by Old Shepherd Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:41 am
There are 1,431 townships in IL. So far neither Cronin nor Rauner have mentioned them as targets for consolidation or abolition. Which is a glaring lapse in any serious effort to streamline the bloated local government sector here.
Comment by anon Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:57 am
Seriously, banking 20 year of “savings?” Is that a joke?
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:58 am
Saving $100 million over 20 years averages an annual savings of $5 million. The FY2014 budget for DuPage County was $571 million which means that thanks to the tireless efforts of county officials they are saving an astounding 0.8% just this year. As Truthteller posted, the fact checkers are going to be burning the midnight oil.
Comment by Past the Rule of 85 Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:14 pm
Reminds me of the savings that the Blago initiatives were supposed to have created. Darn Auditor General found those to be contrived.
Don’t believe what you read from the propaganda office.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:24 pm
Why not add up the projected savings from 50 years, or 100? That would exaggerate the accomplishment even more? Thanks to Past the Rule for putting the savings in annualized perspective.
Comment by anon Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:31 pm
I also thought it was funny that Dan Cronin is a role model for us all after having served nearly 20 years in the General Assembly. He served in the House and Senate. Wow…All that institutional knowledge complimented by the guy who has never served, is learning about how government actually works while on the job, and wants term limits!
Comment by sideline watcher Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:42 pm
This argument has always been bogus. Many of those Boards are unpaid or only get a small stipend per meeting. You save a nickel here and a dime there, it won’t add up to much.
The real argument is potentially better accountability, people aren’t confused about who is in charge of what… but that’s pretty tenuous in a lot of cases, too.
Consolidation is not a place to spend a whole lot of time and attention when the barn is burning down.
Comment by Harry Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:54 pm
==- Wordslinger - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:58 am:==
The public sector version of mark-to-market accounting.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:00 pm
I hear the Pentagon has saved a couple hundred million on horse feed and dirigibles over the last 100 years or so.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:07 pm
To paraphrase the Governor, I am not for fewer units of local government, nor for more of them, I am for empowering the people in a local community to decide for themselves. And if they decide they don’t want fewer, then I am for dictating fewer.
After all, since I have no clue how to balance the budget without inflicting severe pain, I’ve got to say and do something. Otherwise I will have a very short honeymoon.
Comment by truthteller Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:26 pm
Not sure what world some of you live in, but around here, 0.8% budget savings is someone’s job. When there isn’t much to be cut except police, fire and public works, that is a big deal. When it is the difference in a balanced budget or a levy increase, it is a big deal.
Not going to solve the whole issue, but if I had a dollar for every time someone scoffed at savings that were too small to bother with…
Comment by Shemp Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:15 pm
From the Local Government Consolidation Commission report — April, 2014 … “The legislative recommendations made at the end of this report do not force cooperation or consolidation on any local units of government as the Commission acknowledges that such action might not result in savings or efficiencies.”
Good press but empty promises.
Comment by Great Caesar's Ghost! Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:57 pm
Shemp @4:15
===around here0.8% budget savings is someone’s job===
According to the story a large part of the savings came from eliminating 45 jobs. I agree with you that little savings are important and add up. I was just irritated at their presentation of claiming a huge savings 20 years out like they had just found the promised land of milk and honey.
Comment by Past the Rule of 85 Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:08 pm
==To date, his reforms have generated a projected $100 million in taxpayer savings==
Over how many millennium?
Comment by Toure's Latte Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:11 pm
Yes savings come from eliminating government jobs. Most local government costs are labor, in some cases over 90%. The only way you can reduce the cost of government administration is to make it smaller, e.g. less people.
Townships which are largely or entirely within a municipality are a prime example of excessive staffs doing what existing government agencies could do for far less.
Comment by Robert0117 Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:31 pm