Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rep. Buckner says Bears’ stadium demands “boil down to a $6 billion privately held company that doesn’t want to pay taxes”
Next Post: New year, new laws
Posted in:
* Gov. Pritzker told the Tribune that his plans for his second term revolve around budget stability. When pressed, however, he said this…
Pritzker said he intends to make improving education, from early childhood through college, and expanding access to child care major priorities of the coming term. That includes proposals to make public colleges tuition-free for students whose families earn at or below the median income and to raise the income cutoff for families to qualify state child care assistance. He also wants to expand the availability of child care statewide and of mental health and substance abuse treatment, particularly downstate. […]
“If we can continue to run surpluses, then surpluses no longer become an extraordinary item,” he said. “Surpluses become a regular part of a budget that allows you either to invest in education or to cut taxes or to invest in maintaining human services in Illinois.”
Pritzker, however, wouldn’t commit to providing during his second term the level of additional money advocates have said is necessary each year to meet the state’s funding target for elementary and secondary schools.
Pritzker’s comments about property taxes were most interesting…
But Pritzker put the onus to deliver relief largely on local governments, which levy property taxes and receive the revenue, by pointing to increases in state funding for schools and local governments during his first term, as well as spending on infrastructure under his Rebuild Illinois capital construction plan.
“Local governments have the ability to do it right now — and should,” Pritzker said.
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE *** From the governor’s office…
Since Governor Pritzker took office, over $1.1 billion annually has been allocated to local governments to assist with costs over and above what they were previously receiving from the state. This is on top of the 49% increase in revenue sharing to local governments over Governor Pritzker’s first term.
Background…
OVERALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Income tax revenue sharing with locals increased 49% over the last 4 years. In FY19 LGDF was $1.342B. In FY22, LGDF was $2.00B – an increase of $658M or 49%.
Support for locals enacted since Governor Pritzker took office includes:
• An additional $200 million a year in sales taxes from the passage of internet sales tax language following the Wayfair decision, including the Leveling the Playing Field for Illinois Retail Act, to help ensure compliance with state tax laws on internet sales.
• Over $600 million annually in additional motor fuel taxes directed to local governments and transit districts to support needed transportation projects through the passage of Rebuild Illinois.
• Granting $1.5 billion in state transportation bond funds directly to local governments for road and highway project expenditures, saving local governments $110 million annually in debt service costs from not issuing local bonds.
• Authorization of adult-use cannabis, generating an estimated $91 million in additional revenues for local governments.
• Increased allocations through the Local Government Distributive Fund process totaling $46 million annually from business loophole closures included in Public Act 102-16.
• Increased tax rates and positions for video gaming operations is expected to generate an additional $70 million a year for local governments.
• Anticipated additional local revenues from the opening of new casinos authorized under the Rebuild Illinois plan.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:19 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rep. Buckner says Bears’ stadium demands “boil down to a $6 billion privately held company that doesn’t want to pay taxes”
Next Post: New year, new laws
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Local fiefdoms, which include school boards, will never lower the property tax unless forced to do so.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:23 am
===“Local governments have the ability to do it right now — and should,” Pritzker said.===
This, all day.
The state has a big responsibly to fund K-12 education at levels necessary to fulfill the education mission of our state.
The locals who feel the need to raise taxes to fulfill that shortfall should work in concert with all localities to get more money or own that they are raising taxes, on their own, for a higher standard.
Same, same as it ever was.
Now just call it what it is, not what the politics want it to be.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:25 am
While he isn’t necessarily wrong, he is impractical. The cost of public schooling isn’t going to decline. And it is better to have a rainy day fund, in most cases, than to slash property taxes. But it is easy for me to say, living in an area of the state where property taxes are very reasonable by comparison.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:30 am
Locals will have to stop using TIF districts first.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:32 am
Reluctantly agree with RNUG. Local governments and school boards aren’t giving taxpayers a break. They try to shift blame to the state and feds, but a lot of people, especially retired people, pay more in local property taxes.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:33 am
Let’s convene another task force with the ability of local governments to opt out of unfunded mandates
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:35 am
===“Local governments have the ability to do it right now — and should,” Pritzker said.===
What a minute. All during the campaign we were told that the State could lower property taxes. Now Pritzker says property taxes are controlled by the locals?
I’m sooo confused …
/s
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:36 am
The test case here will be Walker’s bill that offers a backstop from having to tax to the max under PTELL. Locals lost the argument they always have to protect themselves against rising costs under that bill. If they keep going to the max, we’ll know that they don’t have the discipline to do what the Gov suggests here.
Comment by Omnipotent Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:36 am
Doesn’t the majority of local municipal property taxes goes towards paying public pensions (police and fire)?
Comment by rtov Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:46 am
Yeah, and the Gov got local police and fire pension consolidation passed that saves on administrative costs and should allow for greater returns for those funds. All food things for the locals.
Comment by lol Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:48 am
===Doesn’t the majority…===
How much of your property tax bill go towards schools?
Do that math first.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:48 am
Current law bases new tax levies on the prior yea’s levy. To reduce taxes one year essentially reduces tax every year in the future. That requires tremendous trust in the state…trusting state funding will be sufficient. That trust does not exist today so local leaders will not be reducing levies under the current tack cap rules.
Comment by Retired school Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:50 am
The counter-argument to this is that cities are creatures of the state and the state has refused to do even minor things like change notice requirements or not require newspaper advertisements.
Would sending one notice to a guy who owns five parcels instead of sending him five notices or not advertising in newspapers save that much money? No, but it shows even minor cost savings seem to be off the table in the eyes of the state.
HOWEVER, at the end of the day, the state didn’t spike the city manger’s pensions at the ripe old age of 57 and stick cities with increasingly large IMRF contributions. The state didn’t make Buffalo Grove pay Dane Bragg $325K (substantially more than any other city manager in the state).
Comment by Nuke The Whales Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:51 am
The Los Angeles building is not “apples to…”
First, two franchisees, the Rams and Chargers share the facility.
Second, the NFL and it’s own cable network share space in the facility.
Third, the NFL, along with Jerry Jones leading, worked out financing.
The Bears have none of the advantages or partners as of this comment.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:51 am
Streator has one of the highest property tax rates in LaSalle County, yet a large portion of the city is retirees on fixed incomes.
The problem here is the city has lost much of the industrial tax base it enjoyed in the 1950s and 60s. One of the large bottle factories closed years ago, and the remaining one just laid off half its workforce. Another factory in town is struggling.
How do school districts and municipalities lower taxes when their costs are increasing and their tax base has shrunk?
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:02 am
== Doesn’t the majority of local municipal property taxes goes towards paying public pensions (police and fire)? ==
60% - 75% of a typical property tax bill is school taxes of one kind or another. Either your K-12 district or community college. The District 186 portion of my property tax bill is 64%.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:03 am
I generally agree with RNUG on the local property tax issue. They are levied at a local level to spend on local things, but people continue to want to blame the state for things that should be, ostensibly, sorted out at the local level.
Maybe all those one-party controlled towns and counties need to look in the mirror.
Comment by Homebody Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:05 am
Retired School hit one major point…trust in the state. There is no doubt this governor has done right by schools generally speaking. But the state needs to establish a long stretch of dependable funding. And for most of us, we still get the majority of funding from local sources. Our rural district now receives almost 80% of our funding locally. The EBF has generated next to nothing for us annually. And costs have risen rapidly in the last two years. Insurance, energy, transportation, and salaries have dramatically increased the last two years and that is what we spend the bulk of our money on. Our tax rate has gone down because the value of farmland has risen and that has kept our heads above water. But that will not last forever. That is the case for many rural districts.
Now, go look at Cicero and Berwyn Districts. Cicero elementary regularly banks $20 million or more even during the worst of the financial crisis.
Know the details before labeling ALL of us as “Local fiefdoms, which include school boards” otherwise you just sound ignorant to those of us who know the details.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:07 am
Since you asked, in my jurisdiction 59.6% of my property taxes go to the school district, 10.7% to the County, 9.2% to the City, 8.3% to the Park District, 4.4% to the Community College, 3.7% to the township, 3.5% to the library and .5% to a mosquito abatement district. Of the money that goes to the City, almost the entirety is used to pay down the police and fire pension obligations.
Comment by rtov Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:07 am
===9.2% to the City … Of the money that goes to the City, almost the entirety is used to pay down the police and fire pension obligations.===
So, the 90.8% not part of that specific “pension worry” isn’t worrisome?
It’s an odd thing.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:10 am
If the school district is in a position to lower its rate due to the state’s support that is great, but am curious as to how municipalities like mine are in a positions to lower property taxes, which seems to be what the Governor is suggesting.
Comment by rtov Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:16 am
===how municipalities like mine are in a positions to lower property taxes, which seems to be what the Governor is suggesting===
Municipal elections are right around the corner.
Ask the candidates if they agree.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:23 am
Pension obligation costs are a real thing, it is not a matter of opinion. Do that math first.
Comment by rtov Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:27 am
===Pension obligation costs are a real thing===
No kidding? Wow. New one on all of us [banned punctuation]
However, as a percentage of the state budget, pension payments have stabilized and will continue to do so for the next several years. Look it up.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:35 am
Capt Fax failed to mention how pension payments have stabilized someone has not quit handing out raises and other fringes that give some first responders 6 figure salaries, but shucks that means the locals got bamboozled long ago. BTW it is not clear the local police/fire pensions ever finalized consolidation. This should be a fun debate. How about we work on a list of unfunded mandates —shorter school years, no special ed, no buses….the possibilities are endless.
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:04 am
“However, as a percentage of the state budget”
The analysis needs to shift to the local level. The state budget stabilized but localities/counties likely aren’t stabilizing. This is poor politics by the Governor. Crains had a story last week on how the City of Chicago had to inject $500 million before year-end so the local pension funds didn’t have to fire-sale assets to meet payment obligations for the month. Further, the states own formula analysis says they are shortchanging local schools $350 million per year which is going to rise to $1.0 billion in a couple of years. There’s multiple reports about the RTA having a chronic deficit come 2026. What the Governor is saying is true but these are just as much issues he and the state legislature will have to solve unless he is saying layoff municipal employees including teachers, fire fighters, etc. and cut services.
Comment by 1st Ward Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:52 am
===“If we can continue to run surpluses, then surpluses no longer become an extraordinary item,” he said. “Surpluses become a regular part of a budget that allows you either to invest in education or to cut taxes or to invest in maintaining human services in Illinois.”===
This is really going to make his administration’s inability to fill thousands of positions within state government at great expense to the public and disadvantaged people, especially children, look like a deliberate attempt to shore up the state’s finances with a shadow budget cut.
I’ve been giving him the benefit of the doubt for the last 4 years, but comments like this suggest that he is trying to make himself the main beneficiary of the state’s hiring crisis.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:53 am
Wonder if the Governor ever heard of unfunded mandated
Comment by Spooky32 Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:41 pm
“Local governments have the ability to do it right now…”
Probably something he should have run point for this past fall. All(or almost all) the levy requests for next year were approved in November and December and have already been submitted to the appropriate county clerk’s office. Given what I’ve seen, you would be hard pressed to to find a governmental agency (especially a school district) that did not take the maximum 5% increase on their operating levy allowed under PTELL.
Comment by Occam Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:25 pm
=Given what I’ve seen, you would be hard pressed to to find a governmental agency (especially a school district) that did not take the maximum 5% increase on their operating levy allowed under PTELL.=
Do tell, please. Because I am seeing numerous suburban districts that are not taking their max percentage.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:48 pm
“The state has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education.” (article x;section 1 state constitution)
It would be nice if the state could move toward fulfilling their duty and provide more than half the cost of k-12. Maybe coupled with some PTELL changes to ensure the funds express themselves as property tax relief.
Comment by Pat Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:24 pm
I think special ed is mandated not just by the state government but also by the US gov and possibly even some courts at various levels.
A district can choose not to offer special ed but that will cut themselves off from any federal support and likely state as well.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:54 pm
Impressed that the Governor said this. Locals should be called out. Ask your local school district how much they have in their reserves. Most are sitting on a pile of money, yet they continue to levy at the highest possible rate.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:21 pm
==Do tell, please. Because I am seeing numerous suburban districts that are not taking their max percentage.==
Here is McHenry County, plus a few other larger districts in the suburbs:
CRYSTAL LAKE D-47 5.0%
CRYSTAL LAKE HS D-155 5.0%
WOODSTOCK D-200 4.9%
MCHENRY D-15 5.0%
MCHENRY HS D-156 5.0%
CARY D-26 5.0%
HUNTLEY D-158 5.0%
FOX RIVER GROVE D-3 5.0%
NIPPERSINK D-2 5.0%
PRAIRIE GROVE D-46 5.0%
HARVARD D-50 5.0%
MARENGO D-165 5.0%
RICHMOND-BURTON D-157 5.0%
BARRINGTON D-220 5.0%
ARLINGTON HTS D-25 5.0%
PALATINE D-15 5.0%
NAPERVILE D-203 5.0%
Comment by Occam Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 4:25 pm
=I think special ed is mandated not just by the state government but also by the US gov and possibly even some courts at various levels.
A district can choose not to offer special ed but that will cut themselves off from any federal support and likely state as well.=
IDEA is a federal law. Districts cannot opt out of special education, it is a federal mandate. You either directly provide the needed services or hire an outside source to provide the needed services. Illinois requirements are usually hire than federal requirements.
@Occam- do you know how many districts there are in Illinois under PTELL?
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 5:09 pm
Not all districts are covered under PTELL, but the counties that cover the bulk of the population in this state (and the vast majority of tax extension dollars) are covered by PTELL. Every district in McHenry County used the cover of PTELL to jam through a major tax increase in spite of the governor’s admonishment. This is the basis for my comment above which was prefaced by “Given what I’ve seen”. Please feel free to do your own research on any major district in Cook County to see what increase they passed. I’m sure there may be a few that didn’t take the maximum, but if McHenry County is any indication, you’d be hard pressed to find one.
Comment by Occam Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 6:15 pm