The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.) 2015 First Quarter ReviewVillage of Mount Prospect, Illinois Total Village Budget - Revenues and Expenditures 2015 Quarterly Review - Q1 -1- Budget 2015 YTD Actual 2015 Variance - 2014 Amended 01/01/2015- Current Favorable Actual Budget 3/31/2015 Estimate (Unfavorable) Revenues: Property Taxes 21,264,473 21,920,500 9,895,391 21,920,500 0 Other Taxes 13, 987, 321 13,296, 074 1,131,292 13, 396, 074 100,000 Licenses, Permits, and Fees 2,675,472 2,814,000 1,025,787 2,814,000 0 Intergovernmental Revenue 23,601,027 23,396,497 983,339 23,396,497 0 Charges for Services 26,682,959 29,538,745 6,785,013 29,588,745 50,000 Fines and Forfeits 862,467 614,250 153,529 614,250 0 Investment Income 7,963,880 8,657,118 3,117,086 8,657,118 0 Reimbursements 829,861 233,500 47,815 233,500 0 Other Revenue 9,363,714 9,150,100 3,533,617 9,160,100 10,000 Other Financing Sources 6,667,729 20,000 29,319 30,000 10,000 Total Revenues 113,898.903 109,540,784 26,702,188 109,810,784 170,000 Expenditures: Personal Services 41,837,486 41,572,017 10,940,042 41,572,017 0 Pension Benefits 8,322,408 8,852,794 2,232,091 8,852,794 0 Contractual Services 20,688,634 22,559,632 4,202,211 22,559,632 0 Insurance 7,871,963 8,472,828 2,283,426 8,472,828 0 Commodities and Supplies 1,847,247 2,218,487 471,970 2,218,487 0 Other Expenditures 3,026,574 3,536,209 11,828 3,536,209 0 Bond Principal and Interest 5,916,741 5,868,652 118,890 5,868,652 0 Capital 15,160,827 31,150,159 1,298,815 31,150,159 0 Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 104,671,880 124,230,778 21,559,273 124,230,778 0 Excess of Revenues over Expenditures: 9,227,023 (14,589,994) 5,142,915 (14,419,994) 170,000 -1- 2015 First Quarter Review Total Village Budget — The original budget for 2015 totaled $115,972,850. This was an increase of 2.63% from the final 2014 amended budget. In March 2015, the first budget amendment for 2015 was approved by the Village Board. The amendment consisted primarily of capital projects deferred from the prior year. The total amount of the budget amendment was $8.3 million. The current 2015 budget of $124,230,778 reflects an increase of 9.94% over the prior year. 2014 Final Amended Budget $113,000,076 2015 % Change Original Budget $115,972,850 2.63% Budget Amendment(s) 8,257,928 Amended Budget $124,230,778 9.94% Total revenues budgeted for 2015 are $109,640,784. This represents a decrease of $4.3 million, or 3.7% from the prior year. Decreases in the other financing source category attributed to the overall drop in revenue. Other financing sources include bond proceeds. In 2014, $6.7 million in street construction bonds were issued where none are expected in 2015. Current projections anticipate an additional $170,000 in revenue for the year based on the first 3 months of activity. Total revenue projected during 2015 is now $109,810,784. Very few adjustments are being made to the year-end estimate since it is so early in the budget year. Included below is a pie chart illustrating the total village budget for revenues by major revenue category. 2015 Total Amended Budget - Revenue $9,150,100 $20,000 $233,500 r, $21,920,500 $8,657,118 Property Taxes Other Taxes $614,250 ' Licenses, Permits, and Fees ■Intergovernmental Revenue ' ■ Charges for Services } $13,296,074 ■ Fines and Forfeits a Investment Income $29,538,745 Reimbursements w=, $2,814,000 Other Revenue Other Financing Sources $23,396,497 Total expenditures budgeted for 2015 budget are $124,230,778, an increase of $19.6 million from the prior year. The increase is primarily due to several large capital projects being carried over from 2014. In addition, flood construction projects totaling $9 million were moved to 2015 due to extreme weather during the 2013-2014 winter that prevented work being done during 2014. There is $31.2 million in capital projects planned for 2015 versus $15.2 million spent during 2014. Included below is a pie chart illustrating contributions to total village expenses by major revenue category. -2- 2015 First Quarter Review 2015 Total Amended Budget - Expenses $31,150,159 $5,868,652 Y" 1 ¢ 4I~r $3,536,209 P $2,218,487 9 $8,472,828 ' Y $41,572,017 i $22,559,632 $8,852,794 Personal Services Pension Benefits Contractual Services ■ Insurance ■ Commodities and Supplies ■ Other Expenditures Bond Principal and Interest Capital The figures presented here assume no reduction in revenue as a result of budget decisions made in Springfield. Governor Rauner is intent on remedying the state budget problems on the backs of local government. There is a continued fear that the state in its desire to increase revenue to cover their increasing expenditures may well reach down and reduce shared revenues like the income tax, use tax and motor fuel tax. In an effort for the State of Illinois to close the $1.6 billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2015, the Governor signed two budget bills that authorized $1.3 billion in special fund sweeps and directed across the board cuts of 2.25 percent for all state agencies and programs. Included in the legislation is a sweep of funds from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund totaling $50 million. Since the village receives a percentage of MFT revenue through monthly disbursements based on a per capita basis, it appears that the Mount Prospect, as well as all other municipalities, will see a reduction in MFT revenue of approximately $1.20 per capita, an approximate loss of $65,000. While the village did escape this initial budget money grab with minimal impact to operations, questions remain moving forward as Springfield attempts to address their budget shortfall for fiscal year 2016. Decisions to reduce shared revenues in the state budget that begins July 1, 2015 could potentially impact the village budget for the balance of 2015 and into 2016. --3- Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois General Fund - Revenues and Expenditures 2015 Quarterly Review - Q1 -4- Budget 2015 YTD Actual 2015 Variance - 2014 Amended 01/01/15- Current Favorable Actual Budget 3/31/2015 Estimate (Unfavorable) Revenues: Property Taxes 14,602,584 15,427,500 7,577,371 15,427,500 0 Sales Taxes - ROT Portion 13,285,441 13,418,000 0 13,418,000 0 Sales Taxes - HMR Portion 1,355,373 1,346,000 0 1,346,000 0 Food and Beverage Tax 738,642 755,000 73,699 755,000 0 Real Estate Transfer Tax 954,644 800,000 396,767 900,000 100,000 Telecommunications Tax 2,208,291 1,650,000 0 1,650,000 0 Other Utility Taxes 1,885,305 1,860,000 399,194 1,860,000 0 Other Taxes 278,863 275,566 17,161 275,566 0 Vehicle Licenses 340,344 0 0 0 0 Other Licenses, Permits, Fees 2,027,125 2,027,000 389,146 2,027,000 0 State Income Tax 5,186,155 5,200,000 441,247 5,200,000 0 Other Intergovernmental 1,657,322 1,567,827 321,296 1,567,827 0 Charges for Services 1,630,607 1,573,000 317,236 1,623,000 50,000 Fines and Forfeits 479,647 439,000 105,567 439,000 0 Investment Income (64,970) 5,918 2,266 5,918 0 Other Revenue 722,516 476,000 160,503 486,000 10,000 Total Revenues 47,287,887 46,820,811 10,201,453 46,980,811 160,000 Expenditures Public Representation 564,093 635,574 120,995 635,574 0 Village Manager's Office 2,777,002 3,111,828 728,464 3,111,828 0 Television Services Division 177,750 187,337 45,358 187,337 0 Village Clerk's Office 211,394 218,547 53,108 218,547 0 Finance Department 2,007,010 1,958,096 444,212 1,958,096 0 Community Development Dept. 2,241,264 2,347,767 432,128 2,347,767 0 Human Services Dept. 1,049,674 1,067,027 244,804 1,067,027 0 Police Department 16,578,938 16,554,256 4,610,078 16,554,256 0 Fire Department 13,166,939 12,979,579 3,618,699 12,979,579 0 Public Works Department 7,358,200 7,749,759 1,532,451 7,749,759 0 Emergency Events 142,283 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 46,300 46,456 11,614 46,456 0 Total Expenditures 46,320,848 46,856,226 11,841,910 46,856,226 0 Excess of Revenues over Expend. 967,040 (35,415) -1,640,457 124,585 160,000 Other Financing Sources/Uses Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Financing Uses 0 0 0 0 0 Excess of Revenues over Expend. and Other Financing Uses: 967,040 (35,415) -1,640,457 124,585 160,000 -4- 2015 First Quarter Review General Fund - The 2015 General Fund amended budget is showing a deficit of $35,415 on revenues of $46,820,811 and expenses of $46,856,226. As of March 31, the General Fund had recorded expenditures of $11,841,910. This represents 25.3% of budget and is in line with spending through a quarter year period. Our more recent estimate now projects a surplus of $124,585. In this early estimate, revenues for the real estate transfer tax, charges for service and other revenue are expected to come in higher than budget. Revenues are now projected to come in at $46,980,811. This is $160,000 above the amended budget. Included below is a pie chart estimating General Fund revenues broken out by major revenue category. 2015 General Fund Estimate - Revenues $1,623,000} $930,918 $1,567,8 $5,200,000 $2,027,000 $5 Property Taxes Sales Tax Other Taxes Licenses, Permits, Fees ■ State Income Tax ■ Other Intergovernmental Charges for Services Other Revenue The amended 2015 General Fund budget for expenses is $46,856,226. Budget amendments in this fund totaling $37,816 were approved by the Village Board in March. The amendments impacted various grant, commodity, and computer hardware/software accounts. To be conservative no assumptions were made to any expense category for the 2015 General Fund budget. The following pie chart illustrates a breakdown of estimated General Fund expenses broken out by department. 2015 General Fund Estimate - Expenses $1,067,027. Public Representation $2,347,767 Village Manager's Office $ 2,004,552 16,554,256 $3,517,712 $12,979.579 $635,574 $7,749,759 —5— Finance Department Community Development Human Services Dept. Police Department Fire Department Public Works Department Village of Mount Prospect Press Release Mount Prospect Urges Legislators to Consider the Impact of Governor Rauner's Proposed Cuts on Residents DATE: March 16, 2015 CONTACT: Marianthi Thanopoulos, Public Information Officer PHONE: 847/818-5300 From March 17 through 19, 2015, Mayor Arlene A. Juracek and Trustee Michael A. Zadel will be in Springfield to personally articulate the Village Board's concerns regarding Governor Bruce Rauner's proposal to reduce Village revenue. On February 18, 2015, Governor Rauner presented his overall plan to get Illinois back on track to the State of Illinois. The Governor's Plan stressed a need to ensure competitiveness and compassion. The Village Board supports that message and realizes that change is needed in Illinois, yet it must be done in a manner that will not jeopardize local services and impact the health, safety and public good of our residents. In his proposal, the Governor included a reduction of 50% of state shared revenue. The Village Board assumes this includes the local share of State Income Tax, as well as the Motor Fuel Tax and the State Use Tax. The Governor stated that this amounts to just 3% of total municipal revenue. This would seem to make this revenue stream an easy target to cut, but ignores the relationship of a reduction in these revenues to property taxes and other revenue streams, as well as the significant cost-cutting and service level reductions already effected by municipalities such as Mount Prospect. "The Village of Mount Prospect felt the effects of the 2008 recession directly. We cut personnel by 10%. We avoided cutting further costs and personnel by deferring capital projects. This was all done in an effort to create a zero percent tax levy increase for 2010 and to keep levy increases as low as possible in recent years," said Mayor Arlene A. Juracek. "Revenue growth, while positive, continues to be under pressure due to inflationary demands and pension cuts imposed by Springfield," said Acting Village Manager Dave Strahl. "Therefore, any reductions in the current level of revenues will significantly impact operations." —MORE- -6- Village of Mount Prospect Press Release (page 2) The Village has continued its austere measures in constructing budgets year after year (to view Village Budgets, visit mountprospect.org/budget). The Village Board welcomes the opportunity to address State needs. Residents and business leaders are encouraged to reach out to their local legislators to voice their concerns regarding the Governor's proposal and the serious impact it will have on Mount Prospect. To view emails and mailing addresses of local legislators, click here. Key Points to Remember: • Local Government Distributive Fund (LDGF) or income tax is based on a community's population and only represents $0.08 for every dollar paid in state income tax, prior to 2011 local governments received $0.10 per dollar in income tax. Therefore, the revenue has already been reduced. • The LDGF accounts for about 7% of the total Village budget and a reduction as proposed would reduce the total amount of revenue from $7.45 million to $3.725 million. This would require a 17% property tax levy increase to make up the loss. • The proposed reduction amounts to 5.77% of the Village's general fund expenditures. • The Governor's proposal suggested that local governments could utilize reserves to cover the reduction in revenue which is a false argument. Reserves are not utilized for operational expenses, but for extraordinary events like emergencies, disasters, one-time revenue shortfalls, and covering expenditures while waiting on delayed state revenues to be deposited. Additional Resources: • Letter &.Attachment Sent to Local I..,egislators by Village Board on February 23 2015 • Direct Financial Impact on Mount Prospect�� • Illinois Municipal League Response Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 www.mountvrosi2ect. oro -7- MAYOR Mcwn�t i,rowl�ect VILLAGE MANAGER Arlene A. Juracek Michael E. Jannis TRUSTEES Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn John J. Matuszak Steven S. Polit Richard F. Rogers Michael A. Zadel February 23, 2015 gm� Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 The Honorable Matt Murphy State Senator 1 E. Northwest Highway. Suite 109 Palatine, IL 60067 The Honorable Dan Kotowski State Senator 350 S. Northwest Highway, Suite 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 The Honorable Julie A. Morrison State Senator 700 Osterman Ave. Deerfield, IL 60015 The Honorable David Harrris State Representative 800 W. Central Mount Prospect, IL 60056 The Honorable Elaine Nekritz State Representative 830 S. Buffalo Grove Rd., Suite 120 Buffalo Frove, IL 60089 The Honorable Martin J. Moylan State Representative 24 S. Des Plaines River Road., Suite 400 Des Plaines, IL 60016 Dear Senators and Representatives: VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 TMMV.n:ounjprospect.org Last Wednesday Governor Rauner presented to the State of Illinois his overall plan to get Illinois back on track, stressing a need to ensure Competitiveness and Compassion. We, the Village Board of Mount Prospect, support that message and realize that to effect the magnitude of change required in Illinois, it was necessary for the Governor to propose what management guru Jim Collins and his colleagues call "Big Hairy Audacious Goals". We look forward to working with you and the Governor towards achieving t s fiscal sustainability for the State, in a manner that will not jeopardize local services that affect the health, safety and public good of our local citizens. The Governor included in his proposal a reduction of 50% of state shared revenue. We assume this includes the local share of State Income Tax, as well as the Motor Fuel Tax and the State Use Tax. We heard the Governor say that this amounts to just 3% of total municipal revenue. This would seem to make this revenue stream an easy target to cut, but ignores the relationship of a reduction in these revenues to property taxes and other revenue streams, as well as the significant cost-cutting and service level reductions already effected by municipalities such as Mount Prospect. The Governor noted that local governments "are currently sitting on more than $15 billion in cash reserves" as though that were somehow a fiscally prudent source of make-up funding. In fact, a drawdown of reserves can seriously hinder the ability to fund much-needed capital projects such as street, sewer and water supply infrastructure. While reserve drawdowns are prudently made to handle one-time events, a permanent structural reduction in reserves cannot be relied on and will cause municipal bond ratings to be degraded to a point of costing taxpayers unnecessarily in the long -run. As noted in the Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus's February 18 press release, "Local governments across Illinois are still feeling the effects of the 2008 recession. They have acted in a fiscally responsible manner during the economic downturn and have been reducing personnel, cutting services and controlling spending to balance their budgets over the last several years. The Governor's proposed 50 percent reduction will lead to more layoffs; additional delays and cancellations of more infrastructure projects; and increase local taxes and user fees." Mount Prospect is no different, having reduced payroll positions by almost 10% and deferring capital projects in order to effect a zero percent tax levy increase for 2010 and to keep levy increases as low as possible in subsequent years. With the uptick in the economy we are experiencing some revenue increases in retail sales taxes, we have realigned our user fees to be more transparent and reflective of costs, and have established a plan to get our street, water and sewer projects back on track. Attached to this letter is a two-page information sheet which illustrates the conundrum we will face going forward if the Governor's proposal is immediately effected, and the steep increases in local municipal property taxes that could result. The pie charts show that, indeed, the State pass-through revenues are a small piece of the pie. However, other sources of revenue, such as retail sales taxes, are highly dependent on the overall economy. Telecommunications taxes have been dramatically reduced as people switch to alternate forms of communications, and enterprise funds such as sewer and water cannot be legally raided for other purposes. The Village is committed to a fiscally prudent reserve policy. This leads to a shift in revenue collection to a higher reliance on municipal property taxes, or to a draconian reduction in service levels, in order to make up for lost revenue. Ironically, a drastic reduction in State social service funding will create an even greater demand for municipally - provided services. One feature of Big Hairy Audacious Goals is that they are not achievable in a very near term time frame, but require long term horizons to achieve, often a decade or more. There are so many components that need to be fixed in the State, including school funding, pensions (importantly for municipalities police and fire pensions), duplication of services through multiple governmental jurisdictions, and unfunded mandates, that there are many predicates to the ability of municipalities to receive less money through the State transfer payments while not simultaneously increasing the local property tax burden. ll� We hope that the attached information illustrates the nature of the beast we are facing. We know that immediate actions need to be taken and look forward to working with you on a plan of attack that recognizes that, in many cases, there is a critical path that will dictate the priority order of steps that need to be taken to achieve our long-term goals. With sincere best wishes for a successful legislative session, P.Eiil W:n. IIeferE h-useee Steven S. Posit Trustee Cc: Jim Clark Bryan Reed Attachment Sincerely yours, �� Arlene A. Juracek Mayor � � A. John Korn Trustee Richard F. Rogers Trustee -10— John J. Matuszak Trustee Michael A. adel Trustee RESOLUTION NO. URGING THE GOVERNOR AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROTECT FULL FUNDING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISTRIBUTIVE FUND REVENUES WHEREAS, municipalities are front-line providers of government services to citizens and these services include police and fire protection, parks, infrastructure, water, sewer and utility services, and snow removal; and WHEREAS, the State of Illinois has a long-standing tradition of collecting tax revenues on behalf of municipal governments and municipalities have relied on shared income tax revenue to provide services to taxpayers; and WHEREAS, municipalities have fewer options to raise significant revenue and rely on the full amount of revenue that the State collects on their behalf in order to fund the essential quality -of -life services expected and relied upon by community residents; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly increased the State income tax without providing any of the new revenues to municipalities and this loss of revenue has left the municipal share at levels collected during the Great Recession; and WHEREAS, the Governor proposed a 50 percent reduction in the local share of the income tax during his FY2016 Budget Address, reducing local revenues by over $600 million; and WHEREAS, the loss of this state -shared income tax revenue would result in elimination of countless jobs, local tax increases, program and service cuts, and could increase debt burdens that would be felt by all citizens; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect would lose over $3.1 million. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACTING PURSUANT TO ITS HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That the Village of Mount Prospect urges the Governor and the General Assembly to protect full funding of the Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF) and other revenue sources. SECTION TWO: That the Village of Mount Prospect will actively work to protect the LGDF and other revenue sources that allow local governments to provide for the health, safety and general welfare of their residents. SECTION THREE: That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Northwest Municipal Conference, to the Illinois Municipal League and to the Office of the Governor. SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED and APPROVED this day of March, 2015 ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk Arlene A. Juracek, Mayor Dom O co N L O O-0 A 0 C X O O O O p 1 w w to +0' 7 Cl O O O O O C v 0LO 7 'O C a! '(� L v {n Q v f6 L f0 > Q i o o IIi o � � o a (C X� O ate, C a L W N O l0 Z O1 L� a 0 o o 0-C MLD�Lo Io a ° o al N _v 0- vi �n `� N N aJ M a1 c -I v1 'p m a.., }, N _ > a1 .L .Q X E> E W O O C L U U bD acu aj �J L- O a) 3 O0m *' Qj L aJ O Q O U •— m O M v v= O U V) cu m t N +' Oi v O t cu W CL al '3 O aJ -a C O ai 7 L C a �_ 'L > i s t V) H a .�. CL0 Qa c m (U _N v Q C aC Q� �► Q O }� Q VI L > L W EL + (U= N a bD cu U O L U o o 0 0 0 CLn (6 aJ V1 +,a (D C .OA -0 O L Ln Ln a'•' —= cin LA CL m ai Ln 41 lu ai U CU CU +, 03 cu U n3 d 1L a' O" �+ C O +' c L c O N J i n3 — vi > a>i v V L v U +-, " LA cu O x y i v p +�+ d C7 a ^' v o aj v aU v 3 o v aai N O w CL ON O +��, iL CU L i6 t m aJ OA 0 0 k O> 3 O a +- +, c'n O, Q o L CU cO C oo +� V; '^ +' o +' v 3 A L ^ cu O o + +- '� N U N 0 ate+ cu m0vi Ln O X 'a Q t 3 +� N= I L O v E 3 ado a0 �' x rn~ ar '' v a, v 0 W Ci O +� C (0 M 7 L L W E Q �. 7 41 >_ a) (p Q i a) L N 0 -a L O L O O v C a) cO �> Q O t6 3 O Q O O N c txo> C O X v> L OA f6 L c6 > O~ O U cu O +' ai } a1 CL a co `C H v o ro vi m E u ,° N �' oL 1=— � IA mo m t O v o ~ ++ a �� v C LLN N h o E a -0 ,Q m m I _, ^' Ln > m N N 4J L LA *a a a3 iR T a a vo .. ap i!Y i''d Cl! { a) Q LL f6 O N aJ C LL -13- It Ln m N lD CO * �* --t to O4 C -Q O %0 o m m m d• w r -I CJS Cil m o m00000000 p a 4., r-or,o > ° o y tm O 00 -IF 00 00 p YO c I L!1 lD to Ln -qr N w m r N N V1 O I� Ql O l0 N r-1 N O = i of NCL o L6 �N ri N r -I O CP M r -I 'a N 0 " Q N N (Lp V) O 3 tio N h 1+ tsQ to t ° t o o a s i Y 4, W v u a v CA ho (6 CO E O LO c t v C r O Q. E o O .0-0 ULn O 0 C oM t3 I O UO O O o c N +0QL,l Q 0 C o � LC E mco� a a°V c zz 4. of fa 4J O 3 7 c of Qj i. c of a at G d c -as m e m"> =0LL ° O i L L a f0 %S, G Q! d m o E a x a °�' oa a� a c M v o n=i '^ C w ,� C 'a L Q- a ° c bD � � V (D —0 a CX Ln C c > f6 M M O v ra � m° ca co a ,. IZ o a 4w t v Q) c +. O f6 U t E c m 01 c c c Q+ u h V) > O O C M 4w ". a) 'G � cn � Lan) v _n maj CU �_ QJ .R vOi O m 4 L 4 O u u m E C m c .O N i +' iLA E 'c E ,, E v ,�+ ,2 t E m E Q a, c w t 'a c (0 _° c 0 7 Qp �v 3 7 O c M +� O v +� CL u LZ ":t u o t p a ¢ E L ,n . . . . . . M L41x t o vO vo C CL �o c O �--• LL N M a a C N-0 ba cc N I G7 >. 7 N � yv I 4 Ln O C1 V (U O Obi .MM1 Q: 0o c V �a rO V GO �' }I no O b. E � F E v� a o v 4w t� N c• 4"o N r N O LL , C N [3 VI 41 C M -13- LGDF IS A SUCCESSFUL STATE -LOCAL FUNDING PARTNERSHIP The Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF) is a state fund into which a portion of state income tax revenue is deposited annually. Cities and counties currently receive 8% of total state income tax revenues through this fund. LGDF SUPPORTS CORE SERVICES AND HELPS KEEP LOCAL TAXES LOW p 3 Since 1969, Illinois municipalities have partnered with the State to fund core municipal " y set -vices such as police, fire, roads, sidewalks, planning and zoning, public safety, water and sewer, public works, and snowplowing. This funding partnership is made possible by revenue from the Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF). In addition to funding core everyday services to Illinois citizens, LGDF distributions play a role in keeping the local tax burden low. Without LGDF, communities across Illinois would need to explore increases to local taxes. This includes property taxes. It is widely believed that Illinois has a high property tax burden and this would undoubtedly be worsened if LGDF funds were reduced or eliminated. LGDF FUNDING HAS ALREADY BEEN REDUCED Until January of 201 I, 1010 of total income tax collections were deposited into LGDF for distribution to cities and counties. Distributions occur on a per capita basis. The percentage share of state income tax revenue was reduced from 10% to 6°o following the enaccinent of the temporary income tax increase in 201 1. The percentage was decreased because the state opted to keep the entirety of the new increased revenues for itself. When the income tax rates declined in January 2015, the LGDF share increased to 84o of total collections. In the absence of anv statutory changes, this percentage will remain the same until 2025 when it will return to approximately 10% of total state income tax collections. LGDF PROVIDES OUTSTANDING VALUE FOR ILLINOIS TAXPAYERS Illinois collected approximately $20.8 billion in state income tax revenue during Municipal Fiscal Year 2014. The amount of revenue deposited into LGDF for this period was only $1.25 billion. Good management and efficiency at the local level make LGDF dollars the best return on investment that taxpayers will ever get... and it's a direct return of their dollars to their community. Illinois cities have managed their LGDF revenue responsibly over the years while receiving just a small portion of state income tax collections. Illinois cities will continue to balance their budgets and fiend core municipal set -vices while receiving 8 cents of each state income tax dollar during the upcoming municipal fiscal year. Despite receiving 92 cents of each income tax dollar, the State will continue to be mired in debt and unable to pay its bills in a timely manner for the foreseeable future. This record of excellent fiscal stewardship by municipal governments, encouraged by accountability to local voters, is a compelling argument to drive additional value for taxpayers by maintaining, and even increasing the municipal share of LGDF revenue. Additional LGDF revenues could be used to help offset the growing costs incurred from unfunded state mandates, the most notable of which includes paying for pension benefits that were increased by the State. 500 East Capitol Avenue I PO Box 51801 Springfield, IL 62705-51801 Ph: 217.525.1220 j Fx: 217.525.74381 www.imi.org —14— Educate. Advocate. Empower. Estimated State Shared Municipal Revenue MFY 2016(MAY 2015 to APRIL 2016) The Estimating Revenue article that ran in the January Review covered the estimated state shared revenue through MFY 2015. This brief article contains the MFY 2016 estimates. The MFY 2016 estimates are conservative in predicting a continued recovery. They also assume no policy/legislative changes to any of the underlying statutory language, which means no state reduction. The 2015 legislative session will focus on revenue issues, but I am not predicting an outcome. INCOME TAX (LOOF) ESTIMATE For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates $99.00 per capita. This estimate assumes 2.06% growth from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $97.00 per capita. 1% LOCAL SNARE OF ILLINOIS USE TAX ESTIMATE For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates $19.40 per capita. This estimate assumes 4.86% growth from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $18.50 per capita. UNACCEPTABLE MUNICIPAL SNARE OF ILLINOIS MOTOR FUEL TAX ESTIMATE For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates $23.80 per capita. This estimate assumes a 2.06% decline from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $24.30 per capita. CORPORATE PERSONAL PROPERTY REPLACEMENT TAX (CPPRT) ESTIMATE For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates no change from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $1.38 billion. For every dollar paid liy ail III inois taxpayer in income tax, the State receives $0.92 while cities and local municipal services get $0.08. This reduction (from $0.10 to $0.08) has created tough times since 2008 and local municipal leaders have cut back, sacrificed, and still barely managed to balance their budgets each year as required by law. Meanwhile, the State has reaped the fall benefit of the income tax increase while local municipal budgets continue to suffer. Taking more local dollars is unacceptable and bad public policy. Illinois Municipal League February 9, 2015 —15— Ste* L%* Tac V4,71 4.71 $15.92 S17.06 S18.50 $19°40 Motor FmI Tax $24.80 $24.€13 524.56 $24.30 $23.80 TOM Fir capho $120.95 S 130.07 $139.08 $139.80 $142.20 For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates $99.00 per capita. This estimate assumes 2.06% growth from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $97.00 per capita. 1% LOCAL SNARE OF ILLINOIS USE TAX ESTIMATE For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates $19.40 per capita. This estimate assumes 4.86% growth from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $18.50 per capita. UNACCEPTABLE MUNICIPAL SNARE OF ILLINOIS MOTOR FUEL TAX ESTIMATE For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates $23.80 per capita. This estimate assumes a 2.06% decline from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $24.30 per capita. CORPORATE PERSONAL PROPERTY REPLACEMENT TAX (CPPRT) ESTIMATE For MFY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016), IML estimates no change from our most recent MFY 2015 estimate of $1.38 billion. For every dollar paid liy ail III inois taxpayer in income tax, the State receives $0.92 while cities and local municipal services get $0.08. This reduction (from $0.10 to $0.08) has created tough times since 2008 and local municipal leaders have cut back, sacrificed, and still barely managed to balance their budgets each year as required by law. Meanwhile, the State has reaped the fall benefit of the income tax increase while local municipal budgets continue to suffer. Taking more local dollars is unacceptable and bad public policy. Illinois Municipal League February 9, 2015 —15— O (1) U r U O C6 Q � p , 70 p m U) p O O - O 4� f m -19- -20- �4- 0 L O U c 0 r W 0 N W O O N r. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OLO O O CD LO LO M M N N -- � � os io�- � V)- -21- M r -I O N r -I r -i O N O 0 N 01 O O N Y 000 0 00 O 0 Lr)o —22— LO 0 N I W C0 i�C, 1-1), O co O uj Z uj LU z Q. J W �S J ull � m Q 0 � Z O V W W Z LU -23- U O �i •� O � • � U U U � O U U •� O PLO� 4� cn70 U U �+ � U O ^ t� -23- -24- O 4—J co E L O 4— Cd O cd 4� • z d- 0 N • r- • 0 �1 N M 0 MW -25- 7 :L • 0 N •