 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Legislative Report By Robert A. Stuart 77TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATIVE RESULTS DISCOURAGING The Spring Session (April 10-June 30, 1972) of the 77th General Assembly ended in its usual state of confusion and a last minute effort to rush through those measures of apparent political value to those members running for re-election in November. The results of the Session were particularly discouraging to park districts and other special taxing districts in that once again the General Assembly has failed to give serious and a realistic consideration and study to the problem of lost revenues to local governmental units as a result of the gradual elimination of the personal property tax. In this Session, despite the recognition of increased needs of the public in the field of environmental improvement and protection, it appeared to be the unanimous position of both the House and the Senate that (1) the personal property tax, considered to be the most unfair of all taxes, must be repealed immediately, or at least eliminated as a source of tax revenue from the individual, (2) the real property tax is also an unfair tax and the public will not stand a further increase in Illinois property tax rates, (3) the state income tax rates must not be increased, and (4) no new tax should be imposed upon the already overburdened taxpayer. Thus, it would appear, that if the General Assembly contemplates no serious study of the problem, local government in the State of Illinois is faced with an almost insurmountable situation. The discouraging box score of park district legislation in the 77th General Assembly is as follows:
H. B. 1890 (Ch. 105, par. 5-1)
H. B. 1951 (Ch. 105, pars. 6-5, 8-15, 9-1a, 9-1b ,9.1-2 and 11.1-6)
H. B. 2187 (Ch 105, rep. par. 3-6b)
H. B. 2312 (Ch. 105. pars. 3-1 and 3-2)
H. B. 2313 (Ch. 105, new par. 5-7)
H. B. 2314 (Ch. 105, par. 3-9)
H. B. 2345 (Ch. 105, par. 327)
H. B. 4289 (Ch. 105, pars. 9.2-1, 9.2-2, 9.2-3. 9.2-4, 9.2-5 and 9.2-6)
S. B. 1442 (Ch. 105, new 5-9)
S. B. 1574 (Ch. 24 1/2, par. 109)
H. B. 4680 (Ch. 120, par. 643, New par. 643.01)
Illinois Parks and Recreation 8 September/October, 1972 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX LEGISLATION VITALLY AFFECTS PARK DISTRICTS H. B. 4218 passed by the 77th General Assembly and approved on July 17, 1972 by Governor Ogilvie affects personal property tax assessments made in 1972 and thereafter. Taxpayers will get relief on tax bills paid in 1973 and park districts will feel the results of the legislation on moneys received in that year. Under this Bill a taxpayer, including individuals and corporations, is allowed a standard deduction of $5,000 from the assessed valuation of his personal property in addition to the one household of furniture and the one automobile which had previously been exempted under the provisions of H. B. 3376. For all intents and purposes the passage of this Bill means that the greater portion of revenues from personal property taxes paid by the individual taxpayers will be lost to park districts and other units of local government. Under this Bill, however, it is provided that local taxing districts including park districts will be reimbursed by the State for lost revenues as a result of the $5,000 deducton. That reimbursement will be determined by the county treasurer upon the basis of the total computed for the year 1971. Here again this provision, as in the situation existing under the previous loss of personal property tax revenues, is tied to the dollar tax paid on 1971 taxes which completely fails to recognize and adjust for the increased operating costs and wages which will inevitably be incurred by the local governmental unit in subsequent years. Another Bill passed by the 77th General Assembly and approved by the Governor on July 17, 1972 provides that all 1972 personal property tax payments on property owned by persons other than corporations shall be held in a special escrow account by each county collector and refunded to taxpayers in the event the United States Supreme Court overturns the Lake Shore Auto Parts Company decision. Cook County Circuit Judge James J. Medja had previously ordered all counties to hold all personal property tax revenues collected in 1972 in escrow pending a United States Court decision. While there is a legal question with respect to the constitutionality of H. B. 4681 or the order of Judge Medja, it is quite likely that this Bill will result in either the loss of some personal property tax revenues by park districts in the fiscal year 1972 or at least a delay in the receipt thereof. FEDERAL LEGISLATION—REVENUE SHARING AND BLOCK GRANTS Two bills pertaining to general revenue sharing are presently pending in the Congress. Although the position of the Illinois Association of Park Districts on both of these Bills has been submitted to the hearings in committee through the National Recreation and Park Association, neither of these measures permit direct relief or assistance to special taxing districts such as park districts. Each of these bills as presently drawn restrict the distribution under "revenue sharing" to "units of local government" which are "units of general government". In order to participate in the revenue sharing from the federal government under either of these bills would require some type of mutual agreement between the park district and either the county or the city in which the park district is located. It should be pointed out that under the provisions of H. R. 14370 (the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 which is presently pending before the Finance Committee of the Senate) distribution to a park district would perhaps be precluded in view of the fact that such a distribution and expenditure of funds from the Local Government High Priority Expenditure Trust Fund are in all likelihood limited to only those matters of environmental protection such as sewage disposal, sanitation and pollution abatement. STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1972 (H.R. 14370) This Bill has passed the House of Representatives and is presently pending before the Finance Committee of the U. S. Senate. Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri has now urged that the entire concept of revenue sharing be reviewed prior to further consideration of the Bill. At this writing it is not known what the chances for passage prior to September 1, 1972 may be. This Bill provides for federal revenue sharing with units of general local government for high priority expenditures. Section 102 of the Bill, which designates such high priority expenditures, provides for distribution for maintenance and operating expenses only in certain categories among which is environmental protection. Environmental protection is further defined to include "sewage disposal, sanitation and pollution abatement." No reference is made to parks or recreation. A further high priority expenditure is designated as capital expenditures for (a) sewage collection and continual, on page 29 Illinois Parks and Recreation 9 September/October, 1972 LEGISLATIVE REPORT... continued from page 9 treatment, (b) refuse disposal systems and (c) public transportation. Section 103 of the Bill by defining a "unit of local government" as a "government of a county, municipality, township, or other unit of government below the state which is a unit of general government . . ." clearly precludes a direct distribution to a special taxing district such as a park dstrict in this state. At the hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on July 20, 1972 Dwight F. Rettie, speaking on behalf of the National Recreation and Park Asociation and primarily at the request of the Illinois Association of Park Districts, said: "We believe the language of the bill should be broadened to permit a somewhat wider distribution of resources. If the local recipients feel another area of concern is of as much or greater importance than those matters (which are) specifically designated 'high-priority expenditures', it should be allowed the flexibility to apply part of the local share to that other priority . . ." "We wish to call attention also to the special plight of the so-called 'special purpose district.' While not a general unit of local government, this political entity found in many states is performing valuable government functions. It would, however, be excluded from participation in this legislation under current wording (of the bill). We suggest that some way be found, perhaps by urging cooperative ventures with general units of local government, to include these special districts as eligible recipients (of general revenue sharing funds). If the true intent of the legislation is to aid state and local governments, special purpose districts which are integral parts of many local government systems, should not be overlooked." (Note: This position of park districts in Illinois must continue to be urged by all park districts in this state). HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1971 (H.R. 9688) This Bill is presently pending before the Committee on Banking and Currency in the House of Representatives. It provides for the preservation and revitalization of declining neighborhoods and will, if passed, permit block grants to be made to units of general local government in a contractual sum over a period of years to be used for the purposes therein described, but the priorities of which may be determined by the local government itself. Here again it must be pointed out that such grants can only be made to a "state development agency" which is a public body or agency, a public sponsored corporation or instrumentality of one or more states, or a "metropolitan development agency" which is an instrumentality of two or more units of general local government located in a standard metropolitan statistical area. Here again it appears that a special taxing district such as a park district would be excluded and could only receive funds if it could enter into an agreement with such an eligible development agency as defined under that section. Illinois Parks and Recreation 29 September/October 1972 |
