WurfWhile

Water doesn’t explain all of DuPage taxation - but in recent years ‘following the water’ has explained a lot. For five years DuPage County raided DuPage Water Commission funds to maintain an unsustainable budget without raising taxes - $75 million later the money is gone. Now we face maximum tax increases, with efforts to raise more, and drastic budget cuts impacting crucial services and our quality of life. A new proposal to charge stormwater management fees may provide the county new “water” money to replace much of the $15 million a year the Water Commission raid had provided - and many taxpayers may not even realize it until they pay it.

[Click Below To Read More]

While observers have paid a lot of attention lately to DuPage County Board Chair Robert Schillerstrom and the board’s attempts to get a cigarette tax, or home rule expanded taxing authority, or an increased sales tax, less attention has gone to county implementation of fees to boost revenue. In 2002, the Daily Herald reported that DuPage County raised local court filing fees to “the highest filing fees in the nation.” State’s Attorney Joe Birkett continues the tradition today, funding many of his operations through “user fees” in the courts that can amount to thousands of dollars to those convicted, and raises millions of dollars for programs and staffing that may have little to do with the crime involved. As the Chicago Tribune reports, “a $25 fine for failure to wear a seat belt carries additional fees of $15 for document storage, $10 for the mental health and drug court and $7 for court security.” The substitution of fees for taxes disproportionately hurts those with modest incomes, making it harder to rehabilitate criminals who may not have the money to pay thousands in additional fees - and may be made criminals again through non-payment. The fee structure also puts the county budget and operations at risk - what if people really do “buckle up” - will document storage, the mental health and drug court, and court security funding suffer?

The latest innovation in fees augmenting taxes may be a proposal to replace DuPage’s stormwater property tax with fees. Currently the tax takes in about $8.5 million a year, with the county’s corporate revenue fund (general fund) kicking in about $4 million more according to DuPage CFO Fred Backfield. Most of the stormwater fund, $7.3 million annually according to the Daily Herald, is going to debt servicing, leaving the county with little money to deal with “imminent problems” and “$27 million in backlogged projects.” The fee proposal envisions raising $14 - $15 million a year - an increase of millions over current taxation. New groups assessed the fee include government bodies and non-profit groups who do not currently pay property taxes - “[a] government complex could shell out a maximum of $2,600 a year, a large church $4,550, and a big school $6,790.”

As in the case of funding court operations through fees, there are legitimate questions about the rationality of the proposed stormwater fee structure which seems from its inception to have been a way to increase revenue and not necessarily provide any other benefits (pdf). Does it make sense to charge new fees to government bodies that in the end simply tax county residents? Does it make sense for government bodies, churches and others to pay fees for poor environmental storm water practices instead of requiring (especially in new construction) that they adhere to more sound, sustainable environmental development such as permeable paving instead of traditional paving (like what the Morton Arboretum recently did in their parking lot)? Why not provide money to help organizations construct more environmentally sound locations? While it can make sense to support punitive fees to provide incentives to “do the right thing” - wouldn’t new building codes for new construction accomplish more than expecting a $10-15 increase in annual costs for storm water management to spur homeowners to make thousands of dollars in fixes?* Shouldn’t the goal of county stormwater management infrastructure/programs ideally be the reduction of its need - not its expansion at greater cost?

Beyond these substantial concerns there are others of greater note. According to DuPage CFO Fred Backfield, it would take at least one year - maybe two - of the county collecting both stormwater property taxes and stormwater fees to make sure that the new fee structure would work and the fund would remain solvent. Fred also says there is nothing he knows of legally that requires the county, having implemented the stormwater fees, to reduce property taxes by the amount taken out for stormwater management, except the tax caps on various county funds (not all of which have caps). In other words the money could be redirected to other funds for other uses. Moreover, there seems to be room enough to fit the stormwater property tax money within the tax caps of the other funds (notably there’s a lot of room in the Corporate Fund that provides the main operational expenses for the county).

What does this mean as a back of the napkin summary?

- New Stormwater Fees of $14-$15 million annually
- One, maybe two years of the New Fees Plus Stormwater Property Taxes necessary during storm water fee introduction
- Old Stormwater Management Property Taxes Possibly Redirected Elsewhere $8.5 million annually
- Old Corporate Fund Money That Went To Stormwater Management Redirected $4 million

In other words, assuming that the new fee actually covers the stormwater management costs, DuPage County has the potential of about $12.5 million freed up each year for other uses while county residents pay $14 - $15 million annually in fees they do not pay today.

I want to be clear about what I’m saying - and what I’m not saying. First, I don’t know that this additional taxation (or fee augmenting taxation) is in fact the (unannounced) county plan. However, after the DuPage Water Commission $75 million was used for general operating costs instead of homeland security, as was originally proposed, it would be foolish not to consider the possibility.

Second, while I believe the county should be investing its funds more wisely through greater mass transit and fewer roads, to take one big budget item that could reduce taxes, that is not the same as saying I’m against all taxation. Taxation is the price of living in society and is a part of how we pay for the “common good” - which is not the same as saying all taxation is good, some of it is bad and much of it could be better designed. The Elmhurst Argus Press Spectator cites DuPage Stormwater Management Division Director Anthony Charlton as saying that “[c]ounties of comparable size and service level to DuPage on average spend about $30 more per resident each year to deal with storm water.” This, coupled with the fact we’ve been drawing down the Stormwater Management reserves, suggests we may have paid too little for too long - if so we have only the DuPage County Board to blame for forestalling the inevitable, and waiting until we need to take crisis steps to prevent “imminent problems.” Of course it’s first worth considering if we could do better for less in stormwater management (I don’t know the program well enough to offer an opinion).

Finally, as evidenced by the bait-and-switch tactics in using the DuPage Water Commission money, the increased use of fees in the courts and, possibly, the insufficient taxation to maintain our stormwater management system, there is a huge county credibility gap because the county board has avoided telling us for years what their government programs really cost. It’s long past time to level with DuPage residents - we have a structural deficit. If Robert Schillerstrom and the DuPage County Board have created unsustainable government they need to fix it - it’s their mess and they own it. Either figure out ways to make government less expensive while providing the services the county expects and needs - or make a public case to the county that we need to pay more taxes - and give us a realistic plan. It’s time for DuPage to stop drowning in red ink and budget cuts. It’s time to move forward.

Note

* I am indebted to John Zimmerman of the Daily Herald for the argument that the minor increase in homeowner costs for stormwater management would not make a homeowner spend thousands to improve the situation.