State budget impasse imperils Mt. Prospect programs

After the previous decade's recession, Mount Prospect underwent a painful series of service and staff cuts in 2010 and 2011.

Now, as a result of the budget impasse in Springfield and the possibility of revenue cuts, as well as a possible two-year freeze on property taxes, village board members are girding for a return to frugal times.

Finance Director David Erb unveiled a five-step plan at last week's committee of the whole meeting.

The possibilities include cutting back on street and sidewalk repairs, on removing and replanting trees, and on funding computer and vehicle replacement, as well as reviewing programs and services and staffing levels for cuts.

“They're not really alternatives,” Mayor Arlene Juracek said. “But they are ingredients, so to speak, and we may have to dump all five ingredients into the bowl at the end of the day. Unfortunately, the end result is not a cake. It's going to be a deterioration of service.”

Already, Erb said, the flow of village revenues, including motor fuel tax funds, has been hampered by the state budget impasse, with losses of about $236,000 per month in money the village is owed by Springfield. He said the village hasn't received any motor fuel tax money since August — a loss of $102,000 per month.

Also, Gov. Bruce Rauner has called for a property tax freeze in 2017 and 2018 that would affect the general operating fund by $175,000 to $350,000 annually.

And proposed cuts in revenue the village receives from Springfield could reduce the general operating fund by as much as $3.1 million through losses in state income tax and use tax funds. In addition, the village could lose about $600,000 in motor fuel tax funds.

Village board members voiced their frustration with Springfield.

“That's thievery,” said Trustee Paul Hoefert. “If they keep this up or if they don't give us the monies back, they are essentially imposing upon us the difficulties we went through five or six years ago.”

Trustee Michael Zadel warned cuts can be costly.

“We did that from 2010 through 2014,” he said. “And in 2014, what did we have to do? We had to borrow $10 million to get back on to the program again. And that's going to cost our taxpayers money.”