Jim Reilly Goes "PTFffffffffff"

It has to be frustrating as all get out to be Jim Reilly, the RTA's Chairman. Your staff puts together a glossy, comprehensive funding plan that makes a credible case for public transit. You hold together a somewhat dysfunctional family of service boards. You build a regional consensus for increases in transit funding coupled with enhancements to your agency's powers. The editorial boards line up in your favor. You help broker an unprecedented five-year labor agreement at the CTA that removes the biggest regional stumbling block to your plan.

And then, week after week, you go down to Springfield to talk sense to members of the General Assembly and the Governor. Your reasonable arguments and pleas to avoid service cuts and fare hikes don't yield the action you want and think you deserve. The Governor says he will veto the regional tax hikes that the House has passed. The Governor's alternative, which appears to amount to looking for spare change in the back of the couch, fails to provide the stable funding increase you want. The other leaders seem content to stand pat on a limited increase in funding for public transit.

With the demise of the gross receipts tax plan there is no plan on the table that will generate the kind of revenue necessary to fund transit increases along with increases for education and health care that are higher priorities for some or all of the Springfield leaders. No one seems to get along. And no one wants to hear how much public transit needs new money.

At today's RTA Board meeting, where the RTA adopted the "doomsday" budgets of the service boards, Reilly let his frustration show. According to this article in Crains, Reilly stated:

“What’s keeping things from happening is a deadlock between the governor and the (top four legislative) leaders,” James Reilly said. “That deadlock may continue” for another four years, he said.

Mr. Reilly seemed almost certain that, barring action this year, movement next year would be nearly impossible.

“It would require a miracle for the Legislature to take action in an election year,” he said. Mr. Reilly spoke during an RTA board meeting and a subsequent news conference.

It is rarely a good thing when the leader of a legislative initiative publicly expresses such pessimism, which only starts a spiral of diminished expectations. His remarks also could be viewed as a pointed criticism of the very deadlocked people he needs to come through for transit when the current budget situation is finally addressed.

Perhaps, after months of putting a postive spin on the political deadlock in Springfield, Reilly believed that he might inspire the public to start pressuring "Springfield" if he was so pessimistic. I'm not so sure that was the right call, especially since yesterday's CTA labor deal gave him a great opportunity to proclaim a new day and try to create a self-fulfilling prophecy that the RTA and the service boards have done all that they can and are truly deserving. Or maybe he was just tired and emotionally exhausted.

Perhaps more significant than Reilly's new tone was an amendment to the fiscal note to House Amendment No. 2 to Senate Bill 572, which authorizes increases in the RTA sales tax rates and a new real estate transfer tax in the City of Chicago, both to provide more funding for the RTA and the service boards. The fiscal note and amended fiscal notes are as follows:

Original Fiscal Note, House Amendment No. 2 (Dept. of Revenue)

SB 572 (S-AM 2) would increase revenues by approximately $348 to $447 million per year. The Retailers' Occupation Tax rate increases would generate approximately $348 million per year and the Real Estate Transfer Tax would generate up to approximately $99 million per year.

Revised Fiscal Note, House Amendment No. 2 (Dept. of Revenue)

SB 572 (S-AM 2) would reduce moneys in the General Revenue Fund by approximately $131.4 million per year. Additionally, Senate Amendment 2 would increase local revenues by approximately $451 million per year. The local Retailers' Occupation Tax rate increases would generate approximately $352 million per year in local sales tax revenues and the Real Estate Transfer Tax would generate approximately $99 million per year.

Note what changed between the first and second fiscal note is the conclusion that the SB 572 "would reduce moneys in the General Revenue Fund by approximately $131.4 million per year." This extra drain on the General Revenue Fund presumably is the Public Transportation Fund match of the increased amount raised in the six-county region through new and RTA increased taxes.

The Governor opposes the increase in the RTA taxes because of his opposition to new sales and income taxes. His Revenue Department may oppose the SB 572 funding package for a more practical reason, namely, because of its impact on a General Revenue Fund that is already stretched to the limit and beyond. With no new revenue source on the horizon and unfunded priorities (e.g., healthcare, education) ahead of public transit why would they want to accept an additional $131.4 million hit on the General Revenue Fund? They also may view continued opposition to the SB 572 transit funding package as giving the Governor bargaining leverage with those legislators who favor the package.

This is all rank speculation, but why would the Revenue Department go to such trouble to prepare the amendment showing that the SB 572 package will have a major hit on the General Revenue Fund?

Does this mean that Representative Hamos and the other proponents of the public transit funding package need to go back to the drawing board and consider a plan that does not require the State to chip in? Or maybe it will soon be "we'll take what we can get" time, where the RTA and the transit funding proponents embrace what the Governor proposes with the understanding that they will seek more from the legislative leaders and hope they can get veto-proof majorities behind that additional funding.

PTFffffffff!