Quicklinks to page section:
- Village employee counts and compensation
- More Village spending
- Stagnant population, stagnant economy, increase in Village expenses?
- Dues, Subscriptions and Software?
- Double the workforce, double the pay
- Capital "Improvement" Costs
- Restructure benefits and save millions
- Village "Commitments" (a.k.a. deals)
- Evidence of Village wrongdoing
- The Village of Land Planners
- Village Planning FAILS
- Questions we have
Village Employee Counts and Compensation
There are 465 village employees (including police/fire) listed on the Village's annual 2015-2016 report. Here is some interesting data:
|
Keep in mind, here are the Highest paid occupations as reported by Forbes and the BLS:
More Village Spending...
We have a retired village police officer collecting a large pension and career politicians on our village board (a village under scrutiny and with board members named as defendants in a lawsuit regarding alleged illegal activities). This is a board of people approving village salaries, contracts and spending. Isn't it also a conflict of interest and perpetuating a cycle of financial delusion by having village employees on this board managing taxpayer money?
And pensions... while retired Mayor Ed Zabrocki paid in only $35,214 from 1978 to 2015, he receives $38,691 per year in pension. All for a part time political job and a salary he approved for himself. Some municipal employees only contribute 4.5% towards their pension, but they retire with up to 75% of their final salary and also receive benefits for life. This is a common theme among the political class and their elite pension system. Not only should every public servant be required to contribute more towards their current pension and health care costs, the pension system should be nullified and all retirement accounts setup into a 401k-type account that the free market utilizes for its employees. Public employees should be contributing the same percentage of income towards their retirement and health accounts that the private sector is required to, and they should be contributing to the same type of accounts that the private sector is limited to. Rid the government of their elite benefits, which have done nothing but rob the taxpayers and create a growing debt that cannot be paid.
Is it acceptable for part-time Village board members to have Village paid health and life insurance (for life), a Village pension (for life) and other benefits typically reserved for full-time employees? The part-time board members either have full-time outside employment or are retired and already collecting a pension or retirement. It is an unnecessary cost for the taxpayers to cover double benefits for these part-time "public servants".
How about the annual Treasurer's Report... It's worth reviewing the expenditures. There is a lot of questionable and (what appears to be) unnecessary spending... everywhere. We did not find many RFP (requests for proposals) on the Village site - surely there can be costs cut by opening a bidding process in numerous areas of village spending.
Furthermore, we found it unsettling to find that the village pays for the data and researches the net worth of its residents. Why would the net worth of residents matter to the village? Click here to see one of those reports. The village also researches our household budget? Additional reports can be found by clicking here. The village does a lot of work with various organizations where they collect a lot of data. What is it used for? Is it necessary? Is it worth spending taxpayer dollars on? Collecting this data is not the Village's role in government; it's invasive and "conflict of interest" for a taxing body to research the [taxable] "value" of its residents. For the naysayers: this data is not about "selling the Village" to prospective businesses... businesses are well versed in location planning.
And pensions... while retired Mayor Ed Zabrocki paid in only $35,214 from 1978 to 2015, he receives $38,691 per year in pension. All for a part time political job and a salary he approved for himself. Some municipal employees only contribute 4.5% towards their pension, but they retire with up to 75% of their final salary and also receive benefits for life. This is a common theme among the political class and their elite pension system. Not only should every public servant be required to contribute more towards their current pension and health care costs, the pension system should be nullified and all retirement accounts setup into a 401k-type account that the free market utilizes for its employees. Public employees should be contributing the same percentage of income towards their retirement and health accounts that the private sector is required to, and they should be contributing to the same type of accounts that the private sector is limited to. Rid the government of their elite benefits, which have done nothing but rob the taxpayers and create a growing debt that cannot be paid.
Is it acceptable for part-time Village board members to have Village paid health and life insurance (for life), a Village pension (for life) and other benefits typically reserved for full-time employees? The part-time board members either have full-time outside employment or are retired and already collecting a pension or retirement. It is an unnecessary cost for the taxpayers to cover double benefits for these part-time "public servants".
How about the annual Treasurer's Report... It's worth reviewing the expenditures. There is a lot of questionable and (what appears to be) unnecessary spending... everywhere. We did not find many RFP (requests for proposals) on the Village site - surely there can be costs cut by opening a bidding process in numerous areas of village spending.
Furthermore, we found it unsettling to find that the village pays for the data and researches the net worth of its residents. Why would the net worth of residents matter to the village? Click here to see one of those reports. The village also researches our household budget? Additional reports can be found by clicking here. The village does a lot of work with various organizations where they collect a lot of data. What is it used for? Is it necessary? Is it worth spending taxpayer dollars on? Collecting this data is not the Village's role in government; it's invasive and "conflict of interest" for a taxing body to research the [taxable] "value" of its residents. For the naysayers: this data is not about "selling the Village" to prospective businesses... businesses are well versed in location planning.
We have posted a screenshot of a conversation between two Tinley Park residents that brings up additional questions...
What does Tinley Park do with surpluses? How are surpluses documented in the Village's financial records? Does the practice of misappropriating surpluses happen in our school districts too? These are all questions that Taxpayers need to be asking. It should be law for every Village to reallocate unspent appropriations and revenue surplus to help mitigate projected property tax increases (surplus = taxpayer relief)! |
Screenshot from community organization Tinley Sparks Q&A page
|
FOIA requests in a digital era?
Unfortunately, the governmental bodies in Illinois, including municipalities, are so bloated and non-transparent that Taxpayers are almost forced to file FOIA requests to get information and answers that should be readily available to every taxpayer. Speaking of FOIA requests, there would be a reduction in them if more data was made available to the Taxpayers. It's the digital age - data can quickly and easily be posted online.
The lack of data, lack of answers, run-around we get from our local government is all an attempt to confuse and overwhelm the average taxpayer. We aren't buying into the bureaucratic bloat that is described to taxpayers as "necessary". This village CAN be operated at much lower costs, with less staff, and with transparent records easily available for every taxpayer.
Our opinion, after reviewing slews of reports from slews of sources, is that municipal villages can be operated much more efficiently and streamlined... but it seems that this is not the case to purposely conceal questionable/objectionable data. We applaud taxpayers and organizations for doing research into the various activities of our local government and school districts, because these are people helping the entire community. If groups like this did not exist and were not active in the community, who would be watching and holding village management accountable?
The lack of data, lack of answers, run-around we get from our local government is all an attempt to confuse and overwhelm the average taxpayer. We aren't buying into the bureaucratic bloat that is described to taxpayers as "necessary". This village CAN be operated at much lower costs, with less staff, and with transparent records easily available for every taxpayer.
Our opinion, after reviewing slews of reports from slews of sources, is that municipal villages can be operated much more efficiently and streamlined... but it seems that this is not the case to purposely conceal questionable/objectionable data. We applaud taxpayers and organizations for doing research into the various activities of our local government and school districts, because these are people helping the entire community. If groups like this did not exist and were not active in the community, who would be watching and holding village management accountable?
Stagnant population, stagnant economy, increase in Village expenses?
In the last 10 years the population of Tinley Park has not increased but Village expenses have increased by 55-70%+. "General Government" spending increased more than 70% between 2006 and 2015, "Public Safety" spending increased by more than 60%, "Social Services" spending doubled, and "Total Primary Government Expenses" in Tinley Park rose by more than 55% in less than 10 years. Our property values and our incomes have not increased by 55-70% in the last 10 years, but our taxes have gone up 55-70% to afford the increase in Village spending!
Source: Cook County Treasurer Village of Tinley Park 2015 Report. See Pages 199 if looking by source.
Dues, Subscriptions & Software... Oh my!
Per the Village Budget, each Village department spends tens of thousands of dollars on "dues and subscriptions". The Mayor and Trustees spent $13,888 on "dues and subscriptions" in 2015, while the Village manager spent $4,945. In the Village's General Overhead expense report they list "dues and subscriptions" as a $32,507 cost. This does not include software licensing costs, where the Village spends over $100,000 on annual software licensing fees between its departments. What software licensing adds up to that annual expense? Source: 2016 Village Budget
Did you know, "dues and subscriptions" that the Village pays for with TAXPAYER dollars are going to "organizations" (and lobbyists), and did you know that taxpayers also fund "business trips" to organization meetings and conventions? You may be shocked to find out that these "organizations" lobby our State for issues that many taxpayers would be against (higher taxes, home rule, etc)... yet taxpayers are funding these organizations!? This activity occurs in our school districts too, and we are working to uncover the amounts our districts spend in taxpayer funds with "organizations". Read more about the school district organizations/lobbyists here, which is a helpful article to explain this issue in more detail.
Did you know, "dues and subscriptions" that the Village pays for with TAXPAYER dollars are going to "organizations" (and lobbyists), and did you know that taxpayers also fund "business trips" to organization meetings and conventions? You may be shocked to find out that these "organizations" lobby our State for issues that many taxpayers would be against (higher taxes, home rule, etc)... yet taxpayers are funding these organizations!? This activity occurs in our school districts too, and we are working to uncover the amounts our districts spend in taxpayer funds with "organizations". Read more about the school district organizations/lobbyists here, which is a helpful article to explain this issue in more detail.
Here is a quick tip on what you, the taxpayer, can FOIA the Village for... or even demand at a Village board meeting. Bring your family, friends, neighbors and local business leaders in for support and to stand up and demand answers.
Request by FOIA (or at a public Village board meeting):
- Contracts between the Village and all lobbyists/organizations/non-profits;
- Check register data for all payouts, checks or other disbursements to those lobbyists/organizations/non-profits;
- All e-mail and/or other written correspondence between the Village and the lobbyists/organizations/non-profits, and between the members of the Village board and Village employees and those lobbyists/organizations/non-profits;
- Copies of invitations to any and all legislative receptions that have been sponsored, funded or otherwise underwritten in whole or in part by the Village, along with a breakdown of costs incurred for those receptions.
- Information regarding any gifts given or presented to legislators and/or executive officials, including receipts and/or purchase orders.
Here is a partial list of municipal "organizations" that may or may not conduct lobbying:
- Illinois Municipal League
- International City Management Association
- Illinois City Management Association
- Illinois Local Government Lawyers Association
- Illinois Chiefs of Police Association
- Municipal Clerks of Illinois
- Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
- Southwest Conference of Mayors
- US Conference of Mayors
- National League of Cities
- International Institute of Municipal Clerks
- Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police
- Illinois Association of Municipal Management Assistants
- Illinois Municipal Treasurer's Association
- Illinois Government Finance Officers Association
- Illinois Law Enforcement Alert Systems (ILEAS)
- Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center (MOCIC)
- Illinois Law Enforcement Executive Institute
- Law Enforcement Support Organization (LESO) - federal military surplus organization
- National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
- Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board
- International Code Council (ICC)
- ILLOWA Chapter of International Code Council
- Illinois Mechanical Inspectors Association
- Landmarks Illinois
- American Public Works Association
- Project Management Institute
- Illinois Professional Land Surveyor’s Association
- Illinois Firefighters Association
- International Fire Chiefs Association
- Illinois Fire Chiefs Association
- National Fire Protection Agency
- Municipal Fleet Managers Association
- IML Risk Management Association
- Illinois Public Energy Agency (IPEA)
- Illinois Municipal Utilities Association (IMUA)
- Illinois Development Council (IDC)
- Illinois Metropolitan Investment Fund (IMET)
- American Payroll Association (APA)
- Illinois Public Employer Labor Relations Association (IPELRA)
- American Planning Association (APA)
- Illinois Public Pension Fund Association (IPPFA)
- American Public Works Association (APWA)
- Illinois Tactical Officers Association (ITOA)
- American Water Works Association (AWWA)
- International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
- FBI National Academy Associates (FBINAA)
- International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
- GIS Consortium (GISC)
- International City Managers Association (ICMA)
- Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
- Intergovernmental Risk Management Association (IRMA)
- Government Management Information Sciences Illinois (GMIS IL)
- Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (LPCI)
- Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police (ILACP)
- Mutual Aid Box Alarm System (MABAS)
- Illinois Association of Historic Preservation Commissions (IAHPC)
- National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
- Northeastern Illinois Public Safety Training Academy (NIPSTA)
- Illinois CPA Society
- Northern Illinois Police Alarm System (NIPAS)
- Illinois Government Finance Officers Association (IGFOA)
- Southern Wisconsin & Northern Illinois Fire/Rescue Association (SWNIFRA)
- Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System (ILEAS)
- Illinois Metropolitan Investment Fund (IMET)
- Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC)
- Pension Fairness for Illinois Communities Coalition
- Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)
- Chicago Metropolitain Agency for Planning (CMAP)
- Illinois Section - American Water Works Association (ISAWWA)
- Arbor Day Foundation
- ... and so many more...
What else are municipal organizations and lobbyists up to?
Who are the organizations and lobbyists connected to?
Who are the organizations and lobbyists connected to?
Double the workforce, double the pay
As of April 1, 2016 the Village's "Building and Compliance committee" has recommended hiring an outside firm to manage building inspections. Does this mean that the Village is going to replace the Building Commissioner ($152,000/year), Building Permit technician ($60,000/year), and code enforcement salaried personnel ($142,000/year) with an outside firm? If it saves the Village money, we are all for it! But if these individuals aren't being replaced by an outside firm, why exactly is an outside firm needed? What evidence can be given to taxpayers to see exactly why employees aren't being replaced, or why this outside service is needed? Click here for the link to the Tinley Junction article. Are these individuals or any other paid employees of this Village capable of the building inspections task? It's wasteful to have both salaried personnel AND outside contractors doing 1 job. Pick ONE, and pick the most qualified and economical option Tinley!
Furthermore, it is common for the Village to hire MANY consultants... branding consultants, planning consultants, developers, PR firms, landscape developers, etc. So, what is the role of full-time, well-paid Village employees (and their departments of staff) like the marketing director, planning director, director of economic development, public works director and all of the assistants to these positions in each department? Possibly full-time salaried employees can simply be replaced with qualified outside vendors when their services are needed, saving taxpayers payroll and benefits costs.
Furthermore, it is common for the Village to hire MANY consultants... branding consultants, planning consultants, developers, PR firms, landscape developers, etc. So, what is the role of full-time, well-paid Village employees (and their departments of staff) like the marketing director, planning director, director of economic development, public works director and all of the assistants to these positions in each department? Possibly full-time salaried employees can simply be replaced with qualified outside vendors when their services are needed, saving taxpayers payroll and benefits costs.
Capital "Improvement" Costs
Capital expenditures are planned expenses (above the operating budget) such as the purchase of new equipment, facilities or inventory. Budgeting for capital expenditures involves setting aside money for a purchase or electing to add debt to your balance sheet for the purchase of the capital asset. Saving money for a future purchase delays the benefits that purchase is intended to provide, and borrowing the money to purchase it now increases your debt, so it might cause a problem for future borrowing ability.
Do the residents and businesses in Tinley Park believe the Village is in a position to spend or tax "extra cash", or worse, borrow for capital expenditures? Are all of the capital "improvement" projects listed in the Tinley Park budget a necessity? We don't believe so. Our Village "leaders" should be most concerned with minimizing the excessive tax burden on citizens.
After evaluating the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (as written in the Village of Tinley Park's 2017 Budget), we found some interesting spending "projects" that we question the necessity of...
Here are just a FEW Capital "Improvement" Questionable Mentions (in order of the report):
Do the residents and businesses in Tinley Park believe the Village is in a position to spend or tax "extra cash", or worse, borrow for capital expenditures? Are all of the capital "improvement" projects listed in the Tinley Park budget a necessity? We don't believe so. Our Village "leaders" should be most concerned with minimizing the excessive tax burden on citizens.
After evaluating the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (as written in the Village of Tinley Park's 2017 Budget), we found some interesting spending "projects" that we question the necessity of...
Here are just a FEW Capital "Improvement" Questionable Mentions (in order of the report):
Total General Fund "Capital Improvements" over 5 years: $60,370,871 Total "Capital Requests" over 5 years: $97,136,616 |
2018 looks like an expensive year for Village projects... and the start of fiscal year 2017-18 starts for the Village on May 1, 2017.
Source: 124th Annual Village Budget, Pg 294-331
The Village is not an income producing entity. The Village of Tinley Park is a taxpayer-funded entity that exists to provide necessary services to residents. When it comes to taxpayer-funded Village property and buildings, taxpayers expect their public facilities/property to be taken care of and kept in good order. This expectation does NOT include constructing public properties with the most expensive details and architecturally costly additions... which requires taxpayer-funded costly upkeep. In actuality, Village properties should be simple, unassuming and economical. Instead of taxpayers funding the extravagance of the Village, it would be nice if taxpayers had reduced tax bills, allowing them the funds to further improve the community through investments in their personal property.
The Village endorses spending for departments to update offices, vehicles, and purchase gym equipment, expensive chairs, top of the line tablets, and the latest items on departmental wish lists. HOWEVER, Village offices do not need to be updated, office/managerial staff vehicles can be aged, employees should use the finely equipped park district gym, and office equipment/technology can be purchased at more reasonable costs. If Village office and managerial staff did not use Village vehicles for personal use, the wear and tear would be minimal and the vehicles would last longer. The number of vehicles could even be reduced if Village staff shared a vehicle for work purposes. For the sake of the residents, Tinley Park must become fiscally responsible and reduce its spending habits to alleviate tax burdens.
Properly appointing our police and fire departments with the necessary equipment and technology to effectively serve the residents is always a top priority. Properly appointing our water and maintenance departments with the necessary equipment and technology to effectively maintain and keep infrastructure in top working order is also a top priority. As far as staffing is concerned, technology has advanced to a level where office staff can be downsized, technology services can be outsourced, and various employment positions can be combined or cut due to use of new technology and advancements. New ways of thinking are desperately needed in Tinley Park.
Lastly, the Village manager has received approval to spend $25,000 on a "pay study". We hope that our Village manager is not solely looking at Orland Park (or any other municipality's) spending habits to justify a continuation of excessive spending in Tinley Park. Despite similar population, Tinley Park and Orland Park have different features and different revenue streams. Orland Park (see page 1) has a larger sales tax base/sales tax revenue, while Tinley Park (see page 1) heavily burdens it's property owners. Also, comparing public employee wages/benefits to neighboring municipalities will only gauge costs of public sector employees - instead, compare public wages/benefits to the PRIVATE SECTOR, where the majority of taxpayers are employed. Furthermore, the cost of public servant benefits (health, pension, vehicle, etc) are a form of compensation/deferred compensation and Village wages should be adjusted to reflect the cost of these benefits. Since private sector taxpayers provide the majority of the municipality revenue, local private sector wages/benefits MUST be included in pay study comparisons.
The Village endorses spending for departments to update offices, vehicles, and purchase gym equipment, expensive chairs, top of the line tablets, and the latest items on departmental wish lists. HOWEVER, Village offices do not need to be updated, office/managerial staff vehicles can be aged, employees should use the finely equipped park district gym, and office equipment/technology can be purchased at more reasonable costs. If Village office and managerial staff did not use Village vehicles for personal use, the wear and tear would be minimal and the vehicles would last longer. The number of vehicles could even be reduced if Village staff shared a vehicle for work purposes. For the sake of the residents, Tinley Park must become fiscally responsible and reduce its spending habits to alleviate tax burdens.
Properly appointing our police and fire departments with the necessary equipment and technology to effectively serve the residents is always a top priority. Properly appointing our water and maintenance departments with the necessary equipment and technology to effectively maintain and keep infrastructure in top working order is also a top priority. As far as staffing is concerned, technology has advanced to a level where office staff can be downsized, technology services can be outsourced, and various employment positions can be combined or cut due to use of new technology and advancements. New ways of thinking are desperately needed in Tinley Park.
Lastly, the Village manager has received approval to spend $25,000 on a "pay study". We hope that our Village manager is not solely looking at Orland Park (or any other municipality's) spending habits to justify a continuation of excessive spending in Tinley Park. Despite similar population, Tinley Park and Orland Park have different features and different revenue streams. Orland Park (see page 1) has a larger sales tax base/sales tax revenue, while Tinley Park (see page 1) heavily burdens it's property owners. Also, comparing public employee wages/benefits to neighboring municipalities will only gauge costs of public sector employees - instead, compare public wages/benefits to the PRIVATE SECTOR, where the majority of taxpayers are employed. Furthermore, the cost of public servant benefits (health, pension, vehicle, etc) are a form of compensation/deferred compensation and Village wages should be adjusted to reflect the cost of these benefits. Since private sector taxpayers provide the majority of the municipality revenue, local private sector wages/benefits MUST be included in pay study comparisons.
Downtown Plaza Expansion $7.28 MILLION???
$85,000 on Village "Branding"??? Source: 124th Annual Village Budget, Pg 261-293 |
Main Street Development Trust: Balance $1.6 Million
Annual Cost to "Operate": $149,000 Source: 124th Annual Village Budget, Pg 236-239 |
Restructure Benefits and Save Millions
Besides implementing the cost cutting measures described by this retired Board of Education member (which apply in local government as well), here are some additional ideas that quickly add up to millions in savings:
RETIREMENT
The Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) is not transparent regarding employee contribution rates. Actually, the data on the IMRF website regarding employer (taxpayer) contribution rates is dizzying, and provides no actual information to audit, click here to see for yourself. According to the IMRF, it is up to each municipality (and municipality division) what contribution rate it adopts. Due to the structure and risk associated with defined-benefit (pension) plans, it is in the best interest of both the employee and the Village of Tinley Park (taxpayers) to instead utilize the defined-contribution (401k) type of retirement structure. Due impossible fiscal sustainability of defined-benefit pensions, the Village should instead move public employees to a guaranteed and protected defined-contribution retirement system. It makes the most sense for both the employee and the taxpayer.
Furthermore, keep in mind that Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) recipients of "pension salaries" will ALSO receive Social Security benefits. See the information from the IMRF here. Also check out this interesting article about the IMRF "stealth pension tax".
Because we cannot currently locate the variable contribution rates for the municipal employees in Tinley Park, it is difficult to distinguish the IMRF contributions made by the Village (taxpayer) to each employee. Based on the FY2015-16 Village of Tinley Park compensation report, the Village (taxpayers) pay nearly 2.5 times more than the police department employees into the police IMRF accounts. The Police Dept. Employee contributions are noted on the Police pension fund report.
Instead of providing pension salaries, if a defined-contribution plan was in place and the Village (using taxpayer dollars) funded an amount equal to the employee contribution, the numbers would look like this: Police Department staff contributions in 2015 were $775,000. If the Village contributed $775,000 utilizing the employer-match system (that is common in private industry) the Village (taxpayers) would have saved $1.14 million dollars in just ONE year, in just ONE Village department.
HEALTH INSURANCE
As Forbes reports, due to the rising costs of health insurance, many small businesses and even large employers are providing their employees with a fixed-cost health insurance stipend or a fixed-cost health insurance reimbursement plan, instead of traditional employer provided health insurance. In fact, it is projected that by 2017 the majority of all small businesses will utilize the defined-contribution stipend/reimbursement method as a health insurance benefit, and in the next 10 years 90% of ALL businesses will drop offering health insurance. To alleviate the "unknown" in health insurance costs year after year, many businesses now provide a stipend (allowance) or defined reimbursement plan for employees to purchase their own insurance. THIS IS A GREAT POSSIBILITY TO IMMEDIATELY SAVE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING A WAY TO BUDGET AND PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, PROVIDING MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES WITH DEFINED-CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT, IN LIEU OF PAYING A PERCENTAGE OF INSURANCE COSTS.
For example, Tinley Park reports paying health insurance costs of $2,009,540 for 100 full-time Village employees (excluding police/fire) in 2015-16. Instead, if a defined-contribution of $500 per month (as an example) was provided as a benefit, the savings would be over $1.4 million in just ONE year alone! The Village of Tinley Park paid $1,605,399 in health insurance costs for 77 police department employees in 2015-16. Again, if a defined-contribution of $500 per month (as an example) was provided as a benefit instead, the savings would be over $1.14 million in just ONE year! Based on the current rates for health insurance, an individual employee could be reimbursed $250 per month and an employee with a family could receive $500 per month - the savings could be even greater depending on the amount of individual vs. family reimbursements. This type of reimbursement plan would allow the employee greater flexibility in choosing the type of health plan at the cost they want, and it would save the taxpayers millions.
There was an article that came up during our research that we have not had the time to fully investigate, but it contains interesting data for Tinley Park taxpayers to research - click here to read about large salary raises in the Village.
RETIREMENT
The Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) is not transparent regarding employee contribution rates. Actually, the data on the IMRF website regarding employer (taxpayer) contribution rates is dizzying, and provides no actual information to audit, click here to see for yourself. According to the IMRF, it is up to each municipality (and municipality division) what contribution rate it adopts. Due to the structure and risk associated with defined-benefit (pension) plans, it is in the best interest of both the employee and the Village of Tinley Park (taxpayers) to instead utilize the defined-contribution (401k) type of retirement structure. Due impossible fiscal sustainability of defined-benefit pensions, the Village should instead move public employees to a guaranteed and protected defined-contribution retirement system. It makes the most sense for both the employee and the taxpayer.
Furthermore, keep in mind that Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) recipients of "pension salaries" will ALSO receive Social Security benefits. See the information from the IMRF here. Also check out this interesting article about the IMRF "stealth pension tax".
Because we cannot currently locate the variable contribution rates for the municipal employees in Tinley Park, it is difficult to distinguish the IMRF contributions made by the Village (taxpayer) to each employee. Based on the FY2015-16 Village of Tinley Park compensation report, the Village (taxpayers) pay nearly 2.5 times more than the police department employees into the police IMRF accounts. The Police Dept. Employee contributions are noted on the Police pension fund report.
- Police Dept. Employee contributions: $775,000
- Village (taxpayer) contributions: $1,921,122 (2.5 times more than the employee!)
Instead of providing pension salaries, if a defined-contribution plan was in place and the Village (using taxpayer dollars) funded an amount equal to the employee contribution, the numbers would look like this: Police Department staff contributions in 2015 were $775,000. If the Village contributed $775,000 utilizing the employer-match system (that is common in private industry) the Village (taxpayers) would have saved $1.14 million dollars in just ONE year, in just ONE Village department.
HEALTH INSURANCE
As Forbes reports, due to the rising costs of health insurance, many small businesses and even large employers are providing their employees with a fixed-cost health insurance stipend or a fixed-cost health insurance reimbursement plan, instead of traditional employer provided health insurance. In fact, it is projected that by 2017 the majority of all small businesses will utilize the defined-contribution stipend/reimbursement method as a health insurance benefit, and in the next 10 years 90% of ALL businesses will drop offering health insurance. To alleviate the "unknown" in health insurance costs year after year, many businesses now provide a stipend (allowance) or defined reimbursement plan for employees to purchase their own insurance. THIS IS A GREAT POSSIBILITY TO IMMEDIATELY SAVE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING A WAY TO BUDGET AND PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, PROVIDING MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES WITH DEFINED-CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT, IN LIEU OF PAYING A PERCENTAGE OF INSURANCE COSTS.
For example, Tinley Park reports paying health insurance costs of $2,009,540 for 100 full-time Village employees (excluding police/fire) in 2015-16. Instead, if a defined-contribution of $500 per month (as an example) was provided as a benefit, the savings would be over $1.4 million in just ONE year alone! The Village of Tinley Park paid $1,605,399 in health insurance costs for 77 police department employees in 2015-16. Again, if a defined-contribution of $500 per month (as an example) was provided as a benefit instead, the savings would be over $1.14 million in just ONE year! Based on the current rates for health insurance, an individual employee could be reimbursed $250 per month and an employee with a family could receive $500 per month - the savings could be even greater depending on the amount of individual vs. family reimbursements. This type of reimbursement plan would allow the employee greater flexibility in choosing the type of health plan at the cost they want, and it would save the taxpayers millions.
There was an article that came up during our research that we have not had the time to fully investigate, but it contains interesting data for Tinley Park taxpayers to research - click here to read about large salary raises in the Village.
Village "Commitments"
It's nauseating seeing some of the deals our Village has made, which they call "commitments"... listed below is a 8 page overview of these "commitments" as documented through the Village's annual report to Cook County. These "commitments" have cost TAXPAYERS millions in revenue.
Source: Cook County Treasurer Village of Tinley Park 2015 Report. See Pages 105-112 if looking by source.
Evidence of Village Wrongdoing
- There is a class-action lawsuit against the Village to recover $2 million in red light fines it failed to collect from politically connected businesses and individuals.
- The Accrued Liability of the Police Pension Fund doubled in 7 years to 23.8 million dollars, and no action has been taken by the Village to control these outrageous costs.
- According to the Cook County Treasurer, the Unfunded Pension Liabilities of the Village of Tinley Park were over 53 million dollars at the fiscal end of 2015. The Village pension account is 40% unfunded. Is the Village doing anything to restructure the system and control costs? Click here to see a PDF page view of the summarized data.
- There is a report that the Village owes $47.9 million for a “Pension and Healthcare Shortage” due to a major failure of duty of the Village board.
- Retired Mayor, Ed Zabrocki, and the Village Board failed residents for years with no-bid contracts, costing taxpayers millions. One major failure is with a politically connected no-bid contract with a garbage disposal company. And here is a link to the Chicago Tribune article highlighting the corruption in the Village. To date, the Village STILL does not appear to utilize the bidding process as it should.
- Here are three more articles regarding the no-bid culture in Tinley Park... (1) the political insider's print shop, (2) the local florist, (3) Pizza man's clout wins big dough in Tinley Park. These are just to name a few.
- There is a class-action lawsuit against the Village regarding its use of faulty water meters, which over-charged residents. The alleged gross negligence of the Village is highlighted in the lawsuit, which can be read here.
- Tinley Park is sued for unpaid ambulance service bill; this article contains other interesting information.
- Tinley Park is sued for alleged Illegal actions of the Village.
- The Attorney General finds the Village of Tinley Park in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
- There is a Change.org petition with residents petitioning for a transparent government!
We will do our best to stay on top of the scandalous activities of the Village.
*Here's a great idea*
All public servants in a position of managing taxpayer funds, spending/purchasing, budgeting, Village planning, and other roles that have a direct effect on the community's taxpayers, should be REQUIRED to individually obtain and maintain PERSONAL LIABILITY insurance. Their job contracts should also hold them personally responsible for any fraud and misconduct. Any liability costs of litigation and recovery of taxpayer funds should be billable to the perpetrator if found guilty of illegal or unethical activity. This is a common sense approach to protecting taxpaying residents from any harm caused by the misconduct, fraud or other illegal activities committed by a public servant. This type of insurance coverage and contractual agreement would protect taxpayers and also hinder illegal activities by public servants - whom are aware that they are personally responsible for their actions.
The Village of Land Planners
The village of Tinley Park has hired multiple firms regarding the development of land at the site of the old Tinley Park Mental Health Center campus. Taxpayer funds are paying a least 7 different planning firms hundreds of thousands of dollars to look into ways to develop property which the village DOES NOT OWN. At the TAXPAYERS EXPENSE, the village has hired:
Village Officials believe that if they have a plan on developing this property that they would be able to purchase the land (at the taxpayer's expense) without taxpayer approval. Besides a hefty purchase price, it is estimated to cost over an additional $12 million dollars just to clean the asbestos and contaminants at the site. The Village has indicated that they'd like to find a developer that would cover the cost of land remediation, which we assume was mentioned to diffuse public outrage over the project. Does anyone actually believe that a developer paying for land remediation costs would not pass the expense through to the land parcel purchasers, builders, buyers, etc.?
There are a lot of big ideas that politicians can come up with, but the problem is that TAXPAYERS are the on the hook for the bills and liabilities. Where is the line drawn in a government's role? Is land planning, purchasing and development really a necessary role for a municipality? With property taxes as high as they are, spending more of OUR money is the last thing we want our village doing. The postcards mailed to residents at TAXPAYER cost for a pet project of the Village board is pure WASTE. The Village is spending money discussing land which it does not own. To date, residents have received at least 3 large post cards over a project for STATE OWNED property that the village is interested in buying with TAXPAYER funds. How much taxpayer dollars has the Village spent with planning firms, on the advertising campaign and public meetings regarding this project so far?
Back in 2014 the approved contract for just ONE planning firm was estimated at $105,800, and we count the Village using 7 planning firms, as listed in various reports. This is just the cost of the IDEAS. Notice in the 2014 article above, the Village underestimated the land remediation cost at $6 million - In 2016 the estimated cost is DOUBLE, $12 million estimated land remediation cost. According to articles we found on hospital and other contaminated commercial sites cleanup, costs were in the range of $75 million to $200 million. Community residents must be aware of hazardous waste sites and the threats and costs they present. Even Tinley's retired Mayor considers the Old State Mental Hospital an "Environmental Nightmare". Details on the TPMHC facility/closure can be read here.
As of July 2016, Tinley Park is looking to hire an additional consultant on a sports complex feasibility study.
- Farr and Associates (land use and development, also operates the website and facebook page regarding the project for the village)
- SB Friedman (market analysis and developer outreach)
- Sam Schwartz (pedestrian and bike planning)
- Hey and Associates (hydrology and ecology analysis)
- Wetlands Research Inc.
- Robinson Engineering (cost estimating)
- Site Design Group (landscape and architecture)
Village Officials believe that if they have a plan on developing this property that they would be able to purchase the land (at the taxpayer's expense) without taxpayer approval. Besides a hefty purchase price, it is estimated to cost over an additional $12 million dollars just to clean the asbestos and contaminants at the site. The Village has indicated that they'd like to find a developer that would cover the cost of land remediation, which we assume was mentioned to diffuse public outrage over the project. Does anyone actually believe that a developer paying for land remediation costs would not pass the expense through to the land parcel purchasers, builders, buyers, etc.?
There are a lot of big ideas that politicians can come up with, but the problem is that TAXPAYERS are the on the hook for the bills and liabilities. Where is the line drawn in a government's role? Is land planning, purchasing and development really a necessary role for a municipality? With property taxes as high as they are, spending more of OUR money is the last thing we want our village doing. The postcards mailed to residents at TAXPAYER cost for a pet project of the Village board is pure WASTE. The Village is spending money discussing land which it does not own. To date, residents have received at least 3 large post cards over a project for STATE OWNED property that the village is interested in buying with TAXPAYER funds. How much taxpayer dollars has the Village spent with planning firms, on the advertising campaign and public meetings regarding this project so far?
Back in 2014 the approved contract for just ONE planning firm was estimated at $105,800, and we count the Village using 7 planning firms, as listed in various reports. This is just the cost of the IDEAS. Notice in the 2014 article above, the Village underestimated the land remediation cost at $6 million - In 2016 the estimated cost is DOUBLE, $12 million estimated land remediation cost. According to articles we found on hospital and other contaminated commercial sites cleanup, costs were in the range of $75 million to $200 million. Community residents must be aware of hazardous waste sites and the threats and costs they present. Even Tinley's retired Mayor considers the Old State Mental Hospital an "Environmental Nightmare". Details on the TPMHC facility/closure can be read here.
As of July 2016, Tinley Park is looking to hire an additional consultant on a sports complex feasibility study.
The Tinley Park village board could determine that any dreamt up use of the land at 183rd and Harlem Avenue could be excellent use of the state owned land. The board can even find and hire multiple planning firms to support the boards' narrow vision. The problem is: a) the village doesn't own this land, b) the taxpayers didn't authorize their money to be spent on land planning, and c) the taxpayers didn't authorize the purchase of this land. The fact is, land at 183rd and Harlem Avenue is valuable commercial land. No matter what is built there, proper code will protect the village. Tax income will be derived. That's what matters! Tinley Park: Zone it, don't own it.
The cost of a land planning endeavor is not beneficial to taxpayers and any return on taxpayer investment would not be realized for many, many years (if at all). Current home and business owners paying the cost of this project are not benefiting. If private industry develops the land there is no cost to us, and the benefits would be received by us immediately. This is a no brainer - let private industry develop the land.
A must read article highlighting the issue of a $49 million dollar publicly funded sports "park" in Westfield Indiana that the residents were not able to use: Click Here to Read. That's a big red flag for Tinley Park taxpayers to be aware of. Also, the profitability of a Lisle "sports complex" hasn't come to fruition, and taxpayers are now on the hook for DEBT! Going back to the Westfield Indiana Grand Park (sports park), it is not comparable to a similar sports park in Tinley Park for multiple reasons...
- Indiana has a more favorable Personal, Property and Business Tax Climate than Illinois. See the report here.
- Indiana has no prevailing wage law. Illinois does, which means labor costs in Illinois are much higher than in Indiana.
- Indiana has lower insurance costs, including workers compensation insurance.
- Westfield Indiana is a more affluent city than Tinley Park. Westfield residents have a higher income, more disposable income and a lower cost of living. See the report here.
- Westfield Indiana did not have to contend with the costs of a hazardous site cleanup before building the 400 acre sports park.
Something more for residents to consider... even as Tinley Park gained businesses, like the shopping area at 191st and Harlem Avenue (Target, Best Buy, PetSmart, Kohls, etc.), our property taxes have NOT gone down! Our property taxes did not go down after the Tinley Park Convention Center was built, and our taxes have not gone down having a Music Venue, hotels and other amenities and industry in our village. Furthermore, our property taxes have not gone down with the expansion of video gambling throughout town. The problem is obviously not in attracting more business to the area, the problem is out of control spending by our Village and Schools. It's also worth noting that even though a building or property is vacant, someone is STILL paying property taxes on that lot. It's not a matter of property or sales tax income being needed on vacant properties. It's a matter of too much spending in local government.
Based on our outrageous property taxes it's apparent that the Village cannot operate a reasonable budget. We certainly don't want this same Village managing OUR money on a large project that we don't need. Just like families in this community have to balance their budgets on the "what do we need vs. what do we want" determination, this village needs to start abiding by the same.
Private industry exists to serve residents with what they want and need. We don't need our "tax dollar managers" using OUR money to figure this out. No private industry would build something a community does not want or need. Private industry does market studies before developing property. The sky will not fall if Tinley relinquishes control or manipulation of this land.
More on the TPMHC Development in the News:
Unverifiable "Economic Impact"
There is no way to truly calculate "economic impact" studies that developers and planners like to tout when "selling" an idea or concept. Many reports have been passed around town regarding other community funded developments and the multi-year "economic impact" it has on the community. "Economic impact" is not direct revenue to one venue, it's a compilation of revenue projections within a general area. "Economic impact" estimates are difficult to track and nearly impossible to verify.
Articles on [unverifiable] economic impact:
Speaking of "economic impact", what is the "economic impact" of the Tinley Park music venue (Hollywood Casino Amphitheater)? Furthermore, what would the traffic impact be with the music venue and the addition of another large venue at 183rd and Harlem? The music venue ties up traffic for hours on weekends and during events.
Lastly, while reviewing revenue projections, economic impact studies and articles on other developments, it's important to understand the difference between revenue and income. It takes a LOT more than an economic impact or revenue projection article to truly understand the economics of various businesses and organizations.
Articles on [unverifiable] economic impact:
Speaking of "economic impact", what is the "economic impact" of the Tinley Park music venue (Hollywood Casino Amphitheater)? Furthermore, what would the traffic impact be with the music venue and the addition of another large venue at 183rd and Harlem? The music venue ties up traffic for hours on weekends and during events.
Lastly, while reviewing revenue projections, economic impact studies and articles on other developments, it's important to understand the difference between revenue and income. It takes a LOT more than an economic impact or revenue projection article to truly understand the economics of various businesses and organizations.
Village Planning FAILS
The dilapidated property around town is plenty of evidence of village planning gone wrong - we don't need any more big ideas from the board. In case anybody needs a reminder of past big ideas (some which have been taxpayer funded by millions) that have failed, here are just a few:
How about Tinley Park's gross underestimation ($1 million short!) on the cost of a retention pond, and then their failure to follow through on the agreement made with Orland Hills? OR how about Tinley Park investing taxpayer dollars into a PRIVATE business, which is not as successful as anticipated... or as "sold" to taxpayers. Here's even more on that private business deal, which includes a link to the contract.
Furthermore, even though this "project" somehow passed approval in the Village, check out this large, gaudy sign the Village Park District spent $25,000 taxpayer dollars on for a DOG PARK! Seriously... "Residents are right to be mad about Tinley Park dog park arch" ...and it could cost another $3,500 to remove the arch and leave the gaudy columns. Apparently, the Village wanted to make it clear that the road ended into a dog park, so motorists would not drive into the park and the "jurassic park sign" was determined by commissioners to be the best bet? Wouldn't it have been safer, cheaper and more reasonable to put a few concrete pillars or install a standard metal barricade at the end of the road?
Currently, decaying properties and vacant land is sitting in place, due to a village board that is holding out for developers to come in and build what suits their narrow vision. The village should allow private developers the ability to build what is suitable and needed by residents. We're not sure where the Village board is going when transitioning from high end retail, expensive apartments, and parking garage amenities/attractions, to rowhouses and then low-income housing. This Village needs to let residents and businesses determine the vision for their own community. The ideas in which the board has found fitting have not only been protested by the local residents, but the ideas have not come to fruition because the market does not need it.
The Village board needs to stop playing Monopoly with taxpayer money.
Rolling the dice on a taxpayer-funded development at 183rd and Harlem Avenue (or any other property in the Village) isn't an opportunity for taxpayers. It's a gamble, a major gamble. Changing the system that created this problem is the opportunity. Actually, it's revolutionary. The entire system of our municipalities and school districts need to be restructured into a fiscally responsible structure.
- The Boulevard at Central Station
- Tinley Park Roundabout Project
- Downtown Rowhouses Project
- More Rowhouses
How about Tinley Park's gross underestimation ($1 million short!) on the cost of a retention pond, and then their failure to follow through on the agreement made with Orland Hills? OR how about Tinley Park investing taxpayer dollars into a PRIVATE business, which is not as successful as anticipated... or as "sold" to taxpayers. Here's even more on that private business deal, which includes a link to the contract.
Furthermore, even though this "project" somehow passed approval in the Village, check out this large, gaudy sign the Village Park District spent $25,000 taxpayer dollars on for a DOG PARK! Seriously... "Residents are right to be mad about Tinley Park dog park arch" ...and it could cost another $3,500 to remove the arch and leave the gaudy columns. Apparently, the Village wanted to make it clear that the road ended into a dog park, so motorists would not drive into the park and the "jurassic park sign" was determined by commissioners to be the best bet? Wouldn't it have been safer, cheaper and more reasonable to put a few concrete pillars or install a standard metal barricade at the end of the road?
Currently, decaying properties and vacant land is sitting in place, due to a village board that is holding out for developers to come in and build what suits their narrow vision. The village should allow private developers the ability to build what is suitable and needed by residents. We're not sure where the Village board is going when transitioning from high end retail, expensive apartments, and parking garage amenities/attractions, to rowhouses and then low-income housing. This Village needs to let residents and businesses determine the vision for their own community. The ideas in which the board has found fitting have not only been protested by the local residents, but the ideas have not come to fruition because the market does not need it.
The Village board needs to stop playing Monopoly with taxpayer money.
Rolling the dice on a taxpayer-funded development at 183rd and Harlem Avenue (or any other property in the Village) isn't an opportunity for taxpayers. It's a gamble, a major gamble. Changing the system that created this problem is the opportunity. Actually, it's revolutionary. The entire system of our municipalities and school districts need to be restructured into a fiscally responsible structure.
Questions we have:
- Why are full-time village positions compensated at 3-4 times the rate of part-time village positions?
- Why are part-time village positions income the same as the yearly income of Tinley Park residents?
- Why do village salaries exceed free market salaries and the local cost of living?
- Why do the benefits provided to village employees exceed free market benefits packages?
- Why aren't village employees required to pay more towards their pension and health care costs?
- Why doesn't the Village transfer from a pension system to a defined-contribution 401k retirement account like the private sector uses? It would save taxpayers millions!
- Why aren't health insurance stipends or defined-benefit contributions towards public employee health insurance implemented in place of employer (taxpayer) paid health insurance? This would save taxpayers millions too!
- Why is village employee compensation 2-5 times the per capita income of Tinley Park residents, who pay the taxes that fund these salaries and benefits?
- Why has Village spending increased by more than 55% in less than 10 years when the population has not changed?
- The village is contradicting... they collect data on resident income, net worth, budgets, and even average salaries, but their spending habits defy the data. Why is this?
- Why does the village hire outside planning, development and contracting firms? Is this a necessary and ethical use of taxpayer dollars?
- Why does our village involve itself (and it taxpayers) in real estate planning and development? Is this the role of our local government?
- Why does Tinley Park have five TIF districts when comparably populated communities of Orland Park and Oak Lawn only have one?
- Why does Tinley Park pay a "bench coordinator" $19,000 per year? Couldn't one of the other highly compensated village employees manage to "coordinate benches" a few times a year?
- Why does Tinley Park have 6 accountants on staff that cost taxpayers over half a million dollars per year? Couldn't an outside firm provide tax and accounting services for much less?
- Why does the entire Tinley Park staff of 71 full-time police officers each average an annual compensation of $132,500? In a low-crime, sleepy suburban community, this is a very high average compensation for police officers.
- Why has the Accrued Liability of the Police Pension Fund doubled in 7 years to 23.8 million dollars? What is Tinley Park doing to control this unsustainable expense?
- The unfunded pension piabilities of the Village of Tinley Park were over 53 million dollars at the fiscal end of 2015. The Village pension account is beyond 40% unfunded. Is the Village doing anything to restructure the system and control costs?
- What does the Village owe for the for the 13 years it hasn’t paid into the IMRF (municipal retirement fund) for eligible firefighters? Click here to read a Tinley Sparks article.
- According to Cook County, the Village owes $47.9 million for a “Pension and Healthcare Shortage”. Why hasn't the Village board been held accountable for the inaction on a very important and costly issue that will saddle residents of Tinley with more debt?
- Why does Tinley Park allow off-duty use of village provided cars? Isn't that a major liability and unnecessary cost to taxpayers?
- Why does Tinley Park have planning coordinators, what is their role, and why are they given taxpayer provided cars?
- Why doesn't Tinley Park have many RFP requests on their site? Shouldn't our village want to save taxpayer money by opening bids for products and services? If this village spends tens and even hundreds of thousands per month on expenses, surely costs can be cut everywhere.
- Why isn't the bidding process utilized frequently by the Village to guarantee cost savings to taxpayers?
- Why wouldn't our village opt to outsource work to private firms to save the village costs of salaries and pensions?
- Why do we need overlapping taxing bodies? If Evanston and Belleville IL can dissolve an unneeded and unnecessary township, why can't we?
- How does Tinley Park spend the money that comes from red light cameras and video gaming machines?
- Why is a village pensioner on the village board? Isn't that a conflict of interest?
- Tinley Park's "Home Rule Sales Tax" that "rises proportionally with inflation" impacts family budgets and local businesses. Instead, why can't this Village lower its spending habits?
- Can the Village prohibit multi-year contracts? Can all contracts be limited to ONE year (if a contract is required)?
- How can the Village approve salaries and raises for multiple years NOT knowing what the tax base will be? If there was a total economic collapse and a great depression hit the taxpayers, the Village is still obligated to cover salaries?!
Click here to read an excellent article about "Right-sizing Illinois state government payrolls", which is an excellent write-up of data that every taxpayer should read.
Be sure to also click here to review links to additional sources of data, articles and organizations that help inform all taxpaying citizens.
Contribute:
Post Guidelines: Tinley Taxpayers welcome all Tinley Park residents and businesses to contribute data, research and information to assist in the movement to have property taxes reduced through lower Village and School spending. Content posted on this page is expected to adhere to the conduct guidelines. Content that violates these guidelines is not tolerated.
Page Links:
Home Page
Property Taxes
Village of Tinley Park Data
Stop Taxpayer-funded Developments
Tinley Park Schools Data
The Reserve
Salary Graphs
Legislators
Govt. Transparency
How did we get here?
How can we fix this?
Imagine If
Who we are
TIP LINE
Taxpayer Greivances
Collaborate
Open Forum
Sources
Downloads
FAQ's
Home Page
Property Taxes
Village of Tinley Park Data
Stop Taxpayer-funded Developments
Tinley Park Schools Data
The Reserve
Salary Graphs
Legislators
Govt. Transparency
How did we get here?
How can we fix this?
Imagine If
Who we are
TIP LINE
Taxpayer Greivances
Collaborate
Open Forum
Sources
Downloads
FAQ's