Illinois Press

TUA President Jim Tobin was featured in a story from ABC 7 Chicago on the taxpayer-funded state Supreme Court renovation. To see the video, click on the player below, or go to the ABC 7 website here.


By Chuck Goudie and Ross Weidner
September 23, 2013 (WLS) — Even though Illinois is broke and the governor this month ordered a halt to rehabbing the Illinois Capitol, the ABC7 I-Team has uncovered some pricey construction still going full steam. The work is costing millions in tax dollars.
Illinois remains mired in a $7 billion sinkhole, and two weeks ago Governor Pat Quinn put the brakes on $50 million in state house necessities, such as new chandeliers and fancy office doors. But the I-Team has found millions more still being spent just down the street from the state Capitol, on a project state officials won’t talk about.
“It’s ridiculous,” said Pat Gardner, Bolingbrook resident.
Pat Gardner is one taxpayer so aggravated about state spending she asked to talk to the I-Team, and when we showed her video you’re about to see, she was irate.
“It has to be investigated because we deserve an answer, we are the taxpayers,” said Gardner.
And it is taxpayers putting out $16 million on a facelift for the century-old state Supreme Court building. The overhaul is part of Governor Quinn’s “Illinois Jobs Now” program.
“This is such a waste of taxpayer money,” said Jim Tobin, Taxpayers United for America.
State officials backed out of an I-Team interview after a recent uproar about the $50 million Capitol renovation down the street. But they did allow the I-Team to inspect how taxpayer money is being spent here in the Supreme Court.
Inside, we found rooms gutted and walls being restored to their historic origin at a cost of nearly half a million dollars. Original historic light fixtures have all been removed and are being cleaned and restored or replaced.
You’re also paying to purchase a brand-new marble pedestal to raise this statue of Abraham Lincoln from the floor to eye-level.
And then there is this: the toilet rooms. During a financial crisis, your tax money is being spent to restore the courthouse toilet rooms to how they looked 100 years ago.
“It’s a scam perpetrated on the taxpayers, I mean, restoring historic toilet rooms to their original look? Who cares?” said Tobin.
This private anteroom behind the Supreme Court chambers used to only have one chandelier. Now, the state is purchasing two more historic copies. The renovation’s “miscellaneous specialties” include restoring these historic tapestries, murals, and replacing this decorative glass in a stairwell ceiling.
“People are paying higher taxes to finance this waste and extravagance,” said Tobin.
In a statement late Monday, Illinois officials insist the renovation is mainly for vital heating and cooling systems, fire protection and security measures that “saves taxpayer money in operating costs.” They say renovations on old buildings are best done all at one time for “historical accuracy with modern function.”
The ABC7 I-Team found some of the money is being used to makeover a place the public can’t even go and probably never knew existed: a private, penthouse residence for Supreme Court justices, where they may live while court is in session. The main hallway is being restored to its historical glory.
“Fifty million dollars spent on the west wing of the state Capitol, here’s another 15, 16 million dollars spent to renovate the IL Supreme Court building, that’s all pork,” said Tobin.
For taxpayer Pat Gardner, the talk– and the hammering– should stop.
“Who’s minding the store? Who’s running the state? Who’s signing off on this stuff?” said Gardner.
The renovation was in the works for years according to state officials and they say financed with bonds that can’t be used to pay regular bills. During the remodeling the court is meeting in Chicago, the first time since 1908 that justices have convened outside Springfield.
Additional information:
Project Plans
Project bid advertisement
Breakdown of Historic Preservation:

• $230,858 (Exterior doors & windows  included custom paint, grill restoration and other related misc)

• $156,371 (Partitions & interior door / glazing / hardware / window treatments)

• $107,485 (Floor finishes)

• $26,701 (Base finishes)

• $488,052 (Wall finishes)

• $1,075 (Ceiling finishes)

• $146,117(Miscellaneous specialties)

• $56,345 (Misc built-in cabinetwork)

• $54,650 (Site Preparation)

• $15,441 (Electrical Demo)

• $401,044 (Lighting)

• $30,000 (Conduit, wire, receptacles etc.–estimated)

Estimated Total Historic Preservation Cost: $1,714,139

TUA’s commentary on a new “rain tax” in DuPage County was featured in an article at Daily Herald.
It could take years for DuPage County officials to decide whether to impose a stormwater utility fee on every landowner in the county — but some residents already are organizing to oppose the idea.
More than 30 people staged a protest Tuesday night in front of the county administration building in response to a new state law giving DuPage the ability to charge property owners a fee to help pay for countywide efforts to control stormwater runoff.
The protesters who lined County Farm Road in Wheaton carried umbrellas and homemade signs that referred to the proposed fee as a “rain tax.” A government watchdog group issued a statement before the protest urging taxpayers to contact DuPage politicians.
“This bizarre bill allows ‘stormwater utility fees’ on all properties in DuPage County, including homes, businesses, schools, churches and forest preserves,” said Jim Tobin, president of the Chicago-based Taxpayers United of America. “This could be the largest tax increase in DuPage County history.”
The proposed fee would charge property owners based on use, similar to gas or water bills. Those who have more stormwater leaving their land would pay a higher fee. Anyone with land producing less stormwater runoff would pay a lower fee.
DuPage officials say the idea would make it possible for stormwater costs to be removed from property tax bills. They claim it could save homeowners money because every land owner in the county would have to pay it, including those who currently contribute nothing because they don’t pay property taxes.
However, opponents who took their complaints to Tuesday night’s county board meeting said the fee would put an undue burden on schools, churches, nonprofits and other tax-exempt entities.
“The people don’t want a stormwater fee on their property,” said resident Tom Sutton, who lives in Wayne. “This fee is unfair.”
Wheaton resident Janet Shaw questioned the county’s ability to accurately determine the amount of stormwater runoff individual residential properties are producing.
She also said it wouldn’t help land owners to encourage them to install expensive “green” infrastructures on their properties to reduce their fee.
“The whole thing makes no sense at all,” she said. “Nobody in this county wants it.”
Jim Zay, chairman of the county board’s stormwater committee, said it’s “very premature” for stormwater fee opponents to lobby the board because it could take two years before a final vote happens.
“We’re going to have an open process,” Zay said. “There’s a big timeline on this.”
He said nothing will happen until after a feasibility study is done to determine what stormwater needs exist in DuPage and how much it would cost to address them.
Feedback also would be sought from municipalities, businesses, community groups, residents and others.
“As far as we’re concerned, we’re far away from finding out what’s going on,” Zay said.
Even if the stormwater fee is adopted, DuPage would spend two years doing public outreach and education before sending out the first bill.