Riverside Info Tag: budget

Riverside Info Tag: budget http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Discussion Forum for Riverside Illinois en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:25:53 +0000 Villae Lifer on "Money Saving Idea for the Village" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/money-saving-idea-for-the-village#post-14603 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:13:01 +0000 Villae Lifer 14603@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ DKing and Ben Sells, you both have a valid idea on the Fire District. However, in this area there are a few problems that need to be overcome. First of all, many of the departments in this area are full-time and unionized, whose members would fight this idea to their death. The only town that is like Riverside(POC) is Lyons. A district would also have to deal with staffing issues, currently Riverside nor Lyons is not staffed 24-hrs a day, the firefighters are called out from home in the middle of the night and respond as such. In a district, the POC format would not work as well. A district would have to be staffed around the clock, thus creating more financial burden on the taxpayer. Secondly, yes a district becomes its own taxing body, but in order to be successful the tax payers would need to support any tax increments that would arise. We all saw how well RBHS just did. Chris Robling- Yes, Mayor Sandack pulled Downers Grove in consolidated dispatch, however, Du Page Communications(Du-Com) was already a well established communications center since the 1970's. All Sandack did, was convince his unionized dispatchers to move locations into Gledale Heights and answer calls for more municipalities other than just DG. The reason why, the dispatcher union did not fight the move was because Du-Com offered all of the Downers employees job-transfer abilities. Many of them recieved pay increases. I feel consolidation is an interesting idea, however, it is not as easy as 1-2-3.... chrisrobling on "Money Saving Idea for the Village" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/money-saving-idea-for-the-village#post-14602 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:47:58 +0000 chrisrobling 14602@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ a-men, ben. as a resource, i recommend downers grove outgoing mayor ron sandack. he is now a state senator, i think covering the rep. nybo corner of town, and he pulled off a 911 consolidation out in downers very successfully. best, c bensells on "Money Saving Idea for the Village" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/money-saving-idea-for-the-village#post-14601 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:37:52 +0000 bensells 14601@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Dking -- thank you. This is an idea that has been explored often in the past, and one that I have repeatedly brought up as Trustee. The problem typically has been getting other neighboring municipalities to seriously consider the option; many communities have a very propietary feeling about their fire (and police) departments. The current Village Board has been looking into the idea again, and with the economic constraints now affecting all municipalities maybe the idea will have a better chance of gaining some traction. It is definitely worth pursuing as I feel there is significant, and costly, overlap among local fire departments. mrt on "Money Saving Idea for the Village" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/money-saving-idea-for-the-village#post-14598 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:02:07 +0000 mrt 14598@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Dking, send it up to the <a href="http://www.riverside.il.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={18AAC31A-CF58-4391-93AB-8CEFFE43E23C}">village trustees</a> . To me, sounds like a good idea to explore. anonymous on "Money Saving Idea for the Village" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/money-saving-idea-for-the-village#post-14596 Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:09:08 +0000 anonymous 14596@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Sounds good to me. I think any time we can pool our resources, such as fire protection district and even a combined recreation department, it's a good idea. it's time. DKing on "Money Saving Idea for the Village" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/money-saving-idea-for-the-village#post-14584 Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:22:24 +0000 DKing 14584@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ After living in the village now for two years and watching the operations of the Village of Riverside I I think I know how the village could save some money. With the Village of Riverside being without a fire chief now would be the time to look at forming a fire protection district and combining the resources of all of the surrounding towns/villages. This would free up the Riverside Fire Departments portion of the village budget. The new fire protection district would then become its own taxing body. This is just a thought, what does anyone else think? spatny on "RB Referendum" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/rb-referendum/page/12#post-14436 Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:53:18 +0000 spatny 14436@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ I think this helps to explain why the referendum failed so miserably. I found this on the Suburban life website: "According to recently released U.S. Census data, Riverside’s vacancy rate nearly doubled between 2000 and 2010. The number of vacant housing units in the village jumped from 116 to 228, or from 3.2 percent of all homes to 6.2 percent. The census data puts a hard, reliable number behind the recent bust in the housing market. Data also shows that the problem hasn’t turned around just yet — a 2009 estimate from the Census Bureau showed 222 vacancies, six fewer than were found last year. “The Riverside area has never experienced that before,” said Bob Eby, past president of the West Towns Board of Realtors. “This is an area that wasn’t getting a lot of foreclosures in the past, but now it’s getting few more.” mrt on "RB Referendum" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/rb-referendum/page/12#post-14417 Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:08:30 +0000 mrt 14417@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Here is another exchange on the Landmark site offering a hint of some possible way out, a bit more nuanced than simply 'aye/nay', or across the board cuts in teacher comps or in programming, so that there is a win for the students, the taxpayers, the teachers, and , the community. It recalls PAR4's 'social experiment' above, too. <a href="http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=7365" rel="nofollow">http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=7365</a> <blockquote>Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2011 Article comment by: otherside @It Didn't: Again, you are asking that teacher taking a cut from 125 to 100 to acquiesce to losing $2000 bucks a month when we're not willing to lose $35-50 a month. Moreover, if those teachers agreed to that cut, they'd be sacrificing tons of future earning by dumping their pensions. I don't think it's realistic to expect that the union would vote to do that. More likely is to encourage some senior teachers into early retirement. I agree with you there. Of course, when I tried to suggest the merits of early retirement (which you echo), Mr. Slinkman shouted that early retirement was a "SCAM!" and Zorro shouted that it was "SMOKE AND MIRRORS!" That said, I agree with you on early retirement. Hopefully the cuts will be a little less painful because some veteran teachers choose that pathway. Regardless, I agree with you in the sense that - given the failed referendum - the board and union and administration have more talking to do. I don't think that will absolve us, as the community, of the need to do our part as well if we want to maintain a reasonable school. Posted: Saturday, April 09, 2011 Article comment by: It didn't have to come to this @otherside, So, instead of ALL RB teachers 'sacrificing' with a pay reduction that AFTERWARD would still pay them $6,000 a month, the union SACRIFICED their lowest seniority teachers. Is that what you're acknowledging??? Once again, you fail to understand that in this economy it's about KEEPING your job, not KEEPING every last penny of your "CONTRACT" salary and benefits. (Just ask the RIF'd people at RB) A better proposal would have been some kind of 'step' (I know teachers LIKE that word because it usually means more money to them!!) DECREASE in salary. While I don't have access to what the teachers and staff are CURRENTLY making (otherside, maybe you can help us out there with some up-to-the-minute numbers) I will just use some generalities...though I do so at the risk of otherside finding some flaw in my generalities as she tends to take things too literally. The teachers union could have offered something like a 20% pay cut for those making $100,000 or more, BUT with a floor of $90,000. That means someone making $125,000 would see their salary go down 20% to $100,000 but someone making $100,000 would see their salary go down to $90,000. (the floor for those earning at least $100,000). Then those earning between $90,000 and $100,000 would see a 15% salary decrease, with a floor of $85,000. Those earning between $75,000 and $90,000 would see a 10% salary decrease, with a floor of $70,000. Those earning between $55,000 and $75,000 would see a 5% salary decrease, with a floor of $55,000. (So anyone making exactly $55,000 would not see any salary reduction). Then of course, all those earning less than $55,000 would also not see a salary reduction. Certainly if something like this had been proposed by the union, along with some CPI formula for future pay increases, the voters might have had a different view toward passing the referendum. The percentages and "steps" I outlined certainly could have been tweaked by someone with access to the real 2011 numbers, but at least you get some idea of how it would work. Would this have caused several (many, or maybe ALL) of the teachers and administrators in the $120,000 and up salary category to quickly submit their retirement papers in order to protect their $100,000 a year pensions??? Perhaps...no, make that PROBABLY. I don't see a problem in that, only a benefit. At that point, the "average" salary for an RB teacher would drop down dramatically. Call it serendipity or call it a balanced budget. Posted: Saturday, April 09, 2011 Article comment by: otherside @It Didn't: In order for the teachers to have "saved everyone else," they would have had to take 20% paycuts across the board. With RB's average salary, that's $1500 a month. If we're not willing to pay $35-$50 a month, even when we know it will affect our children and our home values, why would you think teachers would be ready to give up $1500 a month? It's not realistic and it's a cheap shot at the teachers. </blockquote> mrt on "RB Referendum" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/rb-referendum/page/11#post-14416 Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:38:42 +0000 mrt 14416@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ NO excuse for that kind of stuff. Also, if one would listen to some of chrisroblings statements, one would understand that he is a great ally in building a better RbHS, including a revenue increase - done in the right manner. I hope we still have chrisR as an ally in making RB 'the best school of its size', as he has been heard to say often. But it shows that this issue aroused some passions. However, there were probably some people who voted either way without giving it much thought. Before the referendum election, I heard people who just assumed it would pass, and were aghast when I expressed doubts that it would pass (due to the economy). These people had kids in the system- at RB, or on the way - and were please with what was going on, and understood the need for a revenue increase to maintain this. They came to this area for the schools. They also were solidly at their jobs. I also heard anti tax people who would not vote for a referendum ever - anything more than a one room school house was too much. Here is a sample of a more modulated and thought out comment in the Landmark. I found this place (landmark comments) from a post in this forum by chrisrobling. Curiously, the post he pointed me to was full of anti referendum vitriol and SHOUTING. However, if you weed through the posts in that space, every once in a while you can find something more moderate, both pro and anti referendum. <blockquote> <a href="http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?TypeID=1&ArticleID=7389&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&Page=4">Posted: Saturday, April 09, 2011</a> Article comment by: Stewardship Now that the RB community has spoken and the new board will be installed May 3rd. What is the mandate? All the community said was do not raise our taxes, so with that said, I think by answering the following questions, we may help the board with its’ agenda. 1) Is the school the central pillar of the community? Yes or no and why? 2) The mission statement reads: <blockquote>Riverside Brookfield High School is a partnership of parents, students, staff, Board of Education, elementary schools and community. This academic partnership will provide a comprehensive education in a safe, orderly, well-equipped environment. All students will be prepared with the intellectual, aesthetic, vocational, physical, personal and social skills necessary to be responsible and effective members of a diverse and changing world. Adopted September 2008 </blockquote> The questions are: Will the board stay true to its’ mission statement? If yes, how? If no, what and when will a new mission statement be written and implemented? 3) There was some very nasty language directed as some community members and the faculty. How does the board intend to heal the wounds caused by what was written in the blogs? 4) What will the board’s relationship be with the teachers? Acrimonious and adversarial, or collegial and collaborative? I am serious about this. As a community, I think we should consider these questions and help give the board its’ mandate. There are only X amount of dollars available, what and how is the best way to spend them while still being true to the mission statement. </blockquote> ChrisHajer on "RB Referendum" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/rb-referendum/page/11#post-14414 Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:53:34 +0000 ChrisHajer 14414@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Seriously? Anti-referendum figure's home egged Election-night incident tied to son of referendum supporter <a href="http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=7402&TM=47688.17" rel="nofollow">http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=7402&TM=47688.17</a>