http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Discussion Forum for Riverside Illinois en Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:08:44 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/6#post-10270 Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:01:13 +0000 Catherine 10270@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Yes, we know what you think, if you want to elevate your process by referring to it that way.</p> <p>It seems you are never at meetings because I never hear these remarks at any of them. Why don't you appear in public with the questions and observations you regularly post here. Call them out if you think there are inconsistencies. That would be more admirable and useful, I think. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/6#post-10252 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:54:40 +0000 commonsense 10252@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Well Catherine,</p> <blockquote><p>Speaking of lower, do you have anything constructive to contribute? They also serve who criticize, but not who lie, twist meaning, or deliberately mislead people in order to do it. </p></blockquote> <p>I've been thinking the same thing about the RCA since I began getting these mailers 6 months ago. </p> <p>Tony - What happened at the public input meeting? I was out of town and did not attend. Lonnie commented that the Village does have a revenue problem? Catherine, see what I mean? </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/6#post-10251 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:37:10 +0000 Catherine 10251@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Are you really now trying to say they said they would decrease taxes? This has been tried already. They said they are the party that stands for lower taxes, meaning they are the people who spearheaded the effort to defeat the tax increase. No one in town ever got the impression their taxes were going to be lowered.</p> <p>Speaking of lower, do you have anything constructive to contribute? They also serve who criticize, but not who lie, twist meaning, or deliberately mislead people in order to do it. Sometimes you are able to make substantive contributions to discussions, but you go off the rails where RCA is concerned. We get that you don't like them. Many people think you are a caucus candidate. I don't. Soon we could find out. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/5#post-10250 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:32:41 +0000 TonyM 10250@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Catherine - Let's say I run into you at Grumpy's just as you are about to pay for a cup of coffee. You realize that you left your money at home and you ask me to loan you the money for the coffee. You pay me back later that day. Did I really buy you that cup of coffee? The same exact thing is happening with the lot. </p> <p>The Parking Lot Fund does run a negative balance some years because of planned work on the lots. Revenue forecasts for that fund are not based on a year by year model - they are looked at and projects are planned for over multi-year periods. Mr. Wachtel is paid to make sure that the numbers are there to support such projects and the rates were adjusted to make sure that the revenue is there to pay the loan. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/5#post-10249 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:30:49 +0000 commonsense 10249@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Catherine - I stand corrected, they actually did say they will lower taxes without sacrificing services to residents. Here's a link to one of the flyers:</p> <p><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l1oze3ipq-c/SYnbMUhe1dI/AAAAAAAAABk/QFqnVIXdup0/s1600-h/Picture+8.png" rel="nofollow">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l1oze3ipq-c/SYnbMUhe1dI/AAAAAAAAABk/QFqnVIXdup0/s1600-h/Picture+8.png</a></p> <p>Tony - actually they did say they would not spend reserves. </p> <blockquote><p>We’ve been asked by some people whether or not we will “spend down reserves” to address the budget. The answer is an unequivocal “no, we will not.”</p> <blockquote><p> <a href="http://www.rca2009.com/how-kevin-smith-and-the-riverside-partycaucus-depleted-our-reserves/" rel="nofollow">http://www.rca2009.com/how-kevin-smith-and-the-riverside-partycaucus-depleted-our-reserves/</a></blockquote></blockquote> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/5#post-10248 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:23:42 +0000 Catherine 10248@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I heard this from a trustee the other night, but the village president confirmed the money for the purchase of the property did indeed come from the taxpayers. Only 20K came from the parking lot fund. The "promise" is that revenue from the parking lot fund will repay the loans from taxpayers in 20 years but you have not explained how this can be said with certainty when more years than not recently the parking lot fund has been losing money, or in the red. See the parking presentation. Then there would be more money to engineer, pave, etc.</p> <p>I don't need to understand mechanics to know there is no such thing as a free parking lot save a full and outright grant. Neither does anyone else. Taxes, licenses, permits, fees. This is where government revenue comes from. Tax money is where the money came from to buy this land for $555,000. Engineering, paving, interest, etc. yet to come, theoretically. As it is, I don't think we should or will build the parking lot. So, say what you like, it is all razzle dazzle. The trustee could not sell this point of view either. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/5#post-10247 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:09:35 +0000 TonyM 10247@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Catherine - Maybe we should have that conversation again. Until you understand the financial mechanics of the transaction, you will continue to be misinforming people when you tell them that the taxpayers are paying for the lot. ALL of the Board members know that the taxpayers are off the hook when the loans are re-paid by the Parking Lot Fund. It really isn't that complicated. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/5#post-10240 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:55:08 +0000 Catherine 10240@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>OK, so reduced revenue projections caused by the recession/depression. This is the larger point I think. Yes, I know you did not say it was earmarked for roof. The point is you should have a reason for transferring funds other than forcing a tax increase, as tabloid put it, otherwise you could just put tens of millions in there for every possible thing that could go wrong. As it is, those funds are not intended for roof; grants will first be sought for roof.</p> <p>The parking lot cost issue, the same one that was had the other night at the board meeting. But let's not have that same discussion again. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/5#post-10239 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:38:20 +0000 TonyM 10239@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I never said that the money was earmarked for a specific project. I never said that the money should be kept in the Capital Fund for the train station roof exclusively. I am using the train station roof as an example of unexpected and unintended expenses that will require a Capital Fund to have available money. This will not be the only item that will require attention and money moving forward.</p> <p>How have I steered you awry in the past? Some of the contributing factors to the increased deficit include larger than expected pension liabilities, reductions in State revenue sharing programs, a significant reduction in permit fees, reductions in utility taxes, etc., etc. Unfortunately, the bleeding is not over yet. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/2010-budget/page/5#post-10237 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:22:28 +0000 Catherine 10237@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>OK. </p> <p>No, the money was not earmarked for any project. After the transfer was made, the board scheduled a workshop then canceled it for lack of content. Tabloid was right. Grants will be sought for the roof of the train station as it is a historical landmark. That will be exhausted before we spend a million bucks on it.</p> <p>Well, you'll have to ask Kevin Wachtel what then accounts for the increase in his shortfall projections from before to after the election because he is the source of the grimmer figures. Perhaps you already know, although you have steered me awry before. Let's not reopen that dull discussion though. </p>