http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Discussion Forum for Riverside Illinois en Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:03:33 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/4#post-12913 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:11:52 +0000 CuriousResident 12913@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Well here is where about a third of that surplus revenue will go:</p> <p><a href="http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&#38;SubSectionID=1&#38;ArticleID=6192&#38;TM=47377.45">Schools settle tax appeals with mall retailers</a> </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/4#post-12905 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:30:58 +0000 TomJacobs 12905@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I have listened to both sides on this topic, and have heard from school board members as well as village trustees.</p> <p>This fight reminds me of my kids. Both of them, without exception, are unequivocal in their conviction that the other one is to blame, no matter what happened. They spend all of their time reinforcing that notion, and thus miss out on opportunities to reconcile. But then again, they are just kids.</p> <p>What ever happened to good faith? To an honest, well-intentioned negotiation, one that involves give and take, from both sides? Where are the public officals how stand above the fray, and who don't particiapte in the political gamesmanship that is hurting the community?</p> <p>Right now, both sides are big losers. But not as big as the community.</p> <p>Dumb. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12899 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:35:30 +0000 TonyM 12899@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>The notion that just because we receive 1 tax bill that all of a sudden the dollars paid become fungible is beyond absurd. That being said, I do agree that District 96 should be a bit more sympathetic and amenable to sharing the burden. The problem I have is the heavy handed nature at which the Village Board declared that District 96 would pay for the crossing guards. I believe that the Village's approach to single handedly deciding what was best forced the retaliatory posture exhibited by District 96. I wonder what the response would have been if the Village Board was a little more conciliatory with their approach - maybe a meeting in the middle? </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12897 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:39:32 +0000 stephaniem 12897@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I am not sure why they would be so frustrated. They said with an absolute certainty there was wasteful spending. They would cut it all out, and now they are frustrated with not being able to find it?</p> <p>Let me ask you, if you were doing financially well, and other church parishoners were not, and they approached you to use your savings to fund the church would you? Don't answer. You wouldn't lose sight of your priorities- providing for your household- your family. It would be improper for anyone to put you on the spot looking for a handout. D96 is following the same mentality and they are absolutley right. </p> <p>Suppose Brookfield and North Riverside also asked D96 for money, and depleted D96 funds, where would be be then? The village would set a bad precident of having jurisdiction over education. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12895 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:02:54 +0000 CuriousResident 12895@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I can understand some of the frustrations with the village board and it's challenges, but it feels a bit like D96 is "Cutting off their nose off despite their face".</p> <p>If the <a href="http://www.district96.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/BUDGET-2009-10-Final-09-15-09.pdf">D96 growing surplus</a> was not as large as it is (~1.7mil per year?!), I think more people would be likely to cheer with stephaniem.</p> <p>As it stands, there are a lot of people that view it as all coming from the same revenue source (property taxes) and simply not being right to have a safety service go deficient because of bureaucracy.</p> <p>If there was a way to reallocate some of (say half?) the surplus revenue from D96 to the village this would be a non-issue. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12894 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:29:58 +0000 stephaniem 12894@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Good for District 96! They need to put the students education first!- not the taxpayers. It's just like President Jensen said, they passed their referendum to have money, the RCA said the village did not need a referendum. The RCA evidently sees children's safety as wasteful spending. With messed up priorities like this it's no wonder they want to take down parks and rec. Can't wait for the top to bottom unveiling to unveil tonight. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12893 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:50:07 +0000 CuriousResident 12893@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Posted today on the SuburbanLife: <a href="http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/riverside/news/education/x338991028/District-will-not-pay-for-village-crossing-guards">District-will-not-pay-for-village-crossing-guards</a> </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12851 Sat, 22 May 2010 12:32:17 +0000 anonymous 12851@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>You are totally correct. We do need to consolidate the feeder schools into the high school district. </p> <p>How do we start the process? </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12850 Sat, 22 May 2010 08:22:02 +0000 TomJacobs 12850@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Actually, it should be a consolidation of Elementary School Districts 95 and 96, and High School District 208. Both Brookfield LaGrange Park D95 and Riverside D96 together make almost exactly the same boundary as D208. D95 would add approx. 1,000 students. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/d96-needs-to-put-taxpayers-first/page/3#post-12849 Sat, 22 May 2010 08:07:09 +0000 TomJacobs 12849@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Agreed.</p> <p>There is a good map on D96 boundaries at <a href="http://www.schooldigger.com/go/IL/district/33990/search.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.schooldigger.com/go/IL/district/33990/search.aspx</a></p> <p>Boundary for D208 is at <a href="http://www.schooldigger.com/go/IL/district/34020/search.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.schooldigger.com/go/IL/district/34020/search.aspx</a></p> <p>The real discussion that needs to start is a consolidation of D96 and D208. Are there any better reasons to have 2 small and separate school districts as opposed to one? Administratively, dealing with approx. 3,000 kids instead of 1,500, and for $300,000 a year, seems like an obvious one to me. </p>