Riverside Info Topic: Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?

Riverside Info Topic: Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking? http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Discussion Forum for Riverside Illinois en Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:31:54 +0000 Catherine on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking/page/2#post-8606 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:26:39 +0000 Catherine 8606@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ idic properly identified the piece as from RCA's website. I think they are trying to say hundreds of thousands of dollars have been blown by the administration, which necessitated certain budget cuts. I think so, anyway. We are looking at $1.1M for replacing the ash trees expected to be destroyed by the emerald ash borer, and I think about $70K to spray against the gypsy moth, which first defoliates, then can kill. Fortunately, Mark Shevitz identified federal funds for this project. It is of interest that not one cent except for the matching tree program, 5K, was in the budget last year to plant trees. Individuals in this town have been paying for it. JohnM on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking/page/2#post-8587 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:39:23 +0000 JohnM 8587@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ idic5 gave us the following blurb from the RCA website: <blockquote>If Kevin Smith and the Caucus-dominated board had not voted to deplete our reserves, Riverside would have had more than enough money to fund the Rec Department, pay for more police officers, cover the costs of the Fourth of July parade - and much more. It’s our money we were taxed for it. Yet for 16 months we have not gotten any services or any value for our taxes. </blockquote> No doubt. And how much would that have cost? How much of our reserves would have been used to fund these things? And what do we do for next year's salary for the officer? For next year's Rec department $$? For next year's Fourth of July parade? I'm not against spending reserves per se. Indeed, I think Catherine raises an interesting point about the trees--I'd imagine that even a limited dip into the reserves (say 50k) would buy a lot of trees and I'd fully support it. What they should not be used for--in my opinion--is to fund the type of things that the RCA identified above--salary, operating budgets for Departments, yearly parades. JamesMarsh on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking/page/2#post-8586 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:29:52 +0000 JamesMarsh 8586@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ idic5: You pulled that off of the RCA website - political parties websites are not the most reliable sources of information idic5 on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking/page/2#post-8585 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:22:22 +0000 idic5 8585@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ There seems to be a confusion, or at least differing opinions, on the handling of the reserves. Along with the handling of police, this a very important subject for people to understand before voting. I just discovered an RCA accounting on this subject... <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>How Kevin Smith and the Riverside Party/Caucus depleted our reserves 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.” However, our opponents have a record of depleting the village’s reserves - and have played a shell game with our tax dollars. At the end of 2007, the village had a $1.4 million surplus in the general fund - plenty of money to cover any budget deficit, as they have done in the past. But according to the Riverside-Brookfield Landmark, Kevin Smith and the rest of the board “cut loose” our “financial safety net.” “Instead of using that entire amount to fund deficit budgets for several years, the board moved $1 million of that $1.4 million into a fund dedicated for capital projects.” A January 3, 2008 Riverside e-flash announced that Kevin Smith and the Caucus-dominated board voted unanimously to transfer one million dollars in our reserves into the capital fund stated that “the Village Board has not yet discussed what projects will be funded by this transfer.” In other words, the board did not have a reason to move that $1 million other than to create the impression that the village was in immediate fiscal dire straits. Even the Landmark said that with the transfer, the “Riverside village trustees forced a debate about the village’s financial future.” Depleting the village’s reserves to force a debate on a tax increase? Riverside can do better. As of today, that million dollars is still sitting in the Capital Improvement Fund. The fund balance is over $2,000,000. If Kevin Smith and the Caucus-dominated board had not voted to deplete our reserves, Riverside would have had more than enough money to fund the Rec Department, pay for more police officers, cover the costs of the Fourth of July parade - and much more. It’s our money we were taxed for it. Yet for 16 months we have not gotten any services or any value for our taxes. If you think it’s time to stop depleting our reserves and put an end to the fiscal shell games, vote for the Riverside Community Alliance and bring real fiscal responsibility to Riverside. </blockquote> Catherine on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking/page/2#post-8576 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:04:21 +0000 Catherine 8576@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ I suggest you look at the list of capital improvements and tell me how serious you think it is for Mr Smith to say we have $10M in unfunded such projects. If we have infrastructure problems, let's fix them instead of having the money just sit there. Is it prudent when we lack a police officer or when threats are made to cut daytime fire staffing? No, it was political. The essential tasks of government are these: police, fire, infrastructure. Why do we have problems in all these areas, yet transfer $1M dollars to a reserve with nonsense projects on its laundry list? I am no expert. In my opinion, there is a fourth here: the trees. Without them, our property values and therefore tax revenues will decline. They are the distinctive feature of this community. JohnM on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking/page/2#post-8575 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:56:02 +0000 JohnM 8575@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Ok. I see your point. You are correct--the capital improvement fund is not a reserve fund. I still believe that the transfer of the 1m from the undesignated reserves to the capital improvement fund was prudent. Doing so prevents the spending of the reserves on personnel costs, which is unsustainable in the long run. Catherine on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking/page/2#post-8574 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:47:31 +0000 Catherine 8574@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ The capital improvement fund is not the reserve. That is the falsehood, or perhaps mistake. The administration scheduled a workshop to decide on a capital improvement after this transfer then cancelled it. There are some things on that list like $6M to restore the youth center and other things that will not happen. If it is wrong to spend reserves on operations, it is wrong to spend them on capital improvements. Reserves are for the unexpected or emergencies. JohnM on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking#post-8572 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:42:29 +0000 JohnM 8572@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <blockquote>We are talking about the 1M dollars that was transferred between accounts in order to -as even the Landmark observed - create a sense of paucity in order to achieve the tax increase. Please inform yourself or refrain from falsehoods. </blockquote> I presume that this was directed at me. I understand that 1M was transferred from the general fund to the capital improvement fund. I believe that this was a prudent fiscal move that ensured that the village has adequate reserves to meet unexpected expenses. I don't believe that reserve funds should be spent on personnel costs. Your opinion differs, and I can appreciate that. I would also appreciate it, however, if you would refrain from accusing me of spreading falsehoods. Catherine on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking#post-8570 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:23:32 +0000 Catherine 8570@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ We are talking about the 1M dollars that was transferred between accounts in order to -as even the Landmark observed - create a sense of paucity in order to achieve the tax increase. Please inform yourself or refrain from falsehoods. spatny on "Police in Riverside - what was the Landmark thinking?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/police-in-riverside-what-is-the-landmark-thinking#post-8566 Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:39:53 +0000 spatny 8566@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ "Kevin Smith, the Riverside Party/Caucus candidate for Village President, has been a trustee for 8 years. Mr. Smith has been a position to do something about our police staffing since 2001, yet Riverside has had the same number of police officers the entire time he has been on the board." If it is proven that you need more manpower, and you have only one source of funds, then anyone would have to use that, wouldn't they? This is not alchemy. Our problem is they may have needed to do this and they spent too much on stuff that was wasteful. Now they want to blame someone else for it. They had an undesignated reserve of over $2 mil. They spent on nonsense. We are buying software for the police that costs more than that. You can't have it both ways. If police are primary, then why did they hire consultants for crap-ola projects that went nowhere and neglect the cops? These people have been in charge. They had the power of the purse. In the coming years, anyone in office will have to spend some of this - electing Smith and his slate or Alex will not bring new businesses to Riverside next week. People are not flocking to invest ANYWHERE. No matter who comes to the Board they will face tough times and have to spend some of the reserve. Maybe the audit will save us some. But any group will have to use the tools they are given. It is a question of direction and priorities. Which way you want to go and what you do first. RCA wants to audit to see what we spend and what we get for it, what potential savings we might glean from this mess. Then - maybe simultaneously - we try and develop new revenue streams. These people have not done that - so let some others try.