Tonight is the first 2010 budget meeting. Thought on how to tackle the deficit??
Riverside Info » About Riverside
2010 Budget
(53 posts)-
Posted Monday Jun 22, 2009 11:18 #
-
Sell the land on Burlington, get rid of the loan that was taken out to buy it. Put the additional proceeds back into the parking lot fund, transfer it to any other fund that needs it. That's a starter.
Next, stop saying that anything or anyone other than our taxes is our most valuable asset and cut expenses by any means necessary. I see nothing wrong with a four-day work week for non-public safety personnel, with health benefits, if necessary. I do not consider the inability to get my sticker on a Wednesday to be a cut in service worth speaking of. If that is too radical, tell me something new. Anyone who thinks that is unfair is free to take on the unions as well. For my own part, I think public safety is paramount.
Posted Monday Jun 22, 2009 11:22 # -
To summarize the first budget meeting -
The VM told the board (nicely) that they must use reserves.
The board told the VM to present them with a balanced budget.
The board gave the directive - no raises for non-union employees, but no furloughs or firings either.
The board told the Rec to shoot to be self sustaining, but will consider pitching $35K or so if they really need it.
Same number of detectives/police.
Sounds good to me. Impossible, but good.
Posted Monday Jun 22, 2009 22:18 # -
These are instructions for what assumptions to use when presenting a draft budget. They do not represent staffing or spending decisions except I think there is a consensus on no non-union COLA increases.
Decisions on Police, Rec, furloughs, etc. are all still wide open.
The idea that 4 or 5 weeks of working full-time on 4 July is preventing Rec from coming up with and presenting ideas for programs that will make them self-sustaining as promised is not believable, I think.
Posted Monday Jun 22, 2009 22:40 # -
There was a lot of talk about a top-down budget review during the election campaign, which made sense to me, assuming top-down means that the elected officials would clearly state their visions, plans, and priorities and then go through the budget themselves and start cutting the itmes on the bottom of the priority list until we have a balanced budget. Was there any talk at the BOT meeting last night about that?
Posted Tuesday Jun 23, 2009 09:13 # -
Yes. In addition to the usual 4 open budget workshops in October Mike and Lonnie, in consultation with the VM and Finance, are going to add the additional effort of analysis of budgets back to 2006. Since, of course, there is no 2010 proposed budget yet, that analysis will occur when presented. There will be resident input as well during the summer.
There was discussion about chicken and egg: do you see how much money you have and then set priorities, or do you set priorities and then assign money. For example, something might be low on the priority list, but if you had the money you would fund it if its impact on quality of life were considerable enough. Jim Reynolds suggested to Jean Sussman that they begin the philosophical discussion last night but, for whatever reason, that did not commence. Trustee Shevitz pointed out that one can set priorities, but that might mean different things to different trustees once it came to actual implementation. I.e., if one said public safety was their number one priority, to one that might mean adding a police officer, to another something else when the rubber hit the road.
I'm don't remember a campaign promise of a philosophical discussion myself, but rather the top down, line by line audit. That doesn't mean it wasn't said, of course.
A part of their problem in this regard also is that it is was pointed out that it is now nearly July, and the need for the 2010 budget is correspondingly pressing. I think even more general discussion of that nature can be had with the extra months that will be available next year.
This was my understanding of this discussion, of course.
Posted Tuesday Jun 23, 2009 09:58 # -
I would have liked to see more discussion about priorities. I got the feeling that no one wanted to actually voice their priorities. Trustee Sussman started a discussion urging the board to talk about what they want to accomplish and to set priorities, then come up with strategies, but that discussion never commenced. Catherine correctly states that some Trustees felt it was too early to set priorities until the staff actually presented the budget (hence the chicken and egg discussion).
It was quite alarming when the VM told the board that the budget will require the use of reserves. The board really never addressed the issue, other than to direct the VM to present a balanced budget. The VM pointed out that (operational) expenses are up due to increased labor costs in accordance with union contracts, utility costs are on the rise, while Village revenues are decreasing.
Posted Tuesday Jun 23, 2009 12:11 # -
There is no question that - due to where we start and the recent and projected reductions in revenue, we will have to either pare things way down or use some reserve money. I think everyone knew that would be the case even before the fall off in revenue collections. Based on what we now project to be available, the VM/FIDir will submit a balanced budget which will have decrease proposals for probably every department. Then they will discuss (argue, scream,shout) and take public input into consideration or not about what to add. what to keep, etc. That will be weighed against how much reserve money should be or needs to be spent. The VM balanced budget will show just how bad the falloff has been. Every state, county, city and village is doing this same thing. These guys just volunteered to put in the many xtra hours it will take to compare the costs over 4-5 years so we can more accurately see what the trends have been and where we are headed. Good for them. All of them.
Posted Tuesday Jun 23, 2009 12:41 # -
In truth, Commonsense, be fair: Trustee Reynolds agreed with Trustee Sussman and said we can start that conversation right now. But Trustee Sussman did not; I think she was not prepared to and fairly so, for that was not the stated purpose of the meeting. I myself wondered how they could answer the questions posed by the staff; it seemed to me they would be answered at the end of a discussion, not the beginning. So, chicken or egg, something has to be thrown out there first, not sure it will ultimately matter which. We will see the priorities by what is funded and cut and what is not. That discussion can be had interstitially.
Here are my priorities: police, fire, infrastructure, landscape (the basis of property value and hence tax revenue). Pay for these as required for soundness, if possible, then start adding on. But what we can't have in my opinion is special pleading from every special interest group with nobody willing to give on anything. But then, my feeling is that money is tight. Others may think not.
Posted Tuesday Jun 23, 2009 14:02 # -
At the risk of having the "sour grapes" or "bitter much" tag come up again, I will point to the RCA campaign promise made.
RCA Website - posted April 3rd - 13ish weeks ago.
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.
Will the RCA find the mystery $2,000,000 they alluded to? If they balance the budget without dipping into reserves, like they said they could, good for them, good for Riverside, good for me.
Posted Tuesday Jun 23, 2009 14:03 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.