JohnM, your comment about the discovery of millions of dollars reminded me of this Onion article:
U.S. Government Finds $20 Trillion Buried By Absentminded Reagan In 1987
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_government_finds_20_trillion
Riverside Info » About Riverside
2010 budget
(80 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 17:22 #
-
JohnM said "What services in Riverside fit into the "nice to have" category?"
That's not my job to figure out. I wouldn't have an idea where to look. The long term finance committee looked at the finances last year or the year before.
I was thinking about this on the way to work today. I think it's much better when our leaders just decide to lead, and they lay out the options. You either like it or you don't. When it comes to cutting expenses, no one likes to give up anything, which is what makes it so hard. Everyone has their favorite programs. We've built an unsustainable system and we're going to have to make adjustments. If the village says vehicle stickers are $150 next year, OK, fine, I won't be happy but I will pay it. If I need to pay a higher percentage of my kid's participation in rec department activities, so be it. I think the rec programs should be fully funded by the participants.
Sorry for the rambling answer. But I think it's the job of the leaders to lead. We'll grumble, but they're in charge. We can offer input, but so long as they're acting within the law (i.e. some things cannot happen without a referendum) they need to do whatever it takes to get us through.
Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 17:29 # -
Hey, as long as I'm sharing all the random stuff I've been thinking about related to finances: what if our property taxes should be twice as high as they are now? I was wondering how to find out what percentage of the land in our village is open space (not generating revenue, but actually costing us money to maintain) vs. what is developed (housing and business) then comparing it to other villages that have abundant green space. I was thinking of comparing the taxes we pay and the housing values in all of that. Once all the numbers are fed into the big computer, out the other end comes a slip with a tax rate computation that takes in all that we have. I think if we love the green space, we're going to have to pay for it.
Not that I could actually afford to live here if my taxes were twice as high. But really, we only wince when we get the new bill with an increase. We have no idea what the taxes should really be, do we?
Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 17:39 # -
Well, I have not been invited to an unlit party on Woodside, so I am not privy to which Village cuts to cut either.
However, I wonder, once you have given up hair, nails, cleaning lady, organic delivery, baby sitters, exercise classes, memberships to museums, magazines, and newspapers, clothes shopping, your favorite restaurants, date nights... next on the list is kiddie activities, phone, cable, following that, I suppose is either gas, electricity, food and mortgage.
If someone does not understand that these are tough times, they need to stop medicating.
What I find hilarious (and thank golly this forum is FREE!) is that the same anonymous people that are stating that we are not SPENDING enough on our Parks & Rec, and we are not SPENDING enough on a parking lot (that there is yet a current proven need for) and we are not SPENDING enough on POLICE are holloring that we have a budget problem.
The anonymous opposition needs to decide if they are anti-spending or anti-saving.
We cannot afford to have it both ways.
Posted Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 19:58 # -
The RCA convinced people that Riverside has a spending problem. They were the smarter ones, who despite every warning by the board and despite every market indicator, asserted this as fact over and over again.
It is becoming apparent that the Village didn’t have a spending problem at all, in fact, the village provides minimal services.
The notion that we cannot afford minimal services is silly. The RCA needs to realize that the homeowners contribute to the bulk of the village's economy.
Living in a Landmark - in Riverside is a privilege, not a right. If I can't afford to live here, it is better that I relocate than insist that the village be "affordable." Chris makes a good point, all our green space is heavenly, but we pay a premium for it.
If the value of our housing-stock erodes too much more, the house of cards is in danger of collapsing.
They don't get a time-out now to figure out why. A year of dithering just isn't acceptable.
Posted Thursday Sep 17, 2009 08:22 # -
Kim and Chris,
During the election, the RCA continually asserted that the Village did not have a revenue problem, but had a spending problem. During the election, many of us who supported the other candidates questioned this, and asked what could be cut. The answer from the RCA and its supporters was something along the lines of "We don't know yet, but get us in office and you better believe we'll find something." It seems to me that it is becoming abundently clear that this is not the case--there was no fat in the village then, and there is none now. Any service cuts are going to impact public safety, infrastructure, and quality of life (a catch-all term I use for landscape and recreation programs).
I also want to note that Kim's assertion that the "anonymous opposition" (and, again, I'm not anonymous) is hollering that we're not spending enough is incorrect. I'd like to spend more on police and public works and recreation, but that's likely not tenable now, and I recognize that. What I am "hollering" about is the suggestion that we can spend less. We can't--at least not in any meaningful way. We are approaching minimal service levels--if we're not there already--and any further cuts of staff, programs and/or equipment are going to have a negative impact on our property values.
It may be that the RCA members of the Board are aware of this. I hope they are. I hope they have the courage to look at the numbers and come to the conclusion that we can't cut anymore, and that the deficit will need to be attacked from the revenue end.
Posted Thursday Sep 17, 2009 08:51 # -
I believe that Riverside has more public green space per person than any other municipality in IL. So yes, it is expensive to maintain, and thankfully there are many volunteers that try to help in this area.
Really common, you would vote yourself out of town in order to protect Riverside's landscape legacy? I have an altogether new respect for you.
Given the current circumstance, if the caucus backed candidates won the past election, I wonder what they would have been doing differently?
Posted Thursday Sep 17, 2009 09:38 # -
commonsense said "If the value of our housing-stock erodes too much more, the house of cards is in danger of collapsing."
I don't think that this is unique to Riverside at all. As anyone watching the news in the past 18 months knows, the house of cards was not built in Riverside, and the housing price decline in not the fault of village government, past or present. We can't place the blame for this, or the responsibility for fixing all our troubles, at the feet of village government.
Posted Thursday Sep 17, 2009 10:23 # -
Kim,
Asking what the caucus-backed candidates would have done if they won is disingenuous and irrelevant. They did not win--the RCA did, largely on the stregth of their claim was that they they could cut spending without cutting services and hold the line on property taxes. Well, now they are in, and the budget season is upon us. Can they do what they promised?
Chris,
Speaking for myself, I don't place the decline in housing prices at the feet of our village government--at least not yet. However, I also want to see some actions taken that will ensure my property value does not decline further. If we cut public safety, fail to invest in infrastructure, force our residents to look to other communities for recreation opportunities for our children and continue to stand by while our downtown languishes, our property values will continue to drop.
Posted Thursday Sep 17, 2009 10:44 # -
Chris pointed out that:
The long term finance committee looked at the finances last year or the year before.
Mr. Gorman was on that committee, ending in 2008, so he was well aware of the Village's financial situation. Well, so one would think. He had a dissenting opinion that there was a spending problem. Guess we'll find out on Monday if he still thinks so, since the long-promised 'audit' should be done by then. At least, it should be done before the remaining 2010 budget input meetings occur in October.
The Board is going to have to work together as a whole, not just as a majority, to come up with creative, if not hard to swallow, moves for the next budget. Major changes are needed, and all voices need to be heard. I hope strong leadership prevails, and we see governance the citizens of Riverside can be proud of.
Posted Thursday Sep 17, 2009 10:55 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.