The Village of Riverside is spending more than it is taking in. If you were considering moving to Riverside, or opening up a business, or buying a building like the Arcade - wouldn’t this financial instability cause you to look elsewhere?
A tax increase seems to be off the table, we are stuck with declining revenues and there are no alternative revenue sources. It’s time to start setting priorities and begin eliminating what the majority thinks we don't need.
I agree with Ben Sells – this is an issue of open and transparent government. I watch the board meetings, but when Trustees Sells, Sussman or Scully brings up the topic of setting priorities; the Village President tells them they are not to address it. I’d love to know where the conversations are taking place to address this monumental problem facing Riverside. Other than shifting the funding for crossing guards from the Village to Dist 96, I have not heard of one thing the majority has even considered cutting. It is sure clear - we can’t fund everything and cuts are inevitable. When do we become privy to what’s on the chopping block?
Landmark Article comment by Ben Sells, posted Thursday, December 24, 2009.
See http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=5659&TM=50337.3
The above quotes by Trustees Sacchi and Shevitz reinforce my complaint that this budget falsely portrays our Village’s financial standing. Both persist in clever wordsmithing to avoid acknowledging what is actually going on. For my part, I think the Village’s budget should be clear and easily understandable. It should not require reading between the lines or fact checking by our residents.
This budget claims to have reserves of $1 million, a talking point often repeated by the majority bloc on the Board. What goes unsaid is that approximately $356,000 of that amount is actually deferred payments for known obligations. It includes: $260,000 for vehicle replacement (patrol cars, ambulance, etc.) $29,000 for technology maintenance and upgrades (especially important when working short-staffed as the Village does) $39,000 for required pension contributions that will have to be made up in the near term at a greater cost due to accrued interest $18,000 to replace a driveway at our Fire Station that our Public Works Director has informed the Board is structurally unsound and $10,000 for maintaining and replacing playground equipment that our Parks and Recreation Director has informed the Board is unsafe. These are not niceties, they are necessities.
To claim that by postponing these necessary expenses they somehow become “savings” is nonsense. What homeowner would refuse to pay their electric bill and then call that money savings?
Trustee Sacchi says that no money has been transferred from the Capital Improvement Fund. Technically true, but practically speaking false. The majority has simply refused to fund the Capital Improvement Fund the way they said they were going to. This allows them to then spend the $356,000 in deferred obligations on daily expenses, despite their claims to the contrary, which I believe is a recipe for failure. They have not offered a single idea about how this money, once spent, will be replaced. Indeed when asked if they could even account for the payments they have deferred, not a single member of the majority bloc could do so – if they can’t keep track of things then how are our residents supposed to?
Trustee Shevitz’s comments miss the point entirely. He attempts to reframe this discussion as a spending issue when it is really an issue of open and transparent government. Nobody thinks that we should increase spending, and I have repeatedly said that we must use reserves in the short term to make up for the structural deficits we face. Where he is wrong, and where his comments mislead our residents, is that the majority is not using reserves to meet the shortfall – they are using capital funds and then pretending they are not. Worse, they then claim that we have more reserves than we actually do. My question is: Why? What is gained by confusing our residents as to where we actually stand? Wouldn’t it be better to simply give our residents the facts as to how the Board is spending our communal tax dollars?
There is no point in veiling the truth, and I will continue to resist efforts at reframing our budget discussions in ways that distract attention from the real and pressing issues we face. Our residents are smart, sophisticated people who deserve straight talk and honest disclosures from their government.
Posted Monday Dec 28, 2009 14:05
#