Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

41. TonyM
    Member

    Commonsense - 2 out of 3 is not bad. Is that a passing grade in district 96? The RCA did promise to hold the line on no new taxes. The RCA did promise to keep services at their existing levels. The RCA did not promise to avoid spending down the Village reserves. The only way for them to accomplish the first 2 was to spend down the reserves. Unfortunately, the reserves will only last anther 2 years based on the current trends.

    MRT's comment that "no increase in taxes is not a lie" is true - it is just disingenuous. It becomes a lie when the RCA asks for the tax increase.I will give Trustee Sacchi credit. He did admit during the public input meeting for the budget that the Village does have a revenue problem but that a tax increase would not be asked for until all efficiency efforts were exhausted..

    Catherine - I am sure that the RCA's goal was to be able to make through 4 years without asking for a tax increase. Now that it has become clear that the reserves will not allow this, it will be interesting to see if true leadership rises to the occasion. For the Village's sake, I hope it does.

    Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 22:11 #

42. Catherine
    Member

    Common and "New", see my post on the anonymous troll court order. It applies to you.

    Tony, if you know MRT you know he is completely incapable of disingenuousness. Also of malice and lying.

    As you know Tony, even the local tabloid indentified the old board's transfer of the $1M from operating to capital fund as an effort to force taxpayers to vote for increase. This is not a reserve. They did not say the would spend the reserves, but I do recall our reserve level rates are excessive in comparison with other towns.

    What is disingenous is to imply that the downward adjustment by 17% of the assessed values of homes would be done by Cook County was foreseeable. That is just not true or fair. This affects projected income as Finance has said.

    RCA did not promise to increase service levels. That was the promise of the tax referendum. Their assertion was that the tax increase was not necessary to maintain service levels. In my opinion it is possible to increase service levels with the same amount of money if you stop blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, lawyers, and property speculation [now experiencing a loss of value, of course], cut expenses, and realize all efficiencies in productivity, etc. They also said, however, that nothing was off the table as a sacred cow if it came to it.

    It is certainly not leadership to ask for a tax increase during a - let's call it what it is - depression. Possible cuts were identified long ago and the most effective one was a period of 4 day workweeks for non-public safety personnel. We see Mayor Daley taking furlough days and having union workers do the same. Whatever one may think of him, that is leadership.

    It was never my own opinion that realizing efficiencies in the budget would necessarily suffice. I though cuts would be necessary. What I voted for, and what others voted for, was no new taxes, period, even if that meant cutting as promised by the old board. The promised cuts were not made. That was not leadership but as one board member said then, simply kicking the can down the road to make it the next administration's problem.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 10:47 #

43. TonyM
    Member

    Catherine - I do know MRT and I did not accuse him of being disingenuous. My comments were directed towards the RCA candidates' comments during the election. Believe it not, I would be perfectly fine with bringing the $1mm back into the general budget but for 2 things: 1 - I do believe that Trustee Sacchi does have a better understanding of why it is there ie: the train station roof and 2 - that $1mm might cover the deficit for 2009 and poof, it's gone.

    The 17% percent reduction in assessed residential home values WILL NOT reduce your real estate taxes. I repeat - the 17% reduction in assessed residential home values WILL NOT reduce your real estate tax bill. The taxing entities (Dist 96, 208, the Village, Cook County, etc.) would need to reduce the amount that they levy for us taxpayers to see any relief on our tax bills and I am pretty confident that will not occur any time soon.

    Please remember - During the campaign we were told that the Village has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Let the work begin.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 11:06 #

44. Catherine
    Member

    OK.

    No, the money was not earmarked for any project. After the transfer was made, the board scheduled a workshop then canceled it for lack of content. Tabloid was right. Grants will be sought for the roof of the train station as it is a historical landmark. That will be exhausted before we spend a million bucks on it.

    Well, you'll have to ask Kevin Wachtel what then accounts for the increase in his shortfall projections from before to after the election because he is the source of the grimmer figures. Perhaps you already know, although you have steered me awry before. Let's not reopen that dull discussion though.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 11:22 #

45. TonyM
    Member

    I never said that the money was earmarked for a specific project. I never said that the money should be kept in the Capital Fund for the train station roof exclusively. I am using the train station roof as an example of unexpected and unintended expenses that will require a Capital Fund to have available money. This will not be the only item that will require attention and money moving forward.

    How have I steered you awry in the past? Some of the contributing factors to the increased deficit include larger than expected pension liabilities, reductions in State revenue sharing programs, a significant reduction in permit fees, reductions in utility taxes, etc., etc. Unfortunately, the bleeding is not over yet.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 11:38 #

46. Catherine
    Member

    OK, so reduced revenue projections caused by the recession/depression. This is the larger point I think. Yes, I know you did not say it was earmarked for roof. The point is you should have a reason for transferring funds other than forcing a tax increase, as tabloid put it, otherwise you could just put tens of millions in there for every possible thing that could go wrong. As it is, those funds are not intended for roof; grants will first be sought for roof.

    The parking lot cost issue, the same one that was had the other night at the board meeting. But let's not have that same discussion again.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 11:55 #

47. TonyM
    Member

    Catherine - Maybe we should have that conversation again. Until you understand the financial mechanics of the transaction, you will continue to be misinforming people when you tell them that the taxpayers are paying for the lot. ALL of the Board members know that the taxpayers are off the hook when the loans are re-paid by the Parking Lot Fund. It really isn't that complicated.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 12:09 #

48. Catherine
    Member

    I heard this from a trustee the other night, but the village president confirmed the money for the purchase of the property did indeed come from the taxpayers. Only 20K came from the parking lot fund. The "promise" is that revenue from the parking lot fund will repay the loans from taxpayers in 20 years but you have not explained how this can be said with certainty when more years than not recently the parking lot fund has been losing money, or in the red. See the parking presentation. Then there would be more money to engineer, pave, etc.

    I don't need to understand mechanics to know there is no such thing as a free parking lot save a full and outright grant. Neither does anyone else. Taxes, licenses, permits, fees. This is where government revenue comes from. Tax money is where the money came from to buy this land for $555,000. Engineering, paving, interest, etc. yet to come, theoretically. As it is, I don't think we should or will build the parking lot. So, say what you like, it is all razzle dazzle. The trustee could not sell this point of view either.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 12:23 #

49. commonsense
    Member

    Catherine - I stand corrected, they actually did say they will lower taxes without sacrificing services to residents. Here's a link to one of the flyers:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l1oze3ipq-c/SYnbMUhe1dI/AAAAAAAAABk/QFqnVIXdup0/s1600-h/Picture+8.png

    Tony - actually they did say they would not spend 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.”

    http://www.rca2009.com/how-kevin-smith-and-the-riverside-partycaucus-depleted-our-reserves/

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 12:30 #

50. TonyM
    Member

    Catherine - Let's say I run into you at Grumpy's just as you are about to pay for a cup of coffee. You realize that you left your money at home and you ask me to loan you the money for the coffee. You pay me back later that day. Did I really buy you that cup of coffee? The same exact thing is happening with the lot.

    The Parking Lot Fund does run a negative balance some years because of planned work on the lots. Revenue forecasts for that fund are not based on a year by year model - they are looked at and projects are planned for over multi-year periods. Mr. Wachtel is paid to make sure that the numbers are there to support such projects and the rates were adjusted to make sure that the revenue is there to pay the loan.

    Posted Thursday Aug 20, 2009 12:32 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.