Riverside Info » About Riverside

D96 needs to put taxpayers first

(32 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by TomJacobs
  • Latest reply from CuriousResident
  1. TomJacobs
    Member

    I am greatly encouraged by the statements of Nancy Jensen, Hareena Wakely, and by inference of his vote, Jim Schraidt, made in the Landmark article.

    On a temporary basis, the fiscal responsibility for the crossing guard could simply be swapped, i.e. D96 pays approx. 70% and Village pays approx. 30%. Maybe it should be 80/20 or 60/40. This would be an agreement borne from leadership, good faith, and communication which would resolve this issue equitably and in everybody’s best interest. Under such a scenario, everybody wins. Riverside wins.

    The alternative is not pretty. Even though everybody agrees the guards are needed and taxpayer money is there, we might not have crossing guards next year. Dumb. Everybody loses, including both taxing districts.

    Elected Village officials and elected D96 officials, please talk to each other, and find a compromise somewhere in the middle. Having your paid employees informing each other of your decisions is not leadership.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 21:59 #
  2. ChrisHajer
    Member

    http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/brookfield/news/police_and_fire/x370522384/Fate-of-crossing-guards-still-uncertain

    "Fate of Riverside crossing guards still uncertain"

    Posted Tuesday Jan 12, 2010 15:53 #
  3. TomJacobs
    Member

    D96 rebuffs Riverside on crossing guards:

    http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=6161

    Posted Thursday May 20, 2010 12:59 #
  4. corbi296
    Member

    Tom,

    I understand your frustration but I honestly don't know how anyone could have expected the District 96 Board to decide any differently. While most if not all of the District 96 Board members may be Riverside residents, these members have been elected by voters in Riverside, North Riverside and Brookfield to represent and have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of District 96, not the Village of Riverside. Had they agreed to the Village's request, I believe they would have subjected District 96 to lawsuits for misappropriation of funds.

    The driving force behind everyone's outrage has its roots in two issues. The first one is very much a local issue and it has to do with the declining percentage of our real estate taxes that go to support the village vis a vis our schools and other taxing bodies. The other is more of a national problem and it has to do with the affordability of pensions and total compensation paid to teachers and all other public service employees. We should focus our efforts on finding local solutions to these difficult problems rather than trying to craft a temporary patchwork solution such as the one proposed by the Village of Riverside to District 96.

    Posted Thursday May 20, 2010 19:07 #
  5. TomJacobs
    Member

    I don’t buy the argument about exposing D96 to lawsuits – the total cost of the crossing guards is $83,000, of which $17,000 is covered by D96. Thus, there is an 80% - 20% split of costs already, and nobody has sued D96 over it. Plus, if the differences in taxing district boundaries should have any bearing on the issue, D96 should pay a pro-rata share to North Riverside and Brookfield to help those municipalities out rather than using it as a foil to reject any further responsibility in getting students to our public schools safely. For D96 to claim that the responsibility of this essential service rests squarely with the Village is a red herring – just look at all the school districts around the country that provide busing services to get students to and from schools.

    The hypocrisy is what gets me. The D96 school board that keeps making claims of fiscal stewardship and which, in its own words, has been “carefully managing education funds”, is the same board that gave its superintendent the 20% retroactive pay raise last year, even though state legislation has been adopted with the express intent to stop such actions. This irresponsible gift alone will cost IL taxpayers over $600,000 over the duration of the superintendent’s retirement. The D96 board wants to be completely separate from the Village Board, yet doesn’t even flinch when it comes to burdening IL taxpayers, i.e. a different taxing district, with the outrageous bill for their irresponsible behavior.

    Unfortunately, the crossing guard issue also is a sad reminder of the state of affairs in Riverside politics in general. The cancerous grip of partisanship on the Village Board has made it all but impossible for reasonable and spirited debate of issues, solely based on their merits, to occur. The D96 Board, on the other hand, lacks leadership, credibility, and has a pulse that is no longer registering.

    I am continually proven wrong about my naïve belief that different taxing districts would actually see the benefit of starting to communicate with each other in a meaningful way. Consider this: both taxing districts are playing hardball over a $66,000 expense while agreeing that crossing guards are an essential service to Riverside, all the while their constituents, for practical purposes, are one and the same. It comes out of the same pocketbooks, no matter who “wins” or “looses”. Right now, everybody loses. Dumb.

    A fair and equitable solution, if there is a political will by our elected officials, is still possible, and quite simple to achieve. Instead of the Village Manager and School Superintendent, both board presidents could get together, and principally agree that the costs for Crossing Guards should be shared. JUST LIKE THEY DO NOW. Then, pick the split. 50-50 is typically a good start.

    For D96, that would be a premium of $24,500. Compare that to the millions of dollars the community agreed to give the District when it was calling for help in 2004. Today, the Village is calling for help.

    Posted Thursday May 20, 2010 23:26 #
  6. corbi296
    Member

    I understand your arguements and from a practical standpoint don't disagree at all. I also agree with the frustrations you feel about the fiscally irresponsible decisions made by the District 96 board as it relates to employee compensation. Every taxpayer in the district should be upset by their decision and every taxpayer in the state should be livid with this compensation practice to artificially boost pension pay that has become common place throughout the state. These are serious problems endemic not just to Riverside but the entire state of Illinois. These problems need to be addressed on a State level by the Springfield legislature, but we can also start to show some leadership locally by agreeing that this practice is unethical, no matter how common place it has become.

    This being said, I'm not as comfortable dismissing the potential legal issues that could have develeoped had the District 96 board agreed to the Village's proposal regarding crossing gaurds. The tricky part of this issue relates not only to giving proper consideration to North Riverside/Brookfield, but also factoring in all the other schools, public or private, that may also benefit from the crossing gaurd services. What about RB, St. Mary's, the various pre schools in town? If we agree that the Village should be relieved of this financial burden, at least temporarily, shouldn't these other entities also pick up part of the financial burden? This also leads to a slippery slope regarding other services. What would preclude the Village from approaching the school districts and asking them to pay for a portion of Village police services? I am not a lawyer but I do know we live in a litigious society. Had I been a District 96 board member faced with this decision, I probably would have voted the same way given the potential legal ramifications in addition to the troublesome precedent that would have been set by that decision.

    Posted Friday May 21, 2010 05:21 #
  7. TS
    Member

    I'll agree with Tom on this one. I've heard others arguing that St. Mary and RB pay up. That is an invalid argument, St. Mary and RB families already pay for this service. It is called taxes. Where do you think District 96 or the Village get the money for crossing guards? These funds come from the taxes that we all pay, be you a St. Mary, Hauser, Blythe, or RB family. If you ask St. Mary or RB to contribute, you'll be asking the taxpayer to pay twice for the same service. The answer should be cooperation between District 96 and the Village. Being a realist I know that won't happen.

    Posted Friday May 21, 2010 07:28 #
  8. CuriousResident
    Member

    I'm in the "1 bucket" camp (as well) and find a position against -based on legal fears- somewhat silly, especially when stating at the same time "I am not a lawyer".

    Posted Friday May 21, 2010 08:41 #
  9. spatny
    Member

    TS - I don't understand your analogy. As a property holder/resident you pay a tax bill. Part goes to the Schools, surely to the public schools and perhaps in some way to the private, part to the Library, part to the Village, etc. So the schools are holding your tax money. They say they spend it for education and safety of their students, who may or may not be your kids. Or you may have no kids and you still pay. One side - the school - gets more than the Village, and has a surplus. If they spend some of that to pay for crossing guards that are there to protect the kids it doesn't cost you any more.

    We have a school district with a surplus, and that surplus is scheduled to grow this year and for the ensuing years. In other words they have more coming in than they are spending, because theyget a bigger cut of the tax burden. The Village has a deficit, and could use some help. The schools have it and the Village doesn't, but it all comes from the same place - the taxpayers. Sharing the cost and responsibility for the crossing guards seems to me to be perfectly reasonable cooperation, but it won't cost you anything more.

    Posted Friday May 21, 2010 09:31 #
  10. TS
    Member

    Mr. Spatny, I made no analogy so I'm not sure what you don't understand. I am saying that those who think St. Mary and RB should help pay for the crossing guards are wrong, those families already pay for it through their taxes. If you ask St. Mary and RB to pay, you'll be taxing those people a second time for something they already fund. I said it in my post and I've said it earlier on this site, the funds raised through taxes should be shared. If the schools have a surplus, they should return a portion to the taxing body for redistribution. I'd be happy for a surplus to go back to the Village.

    A rare case where I agree with Mr. Spatny. Kind of funny since I'm one of the the 200-206 so called bellyachers. Even more funny since I voted for Mike Gorman. But I digress.

    Posted Friday May 21, 2010 09:42 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.