Any comments?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Exciting Budget Mtg. 7/17/07
(15 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Jul 18, 2007 07:41 #
-
The picture being presented is not very rosy. The sky appears to be scheduled to fall in a couple of years. Mike Gorman asked a lot of tough questions and both he and Holly wouldn't settle for generalizations such as "We operate a lean government." etc. I would say the consensus of the panel's majority will tend to favor recommending Home Rule and the Real Estate Transfer Tax because it seems to be the only scenario they see as providing enough new income to offset rising costs. The idea of a Conservancy to operate the parks and pick up $300-400,000 for the Village is intriguing, but I think it will need a broader base than just the 3000 families in Riverside to draw from. The Village admin. seems to feel that no substantial cuts in costs can be achieved - so like a lot of people - we are spending more than we take in. I expect we will see some type of TIF resurface. There was speculation about Harlem and Ogden as sites for a TIF but really, when you look at available land and the proximity to homes,etc., it isn't apparent how that would work. Looks to me like they will arrve at the conclusion that Home Rule and the RTT is the only answer, and we knew that going in. Still, I give them credit for trying to make their case - all of them. Personally, I think Bikini-Bocce is the only thing that will save us. The suntan lotion concession alone could handle the Police pensions if we have the right players....
Posted Wednesday Jul 18, 2007 16:56 # -
It was broadcast on Ch. 6, and I watched most... long mtg!
I thought this group was supposed to figure out a budget, not just propose new revenue sources (ie taxes.)
When I am forced to look at our budget, it usually starts with where I can cut spending first, increasing income comes second.
Really, in the entire village, there is not ONE place that spending is bloated at the moment, compared to a few years ago, compared to similarly sized villages? If budget does not look at this, who does? Every individual department thinks they need all the money they get. That is a no-brainer. Only this Budget Commission can figure this out, and they are not.
I find this odd.
Posted Thursday Jul 19, 2007 09:27 # -
Actually, they all think they need more. Probably a different allocation pattern would benefit, but It's hard to get back anything you once allocate. Unfortunately, the Village made commitments for pensions that they can not change - and those are heavily underfunded. Mr. Wachtel is certainly correct that expenses will rise faster than tax revenues, because taxes are capped and much of our expenses are related to union contracts, which have a higher increase relative to the CPI that caps the tax revenue. The idea of "offloading" park maintenance and the like to a conservancy is great, if it can be proved that the conservancy can attract the kind of donations that would be required. I personally don't believe that a high percentage of hopuseholds would donate an extra $100 a year to such a conservancy unless they could be educated to the point where it would be proven to them that the money they donate in that way would be better leveraged. It would, but it isn't something people understand easily.
Example: If someone donates $100 every year to the conservancy they can deduct that from their taxes - but not everybody can deduct all of it. It depends on their income, etc. When they pay that $100 as increased property taxes the village loses a high percentage of it, but it is 100% deductible to the donor homeowner. Theirin lies the rub. Making the separte donation would benefit the Village but not the donor, unless they factor in the benefit they all get from increased value of their property because of the better appearanc of the Village. I suspect that what would happen is that some would give more, a few would give the $100., and a lot would not give. If we had a base where we could get a substantial endowment for the conservancy so that it could operate -in part - from interest accrued that would be great. Anybody got any ideas? Maybe Oprah would like to do that?
Posted Thursday Jul 19, 2007 17:36 # -
http://www.chicagosuburbannews.com/riverside/homepage/x53162762
I agree with you Kim. I find not looking at budget cutting very strange. Once again, if the trustees could convey and justify the budget to the taxpayers, I think they would get a lot more cooperation on any plans.
I would certainly pay increased fees of a few hundred dollars per year to avoid a son of TIF.
Posted Thursday Jul 19, 2007 19:46 # -
One idea I think makes sense is to raise vehicle sticker fees more dramatically than they are contemplating. Currently they are $45, I tink. Why not bump them to $100, and $50 for seniors and/or hardship cases. If there are 4000 vehicles in the village you could get another $200K from that. Simultaneously, the Village should look to cut $200K from existing programs, and we would be really closing the gap. In two years the new buildings and condos - in town and on Ogden and the the tear downs - should be on the tax rolls and generating income. I don't think we need to go to Home Rule - yet.
Posted Friday Jul 20, 2007 16:10 # -
I thought it was insane that RBHS didn't charge enough for parking there to cover their cost of parking (student parking was just $60/year in 2006), and in Brookfield, when they could not increase commuter parking from $1/day to $2/day (because Metra would not let them.) I believe the Village of Riverside did raise ambulance fees in 2007 to "offset expenses related to paramedic services."
RBHS student parking:
http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=1162&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1Brookfield commuter parking:
http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2663&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1Riverside ambulance service:
http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=1987&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=21Why wouldn't local government, at the very least, charge what it costs, if not more, for services they are providing? Why the charity?
Would I complain about a $100 vehicle sticker? Sure. Would I move out of town because of it? No. And it would not have been a consideration before moving into town either.
$10,000 here, $10,000 there, pretty soon it starts to add up to real money.
Posted Friday Jul 20, 2007 18:41 # -
I thought this group of volunteers was called the "Long Term Finance Committee"?
Oops, from the village website: "Long Term Financial Security Plan Committee".
I didn't think they were tasked with revising the budget, but I also haven't seen any of the meetings.
Posted Friday Jul 20, 2007 18:45 # -
They aren't tasked with balancing a budget, but they are going through an exercise that seems pre-ordained to come to one conclusion - Home Rule. They (well, most of them, seem to salivate at the idea that they could get $400-500K a year from that, probably hitting the sellers who are leaving. Of course, in order to have that you have to sign over a lot of power to the Board - this Board and future Boards. I think that is a dangerous thing to do.
Posted Saturday Jul 21, 2007 01:20 # -
I just drove past the Lyons Fire Department. They have all kinds of snazzy vehicles - and so do we. I wonder if there couldn't be some kind of "sharing" of equipment and perhaps even personnel if times are so tough. And I mean phasing into it, not eliminating someone. I don't know what is required or mandated or anything about it, but it seems that between Lyons, Riverside and North Riverside there is a lot of equiment stationed between Cermak and Just past Ogden. I suppose the towns investigate that but still it might be something to look into. I suppose we probably have some kind of deal with all the surrounding towns to help one another - I'm just talking about equipment sharing, because that stuff costs an arm and a leg when you buy new.
Posted Sunday Jul 22, 2007 14:49 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.