Riverside Info » About Riverside

For the SECOND time, Trustees talk TIF

(15 posts)
1 2

  1. Tim
    Member

    Were they able to re-work the TIF budget to make the schools "whole"?

    I am curious to see what from the $20 million dollar budget will be cut to make up the $12 million for the schools...

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 00:05 #

  2. MikeT
    Member

    the subject of central and hauser came up and they reiterated what was agreed to on 4-14: to not change the boundaries to swallow up the schools into the tif district (sounded like they didnot want to include the schools because it would be too expensive to re-do the tif boundaries).

    they also mentioned the stuff about the amount of money the schools would be losing would be small, especially compared to their budget, and that the schools should 'partner' with the Village.

    .
    .
    I reiterate that I thought it odd that only one trustee, smith, actually did not say 'let's get to the jrb now. let's wait.' when there was just an 80 pct vote down of this thing. I would have expected more 'let's do some serious work on the planning of any document before going to the next step ...not try to do a 12 month planning effort (arrive at specifics) in the 3.5 hours, which what I saw tonight.

    The opening comments of the trustees seemed orchestrated and coordinated...

    to me (as divulged by the later comment from the VM on the POSSIBLE 4-30 school meeting, where she said 'depending on the feedback of tonight's proceedings...') the village trustees were saying

    they did not care about the referendum vote (as they already said before anyway+)

    AND

    they were saying

    there aint nuttin you girls gonna do 'bout it

    (mulan)

    or

    I dare you to do something about it.

    What will those 80 pct No's do? a scathing letter to the editor? pack the auditorium with 10 people for 3.5 hrs, for the next N meetings? diet rockstars for all, please.

    .
    .

    in light of this, I want to remind our coordinated, orchestrated Village board that our august Native Daughter, Judy B T, said that 'majority rules' (morally, in riverside's case) when she wrote about the meaning of the referendum. see link below.

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=282&page&replies=48#post-4326

    + the infamous april 03 cow (I just noticed the reference to 'communism' in the link below; connects to the spatny belurus comment above today; how poetic; there is a pattern to this chaos)
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=270&page&replies=109#post-4478

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 01:05 #

  3. Catherine
    Member

    Actually, it was someone additional to Smith who said, how can a plan this vague be brought to the JRB. At any rate, only Messrs Shields and Wiaduck wanted to proceed to the vote on May 7 so that it could be brought to a JRB, and the others were not in favor for a variety of reasons. The majority did not like to be rushed into it.

    It is true that a majority seemed to want the JRB input. This led to a couple of observation about the schools having better funding than the village.

    Tim, there was no discussion yet about making the schools whole. But tell me this about that: is it not illegal to make one taxing body whole and not all of the others?

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 06:41 #

  4. MikeT
    Member

    How is this playing in the village?

    My wife told me today that someone told her that a couple people said they watched the board meeting on tv monday night and noticed that the board was saying the referendum did not matter and that they were going forward with the tif anyway (their characterization). They both thought it very odd. One said the word 'nuts'.

    Posted Wednesday Apr 25, 2007 00:14 #

  5. MikeT
    Member

    from The Landmark today, 4/25/07, in the Letters section from HJ Wiaduck...

    http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2521&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=&S=1

    ...

    It is seems clear from the workshops that a majority of those who participated are content to allow the private sector effect any change. Again, the workshops produced plenty of visions, but no practical solutions on how anything will be accomplished.

    Those who voted no to the financing alternatives did so based on only partial information, because they have effectively said that they are not interested in hearing what all the effected taxing bodies have to say about the TIF Proposal.

    The TIF referenda results have simply confirmed again the difficulty our community seems to have with executing plans and visions.

    Harold J. Wiaduck Jr.
    Riverside

    Harold J. Wiaduck Jr. is Riverside's village president.

    COMMENT1: You see here a reiteration of the call to go to the JRB ('affected taxing bodies') that was stated in the 4-23-06 Village Board meeting that is the subject of this thread:

    ...not interested in hearing what all the effected taxing bodies have to say about the TIF Proposal.

    On the contrary, I was and am very interested in hearing what the affected taxing bodies say on this. I just do not want to do the vote to start the 45 day TIF countdown to get that information.

    You are turning on the process of the very thing that you are evaluating. Is the admin saying that there is no impact info right now to the affected taxing bodies?

    Why can't the affected taxing bodies state their position on this initiative right now?

    COMMENT2: Trying to get community consensus on an approach IS hard work, and is the appropriate work for us to do now. The workshops were just a start, a glimpse, of a rigorous COMPREHENSIVE planning process.

    We just wasted all that money to the TIf consultant KMA for the TIF (financing of action items) without that community endorsed comprehensive plan on what to do. The TDO was really a sub area inventory of options; KMA said it satisfied the comp plan requirement, but that was obviously his vested interest and not our town's interest talking. I can even see that.

    It was, sorry for the harsh word, pathetic, almost embarrassing, to see the trustees trying to plod through that worksheet of items on 4-23, trying to spell out specifics for 3 hours, since, after all, they heard a call for more specifics in the TIF plan.

    In the business that I am in, systems development, there is a saying that you cannot cheat the requirements phase of a system's life. REquirements phase is a phase in the systems life, in conjunction with the system developers and the business owners of the ne system, where the goals of the system are clearly stated; it is what we are designing to, our measure of success; what we want to do ; what is required.

    If you charge ahead in doing a system on what some systems developers THINKS is the right thing, INVARIABLY, the system is wrong and there is a whole lot of re-do and expense. Our Historic town cannot afford a whole of re-do. Chaos beckons with every sorry parcel that is plowed over without due consideration to the affect to the whole of Riverside, including the vision of what Riverside is.

    THis is just common sense. Sorry to sound technical.

    I like the house analogy. It would be like charging ahead with a house without an understanding of what the customer wants and needs.

    Posted Wednesday Apr 25, 2007 10:09 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2

Reply

You must log in to post.