Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. ChrisHajer
   Member

   I was going to post this with the information about district 96 having a surplus and the village needing some money, so since it's all taxpayer money they should just 'share', but I couldn't find the topic. It was on Chicago Public Radio this week:

   http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=37459

   QUINN: Twenty-one other states in the union are using it. If you have surpluses in other state funds, other than the general revenue fund, you can borrow from those funds in order to make sure you can get through the fiscal year.

   Sounds like just the ticket!

   [EDIT] it was this topic where there was discussion of "one pie" vs "many pies":
   http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/rca-determines-our-village-needs-more-capital-funds/page/2#post-11073

   Posted Saturday Oct 17, 2009 16:07 #

2. spatny
   Member

   That's the ticket - wonder if it applies anywhere this far down the pike. I mean, for municipalities rather than states. Maybe sopme lawyer here could draft a bill and we could bombard our reps???

   Posted Saturday Oct 17, 2009 17:25 #

3. mr
   Member

   I am unhappy that D96 is accumulating a surplus.
   I am unhappy about the way they have spent it, re Dr. Lamberson.
   I am really unhappy about public employee pensions and benefits, and I include the absurd concept of accumulated sick days, for which teachers and other public employees are paid and which are included in the pension formula.

   Still, I read somewhere, that many people in the New Trier district move there and endure the high taxes while their children are in school, and then move out after they graduate.

   Because of how important schools are to overall property values, I would like to have more control of how money is moved around. Also, I don't want to create any incentive for any taxing body to spend a surplus.

   These comments by Gov. Quinn indicate that the problem is more widespread than Riverside.

   Posted Saturday Oct 17, 2009 17:38 #

4. mr
   Member

   After re reading Quinn's comments, it seems as if he was referring to state funds, which of course may not be the same as all public entity funds

   Posted Saturday Oct 17, 2009 17:40 #

5. anonymous
   Member

   The teachers are organized and smell weakness by the board. The next school board meeting is Tuesday the Hollywood school.

   If our school board won't represent us, then we must speak directly to them. It's OUR money and OUR homes and OUR taxes.

   The teachers want a raise. They are paid very well as it is, like mr said, with an excellent pension and accumulated sick days, not to mention the rest of their holidays and weeks of vacation in the middle of the school year. Do you? Do you even have a job? Are you guaranteed to have it next year? Have you had to take furlough days or lost hours?

   The surplus is a result of over-taxing. How many more people will be thrown out of their homes because they can't afford the taxes? And Lamberson thinks that our money is his to spend, and he pours the school board a new flavor at each meeting to brainwash them into thinking the money belongs to them, too, and that they can spend it because it’s theirs. Well, it’s not.

   D96 should give back our surplus money. The village needs it more than the schools do. D96 needs to learn how to economize, like the rest of us.

   Posted Sunday Oct 18, 2009 00:36 #

6. JohnM
   Member

   It's all well and good to talk about the schools giving back the surplus, but to whom? Brookfield is in worse shape financially than Riverside--they're going to want money as well. North Riverside seems fairly secure, but I can't imagine they'll want to be left out. I understand that only a percentage of each of these towns goes to D96 schools, so presumably their share of the hypothetical refund would be less--still, they'll need to get something.

   A more realistic approach would be to find a way to force D96 to lower its levy. If their surplus is so high, they are obviously asking for and taking too much--it seems clear that they are spending too much. Maybe there's a way to force them to live off the surplus for a year and eliminate taxes for that year altogether (I suspect that's impossible, but still...)

   Posted Sunday Oct 18, 2009 11:20 #

7. anonymous
   Member

   I agree. When I said D96 should give back the surplus, I meant back to the taxpayers so that we could give it to our respective villages--Riverside, Brookfield, and North Riverside. It would have been nice to have fireworks in North Riverside at the close of Independence Day.

   We should FORCE D96 to lower its levy. And FORCE them to live off the surplus for a year---AND eliminate taxes for that year altogether. Nothing is impossible. We need to make it happen. It's our money. The school board members represent US.

   Posted Sunday Oct 18, 2009 12:23 #

8. CuriousResident
   Member

   Before we all jump on the "crucify D96 for having money in the bank" band wagon, we should review why things are what they are.

   For a start: Riverside School District 96 Spending & Revenue

   The schools are expected to be fiscally "healthy" and there is a system in place to monitor their health ISBE School District Financial Profile System
   Deeper dive: D96's financial profile 7 yr analysis.

   District Name Riverside SD 96
   Year FBRR EXRV DCOH STB LTD Total Score Designation
   2008 1.40 1.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 Recognition
   2007 1.40 1.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 Recognition
   2006 1.40 1.40 0.30 0.40 0.40 3.90 Recognition
   2005 1.05 1.40 0.20 0.40 0.40 3.45 Review
   2004 0.70 1.05 0.10 0.40 0.40 2.65 Early Warning
   2003 1.05 0.70 0.20 0.40 0.40 2.75 Early Warning

   We were on the warning Early Warning list and our numbers were trending the wrong way.

   So, it appears the reason there was a tax hike for D96 was simply that we were "draining the bucket" and going to have problems. More specifics here: D96's 2004 Financial Profile and D96's 2008 Financial Profile It is nice to see that our Revenues and Expenditures are now close to parallel (versus converging or diverging).

   That being said, it does appear "the game was changing".

   My memory of the North Riverside Mall changes is fuzzy (a major tenant moved out and some taxes were not only no longer coming our way, but we also had a reversal that had to be paid out), but the 2 things that stick out are

   1) the school tax rate dropped and then got voted back up (something expire?)
   2) the property taxes have spiked since 2004 (which should have helped, no?)

   http://iirc.niu.edu/District.aspx?source=Finances&source2=Revenue%20Amounts&districtID=14016096002&level=D

   RIVERSIDE SD 96
   District Financial Information - Revenue Amounts

   Fiscal---Total-------Local-----Other----General--Other----Federal
   -Year----School----Property--Local-----State---State----Funding
   ---------Tax Rate---Taxes-----Funding---Aid-----Funding
   ---------per $100
   2000 - 01..(2.3)...8,168,891..841,735..239,537..668,599..208,883
   2001 - 02..(2.5)...9,033,112..736,534..260,033..402,269..163,215
   2002 - 03..(2.5)...8,113,073..567,534..268,788..463,160...71,197
   2003 - 04..(2.0)...9,022,826..546,968..305,971..603,221...79,140
   2004 - 05..(2.6)..12,548,865..541,695..346,403..607,174..130,748
   2005 - 06..(2.7)..13,148,831..608,157..319,752..428,460..198,954
   2006 - 07..(2.7)..16,142,776..899,807..377,655..655,170..201,714

   I'm not sure how all this will come to rest when the property taxes readjust for normal values...or even all the factors that need to be part of the discussion.

   Finding a balance point between "having to spend down the reserves" versus "banking too much money" is likely very difficult. The difference between the schools and personal finances is that we can make much quicker adjustments. Knowing what the teacher contracts will be negotiated to, knowing where property taxes will land, knowing how the state, knowing how many students you will have...etc, makes this a game where we have to er on the side of "banking too much". If the schools degenerate, so do our property values and our village.

   The reason I bring this up is because this is clearly a complex problem and I think fanning the flames of "give us back our money" is simply not very civil. Ok fine, D96 now has some surplus. Let's start asking "why", "If we stay the course, will it grow", "Are we spending with champagne taste but on a beer budget", "Can the levy be adjusted -1/8 percent and get closer to a balance point", etc.

   Posted Monday Oct 19, 2009 11:45 #

9. spatny
   Member

   Which is why I was advocating that the District "adopt" certain aspects of the village budget for a couple years - like the Rec department, crossing guards, the Community Sertvices Officer, etc. If they picked up $300-500K of these expenses from their surpluses and kept their rtes the same their surplus would still grow, and the residents would get some breathing room.

   One thing we all should consider: It could be a very long time before property (value) rises to anywhere near where it was. There is nothing anywhere that indicates a large flood of home buyers who will bid prices up anywhere close to where they were. In contrast, as unemployment increases just the opposite happens, and prices could drop further. So it seems wise to assume there will be some automatic kicker that will keep the property taxes where they are now, at least.

   Posted Monday Oct 19, 2009 12:08 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.