Riverside Info » About Riverside

How do we balance Riverside's budget?

(78 posts)
  1. Catherine
    Member

    Well, that's where you're wrong, "Fred". According to the village manager, much more money could have been saved with furlough days and/or 4 day work weeks - more than 400K as I recall - than were saved by proposing Recreation and north station fire staffing for the cut. See her 9/8/08 memo to the Board. Do the research before getting your crayon out.

    As to police, my recollection is they cannot find enough recruits to hire. And that that is the reason we are short-staffed, not funding. The funding issue is related to the desire to add more positions, like the many we would need if we had bars.

    Again, tell your problems to Smith and to the voters. I have already said the RP is reviewing personnel for cuts. Less mowing? As if we haven't seen that before. Grass and trees are always the first thing to go in this administration.

    Sine die: they're leaving, they're not doing anything about it until God knows when, certainly they don't know. The maximum PTT I have seen in these parts is 10%. Chicago's PPT revenues are down dramatically this year.

    I would not lobby for this until what was done in the article that heads this thread was done and, perhaps more important, people were convinced it had been done. They obviously are not.

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 08:58 #
  2. spatny
    Member

    How do we balance Riverside's budget? In these times, with what we are likely going to have to live with for three to five years. Spend less, starting yesterday.

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 09:15 #
  3. Fred
    Member

    Catherine, cutting North Fire station staffing and rec staffing are service cuts. If there is no staffing at the North station and a train blocks the crossing, we will be dependent on some other community responding per mutual aid agreements. Furloughs mean services will be offered less than 5 days per week. I'm not saying we won't have to do it; however, we should prioritize the services we want to keep. The idea that the budget can be balanced without new revenue sources or service cuts is an illusion. I agree that a property transfer tax is not a big revenue generator when properties aren't moving. Don expresses the answer well. Spend less. I would just add that we should expect less also. I can guarantee we'll get it.

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 09:40 #
  4. Catherine
    Member

    Correct, and there was no need to propose that cut. It was a scare tactic, just as Rec was. I respected the trustees that wanted to go ahead with the Rec cut. At least they were willing to deliver as promised. I do not consider this a service cut. It is not a "service" that most residents use. It is sufficient we provide the children with an excellent education.

    I think we can limp along without 1 day per week of non-safety personnel, but that is the 4 day work week issue in our case. Furlough as proposed here meant non-safety personnel would take 5 unpaid days off per year. This could be done around the Christmas holidays. I would consider this no hardship, but a benefit if I were such an employee. If large cities, counties and states can function like this, we certainly can.

    You can repeat that budget cuts equate with service cuts until the cows come home; it does not make it so. The Long Term Finance Committee made that same assumption without even investigating its truth, and so that is not known. This is what happens when you have amateurs being used by the administration as shills, guided by a consultant who is an expert in obtaining home rule, shepherded toward a predetermined conclusion by some in the administration. My perception, you do not need to share it. Thus the necessity for an efficiency expert with experience in small municipal government, the one consultant expenditure most likely to yield return on investment.

    You can also persist in trying to make budget cuts my position, or that of the RCA, but in fact it is proposed by the Riverside Party also, as you perfectly well know. Most important, the voters have spoken: no more money. They got more money in 2004 and 2006. Now they want more, and always will want more.

    If we were in the end to get less, well, so? Less is what you get in a severe recession. I would certainly like to get less of these absurd consultants for zoning, planning, TIF, home rule, village surveys designed to elicit answers that serve the agenda, and so on.

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 10:02 #
  5. spatny
    Member

    Why is it so odd to expect to get less if you spend less. If the window at the town hall were closed at 1 PM every day and that saved some money, then if I want something I would get there before that. If we can't get all these inane e-flashes that we get now - OK. If the squad cars had to turn off their engines when parked in the lot, fine. I turn my car off when I'm not in it. If a truck has to go another year, then that's what it has to do, and maybe we save or maybe we spend some on repairs - but when times are tough families - except those with unlimited resources - make those decisions. Our problem is too many people can't say "NO." Maybe the Admin folks should pay their own cell phone bills, or for their own cars. We do it. Maybe the grass gets longer - I'm in the parks everyday and I can live with that. Maybe those that go to health clubs could be helpful and push some hand lawnmowers - good exercise, no membership fees, you can wear your gym outfits and ipods. I'm sure i could find plenty that we could eliminate, and so could you...

    And I'm not being mean spirited - I'd like everyone to have a good job and all the perks - but folks, THAT SHOW IS OVER. The Stimulus is not going to turn this around overnight. 2012 is likely to be here before we see a meaningful uptick. It may take longer... People are not going to be flocking to put in new businesses ANYWHERE, much less spend hundreds of thousands to build out a high rent space in a low traffic area. No One is going to come in and build and open a place on Harlem in the next five years. Remember Starbucks? That's just the tip of the iceberg... THE COUNTRY IS BROKE.

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 10:47 #
  6. Fred
    Member

    Not mean spirited, realistic. Couldn't agree with you more. Cuts are coming, spending and services. Whoever is in a position to make decisions 6 months from now will have tough choices. Trees vs police coverage. Fire response time vs a Village web site. Maybe we can't afford Vision and will have to settle for grit and guts. I don't really know how the candidates would sort out using these criteria.

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 12:05 #
  7. idic5
    Member

    spatny's last post dovetails perfectly with that other thread about things going bust at 'epic proportions'. The macro economy definitely insinuates itself into our local economy so that we all must tighten our belts bigtime. I believe that is RCA's message now and I believe it was the minority opinion of gorman and one other person on the LTFC - belt tightening before home rule (revenue increasing). The LTFC as a whole, I believe, recommended home rule in order to increase taxes at will (fire at will - ouch).

    One reason I frequented that epic proportion thread was that I believed the high national point of view might clarify our local view. Initially I thought it was an off-forum kind of thing as at least one recent poster complained.

    balancing the budget will take a scatter gun approach: cut every penny or nickel you can, throw in a transfer tax, provide proper zoning for a better culture for biz, re-evaluate everything at the line level. along the way, lower expectations, too.

    Also, since I heard different things, What is the current status of the rec dept funding - is it self sufficient and separate or is it receiving earmarks from the village?

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 12:16 #
  8. Catherine
    Member

    Spending cuts are coming. Service cuts remain to be seen. Why do you keep repeating as proven what you have yet to prove? So it will be the last thing on the thread?

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 12:25 #
  9. Fred
    Member

    Of course. It's called blogging. I haven't proven that balancing the budget without service cuts is not possible, but I've made a better case. I've done an order of magnitude analysis and all you've put up is the possibility of results from some magical consultant who will come in, find 400k a year in waste, and not abrogate any of the 3 labor contracts the Village is a party to. "Wicked" closed so there might be just the out of work wizard we are going to need.

    Posted Saturday Feb 7, 2009 12:51 #
  10. Catherine
    Member

    No, you've provided no analysis that I recall. Where is it?

    It is easy to say there are no savings possible, yet states, counties, and cities everywhere are finding them, as they must. The magical wizard comes in when people start looking to new revenue streams. Which is more likely: new revenue streams or budget cuts? Income from a property transfer tax when nothing is selling, sales tax from bars that no one will open? Not now, anyway. Have you reviewed the village manager's memo to the board about all the possible budget cuts that were not made, none of which breached any union contracts?

    The fact is the tax increase was voted down, and I'm pretty sure we have upcoming expenditures we do not presently have the money for. So, what will give? If I recall correctly, the forester's estimate of our costs for the oncoming tree pestilence is not budgeted for, for example.

    It is true I am no financial wizard. Are we operating with a budget deficit? Is that legal for a municipality? I thought the object of the budget finalization was to get rid of the paper deficit. Why would anyone vote for 109K in deficit spending for Recreation.

    Posted Thursday Feb 12, 2009 16:24 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.