Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

21. spatny
    Member

    I assume that means against an understaffed and under equipped police and fire department? I assume it's OK if the trees are maintained, no matter the nomenclature? I assume its OK if DPW gets that done but perhaps in a more economical way? Hard to define what is a "decent variety" of rec programs but I guess they can try. I'm glad to see you don't belive they have some sinister intent, as has been implied here. And I suppose you are OK with making tough choices.

    I haven't heard anyone say their taxes are too low - but that's a thought. I think, given the drop in revenues over which the Board has no control that they will have to spend some of the reserves - and after all, that's what they are for, isn't it? Fo the rainy day when something breaks or the revenues don't come in? I think that is what they are trying to do - all seven of them.

    Posted Thursday Oct 1, 2009 15:43 #

22. JohnM
    Member

    Don't assume Don--you know what they say...

    Seriously, I have neither the time nor the inclination to give you a point-by-point breakdown of specific budget items that I find important. What I listed were some broad parameters that I believe to be important. I understand that the Village may have to make some adjustments--less maintainance on cars, grass mowed less often, streets and facilities repaired less often, more contributions from rec users for programs. However, I don't believe we can afford to lose public safety or forestry personnel; I don't believe we should not fix things just to save money--as you noted, a small expense now is preferable to a large one in the future; and I believe that if the entire cost of rec programs is shifted on to the participants, we may as well eliminate the Department. (As an aside, I find it interesting how the Forester has lost favor. A few months ago, people--including yourself-- couldn't say enough good things about him. Now his title is just nomenclature? Did Kunka & Co. get to you as well?)

    You're half right about reserves. They are there for when something breaks. They are not there to pay recurring expenditures (that is, salaries, bills, etc.). By using them to do this, we're walking down a very risky path. They'll run out, and run out soon. And what then?

    Posted Thursday Oct 1, 2009 16:04 #

23. spatny
    Member

    John - don't assume. Mike Collins does not have a stronger supporter in this village than me. But see, you jump to conclusions, and then start hurling stuff. How about if his position is changed in name and he ends up with more resources? Will that do it for you?

    I have gone, in person, to meetings and asked the Board to look at repairing the River Wall now while it is repairable, and would cost less. But I have not gotten anywhere with that, and haven't seen anyone else there to help. So I don't take everything any of the Board members tell me as gospel, or necessarily agree with them. As for Rec, I think it might well offer combined programs with other surrounding villages like NR and Brookfield, if the Riversiders won't mind mixing with the proles. I think it was top heavy and I still do, and was flogged for being "unpatriotic" or against kids. Incidentally the backstop was fixed and other repairs made, sans duct tape and at substantial savings, and the world is still turning.

    If you read the summary and looked at the charts on revenue, you can see that our revenues - like every other town - have taken a tremendous hit. We had a problem with raises and costs exceeding the CPI for years, yet the master builders went out and bought those lots. So now we have even less reserves. Same with Centennial - we're getting a grant, great! But also our end of the deal has doubled, plus. So do we say, as some would, we can't afford this at this time and hope there is another grant down the road. Or do we pay up and get... what? Is that what you spend reserves on? I wouldn't, because I don't see the big improvement it will bring - but that's just me. In a "normal" year hat deal would look a lot better. They will probably go for it, and maybe that's he thing to do. I don't pretend to know.

    Posted Thursday Oct 1, 2009 17:46 #

24. JohnM
    Member

    Don,

    I know you've been an outpoken supporter of Collins. That's why I was surprised at your reference to "nomenclature." I was troubled to see that position on the chopping block--hopefully that's not under serious consideration. I do get a sense that some of the new Board members and some of the more recent appointees to certain commissions are threatened by his knowledge and professionalism, and would like to see someone more in their image. Hopefully I'm wrong.

    A co-op rec district might be in the cards. Your statement about "proles," though, is a cheap shot. Our kids go to school with kids from those communities--I can't see anyone objecting to playing soccer with them. And, I think that we get a great bang for our buck on Rec salaries. They do a great job, with limited resources, helped in part by a lot of parental involvement. I see Laurie Kosey everywhere, at all hours. Hopefully, the Village Board recognizes this fact.

    Again, I get the fact that we're facing tough times. My concern is that our Board majority is taking the approach that we can weather them by cutting services and spending reserves (again, two things they pledged not to do) and not focusing on the revenue side of the equation. We can get away with this for a few years, but if you spend reserves on recurring expenses, rather than on capital improvements or other one-offs, you run out of money eventually. And then what?

    Posted Thursday Oct 1, 2009 20:49 #

25. Tim
    Member

    Given the title to this thread, let me offer an opinion before we move on.

    Much has been made of the fiscal crisis and bleak future for our Village finances. Certain things will be unavoidable (ie death and taxes), but there is one thing that we cannot avoid...and that is the need to continue to move forward.

    My biggest concern with the decision this past week regarding 61-63 is that it lacks a vision for the future. At some point you need to spend money to make money. My opinion is that the cost was negligible with regard to the benefit in this instance.

    $56,000 would have been the pricetag to...

    ...reach out to our business community with an olive branch of hope

    ...create a "GREEN PARKING LOT", something sustainable our community could be proud of and something our leaders could promote as a model for future development

    ...define the CBD with an entry point from where visitors embark on their journey towards the center of our Village

    ...give our town something to sell, how can you ever expect new business to come to Riverside if the perception is one stagnation, 'do nothing' and despair over financial woes which 'could never be fixed with increased sales tax'

    I think its great the Board was able to go out and find extra parking spots, but in this case I am not convinced that the numbers add up to the best possible outcome.

    When does this grant opportunity expire?

    Is there something in the hidden language of the grant that we need to know that makes this prohibitive??? Otherwise the benefits seem to outweigh the cost in this circumstance, in my opinion.

    Posted Thursday Oct 1, 2009 21:17 #

26. mrt
    Member

    Tim, considering what I have seen on the other thread concerning the 2010 budget - where the Trustees were proposing to cut services - I can see why they nixed any spending on the parking initiative. It is consistant with across the board cuts. Spending more would have been INconsistant with proposing service cut reductions (if what was stated in that other thread is true).

    The ethos that seems to be drivng the Board seems to be a "penny pinching" mindset - or is that "fiscally responsible" mindset? Agreed, that this mindset tends to be a "limited visibility" orientation as a driver on the expressway in a blizzard.

    Also, a couple of questions on the pking lot:

    Was that $56k the net amt that would have to be paid after the grant funds were applied to the published development costs (were they something like $200k?).

    Can parking revenues EVER be used by the Village for non parking uses?

    Posted Thursday Oct 1, 2009 23:02 #

27. CuriousResident
    Member

    Nice post Tim. I can align with all your points.
    I'm particularly curious about the last question...

    If we use the grant, does that limit the use of the lot for commuter only?
    If so, does that kill the value to the CBD?
    And/or, if we were to use it for general business parking, does that mean were are on the hook for the full ~$220k?

    mrt- Penny pinching is one thing, but spending 90% of the cost to build something and then deciding the last 10% is too much seems a bit like cutting your nose off despite your face. WE have a lot of money tied up in that project and we are getting no value from it.

    I'll restate what I think is *the* question the board needs to answer:
    "If 61 & 63 Burlington are not to be a parking lot, what will we do with the properties?"

    We need to know how the financials of the "option B" will look~

    Posted Friday Oct 2, 2009 09:30 #

28. newriversider
    Member

    It was not prudent to put a halt to the parking lot. The CBD begged for it. If Ms. Rush was allowed to stay on we could have saved the 65k and put it towards the parking lot. The RCA is losing sight of what needs to be done...and they are allowing their egos to get into the way. We will be able to move on once they stop making this a personal issue.

    Posted Friday Oct 2, 2009 09:52 #

29. Kelly
    Member

    The 56K is the out of pocket cost to the Village - its our 20% plus the demolition costs for 1 house + probably some other minor expenses.

    As for the the Parking Fund being used for other things, my understanding is that it is an enterprise fund established to "cover" our parking lots. Its revenue can only be used for parking. Could the fund be abolished & parking dealt with in another way? Probably. But if the revenue goes into the general fund, so do the liabilities which create an extra property tax burden.

    I have not seen the grant, but I believe that it contains some requirements that it be green and sustainable and it be for commuter use. Per the VM, any spots not taken by commuters by 10am would be available for public use. I don't see this as a problem -commuters are generally gone before the evening rush at the Chew Chew, and the business owners pointed out that they want commuters to walk past their stores - to stop in and buy something, get a haircut, etc.

    I don't know how many years the lot needs to remain a commuter lot before it can be coverted into something else.

    Posted Friday Oct 2, 2009 10:04 #

30. mr
    Member

    Tom's article in the Landmark echoed some of the things I thought when I watched the whole discussion about the tree donation. Opinions expressed against the donation had little substantiation. Motives were questioned. I wonder - what would an inappropriate motive be that would justify an otherwise acceptable gift?

    In particular, I found it disturbing that a trustee suggested that planting another season of cultivars might threaten the village's Landmark Status. He did not offer any information on why he thought that nor did he reference how other Olmstead sites were meeting the challenge of disease resistant parkway trees while maintaining their status and satisfying taxpayers.

    Did it bother anyone that the newest member of the landscaping advisory commission could not provide any information on how trees are added to the list or why many trees on that list are not available or not appropriate for parkway planting? Yet he was willing to speak as a member of the commission that it is dictatorial for people who donate money to specify how they want their money spent? Don't philanthropists do that all the time? I wonder about the trust he built among his commission members in disparaging their efforts to make the tree replacement program more effective.

    When President Gorman broke the tie, in voting not to accept the donation, he referenced notes that indicated that anyone with money could get whatever they wanted planted in a parkway. No examples were provided, no statistics. No acknowlegement that in other communities, parkway trees are planted with 100% tax money and the fact that anyone is spending their own money is in Riverside's interest, unless stronger, better researched and presented reasons are brought forward for why it is not.

    As for Frederick Law Olmsted, that name is generally brought up in connection with things that the residents can not have. Our sylvan parks can't be marred by a bike path - although Central Park has them. The Landmark status is an asset and the econonic value of that asset should be openly discussed. The only thing that I know now is that this status just cost the village $5,000 in annual donations - and I have heard that Steve Campbell was prepared to increase his donation. I have also heard that he owns business property in Brookfield - and as a business owner in Brookfield - is heading their economic development team.

    Disputes like the trees and the parking lot make me wonder if some residents treat Riverside as a kind of "Brigadoon". A place that emerges from the mist every one hundred years but will vanish if solutions that are perfectly acceptable in fine communities around us are employed here.

    I think Tom identified the village Presiden't proper role - to use the talents and experience of his team to bring positive change and take advantage or opportunity. He is not leading if all he is able to do is vote with the RCA.

    Posted Friday Oct 2, 2009 17:38 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.