Can someone tell us what the planned uses are of the monies from the proposed Village tax increase that will be on the ballot in November?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Planned uses for the increased taxes (referendum)?
(17 posts)-
Posted Friday Aug 29, 2008 02:10 #
-
No - it's still all mumbo-jumbo. The Board will be holding workshops to explain their plans (sic) for the extra funds they hope to raise. But one must remember that there is nothing binding about what they say. What you won't here about is rezoning, planned unit developments (PUDs), incentives to developers, the indiscriminate use of consultants and attorneys to battle residents, etc. You faced it when they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to put over the parking garage and TOD study - which incidentally was adopted as the official "vision" for the future of Riverside. Giving this Board more money would be foolish. That they make veiled threats about what they won't do if they don't get it - like spray for the gypsy moth or maintain the parks, or that we will be overrun by criminality if we don't hire another detective and buy him a plain wrapper squad car, is disingenuous at best.
This Board moved a million from one account to another and spent half a million on acquiring property purportedly to provide more parking. They are selling the Northgate property which will bring in a nice slice of change. If they didn't buy motorized file systems (which they will place in the derelict youth center building) and advanced software and other unnecessary purchases and hire consultants and high priced legal council there would be a couple hundred thousand extra dollars in the pot. It's much more important to see how they handle what they have then give them more to play with. After April there may or may not be a new Board in place, and then plans for further tax measures can be considered, after the residents know who will be spending it. The people that allowed that oversized and (to date) failed monstrosity to be built by selling the alley underneath it for a paltry $15,000 and then charging just a pittance for the parking shortfall, the people that had early morning special meetings to validate concessions to developers that sold them a bogus bill of goods about what they would do with our sweet little Arcade building, the administration that screwed up and had to refund fees to the developer of the still not fully subsrcibed condos down on Deleplaine should not be either endorsed for another term nor given more tax money to squander. (Now they can switch back to me and call me names and lay off Catherine for a while.)
Posted Friday Aug 29, 2008 10:42 # -
Read Ben Sells' current Vituperation to the Editor of the Landmark. There he says what the intended purposes are.
However, it is nonbinding. Like the request I and others made on your behalf to have the Board forswear eminent domain, any future board or even this one could change their minds.
Barack Obama, last night: "I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Now, I realize many Riversiders are in the last 5 percentile, but I don't know that 51% of them are. Our most pressing elective need is to plant trees. We are free to tax ourselves by doing so. That way, we will also be dead certain where the money is going.
***********************************
At the first referendum meeting we were at, discussion was had about the 10K spent for the skewed resident survey, 30K I believe for rec software, hire of a rec aide, hire of museum director. It was specifically said any money required for these next year would come from the tax increase. Later we heard of 14K to search for a new DPW, with no explanation of why we could not promote the current second in command or what major public works we have on hand that he is unqualified for.
What concerns me even more than possible excesses in in-house spending though is transfer of public money to the private sector, whether to consultants, lawyers or possibly developers. I think people have the right to question this in good faith. This is the very complaint about war spending in Iraq; it is always something people always want to know about.
Posted Friday Aug 29, 2008 11:43 # -
The current piece by Mr Sells is one reason I was asking the simple question of this thread. I see references to "Parks and Recreation Department... historical museum... increased public safety, parks maintenance, reclamation of our wilderness areas, enhanced forestry and maintenance of basic infrastructure". I wondered if there was a more ground level detailing of the planned uses for the new monies. In other words, I DO want the 'budget facts' that are referenced in Sells' piece.
It sounds like from Spatny's post above that there will be workshops to explain that ground level. So we will add here when more info is disclosed.
Catherine said--
However, it is nonbinding.
I take it that you are referring to the intended uses of the tax increase - that is, intended uses, even if disclosed, can be modified?
Here, for more info in this thread, from the Landmark, is an article on the referendum
http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3907&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1
Posted Friday Aug 29, 2008 14:21 # -
All that is binding is more taxes.
Yes, the stated intended uses for the increased tax revenue are nonbinding. The green referendum is also nonbinding. Then there remains the option of moving present expenditures (like park maintenance) out of the old tax base and into the new revenue, freeing up the old tax base revenues for purposes not enumerated, therefore also rendering any representations - even if they were binding, which they are not - meaningless.
So, it is a question of trust. Myself, I did not like to see 2 lawyers in attendance at that meeting, hearing a third was at work drafting this material, the 10K for the citizen survey - the results of which we have not heard - etc. I feel that even if the large expenditures of this nature were in the past and could be overlooked, the habit continues and could increase again. It feels to me like giving money to a charity that has a large overhead with not enough money hitting the streets.
There is also an election of a number of trustees in 2009. They may have other ideas about how to use the money. It's too bad they cannot run on this tax increase platform.
Posted Saturday Aug 30, 2008 08:53 # -
That's why they created this "urgency" by moving the money to another account. The President and trustees don't want to run for reelection at the same time they ask for a tax increase, which is why so many people think they are "gaming" the residents. Raising "new money" to pay for things that any responsible administration would have budgeted for and thereby freeing up "old money" for undefined projects is an age old game. They want this money to further their insane plan to develop the CBD and make Riverside a micro Burr Ridge or some such. If they were to get this money you would see incentives to developers and consultants to put across PUDs and other projects in line with that awful TOD study they developed. First we have to bring new people in and then look reevaluate what needs to be done, set sensible goals and try and get out from under the burden they have placed on the taxpayers. It may well be that it becomes necessary to raise more money, but not for their plan to "revitalize the CBD" and Harlem Avenue. Even as we speak they are still hiring Camiros, other consultants and lawyers to further those goals and correct their mistakes. Bah, Humbug!
Posted Saturday Aug 30, 2008 22:35 # -
It is interesting that for the VERY FIRST TIME I have received a copy of the Riverside Review in the mail, other than the time I requested delivery and received ONE. I suppose this is because I live in a condo. Anyway, it describes the uses to which the admin says they will put the money, and I imagine this is why it was ensured everyone would receive it.
These stated uses are various and as they were at the first meeting, so I still don't understand the linking of the tax increase with the green referendum; the green is still just one element of many.
Posted Tuesday Sep 2, 2008 13:19 # -
I look forward to finding my copy of Riverside Review. If I cannot find a copy, I suspect I can get one at VH.
Posted Tuesday Sep 2, 2008 15:25 # -
The November revenue referendum focuses on Public Safety, Preservation, and Services. The referendum would increase taxes by 4% (over the past five years taxes allocated to the Village have increased about 2.5% per year). In addition to maintaining current minimum service levels, including current staffing for Public Safety, Public Works, Forestry, and Parks and Recreation, the referendum would make possible the following additional services.
All costs given are annualized costs for the given services spread over four years 2009-2012.
PUBLIC SAFETY ($201,563 annually; 43.5% of total additional services)
Our police force currently is operating at 18 officers, with optimal staffing being 21. This item increases the force by adding an additional detective at a cost of $98,900. In addition, Riverside continues to pursue a joint dispatch agreement with Lyons, an agreement that long term would serve to stabilize this vital service aspect. If that agreement is finalized, this item would provide $66,599 for the necessary record keeping and clerical support of that endeavor. Also included in this item is $36,064 for one day per week IT maintenance, which is primarily directed toward upkeep of police and fire related computers, servers, and technology appliances.
PRESERVATION ($205,827 annually; 44.4% of total additional services)
1) Park Maintenance ($29,882)
Public Works carries out the following functions in maintaining recreational facilities in the parks:
—¢ Mowing
—¢ Herbicide application
—¢ Aeration
—¢ Reseeding/watering
—¢ Trash pickup
—¢ Mulch spreading (recreational grade for play areas: Harrington, Turtle Park, Patriot Park, Blythe Park)
—¢ Equipment repair (fencing, bleachers, graffiti removal)These functions are carried out with the same equipment and personnel used for maintenance of all other Village green space. During high use periods (i.e. baseball season, soccer season) PW is routinely requested to perform higher levels of maintenance to the recreation areas. This increased effort diverts resources needed to maintain the Village's other green space (mowing, mulching, litter pickup, weed control, invasive plant removal, watering). By allocating additional funds to maintain the recreation areas, they can be maintained at a higher standard while allowing sufficient resources for general green space maintenance.
2) Wilderness Area Management/Pest Control ($57,702)
The Village faces serious threats from two pests, the gypsy moth and emerald ash borer. The gypsy moth threat is already upon us and will require spraying (estimated to be $75,000 per spray) to deter serious, perhaps fatal, defoliation of our existing tree stock. The EAB threat is not addressed by funds that would be raised through this referendum.
Once these threats are met, wilderness management efforts may proceed. A long neglected need, these efforts would allow reclamation of our wilderness areas by replicating a pre-19th century riparian environment while enhancing their current functions as floodplains or floodplain buffer areas and allowing for increased passive recreational use. Included in the needed activities are:
—¢ Inventory of existing vegetation and planning of enhancements.
—¢ Removal of man-made trash/litter. This activity may be conducted by a combination of contract and volunteer effort.
—¢ Removal of excess downed timber; some downed wood/vegetation litter is healthy for a bottomland/riverine ecosystem. In the absence of periodic fires, there is an un-natural accumulation of this material. Due to the hazardous nature of this work this activity will be done by contract forces.
—¢ Removal of invasive species.
—¢ Creation of wildlife habitat and access paths
—¢ Bank stabilization
—¢ Reforestation
—¢ Non-woody plant propagation
—¢ Maintenance activities3) Forestry Equipment ($12,365)
This item funds the acquisition, operation, and replacement of two major pieces of equipment, a towed lift and a stump grinder. It also funds ancillary equipment (e.g. harnesses, pruning saws) and other forestry power equipment. The towed lift has already been purchased under a Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) grant, but if this lift is to become a permanent part of the Public Works inventory, replacement must be programmed. The towed lift allows in-house forces to remove hanging tree limbs up to a height of approximately 35 feet. The stump grinder allows removal of smaller trees (approx 12— diameter and below) and grinding of stumps without the need for contract tree services. The primary benefit of this equipment is to allow for more rapid response for removal of hazardous/diseased trees.
4) Central Business District Planting and Maintenance ($33,750)
This item continues the CBD landscaping program from 2008 throughout the remaining CBD as well as providing for watering and increased maintenance for the CBD landscaping. The areas identified for 2009 planting are approximately twice that of the 2008 planting, and the 2010 areas are roughly the same as the 2008 planting areas. The maintenance effort will increase yearly to a level of around $25,000.
5) Additional Code Enforcement ($10,304)
This item allows for additional resources to survey, investigate, and implement the Village's ordinances with a focus on code enforcement ensuring that all property owners maintain their property in a manner consistent with public safety, community standards, and the upholding of property values.
6) Sidewalk Replacement ($51,520)
The Village's sidewalk replacement program is unfunded as of 2009. This item will allow the program to continue on a cycle of repair and replacement without requiring property owners to share an undue burden of the costs of such repair and replacement.
7) Façade Loan Program ($10,304)
This item provides a self-replenishing low interest loan program for property owners wishing to improve the appearance of their storefronts.
SERVICES ($56,120 annually; 12.1% of total additional services)
1) Capital Investment ($51,520)
This item allows for projects and equipment that currently are unfunded but that are needed to complete projects and provide ongoing levels of service. For example: 2009 CBD street lighting (many existing lights are not currently operable without significant investment due to poor wiring); 2010 computer investment that allows for replacement and upgrades of computer equipment on a five year schedule; 2011 document scanning software that allows for records management of files and other documents extending back over the Village's 135 year history; 2012 police evidence room upgrades.
2) Online Registration for Parks and Recreation ($4600)
This item allows for online registration for the Parks and Recreation Department programs. Not only does this service make it easier for participants to register by allowing them to do it online, it reduces the personnel time needed to input registration information by hand.
The referendum would also provide sufficient funds to offer a need based discount for senior citizen vehicle stickers, reduce the cost of vehicle stickers to the previous $45/car amount, and eliminate the Places for Eating tax.
Total Average Annual Cost for Above Additional Services: $463,510
Average Annual Property Tax for a $450,000 Home to Support the Above Additional Services: $178.45 (49 cents per day)
Cost Per Day for Average Homeowner to Maintain Current Service Levels and Support the Above Additional Services: $1.00/day.
____________________________________________________________Concerning the overlap between the green referendum and the revenue referendum, there are many things can be accomplished as part of a village-wide green initiative at little or no cost to taxpayers. All of these should be pursued aggressively. In terms of the additional services that would be provided by the revenue referendum, however, all of the things listed above under “Preservation— would directly support the green referendum's specific call for “increasing efforts to protect and preserve Riverside's parks, wilderness areas, and public facilities.—
____________________________________________________________The above items and associated costs are the factual basis for the increased revenue being sought via the November 4 revenue referendum. The Village Board has stated that this is how the referendum revenue would be spent and that is how it would be spent. The notion that this referendum is some sort of “bait and switch— simply is untrue. I would never do such a thing to my neighbors and fellow residents, nor would I sit passively by and allow such a thing to happen. The various scenarios of hidden agendas and backdoor deals being bandied about are fantasy. I have been on the Village Board for over a year now and never have I heard a single word spoken along such lines. I know it is difficult for some to believe, perhaps impossible for some to believe, but the Village Board is made up of fair minded and honorable people who simply would not lie to their neighbors. I may sometimes disagree with my colleagues on the Village Board, but not for one instant do I doubt their integrity or their desire to do what is best for our Village. Given the wide range of views represented by the Trustees, it is significant that support for both referendum questions was unanimous.
On September 9 at 7:00 p.m. the Village Board will address the specific impacts on the Village budget and associated services should the revenue referendum fail. I encourage all interested residents to attend these budget meetings.
Posted Wednesday Sep 3, 2008 16:13 # -
So, 44% of the additional is NOT going for the green referendum, as stated here:
http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/riverside/homepage/x544095919
"The other referendum on the November ballot, the revenue or property tax increase referendum, needs to pass in order for some changes to be made, Sells said. About 45 percent of the revenue referendum will go toward park maintenance and wilderness areas. If the village is short on money, usually park maintenance and landscape suffer first."
Rather, about 22% of additional revenue is for park maintenance and wilderness areas according to the above, because only the first three items relate to park maintenance and landscape. I take it this is ADDITIONAL to that which is already in the budget for these matters, is that so? And still no money for planting trees?
Even though it is 22 not 45% and so I don't know how this connection between the two referendum ever got started, these figures are most interesting and pithy. Can we have a like summary of how much has been given to whom, when, for what purpose and with what result with regard to the use of consultants and lawyers since, say, the discussion of raising the height restriction for the VC began? How can people decide whether to add more money when they don't know where the old money went? Is that really such a crazy question?
Posted Wednesday Sep 3, 2008 23:23 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.