Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

11. Catherine
    Member

    Also, MikeT, you ask why Ben Sells did not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on purchasing buildings on Burlington. These were, at the last version, to create parking spaces presently triple the cost of those waived for the VC condo and partly necessitated by those waivers.

    The answer is that this is not the accounting requested of past questionable expenditures that is being requested. This is a non-binding accounting of future expenditures. I also concur that the defeat of the TIF was in part of question of trust in how the money would be handled. Transparent disclosure is the cure. If both presidential candidates can agree on transparent disclosure of government expenditures, surely we in this tiny town can have that too.

    Posted Thursday Sep 4, 2008 10:34 #

12. spatny
    Member

    I think the cost of establishing roughly 20 parking spaces at the properties purchased on Burlington will come closer to $30,000 a space, not $15K. That's property acquisition, demolition, costs for changing zoning, engineering and actually paving, landscaping etc. But that might not be what happens there. Certainly, with no VC tenants we hardly need it now.

    Posted Thursday Sep 4, 2008 11:53 #

13. spatny
    Member

    In looking back I see where they were talking - not so long ago - about providing "enhanced" services that would run over $1 mil in new taxes per year. If that is the number, than the estimates above are bogus. I remember them hashing out numbers that were going to cost that mythical owner of a $450,000 home roughly twice what Mr. Sells is talking about. If I am not mistaken it was an average of $1,050,000 per year in additional revenue for four years - costing about $370 dollars a year in additional taxes. Ms. Rush said the numbers were "padded" but nevertheless I seem to remember these were the numbers - roughly - that they voted to go for. So tlking about $178 a year is as misleading as presenting this as a"limiting" the multiplier or whatever the legal jargon calls it. I'd like to know what prevents them rom changing their minds and doing a PUD or handing out more incentives to developers with this money?

    Posted Thursday Sep 4, 2008 15:01 #

14. spatny
    Member

    Well Mike, the numbers have changed once again since early September, and frankly I don't know - even after the "briefing" last night, what they are. Trustee Sells is well intentioned, and contrary to what he wrote above, we are not in disagreement on everything. I did not say the Trustees are on the take or anything like that. I said, they have different priorities, and they are less than forthcoming with what has been spent on certain -- in my view - misguided initiatives. Last night, I think we both heard once again the idea of a tunnel resurface again, with an estimated Village contribution of $500K. The voters already spoke on that item - but the Village Manager wants that western approach tunnel as the "gateway" to Centennial Plaza (and I still believe the parking facility where your house is now located. We did this once before. The idea of bringing those 100 or 200 condos into town is still percolating, and no doubt would have advanced had not the market tanked. There is nothing binding on this Board or any Board to spend those dollars as presently defined. And if the Village is so keen to preserve our landscape why didn't thay appropriate a couple hundred thousand of the money they spent for the Burlington property for trees and spraying. I don't believe either of those is much of a priority for the Board majority. I do believe Mr. Sells is an honorable guy and would vote to spend the money as it is specified, but he is only one vote.

    Posted Wednesday Oct 1, 2008 18:09 #

15. spatny
    Member

    These items were taken from the Village's website and the referendum website put up by the Village. It appears that the Village has not followed the LTFC's advice except to raise the sticker fees and some building fees. The LTFC recommended, and ranked what it thought should be the Village strategy, but the Village has only cherry-picked its recommendations.How do we know it won't do the same with it's stated uses for the funds?

    The LTFC recommended that the Village "Use Economic Development Tools to increase the Property tax and Sales tax base." (see below.) Back in 2004 I gave the then Chair of the EDC a proposal for Riverside sponsoring (jointly with the Zoo) a prestigious vintage auto Concours d'Elegance and Classic car auction that had the potential to bring in real money. Of course it dies a quck death. Then, when the EDC was frowning on the piddling contribution it makes to the Cruise Nights I suggested that it be looked at again. I even dug out the material I had previously given the EDC and supplied some potential numbers, etc. Of course, nothing has been done over the ensuing months. Same with the Chalkfest I suggested, same with the fund raising event for the trees, etc. Obviously nothing in the way of revenue producing eventys will ever gain support or assistance here because the Board and the Village Manager only know how to tax, not promote.

    Below items are verbatim from the Village web sites.

    What were the ideas of the Long Term Finance Committee and how are they being implemented?
    The Long Term Finance Committee had many recommendations for improving the financial condition of the Village, many of which have been implemented. For example, the Committee recommended the Village increase the vehicle sticker fee from $45 to $65. The Village did implement that suggestion for 2008-2009 and revenues are anticipated to increase accordingly by $120,000 annually. The Committee also recommended the Village sell the Northgate property, review and increase building permit fees, and seek a referenda to raise the state tax cap on property taxes, all of which have been or are being done.
    To see the complete list of the Long Term Finance Committee's recommendations, please click here.

    Long Term Finance Committee Recommendations
    Congratulations to the Long Term Financial Security Plan Committee for completing their task. At their meeting on September 18, the Committee finalized their report which is scheduled for review at the October 15 Village Board meeting. The development of a long-term financial security plan will help shape the Village Board's approach to addressing the revenue-expense gap. The gap will occur in the operating budget during the 2008 fiscal year.
    The group evaluated many different strategies and concluded with a prioritization of those that they felt applicable to the Riverside situation. Members of the committee strongly agreed that the gap needed to be addressed and soon. Immediate recommendations are: raising the Village vehicle sticker fees to $65; increase building fees (already accomplished); sell Northgate property; use fund balance for capital improvements; consider shared services regularly to control expense; borrow for capital improvements.
    Additionally, the Committee ranked these Long Term Financial Strategies:
    —¢ Use Economic Development Tools to increase the Property tax and Sales tax base
    —¢ Adopt a Real Estate Transfer Tax (this does require Home Rule adoption as well)
    —¢ Establish a Conservancy to operate and fund the maintenance of parks, plantings, gaslights, etc
    —¢ Reduce the Operating Budget (reduce expense side of the equation)
    —¢ Raise the Village's portion of the Property taxes
    —¢ Establish special districts for Fire or Recreation

    Posted Saturday Oct 4, 2008 12:21 #

16. spatny
    Member

    Last night I attended the first part of the Landscape Advisory Commission meeting where we were given a presentation of the consequences of the upcoming referendum by the Village Manager. We heard how there was a shortfall of $100K plus, and that the structural deficit would blossom to something like $450K per year. There was an explanation of why the final number of increased taxes had then accelerated to something north of $900K to cover the "enhanced" services, and a lot about what would need to be cut if the referendum was not approved. Since this was the LAC meeting, and I assumed they would be very interested in the priorities now given to planting trees, maintaining landscape and supporting Public Works/Forestry in their mission, I asked how much we are currently spending on planting trees. That number was not available, but last year it was just $10K, and then only when matched by private donation. That, to me, illustrates my biggest argument with the present administration - their priorities. A meager $10K contribution toward reforesting the "Village in the Forest" when we are losing so many mature trees! $10K is the amount they spent on the consultant for the Long Term Finance Committee Report, less than what they spent on the recent Community Survey, or a small fraction of what was spent on the TIF consultants. It is dwarfed by what the Zoning consultants have received year after year. It amounts, in my opinion, to a gross negligence in caring for the future of our greatest heritage - our beautiful tree stock. It is because of this orientation of priorities that I believe it is wrong to give more tax money to this Board and Administration. We should wait until a new Board comes in next April, and then, if they make the proper commitments, we could seek more taxes if they are necessary. I have zero confidence that giving increased funds now would generate anything productive, beneficial or lasting. This situation is exactly the parallel of just a few days ago, when Sec. Paulson wanted the Congress to vote him $700 billion to spend as he saw fit, without supervision. To the credit of those who opposed that move and refused to be stampeded, they resisted, as we should. We must first demand fiscal responsibility, a clear explanation of how much has been spent on what, and a clear understanding of what will be done with any additional monies they will receive. Absent those fundamental criteria, the only sensible vote is to say "NO" to this premature tax increase.

    Posted Wednesday Oct 15, 2008 22:21 #

17. Catherine
    Member

    Well, when we don't have any more trees and this is just another suburb with weird streets and a few good-looking houses, and property values tank even more, we'll know who to thank.

    Posted Thursday Oct 16, 2008 10:45 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.