Website Home   or   Forum Home

Register or log in (lost password?):

Username:
Password:

Remember me

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. Kelly
   Member

   In opposing the last tax referendum and again during the last election, the RCA repeatedly accused the prior Village Board of playing a shell game by moving $1 million from the Village's undesignated reserves to the capital improvement fund. The RCA claimed this was a sham transfer designed to give a false impression of the Village's poor financial situation. The Village Board tried in vain to explain that the $1 million dollars had come from deferred capital improvements and was needed to fund the capital program.

   In simple terms, the RCA kept saying the board was hiding money and spending money like drunken sailors. Last night, it seems, the RCA finally figured out that Sussman, Sells, and Scully were not hiding money or financially irresponsible.

   The RCA now says a tax hike is inevitable.

   Last night the RCA Board approved its five year capital improvement plan for the Village. At the end of five years, the balance in the capital improvement fund will be only $90,000. Outstanding unfunded capital projects total over $11 million. Repairing the roof on the train station alone will run over $1 million. Without the $1 million transfer provided by the prior Village Board, the Village would have been over $900,000 short in providing capital improvements now deemed necessary by Gorman, Shevitz, Sacchi, and Reynolds themselves. That includes only the projects needed over the next five years.

   Thank you Trustee Sacchi for having the guts to admit there is no funding source for future capital improvements.

   Again, in simple terms, it the roof falls in (which it very well might) we have inadequate funds set aside to fix it. We have $90,000 in the pot for unexpected capital “emergencies.” Does anyone else think that is a bit scary?

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 09:08 #

2. spatny
   Member

   Seeing as this situation has existed for years, doesn't anyone besides me think it was imprudent for the Village to purchase 61 & 63, lots not even in the CBD, when we had this structural deficit all the time? Or sign up for several "grant" for projects like Centennial, where 80-20% has now started to look like 60-40% or 50-50%? The "wish list" of unfunded projects you refer to includes things like a $3.5 mil new tunnel, a "Community Center" for $5.9 mil, etc., so the numbers you are citing are largely ephemeral. That has been the case for years. Last night the purchase of a new ambulance was discussed. It makes no difference if you put the money in one fund to buy it now, or transfer it when you buy it - it still costs the same. Everyone is running worse numbers than anyone anticipated because we have had an unprecedented fall in values and spending. Buying property that was unneeded was simply a manifestation of the "development at any cost" or "build it and they will come" approach that has failed so dismally. Blaming these Board members for things that were years in the making or are of unprecedented proportion and totally beyond their control instead of supporting their efforts to cope with the hand they have been dealt is hardly helpful.

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 11:39 #

3. mr
   Member

   Many of the current board members simply weren't honest when they discussed the villages financial situation. They recommended that capital improvement money or other money reserved for specific purposes, be spent on operating costs. They were not advocates of planning for the future, improving blighed areas or updating aging infrastructure. If you don't do something to generate additional sources of revenue, then there is no other alternative than property taxes. Every community should be upgrading their aging infrastructure and properties - regardless of how it is funded. Who wants to buy property in a community that can't find a way to maintain their community?

   Perhaps they were against specific expenditures but I don't recall certain board members identifying improvements that they could support and recommend a tax increase for. I asked one candidate that question and he basically said he did not want to give government any additional taxes for any reason.

   I spend money to improve my property. I expect the village to do the same with their property. They have to find ways of doing it. Who could be proud of the condition of the historic water tower prior to its refurbishment? The fact that we have a structural deficit was not a sufficient reason to let it continue to deteriorate. To fix anything, if you totally rely on property taxes, you will eventually have to raise property taxes. No great waste in operating expenditures was found, even though they convinced the voters that waste was there. You could dither all day long about which projects deemed investments for the future were and were not worthwhile, but the fact of the matter is that you can't fail to improve your community and still keep it a desirable place to live.

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 12:14 #

4. Kelly
   Member

   They RCA is beginning to see the problem for what it is, which is progress. I will gladly get behind them to implement a solution once they set the compass in a direction. As I see it, the solutions are slipping away – tell me which one or which combination will fix the problem and I’m with you.

   (1) Decrease spending by cutting vital services (already done, still a deficit)
   (2) Increase revenues by passing a tax referendum (RCA fundamentally opposes this one)
   (3) Sell off Assets (won’t cure the structural deficit)
   (4) Borrow money to cover expenses (yikes!)

   Option (5) spend reserves, is off the table since every penny of reserves will be spent by 2012.

   Yes, the ambulance discussion last night was absolutely mind-blowing. We have two ambulances for all emergency calls, one is 13 years old, and we can not afford to replace it.

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 12:18 #

5. ChrisHajer
   Member

   (2) Increase revenues

   I don't think the village board has much control over whether or not the referendum passes. The last board was unsuccessful in getting the tax referendum passed, in arguably better economic times. And I think there must be more ways to increase revenue than just increasing taxes, right?

   (1) Decrease spending

   I also don't agree that the only way to decrease spending is to cut vital services. Points one and two both jump to conclusions: cutting vital services is the way to decrease spending, and passing a tax referendum is the way to increase revenue. I don't think either is true, and I don't think tying them together helps the discussion.

   I also don't think that these problems are unique to Riverside.

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 12:27 #

6. JohnM
   Member

   Don, your pessimism about the future is only matched by your selective memory of the past. But at least you still have the RCA talking points down cold. Let's take a look:

   1) 61/63 Burlington were purchased to benefit the CBD and, if not squashed by the RCA, would have been paid for in their entirety by parking lot funds that cannot be used for operational expenses. It is the RCA that has turned those assets into liabilities for the General Fund. You know this, but persist in obfuscating it. The previous Board actually cared about helping local businesses and encouraging new ones -- the RCA has made clear they do not. Their, and your, "Riverside for Riversiders" mantra is bad policy.

   2) You cannot have it both ways. Grant funding is essential to our Village and should be aggressively pursued. The Centennial Plaza project is a no-brainer win-win, but the RCA will likely be willing to squander dollars to save pennies. To throw away grant money is foolish at best and unscrupulous at worst. We should leverage every tax dollar we have to its maximum value.

   3) Yes, some of the unfunded projects are unlikely to ever happen--I don't believe a pedestrian tunnel is necessary or deireable. But you yourself have said in the past that something will eventually have to be done with the Youth Center. And according to Public Works Director, there is no doubt that the Train Station repairs are both necessary and imminent.

   4) Your simplistic view of accounting and willingness to ignore legal requirements governing how various funds may be spent is at odds with your recurring claims to be such a good businessman. The various funds of the Village are not one common "pot" and it is irresponsible, not to mention likely illegal, to "rob Peter to pay Paul."

   5) Trustee Sells earlier in this thread provided the actual impact of the economic downturn on the 2009/2010 deficits as provided by Finance Director Wachtel -- $425,000. Even setting that number aside, we face a deficit in excess of $575,000. The capital fund cannot be raided to pay for this deficit without leaving critical capital projects unfunded. I know this is the RCA's latest attempt to make excuses and find somebody, anybody, to blame but it really is wearing thin. How about the RCA simply accepts responsibility for making mistakes like other mortals? Or are they, like you, unwilling to admit even the possibility of error?

   6) On a positive note, at least you and the RCA now seem to finally acknowledge that the deficit is structural. If only we now could get you, and them, to quit trying to find ways of getting out of campaign promises they obvious cannot keep, maybe we could get somewhere.

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 12:30 #

7. Kelly
   Member

   Chris,

   Don't you think if the people who take credit for defeating the referendum were to embrace it, it might pass?

   If the RCA knew of another revenue source, don’t you think they would have told us by now?

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 13:18 #

8. spatny
   Member

   I never made any claims to be a fi guru or have a solution. But to keep defending the idea that spending upwards of $750K of anybody's money for nineteen parking spaces when we charged just $85K for the a 17 space buyout space is ludicrous, especially when with a little creativity Mark discovered you can have more spaces available closer for almost nothing. We have smart people around - but none are alchemists able to transform lead into gold, so I believe we should hang on to our money and try to get through some thin times. What do you object to about that?

   We have loads of businesses in ground floor buildings that generate little or no sales tax for the village - that's a problem not of this Board's or any Board's making, but we don't need to exacerbate it by buying things for them we can't afford and taxing everybody to do it. Some people choose to think businesses will flock here - I don't, and I think the evidence is in my favor. We are not in the 1950s or the 1980s - but we may soon be back to the 1930s. I hope not - but where is the evidence that leads you to think otherwise? There are vacancies everywhere in higher traffic locations, so since we are strapped for money, and have been, I have advocated not to waste money on chasing a chimera - the "vibrant" CBD. I've proposed ideas aimed at bringing more residents and others down to the CBD - but I don't see anyone jumping on them.

   Case in point: The Chew wants some outside seating. I was the one that suggested "meandering" the sidewalk out and putting in some buffer planters with a net loss of three street spaces. I think that is worth a try, at very low cost with just some curb work, but I don't see taking away seven spaces and spending upwards of $200K for it. Does that make me (besides being creative) pessimistic or realistic? I say it is not pessimistic to be realistic. It is necessary when things are difficult. I'd like to give everybody a puppy but I doubt that will correct the impending crash of the commercial real estate market, and the effect that will have. Of course we only have one real source of revenue, real estate taxes on primarily residential property.

   Instead of castigating those who are dealing with all this, why not try and see if perhaps we could get Dist. 96 to pay for a half mil worth of stuff each year for the next three years - and give the taxpayers a breather? Maybe they could "adopt" DPW and the Rec Department? Buy an ambulance for "child safety?" You havew to go and look where the money is, and they have it.

   I've been surprised at some of the things we do. When the last "omnibus" tax referendum - the one with something for everyone was being promoted - I remember that the last Board was saying that - if it passed - they would rescind the 1% tax on eating places and reduce sticker fees. How did that make any sense? We earn that 1% largely up at the Zoo where non-resident visitors there make that small contribution to our coffers? Why wouldn't we want that money - whatever it is - to continue? And what happened to enforcement on vehicle stickers? We need to look at all this stuff. I can tell you right now, after seeing what we get for the Centennial project, if the new bids are too high than I'm against spending it now. Not because I don't like leveraging our investments, but because I think the priorities should be to keep the burden on families at a minimum.

   Again - You may like to listen to the idea that the glass is half full and rising, but I don't see the factual back-up for that.

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 13:22 #

9. TS
   Member

   Put me in the camp of opposing any tax referendum. My personal moratorium is to be against any tax referendum by any taxing body, school districts, the village, the county, the township, anyone else who tries to take MY MONEY out of my pocket. I'm fed up with seeing my money wasted. Until every taxing entity can clean up their budget and run their portion of the government as efficiently as I run a business and my home, I will never vote for a tax increase. These taxing entities better figure out how to share the money they get from the taxpayers because they aren't getting an increase. Enough is enough.

   Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 13:30 #

10. mr
    Member

    I am against increasing taxes at the Federal Level and State Level. Money spent at the local level stays at the local level. It is easier to impact how money is spent at the local level.

    Even though I support many goals of state and federal spending, I have had it with the waste.

    Posted Friday Oct 9, 2009 13:41 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.