Riverside Info » About Riverside

RCA Makes No Cuts, Spends Reserves Instead

(35 posts)
  1. Kelly
    Member

    Riverside's 2010 Budget Workshop meetings ended, yielded sobering results. The RCA majority board cut nothing from the existing budget and instead spent $315,000 of our reserves. Rather than matching money coming in against our expenses and cutting what we can’t afford, they spent our savings just to stay status quo.

    Among other things, the board deferred making $290,000 of necessary contributions to our Village Capital Fund. The Village uses the Capital Fund to pay for roads, infrastructure, sidewalk repair, replacement of emergency vehicles, technology maintenance and other necessary maintenance projects throughout the year. Money that should be in the Capital Fund will not be there in the upcoming year, it will instead be used to pay for day to day operations. In addition, the RCA refused to fund $39,000 of known pension obligations, with President Gorman explicitly stating that he was pushing this debt off onto future Boards.

    Under this scheme, the board actually spent $644,000 of the undesignated reserves, or basically one-half of the undesignated reserve balance. Not paying bills or not setting aside money for maintenance and pensions does not mean we save money; we eventually have to pay it. The board just added to the $1,400,000 2011 deficit by deferring funding of known expenses. Trustee Sacchi realistically said, “I know this will cost us more latter.” When capital expenditures are deferred they will either carry an interest charge or the actual cost (say of an ambulance) will be greater later. Deferring payments for known expenses only increases the cost of those expenses and we are fooling ourselves if we don't acknowledge that those expenses will cost us more later.

    These hearings proved, reinforced, and confirmed the Village has a structural revenue problem that must be addressed head-on, without delay tactics. There are only two ways to solve the problem. One way was to make cuts. The board just finished the 2010 budget hearings and not a single item was cut to address the structural change needed to balance the 2010 Budget, let alone budgets to come. Why? Because there is nothing to cut. Every reasonable attempt has been made to find efficiencies and containing expenses. The RCA now joins the ranks of trustees that recognize there is simply nothing left to cut.

    The second solution is to increase revenue. Trustee Sacchi recognizes that a tax hike is “inevitable” to maintain our current level of services. Despite the fact that Sacchi understands that we are in dire need of money, it also appears that Gorman, Shevitz, Sacchi, and Reynolds have no intention to ask for it and plan on using our Village savings to pay for day to day expenses until that savings runs out. The economic picture continues to deteriorate exponentially without an additional revenue source for 2011. The 2010 budget deficit of roughly $1,000,000 was filled by using savings, not by making cuts. Under this plan, we will have COMPLETELY depleted our savings within 3 to 4 years, if not sooner. Spending our entire savings cannot be our fallback; it is dangerous and fiscally irresponsible on all fronts.

    Trustees Sells, Sussman and Scully have been warning us for years the day will come when we are simply out of money. In preparing the 2010 budget, former Village manager Robin Weaver stated “there has been a structural deficit for the last five, six years…it was always getting to this.” That day has come.

    The board has an obligation to protect Riverside from financial ruin and the window of opportunity is slamming shut. Our RCA majority Village board must find an alternate revenue source and cannot cheat the future of Riverside simply for short term political gain.

    Kelly Navarro

    Posted Thursday Oct 15, 2009 17:47 #
  2. CuriousResident
    Member

    So...what would you have done/suggested differently (at this time and moving forward)?

    Posted Thursday Oct 15, 2009 21:12 #
  3. ChrisHajer
    Member

    The choice to preface everything with "RCA" dimishes the value of the words and sentiment for me. Kelly, we know you ran against the RCA. Four RCA members won, and were added to an existing board of 3 members. Trustee Scully, a longtime trustee, and Trustees Sells and Sussman, both on the board for 2.5 years so far. To say that the "RCA decided to do this" and "the RCA doesn't want to do that" ignores the fact that the board is made up of 7 members. For the RBHS board, Jim Marciniak ran as part of a group of three members 2 years ago, but he was the only one elected. When three more spots came up for election in 2009, three more individuals that seemed to be aligned with Marciniak ran. And this time around they won. So, do we have a block of 4 members voting in lock-step at the RBHS board meetings? I'd say no, with Marciniak voting differently than the three new board members (Sinde, Welch and Moon I think.) more frequently than I expected.

    These people are all adults and I like to think they will all vote as such, based on the issues and not some desire to vote along with their buddies. Maybe they all have the same priorities (on the RBHS board and Village board), so their votes might appear to be pre-determined or along 'party' lines, but I would bet that's more due to like-mindedness than anything else.

    And to say that Trustees Sussman and Sells have been "warning us for years" is to be liberal with the language. Yes, they've been telling us for 2.5 years (maybe: I didn't go back and check, but I believe you) but that's like saying I've been working since I woke up today, when I might have only gotten out of bed at 1PM. It's true, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

    Former village manager Weaver said we've had a structural deficit for 5 or 6 years (I'm taking your word for this, but I believe you.) If that's true, why were we spending so liberally? I'll answer my own question: times were good, and we didn't know it was going to get this bad. So, $100K here and $100K there doesn't seem like much, in the scheme of things. Now, $5K here and $20K there seems completely out of line with regard to our overall finances, and a lot of us can't stomach it.

    So, instead of continuing to point fingers at the RCA or anyone else, I think we need to work together to get through this intact.

    Tom Jacobs said it more eloquently than I ever could in this article:
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/opinions-facts-and-the-need-to-move-on#post-10900

    Posted Thursday Oct 15, 2009 21:33 #
  4. JohnM
    Member

    Chris,

    You're indulging in some revisionist history here. The RCA ran as a slate, they pledged to govern as a slate and they--and their supporters on this site--said over and over that they all needed to be elected to implement their reforms. To suggest that they are somehow four independents who just happen to think alike is flat out wrong.

    Its pretty clear that the RCA Board members are governing in lockstep. I'm sure there were a few matters where different members voted differently, but the only instances I can think of were the wrap-around porch variance at the last meeting, where Sacchi voted against it, and the initial decision to table the parking lot issue, where Shevitz wanted to table it indefinitely, but was out voted. There's likely a few more instances like this, but on the most significant votes, they've toed the same line:

    --The tree donation. Sells and Sussman voted to accept it; Shevitz, Reynolds and Sacchi voted against.

    --The parking lot. Sells, Scully and Sussman voted for it; the RCA members voted against it.

    --Repairing the driveway at the Fire station--RCA voted as a bloc.

    --Decision to defer pension contributions and defer capital expenditures--RCA voted as a bloc.

    As is likely clear from my postings here, I'm largely in disagreement with the RCA's policies and priorities. However, the point of this post is not to criticize them. My point is that Chris's suggestion that they are not a united bloc is simply incorrect--they are. They campaigned on that platform, their supporters embraced that platform and they are governing based on that platform.

    Posted Friday Oct 16, 2009 08:52 #
  5. CuriousResident
    Member

    JohnM, I think your missing the point. Bloc or not, bashing/complaining the RCA/results does not move the ball forward.

    The question remains:

    What would (any of) you do differently (than was just done) to the budget?
    And what would you do longer term?

    Posted Friday Oct 16, 2009 09:22 #
  6. JohnM
    Member

    Not really--Chris made 2 separate points in his post. 1) that bashing the RCA and complaining does not help any of us and 2) that the RCA is not governing as a bloc. My response was to the second point.

    With regard to your question, I didn't run for office, so I'm not sure that my opinion is particularly important, but here goes:

    1) I agree that we needed to spend undesignated reserves.

    2) I disagree with deferring capital improvements and pension contributions.

    3) I would have accepted the $5 k tree donation.

    4) I would haved moved the parking lot forward, particularly since we are now on the hook for the loan we took. By building the lot, we could have repaid the loan from parking lot funds, now we can't.

    Longer term, I think we need to understand that we are at minimum service levels already, and that no meaningful gains can be realized by cutting personnel or programs. I believe the issue of a tax increase needs to be seriously discussed.

    Fianlly, let me point out that is is hard to move the ball forward when there has been no plan articulated as to where we're going. To continue the metaphor, we need to know whether we're playing soccer, football or basketball before we talk about moving the ball.

    Posted Friday Oct 16, 2009 09:55 #
  7. anonymous
    Member

    JohnM makes good points. I would have accepted the $5 grand donation, too. Is it too late? We should also have paved the two lots that we now own. We could always have dug it up, a la Mayor Daley, if we had to. Money is money, and right now, we don't have any.

    Posted Sunday Oct 18, 2009 12:41 #
  8. Kelly
    Member

    Curious, you ask me what I would do.

    I would address the revenue problem head on. The board went through the whole budget, line by line, and couldn't find fat to cut. At the Village Board Meeting last night, Catherine Love asked Gorman, “At what point did you realize there were no inefficiencies in the budget?” Whereby Gorman said he doesn't know if there are any. If anyone would be in a position to point out the inefficiencies it would be him! I think we are all realizing that the “bleeding” was a made up fiction. Ok...so, now what?

    If the inefficiencies don’t exist, I’d say the board better ask for tax increase in November 2010. Yes, the economy stinks and I don’t want to pay higher taxes. I’d personally rather shell out 1$ per day than have an ambulance break down with someone in it. If a referendum passes, we wouldn’t even see the revenue until the Fall of 2011, which coincentally is the same time we deplete Undesignated Reserves.

    If anyone has a better idea, I’m all ears.

    Posted Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 13:29 #
  9. CuriousResident
    Member

    Thanks Kelly, this is all that was missing from your original post.

    I wonder if the RCA "eating crow" on this (putting forth a tax referendum) will help the divide of "us and them" that we currently are suffering...and if it will be more likely to pass, since the RP was already heading that way.

    At this point, even though our tax bills are higher than would seem logical, I hope so.

    As far as other ideas, the only thing that comes to mind is the "combining services" option, which I'm sure would come with all sorts of baggage/trade offs. Didn't we turn down a proposal form North Riverside a few years back? I wonder why?

    Posted Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 13:54 #
  10. TS
    Member

    Years ago when the North Riverside Mall was being planned, the Village of North Riverside government approached the Village of Riverside with the hope of combining some aspects of village services and share in the revenue from the Mall. North Riverside was turned down in their efforts. I would be very interested to see how Riverside could broach this topic to North Riverside.

    Posted Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 14:20 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.