Interesting idea. I wonder if there has ever been a referendum to reduce a tax levy, thereby lowering the future taxes for residents. This money could then be reapplied - by referendum - to another district or districts - Brookfield is having similar problems.
I don't think it is as easy to move a surplus around, but a referendum can be initiated to reduce future levys. I would like to understand what is involved in such a refendum. The D96 school board would likely not sponsor it.
TS - an interesting idea which probably has some legal prohibitions blocking it. And even with that surplus I think Dist 96 will still have a bunch of unfunded or underfunded mandates from the state and will not give up the money. But no harm in trying. I think switching some costs to the district, like crossing guards, would work. Maybe the District could pay for two patrolmen and a fireman? Or for the Rec department that serves the kids? Could they? Would they? How about an "Adopt-a-Department program just for them?
Seriously, since we are facing very similar circumstances on the national, state, county and local levels, that is, costs for providing services are outstripping revenue, I assume that the entire tax situation will have to be changed. Probably there will have to be a tax on services. Probably we are not far from a Value Added Tax (VAT) as they have in Europe. Probably people are going to have to realize that they can't afford to have all the things they want governments to provide.
TS:
Thank you for calling attention to the real financial issue facing this community. I couldn't agree more with you.
On Sept 30, the Landmark reported as follows: "Combining all the funds the [school] district [96] maintains, the cash reserve as of June 30, 2010 is projected to increase to $12.2 million from $9.8 million, an increase of $2.4 million."
The money is there, our money, but it flows very unevenly due to the set-up of the separate taxing districts. While the Village will almost certainly start spending down reserves to avoid cuts to public safety and infrastructure, school district 96 is accumulating funds at such a rate that its elected officials can't gift (no typo here) them away fast enough.
I am sure there are dozens of legal, jurisdictional, logistical, and/or political reasons why monies can't just be shifted right now. What I am amazed by is that there apparently are no elected members of the community, whether on the Village Board or the School Boards, that will say that this doesn't make any sense, and are willing to champion ideas and offer leadership as to how to start addressing these issues.
There are 5 words in a great speech that caught my attention recently: the third paragraph, or conclusion, of the Gettysburg Address, starts out with "But, in a larger sense,..."
Lincoln makes sense out of the Civil War, the most difficult moment in American History, by shifting the frame of reference. You guys probably know all this already. It blew me away.
Thinking and acting solely inside the taxing districts with the proverbial blinders on prevents us from considering the "larger sense", which is the Riverside community as a whole.
No doubt about, the thinking needed to "fix the structural deficit" needs to start with a larger view.
I like this idea of looking at the tax base as a whole, and how it may be made to be more flexible, but can't help but feel that will be a long road. Doesn't mean it should not be investigated, just that we should not expect magic to happen there by the time we have to make tough decisions.
Other things, that may not have been appealing before, are also worth discussing; like larger scale consortium fire services with neighboring villages, consortium rec with NR, etc.
TS and Tom bring up an interesting idea. I'm not sure its workable, at least as described, for the following reasons:
1) The schools are a separate taxing body. The citizens elected the Board members, and the district has the right to levy taxes. They're entitled to the money under law, so you'll run into constitutional issues if you try to enact a law after the fact to force them to disgorge.
2) Allowing one taxing body to take taxes from another body is a slippery slope. In our case, I think we can all agree it has been suggested for the best of reasons. However, once you open the door, others can do it, and their reasons may not be as honorable. For example, Riverside does have a surplus (leaving aside that we may not have one for much longer). I think North Riverside and LaGrange do as well. What if the COunty decides to apply this to us--in other words, one of Todd Stroger's minions looks around and says--the county has a deficit, these villages have surpluses, it all comes from the tax payers, so we should get some of it to run the County."
Ideally, the approach would be to reassess the needs of each taxing body, with the surplus taken into account. Perhaps we need to lobby the schools to reduce their levy, which would allow the Village to collect more tax money. However, I think this would still need to be subject to a referendum, because the Village would have to increase its levy from the citizens to get this money.
I believe that some jurisdictions limit the amount a taxing boday can maintain in its reserves--once the money goes over this amount, they have to reduce their levy. Not sure if Illinois does. The problem with this is that the taxing body may then just go on a spending spree to reduce reserves and maintain the current levy.
I do agree that the comparison between the cash-rich schools and the cash-strapped village is becoming an issue, and that creative thinking is needed. As TS points out, the money all comes from us, regardless of where it goes.
Here's my thoughts on this.
1. If you can pass a referendum to allow a taxing body to raise their tax levy, why wouldn't the taxpaypers be allowed to pass a referendum to call for lowering the tax levy? I don't think you can just move money around though.
2. You won't get any cooperation from the school board though, to assist in compiling the numbers where it can be done responsibly.
3. All the taxpayers of the district would have to vote on it. Even though Brookfiels is also having serious revenue problems, this could be a tough sell - to take money away from a district. I wonder if it has ever been done before?
I'm not a fan of doing this but Mayor Daley took over control of the Chicago Public School system. Radical changes need to be made in how our Riverside tax dollars are allocated and spent. Perhaps District 96 should be taken over by local Village governance. I don't know how this can be done but I bet through citizen initiative it could happen. What is wrong with telling District 96 that you have collected too much of our money, give it back to those who gave it to you (we the taxpayer) so we can use it for other needs (Riverside village services).
I hope that everyone is already calling their state legislators to demand changes to the pension system for teachers and other public employee pensions. The Sun Times has been writing about this for years and really added more information with those four articles about three weeks ago. The reality of these pensions is driving the imperative for a state tax increase. There would be a lot more money available at the local level if the pension burden wasn't so high and so unfair.
It does appear that our schools are over funded and the Village is under funded. Shifting the levy sure sounds like a good idea and is worth pursuing in years to come. John M and other posters pointed out why this won’t be so easy, or possible at all, which isn't to say we shouldn't try, just that we can't count it as a solution anytime soon.
There is a line item on the budget to shift the crossing guard burden from the Village to the schools. This seems like a good idea, but does bring up a few issues. Even if the schools pay for them, the crossing guards really need to remain under the providence of the Police Department. There are several crossing guards near our private schools - St. Mary School and the Whispering Winds Montessori School, neither of which have a surplus like the public schools do. I don't think the Village can ask the private schools to chip in, as the Village is responsible for public safety. I suppose you keep the existing guards and divy up the cost between all the Dist 96 schools.
can someone confirm or correct this:
I heard somewhere that the d96 superindendent - or is it the school board, or both in concert with each other? - has or had some flexibility in the amount that could be levied from the last referendum. I vaguely recall that the original super/board (I guess b*nnette?) under whose admin the last ref took place, asked for the lower of this range and the next admin went to the max.
Wasnt the d96 referendum of the form, 'should d96 levy a tax increase that shall not exceed X' ? So I vaguely recall that something less than X was originally asked for , then later it went higher.
if this vague recollection were true, that there was a levy range that could be adjusted, and which was adjusted later, then might this mean that this amt can be lowered - thru whatever mechanism this is done?
IF this were true , obviously it is all in the public record, starting with the original d96 referendum question. Can FOIAs be done in d96 matters as they can be done in village matter?
Obviously, even if this were true, and the d96 levy would be reduced, money would not flow automatically to Village Hall. The money would flow back to the people.
You must log in to post.