Many people say they are not happy with the number of departments the village has and/or with the number employees in each department and/or the job the village does.
I would like to know what people think are the vital services a village should provide.
I am working on my list and will post soon.
For reference, here are the current departments posted on the Village website:
Administration
Clerk
Building Dept.
Economic Development
Employment
Finance
Fire Dept.
Parks & Recreation
Police Dept.
Public Works
Riverside Public Library
Seems about right to me.
HR, I have just asked you prior to state where, how and whether you would reduce the budget, but you have posed another question on the same topic instead. The point is more to reduce costs, whether by benefits, salary, or personnel, so that our departments will achieve "excellence" in efficiency, and not average or in some cases above average, as the LTSFC discovered was the case in benchmarking studies done by the administration. As I said elsewhere
This is the function of government:
Infrastructure
Public Safety
Public Schools
so
Police and Fire (realize efficiencies with surrounding communities)
Public Works, including their parks conservation function; since many large projects complete, look at personnel
Building Department (for public safety)
Public Library as extension of public schools (however their acquisitions are highly dubious. 3 biographies of Alec Guinness, 1 unreliable one of Dostoyevsky, e.g.; reduce acquistions, use interlibrary loan as this is usually what is required anyway.)
Outsource the Finance function, it is very large and expensive. Delete Recreation: it does nothing for the parks. The activities of administration (village manager) should be reduced, along with 250K+ budget. I am surprised no private firm is available for the outsourcing of village management. If there is, do that. Outsourcing yields efficiencies and gets rid of benefits and pensions. Delete Economic Development (didn't even know it was there, can be done privately), delete new museum director until historical and architectural tourism is achieved. Delete 90% consulting and majority of legal fees. Just my initial thoughts, mind you.
More important than this, realize maximum efficiency by whatever means necessary to reduce costs. This reduction is an executive function: it is for village executives (trustees) to determine inefficiences and make the cuts.
To help them determine these, as I said, an outside, independent efficiency expert to examine all departments would have been an expenditure with a return on investment. Instead we had the farce of the LTSFC without the review of budget in its purview, without expert input, and with a consultant expert in convincing taxpayers to accept home rule writing their report for them for 10K.
First time poster, but (fairly) long time reader.
In response to Catherine's post above, I would point out a few things. First, despite the ex cathedra nature of her statement that the business of government is infrastructure, public safety and public schools, I would suggest that many of us expect a bit more. I bet you know where I'm going with this--that's right, the recreation department. I understand you don't have children, and have no desire to avail yourself of the offerings of the Department, and that's fine. However, I (and many others) do have children, and find Riverside's (limited) offerings an attractive part of living in the village. Plus, given that the rec programs are all fee-based, this department does, to a certain degree, support itself.
Second, with respect to your statement that "Outsourcing yields efficiencies and gets rid of benefits and pensions." Well, it does get rid of pensions and benefits. As far as yielding efficiencies, one need only look at the recent problem with the outsourced security at the City's water facilities (sleeping on the job, untrained personnel) to realize this is not always the case. I think some functions could be outsourced, but I to my mind, it is not always the paragon of efficiency that the small-government types claim.
Finally, the library. Perhaps there are 3 biographies of Alec Guinness and one of Dostoyevsky because that's what the public wants. I realize that from an intellectual perspective I'd be better served by reading Virgil than John Le Carre, but you know, at this stage in my life, it just ain't gonna happen.
Anyway, just my thoughts, and thanks to the administrators for providing this outlet.
LOL, well said! No, not ex cathedra, just what I think everyone agrees is government's responsibility since the time of the founders, the rest being up for debate all along the spectrum from there to communism. Obviously, I do not agree that Recreation should be government subsidized. If we cannot even afford to maintain the National Historic Landscape Architecture District, you will find your property values going down and their corresponding taxation revenues.
City employees slept on the job for decades, so if it costs less now: net gain.
I am guessing Alec Guinness has been languishing on the shelf for a while, but that in the new acquisitions people do expect to see at least some of the books reviewed in the major newspapers. LeCarre no doubt comes off the shelf and in from the cold regularly.
One person's opinion.
A few thoughts from a member of the Riverside Historical Commission regarding the part-time Museum Director position - a $20,000 expense on the Village budget. It is my expectation that this expense will more than pay for itself. First of all, it has freed up the Commissioners to pursue fundraising activities for the Museum. Secondly, we expect it will allow the Museum to qualify for grants we did not qualify for before (with the Museum Director researching and writing the grants). Lastly, having a Museum Director has already increased the "historical tourism" of the Village by accomodating requests to open the Museum or conduct tours on weekdays. For example, the Chicago Architectural Foundation had a wide ranging William LeBaron Jenney tour this Summer which featured a Riverside stop. Having a Director allowed us to open the Museum to this prestigious group on a weekday, and he also helped put together a Jenney exhibit that greatly impressed the CAF members. The exhibit is still up - all are welcome to stop by Saturday between 10:00 - 2:00 to view it.
Catherine wrote that the Museum Director should be deleted until historical and architectural tourism is achieved. I believe the Village has to be proactive to achieve that goal we all seem to agree on. If the Historical Commission cannot demonstrate to the Village Board that the Museum Director position is cost effective by this time next year then the position will be deleted, which is the way it should be.
I agree with Frantzis. One of the few assets Riverside has to attract new business and tourism to our town is its history.
As trivial as it may seem to the next developer to pass through town or as frivolous it appears to the next critic who wants to bash the Olmsted Society, it is the beauty of the Olmsted design that attracts residents to settle down here and similarly attracts tourists to visit. Throw in some fine examples of architecture and there is the start of something worth promoting.
Riverside is at a crossroads...for years, the elements of the original Olmsted design have slowly been eroded. Cobbled streetscapes become elevated, plots subdivide, homes loom larger and larger, floodlamps and flashing red lights replace gas-lights...the 20th century has arrived.
Perhaps, as we plan for the future, a better understanding of Riverside's history would be a benefit to all. When it comes to planning or economic development the opportunity to enhance what we already have and capitalize on that which is an inherent asset will become more apparent to the naysayers who wish to ignore the intrinsic commodity...which is Riverside.
Frantzis - If I remember correctly, that tour included lunch at the Chew Chew when it was offered, but that venue was closed by the time the tour took place. It's like Detroit - will the last person leaving please turn off the lights.
John M - I highly recommend the books of Alan Furst if you haven't read them. Catherine has too, and I'm sure she agrees. The library has some, and the rest are on Swan. Start with Kingdom of Shadows - I can lend it to you if they don't have it.
You may be right about the CAF tour originally including lunch at the Chew Chew, I don't recall. If it did I'm sure Jacob or Joan informed them and gave them alternatives. The last tour I gave was the Elmhurst Art Museum group in the Spring. They ate lunch at the Chew Chew and were delighted. Hopefully we will not have to wait too long for a new restaurant that can accomodate groups of twenty or more. btw, I think your Detroit comment is unjustifiably negative.
Point taken Frantzis and Tim. I was not aware the Jenney tour in any way required our services. I did not know the museum was now open more than 4 hrs per week, nor that the volunteer was inadequate. The trustees were always free to raise funds and get grants for it, were they not?
Did Riverside make money on the Jenney tour? Yes, it was sold out and booked for lunch at Chew-Chew, which was by then closed. So, we need a way to make money out of historical and architectural tourism, which I am all for.
However, the Olmsted landscape is highly deteriorated. There is no planting plan to preserve it, nor is the administration doing significant planting. Spatny is. A former Riversider who moved to Oak Park said to me last night that he moved not only because there was nothing to do downtown, but that the village didn't even take care of what it had to offer: the landscape. He mentioned Swan Pond. [Also the ugliness of the VC.] And do look at Swan Pond. 17 years ago, I know, it was breathtakingly beautiful.
We have no money apparently to preserve the Olmsted design. What, then, will we show people? The Olmsted landscape confers also great value on private properties, and therefore is vital to the tax base.
It seems no one is willing to cut anything. I am willing to pay more taxes myself, but I am guessing many who are not willing to cut the budget will not vote for a tax increase either.
You must log in to post.