Riverside Info » About Riverside

What would RP do about the Budget?

(31 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by Catherine
  • Latest reply from Catherine
1 2 3 4

  1. idic5
    Member

    According to the flyer that Don references, it is not spatny's figures, but the Village Board's figures that are high, at least 3 x what you estimated.

    from the flyer...

    ...
    As recently as March 3, 2009 the Board of Trustees (including Mr. Smith) could not answer the simple question of how much the parking project is going to cost. Yet, according to Village records dated March 3, two properties at 61 and 63 Burlington Street have been acquired by the Village at a cost of $556,000. A resolution carrying the same date indicates an estimate for demolition and construction to cost $154,000....

    Don, please use block quote button (hilight the text you want indented, and click the b-quote button) when citing a source other than your own words.

    Moderator, if you're listening, Don might not see the b-quote button on his mac. Is that possible?

    Posted Monday Mar 30, 2009 14:59 #

  2. EricSundstrom
    Member

    The part I thought was Don's estimate began after the final bit you've blocked out... "cost $154,000" and began "Thus far... and goes on to site a final estimate of $750,000" If I was mistaken and that's a village estimate my apologies.

    Posted Monday Mar 30, 2009 15:15 #

  3. idic5
    Member

    I did not pick up on that until I re-read it just now. The 750K includes the acquisition cost of the properties to the Village.

    Posted Monday Mar 30, 2009 15:31 #

  4. EricSundstrom
    Member

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Posted Monday Mar 30, 2009 16:07 #

  5. spatny
    Member

    I thought you would see that I put quotes around the entire text, but here it is again with your "block quote" technique: The source stands by these figures and has all this documentation to back it up. I heard there was a partial grant that might become available for the demolition, something around $35K. Everything quoted here are Village estimates:

    "Can we count on “experience”? At what cost?

    The Riverside Party is offering two candidates who have been involved in some capacity, either as a trustee or commission member, with administrative decisions that have questionable and perhaps even detrimental, impact on the residents and voters of Riverside. Consider the following.
    The Village is preparing to develop additional parking in the downtown district. As recently as March 3, 2009 the Board of Trustees (including Mr. Smith) could not answer the simple question of how much the parking project is going to cost. Yet, according to Village records dated March 3, two properties at 61 and 63 Burlington Street have been acquired by the Village at a cost of $556,000. A resolution carrying the same date indicates an estimate for demolition and construction to cost $154,000. Thus far, there is no evidence that estimates have been obtained for design and engineering of the parking lot, soil testing, rezoning to allow for commercial parking on residential property, installation of storm sewers and lighting, asbestos removal and disposal, or attorney fees. Even with very conservative estimates, the cost to develop the new parking lot is likely to be no less than $750,000. It is expected the new parking lot will accommodate 30 spaces. That means each space would cost $25,000.
    In 2005, Mr. Lesniak, a member of the Plan Commission, proposed that a $5,000 per space fee that should be charged to new commercial construction that does not include adequate parking as specified by the zoning code. Subsequently, the Plan Commission recommended the proposed fee to the Board of Trustees. By ordinance on November 6, 2006, the Village charged $85,000 ($5,000 per space) and credited the Village Center for 17 off-street commercial parking spaces it needed to comply with the zoning code.
    Assuming the $85,000 fee paid by the Village Center for 17 spaces can offset some of the cost for the Village’s parking lot project, the price tag would still be around $665,000 for the Village to construct a new lot.

    The difference is essentially a burden that tax payers must bear.

    This is just one example of the type of experience candidates from the Riverside Party have to offer. Does this really represent a balanced, honest stewardship of public trust? Can we really have confidence that they are looking out for the best interest of Riverside’s residents and taxpayers?

    Paid for and distributed by Riverside First Inc., a non-profit civic organization (Box 333, Riverside, IL, 60546)"

    Posted Monday Mar 30, 2009 16:33 #

  6. spatny
    Member

    That block quote thing is clever, I'll endeavor to use it in the future. But anyway you cut it, this is a lot of money. Coupled to the consultant fees and all the peripherals for TOD, TIF, Zoning, etc., this has to be getting in the neighborhood off $1.5 mil over the years. Pick your own number - I have asked at numerous meetings for the Village to provide Project Accounting - a list of everything spent on a particular project and was told our vaunted accounting system couldn't do that. They did finally, after many letters and requests in person at the Board meetings that they would acquire this software and begin to keep records that way. I'm sure, Erik, that you keep records that show what you spend on a particular project - we should too. That way, both estimates and actual dollars would be available immediately from the computer when you put in the project number - right? It seems really hard to believe they didn't keep numbers this way in the past, but every time I requested such numbers it has always taken quite a while to get them, and then they have not been very clear. I think we need to do this for every Village project.

    Posted Monday Mar 30, 2009 16:41 #

  7. idic5
    Member

    The flyer posted above describes some of the record of Smith/Lesniak and the Caucus backed current administration. In this case, past is prologue to the future.

    This kind of behavior is an example of what Lesniak calls an 'open business' model and what we could expect to occur in the future under an RP administration. Recall that after this transaction was done, the current administration requested of the Villagers a tax increase since the Village coiffers, they said, were insufficient to pay bills. However, it was behavior described in the flyer, with many other examples, that led them to feel there was insufficient money.

    If you think this kind of behavior was sound, and a good use of Village tax revenue, then you should vote RP, and expect more of the same in the future along with more tax increase requests. Otherwise, a vote for the RCA - Gorman, Shevitz, Saatchi, and Reynolds - would be a vote for more fiscal responsibility in the management of Village monies.

    Remember that the current Village board, all Caucus backed and with similar fiscal priorities, needs only one more Caucus backed member for a majority.

    Posted Tuesday Mar 31, 2009 00:17 #

  8. Catherine
    Member

    Yes, 27 posts and counting, yet no one has answered the question of what the RP will do about the budget. Cut it, raise taxes, borrow money, one, some, all?

    If you claim you are not looking for any tax increases, say that budget cuts equate with service cuts that you will not abide, yet state no third way, how can you possibly run on that in this economy and have people vote for you? Why would people vote down your major initiatives then come out and vote for you.

    It is a simple question. Where is the answer?

    Posted Tuesday Mar 31, 2009 05:37 #

  9. spatny
    Member

    "Past is prologue..." - I like it.

    Mike said:

    "This kind of behavior is an example of what Lesniak calls an 'open business' model and what we could expect to occur in the future under an RP administration. Recall that after this transaction was done, the current administration requested of the Villagers a tax increase since the Village coiffers, they said, were insufficient to pay bills. However, it was behavior described in the flyer, with many other examples, that led them to feel there was insufficient money.

    If you think this kind of behavior was sound, and a good use of Village tax revenue, then you should vote RP, and expect more of the same in the future along with more tax increase requests. Otherwise, a vote for the RCA - Gorman, Shevitz, Saatchi, and Reynolds - would be a vote for more fiscal responsibility in the management of Village monies.

    Remember that the current Village board, all Caucus backed and with similar fiscal priorities, needs only one more Caucus backed member for a majority."

    I asked:

    "What is the objection to looking closely at the budget - line by line? There will be economies or there will not. If there are, the cuts will be discussed by the entire Board through the same budget process that we have now - slowly, carefully, contentiously - and then they will be made or not. Why wouldn't any/every Trustee want to do that? Why wouldn't every taxpayer want them to do that?

    At the end of that process there will be - if nothing else - a greater clarification of how we spend our money and what we get for it. Then if there is still a shortfall all other options will have to be looked at and considered. Whoever is there. Any group of trustees that take office will have to spend some of the "reserves" - they don't have any choice. Walmart or Rizza is not coming to Harlem and Ogden to save us. Whoever is elected will have to deal with the same set of numbers and sources of revenue. So why does looking at the budget line-by-line disturb anyone. I'll tell you - because this Board started making threats about what they would cut - like Rec - if they didn't get their tax referendum. Then they waffled. Now no one has a clue what they intend to do."

    Catherine said:

    Yes, 27 posts and counting, yet no one has answered the question of what the RP will do about the budget. Cut it, raise taxes, borrow money, one, some, all?

    If you claim you are not looking for any tax increases, say that budget cuts equate with service cuts that you will not abide, yet state no third way, how can you possibly run on that in this economy and have people vote for you? Why would people vote down your major initiatives then come out and vote for you.

    It is a simple question. Where is the answer?

    Posted Tuesday Mar 31, 2009 11:07 #

  10. Catherine
    Member

    Seven days, 28 posts, no answer.

    Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 12:50 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 3 4

Reply »

You must log in to post.