It took a rookie trustee to lay out very clearly the options facing Riverside and its financial future. On Dec. 3, Trustee Ben Sells, elected in April, stated in no uncertain terms-either Riverside needs more money to fund its operations or those operations are going to be slashed. More than that, he identified what he sees as the only two viable alternatives for raising that money-both involve referendums with property tax implications.
Eventually, Riverside was going to have to have this conversation. While the village can limp along, spending down its cash reserves to balance future budgets, it’s clear that scenario can’t last forever. Tax cap legislation forces this very discussion.
The rate at which the village has been able to levy taxes is capped at the Consumer Price Index or 5 percent, whichever is less. In recent years, the CPI has been much less than 5 percent-more like 2.5 to 3 percent. Meanwhile, costs-specifically personnel costs that account for most village operations-have risen at a faster rate.
You see the problem. The numbers don’t add up.
School districts have been much more successful in making their case to taxpayers and have done so repeatedly in recent years. The threat that underfunded schools will lead to unmitigated disaster has resonated with voters.
For whatever reason, taxpayers believe that municipalities are in the habit of picking their pockets. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which are repeated examples of governments-both large and small-that do just that. As a result, village government is viewed as untrustworthy and even criminal in its intent.
As a result, the village has had a much tougher time selling its tax increase proposals, unless they are tied directly to specific capital projects or essential services. When taxpayers don’t trust village government with their money and refuse to give any more up to them without a fight, you find yourself facing the debate that Riverside is about to embark upon.
If village government wants to be successful in its bid to gain more funding, then it is going to have to be unflinching in its presentation of what’s at stake.
At the same time, residents have to look themselves in the mirror and say, “Fewer cops? That’s fine by me” or “Recreation Department? That’s an extravagance” or “Let’s go cheap on the village manager’s salary.” Because, eventually, that’s what it’s going to come down to.
Like Trustee Ben Sells, we believe that it will be impossible to cut personnel costs out of future budgets without affecting village services, whether it’s not having police officers monitoring school crossings before and after school, gutting recreation programs for kids or staffing village hall with less-qualified administrators.
We also believe, like Sells, that while taxpayers ought to cast a critical eye at any municipal budget, taxpayers can’t come into the discussion with their minds made up that no one in village government can be trusted and no one has the best interests of the community at heart.
If the discussion starts on that playing field, then there will be very little room for agreement or solutions. But, as we’ve said before, it’s up to village government to lead that debate and be crystal clear in what it needs and why. The gauntlet has been cast. The hard work must begin in earnest.