Riverside trustees move ahead with plan to put permanent street levy question before voters

Village of Riverside officials on Tuesday discussed placing a referendum before voters this November that would convert the village’s recurring practice of issuing 10-year bonds for street work into a permanent, annual street-and-bridge tax levy intended to stabilize funding and reduce bond issuance costs. No formal vote was taken; the board directed staff to continue preparing the draft question and related informational materials and to return with final ordinance or resolution language by early August.

The proposal follows two past voter approvals to issue bonds for road projects, in 2004 and 2014. Manager Francis noted the village’s portion of a resident’s property tax bill is about 15.3% and said the referendum is designed to be “property tax neutral.” “With the way in which this referendum would be set up, it would be property tax neutral,” Manager Francis said, adding the village currently spends roughly $550,000 extra on bond soft costs and interest that “is not going into the streets.”

Village attorney Filipini walked the board through three options under the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (commonly abbreviated PTELL): a short-term increase (up to four years), creating a new tax not previously accessed, or an extension-limitation adjustment that allows a one-time increase above PTELL limits that then carries forward. Filipini recommended the third option, saying it would “allow the village to get that question before the village residents immediately” and would switch the revenue source from debt service to an annual levy without repeating bond issuance costs.

Filipini cautioned the statute prescribes specific ballot language and limited flexibility, so an accompanying public-information effort is critical. “If you’re relying simply on the question, then you’re already probably lost,” Filipini said, urging a robust informational campaign that explains how revenues would be used and the savings achieved by avoiding issuance costs.

A trustee argued the village has paid a financing penalty over time by borrowing rather than maintaining a steady levy. “We’ve lost out on maybe $1,000,000 worth of street improvements by borrowing money the last 20 years,” the trustee said, urging trustees to educate the public about the tradeoffs. Attorney Filipini and other trustees emphasized the change is a financing method swap rather than a sudden infusion of funds: the tax bill itself should remain stable under the recommended approach, while more of the village’s revenue would go directly to road work rather than to issuance costs.

Manager Francis said staff are developing an interactive 10-year capital-improvement plan (CIP) map tied to GIS so residents can see planned street work; that plan is contingent on securing a stable funding source. In response to a public question about contingency plans if the referendum fails, staff and trustees said options include asking voters again with different language, returning to a bond referendum in a later year, or reprioritizing projects — but warned the 2025 road program would likely be reduced without the revenue.

The board did not take a formal vote on the question that night. The meeting concluded with direction to staff to return with final draft ordinance/resolution language and outreach materials by early August, with the last July meeting identified as the board’s target to approve materials for filing.