Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Federal Revenue Sharing in the form of unrestricted funds is
very necessary to our community. The program promotes a
healthy move in the direction of local control, the level at
which government is most visible and most accessible to the
individual citizen.

River Forest has been considered an affluent suburb but our
budget is in balance only after cuts in police, fire, and
public works manpower and programs.

Removal of revenue
sharing funds would immediately jeopardize that precarious
balance.

Ideally revenues generated locally shoulo not have to travel
to Washington and back, but that is a very long range goal.
In the meantime, continue to encourage federal revenue sharing funds
left completely to the discretion of local authorities who have
direct knowledge of local problems.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Dear Congressman Hyde: I am in receipt of your letter of December 10th regarding H.R. 2291 which would extend the Revenue Sharing Program for another four years. As Village Attorney for the village of Elmwood Park, I can attest to the great benefits derived at the local level from the influx of Federal Revenue Sharing funds into the community. In the case of Elmwood Park, its citizenry have been able to enjoy the benefits of a new library, a new civic center with facilities for recreation, relaxation and education as well as new and improved equipment for the Fire Department. Without Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, these projects might have been deferred to a time when their costs would have become prohibitive. With the increased pressure on units of local government to minimize their taxing efforts, removal of an important source of additional funding could prove especially devastating. It is my judgment that to a degree the income taxes exacted by the Federal Government become less burdensome and onerous if the taxpayer knows that a portion of his tax payment will be returned to the local community, and he will directly benefit therefrom. While Elmwood Park has been careful not to become dependent upon these revenue sources for basic municipal services, the detriment to the community would be manifest if they were terminated, and many worthwhile projects had to be abandoned. If there is anything further I can do to assist in the passage of this legislation, please advise. Sincerely yours,

[ocr errors]

Robert E. Adamowski, Attorney for the village of Elmwood Park

REA:gc

OEC 28 14/S

VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, ILLINOIS

P.O. BOX 330 • 700 W. IRVING PARK RD. • TELEPHONE 766-8200 • ZIP CODE 60106

[blocks in formation]

Many thanks for the letter of December 10 relative to your views on the revenue sharing program. I, too, agree that to allow this program to expire would constitute a severe financial hardship for our communities, and the program does put the decision making power in the hand of the local government, who have a direct knowledge of the current and long term needs of the specific area. The recent experience we had in DuPage County and the lack of concern about it point up the need for this type of program. As mentioned in our earlier communication, there is much work to be done in the Village of Bensenville as regards fire protection and in assisting our residents in meeting their transportation needs, and these funds are essential to sustain that process. Please continue your supoort of the revenue sharing program, for there is a definite need.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Congress of the United States
Houso of Representatives
1203 Longworth House
Office Building
Washington, D.č. 20515
Honorable Mr. Hyde:
In response to your letter, being local officials are very
concerned of the expiring of revenue sharing. The expiration
of revenue sharing will definitely become the burden of the
Village of River Grove. The Village, at the present time,
does not incorporate revenue sharing in the fiscal budget.
Allocations received are used for recreation programs, senior
citizens, purchase of vehicle for public works, purchase of
Police and Fire vehicles.
Our revenue sharing allocation enables us to give to the citizens
of River Grove the benefits to provide for the welfare and safety
of our community.
The Mayor and Board of Trustees sincerely thank you as our
representative for the effort and support you have shown to
reinstate revenue sharing. We urge that your Committee and Congress
adopt legislation to extend the program for four additional years
which is so vital to the areas that we serve.

Respectfully yours,

26

Frank J. Loni
Comptroller
Village of River Grove

FJL/ds
2821 THATCHER AVENUE

MUNOPAL BULONG I

RVER GROVE.UNOIS 60171

453-8000 8001

- MUAGE OF FRENOLY NEIGHBORS

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This letter responds to your letter of December 11, 1979
concerning the continuation of the present revenue sharing
program.
It is our judgment that the federal revenue sharing program
should be continued beyond September, 1980; that any phaseout
of the program should be done gradually over a period of
years to permit communities to adjust to the phasedown; and
that any decrease in revenue sharing funds as presently
distributed should not be retargeted to federally controlled
spending programs in urban areas -- or elsewhere--but might
better be applied to balancing the federal budget.

Those in the Administration and Congress who continue to
insist that suburban areas are "affluent" might do well to
take a good look at the financial "crunch" we have experienced
in the last few years. Inflation has kept our expenditures
spiralling upward far in excess of municipal revenue increases.
This squeeze has probably been much more pronounced in the
suburban communities than in the urban areas. Further, revenue
sharing allocation to so-called "affluent" suburbs have a
damper put on them by the formula used to compute the
allocations.

More specifically, we have used our revenue sharing allocations in different ways from year to year as the corporate authorities have decided it is best to apply the funds--for equipment replacement, building maintenance, or priority programs-wherever the need is greatest at the time. What is important

« PreviousContinue »