On Ch. 6 now, 7:30 PM
Anything else good on, or should I stay tuned?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
COW March 5 TONIGHT
(12 posts)-
Posted Monday Mar 5, 2007 19:38 #
-
I was putting the kids to bed, did they announce the names of the Budget Committee? Who are they?
Posted Monday Mar 5, 2007 20:49 # -
The Board accepted eleven and Holly Machina, who needs to get her resume to them. This afternoon I turned in an FOIA request for an accounting of all monies paid to to consultants, engineers, etc. for the B2 Zoning, the TOD Study and this TIF and Redevelopment plan disposal, and miraculously, the item dealing with another $10,000 appropriation for the TIF was tabled. I wonder why - no explanation given.
Posted Monday Mar 5, 2007 21:58 # -
spatny, the agenda used the past tense 'for out of scope work performed' by McKenna.
Do you think this was for the saturday and Tuesday wkshops? $5,000 - not a bad take for a couple hours of work each day. Or, do you think the agenda meant 'for out of scope work TO BE performed'?
from the agenda of yesterday's COW
" V. A Resolution Authorizing Additional $10,000 For Contract From Kane McKenna And Associates For Out Of Scope Work Performed For TIF Study "
Posted Tuesday Mar 6, 2007 10:11 # -
The Board budgeted an initial $40,000 + $10,000 for the housing impact study + an additional $15,000 for other reimbursibles (on Oct. 2, 2006). As of Oct. 16, 2006, $42,749.17 was spent towards the TIF project - this is before the Village stopped and took a breather to educate people, so my guess is that they burned through more of that money in the past 4 months. This additional $10,000 would be on top of all that.
To be fair, the Village might be leaning toward not moving ahead with the TIF - which would mean that they wouldn't be paying any more in fees. But if that was the case, they would have discussed it at a public meeting, correct? So I don't know what to make of the additional $10,000 authorization being tabled.
Posted Tuesday Mar 6, 2007 11:03 # -
I think the FOIA request for an accounting of all the monies paid the three sets of consultants and engineers, etc. will reveal over $200K spent for the B2 Zoning, th TOD, and the TIF - and counting. Then the costs incurred for the workshops, legal, etc. - who knows how much. Some people think it is north of $200,000 and climbing.
I ask you - in Wednesday's Landmark - Was The Village Sold A “Lemon?—
After all the meetings and workshops it is time to ask some serious questions about the proposed TIF plan. Not about what we want - those that attended the workshops have already made it quite clear that they don't want many of the items put on offer in the TOD study. I mean, isn't it time we look at just what kind of potential legal imbroglio the Board's consultants may be dragging us into?
The Village paid plenty for the B2 Zoning Code that ls the root cause of our distress. Zoning is supposed to protect the many (in this case the Village residents) from the few (in this case the developers-for-profit that want to build the biggest thing they can on the property they have. That the Village Center is ill-sited and overlarge is already apparent, and it still has not reached its full height. Obviously, any zoning code that allows any Board to sanction something this unattractive and out of proportion requires urgent revision to protect us from other future projects.
The TOD study, proffered by another set of consultants, was used as the basis document for the recent series of eight workshops sponsored by the Village. It specified increased density and numerous ill-conceived projects for “opportunity sites— they identified, some of which lie within our precious green spaces. While the workshops revealed a strong dislike for most of these concepts by those residents who attended, the TOD study is still being touted by some of our commission members as something akin to Holy Writ.
Next, wearing another hat, some of the same consultants reappeared as if by magic to offer their services to develop the financial means to make these dreams come true - the present TIF District Redevelopment Plan. This document takes the stand that Riverside is eligible for this TIF because they interpret it as being so. Before we pony up any more taxpayer dollars to consultants we need to know if we actually qualify for this TIF. I seriously doubt if Riverside, given all the development that is happening in and near the proposed TIF District, is eligible.
Our Village Board, well-intentioned and striving to find a way to bring a bit of improvement to our downtown, may have been been sold a bill of goods. We may have gotten three “lemons “ in a row. The B2 Zoning we paid for doesn't prevent oversized structures from being stuffed onto inadequate lots. The TOD Study has promoted a bunch of theories and projects that the residents don't want. And this TIF District proposal - perhaps the worst of all - has not only fostered foolish proposals and spurious strategies for the use of Eminent Domain and the sequestration of funds from the schools and other taxing districts , it has caused real harm and great concern to some of our friends, neighbors and fellow residents.
I give the Board the benefit of the doubt in saying that they are attempting to do what they honestly feel is best for the Village. I also believe they have been taken advantage of by those they paid to advise them. This reminds me of the old rides at Riverview, where you were invited to “ride again— for less than what you paid to get on in the first place. If we put this TIF in place we will, no doubt, have to defend it in court. Perhaps many times. And for what - something it is evident people don't want?
Make no mistake, this TIF District proposal is a loaded gun that carries the potential to not only forever alter what Riverside is and was meant to be, but to involve us in costly and protracted litigation that will involve us in paying still more for lawyers and consultants. This is a slippery slope we are treading. We need to dump this TIF proposal before it causes us to lose our balance. We need to resoundingly vote this thing down and demand that the Board heed the wishes of the voters. And we need to stop hiring consultants to do our thinking for us.
Posted Tuesday Mar 6, 2007 11:26 # -
There is also a new Public Input policy. Public comment will be up front at all meetings except the COW, where there is none. Trustee Grace brought in a new policy that they adopted unanimously. The deal is - you get five minutes before the main part of the agenda is reached, to comment on either anything on the agenda or anything, I'm not sure. But you are supposed to register with the Village via email or go in and sign up or something like that - and do it by - I think - 10AM on Monday AM. Problem is that the agenda is only posted late on Friday, and the Village Hall is closed (usually) on Sat-Sun - and it's not sure it will get posted on the web by Monday - so details are still a bit sketchy - but it appears to be a step in the direction of making the meetings more open. There is also a bit about six people being able to sign up at the meetings to speak - 5 mins each. Lawyer will draw up the resolution - so I'm not sure if this will start at the next meeting or not.
Posted Tuesday Mar 6, 2007 11:33 # -
spatny said--
it appears to be a step in the direction of making the meetings more open.I recall at the meeting where they deliberated on the Village's referenda questions that was maybe the first time they changed the public comment persiod to be at the beginning of the meeting.
In that meeting,
public asked questions on the referenda based on the agenda language
board deliberated on the referenda
board voted on referenda language different than what was deliberated on and what was noted on the agenda text
This was an example of less open government.
Posted Tuesday Mar 6, 2007 17:40 # -
Open government? Why not just go back to how it was a decade ago? When Joe DiNatale was village president he would recognize anyone that wanted to speak during any point in a board meeting. There was genuine give and take. Not many people attend board meetings; why the sign in and five minute limit for two or three members of the public?
Posted Tuesday Mar 6, 2007 18:07 # -
Joe DiNatale was quite a character and seemed very approachable. No falsehood intended, but the current president strikes me as smug, arrogant and contemptuous of the voters, once referring to the taxpayers in a meeting as "the audience." I will take the word of any non-EDC member that appearances are deceiving in his case.
Posted Wednesday Mar 7, 2007 04:46 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.