Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. Elisa
   Member

   I have been paying attention quietly since almost the beginning and have finally decided to chime in. First of all, I do appreciate all of the opinions that are posted here. I have really learned a lot about the whole process. To disclose, I must admit that I am generally anti-TIF, but have come to the realization that I might be more comfortable with the TIF if the board really listens to reasonable voices - most notably Doug. But I do have some severe concerns on top of that, namely the lack of trust I feel for the Board. I really mean no disrespect, because I do believe that the trustees as individuals are hardworking and are doing the best they can. But I have tried to research the history of the supposed discussions and efforts that were made to get people involved and I am having a difficult time trusting.

   It has been stated here and in the Landmark that there was ample opportunity for public input over the past two years. In an effort to find out what opportunities (I and so many others missed) here's what I found (using the Village's own web site...I did not use -is that the right verb?- FOIA to obtain any other records.)

   1. The first mention of TIF is in Jan. of 2004. A citizen "addressed Trustee Shields on previous TIF and Eminent Domain discussions. At the January 15, 2006 Economic Development Commission meeting, the agenda listed TIF and Eminent Domain as topics for discussion. Trustee Shields responded that simply because these subjects are discussed in an informal manner doesn't mean that the Village is going to undertake either. He again assured Mr. C. that the Board has no plans to initiate either action. Trustee Smith commented that the Board plans neither TIF nor eminent domain."

   2. No mention is made of TIF until the Strategic Development Meeting that was held at the Riverside Country Club on July 12, 2005. TIF was suggested as one of many strategies that could be considered to redevelop the downtown (along with subdivisions, P.U.D. (no idea what that is), and appropriateness of Eminent Domain.)

   3. The next mention is when the Board authorized the Village Manager to contract with Kane, McKenna to complete TIF eligibility report on February 6, 2006 (not even a year ago from now and only 7 months since the Landmark's opinion piece stating that this had been discussed for quite some time (I am paraphrasing based on my memory so I may not have the exact wording, but I think that was the basic opinion.)

   4. On Feb 27, 2006, the Plan Commission did not have the TIF on the agenda, but a citizen asked the Commission to review the TIF. The Commission responded that they only would if the Board asked for input from them.

   5. In the COW on March 7, 2006 there was a TIF update, and the minutes record that the Village Manager stated that this is a complicated process requiring more meetings and discussion on the subject. If approved, the TIF needs to be established by Sept. 1. (No public comment)

   6. On April 3, 2006, in the COW the Board sees for the first time (it appears) the Feb 6, 2006 draft on TOD study and Phil McKenna addressed the Board regarding TIF.

   4. Also on April 3, there is a TIF status report, including the boundary identification. It seems to be the first discussion, I'm not sure, but there is no public comment.

   5. On April 21, 2006 at a Special Meeting, they approved authorization on feasibility study on designation of Redevelopment Project. (Again, no public comment)

   6. On June 19, 2006, the Village Manager was authorized to increase the contract with Kane, McKenna to $10,000 from $7500 for a Housing Impact Study in TIF District.

   7. On August 10, 2006 the Preservation Commission didn't have the TIF on the agenda, but a citizen commented he was concerned with the impact a TIF would have on the schools.

   8. On September 18, 2006 was that meeting that so many of you attended - the minutes are not posted yet on the Village web site, but from this point on out there is quite a bit of discussion which you are all up to speed on.

   My point, you ask? Well, it seems as if there was really no place for public input and discussion - at least I couldn't find evidence of it. I did see that TIF was on the agenda of a couple of EDC meetings, but again no minutes of ANY EDC meetings are available on the Village web site. The Landscape Advisory Commission did have several discussions about the TIF and they expressed some concerns about the TIF and TOD.

   Also, to lead further to my point I discovered two interesting nuggets. First, there was a Special Meeting Notice for a meeting that was held on September 6, 2006. On the agenda was: "Resolution of Inducement to Develop/Redevelop Certain Property in the Village of Riverside, Illinois and Finance the Same." This seems like a TIF discussion to me, but the actual acronym "TIF" was not mentioned. So, if someone was trying to keep up on the issue and had searched "TIF" looking for meetings and info, this Notice would have slipped under the radar. And there are no minutes from any Board meeting on the Village web site since August, so I couldn't find out what was discussed. If there was a reason for this, please someone inform me because to me it seems as if MikeT said in previous posts - bad faith. And that is my point. I feel that there has not been a lot of openness when it comes to the Board's communication and interactions with the public - that alone influences my thinking on the TIF. A TIF might be a good thing (if there are conditions placed on it i.e. Doug's previous posts.) But I need help getting past the trust thing. This is why I decided to finally post. Maybe someone can clarify for me very specifically when the Board asked our opinions. I have tried to be a specific as possible about every mention of TIF that I found on the Village web site, and there wasn't much there. Maybe someone can clarify for me why that Notice of Special Meeting seems to hide the fact that the meeting was about the TIF. If I can put my faith in the elected officials, I would feel more willing to trust them about this issue (and others).

   There is one more thing that jumped out at me. Again, there might be a legitimate reason for it - and if there is, please someone tell me. I want to trust the Board, I just don't. (I speak of the Board as an entity, I really don't want to call out specific individuals.) After the Board Meeting on August 21, 2006 (which is getting close to the time people are getting up in arms about this subject) the TIF was not on the agenda nor was is discussed. But after the Board adjourned at 9:35 they reconvened at 9:50 with the following Board Members present: President Wiaduck, and Trustees Grace, Scanlon, Scully, Shields, and Smith. Trustee Shields moved that a Special Counsel be employed for the purpose of TIF-related activities and that President Wiaduck be authorized to proceed with hiring. The second meeting was adjorned at 9:55. Trustee Gustafson was at the regular meeting, but was not at the second meeting. Again...there may be a perfectly good explanation, but it appears to be sneaky. It isn't about hiring counsel to deal with TIF issues, it's about the way they went about it. Why couldn't this have been done in public? Why a 5 minute meeting after everyone went home? Why wasn't Trustee Gustafson there? Was she aware of the meeting? Did she disagree with it? I don't know...

   These are the things that keep me up at night...why do things seem so adversarial when we are all citizens of an extremely small (and friendly) town.

   Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 10:42 #

2. Catherine
   Member

   Open Meetings Act of 2007:

   A look at some of the new Illinois laws taking effect Jan. 1
   the Associated Press
   Associated Press
   Nearly 100 new Illinois laws take effect Jan. 1, including:

   _Include video and audio conferences, e-mails and Internet chat rooms in the definition of a meeting covered by the state's Open Meetings Act.

   Posted Saturday Dec 30, 2006 16:34 #

3. Elisa
   Member

   Just for fun, I wanted to see how other Villages share information with their residents. I checked out LaGrange, Hinsdale, and Western Springs before I came to the realization that all of those towns have current minutes from meetings posted (which are MUCH more comprehensive than Riverside's), Hinsdale already has streaming video of meetings, and each of these towns allows public comment at every meeting! Imagine such a thing.

   I wonder...when the Village is required to abide by this Open Meeting Act, will they be transparent about it (i.e. making it easily available to residents on a web site like Hinsdale already has) or if residents will be required to jump through hoops (i.e. obtain a FOIA) to access this information.

   Posted Saturday Dec 30, 2006 22:45 #

4. Elisa
   Member

   Also, just for fun I looked back at a back issue of the paper and found our Village President's comments (from January 2005 in the Landmark):
   "...most of Riverside should be divided into lots and each lot should have one home on it with one family living in the home. I believe that most residents of Riverside still prefer that Riverside remain single family in character.

   To allow all accessory buildings to be used for residential purposes would have the potential effect of converting a single-family neighborhood into a multifamily neighborhood. Even if the rule were limited to one accessory building per lot, the potential result would be to double the number of families living in the village, with twice the number of people and twice the number of cars, traffic and congestion."

   It seems to me that a few years ago Mr. Wiaduck was very outspoken about his concern with regard to traffic and congestion clogging up the streets (from potentially very few sources, by the way), and about how the Village needs to stay primarily single-family ~ but now that condos are popping up all over town, it ceases to be an issue for him. Aren't some of these condos (already built and those in the planning stages) in residential areas? Interesting how times change....and yet another example of the Village giving the appearance of not being straight with the residents. (And making up justifications which are not then applied in other situations.)

   Posted Saturday Dec 30, 2006 22:47 #

5. idic5
   Member

   Interesting info, Elisa. I believe deep down the board wants to keep Riverside Riverside.

   .
   Our ignorance is their power.
   --bumper sticker

   mike

   Posted Sunday Dec 31, 2006 00:52 #

6. Catherine
   Member

   Elisa, as you may have guessed, this is a new addition to the already existing Open Meetings Act. The ever vigilant Illnois Attorney General has prepared this guide to it:

   http://www.ag.state.il.us/government/openmeet.pdf

   The entire Act and additional material is here:

   http://www.ag.state.il.us/government/open_meetings.html

   And the Attorney General feels so strongly about the Open Meetings Act that she has established a PUBLIC ACCESS COUNSELOR to receive complaints and to ensure its enforcement. Violation of this Act is a criminal offense.

   Posted Sunday Dec 31, 2006 05:35 #

7. Elisa
   Member

   "The minutes of meetings open to the public shall be available for public
   inspection within 7 days of the approval of such minutes by the public body."

   Holy cow! There have been no minutes posted on the Village web site since August...I wonder if public inspection means easy access via the web site, or if they will be stored in a public place (like the library), which could be pretty inconvenient for some?

   Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 01:20 #

8. spatny
   Member

   Regarding the minutes taken at Village Commissions meetings: I was at an LAC meeting where President Wiaduck appeared and asked the Commission to redact their minutes because he didn't want to see them express negatives about the Village Board. Many times the Board goes through actions that they then recall in a different manner than that which actually transpired; for instance the granting of the fourth floor variance for the Village Center development. Regardless of what the minutes may say now, when asked to complete a new design for review the developer told the Board that was too expensive and he would only proceed with the enlarged design (to include the former Chmell property) if the Board granted the variance first. I WAS THERE, and the Board, instead of telling him to take his ball and go home, waffled and gave him what amounted to a blanket 4th floor variance for whatever he would design for the enlarged property. Then they sold him the alley for $15,000 and let him by his parking shortfall at a paltry $5,000 a space. The space that alley occupied could have parked a lot more than three cars, and anyway, the real cost to buy land and get develop parking is much higher than what the Village has charged these guys. That amounts, any way you look at it, as a subsidy paid for in tax dollars given to the developer. If the Village had said, "We estimate it will cost us $20-25,000 a space to purchase land and develop parking for what you are short. Put that amount in escrow until we provide the spaces that would have been fair, not this "gift." But the Village Board minutes reflect none of this.

   Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 09:49 #

9. idic5
   Member

   This thread suggests a very important point in this debate: PROCESS !

   DUBIOUS PROCESS YIELDS DUBIOUS PROPOSALS

   Without the correct process, REGARDLESS of how great a proposal MIGHT BE, the proposal cannot be properly assessed and on this basis alone, it should be removed and trotted out until the requisite detail is shown.

   So let the light shine on the proposal and show all the detail and let everyone see it.

   The TIF proposal needs to be evaluated in the full light of the day with numbers and projections and explicltly and clearly stated assumptions about benefit and cost to everyone in town, and not stealthily 'at night' with little detail. We want to minimize the 'maybes' and the "I don't knows".

   This is ESPECIALLY important for such a proposal as the TIF redevelopment proposal since it is for such a long period of time and it can have such far reaching effects to the town as a whole.

   Trustee Smith, this is even bigger than the TOW fine - pls excuse me if I am not calling this fine by the right name; at the end of the 12-18 V Board meeting, Mr Smith suggested that some kind of village fine was worth, or might be worth more than the TIF.

   mike

   Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 10:13 #

10. Catherine
    Member

    Spatny, your remarks are most interesting since all Board meetings must be recorded on film or audio, therefore a rewriting of minutes should not erase history (whatever else it might be.) To fail to film or record such a meeting is a violation of the Act.

    I suggest anyone with knowledge of such meetings at least take a look at the summary - above - of this act, very brief and clear, and describe here what violations they think may have occurred.

    Elisa, yes, they often put things in the Library or at Town Hall where it is most inconvenient. I cannot even get a full line item budget online. And someone here said Hinsdale's site has streaming videos of their meetings!

    Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:16 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.