I missed last night's VB meeting as was at a Riverside Little League outing at the Cell.
Did the VB decide anything about the potential parking lot on Burlington?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Parking Lot on Burlington
(134 posts)-
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 10:07 #
-
The numbers are looking to cost - depending on how many spaces the design eventually yields - as high as $39K per space gross, so they tabled it until the first week of September so they could investigate cost saving measures and methods. It will definitely be voted for the go ahead, that is, the hiring of Bemis for $33.5K to design and engineer it if another more cost effective solution is not discovered. Remember when the talk was of making parking lots for $15,000 a space and multi-level parking garages for $30K a space? Remember that we charged just $5K a space for the VC parking buyout, so this really amounts to a subsidy of better than half a million bucks for that wonderful project. We must operate differently and have responsible project accounting from the inception of any project, starting with the estimates - so that when something is obviously out of whack it gets spotted early - before we have gotten in too deep to get out. They are going to look at all kinds of solutions - from temporarily paving just with gravel to the fully landscaped model with permeable "green" paving.
My own view is this parcel would be better utilized as an eastern anchor PUD of some kind that would "stop" the CBD look at that point and some other parcel could be acquired at a better number - or maybe something arranged to share for a couple years. People who have businesses say their employees have no place to park- well $35K a space is pretty steep to provide employee parking, and $250K is quite a price to develop the lot for that purpose. Mark my words, the Centennial deal will look even worse when we see what we are getting for what kind of number.
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 10:51 # -
What Mark Shevitz did last night was unconscionable.
For those not in the loop, here’s what happened.
At the May 18th board meeting, Trustee Shevitz moved to put planning of the parking lot on hold. Shevitz voiced his opinion that he was not convinced Riverside needed the parking and he wanted to look into whether the need justified the cost. The issue was tabled until June 1. Trustees Sells, Sussman, Scully voted to go ahead with the plans to pay for a firm to begin to plan the parking lot, giving them the direction to design a green, sustainable parking lot. They were outvoted in a bloc. The issue was tabled until 6/1.
So...last night, (6/1) the Chamber of Commerce came out in full force to tell the board resoundingly - we need parking. Nearly every business owner came to the board meeting and, one by one, each business owner stood up and told the board that there is a dire need for parking. Shevitz then agreed, that "yes", we need parking.
Rather than move on the citizens request to go forward with the PLANNING of this much needed parking lot, Shevitz shifted to another delay tactic, claiming that he needed more time to study the parking lot. He presented a power-point that each lot would cost $30K. He claimed that most likely at the end of the study, the board would approve a parking lot, but he moved to delay the project until September. To his credit, Trustee Sacchi at least had the honesty to tell the public this delay in planning would likely have the effect of delaying the parking lot by a year. The "benefit" slide for Trustee Shevitz' cost/benefit analysis went missing. Benefits can be both tangible (e.g. increased parking) and intangible (e.g. the perception that the Village is committed to action and not stuck in a holding pattern).
Interestingly, Trustee Shevitz did not provide an analysis of the loss of business to our current businesses by deferring construction of the parking lot for a year.
Our business owners aren't hypothetical, they are human beings with bills to pay, and business plans to create. It is a slap in the face to ask our business owners to hold off for a year for the village to provide them with something they so desperately need while the RCA gets up to speed on the issue.
Trustee Shevitz would not listen to Kevin Wachel, or Trustees Sussman, Scully or Sells when they explained that if the parking lot is delayed, the Village will have to begin to repay the parking lot fund with money from the cash reserves.
The RCA campaigned on the issue they would entice new businesses. I don't think it is fair to penalize our business owners because the new trustees are not "up to speed."
Again, Trustees Sells, Sussman, Scully were outvoted by the RCA bloc. PLANNING the lot was tabled until September.
When will the RCA shift gears into creating, facilitating and building ideas? When will they move into the role of LEADING the Village. From all indications, we are looking at four years of wringing hands and projects left to languish.
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 14:04 # -
The industry standard definition for per-space cost of parking includes design fees and construction costs, but it does not include land cost. Following this rule, the rule of thumb is $10,000 per surface space, $20,000 per above ground parking garage space, and $30- 40,000 per below ground space.
While the Village has purchased the 2 lots at 61 and 63 Burlington for $555,000, it is now simply a real estate asset as opposed to a cash asset. Per the rules above, the per space cost as proposed would be in the $10 to 13,000 range.
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 14:05 # -
Unconscionable? That's perhaps melodramatic. Was it unconscionable to let VC buy its way out of parking spaces for 5K per, and to spend $555K on those properties? No, generally people do what they think is the right thing.
If the businesses believe there will be ROI on this lot, perhaps the Chamber would like to pool its resources and buy it for what the taxpayers paid for it. Then again, perhaps not. Not such a good deal. The taxpayers are also human beings with bills to pay.
States and municipalities all over the country have implemented spending freezes. Yes, this means delayed projects until we are sure the bottom is finished falling out of our economy. I don't know what "citizens" requested that it go forward. I for one requested in writing that it did not.
The RCA was elected to stop blowing money on hare-brained, speculative schemes. This project is but one that calls for increased scrutiny before throwing good money after what may be bad. Spending is not synonymous with leading. I think you will find that for state and local governments, the leading is in the not spending these days.
I don't know what planet people are living on when they buy laptops for 5th graders and think it wise to spend, what, 200K within weeks of coming into office, on a parking lot?
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 14:51 # -
I'm with you on the laptops, but the parking lot is neither hare-brained nor speculative.
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 15:03 # -
No, it's nice to have a parking lot. But 3/4 million dollars nice? I don't think so; not right now.
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 15:08 # -
Why was the vote on planning the lot tabled until September? Since we're now having 2 meetings per month, that means at least 5 meetings will go by before they vote. I can see tabling it for another month to investigate and discuss options, but September seems excessive.
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 15:27 # -
I heard trustees Scully, Sussman and Sells voice their opinions many times over last night, and I saw that the cost of $33K+ is money that can hardly be spent before we know - in writing - what space we can utilize that belongs to the railroad. I think it would make a lot of sense, as Richard Ray - an experienced architect suggested, to finish it as a parking lot in progress NOW by making it a gravel lot for this season as all the cost alternatives and design options are explored, then decide and get the engineering done, and then contract it for construction early next year. It won't cost very much to do that, and it could be used within the month, and would be in good shape for one year. We now plow the gravel lot at Indian Gardens and don't have any problem doing that. The driveway apron is there. The Chamber and the other businesses would get immediate relief parking they think they need, and we could have a sign that says "Coming next year our new "green" parking lot. That's probably what should have been done since the land was bought - but wasn't.
In the future, we should have the kind of Project Accounting I have mentioned before, so we could better know what these things will cost. Since no one has ever parked there, and certainly the purchase price would be less now then when it was bought, we got nothing out of buying the property when we did. So let's spend a couple thousand and put into use to help the businesses, and then explore all the ways to build it so it is a real asset. We can have the benefit of having a lot NOW and perhaps save some money on either the construction or the engineering, which could also be competitively bid.
Those that object to the idea of considering cost-saving options didn't voice their opinions when the buy-out for parking was set at a paltry $5K.
Posted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 15:36 # -
Here's where to see the finance info that has been coming in... on the Village website.
http://www.riverside.il.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={3D3C39DB-4ED2-41E2-8A4B-7D74567CC1F5}From the Village website:
June 1, 2009 - Village Board Presentation on Cost Control Measures
At the May 18, 2009 meeting, detailed revenue forecasts for 2009 were discussed. In that discussion, Current revenue projections are short of budget by close to $400,000. That discussion included a variety of potential cost saving measures that the Village Board could consider now in order to mitigate the revenue shortfall in 2009. Trustees have asked for additional information on other alternatives. A discussion of those alternatives is included in the attached memo.Also included is a memo and backup materials that was provided to the Village Board prior to the September 9, 2008, meeting that was convened to discuss expenditure reduction strategies. This was the most comprehensive discussion of budget reductions that occurred and includes information on a variety of strategies. The dollar figures in the September packet material are not precise, as information has changed (employee counts, no COLA for non-union, etc.) but provide the board with dollar magnitude for each strategy (on an annual basis).
This Village Board will consider adjustments to the 2009 operating budget at a special meeting on June 8, 2009.
Back to Riverside and the National Economic Crisis
May 29 Memo from Finance Director - 2009 Budget Reduction Alternatives.pdf
Recirculated - First Quarter 2009 Financial Update.pdf
Recirculated - September 9, 2008, Budget Reduction Alternatives.pdf
6-1-09 presentation.pdfPosted Tuesday Jun 2, 2009 15:40 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.