Catherine,
None of my posts have contained any political overtones or personal attacks - nor should your's. I am simply trying to make sure that people have all of the facts as they pertain to the financial structure of the lot. Yes, the lot will be paid in 15 years. I will try and dig up the schedule that Mr. Wachtel provided the Board and if I cannot find it this weekend, I will ask him for a copy on Monday.
Political motivation is exactly the problem! The RCA “filibuster” has effectly shut down the Village.
The RCA will stop, block, restudy, move to table every decision of the “old board,” for no other reason than it was made by the old board. THAT’S THE PROBLEM.
BTW, The Indians are STILL waiting for their parking lot.
I am WAITING Tony M:
"Tony M, expand please. How much is coming in, how much is going out, including interest. Who is it coming from? Do the businesses know how much they will be paying for these parking spaces, or do residents (and visitors) pay to park in them?
So you are saying this parking lot is going to pay for itself in 15 years. Correct? So, in this century, the parking lot will yield $4,300 average per month every month, or $150 per space per month for 15 years, if cost is $770,000 and there are 29 spaces. The cost with debt service is more like $1.1 mil, so $5500 average per month every month for 15 years, or $192 per space. So 3 or 4 times the going rate for current resident parking space rent.
And I presume we will also get a return on investment? Is this a better return than if we 1) had not purchased 2) sold for cash or 3) saved the Arcade?
And please verify it is not true that some spaces have already been sold to the VC."
Commonsense, I am sorry, that is silly. They won. They don't care about the old board. No one does. They served, they did what they thought was right, God bless, and that's all there is to that.
I am confused how the lot will be paid for in 15 years.
If the lot were residential only, and we could charge $60 per space per month (lets say the high end of 24 spots.) That is roughly $259,000.
(Not quite the number for property assembly, demo, build-out, correct?)
Anyway, we should then note that the lot would no longer be for the business use. Every space would need to be charged in order to pay back the Parking fund in closer to 30 years. (This scenario does not leave room for willy nilly "this spot in the back is for this or that purpose," they would all need to generate revenue.)
Will the businesses be happy with this result? Will there be a swap for additional parking for the businesses elsewhere? (where?... parking study needed? perhaps?)
If the lot is for the businesses will they be metered?
Will the businesses buy spaces for their employees?
These answers have yet to float to the surface. I for one would appreciate the answers beforehand.
BTW, Do you know how long it takes to get your hair to do this in this kind of weather? I am certain Blackhawk can wait a few weeks!
Catherine and Kim,
Both of you are assuming that the loan will be repaid from any new fees generated from this new lot only. The Board has not even considered what the fee structure, if any, will be for the new lot as far as I know. Please remember that the Parking Lot Fund receives parking fees from several lots in the Village and it will be the cumulative total of ALL Village parking fees that go towards the debt repayment of the new lot.
Catherine,
Many off your questions that you posed to me regarding the lot should be directed the new Board, not to one of the losers of the election. I will be more than happy to pose your questions to the Board if you would like me to.
Is there anyone who can read this string and deny we need better planning in this village?
Precisely TonyM!
The Board needs to do their homework.
Determine use.
Work out fee structures for all lots so as to ensure economic viability.
Get the best value for the engineering.
And as Chris reminds us above; comprehensive PLAN!
etc. etc.
This is not politics, this is good government.
I await their answers...
Tony M,
If the Parking Lot Fund could not fully finance this project in the first place, where are these great profits we will realize from our parking lots that will repay a loan of this size in 15 years? You have made this claim, so the question is for you, not the Board. You are correct there has been NO discussion whatsoever of charging for parking in the new proposed lot.
If we have or will have such vast sums of cash in that fund, is this the only possible use for it? Because we sure have needs more pressing than this.
This sounds like one of Mayor Daley's ideas, wishful thinking.
And Tony M, it is nice you have started attending Board meetings, but don't come on here and insult people who have spent their valuable time for years actually attending these meetings, and studying and doing work on the issues. We do not need you to ask questions of the Board for us, as you laughably suggest. It is you who has not done YOUR homework. We are not running for office. We can ask questions, test answers, share perceptions and give opinions. We do not have to do "homework" before having the temerity to do so. Only office seekers do.
I thought you had something new to tell us. You don't. Please dedicate yourself to something other than trying to undermine the new board majority. That will not be the way to win the next election.
We certainly do need better planning. That is why it was and is best to call time on this project, and rethink the best use of our assets, limited as they are.
Just got our power back after about 25 hours, and look at all I've missed! Tony - I wasn't referring to you - I know who you are. I meant "commonsense." And while what you say is true, that the money is used for things related to parking and the lots, that means it is spent by the village for those uses, like coating and repairs and striping and what all. And there was talk of using it for tunnel ramps and bike racks and other items that are not exactly on the lots themselves, like landscaping, etc. And if that money isn't there and something is needed than guess where it comes from?
Sat. Day and evening - lots and lots of spaces on Burlington. At about 8:45 PM there were exactly three cars ((ONLY) parked on Burlington between Longcommon and the new lot. And no cars on that lot. In the afternoon when I went to Riverside foods I parked directly across the street, as I usually do. Many empty spaces. FRankly, I don't see any need for this lot at present, or in the foreseeable future. I think the $2000. solution is more than adequate to handle OVERFLOW parking, which is what the businesses want, I guess. I would rather spend $10-15,000 to fix the riverwall along the Swan Pond so the water would not flood it out for months at a time. It came in yesterday and is still pouring in over 3-4 low spots in the wall that only need to be repaired with the same broken road material that has lasted since the WPA built it. Now the water (and the mosquitoes that will breed in it will have the park for the next five-six weeks or so.
This is the fifth inundation since just last September, and the natural action of the water over topping these areas will eventually undermine the wall and cause more costly damage to repair. It seems to me this modest expenditure should be done soon - the people that rebuilt the steps down there could do it - and it is the kind of expenditure that will save the village money in the future - besides restoring the ability to use this beautiful park. I would think this is exactly the kind of project that our capital improvements fund should pay for. I have asked the last two boards on many occasions, all the way back to when Mike Hullihan was in charge, and it was never done. I shall ask again on Monday night to have this problem dealt with. It makes good economic sense and is the right thing to do.Interested parties could go to the Little Dam and take a look - the water was dropping a little but will still be high for a few days and probably continue to come in for another 24 hours.
You must log in to post.
