...but I bet it is not cheap to install.
Take a peek at the link I placed above...it has some install pics and vids...not sure how it gets any cheaper than what they show.
Main difference I see between this concept and the gravel lots we have and this is the permeability.
And as mentioned by JohnM, I'd wager there would not be a need to plow a "seasonal overflow parking lot".
I see on Monday's agenda there is a resolution to pay the firm of James Benes for the design and engineering of the parking lot. Apparently Shevitz changed his mind. I missed that meeting.
Resolutions are not always unanimous. People should vote for what they believe. This is a democracy - one man, one vote. And four is more than three. Duhhhhh.
Spatny - you say that the when the new board members got into office they realized that the financial situation was much worse that they thought, which translated into a no go on the parking lot and other projects on the agenda.
You can't be serious that the dire financial situation of the Village came as a suprise to Shevitz. Shevitz has been presented with the facts over and over, and rather than listen to the warnings, the indications, he came to his own unsubstantiated conclusion that the Village was financially sound. Here is his analysis of the situation:
No financial crisis in Riverside
We shouldn't lose sight of the real issues around the proposed Riverside property tax increase: we can already afford the services that the board is threatening to cut, and a tax increase won't solve the underlying problem-wasteful spending.
But since both Trustee Sussman and Mr. Sedivy asked about my motivations (Letters, Oct.15), let me lay those out:
I don't want to see Riverside's property taxes go up by 32 percent in 2012.
As the father of a 4 year old, I don't believe it's right to threaten to cut the rec department when we have the money to keep it. Even Trustee Sussman's letter last week confirmed that we have a large, undesignated financial surplus.
As a Riverside resident, I don't want to see our public safety staffing and park maintenance cut when we already have the money to afford those services.
I don't feel that threatening to cut services when we have the money to pay for them is a way to encourage "an open dialogue" about whether or not we really need a tax increase.
I believe that more spending is not the way to arrive at a responsible, sustainable budget, especially when the village board has increased spending by 47 percent between 2001 and 2007.
I don't want to see longtime Riverside residents driven out and younger families scared away by an ever-increasing tax burden.
I do want to give Mr. Sedivy his due for allowing open Q&A at the Long Term Finance Committee meeting. My letter that appeared in the October 7 issue of the Landmark was submitted to the paper prior to that meeting.
While I stand by the other issues I covered in that letter, including the fact that the announcement of the meeting stated that residents would only be allowed to submit questions in writing, Mr. Sedivy did open the floor to questions, as one would expect at any other open, public meeting.
Unfortunately, Trustee Sussman, in her letter, continues to engage in more of the political gamesmanship that she decries. While she confirmed that the village will end 2008 with a sizeable financial surplus, she contradicts the village board's own projections about the size of it.
She claims that somehow $450,000 has vanished from a surplus that just a few months ago was projected at $1.4 million. She and other board members may try to tell you that we need to set aside this money as a part of Riverside's bond covenants. In fact, that $450,000 is already legally covered by our existing cash flow reserve, and does not need to come out of the $1.4 million surplus.
But if Trustee Sussman wants to argue that we have nearly a $1 million budget surplus over and above our village's financial safety net, that is her prerogative. But it raises the question as to why the board refuses to use just a fraction of that surplus to save the Recreation Department and maintain public safety staffing and parks.
Mark D. Shevitz
Riverside
Don't alter what I said. If you were at or watched the last Board meeting you would see the figures that Mr. Wachtel provided, and they are almost $400K worse than those in use before the election. So it appears to be worse than was previously thought. Then the evaluations are changing. And 2010 may be worse or as bad as 2009. And since the election we have learned of other cost overruns for projects underway. Probably things will be even more negative six months or a year fromnow, and that is not the fault of the new Board members - this started a long way back.
I think they will go along with finishing the parking lot, but Mr. Shevitz is perfectly within his rights to advocate, in light of the deteriorating situation, a prudent approach to husbanding our funds. We hardly need that parking space NOW.
Lots of things are nice to have if you have the money, but things are tight. I bet there are a lot of people in this town, RIGHT NOW, that are underwater on their home value/mortgage. Not their fault, but still a problem.
This situation is going to change every quarter for the next year or two. As it will everywhere else. This problem is not exclusive to Riverside. No one knows for sure what the future holds.
I didn't alter what you said. Yes it is true that Wachtel predicted some serious shortfalls, but as far back as the referrendum, the board has been warning the public this was going to happen. I agree with you things are tight and that the village must make tough decisions. I'm sure you understand my point. My problem is when he says in one breath "no problem, just give the rec department the $100,000 they need," and in another breath he decrees all projects must be put on hold.
Clearly the masses are willing to bite the bullet, that's what they voted for. I'm just asking for the facts as they are, not what Shevitz wants them to be.
We are undergoing a once-in-a-lifetime economic event of unfathomable dimensions. Every quarter, every month, every day brings new situations and information. No one was informed of the cost overruns for some of the projects scheduled before the election. If someone absorbs information that has come to light recently and was unavailable then, and suggests we might be better to act more frugally, why are you opposed to that. Public discourse on these issues is to our benefit. Each of these things will be voted on, and all the Board members and the President will cast their votes, and the side with the majority will win. Why does this seem to upset you. The more thought that is given to these decisions the better.
If you add up the new amounts for engineering, the severance package, and a few other items you will see about another $300-400K in costs, and couple that with the revised revenue income projections you can see a swing of around three-quarters of a million dollars which was not contemplated or discussed at the time of the referendum or the last election. The whole world is experiencing this - just today the GM/ Opel deal brought out new numbers. Thirty days ago there were a lot of Chrysler dealers who did not suspect they would lose their franchise. Things change. It's happening everywhere and is cause, perhaps, for a pause in spending what we don't have to. I for one wish we were not so far in with the Centennial projector had known up front what it was going to really cost. I could have easily lived without that "grant money" if I had been informed of what it was really going to cost the Village - but we got stuck into it and now have little choice but to proceed. Same with the Burlington project. I see no crying need for it NOW. I applaud people who can reevaluate as things change.
The Plan commission voted down (6-1) a text amendment to the zoning code which would have allowed for a temporary parking lot.
While members of the commission agreed there was a need for parking, members verbalized concerns that the proposed amendment to the code to accommodate a temporary gravel lot was overly broad and not in the best interest of the village.
Let them eat cake.
Here's my take on last night's Plan Commission meeting:
1. The Plan Commission told the Village Board that "government on demand" does not include changing codes to fit your "needs" or because you don't think they should apply to you.
2. Trustee Shevitz is still trying to convince the public that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the parking lot. The only way this will ever become a taxpayer expense is if a parking lot is not built at that location.
3. Why can't Trustee Shevitz just tell us that he doesn't want a parking lot at that location. His line of questioning to the Commission after their vote made it very clear that the next stall tactic will be that a comprehensive parking study should now be completed before any action is taken. Just what we need - more consulting expenses.
You must log in to post.