A total of ten people spoke during Public Comment, and the two topics on most people’s minds were the discussion of the Police Pension Obligation Bond, and a vote on the issuance of a special use permit to shift an existing artificial lake located on a Plum Tree Road property (by a factor of about half an acre).
The former Village President spoke fourth, and once again, asked questions of the chair, as though public comment was his opportunity for debate with board members. When his questions weren’t answered, he went on to actually claim “We never had a non-dialogue, ah, rule issue. This board, I’d always expected Trustees to be able to respond to questions, including, um, during the regular part of the meeting, which, those of you who have been here would have known that.” Those comments can be heard here.
The very next speaker provided his recollection of how public comment was actually changed by the previous president’s administration and how new stringent rules were instituted in 2011, and his comments can be heard here. In fact, in October of 2011, public comment was moved to the end of what were then very lengthy Village Board meetings, as readers may recall from our editorial at that time (seen here).
Regarding the special use permit vote for the existing artificial lake off Plum Tree Road, four opponents spoke, but none of their objections seemed related to the alteration of the lake itself, but other issues they apparently had with the property owner.
This included one very vocal individual who has spoken out at a number of meetings (who lives in her mother’s home according to public records) against the lake alteration. After that, the final speaker, an attorney for the property owner at the meeting, stated the following:
“Much of the objection regarding the uses is opposed by Ms. [Sharon] Meroni, we just wanted to point out that, uh, Defend the Vote, her charitable organization, also has a mailing address of [Surrey Lane] in Barrington Hills, and we have a letter from her requesting, ah, a $100,000 donation to her organization located at her house, and that I’d like the Board to consider. It’s pretty self-evident.”
It’s unclear how her frequent objections to the issuance of a special use permit for alteration of an artificial lake turned into a solicitation of a very large donation from the applicant, but the applicant’s attorney did preface his comments by submitting the correspondence he referenced to the Village Clerk. The recording of his comments can be heard here.
Once public comments concluded, the board then turned to the business before it, and a number of matters were discussed and decided upon.
The topic of the Police Pension Obligation Bond was tabled until the November meeting, but not without discussion. President McLaughlin provided some insight into the current status, including the fact that the Village has no direct say in who manages the police pension fund investment. Only the members of the police department make that choice, and it is up to them to determine if the performance of the investments is satisfactory, regardless of the future costs to Barrington Hills taxpayers.
In light of the ongoing “below median returns” of the current pension fund managers, this situation could result in a $43 million liability on the part of residents for the pension fund in the next 25 years. We encourage readers to listen to McLaughlin’s perspectives on the matter by clicking here.
The special use permit for the artificial lake was approved, with dissention on the parts of Trustees Gohl and Harrington. Despite the fact that Trustee Konicek explained the Zoning Board had thoroughly reviewed the application and had approved it unanimously at their August meeting, both trustees voted no.
Perhaps the fact that the vocal objector with “issues” with the property owner (that were unrelated to the alteration of the lake) is related to a former Trustee had some influence in their decision.
The other major issue weighing on most residents’ minds came after a break for executive session: the settlement of a lawsuit against the Village over the passage of the LeCompte/Anderson Commercial Horse Boarding Amendment earlier this year.
Before any discussion or vote occurred, the Village Attorney read a summary of the terms of the settlement into the public record which had been discussed at length during executive session. Click here to listen to the recording of the Village Attorney’s summary.
Trustees were then provided an opportunity to speak about their sentiments toward the settlement, the amendment, and in some cases, the process that let to its passage, as well as their disposition regarding settlement. Most readers will find opinions that they agree or disagree with, however we strongly encourage all readers to listen to these comments which can be heard by clicking here.
When the time came to vote, Trustees Gohl and Harrington voted no, Trustee Maison abstained, and Trustees Cecola, Croll and Konicek as well as President McLaughlin voted in favor of the resolution to settle.
The link to the menu of edited recordings for the full meeting, by topic, can be accessed by clicking here.