Archive for the ‘Insurance Committee’ Category

6.21 BOT

The Village Board of Trustees will be conducting their monthly meeting this evening at 6:30 PM.  Some of the topics on their agenda include:

  • [Vote] Accept the Audit Report for FY2020 — Mr. Andrew Mace, Partner, Wipfli, LLC
  • [Vote] A Resolution Approving the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Cuba Township Road District Resolution 21 –
  • Introduction to Barrington Area Council of Governments (BACOG) – Kimberly Saunders, Executive Director
  • [Vote] Appointment of BACOG Representative(s)
  • 5K Fun Run Through the Hills – Saturday, July 3, 2021 ~ 7:30 AMStart/Finish at Cuba Township Office: 28000 Cuba Road, Barrington, Illinois
  • 9th Annual The Hills Are Alive Fall Festival – Sunday, September 19, 2021-Noon to 4 PM Behind Village Hall.

A copy of the agenda can be viewed and downloaded here.

Read Full Post »

VBH__LogoThe Village Board will meet on Monday August 28th at 6:30 PM. The agenda can be viewed here and the e-Packet can be found here.

Read Full Post »

audio_tape_revox_pr99-203Audio recordings from the July 24th, 2017 meeting of the Board of Trustees have been posted. To access the menu of recordings edited by agenda item, click here.

Most of the brief meeting consisted of routine business, but, again, property owned by Barrington Hills Farm LLC (BHFarm) provided the most interesting fodder for discussion.  As we mentioned previously, the owner(s) of the unoccupied property at 2400 Spring Creek Road had been cited for demolition of a residence without a building permit and for removal of two posted Stop Work Order signs. Additionally, many trees and much vegetation had been removed without a permit required under the village’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Trustee Colleen Konicek asked Administrator Bob Kosin for an update on the situation.  The issue of the removal of the Stop Work Order signs is currently in the hands of the village prosecutor, and the courts will be left to determine if the violation did take place, and what fines, if any, should be imposed.  Kosin went on to state that the necessary demolition permit had now been obtained, albeit AFTER the fact, and that according to the demolition contractor, none of the work to remove the debris from the demolition of the 2900 sq. ft. home had required an overweight permit.  Trustee Brian Cecola strongly questioned the notion that a residence of that size could be taken down without the need for an overweight permit.  Konicek pressed the issue further, asking Kosin what evidence had been provided that an overweight permit had not been required? Kosin was forced to admit there was no evidence, just the word of the contractor. We wonder how many other residents would be afforded this same benefit of the doubt.

On the issue of the trees that had been removed, Kosin stated that the Village’s tree contractor had been sent out, and he determined that no heritage trees had been lost or jeopardized on the site, again AFTER the fact, and that the property owner had been appropriately billed (and paid ) for the arborist’s inspection fee. Kosin expressed supreme confidence in the arborist’s psychic abilities to determine the species of trees which had been removed, without ever having seen them.  We don’t quite understand how this was possible — perhaps he conducted a DNA analysis of the sawdust residue?

President Martin McLaughlin expressed concern about the objectivity of the arborist, Chuck Stewart, who had performed the study of the property, because Stewart rents office space in a building owned by one of the members of the board of Barrington Hills Farm. Trustee Michelle Maison was also troubled by this perceived conflict of interest and inquired if another independent tree analysis should be conducted.

McLaughlin then brought up the issue of the deannexation request (dated July 17, 2017) for 2400 Spring Creek Road. Back in the fall, the trust controlling BHFarm had expressed interest in annexing ALL of the former Duda property back into the Village during a friendly 2 1/2 hour staff meeting during which the village outlined two timelines to complete the annexation petition process. He found it odd that first they wanted to annex into the village, and now they want to annex out of the village. He also reminded the new Board members about the trust’s previous request for an easement for its proposed HARPS facility (which still has not broken ground).  The trust had wanted an easement, requested it, constructed the legal documents for it, and when the Board agreed to it, the trust wanted the easement out.

McLaughlin described how the Village has gone out of its way to say “yes” numerous times to requests by BHFarm, and explained how the Village has tried to work with the individuals representing BHFarm, only to have the trust change their minds about things that they themselves had asked for.  He likened dealing with the BHFarm trust as doing the Hokey Pokey — they want the easement in, they want the easement out, they want to annex in, they want to annex out. All of it, he said, amounted to much silliness, and in our opinion, wasting of board and staff time, not to mention taxpayer dollars.


Doing the annexation hokey pokey

Trustee Paula Jacobsen wondered why the village couldn’t have employed a warmer and fuzzier process to inform the property owner of their violation of the cease and desist order, perhaps by placing a personal phone call. Jacobsen was either playing dumb in thinking that property owners’ phone numbers are listed on property deeds, or perhaps she was pandering to BHFarm’s board which is headed by a prominent donor to her recent trustee campaign. Her point seemed to be that the property owner was not being treated in a neighborly manner, despite the fact that the only publicly available contact information is an street address in Chicago. Never did she place any onus on the property owner who apparently assumed that it was okay to knock down a house without consulting the municipal authorities in advance. Maybe she has never heard of the expression “ignorance of the law is no excuse”?

And, if the village had gone to extreme lengths to track down a telephone number in this particular instance, wouldn’t that create a dangerous precedent for the village’s future contacts with other property owners?  AND, does Jacobsen really believe that the contractor(s) who removed the trees and demolished the residence didn’t inform their employer of the Stop Work Order?

Those conversations can be heard here.

Later in the meeting, during discussion of the disconnection petition itself, Village Attorney Mary Dickson described the legal requirements for disconnection and confirmed that the subject property meets all of them. However, the village cannot act on such a petition sooner than 30 days after receiving it, and, as a result, the attorney will prepare an ordinance for possible action at the next Board meeting in August.

Dickson cautioned that any penalties regarding the cease and desist order violation pending in court should be resolved and that any other monies due to the Village should be paid PRIOR to the Board of Trustees taking final action on BHFarm’s petition.

Jacobsen continued to puzzle over the reason for the disconnection request into unincorporated McHenry County, and asked if the petitioner would be making a presentation to the Board explaining the reasons for the disconnection.  Dickson explained that no such presentation is legally necessary.  (We suggest that Jacobsen pick up the telephone a place a neighborly phone call if she wants to quench her curiosity.) Attorney Dickson opined that maybe developmental rights are the reason, and perhaps the best prospects for the owner’s desired development of the property may lie with the county rather than the village. We’d say that Ms. Dickson hit the nail on the head with that assessment.

The disconnection discussion can be heard here.







Read Full Post »


VBH__Logo The Village Board will meet on Monday July 24th at 6:30 PM. The agenda can be viewed here and the e-Packet can be found here. Of special note is a petition for de-annexation of 2400 Spring Creek Road, owned by Barrington Hills Farms, which was cited in recent building enforcement reports for demolition of a residence without a permit and possible violation of the Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Read Full Post »

VBH__LogoThe ePacket agenda containing links to documents to be discussed during Tuesday evening’s Village Board meeting has been posted.  To access the ePacket link, click here.

Read Full Post »

The Board of Trustees will be holding their regular monthly meeting Monday, December 19th, at 6:30 PM.  A copy of the agenda can be viewed here.

Read Full Post »

The Board of Trustees will hold their monthly meeting this evening at 6:30 PM.  A copy of the agenda can be viewed here.

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from the regular December meeting of the Board of Trustees are posted to the Village website for review.

There were no comments from the public, and the meeting lasted only about an hour.  It appears from listening to the full unedited recording that the Levy Ordinance draft was being finalized as the trustees were meeting, since it was voted on toward the end of the session. 

Perhaps this last-minute preparation is due to the recent change in the treasurer position and this caused a special December 22nd meeting to approve an amended levy.  We’ll know more when those recordings are released.

To access the menu of edited recording segments based on the agenda items, click here.

Read Full Post »

The Village Board will hold their regular monthly meeting Thursday, December 17th.  The agenda for the meeting can be viewed here.

Read Full Post »

The Village has recently posted recordings from the November 19th meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

The entire public meeting lasted just under three and a half hours.  Those who attended the meeting or listen to the entire recordings will likely recognize the reason for the unnecessarily drawn-out discussions.

Six residents made public comments at the beginning of the meeting, with five of them speaking their minds on the topic of the Police Pension Obligation Bond that was on the agenda.  Unfortunately, they, and others in attendance, were in for an initial disappointment.

When the bond topic did come up on the agenda during Trustee Bryan Croll’s finance report, he refused to make a motion to consider it, stating he had no new information as can be heard here.  That seemed rather arrogant on Croll’s part considering other members of the board, including two who are full-time financial fund managers, have also been researching the topic and might have had information to add to the discussion. 

The Village Attorney was then asked if any member of the Board of Trustees could move for discussion of a topic, and not solely the Trustee assigned to the Finance Committee.  Attorney Mary Dickson began reviewing our codes, however it appears from the recordings, residents attending the meeting had already departed by the time a decision was made later during the evening. 

When it was confirmed that any board member could make the motion, Croll then decided he would make it after all, as can be heard here.

Forty-five minutes of discussion by the Trustees then followed, with Croll stating a number of times he had not been prepared to discuss the matter that evening, despite the fact that the issue has been before both the Finance Committee and the Board of Trustees for months.  Ultimately, yet another motion to table consideration of the issue was approved.

Unfortunately, the matter may be moot at this point since interest rates have inched up since the concept was first floated before the board nearly two years ago. 

Considering that the Federal Reserve Chairman is likely to announce an interest rate hike soon, this proposition is not nearly as financially beneficial as it once was, and it is a shame some board members dragged this out, due to what seems like political reasons  and foregoing the financial interests of the taxpayers who voted for them.

Later in the meeting, there were more productive discussions, and in most cases, votes were taken to decide various issues.

For example, by a unanimous vote, the Village Code which had required residents to purchase and display vehicle stickers was abolished.  That  discussion and vote can be heard here.  Also repealed was the very old code language requiring each homeowner to have landline telephone services. 

Though many readers may be scratching their heads over this one, landline service was actually required by the Village by code up until this vote.  In fact, in order to obtain an occupancy permit for a newly constructed home, proof of a landline telephone account was required.  That discussion and vote can be heard here.

Trustees also approved a new agreement with our unionized police force, which brings added benefits to the Village, as well as to sworn officers.  Chief Semelsberger seemed pleased with the new agreement, as can be heard here

Semelsberger also reported his satisfaction with the consolidation of 911 services to QuadCom which occurred over a month ago.  He can be heard expressing his experiences thus far by clicking here.

It was reported during the administration portion of the meeting that the Village of Barrington has expressed an interest in annexing the property recently purchased by District 220 off Hart Road which is currently located in Barrington Hills (Lot 5 as depicted in a map seen here).  We have some reservations on this matter, as do some of our Trustees it would seem, and the link to that discussion can be accessed here.

To access the menu of the complete recordings from the meeting, click here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: