The Village of Riverside Board of Trustees convened for their regularly scheduled, monthly meeting without trustees Cindy Gustafson and John Scully, but their absence was more than made up for by an abnormally large crowd of 40 or so anxious Riverside residents, who had their own agenda.

As far as most of the residents were concerned, Monday night’s board meeting would become a public forum to discuss the village’s proposed TIF (Tax Increment Financing) district-one night before a public hearing was scheduled to discuss that very issue. In all, Monday’s meeting lasted three and a half hours, with more than two hours of it devoted to residents voicing their complaints.

But before the residents could unleash their ire, the board made decisions on some notable issues.

The tunnel

The board rejected a resolution allowing Village Manager Kathleen Rush to send a letter to the Burlington Northern Railroad Company, stating that the village had decided against rebuilding a pedestrian tunnel beneath its tracks. Voters in Riverside turned down a referendum in the recent elections that would have provided $4 million to fix the tunnel.

According to Village President Harold Wiaduck, Jr., a 30-plus-year-old agreement between the village and the railroad obligates neither party to fix the tunnel. The railroad is only obligated to demolish the tunnel when it is deemed unsafe.

Trustee William Scanlon proposed that the tunnel be kept open until it is declared unsafe, and Trustee Kevin Smith agreed that this was the best way to maximize its use. This decision was met with applause, along with the measure immediately following it, which approved the outsourcing of billing and collection of all ambulance fees to a private firm. The measure would increase village revenue by aggressively charging and collecting higher fees from insured nonresidents.

The smoking ban

The board then deferred voting on an ordinance to regulate smoking in public places and places of employment. Further discussion was needed, trustees said, to smooth out technicalities that arose from rules for smoking in parks. The ordinance would allow smoking in parks at a distance of 25 feet from any park bench, play area, playfield or organized event or gathering.

Trustee Smith proposed enacting an outright ban on smoking in parks to solve the problem of producing the correct signage, but Trustee Thomas Shields believed it would be best to have event organizers supply anti-smoking signs rather than the village. A spectator voiced the opinion that a resident should be able to take a stroll through the park at night while smoking a cigar without having to worry about breaking the law. All trustees agreed that it was important to enact a smoking ban that was enforceable.

TIF inquisition

Residents in attendance were then given the opportunity to voice their opinions to the board about the TIF district proposal. Angry residents voiced complaints and criticized the board. The primary object of their wrath was the village’s proposed redevelopment plan for the business district of downtown Riverside.

Most of the residents feared the village board’s power of eminent domain under the TIF, that their homes might one day be seized by the village. Some requested the TIF be put to referendum, just as the pedestrian tunnel had been handled. Others disputed the TIF’s integrity because of the board’s lack of a comprehensive development plan.

Riverside resident Don Ziglich whose home is in the TIF district, attacked the TIF as a blind pro-business venture of the village board, and urged residents to seek legal counsel to protect themselves from eminent domain, which, he argued, was threatening to take away their homes.

Mike Tomszak, who also lives in the TIF district, presented a petition signed by the residents in his neighborhood, requesting that all of their homes be removed from the TIF district. He also asked the board to “renounce all considerations for eminent domain in order to protect the rights of individual property owners.”

Resident Donald Spaten requested a referendum on the TIF, and Christopher Robling, a representative of the village’s Preservation Commission, accused the board of rushing the TIF along so that it could pass just before trustees came up for re-election next year. Both he and another resident, Richard Dolish, who lives in the TIF district, requested that proceedings on the TIF be delayed. Dolish argued that the current economic conditions-namely, the housing market-were simply too inhospitable for the TIF’s proposed redevelopment plan.

Robling speaking uninterrupted for 15 minutes, said the board lacked a development plan to justify the TIF. He called the board’s most recent project-the development near Riverside’s water tower on Longcommon Drive, known as the Village Center-“an embarassment.” He derided the board’s failure to identify a TIF sooner than it did as a sign of incompetence. He said a TIF could work for Riverside but not in the hands of this village board. Robling then thanked the board for appointing him to the Preservation Commission, professed the “respect” he had “for all the work you do,” and promptly left to the sound of applause.

Shortly after public commentary closed, the village board approved a motion to remove the properties at 62, 64 and 68 Pine Ave. from the TIF proposal’s housing study, which had originally identified 13 units in this area for potential redevelopment.

Board President Wiaduck then took the opportunity to clarify the proposal. “The proposed TIF district,” he said, “was identified as a district where property values have consistently stagnated over the years, while the rest of Riverside has seen consistent growth. The business district has continued to decline.”

At the same time, he continued, “Village expenses consistently outgrow village revenue. The TIF, then, is simply a revenue opportunity for the village. And since the business district was never planned, and its decline continues to cost property owners in the village, it is an excellent option for the future. It will help the village to continue to provide the services it does, and to help reverse the trend of stagnant property values in the business district.”

He reminded those in attendance, “the TIF is still just a proposal. The board has deliberately chosen to move slowly on this process, so that the community could be involved in the decision-making process. No decision will be made until the spring, and the next action will not take place until January of next year.”

Trustee Smith added, “The process of the TIF proposal has been going on for a year. It’s not like we just threw this at you last week.”