KEY EXCERPTS FROM LEGAL OPINION

ATTY. MATTHEW J. FLEMING

February 23, 2006

TO DON PETERSON:

You have asked for my opinion as to whether the “Construction Referendum Ordinance” passed approximately a year ago by referendum to a petition for direct legislation would apply to implementation of the projects identified in the Highway 51 Corridor Landscape Master Plan (the “Hwy. 51 Plan”).

… it is my opinion that the fact that a project or number of projects happen to be identified in a single document is not determinative of whether a referendum is required to approve the project.”

As for the Hwy. 51 Plan, I see nothing practically inconsistent with the Village deciding to implement Phase I of the Plan and never addressing any other part.

Based on the information you have provided to me, it appears that this is exactly how the Village intends to approach implementation of the Plan, in piecemeal fashion over a long period of time with each new individual project subject to approval of the Village Board…

Completing the various projects in piecemeal fashion over a number of years, gives the electorate a great deal more power under traditional republican electoral processes to direct the expenditure of funds on the planned projects. Over a 10-15 year period, the power to campaign, to run for election and to unseat an elected official clearly has profoundly more influence on implementation of the components of the Plan.

In his conclusion, Atty. Fleming writes:

Nothing in the Plan obligates the Village to undertake any of the projects identified, nor do I see any legal or practical obligation imposed on the Village to complete the entire Plan simply because one project is completed.

Simply being mentioned in a plan or being part of the Hwy. 51 corridor, however, without more, does not transform many projects into a single project for purposes of the Construction Referendum Ordinance.