“Prior to the start of any physical construction of any municipally financed (in whole or in part) project requiring a Village capital expenditure of $1 million or more, the Village Board shall submit to the electorate a binding referendum for approval of the project. Failure of the binding referendum shall preclude the Village from proceeding with the project. The wording of any referendum shall provide the specific purpose, location, and cost of the project. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to preclude the Village from exercising its role in the planning or design of such publicly financed projects.”
Village President Chris Klar and Trustee Kevin Wernet had argued that this referendum applies to the purchase and/or development of the Schuetz Parkland. Wernet had consistently refused to separate purchase from development.
Decide for yourself:
Purchase price: $935,000
Grant totals: 735,703
McFarland’s capital expenditure: 199,297*
*This amount will come from the designated Park Acquisition and Development Fund, created from developers’ fees in lieu of parkland payments.
Klar had said that, if the purchase is made, the development must surely go to referendum.
Decide for yourself:
There is a “Master Plan” for development of both the Urso and Schuetz Parklands. It was a necessary component of the granting process. The existence of the plan, with its attendant estimated costs, does not automatically trigger the referendum. Why not?
Read key excerpts from the Village Attorney’s legal opinion regarding what triggers the referendum. He was speaking to the Hwy. 51 redevelopment plan, but his opinion logically applies to the “Master Plan” for the Parkland, as well.
