Another conflict dealing with the Planning Commission's Parking Study Report ensued at the most recent village board meeting when CPOA President Peter Negri questioned whether or not the village board would support the property owners' associations if they chose to hire a consultant for further information about the parking issue.

The issue of the parking study was first raised when Mayor Harold Hecken announced that he would be giving the Property Owners' Associations until Dec. 30 to respond to the report, rather than the Nov. 30 date he first suggested. The mayor stated that he believed that the extra time was warranted.

Jon Segerdahl, president of the Eastern Property Owners' Association and chairperson of the Joint Council of the Property Owners' Associations, requested an opportunity to address the planning commission and the consultant directly and questioned whether or not they would have that opportunity. Mayor Hecken stated that his feeling is that it is now in the hands of the village board of trustees and that any comments or questions should be directed toward the board. He said that he will try to get the POAs responses to those questions before any action is taken by the board. Second Deputy Mayor Bruce Torino stated, "The way I anticipate the process working now, the preferred technique is to distill those questions that not only the property owners' associations have but also the board may have so that we are able to go to the planning commission and request their input in response to the questions at one time."

Following Segerdahl's question, Negri asked, with regard to the parking study and the POAs' responses "Would we have the support of the village if we chose to go outside, by going outside I'm talking about consultants and so forth, to help educate us so we could formulate a response to the village with intelligence?"

Trustee Peter Bee commented on the village's long history of cooperating with the POAs, but questioned what type of support Negri was referring to. When asked for clarification, it came out that Negri was referring to not just any consultant, but Buckhurst, Fish & Jacquemart (BF&J), the consultants hired by the village to examine the parking issues around the Franklin Avenue corridor. He suggested that the CPOA, or possibly other POAs in addition to the CPOA, might want to have the consultants make a personal appearance where they could answer any questions raised by the POAs. He said this might help the POAs respond to the study with constructive comments.

Bee stated that it would be hard for the village to predict what the POAs might want from the village, when it comes to information from BF&J until the POAs have specifics.

Torino responded, "The difficulty we are facing now is the appearance of the POAs seeking to utilize the consultant to what end? If the aim is to retain them for the purposes of understanding and getting their professional expertise to understand the study, I would applaud the effort and understand it. If the aim is to undermine the planning commission, I would object to it. I am in favor, and I think I can speak for my fellow trustees, that we are in favor of those exercises that properly and intelligently inform the residents of the options before them and the thinking that goes into it. So if it is a legitimate exercise then I wholly support it. It is only under that restriction that I give it my support. It would not be the first time, in litigation or otherwise, that something apparent on its face turned out to be something that is not [apparent]."

Bee argued with Torino's sentiments, noting that he was uncomfortable "at the way we danced around the issue." He said, for himself, that he would be inclined to respond if and when a specific request for information is presented to the village. Hecken again stated that he would be more comfortable that the POAs send their questions to the board for the board to pass on to either the planning commission or the consultants.

Negri, in response to the concerns of several trustees as to the purpose of retaining the consultant for the use of the POAs stressed that there had been no public forum following the release of the planning commission's report, allowing the public to ask questions and make comments. He noted that in a public forum one question may lead to another or one answer may lead to another question, thus allowing all the answers to be obtained at once rather than going back and forth through the board.

Following the discussion between Negri and the trustees, residents and business owners also spoke about the issue. Ken Mataix, of Bagelman, a member of the chamber of commerce's parking committee stated that they have no problem with the POAs having all their questions answered properly, but noted that the chamber worked very hard to get their response in by the original date determined by the mayor and questioned why others couldn't get their response in on time. He went on to read a statement from Chamber President Bert Donley, stating, "We believe the issues are clear and the choices of resolution are limited and obvious and we urge the board of trustees, instead of meeting in early January, to act upon the recommendations so clearly set forth by the planning commission study."

A resident of the Eastern section of the village, Eileen Murphy, questioned the "absence of process" with regard to the planning commission's report. She noted that in the past, when the board has commissioned a study, such as the planning commission's study of the parking situation, the report has been submitted and members of the community given an opportunity to respond to the report, which, she said was not the case with the planning commission's report. She said if that process had taken place, it would not have been necessary for Negri to make the request he did. She added that not only had there been no public forum after the planning commission's report but that there was no forum after BF&J completed their study either.

Hecken noted that his request was not necessarily for questions from village organizations but for comments, and noted that he had already received detailed reports from a couple of groups. Hecken went on to note that his hope was that by having the POAs get their groups together to get a response, rather than just getting the responses of those who could attend a public forum, the board would get a broader spectrum of responses.

Rob Rothschild, from the Estates Property Owners' Association, stated that not all the POAs are behind Negri's request.

Listed on the General Communications portion of the agenda were several responses to the parking study, including that of the chamber of commerce and the Albanese Organization. Both those organizations provided copies of their responses to Garden City Life.

The Albanese Organization stated, in their response, that "The expression of urgency [in the Planning Commission's Report] must not be ignored, as has been the case with the previous recommendation of the Business Planning Coalition, in its January 1997 report, which strongly recommended that the village: 'Immediately proceed with the implementation of the Village of Garden City Parking and Park Buffer Strip Plan through the acquisition of 116 Eleventh Street and 114 Tenth Street, both of which have recently been offered to the Village.'" According to the Albanese Organization, the only developer working with the village to revitalize Franklin Avenue, "The wisdom of that recommendation is now more apparent than ever." The Albanese Organization further states that without adequate parking they will not be able to attract upscale retailers, investors, and developers to the buildings that are vacant on Franklin Avenue. They cited Vincent Polimeni, who recently purchased 1000 Franklin Ave., and who will not invest further money into the rehabilitation of that building until the parking issue is settled because without adequate parking he will not be able to attract favorable tenants.

According to the Albanese Organization, the Coalition's recommendations would have been followed through with had there not been a strong opposition from members of the Central POA. They went on to state that since that time, no one from the CPOA or trustee has presented a commercially acceptable alternative to the Park Buffer Strip Plan.

The Albanese Organization stated, in their response to the planning commission's report, that the opposition to the Park Buffer Strip Plan, "has undermined the efforts of the village and ourselves to revitalize Franklin Avenue.

According to the Albanese Organization, "The only immediate solution to the significant shortage of parking spaces in Field 10 is the acquisition of 116 Eleventh Street, and the conversion of the property by the Village to a 50-foot park buffer strip and 80 parking spaces. The acquisition of 116 Eleventh Street should no longer be delayed by the NIMBYitis that afflicts a small group of conflicted property owners, most of whom moved to within one block of Franklin Avenue long after the Business District and the Park Buffer Strip Plan were established.

The Albanese Organization purchased 116 Eleventh Street in 1990, when it was offered to the village but the village decided to reject the offer. "We never imagined that the opposition of so few residents would be tolerated to the detriment of so many residents," stated the organization in their response. In their response, the Albanese Organization asserted that no other property owner or developer in the village has made the contributions they have to the quality of life in the village.

"Any further delay will effectively derail any hope of revitalizing Franklin Avenue," concluded the Albanese response. "We therefore request that the trustees promptly pass a resolution authorizing the village to acquire 116 Eleventh Street and expand Field 10 in accordance with its long-standing parking plan."

The Garden City Chamber of Commerce also presented the board with an expansive response to the planning commission's report. Their response dealt with all aspects of the report, including the severe shortages found in Fields 5, 6, and 10.

The chamber's response states, "The Chamber essentially supports the major recommendations of the report with the following general comments and suggestions: The principles of the Village Parking and Park Buffer Strip Plan should be reaffirmed ... A critical element of the Plan was to establish once and for all that the boundaries identified in the Plan were final and irrevocable. No further expansion would be contemplated or tolerated. The mistaken notion seems to exist that the policy to 'take houses' is open-ended and limitless. This belief is unfounded and the Chamber endorses the principles of defined, final boundaries to the commercial district." The chamber further states that they believe that the village trustees should immediately act upon the expansion solutions suggested by the planning commission.

In addition to the property concern on Eleventh Street, the chamber also addressed the property adjacent to Field 5, stating, "The Chamber agrees with the Commission's recommendation to acquire 100 feet of unimproved property at 114 Sixth Street immediately adjacent to the existing parking field for the purpose of expanding the parking field and creating a 50-foot landscaped park buffer strip."

With regard to Parking Field 10, the chamber made several comments, such as, "We have also concluded, as did the Business Planning Coalition, that the decline in the CBD is due, in part, to the significant shortage of parking on the west side of Franklin, between Tenth and Eleventh Streets. Many retail prospects for the currently available retail space on Franklin Avenue have turned their backs on the village, for reasons that can be traced to the parking shortages in Parking Field 10. The non-invasive solutions of improving pedestrian circulation, signage changes, re-striping and the like are good ideas that clearly will not go far enough to alleviate the very large shortages in Fields 5, 6, and 10."

The chamber then went on to comment on the economic impact that the parking shortage has had on the village tax base. "It is an undisputed fact that the percentage of tax revenue derived from commercial real estate has declined from 41 percent in 1990 to 31 percent for 2000. This decline in revenue began and was accelerated by increased vacancy rates, resulting property value decreases and the inevitable tax certiorari applications for tax relief. The sad reality is that all residents of our village are negatively affected by this shift of the tax burden to single family dwellings. It cannot be denied that the stability and synergistic relationship between residents and business is essential to the continued high quality of village life ... The trustees therefore must consider the needs of all village residents as well as the concerns of a small number of residents on Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Streets."

The chamber once again stressed, in their conclusion, that any further delay in the implementation of the major solutions recommended by the planning commission be minimized. They concluded, "The Chamber endorses the following strongly worded conclusion of the Commission's Report: 'The parking shortfall is a legitimate problem in the village and tough choices must be made if the problem is to be solved. The meter on the parking problem has expired and the time to act is at hand. The Planning Commission therefore encourages the board of trustees to act swiftly and decisively upon all the recommendations above.' Let us now accept the course of action urged upon us by the very advisory body that we charged to serve us. The advice has been given; let us now heed and act upon that advice."