To Deputy Mayor Bob Bolebruch:
Bob, thank you for suggesting a discussion among the the Mayor and Trustee candidates in the Backyard garden Metropolis News. Cosmo Veneziale, and the other FABGC candidates would welcome the opportunity. The thought fully embodies the genuine essence and spirit of our system: disclosure and transparency to the Village residents about the Trustee conclusion creating method and the performance of final results it has created. We want our info to be 100% exact and confirmed by the BOT so there is no misunderstanding when we convey it to the citizens all through a discussion or the campaign.
Considering that transparency and productive decision making is your stated aim as well, you should provide the subsequent facts so we can accurately address these problems in just the discussion. The citizens will then be equipped to superior assess the candidates, draw their own conclusions, and make knowledgeable decisions on election working day.
a) Did an impartial skilled environmental report demonstrate Village water contained likely carcinogenic contaminants, some of which have been connected to even now births, pre-term pregnancies and other really serious conditions, such as 1,4 Dioxane?
b) Did the Trustees included ignore the advice of a well known Environmental Attorney to advise residents of the contamination and opportunity risks of consuming Yard Town water?
c) Does the BOT imagine, at a least, citizens ought to have been knowledgeable and had the prospect to buy house filtration devices or consume bottled water?
Dismissal of the Official Village Newspaper and the Amplified Expense to Taxpayers
a) Did the BOT submit an write-up to the Back garden Town News (GCN) as the official Village Newspaper, professing the BOT experienced voted 8- to terminate our compensated Hearth Office before that vote had truly taken position?
b) Did the GCN refuse to publish the post figuring out the meeting vote could not have occurred nevertheless?
c) Was it the BOT intention to terminate GCN as the official Village publication at the finish of its agreement and to be replaced by the Yard City Lifetime (GCL)?
d) Was the GCN suggested they would be minimize off from obtaining any further more facts about Village activities such as Recreation Department and other Village routines of great curiosity to the residents?
e) Did the BOT master the GCN termination violated their contractual obligation and the BOT experienced no alternate but to “rehire” the GCN?
f) Did the BOT steps, in selecting a next formal paper for publications, expense the taxpayers extra monies just about every 12 months to now pay out two formal publications each at a bigger fee?
g) Right before contemplating the GCL as an option did the BOT inquire about the compensated circulation quantities for the two papers and know the GCN is by much is the most greatly study publication and biggest supply of Village information for inhabitants for decades?
h) Does the BOT agree their decisions have unnecessarily expense the taxpayers more?
i) Remember to present definitive figures for the prices of working with the GNC news by itself versus the value of utilizing both of those publications.
Franklin Mews Sale and Repurchase
a) Did the BOT come to a decision to provide the Franklin Mews open up parkland for $100,000, fewer providing charges?
b) What dialogue took place with the citizens beforehand?
c) Was the Village compelled to repurchase the exact residence for $150,000?
d) Did the BOT incur further costs to taxpayers of around $90,000 in attendant bills to provide and repurchase the assets based on lawful service fees, title insurance, commissions, and all other charges relevant to the sale and repurchase?
e) Does the BOT stand guiding their steps and feel their final decision was not a high priced mistake to taxpayers?
f) If any of the expenditures referenced are inaccurate, remember to suggest the accurate quantities.
BOT objection to Handicapped Parking Proposal
a) When the BOT designed the conclusion to reject a resident’s request for handicapped parking had the BOT performed any due diligence on the legality of their position?
b) Was the total avoidable price tag of preventing the ask for, such as all fees, not just lawful service fees, around $100,000?
c) Apart from the legal position, what was the position of the BOT about the moral issues to refuse the further handicapped parking?
d) How lots of supplemental handicapped areas were being included?
e) Would not the unique price tag of portray the spaces have been a couple thousand bucks?
f) Does the BOT stand by their steps and believe that their decision to litigate the issue alternatively than placing aside supplemental areas for handicapped parking was not a pricey mistake to taxpayers?
g) If any of the expenditures referenced are inaccurate, you should recommend the appropriate amounts.
More Charges to Taxpayers for No Bid Contracts
a) How many tasks accomplished through the last 5 years value in excess of $100,000 to full all inclusive of consulting contracts and any other costs and fees?
b) What was the complete price tag of each one particular that did not entail a Request for Proposal (RFP) (again together with all specialist expenses)?
c) Does the BOT stand driving their course of action for granting contracts and nonetheless think it is in the best desire of the people?
On line casino
a) Did the BOT think about providing the on line casino to the GC Resort?
b) What other selections has the BOT deemed for an alternate use or disposition of the casino?
c) Does the BOT feel the On line casino property was deeded with the intent of preserving the house for the recreation and pleasure of GC citizens?
d) Does the BOT imagine it is correct to transform the intent the land was deeded without having input from the inhabitants?
e) Did the BOT just reverse its prior situation on the On line casino and is no longer trying to find an profits making tenant and evicting the On line casino team?
Backyard Metropolis Charities
a) Were the Andy and the Jay Gallagher Foundations, who have used St. Paul’s for productive fundraising routines, asked by the BOT how substantially revenue they raise for their respective charities and questioned to share the proceeds with the Village?
b) If certainly, how a great deal had been they requested to pay out for the utilization of St. Paul’s?
c) If the Board was concerned with other charities and/or for-financial gain companies requesting similar facility utilization terms, why didn’t the Board really feel a grandfather clause for these two would be suitable?
Set up of 90+ foot Poles Adjacent Merillon Avenue Residential Attributes
a) Did the BOT initiate in ANY proactive steps to shield the property values of residents ahead of development begun on the poles?
b) Did the BOT initiate any discussions with MTA pertaining to adverse group relations and attainable design options to the use of the monster poles?
c) Did the BOT endeavor to secure choice alternatives from the inhabitants?
Western Area Fireplace Residence
a) Upon whose advice, and at what time, was the renovation of the Firehouse first contemplated?
b) What was the full price tag of the consulting business retained to evaluate the condition?
c) Was there an RFP issued for the consulting contract?
d) What solution did the expert advise and what was the projected price tag?
e) Did the BOT seek out enter from the residents for a venture of this magnitude?
a) What is the recent program for St Paul’s?
b) Was the building of a hockey facility deemed? If so, what was the estimated price of the hockey facility including architects’ renderings to date?
c) What have been the once-a-year whole expenses for St. Paul’s for every single of the past 5 decades?
d) What has been the overall charge of the upkeep/stabilization of St. Paul’s considering that it was obtained?
e) You persistently condition you are “for a referendum”. Please direct us to any motions you have designed towards that finish.
We are amenable to discussing any other issues you would like to handle in the interests of transparency and honest discussion, you should recommend the subjects you would like to address but letting satisfactory time for FABGC to ask for any added details necessary from the BOT. We want to be specific all information we reference is 100% factual for the Inhabitants so that they can effectively consider the debate.
Again, it would be unfair to the people to debate any subjects for which The BOT has not disclosed to us the whole and accurate info, and we have experienced a truthful chance to exploration the info very first. You should do not hope us to interact you on any subject without staying in possession of the exact information and facts which you have confirmed.
Our candidate(s) seems to be forward to debating you in an correct structure.
Thank you and we look forward to getting the requested information. And the discussion.
Cosmo Veneziale, FABGC Applicant for Mayor,
and FABGC Trustee Candidates