Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press board on FOIL responses, catch‑basin contracting and ZBA conduct during public comment
Summary
During public comment residents questioned delayed auditor reports and FOIL responsiveness, sought a comprehensive catch‑basin priority list tied to a $50,000 cleaning contract, raised concerns about consultant billing and stormwater (MS4) violations, and urged review of recent ZBA deliberations related to supportive‑housing applications.
Multiple residents used public comment at the May 16 meeting to press the board on oversight and transparency matters, including the timing of audit materials, catch‑basin contracting, stormwater compliance and recent zoning‑board deliberations.
Stewart Teacart questioned whether board members reviewed the auditor's report before voting on audited bills and argued the board is legally required to post the auditor's report 24 hours in advance. "Do members of the board review the auditor's report before you vote to approve the audited bills?" he asked, and later noted the statutory 24‑hour posting requirement in follow‑up remarks. Board staff said the report arrived late and would be uploaded.
Teacart also raised contract questions, citing an $18,000 charge for Taylor's Lane work and about $181,000 in payments to the village consulting engineer; he urged oversight to avoid overbilling. When the catch‑basin cleaning contract (approximately $50,000) was discussed, he asked whether a comprehensive list of the village's roughly 1,500 catch basins exists; staff said the DPW handles priority basins and that more detail could be provided on request.
Residents voiced concern about recent zoning‑board activity. One speaker urged review of the last two ZBA meetings in the context of a Mount Pleasant supportive‑housing project, saying board decisions should follow in‑house counsel guidance and that appointments to land‑use boards should reflect diverse viewpoints.
Other public commenters raised stormwater compliance questions: Teacart noted prior MS4 violations with potential fines and asked for updates; staff directed follow‑up with the village manager's office and said some billing disputes with consultants have slowed closeout of certain inflow‑and‑infiltration contracts.
Why it matters: Residents identified several municipal oversight, transparency and compliance issues — auditor-report timing, FOIL responsiveness, contract oversight, stormwater regulatory compliance and land‑use board deliberations — that bear on public trust and municipal risk management.
Next steps: Board staff said they would upload the auditor's report, follow up with the village manager on MS4 and contract status, and attempt to provide the requested catch‑basin information.
