While Forest Park’s five commissioners often pass ordinances and resolutions without any discussion, they spoke for nearly 40 minutes about an agenda item at the meeting Oct. 15 before deciding to table it.
If passed, the ordinance would have updated the village’s zoning code so that hundreds of properties that didn’t conform to the original code would now do so. It also would increase the maximum impervious lot coverage in the R-1 low density residential district to 50% from 40% to reflect the village’s current land use practices.
At the meeting, commissioners asked the Department of Public Health and Safety Director Steve Glinke questions about how building density and stormwater management would be affected by the updates.
Because she was uncomfortable passing the code updates without fully understanding how density and water mitigation would impact residents, Commissioner of Public Property Jessica Voogd moved to table the vote. Commissioner of Streets and Public Improvements Michelle Melin-Rogovin seconded the motion.
Commissioner of Accounts and Finance Maria Maxham said during the meeting that she would vote to support the code amendments, but also agreed to table the vote.
The in-depth conversation before the vote was seemingly productive and informative.
But Maxham later told the Review that this was a good example of what she was talking about when she called out commissioners for not communicating well with each other during a village council meeting in early September. Last month, Maxham also said commissioners are too hands-on in the running of the day-to-day activities of the departments they oversee, but she hasn’t provided any specific examples.
“I would have liked to have known that these were specific issues that another commissioner had, and I wasn’t aware of it until a few minutes before the meeting when somebody else told me,” Maxham said. “I also really feel strongly that if one of my fellow commissioners is asking for more time, it’s hard for me to say, ‘No, I’m not going to give that to you.’ My conflict was that I think there was a lot of time given.”
The process to update to the village’s zoning code began seven months ago, Glinke said.
Public discussions
Commissioners Melin-Rogovin and Voogd said they spoke with Glinke and other village staff members ahead of the meeting where they voted on the zoning code.
Melin-Rogovin told the Review that she drove around town with Glinke so that they could discuss residential ordinances and the related memo he gave staff and commissioners. Then, Glinke provided additional specifics to the memo.
“As I got more information, I had more questions,” Melin-Rogovin said, which she brought up at the most recent village council meeting. She added that she addressed those questions with Commissioner of Public Health and Safety Ryan Nero because they fell under his department’s jurisdiction. She said she also spoke with Voogd, whom she often shares her questions with.
“Stormwater management is our area, and we share our ideas on that,” she said.
But Maxham said the village council’s discussion on density and stormwater management left her in the dark, and she would have preferred to come prepared to join the conversation.
“I really like having public discussions because I think it benefits everybody,” Maxham told the Review. “But to have that discussion the night we’re supposed to make a decision seems short-sighted” and puts pressure on village staff to navigate next steps, she said.
Voogd agreed, in part.
“I tend to prefer having those conversations at the meeting in public,” she told the Review. Even if she’s had similar conversations with village staff outside of council meetings, Voogd added, the public often has the same questions she does and deserves to know that its elected officials are thinking about the answers.
Voogd said she asked how stormwater management would factor into the village’s zoning code updates at a previous village council meeting. She also said she reached out to all commissioners about the code updates over the past few weeks.
Nero was the only commissioner who voted against tabling the agenda item. Though he did not respond to interview requests about council members’ recent comments on communication, he appeared to appreciate the unusually lengthy conversation.
“What we saw tonight is a good example of what civil, robust discussions in the council chambers can yield,” Nero said at the Oct. 15 meeting.
“Although we may not all agree from time to time, I am very confident that at some point moving forward, we will come to an agreement one way or another, and keep Forest Park first, and move this thing forward.”
A way forward?
Like Nero, other commissioners have mentioned their dedication to open, honest conversations after Maxham’s complained about internal communication at the Sept. 9 village council meeting.
At the end of the Sept. 23 village council meeting, when commissioners gave individual reports, Melin-Rogovin said she’s dedicated to improving communication among her peers.
“Our role as elected officials is to provide respectful, open communication to each other,” Melin-Rogovin said. “I come to you as a village commissioner committed to positive, productive and purposeful communications,” with other commissioners, village staff and residents.
Voogd, whose commissioner comment always follows Melin-Rogovin’s, agreed.
“I’ve long been an advocate of respectful responsiveness. Certainly, wherever we’re missing the mark, or I’m missing the mark, my door’s always open and I welcome folks to come to me,” Voogd said at the Sept. 23 meeting. “I prefer to work together and support each other. We’ll go further and accomplish more when we’re lifting each other up.”
What village officials have to say
“I think that I have a pretty healthy communication with everybody on the council,” Mayor Rory Hoskins told the Review. He said he feels like commissioners can call or text him, and vice versa. “I think there are still some commissioners who maybe don’t know each other as well as they know other members of the council, and that’s something for them to work on.”
Village Administrator Rachell Entler was attending a conference and absent at the Sept. 9 meeting where Maxham aired her complaints. Though Entler said she didn’t know exactly what Maxham was alluding to, she said she hasn’t experienced her sentiments.
“Staff communicates really well with each other, from my experience here,” Entler told the Review. “We’ll continue to work on strengthening those communications.”
Entler later clarified that staff doesn’t necessarily include the village council.
“I appreciate the open communication we have and our ability to work together to inform the community,” Entler said.
Despite these unprompted comments about improving communication, Maxham said she felt just as frustrated about commissioners’ communication leaving the Oct. 15 meeting as she did the Sept. 9 one. She said that, when she aired her complaints at the Sept. 9 meeting, she called for better communication for the upcoming zoning code rewrites.
“I want to make sure that we are all prepared to come to the meeting, ideally ready to vote on it, not to just create more questions for our staff to have to answer,” Maxham told the Review.
She added that she thinks the code updates are ready for approval.
“I really believe strongly in the process that we have,” she said. “Our planning and zoning commission, they’re absolutely not a rubber-stamping kind of group.”
Melin-Rogovin said that, while she acknowledges the planning commission’s work, it’s the village council’s job to review the commission’s decision and ask questions.
“And that does not mean that we’re devaluing in any way the work that has gone before,” Melin-Rogovin told the Review.
Although the planning and zoning commission held three public meetings, and announced them in the Forest Park Review newspaper, Glinke said no residents shared public comment at any meeting.
Voogd partially voted to table the agenda item because she wanted more public feedback on the code rewrites. To address this, she suggested recording all village meetings so residents can watch them, even if they can’t attend. Village council meetings are livestreamed via Zoom, recorded and posted online, but commission meetings aren’t.
“I value public input, and while it’s important to continually improve how we engage residents, we cannot allow progress to halt. The process for this ordinance has been public and transparent,” Maxham wrote in an email to commissioners.
She also suggested that the tabled code updates be added to the next village council meeting’s agenda.
Updated, Oct. 22, 2024, 12:05 p.m. to include an additional quote from Rachell Entler
