Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1986 FC minutesMINUTES COMBINED MEETING OF FINANCE COMMISSION, PLAN COMMISSION, AND BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS April 16, 1986 I Call to Order Village Manager Terrance L. Burghard called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The following commissioners and staff members were present: Finance Commission - Richard Bachhuber, William Holloway, and Ann Smilanic. Plan Commission - Harold Ross, Thomas Borrelli, Frank Breitsameter, Terry Findlay, Lynn Kloster, Thomas McGovern, Louie Velasco, and Donald Weibel. Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission - Harold Predovich, Joseph Janisch, Bart Keljik, and Irvana Wilks. Staff Members - Terrance L. Burghard, Herb Weeks, Glen Andler, Ken Fritz, Mike Sims, Mike Steklac, and David Jepson. Mr. Burghard introduced each Commissioner and Staff Member. II Public Works Facility Report Village Manager Burghard explained that the Mayor and Board of Trustees had requested that copies of the Public Works Facility Report be distributed to various Commissions and Advisory Boards of the Village. It was pointed out that it was an important issue to the Board of Trustees, and that they were seeking input from each of these groups as well as from other civic groups and individuals. Mr. Burghard emphasized that he would appreciate a critical evaluation of the material presented. Mr. Burghard introduced the Public Works Director, Herb Weeks. Mr. Weeks presented a videotape which showed the present Public Works facilities and the optional sites that were included in the report. After the tape, t1r. Weeks provided a history of the present facilities and pointed out the needs for additional facilities. He explained the inefficiencies inherent in the overcrowding in the buildings on Pine Street; the lack of parking; traffic problems; unsightly storage of materials at remote facilities; lack of storage for salt, and the deterior- ation of present facilities. Mr. Weeks stated that the present facilities were constructed when the Village population was about half its present size and the work force of the Public Works Department consisted of 26 employees compared to 72 in 1986. In addition to the current work force of 72 full-time employees, there are 25 additional part-time employees in -the summer months. Mr. Burghard then presented an overview of the report. The purpose of the report was to present staff findings regarding Public Works' facility needs and to explore the options that are available. The unanimous conclusions are that present facilities are inadequate and result in significant ineffi- ciencies in the operation of Public Works' personnel. The following options were considered before the recommendations were developed: 1. Expansion at the present location is a possibility, but it would cost approximately $1 million. However, it would be only a piecemeal solution and would not solve operational and parking problems and would not resolve zoning issues. 2. The addition of remote facilities would be relatively expensive and would not address the major issues. 3. The building of a new facility would be initially more expensive, but it offers the best possibilities for satisfying the needs of Public Works. A number of possible locations were investigated with Melas Park the recommended location. The Melas Park site is large enough, it would not take any property off of tax rolls, and it could be used jointly with the Mount Prospect Park District. Additionally, the water tower could be relocated there if it is needed. Of the sites that were considered, serious study was given to the Reese Property and the Trade Service Property. However, the P1elas Park Property was by far the most appropriate. Mr. Burghard stated the estimated net average cost of a new facility would be $2,270,000 based upon the initial work that was done by staff. He pointed out that it is being recommended that an architect be hired to prepare plans and provide better size and cost projections. 2 III Discussion by Commissioners At this point Mr. Burghard asked the Commissioners for their comments and/or questions. The following questions were asked: 1. What is the minimum space needed? Answer: an estimated 50,000 - 60,000 sq. ft. 2. If a new facility is constructed, what would happen to the current facilities? Answer: There has been an interest expressed by individuals who would like to purchase the property. 3. Would other locations be disposed of? Answer: Some could be, but not any of the locations where there are water storage or pumping facilities that will still be used. 4. Could the Melas Park property be leased rather than purchased? Answer: MSD cannot enter into a lease longer than 10 years. 5. Would the new facility provide for future growth? Answer: Future growth is expected to be limited, but architects would be asked to take future needs into consideration. 6. Why didn't the Village build a facility on the property owned in the Kensington Center? Answer: The cost would be prohibitive and it would not be a compatible use. 7. Could someone else build a building and lease it to the Village? Answer: Yes it probably could be done, but it would be more expensive. 8. Has a cost/benefit analysis been prepared? Answer: Only preliminary work has been done by staff. It is expected tht more work will be completed as specific questions come up for discussion either by various Boards and Commissions or the Village Board. 9. Would additional help be needed to maintain the new site? Answer: Public Works' maintains the area now, but it would be given more attention with a new facility. 10. Would overtime hours go up because of the new facility? Answer: No, it is expected that because of efficiencies they can be reduced. 11. Is it necessary to store all equipment inside? Answer: Studies have shown that they last longer and are less expensive to maintain. 3 12. How do other communities store equipment? Answer: Most keep them under roof, but there are a number of variations. Mr. Burghard stated that he would be happy to provide a tour of other P W facilities if anyone would like to see them. 13. What are the "negatives"? Answer: The primary concern is the cost and related debt to finance construction. Property taxes would be increased about 4.6� or approximately $9.30 for a typical home. Melas Park is not as centrally located as the Pine Street facility, and there could be some complications in dealing with another governmental body (MSD). Also, Melas Park includes both Mount Prospect and Arlington Heights Park Districts and some plans for the space may have to be changed. Finally, there is some question as to whether the vacated Pine Street property should be considered commercial property. 14. When would Melas Park be available? Answer: It would appear that 1988 is the earliest that it could be available. Mr. Burghard concluded by stating that the staff members that worked on the report concluded that there are a number of reasons why it is an opportune time to move ahead with this project. The Village Board will start reviewing the report on April 22, 1986, and it is hoped that a decision can be made to place the issue on the ballot for the November elections. He offered to meet with each Commission separately or provide any additional information requested. Each Commission stated they will review the report and the information presented and make their recommendations to the Mayor and Board. IV Adjournment There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. Respectfully submitted David C. Jepson, Finance Director 4