Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/19896 COW AgendaCLERK'S OFFICE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE mm AGENDA Meeting Location. Senior Citizens' Center 50 South Emerson Street 14 CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1986 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. VEHICLE LICENSE FEES Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, May 13, 1986- 7:30 p.m. During preparation of this year's fiscal Budget, the administration requested that the Board consider increasing the basic passenger vehicle license fee from its present $15-00 rate to $20-00. Attached is a memo from Finance Director Dave Jepson outlining the recommended fee increase for passenger vehicles and trucks. Additionally,- the report tabulates our current budget expenditures associated with street maintenance and development and the associated revenues to support those programs. This revenue increase is needed to keep pace with our current level of programming and the anticipation of the loss of Revenue Sharing Funds. The report additionally recommends an increase in the fee for discounted senior citizen licenses and modifies the current penalty provisions. Our current fee of $15.00 was implemented in 1983 after it had been reduced from that amount in 1979. Actually, the $15-00 fee dates back to 1975. The vehicle license increase is not associated presently with the other issue before the Board regarding the desired level of maintenance of our streets. The staff has developed a draft report outlining a ten year Paving Program and Reconstruction Program based on testing rates of 70, 80 and 90. This Village simply cannot afford to attempt to maintain its streets at a rate of 90 or 80. That cost would be respectively $28.2 million and $21.6 million for each ten year period. As soon as more information is available, I will bring this latter matter to your attention so that it can be handled objectively. The increase proposed in the vehicle license fee is merely to maintain our current service levels. V. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY UPDATE As requested by the Mayor and Board of Trustees, this is to be a continuing item of discussion. Subsequent to our last meeting, the matter was referred to the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission, the Plan Commission and the Finance Commission. Their reports and recommendations are attached. Each appears to agree that some sort of improvement is necessary. The two most feasible alternatives to us presently are expansion of the current facilities on Pine Street and in the alternative the construction of a new facility at a suitable location. The Mayor and Board of Trustees have agreed as a policy matter that either alternative would require a Referendum the soonest of which can be scheduled for November of this year. If the Board agrees with the advisory bodies that a need exists and that these are the two basic options, then it would be prudent to employ an architectural planning firm to evaluate the two options in advance of enacting the necessary Ordinances calling for a Referendum. Distributed with your reports previously were proposals from four qualified architectural firms and their anticipated costs. I recommend that the Board form a sub -committee to interview the four architectural firms and have them refine their numbers for analysis of the two projects. This sub -committee can then make a recommendation to the whole Board for final implementation. ulals)S 116 ;aSVD QIP S;DTZTITlfl SUaZTIrZ) sunssTnOaCI J;DSUnaaueutpJO :)Yjj€J.L mSSgNlSflg< •slioda snjejS 'f *.:)I. ;s7cl SUTDueuT.4 juacua.jaui XP • i