Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2000 COW minutes MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 12, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcorar~, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Dennis Prikkel, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis and Assistant Village Manager David Strahl. I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from November 28, 2000. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved. Trustee Corcoran abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD John Dislin, member of the St. John Lutheran Church, spoke. He wanted to bring to the attention of the Village Board the fact that staff has designated a building which the Church has owned for many years as a change of use group requiring extensive fire protection, The building in question is the old school building which has been used by the Mount Prospect Historical Society for many years but the Church is now in the process of rehabilitating the facility for Church activities. He stated the Church cannot afford the sprinkler system as required by staff and would request the Village Board review the situation to determine whether the staff interpretation of a change of use group is appropriate. Mayor Farley stated that the Church representatives will need to address this issue with staff primarily and the Village Board supports installation of sprinkler systems wherever appropriate in the Village. Village Manager Janonis stated that he has met with Fire representatives recently and expects to convene a discussion with representatives of the Church in the very near future so options can be reviewed. He stated the discussion regarding the change of classification can also be explored but will offer no assurances regarding possible change. IV. AMENDMENTS TO THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX ORDINANCE Village Manager Janonis provided an overview of the previous discussion regarding the Real Estate Transfer Tax. He stated the Tax has been in place since 1987 and is placed upon the buyer. Of the 70 towns that levy the Tax, 18 place the Tax on the buyer. At the October 10 Committee of the Whole discussion, there were numerous suggestions regarding cleaning up of the Ordinance itself to respond to several changes in the real estate market and still allow for collection of the Tax. There was significant discussion at that time regarding the change from the buyer to the seller and how such a change would impact potential revenue for the Village and possible relief for residents who have previously paid the Tax at the time they purchased a home in the community. Trustee Wilks requested reconsideration of the Village Board decision and this discussion will focus on whether the change should be made regarding levying the Tax on the seller instead of the buyer and possible implications of doing so. Earl Meeske, 918 South Elm, spoke., He stated that he is a long-term resident and feels that the justification for levying the Tax on the buyer is necessary because the previous residents paid for the improvements to make the community attractive for new residents. Such a Tax on the buyer is a down payment on the previous improvements paid for by existing residents. He is a real estate agent by trade and has never seen an issue at the time of the transaction regarding closure on a house impacted by the Real Estate Transfer Tax. He does not see this as an issue on the sell or turnover of homes in Mount Prospect. Richard Hendricks, '1096 Christy Lane, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin, spoke. He stated that he has concerns about the change in the Transfer Tax and feels that when the Village imposed the Tax in 1987, they were ahead of other communities at that time and not everyone saw the justification that Mount Prospect did at the time it was originally passed. various comments by Village Board members included the following items: There was concern that the Real Estate Transfer Tax is a valuable revenue stream and if there were to be a switch, a consideration should be undertaken regarding possible rebate of the Tax paid when the individual resident was a buyer and then now are transferred to a seller. However, since there are no equitable options forthcoming, there is doubt whether such a change could be implemented without adversely impacting some residents. There were some comments regarding the difficulty of selling homes in Mount Prospect that could possibly make Mount Prospect single-family homes less attractive due to the Real Estate Transfer Tax. There was also a suggestion that the Real Estate Transfer Tax be removed all together and shifted to another revenue source such as the Property Tax. Consensus of the Village Board was to implement the recommended housekeeping changes to the Ordinance as previously presented by staff but to leave the Transfer Tax as before whereby it is levied on the buyer. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT None. VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert suggested that staff look into making a revision to the Village Code requiring that the rough side or unfinished side of fences along major streets be altered so that there is a uniform appearance along the streets. Several Trustees commented about the turn out at the Holiday Parade and the crowd that was present. VII. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc H:\GEN\Cow\Minutes\121200 COW Minutes.doc 3