Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 04/27/2004 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Community Center 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesda~ApriI27,2004 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF REVISED MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2004 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD III. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE--PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS III. On February 24, 2004, the Village Board received the final report and recommendations of the Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee-Phase II. At that time, the Mayor and Trustees took the report under advisement. At Tuesday's Committee of the Whole discussion, the Board will discuss and deliberate the various recommendations and look to reach consensus as to a future redevelop strategy key parts of the Downtown. In late 2003, the Village Board formed the Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee- Phase II to review the remaining redevelopment opportunities within the Village's downtown. The Board requested that the Committee review the Concept Plan and related recommendations included within the Village's existing Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan (adopted in 1998) to determine if they are still appropriate. In addition, the Committee was also asked to look at other potential redevelopment opportunities that exist outside of the þoundaries established by the existing Strategic Plan. The Committee met on a weekly basis from the beginning of December 2003 through mid- February 2004. In addition to the general Committee meetings, a public hearing was held on January 31 to allow for public review and comment on the Committee's preliminary recommendations. At this time, the Committee is prepared to tender its final report and recommendations to the Village Board. Committee members, along with appropriate staff, will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. IV. POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFERS With 32.1 miles of State and County owned roads within the corporate boundaries of Mount Prospect, their condition and maintenance have a substantial impact on the curb appeal and quality of life of our community. While major "numbered" State and County roads are reasonably well maintained and upgraded on a regular basis, the same cannot be said for "unnumbered" or "secondary" roads in the State and County system. Due to lack of funding and other priorities, these "ugly stepchildren," while still regionally important, are largely neglected (except for minor maintenance) by their respective jurisdictional authority. In the last decade, in an attempt to divest themselves of these "minor" roads, both the State and County Highway Authorities have gone so far as to withhold/refuse major upgrades such as resurfacing or reconstruction unless the local municipality accepts jurisdictional transfer of the road. Jurisdictional transfer shifts all future maintenance and the inevitable reconstruction costs of the road to the municipality. There is no provision for future funding assistance from either the State or County. This is one of the more egregious unfunded mandates municipalities face. During the same decade, Mount Prospect has had a policy of not accepting jurisdictional transfers because of their obvious future fiscal impact. This has resulted in a number of stalemates between the State and County and Mount Prospect. The most obvious manifestation of this stalemate is the deplorable condition of Central Road between Arthur Avenue and Rand Road. Central carries some 25,000 vehicles daily and is in need of complete reconstruction. The State Department of Transportation readily agrees but will not even begin to program for the necessary work until Mount Prospect agrees to a jurisdictional transfer. The Mayor has lobbied tirelessly for a change in this unfair policy with local Legislators, past and present Transportation Directors and even Governor Ryan directly, to no avail. With increasing complaints about the condition of Central Road, the Village Board wanted to publicly discuss the issue of jurisdictional transfers as a means of educating residents about this topic and as a forum to craft a strategy for changing this unfair policy. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 13,2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Michael Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs and Public Information Officer Maura EI Metennani. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from March 23, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Trustees Corcoran and Hoefert abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. PZ-41-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE This is a continuation of the discussion from the April 6 Village Board meeting and follow-up to some items that were reviewed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the Daycare Regulations will be altered to match State regulations. He also stated that the administrative subdivision option would apply as long as it applies with existing Zoning regulations. Any re-zoning would require Village Board input. . Pavement Separation Discussion Staff had requested a one-foot separation between a new driveway and hard surface such as a patio. The Village Board had suggested a two-foot separation at the previous meeting. Planning and Zoning had suggested no separation and to treat each surface as a separate material. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he has seen the condition in question and felt that the surfaces could adjoin in the rear yard but not in the front to avoid any possible tripping hazard. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a concern regarding driveway width and the control in relation to any patio or hard surface in the rear yard or side yard. There was also a question about the utilization of patio for hard surface parking to get any vehicle out of the front yard to the rear yard. Consensus of the Village Board was to investigate whether the differentiation of materials between the driveway and patio would be possible for determination of where one stops and one starts relating to the specific purpose of each surface. It was also stated that there is a desire to push the patio toward the side lot line versus the driveway but there is some need to address both conditions in a comprehensive manner and ask for additional staff research. . Conversion of Attached Garaqes into Livinq Space Previously, the Village Board had stated a position that concurs with staff about removing the garage door and covering the opening with materials that match the home exterior. Planning and Zoning was concerned about the removal of the garage and the need to provide a replacement garage for the previous vehicle parking. Comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was significant discussion regarding the need for a replacement garage if the garage is converted to living space. The removal also includes the old driveway. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider removing the garage door when the space is converted to living space, removal of the old driveway and inclusion of a new garage to be built if the property lot size will allow it. However, if the property lot size will not allow a replacement garage then there may need to be a prohibition about conversion of the garage into living space. . "No Trespassinq" Siqns Staff had recommended a limit on the actual number per property lot side. Planning and Zoning did not have an issue with this recommendation. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation regulating the number of "No Trespassing" signs per property side line. . Compost Pile Requlations Staff recommendation included a specific location for the pile so that it would not impact neighboring properties. Comments from the Village Board members included a need for a clear definition of side yard and define the size of a compost pile along with material that should be considered in the compost pile for consideration as a compost pile. David Schein, 512 Na-Wa-Ta, spoke. He suggested that regulations include a confirmation of the purpose of the pile to avoid the storage of miscellaneous debris that would not decompose in a compost pile. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that in order for compost piles to work properly, there is a need for regular maintenance and turning of the pile. Absent that, the pile could become a problem for adjacent neighbors. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation regulating the location of compost piles along with additional definition of what constitutes a compost pile. V. VI. . Gravel Driveways There are no current regulations regarding the use of gravel driveways. Staff has proposed to require a conversion of gravel driveways to pavement by January 1, 2009. Staff has reviewed the number of driveways that currently exist within the community and some parking lots and estimate the number of driveways to be approximately 50 existing gravel driveways. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation and convert gravel driveways including gravel as a parking pad to pavement by January 1, 2015. . Location of Port-a-Pots There are no current regulations that limit the location. Staff recommends the port-a- pots be located in such a manner that does not impact adjacent communities and is not placed in the right-of-way. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation. . Residential Construction Site Fencinq There are not current regulations to protect the site. Staff is recommending that construction site fencing be installed to protect the site and delineate the construction zone. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation which included the need to grade and seed any property that is not put under construction for a period of time. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT LEAD PAINT POLICY Community Development Director William Cooney stated that Federal regulations require the Village to utilize CDBG funding to mitigate lead based paint and its removal as part of the Home Loan Program assistance. Staff recommends the lead removal portion be considered as a grant instead of loan with other assistance considered as a loan for homeowners for improvements to property. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation. BRANDING POLICY Village Manager Janonis stated this process is necessary to be concluded so that final decisions can be incorporated in anticipation of the opening of the new Village Hall. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some concern regarding the color choice as being more conducive to park districts than Village municipal operations. It was also mentioned there was a need to tie everything together with a common look. There was also a need to define the proportionality of logo use in different situations. It was also suggested that Department embellishment of logo be discontinued in the future and two patches incorporated for uniform purposes so that any unique identifiers for the Department remain standard. VII. VIII. IX. Village Manager Janonis stated any changes to the uniforms will be brought to the Village Board for additional input before such changes are incorporated. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the logo policy as drafted by staff as the parameters for future. Village Board members also recommended the use of the official Village Seal behind the new dais in the new Village Hall. Staff requested some input from the Village Board whether there should be a logo incorporated in the dedication plaque. Consensus of the Village Board was that no logo be incorporated in the dedication plaque; only the verbiage as previously discussed by the Village Board. VILLAGE MANGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis reminded everyone that Welcome New Resident is scheduled for April 17 at the Central Community Center from 9:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. CLOSED SESSION There was no need to go into Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ -s::-6£{J DA VI D STRAH L Assistant Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER t hi WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN-rW ~ MICHAEL W. JACOBS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: DATE: APRIL 22, 2004 SUBJECT: CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE - PHASE II FINAL RECOMMENDA TrONS As you may recall, during the February 24th Committee of the Whole meeting the Village's Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee - Phase II presented their final recommendations regarding the remaining redevelopment opportunities within downtown Mount Prospect. In follow up to the Ad Hoc Committee's presentation, the Board must now focus on each of the defined sub-areas to determine if the specific recommendations are appropriate. To assist in your review of this issue we have attached a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that will be presented during the April 27th meeting. Please note that the Committee's final recommendations report and related exhibits were previously provided to you. Staff will be present at the April 2ih meeting to review the Committee's specific recommendation and answer any questions related to this matter. Continued Review of the Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee - Phase II: Final Recommendations Committee of the Whole Meeting April 27, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 au~e íÌ\æ. Phase II Recommendations 10 11 12 13 14 The Village of Mount Prospect Street Jurisdiction Map CarT} McDonald Rd N W+E S E Kannsin ton Rd m 3" :T c: ~ ::c CI. antral Rd ." 83 Go~ Rd m % . ~ w am McDonald Rd 45 ::c "'. ~ ::c CI. LD.O.T. Streets Numbered Routes I Name I Route 45, River Road I Route 12, Rand Road I Route 83, Elmhurst Road I Route 83, Oakton Road I Route 62, Algonquin Road , I Route 58, Golf Road I Route 14, Northwest Hwy I Total ! M~leage I I 1.) I'. , ,.., 8 ! ... , 15.7 ~- 10.3 I 1.6 I [2.7 ~- r--'~ i 16.7 ~-~..=~~~"-~- ~~==== Unnumbered Routes ¡Name I Kensington Road I Busse (South ofGo]f) Road I Central Road I Wolf Road I I Mileage I 3.0 ,--- [1.5 12.7 loA T ,i 7 6 otal ¡ . C.C.H.D. Streets I Name 1 Camp McDonald Road 1 Euclid Avenue 1 Busse (N. of Golf) Road I Dempster Street I Mt. Prospect Road I I Mileage I I 11.7 ~ 1 2.8 ~ I 1.3 ~ I 1 2 ~ I . m I 0.8 Tota1 I 7.8 Miles """"""".._".."'~ w. Jurisdictional Transfer Guidelines For Highway and Street Systems April 1993 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A. What Is Jurisdiction B. What Jurisdiction Is Not C. Why Is Jurisdiction Important D. Why Does A Jurisdictional Transfer Occur E. Who Must Approve A Transfer Of Jurisdiction F. Where Is Jurisdictional Transfer Data Kept G. Who Is IDOT's Clearinghouse for Highway Jurisdictional Matters H. Use Of The Guidelines SECTION 2 DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS A. Creation & Background B. Pertinent Statutes C. Agreements D. Other Documents SECTION 3 ILLINOIS COMPLIED STATUTES (ILCS) A. Definitions B. Statutes Affecting Jurisdictional Transfers SECTION 4 JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS A. Basic Information B. Additional Comments SECTION 5 FORMAT A. Forms B. Addendums C. Copies D. Preparing Agreements (For Departmental Purposes) SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE OF JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER A. State-Local Agency Agreement B. Local-Local Agency Agreement SECTION 7 PROCESSING PROCEDURES A. Flow Chart B. Notification Of Jurisdictional Transfer Date Page 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3-4 4 4 5 5-6 7-8 8 9 9 10 10 11-13 13 14 15 SECTION 1 -INTRODUCTION Most of the highways that will be used in the foreseeable future are in existence today. Many of these highways were created over a hundred years ago its wagon trails that followed the natural contours of the land or were constructed with the highway bond issues of 1917 and 1923. In 1959 the Illinois General Assembly revised and codified laws relating to public highways and established the present integrated system of highways which include: System Hiç¡hway Authority State Highway System County Highway System Township and District Road System Municipal Street System Department of Transportation County Board Highway Commissioner* Corporate Authorities of Municipality The placement of a highway into one of the systems under a particular highway authority places the highway under the jurisdiction of that highway authority. A. What Jurisdiction Is Jurisdiction can be defined as the authority and obligation to administer, control, construct, maintain and operate a highway subject to the provisions of the "Illinois Highway Code". B. What Jurisdiction Is Not When an agency has the jurisdiction of a street or highway, it has various obligations that include reconstruction, signing, maintenance, etc. All of these obligations remain with the agency until the jurisdiction is transferred to another entity. Transfer of the maintenance or any other portion of the jurisdiction is not allowed. For example, a county can enter into an agreement to have another agency perform the maintenance on a section of highway; however, this does not relieve the county from the ultimate obligation of ensuring that the maintenance is performed. The reason being that the county has merely entered into any agreement for the performance of services and not an agreement for the transfer of jurisdiction. In other words, a maintenance agreement does not transfer jurisdiction. It should also be noted that transfer of jurisdiction in itself does not involve transfer of ownership of the land. A separate process involving title work must be performed. *The highway authority for a county unit road district is the County Board for discretionary functions and the County Engineers/Superintendent of Highways for ministerial functions. -1- C. Why Is Jurisdiction Important Frequently interagency disputes arise concerning which highway authority has the jurisdictional responsibility for a particular section of highway. This can be an important issue in at least two respects: Routine maintenance of a highway (debris removal, snow removal, pothole patching, signing, ditch cleaning, vegetation control, etc.) is an expensive operation. If you include substantial structure repairs or replacement, the cost can consume the major portion of an agency's budget. (2) An agency having jurisdiction may be subject to tort liability and is likely to find itself a defendant in highway defect cases. While this was not so much of a problem prior to the 1960's, it has become a serious problem as a result of the parallel increases in the size and number of tort awards and by the elimination of government immunity for local governments. Therefore, the clear establishment of jurisdictional records allows the highway authority to know where responsibility lies. D. Why Does A Jurisdictional Transfer Occur A jurisdictional transfer will occur because it is either mandatory or aqreed to as prescribed by the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS). A municipality annexing territory is mandated to assume jurisdiction of a Township/District Road highway within the annexed territory. Aqreed to jurisdictional transfer occur because of the logical need to transfer authority to another highway system. Relocating an existing State highway may result in decreased traffic occurring on the old state highway. Thus, the old State highway may be better served under the jurisdiction of a County, Municipality or Township/District Road System. E. Who Must Approve A Transfer Of Jurisdictional Jurisdictional transfers mandated by the Illinois Compiled Statutes do not involve approval, but the Statutes do require cooperation among the agencies involved. Transfer aqreed to as prescribed by the Illinois Compiled Statutes shall be approved by the Illinois Department of Transportation (lOOT). F. Where Is Jurisdictional Transfer Data Kept The Central Bureau of Local Roads and Streets is responsible for maintaining records of all jurisdictional transfers. G. Who is lOOT's Clearinqhouse for Hiqhway Jurisdictional Matters The Highway Systems Manager of the Bureau of Local Roads and Streets serves as the Clearinghouse for all jurisdictional matters. In this capacity, the manager maintains documentation of all highway jurisdictional matters and reviews all documents requiring department approval or clarification. H. Use Of The Guidelines The following sections should provide assistance in formulating, analyzing and resolving jurisdiction/maintenance disputes. The importance of evaluating each situation in light of its own peculiarities cannot be overemphasized. Use of this manual should be as a general guide. -2- SECTION 2 - DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS Each highway has its own, often unique, history that determines which highway authority has jurisdiction over it. In most instances, the jurisdiction of a highway can be determined by examining maps that are on file in the county clerk's office and/or the Central Bureau of Local Roads and Streets. These maps are considered official documents for determining jurisdiction. But, like all records that are kept, they are subject to human error. The Department has encountered situations that revealed mapping errors, transfers that did not get recorded, and other circumstances associated with the recording of jurisdictional transfers. When errors are suspected or when disagreement arises between agencies, it is necessary to research all sources of documentation throughout the entire history of a specific location. These problems usually become more manifest with older highways. To examine the complete history of a particular highway, it is necessary to make a thorough examination of the following areas: a) creation & background, b) pertinent statutes, c) agreements, and d) other documents. A. Creation & Backqround The term "creation" is not a reference to the construction or physical creation of a highway, it is instead a reference to the legal establishment of the highway. Highways can be created in three basic ways: by statute, by dedication, or by prescription. 1. By Statutes - The Illinois statutes established the authority to create the various highway systems and provided the financial capability to fund their construction and/or purchase the needed right-of-way. 2. By Dedication - This occurs when land is dedicated for public use as a highway and there has been acceptance of the usage by the land owner. 3. By Prescription - This is the acquirement of a highway right-of-way through its continued use as a public road for fifteen years. Most highways remain in the same highway system for which they were originally established or created. When it can be shown which highway authority had jurisdiction of a highway, when it was created or established, it is initially presumed that the jurisdiction still rests with that highway authority. However, it is still necessary to research for any later changes in status. B. Pertinent Statutes It is difficult to include all statutes that establish, transfer, or otherwise impact the jurisdiction of highways in these guidelines. However, Section 3 of these guidelines does include specific references to articles in the Illinois Highway Code (Chapter 605/01d 121) and the Illinois Municipal Code (Chapter 65/01d 24) that directly affect jurisdictional transfers. -3- Although these references are probably the most important, in may instances it is necessary to examine statutes that have only an indirect bearing on jurisdictional responsibilities. It is also necessary to review statutes that were in existence when a highway was created or transferred to another system. Although Federal statutes do not directly determine which public agency is responsible for a particular highway, they do have a substantial impact on systems that include Federal-aid highways. The use of Federal funds requires a written commitment concerning the future maintenance of the improvement. When this fact and other Federal Statutory and regulatory provisions are coupled with the broad state statutory language, it is clear that Federal laws do have significant impact on many aspects involved in determining the jurisdiction of a highway. C. AQreements Regardless of which agency created a highway or in which system a highway may be included, it is possible that an interagency agreement may have changed the previous or original jurisdiction. These agreements are normally authorized by some statutory provision. The most comprehensive statute utilized for an agreement is Section 5/4-409 of the Illinois Highway Code, which provides: "The Department may enter into a written contract with any highway authority for the jurisdiction, maintenance, administration, engineering or improvement of any highway or portion thereof. The Department may also, upon application of any highway authority, authorize the highway authority to enter into a written contract with any other highway authority for the jurisdiction, maintenance, administration, engineering or improvement of any highway or portion thereof." . Before any transfer are started, previous agreements, ordinances, and resolutions are should be reviewed to verify the existing jurisdiction. D. Other Documents Just as a court may, in the absence of clear documentation as to responsibility, examine the past treatment of a highway by an agency, it is sometimes necessary for the Department, in the disputed situations, to examine similar aspects. In addition to examining maintenance activities and maintenance agreements, it is often appropriate to determine which agency, if any, has granted permission (permits) for doing work on highway, such as driveway connections, utility placements, etc. The Department does maintain records of field maintenance work performed, which is available through each district office. These records may prove valuable in structuring the Department's position in a particular case. Local agency records should also be reviewed for documents pertaining to jurisdictional transfers. -4- MINUTES COFFEE WITH COUNCIL Saturday, April 3, 2004 09:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Conference Room, Village Hall The meeting convened at 9:00 AM. Those present: Mayor Gerald Farley, Trustee Michaele Skowron, Trustee Irvana Wilks, Trustee Timothy Corcoran, Trustee Paul Hoefert, Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer, Village Manager Michael Janonis, and Fire Chief Mike Figolah. Residents in Attendance: Liz Lespinasse Bert Hernmawn Francis Vlazny Margaret Lannen Chad Rinella David Schein Denise Rominski Paul J. Hydzik "fug" Bloomquist Jon Radford Bruce Gillilan Al Engberg Jim Uzler Nancy DiDuca Carol Tortorello 5 South Pine Street 2105 Jody Court 2103 Jody Court 999 North Elmhurst Road, Randhurst 999 North Elmhurst Road, Randhurst 512 South NaWaTa 210 South Main Street 202 East Council Trail 1909 Connie Lane 1400 West Cleven 132 South Waverly 1801 Hopi Lane 9 South Elm Street 1043 Arbor Court 223 S. Elmhurst Avenue Liz Lespinasse asked about whether or not there would be a change to computer parking fees collected on weekends once the new electronic meters are installed. Mr. Janonis stated that there is no change in when fees would be collected. She raised a concern in regards to children's presence in the area of the Capanari's Ice Cream Store and truck traffic. Ms. Lespinasse recommended the Village prohibit trucks or provide signage for drivers to watch for children. Mayor Farley stated that the idea of signs indicating children may have merit and will have staff investigate. Ms. Lespinasse wondered if there was anything being done to prevent the train whistles from starting up again. Mr. Janonis stated that the Village will be sending a letter to the Federal Railway Administration as required indicating our intention of restricting the whistles in the "quiet areas" downtown. Mr. Janonis further elaborated that the Village is working to identify other measures like four-quadrant gates. Bert Hernmawn questioned why Mount Prospect refused to take some of the proceeds from the Rosemont Gaming Property. He explained that Palatine and many other communities would be receiving up to $500,000 annually. Mayor Farley explained that, in a unanimous vote by the Board, the Board thought gambling was not a good method of raising fees for the state and they didn't want to be shown as a supporter of legalized gambling. The Mayor further stated that he doubts these other communities will see the money as promised. Mr. Hernmawn expressed support of the Village Board to not allow a park across from the library. He also asked what was being done to improve Central Road? Mayor Farley explained that the state is willing to repair the roadway surface only if the Village agreed to take over the maintenance forever. Mayor Farley explained that there are more meetings scheduled with state authorities to discuss this issue. Mr. Hernmawn asked about maximum building heights in Mount Prospect. The Mayor stated that the Board had the intent to limit buildings to the 94' mark. Frank Vlazny asked if it were possible to have an underpass downtown to avoid the train congestion? The Village Manager explained that an underpass would not be the best for the viability Mount Prospect's downtown as the gradual grade changes necessary for the underpass will virtually cause people to drive past Mount Prospect without the ability to see the community. Mr. Vlazny was concerned about the rising cost and increased benefits of public pension funds. The Mayor explained that the local jurisdiction has little control over these funds. The Springfield legislators are passing laws to increase benefits without any increased ability to pay for these plans. Trustee Corcoran explained that compounding the problem with pension funds is the investment part of the plans. Decreased investment income is another aspect of the increased costs. Margaret Lannen introduced Chad Rinella, Randhurst Security Manager. She also commented on yesterday's natural gas main break that caused a major problem, but luckily didn't affect the mall with closure since the wind was blowing away from the structure. All went well with little disruption. Ms. Lannen described many of the new potential mall tenants, one of which includes a ballroom dancing instructional store that will take over the basement area. Mayor Farley asked what work was going to be performed on the deteriorated parking lot. Margaret stated that a great deal of work would be done to the parking lot, especially in the area of Costco and the new entrance. Lighting will also be upgraded in those areas. Trustee Hoefert asked if Randhurst is aware of the new lighting trend that uses lower mats with a higher amount of units that provides a much nicer affect. Margaret states that they were committed to keeping Costco' s lighting theme. Denise Rominski asked about the future ofthe Fannie May site. Mr. Janonis stated that in this mornings newspaper an article reported that the Fannie May stores, recipes, and manufacturing processes were sold to Alpine Corporation. It is still too early to know the fate of our site, but knows that our store performed well. Ms. Romonski expressed concern that commuters were parking in the vacated Fannie May parking lot. In fact a Ford pick-up truck has been parked there for several days. Mr. Janonis stated that the Village is limited on enforcement on private property, but would follow-up and see what could be done. Paul Hydzik explained that he was a resident and professional photographer of architecture and would like to do work for the Village. He passed around a portfolio of his work. The Village Manager will contact him if an opportunity arose. Mr. Bloomquist complimented the Village on how the municipality is managed. He discussed some parking concerns, which the Village Manager would follow up on. Bruce Gillilan, a member of the Economic Development Commission, asks the Board to consider rooftop beatification like other communities. Having larger structures creates a different perspective and should be considered. He asked if the Village took control of Central Road, could they then control things like truck traffic? Mr. Janonis explained that would not have control over trucks and little control over other issues. David Schein complimented Tuccio's new endeavor at the train station. He also shared the newspaper article about the Arlington Heights Youth Center and recommended Mount Prospect consider discussions about a Youth Center. Al Engberg recommended that the Board consider working with legislators to collect vehicle sticker fees at the Secretary of State when people apply for license plates. He has spoken with Representative Nekritz and she discussed this issue with the SOS office, but the SOS was not interested. Mr. Engberg said the concept will work, but will need to force the SOS to take on the tasks. Mayor Farley stated that he would share this idea at the Northwest Municipal Conference. Mr. Engberg commented on his concern for public pension costs and the need to establish defined benefit plans as well as to outsource positions. Jim Uszler let the group know that the Chamber of Commerce is now selling gift certificates in $5, $10, & $25 increments that can be used in any Mount Prospect participating business. He notified the group that there is interest to re-establish the Mount Prospect Car Show. Mr. Uszler inquired as to construction/demolition-projected dates of the existing village hall so that he can try to identify potential dates for the car show. Nancy DiDuca explained an inequity in the newly adopted ordinance dealing with military personnel receiving free vehicle stickers. Ms. DiDuca explained that she has 2 sons in the military and only one receives the benefit. And it is the son that will be deployed in Iraq that will not receive that free village sticker. Mr. Janonis will investigate this issue and contact Ms. DiDuca. Trustee Hoefert brought up two issues on behalf of residents that could not attend today's meeting. The first one was the issue of single-family rental properties. Trustee Corcoran expressed concern that due to the instability of the stock market, more and more people will be investing in rental properties. Mr. Janonis stated that under the current Landlord/Tennant ordinance single and two family properties are excluded. Mr. Janonis further explained that this topic is on the list of discussion items for a future Committee of the Whole meeting. The second issue was the consideration of allowing cars to be parked on one side of the street. Trustee Hoefert stated that he was aware that some communities allow parking on alternating sides of the streets on alternating days. A lengthy discussion ensued including the effectiveness of speed tables as a viable traffic-calming device. These issues will be further discussed at a future Committee of the Whole meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 am. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Figolah Fire Chief