Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/1986 COW MinutesMINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MAY 13, 1986 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Carolyn H. Krause, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, Leo Floros, Norma Murauskis, George Van Geem and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager Terrance Burghard, Assistant to the Village Manager Michael Janonis, Director of Finance David Jepson, Director of Public Works Herbert Weeks; Dr. Conrad Majeski, Chairman of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, Richard Bachhuber, member of the Finance Commission; Harold Ross, Chairman of the Plan Commission and Harold Predovich, Chairman of the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission. Also present were two persons from the print media, II. MINUTES The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of April 22, 1986 were accepted and filed. Ill. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There being no citizens present who wished to make a presentation before the Committee of the Whole, the Committee moved on to the next item of business. IV. VEHICLE LICENSE FEES Committee members reviewed a staff proposal which calls for an increase in vehicle license fees. The current fee structure dates back to 1979 and in some cases the rates date back to 1975. The proposal calls for regular passenger vehicle license fees to go from $15'.00 to $20-00 and the fee for senior Citi zen,s tog from $1.00 for the first vehicle to $5.00 (all other vehicles, are licensed at, the regular rate). There are also corresponding increases for motorcycle licenses and truck licenses, Classes B through Z. Additionally, the penalty which is currently 100% of the base fee after May 1, has been restructured so as to be graduated over the year. In this way, people who are a few days late in purchasing the sticker are not as severely penalized as those who wait several months. Finance Director David Jepson outlined his proposal for Committee members and indicated that the increased revenue was projected to be used to cover expenses in the Road Repair and Maintenance Budgets. Mr. Jepson indicated that the Village could expect to lose at least $11,000 due to the cut-off of Revenue Sharing Funds and a reduction in available Motor Fuel Tax Funds. Mr. Jepson pointed out that even with the proposed increases in vehicle license fees, it would still in all likelihood be necessary to use General Fund monies to fully fund the Road Program. .1 M After discussion among Committee members, the consensus was that the increases were necessary and staff was instructed to prepare the necessary Ordinances for consideration at a later Board meeting. Trustee Norma Murauskis stated that she wished to go on record against the proposed increases citing the fact that several surrounding communities currently had vehicle license fees lower than the Village's current fees. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY UPDATE As a continuing item on all Village Board and Committee of the Whole Agendas, the Mayor and Board of Trustees discussed the status of the Public Works facility. Subsequent to the last meeting, the matter was referred to the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission, the Plan Commission and the Finance Commission for their comments and recommendations based on the report issued by the Village Manager and accompanying staff presentations* 0 The debate among the members and comments by representatives from the above Commissions resulted in the following statements: Mayor Carolyn Krause stated that in her opinion, the Village Board should have been more 'Involved in the 'Initial discussions of the options available with regard to a Public Works facility. The five or so hours of discussion at the Board level was inadequate in several respects. First, the Board's input into the staff's report was limited to approving or disapproving the recommendations of the report* Second, not enough consideration was being given to the issue of downtown redevelopment and how either an expanded Public Works facility in the downtown area or a new facility at a different site would affect long-term development in the downtown area. Concomitantly, decisions had to be made with regard to the way in which the present site would be disposed of; i.e., as part of a TIF District or to a private owner. Mayor Krause stated that she did not accept the-, basic options of the Manager's report and, therefore, was not in favor of proceeding with a feasibility study but instead proposed that the Board undertake an intensive review of the present situation as a premise to a feasibility study by an outside consultant. It was the Mayor's view that with this intense review, the Board would have a better understanding of the situation* With regard to the question of the need for a Referendum as a precedent to any decision by the Board, the Mayor stated that the Board as a whole was committed to a Referendum in situations which required large capital expenditures for new public facilities and that any variance from this policy would not be in the spirit of campaign promises made by many present Trustees and might jeopardize the Village's Home Rule Authority. Trustee Ralph Arthur reviewed the various Commission comments included in the Agenda package and questioned some of their conclusions regarding his proposal for expansion of the present facility. Trustee Arthur stated that he felt that the Manager's report regarding the options available to the Board was subjective and contained staff biases* Trustee Arthur concurred with Mayor Krause in that 'a Referendum on the question was absolutely essential before the Board could take official action on the issue. After considerable discussion among Committee members, Trustee Arthur stated that he concurred with the majority of Trustees in that a feasibility study should be conducted but that any study should include more than architectural and design considerations and must look to economic impact and cost -benefit. -2 Trustee Theodore Wattenberg stated that he favored a new facility as recommended in the Village Manager's report and that the Board should take some type of immediate action to begin moving toward that end. Trustee Wattenberg was in favor of a feasibility study. However, Trustee Wattenberg stated that he felt a Referendum on the subject was not necessary because as elected officials the citizens had placed their trust in the Board through their votes and additionally, Trustee Wattenberg pointed out that there had been no Referendum held with regard to the question of Lake Michigan water. Trustee George Van Geem repeated his prior proposal that a feasibility study be undertaken to address the two options presently on the table; i.e., expansion of the old facility or construction of a new facility at a different site. In response to Mayor Krause's request for further study, Trustee Van deem stated that further study by the Board had merit but that any extensive delay could be fatal to the protect 'in terms of losing the favorable economic: conditions J ic con I ions now present. It was Trustee Van Geem's feeling that the Board was clear on the question of a Referendum and he proposed that the necessary Ordinances be adopted and transmitted to the County Clerk so that the question could be placed on the November ballot. In Trustee Van Geem's opinion, the benefit of this was to impose a deadline on the Board to act on this issue. Trustee Norma Murauskis stated that her reading of the Commission comments indicated that the Board needed to study the question further and that she supported the Mayor's call for a formal study by the Board. Trustee Murauskis further stated that she was not in support of proceeding to a feasibility study at this time without looking at competing questions of downtown redevelopment and other pressing problems facing the Village. 11 Trustee Gerald Farley noted that there appeared to be a deep division among Board members w,,Ith a 4-3 split in favor of a new facility. It was Trustee Farley's fe,eling that the minoray was attempting to delay action by calling for further study., In response to 'the Mayor's, proposal, Trustee Farley stated that a six-month study by the Board was too long; that the Interest expressed in thepresent facility by a private developer was sufficient to answer the question of redevelopment and that a feasibility study conducted by an architectural planning firm could be objectively done. On the question of a Referendum, Trustee Farley supported putting the question to the citizens prior to Board official action, Trustee Farley concurred with Trustee Floros' call that an architectural, planning firm be retained and a feasibility study be conducted. Trustee Leo Floros also noted the split on the Board over this question and 'Indi- cated that it was time that the Board take some definitive action. Trustee Floros noted that this 'issue had been discussed several times in the past without any action, being taken. Trustee, Flocos express'ed confl'idence 'in the Village Ma,nager"S report stating that it was, done by to level staff after 'Intensive data gathering and,', research, Trustee Floros also, stated that C,ommi'ssion questions raised were leg lit'i mate, and should be included in the, subsequent feasibility study. With regard to the question of redevelopment of a present site, Trustee Floros stated that during initial TIF discussions, he was in favor of Target Area #2 which included the present Public Works facility as being a more logical place for redevelopment. He was not willing to hold up resolution of the facility's issue in order to study whether a TIF District should be implemented in that area. M With regard to the question of a Referendum, Trustee Floros stated that he would support a Referendum but noted the inconsistency in past Board practice by not going to Referendum on the question of Lake water. It was Trustee Floros' proposal that the recommendations of the Village Manager be followed in that an architectural planning firm be retained to conduct the feasibility study on the two most viable options, those being expansion of the present facility or the construc- tion of a new facility at an alternative site.. Village Manager Terrance Burghard stated to Committee members that it was his sense that the Board was faced with a political problem that the Board as a whole would have to resolve with itself. The Village Manager stated that he read a clear consensus in the Commission comments that the present facility was inadequate and that some action was necessary* If the Board was in agreement that something needed to be done, his recommendation remained that a feasibility study be commissioned to look at possible alternatives,. Conrad Majeski, President of' the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce stated that a poll of Chamber members resulted in a unanimous vote for the relocation of the present facility. Dr. Majeski stated that prior studies commissioned by the Village at varying times consistently concluded that the present facility was not optimally located and hindered effective downtown redevelopment. Dr. Majeski also questioned the propriety of the Village maintaining a structure that was in violation of existing Zoning regulations. To this question, Mayor Krause responded that all downtown businesses were in violation of present Zoning laws. Additionally, Jr. Majeski stated that the Board should not be paralyzed by a 4-3 split on this issue when in fact it had taken some decisive action on important issues in the past based on 4-3 votes. Richard Bachhuber, member of the Finance Commission stated that three Commission members were in favor of moving the present facility. It was the 10 Is Commission's opinion that the downtown location was not conducive to the long- term development of the Village. Mr. Bachhuber pointed out that the Board had in the prior item voted to raise vehicle license fees in amounts that in some cases greatly exceeded the cost to residents that a new facility would require. He urged Board members to consider relocation. Harold Ross, Chairman of the Plan Commission stated that he did not see the need for the Board to undertake a Referendum. He felt that the citizens voted the Board members in with the authority to make such decisions. It was the Plan Commission's feeling that some change was necessary but that not enough informa- tion was provided by the Manager's report to render an opinion on on what type of change should be made* Harold Predovich, Chairman of the Business District Development and Redevelop- mdnt Commission stated the position of his Commission by saying that the Commission continues to support relocation if a thorough cost -benefit analysis bears out that conclusion. Chairman Predovich stated that he feared that the decision- making process was beginning to control the Board and causing paralysis. Mr. Predovich proposed that a feasibility study -be conducted within a short time frame and called on Board members to keep an open mind with regard to the results. "P4 � • 41&• 11111 IN VI. MANAGER'S REPORT 4WW-*" il Village Manager Terrance Burghard reported that demolition of the building at 210 EVERGREEN was completed on Wednesday, April 7without complication and well under authorized spending limits. Mr. Burghard stated that he received several telephone calls tha,ming the Village for moving promptly in removing thepotential hazard to the neighborhood. The Village Manager also reported that Economic Development Director Ken Fritz had indicated to him that the TRAIN STATION IMPROVEMENTS would be bid out by the end of May and that construction would begin soon thereafter, VII. ,ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Ralph Arthur reported to Committee members that he and the Village Manager had attended a meeting of the Solid Waste Implementation Task Force and that at that meeting, State Senator Keats speak. , ing as a citizen'proposed that the Task Force stUdy an alternative proposal that would call for- the bal, I n , g of garbiage and the transportation of those bales on railroad flat cars to locations, in southern 11,11noi .s f'or pert-nanent disposal. Trustee Arthur reported that the Task Force agreed to 'take the proposal unde,r advisement but that it would co,ntinue working toward the present proposal locating, a permanent balef Jl in the Bartlett, area. VIIIADJOURNMENT There being no further business to be discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectf ully submitted, MICHAEL Eo JANONIS MEJ/rcw Assistant to the Village Manager a"5-