Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0741_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 12, 1986 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Carolyn H. Krause; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, Leo Floros, .Norma Murausl.s, George Van Geem and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager Terrance Burghard, Research Assistant Michael S to k l ac, Director of Public works Herbert Weeks, Deputy Director of Public works Glen Andler, Streets Superintendent Mel Both, Forestry Superintendent Sandra Forgacs, water Superintendent Jerry McIntosh, Director of Finance David Jepson and Fred Borsch of Donohue and Associates. Also present were three persons from the print media. II. MINUTES A MOTION to approve the Committee of the Whole Minutes of July 22, 1986 was MAIM~, by Trustee Wattenberg and SECONDED by Trustee Arthur. Trustee Van Deem, noting that he was absent from the meeting, asked whether the decision to retain the water tower was unanimous or, whether there were any dissenting votes. It was noted that there were, five Board members in favor of retaining the water tower and one aga,inst. The 'nutes were then accepted and filed. IIIACITIZENS 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. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY REPORT POR,T Mr. Fred Borilch, of Donohue Associates, presented the findings and recommendat,ions, of the Public Works Space Utilization Study, Mr. Borsch started his presentation by outlining the facilities that are currently in existence throughout the Village to serve the ,Public works Department and also outlining the duties of the Public works Department. He noted that the purpose of the study was to, 111thoroughly and objectively ,analyze the current Public Warks operation and s ac needs 1 t i n the co t e x t� of existing conditions and develop alternative opti+e Pons to identify t e best liong-term plan of action to serve the interests of the Village of Mount Prospect." The goal statements that provided, the framework for t' is study were: (1) Maintain and/or improve existing scope of Public Works services rendered to the citizens of Mount Prospect at the same service level which presently exists; (2) Determine necessary building and site needs for efficiently providing these services for the long -tern, (3) Correct major functional/operational efficiencies and space deficiencies; (4) Identify the optimum resolution to these concerns stressing increased efficiency and cost-effective solutions. Aft Mr. Borich then went into some; detail on the conditions and adequacy of the various Public Works facilities located throughout the Village including the faclities on Pine Street and in various neighborhood locations throughout the Village. He noted that they divided the deficiencies in the various facilities into priority one deficiencies which are deficiencies that should be addressed immediately and secondary deficiencies. The consultant then undertook an analysis of the Public Works Department's space needs and determined that they would need at least 68,000 square feet of enclosed and heated space, approximately 24,000 square feet in covered and unheated space and a site area of between five to seven acres. The options that were reviewed in the study include the addition of a second floor to the existing Public Works facility, expansion of the facility to parcels on the north, south, east or west, the closing of Pine Street and incorporation into the existing facility, or construction of a new facility on a new site. Mr. Borich reviewed the merits of each option with respect to the correction of existing deficiencies, impact on the community and cost -benefit to the Village. The conclusion reached by the consultant was that construction of a new Public Works facility at a new site is the optimum solution to the operation and space need concerns which were outlined in the goal statement. Mr. Borich noted that if the Board decided not to proceed with a new facility, that his firm would recommend that funds only be spent to repair and maintain the existing site at 11 South Pine. In addition, they recommend the acquisition of the two parcels to the north of the facility and the closing of Pine Street. Trustee Leo Floros asked the consultant why he recommended the vacation of Pine Street and the purchase of two lots to the north if a new facility was not built. Mr. Borich replied that the vacation of Pine Street would allow improved traffic circulation and the acquisition of the two lots would allow the addition of a fueling facility as well as more parking area. He also mentioned that he would recommend against major improvements at the existing site and that only expenditures for maintenance and repairs should be undertaken* Trustee Wattenberg asked that the final report be paginated and indexed. Trustee Wattenberg, asked if we could keep some of the Public Works equipment outside. Mr. Borich replied that they asked the Public Works Department for a list of vehicles that should be kept inside and a list of those that could be kept outside. Mainly, those - vehicles with hydraulics and diesel fuel must be parked indoors. I Trustee Farley asked the consultant whether the 20% of the total space devoted to circulation was too generous. Mr. Borich replied that the figures were compiled based on other facilities including other Public Works facilities and bus storage garages. He stated that other types of facilities may have lower circulation needs but that due to the nature of operations in these buildings, they need more circulation space* Trustee Floros asked how the cost estimates for a new facility were developed. Mr. Borich replied that there were three divisions in estimating the cost of the building. There were costs for heated ,space, for unheated space and for "people" space. They used similar facilities and a public bus garage, as compari(sons in dev�el,oping the estimate. He stated that if you were comparing this new Public Works facility cost estimate to a car, it would be con,sidered to be a "Buick" type of facility. IM Trustee George Van Gem questioned whether the capital costs in the cost benefit summary all assumed a 40 -year building life and whether the maintenance costs of an existing facility were taken into account in the study. Mr. Borich stated that the cost estimates included a new boiler and a ventilation system for the existing Pine Street facility. Their cost estimates did not take into account other future maintenance costs, The Committee then discussed whether the Village could lease or purchase the MSD property. Village Manager Terrance Burghard stated that we could lease or purchase the property, it would depend upon the MSD Board. When asked about the estimate of the $750,000 for land acquisition, Mr. Burgha,rd said that it was his belief that this was a tight, figure which worked out to approximately $'' .00 a square foot. He also stated, that with a, lease, there is a danger that a future MSD Board may refuse to renew a lease or raise the leasing fee. Trustee Floros, asked how much land there was on the MSD property. Public Works Director Herbert Weeks stated that there was 107 acres of which 35 were undeveloped and that in discussions with the MSD staff, the MSD stated they would be interested in selling a part of it. Trustee Farley asked why the MSD could not sell land for what it paid for it. Mr. Burghard stated that the figure was a fair market value generated through preliminary discussions with the MSD staff. Trustee Van Geem asked to get a consensus from the Board on whether to address the priority one deficiencies outlined in the study. 91 Trustee Floros stated that a problem does exist, but that opinion varies on the Committee as to how severe the problem is and what to do about it. Trustee Van Geem stated that Alternates 1, 2,sA and 2.*B outlined in the study still require a significant expenditure and stated that it Would be worth it to him to spend the extra $159,000 per year for a new facility that did not have the problems of the Pine Street facility. Mayor Carolyn Krause stated that she used previous studies in evaluating the ,Donohue study* She stated that the Donohue report goes beyond the space and cos ,testi mates, lisled I""'n the, earlier studies. She also stated that she believes that the central location in the downtown is a plus and she has a number of concerns about the Melas Park site. The Mayor stated that she would not support a $7.1 million expenditure on this type of facility, Trustee Arthur stated that be would agree with recommendation #4 in the study to close Pine Street and purchase the two parcels to the north to expand the exterior and parking shortages. He felt that this could be done within a $1 million budget and any money left should be used to correct some, but not all, of the priority one deficiencies. Trustee Wattenberg stated that the time had come to take action and that the Committee needed to get down to a decision on financing and not defer the pro,blern to future Boards. He stated that it was the responsibility of the Village Board to take action and he did not agree that the question should go to a Ref erendum. "o 3 - The Mayor stated that a number of the Board elected on the promise of not making major Referendum. Trustee Wattenberg asked why Referendum when there was a decision to be made Evanston or from Chicago. The Mayor responded Public Works building is not. members, including herself, were expenditures without going to the Village did not go to a on whether to buy water f rom that water is a necessity and the Trustee Murauskis stated that she considers the proposed new .building to be a "Cadillac" and would not support the expenditure. With respect to the reuse of the land for redeveloping downtown, the Mayor responded that the numbers developed by Donohue and Associates show that the Public Works land values are "flat." The Village is better off on holding off developing Pine Street land. In addition, she stated that due to the recent tax changes in Cook County that we may not be able to get taxing district support for an expanded or new tax increment financing district. Trustee Floros asked Mr. Borich why the costs for the new facility were so different from previous studies. Mr. Borich replied that they used three levels of pricing or eated space and office space. e also stated fenclosed heato d, space unhH that he di'dn't know ther expenditure of.. million would be more palatable whean ", to the Board, than an expenditure of $7-1 million. Trustee Farley stated that he believes that the $7.1 million can be shaved to a lesser amount through changing construction materials and by having Public Works prepare the site* or doing some of the painting of the facility. Director of Finance Dave Jepson was asked about what costs the average taxpayer could expect to pay for a new facility. Mr. Jepson responded that the Village would have to take out a $5-$6 million loan over a 20 year period with an "interest rate of approxit-natel'Y 7.5%. The debt service on such, a note would be ap,pro,xI,- mately $48tOOO. M,r.. Jepson further stated that each cent on the Tax Rate will, produce approximately $53,000 in revenue. He said that approx1imately 9-1/2 cents would have to be, added to the Tax Lev y4 For a house with a, $20,000 Equalized, Assessed Valuation, this would work out to approx"Imately $19.00 per year. Trustee, Farley responded that he felt this cost was reasonable. Mr. Hal Predovich of the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission asked the Committee at what point does the Village lock "Itself out of developing the area where the Public Works facility is located. He stated that the Downtown Plan at one time used Wille's Lumber (Aldi's) as an anchor. He stated the key to the. area is attracting an anchor store to the downtown and that the area where the existing Public Works facility is located represents the best area for a District. Trustee Farley stated that he has heard from several Elk Grove Township residents were are upset about their increased Tax bill. He felt that Elk Grove residents may not support a Referendum and that the Board would be kidding itself if they thought the Referendum would pass with a divided Board. -4- The Mayor stated that a great deal of work would have to occur before a consensus could be built on the Board. Trustee Arthur asked Mr. Borich that if we spent 1 million on purchasing new land, a new boiler and a new air -vent system for the fine Street facility, would the building then last for another 40 years. Mr. Borich said that he could not recommend a significant expenditure at that site. Trustee ,Arthur stated that it will take time to find a solution but that, in the meantime, it would be 'important to resolve the problems at pine .street. Trustee Farley responded that it would not be an effective use of taxpayer dollars to spend more money at the bine Street facility. Trustee Van Ceem stated that the $7.1 million for a new facility was higher than the w� Board expected, , however, he did not want to miss out on a golden opportunity of the low finance rates that are available in the market today. He stated that he 10 is not in a hurry to move the building out in favor of a Tax Increment Financing District nor is he in favor of remodeling the facility to make it last 40 more years. Trustee Farley suggested that the Village should move to take an option on the MSI] land and to see if a new facility could be built in stages. Trustee Floros supported the purchasing or leasing of the MSD land. Trustee Arthur stated that he would not support securing an option on the MSD land and the Mayor stated that she would support taking an option on the land but not a purchase of the MSIR land. Trustee Arthur stated that most residents that he talked to who were told that Public Warks service levels would not go up with► the building of a new facility said they would not be in favor of a new facility unless service levels went above what they are now. It was the consensus of the Committee to continue discussion to a future Committee of the whole meeting,. Mr. Burghard reminded the Trustees that a Referendum Ordinance must be passed in August and that a first reading would have to be on the August 19 Agenda if the Comittee desired to proceed with a, November 4 Referendum,* V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to be discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 10:0 p.m. MJS/rcw Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL I STEKLA►C Research .Assistant my TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director 6#4 DATE: September 17, 1986 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Attached is a copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the Village of Mount Prospect for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1986. Both the format and the content of the report conform to reporting standards recommended by the National Council of Governmental Accounting and its successor, the Government Accounting Standards Board. I believe the data as presented is accurate in all material aspects, and that all disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the Village's financial affairs have been included. The report contains three sections: 1. An Introductory Secti Terrance L. Burghard Page 2 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report The Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Village of Mount Prospect for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1985. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a governmental unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual re -port, whose contents conform to program standards. Such reports must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. I believe our current report continues to conform to program requirements, and we will be submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility. I am looking forward to reviewing the report with the Board at the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 23, 19860 D1CJ/sm Enc �J' 4 i llage of Mount Prospect o Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 0', TO: BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: MAYOR CAR.( LYN He KRAUSE RE: PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1986 I have placed the above -entitled matter on the Committee of the Whole Agenda for September 23, 19869 Previously, I had called the Saturday meeting of September 13 as a result of our August meeting wherein the Donohue Report was presented. The August meeting did not generate discussion. As a result, I have taken the approach of attempting to break out the various issues which would be involved in erecting a Public Works facility. After identifying the issues, analyzing and anticipating all diverse problems, we would move on to resolving each issue thereby a*rriving at "reasoned consensus,." I I.. The four main component parts of erecting a Public Worksfacility would consist of: A. Land acquisition, B. Building and cost. C. Diverse financing options. D. Abatement of G.O. Bond costs. IL In addition, a program is needed as to the plans for the existing building, I. A. LAND A ISITION Probably the most involved issue of the entire project is the time and effort needed to secure the necessary five to seven acres for the building. The primary interest in land is that land owned by the Metropolitan Sanitary District at Central Busse. As I stated at the September 16 meeting, I personally believe that negotiations with the MSD Board will be prolonged. The efforts which resulted in our ten-year lease of the land did, in fact, extend over many months and involved a number of meetings before the Board. At the same time as negotiations go forth with the MSD, perhaps there should be interest expressed in another piece of land such as Rand Road (Reese property) so that comparisons can be made and the public assured that efforts were made in looking at different sites. I. B. THE NEW FACILITY AND ITS COSTS Along, with securing the land, this issue presents an, *Involved challenge. The Phase II Donohue Report will require over the next two, months part ic 1 p,ation, by elected officials and I will look forward to that participationo Many issues will be addressed and examined through this process and each Trustee must be involved at several steps along the way. However, during these seven to eight weeks, other issues also must be discussed and resolved. Can we take another look at the satellite storage.? Currently, we have five sites and at the September 16 meeting, it was stated four would remain. Can we re-examine this issue so that possibly more can be eliminated? I would like to see if any Trustees are interested in examining this particular issue* I raised the issue of the Recycling Center. If there is support, this matter should be worked in with Phase 11 as well as Item I above. Attached, marked Exhibit A, are cost estimates I had asked staff to prepare. Attached, marked Exhibit B, is -a letter from the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources which provides for Recycling Grants. Please note that the proposals must be submitted by September 30. Again, it is important to examine these types of offers to show the res,idents of all sttps, taken to control costs. The cost factor ties in with the building and goes "hand in hand." The issues involved will touch on the overall space; covered versus uncovered spacei, construction; i.e., masonry, part masonry versus Butler building; examination of all proposed shop equipments heated space, versus unheated space and many, many other issues. The Phase 11 Report can easily respond to numerous alternatives. I. C. DIVERSE FINANCING OPTIONS As I stated at the September 13 meeting, I have for discussion purposes, related, this issue to a residential home that has a market value of $,130,000,0, Currently, the estimated Equalized Assessed Valuation for Mount Prospect is $532.7 million. The estimates by staff over the next two to four years will see an increase in the Equalized Assessed Valuation by some $76 million. This is based upon the following group assessments: Frediani/Mitrof f /Wolf Point $ 2.0 million Simonsen's $ 2.0 million Kensington Center $16.0 million Tremont $15.0 million Randhurst $ 4.5 million Mt. Prospect Plaza $ 2.2 million Trapani $ 1.0 million Frediani/Mitrof f /Wolf Point $ 2.0 million This totals $43.5 million in Assessed Valuation and, as stated above, $76 million in Equalized Assessed Valuation and this increased Equalized Assessed Valuation does help to maintain a steady Levy for a Tax Rate. In relationship to that "typical Mount Prospect home," any $1 million debt of a G.O. Bond indebtedness would result in a Real Estate Tax increase of $3.68. Thus, if $3 million of indebtedness is issued, that homeowner would be taxed an addi- tional $11.04; and $4 million would require an increased annual Tax of $14.,72. This, is based on a 7-1/2% interest rate at a twenty-year "term on the Bond iss ' ue. There is much discussion currently as we are all aware of the future role of Municipal Bonds. Attached, marked Exhibit C, is one such article. Other financing approaches include use of the Capital Improvement Reserve of $1 million and out of the Water Fund Reserve which tatals $2.5 millionperhaps an additional, $1 million. Mr. Jepson advised me that he believes 409 of the cost of the Mount Prospect Public Works Department Is attributable to water or sewer activities. He stated that 44% of the employees and 46% of the equipment are chargeable to the Water Fund. Thus, another analysis to take and to examine is to assess 40% of a Public Works facility to the Water Fund. For example, if we were to fund a $5.5 million facility using $1 million from Capital Project Fund, $1 million from Water Fund, 60% from Property Tax and 40% from the water rate, the net result (again on that $130,000 home) would be $7.74 increase in the annual Property Tax and an increase in the water charge for the year of $8.10. This water charge is based on a family using 7500 gallons, of water per month. Attached, marked* Exhibit D, is a breakdown of above figures. Io Do ABATEMENT OF Ge Go BOND COSTS In presenting a "Case" to the public in securing their support, it is important to work in any f uture abatement of the Go 0. Issue. Attached, marked Exhibit E, is a map of the property that the Village owns next to Clearwater Park. Also attached, marked Exhibit F, is Mr. Bencic's estimates of the cost to relocate the sewer line. In addition, the Village purchased Sunrise Park a number of years ago using revenue from the Water Fund. The theory at that time was that the Village would need land on which to place storage for Lake Michigan water. However, the Village purchased water from a system which does not require reservoirs of the degree that was planned for years ago. This land is extremely valuable. Although I am sure that it will always be kept open, if you looked at it in terms that 26 sin homes could be built on that site and if you sold off the lots at $50,000, you can see the value that has now been built into that land. I had talked to Mr. Rose, President of the Mount Prospect Park District, in the spring and stated that the two Boards would have a Saturday morning get-together in the fall. We may wish to talk to thern, about passing title of certain properties to them and in addition securing some funding back. As I stated on September 13, 1 strongly believe that if a Village seeks Bonds, it should at the same time seek to re-establish a AA credit rating through Standard and Poor which was 4' lost in 1976. Further, the operating budget for a new building must be determined as best as possible and fully discussed. In addition, I believe that we should seek "Build Illinois Funds-" I tried to do thi's for the Prospect Meadows sewer problem but I would also like to see an effort made on this building. If Arlington Heights can receive $300,000 for their parking garage, I would hope that Mount Prospect could receive an equal amount. The existing building and its possibilities and projections should be more thoroughly discussed and examined. We have had in the past, as you are aware, a number of reports and studies on that area and it can go forth and be analyzed at this time* The alternative approaches should be put out based again on the criteria that onle Is was used in any studies -o Again, questions are raised and will be, raised by the public on this and the answers must be prepared. I again present the above statement as an outline and approach that can be taken and I will loolk at the Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday for your interest and/or responses CAROLYN H. KRAUSA CHK/rcw attachments Land Materials Site Work ,.RECYCLING CENTER AT PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 'ESTIMATED EXPENSES 10,000 square feet at $2.00 Oil Recovery Tank (used) 1,000 6 Containers (glass, paper aluminum) 12,000 Steps, Covers 29000 Signage 500 Paving* Lighting Feming, Screening TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS Annual O,pe,rat,'ing - Expe� nse** Estimated Annual Revenue** 161000 Z90,00 4,000 $57,500 209000 169000 Assumes 80% site coverage for hard surfaces. Based upon our averages for fiscal years 1979-1981 plus inflation factor of 25%. V, N ex�;1. Announcement Recyc ♦ . n4 r The Illinois Solid Waste Management Act authorizes the Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) to provide recycling grants to businesses and not-for-profit and governmental organizations. ENR is soliciting proposals from qualified applicants by September 30, 1986. All recycling grant proposals must: a) be consistent with any existi.ng, solid waste management plan; b) provide letters of support c) demonstrate knGwledge and/or prior experience; d) provide evidence of markets for increased volumes of materials recycled. Within any of these categories, the types of material eligible for grant fund - 0 ng are restricted to certain categories of paper; ,glass (clear, amber, green, mixed); plastics (high density polyethylene; polyethylene terephthalate (PET)); certain categories of metals; compostable yard wastes (leaves, grass clippings, etc .) . The maximum grant awardsill $10,000 • $25,000 depending cat- egory.funding matchofat least1 ofthe♦ project irequired encouragesfor all proposals. The Department ive _ greater toproposals with,monetaryrk.: a match), • services _ funding(soft match) may be used to meet the 50% For a copy of the Request for Proposal please contact: Illinois Departament of Energy and Natural Resources 325 West Adams Springfield, Illinois 62704 Or call toll free: 1-800-252r8955 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITT FINANCING OPTIONS 60/ a0/ of the cost to be provided by property taxes 400 of the cost to be provided by water revenue 7-1/2;'© 7-1/2/6 Interest 20 Year Term $5.5 Million Total Cost $3.5 Million Loan Debt Service '0981 Debt Service Factor $ 98,100 Annual Debt Service per $1 Million $343,350 Annual Debt Service per $3.5 Million Financing _Requirements Tax LLvX, Water Fund Annual Debt Service $2069010 $137,340 Tax Levy Requirement 3987� Water Rate Requirement 90 - 1,000 gallons Tax Levy per $20,000 EAV $7.74 y. Annual Water Cost for Typical User $8010 IF 1pyllm"� '10 If jO MOO %-wh4 uw 10 . ... .ry uwoauth 001A llwlvdl .4, 1-40t ,' z"r,m x.F . . . ................. . .... .. . i �* °�� lb �� I � d 10H.—M imp -1114 Sk ai Ru a ie lug ow*wk IIS ryry U J if ... ... ... .. Wa,, 2 mm am *�04 I .— — -- —I.— ow m I Village of cunt row e Moum ospect, Illinois T0: Director, Public Works FROM V i I I age Eng ineer DATE: September 9, 1986 SUBJECT: Clearwater Park - 54" Storm Sewer Relocation Pee your request following is a cost estimate for relocation of the existing 54" storm sewer at Clearwater Park. 1) Connection to Existing Structure 1 EA @ $2000 $ 2,000 2) 54" Concrete Pipe 800 LF 0 $81 / 647800 3) Special Manhole 1 EA @ $5000 5,000 4) Headwall 1 EA 0 $5000 5,000 5) Remove Existing 54" pipe 522 FT @ $5O/FT 26y100 6) Restoration 7500 SY a $4/SY 309000 Total Estimated Cost to Remove and Replace 5411 Storm Sewer $132,'9"00 Chuck D rtment ts 1111now epa of rtanspo on Division of lighways" i'rlt 1 1' 00 Plaza Drive/Schaumburg, Illinois/60196 Project and Environmental Studies FAU 2692; 'Wolf Road U.S. Route 12 to Euclid Avenue Cook County September 15, 1986 The Honorable Carolyn He Krause, Mayor Village of Mount Prospect 100 south Emerson Mt. Prospect, IL 60+056 Dear Mayor Krause: Please be advised that the Illinois Department of Transportation will held a Public Hearing to discuss the proposed improvement of Wolf Road from U.S. Route 12 to Euclid Avenue in the village of Mt. Prospect and City of Des Plaines: Date: October 2, 1986 Time: 7:30 p.m. Place River Trails Junior Nigh School 1000 Wolf Road Mount Prospect, IL Attached for your information is a copy of the Public Notice which appears as a legal notice in the September 2, and 25, 1986 editions of the Paddock Publications (Mt. Prospect and Des Plaines newspapers) and the September 3, and 26, 1986 editions of the Journal and Topics Publications (Mt. Prospect and Des Plaines newspapers). Should you have any questions regarding the proposed improvement, please call Ms. Nancy Magnus at 312/884--40876 Very truly yours, Ralph C. Wehner District Engineer By ;t teolewt6&1110 Kennet F. Macander Project and Environmental Studies Section Chief KFM / NLM / , j r STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPVP ION SPRINGFIELD, ILLI LEGAL NOTICE A Public Hearing has, been scheiduled for the proposed' tmprovemmt to Wolf Road from U.S. 12 (Rand Road) to Euclid, Avenue. This Hearing is stheduled for Thursday,, October 2,,, 1986 at 7:30 pm.*in Ue gymnasium of River Trails Jr., High, S,cho,o,l,,, 1,000 Wolf Road., Mount Prospect. The Hearing will be conducted by pers,onnel of the Illinois Department of Transportation and from, the firm of Delon Hampton & Associates,, which is the consulting engineering firm conducting the studies for the Depart.. nen t. The propos,al to improve Wolf Road consists of widening Wo1f Road from two lanes to four - lanes plus a, 12' me,dtan,, widening a,nd,,,, intersection improvements, at two, major intersections,, and replacement of the bridge over Feehanville Dtich with a double box culvert. The roadway will be reconstructed with curb and gutter and closed storm sewer system for the pavement, There are areas -along Wolf Road where,, right**,of'-*wa,y and/or easements will be acquired to accommodate the proposed improvement. The tentative schedules for right-*ofwway acquisition and construction will be discussed at, the hearing., The Illinois Departmen*t of Transporta- tion's Riel` ocat ion Assistance and Payment Program and land acquisition procedures 'will also be discussed at the Hearing. Interested persons will be afforded an opportunity to present their oral and written statements, comments, views, and ideas concerning the proposal at, this lielaring,. Written statements,, if not presented during the Hearing., may, be mai'lled or delivered to the Illinois Department ,of Transportations Division of Highways. District One,, 10DO Plaza Drive, Schaumburg, Illinoi's 601961, no 'later than October 16, 19860 A preliminary Environmental Assessment has been pr'epared for the proposed highway proJect, Copies of this document and' other pertinent data and exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Hearing. Written coriurvnt,s, addressing the TA are due by October 16, 1,986, and should be mailed or delivered to the Illinois Department of Transporta- tion, Division of Highways, District One, 1000 Plaza Drive, Schaumburg, Illinois 60196, The Hearing will be accessible to handicapped individuals in - compliance with Executive Order No. 5 and pertinent, State and Federal I AWS Upon notification of anticipated attendance. Handicapped persons planning to attend and needing special accommodations should contact either by telephone or letter, Ms. Nancy Ma,gnus (322)/8844087L Illinois Department of Transportation, Schaumburg, Illinois 60196 by September 2910 1986, to inform her of their anti cipated attendance, BY ORDER OF HARRY HANLEY SECRETARY