HomeMy WebLinkAbout0757_001MINUTE,
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
SEPTEMBER 22, 1987
L ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor
Carolyn Krause, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley and George Van Geem.
Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Leo Floros, Norma Murauskis and
Theodore 'Wattenberg. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John
Fulton Dixon, Assistant to the Village Manager Michael Janonis, Director of
Planning and Zoning Steve Park, Director of Finance David Jepson, Jack Pettigrew
of Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen and Payne andthe members of the TIP' Ad Hoc
Committee. Also present were two persons from the print media.
II. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of September 8, 1987 were
accepted and filed.
III. CITIZENS To BE HEARD
There being no citizens present who wished to address the Board on any item not
on the Agenda,, the Committee moved on to the next item of business.
IV. T'ARGET AREA A - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Mayer Carolyn H. Krause reviewed with those present at the meeting a general
overview of the process of designating portions of the central business area as Tax
Increment Financing Districts. The Mayor also reviewed the work of the Ad Hoc
Committee appointed to study alternate development proposals for Target Area A.
Paul Hoefert, Chairman of the TIP` Ad Hoc Citizens' Committee, presented the
Committee's final report and asked that the Trustees take into account eight major
parameters that the Committee felt was important in choosing a suitable
for development Target Are These r eters included:(1)Design and
� g
ual ty; (2) T'r,aff,c, (3) Height,* 4) Owner***Occupted, housing* (5) Landscaping; (6)
Density; (7) Parking and (8) Financial stability and experience of the developer.
Director of Planning and Zoning Stephen Park reviewed with Committee members
Stephen
the activities of his staff in providing support and research for the Ad Hoc
Citizens' Committee. This work included the, hiring of a Traffic Consultant and a
Certified Land Appraiser to determine the impact of increased traffic * in the
neighborhood and to get an idea of the impact on property values vis-a-vls differ ng
types of developments. Mr. Park Indicated that, he and his, sta ff ,was looking for
direction from the Board to proceed with whatever type, of development the Board
desired and to set some parameters for the sale of the property,*
Jack Petigrewt of Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen and Payne, reviewed with the Board the
timetable for beginning the design and construction phase of the project.
Mr. Pettigrew indicated that the major goal of this phase of the development was
the signing of a final development agreement and a contract of sale. He estimated
this process would take from four to six months. This would hopefully allow for
spring construction.
There was general discussion among Board members:
Mayor Krause indicated that the Ad Hoc Committee had, been "in, con:
tact with
ass,d
approximately 15 developers and had also met on severaI occ ,,i,s
no, to dicuss esign,
and," financial consi'derations as well as taking a field tri"P, to view model, developlo",
meets. Mayor Krause indicated that staff had been responsible for checking on the
financial background of each of the developers. The Mayor then briefly reviewed
W#, ng co i J�
'Ith Committee members the three types of develop bei nsidered*
4'
na,mely, condom, , imiums, apart,ments or townhornes. The Mayor asked tha':t the Board,
give direction to the staff so that they could begin the next phase of development.
Trustee Ralph Arthur complimented the Ad Hoc Committee on their work and
indicated that he supported the plan for townhomes,* While this particular
development would not generate the requisite amount of tax increment, the
shortfall was manageable and this type of development was conducive to the
neighborhood. Trustee Arthur also expressed concern that the Village receive the
purchase price of the land upfront and felt that the Village should be very firm on
a price for the land.
Trustee George Van Geem stated that he was pleased with the progress in Target
Area A; namely, the removal of the dilapidated buildings on the site. Trustee Van
Geern indicated that his concern was not only for the type of development and its
impact on the neighborhoods but also on the possibility of revitalizing the central
business district through an increase in the number of people closely situated to it..
Trustee Van Geem 'Indicated that he supported the condominium development
because it would, in his estimation, bring more people into the downtown area.
Mayor Carolyn Krause *Indicated that she supported the townhorne development
because it was compatible with the existing neighborhood and was very high
quality. Mayor Krause *Indicated that upon review of all proposals, it was readily
apparent that the townhome developer was far and, away, the best proposalo She
also *Indicated that the financial background of the townhouse developer was
excellent*
Aft, 2
Trustee Gerald Farley indicated that he was undecided as to which of the
developments was preferable. Instead, Trustee Farley proposed that there be a
head-to-head competition among developers in each of the different categories,,
Through this competition, Trustee Farley felt that the best development would
emerge.
Upon Trustee Farley's request, Finance Director David Jepson briefly reviewed with
the Committee the financial implications of each of the proposed developments.
Mr Jepson indicated that the apartment development would produce sufficient
Increment in and of itself to meet the needs of debt service for Target Area, A,
whim -le, townhouses and condominiums were approximately $50,000-$60,000 short on an
annual basis However, r Jepson indicated that if the townhouse development
was chosen, it would be possible to meet the debt service requirements of the
District with a net increase of 1.5 gents to the Tax late over a 23 --year period.
Mayor Krause indicated that the estimated $100,000 shortfall over the life of the
10
project was not an insurmountable amount and that future Boards would not have a
problem with funding that deficit. It was the Mayor's contention that it was
possible that townhouses may even produce a surplus and that future TIF
developments would also contribute to an increases increment.
Trustee Farley indicated that he felt philosophically that each Target Area, should
stand on its own ,and felt that his concept of multiple negotiations would result in
a self-sufficient project.
Ad Hoc: committee Chairman Paul Hoefert{ pointed out that once the old Public
Works facility was added to the tax roles the additional resulting increment could
cover the shortfall. He also indicated that the Ad Hoc Committee preferred to
see the townhouse development pursued.
Trustee Van Geem indicated that he felt townhouse development would not provide
the "shot in the arm" that the central business district needed to remain viable.
There was general discussion with citizens indicating their preference for the
townhome development.
Further discussion among Committee members resulted in no +consensus. The Mayor
polled the individual members of the Committee and the result was:
Townhouses -- Trustee Arthur, Mayor Carolyn Krause
Condominiums - Trustee Van Geem
Undecided - Trustee Farley
The Mayor indicated that she would send a memo out to the Committee members
and poll the Board for direction which would be passed along to the staff.
3
Village Manaerer John Fulton Dixon indicated that the Village had issued
"'0
approximately 145,000 in emergency flood loans.
VIII-sANY OTHER BUSINESS
There being no other business before the Committee, the Committee moved on to
the next item of business*
IX* ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to be conducted by the Committee of the Whole, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
MEJ/rcw
Respectf ully sub mittedy
MICHAEL E. JANONI.
Assistant to the Village Manager
*"0 4 -
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM I: David C. Jepson, Director of Finance
RE: Purchase of Word Processing Equipment and
Personal Computers
DATE:
October 9, 1987
Two areas that were addressed in the English Computer Study in
1986 that have not been implemented are word processing and micro
computers, or as they are commonly called personal computers
(PC's). The study recommended that when the Village's existing
word processing equipment needed replacement, it should be
replaced with personal computers. The reason for the
recommendation is because a PC provides all the functionp of a
dedicated word processor as well as other computer capabilities
at a lower cost. The recommendation regarding micro computers was
that they could be utilized more effectively in a number of
different Village departments than using the Village's System 36
computer,,
The Village currently has ten Exxon word processors which are
used only for word processing. These units were purchased in
1983 and 1984 and have served the Village well. However, Exxon
no longer makes this equipment and maintenance has been a
problem. During the 86/87 fiscal year a total of $2,181.15 was
expended for service calls for an average of $218 per machine.
Through September of the 87/88 fiscal year (5 months) we have
expended $3,730.25 for ani average, of $373. We have four units
which seem to have repeated problems and in my opinion should be
replaced. Some of the components can be used on the remaining
machines, however, it is only a matter of time before all the
units will need replacement.
In the personal computer -area,, a supplemental report was prepared
early in 1987 which showed the various applications for PC's.
The areas with the greatest potential were Code Enforcement,,
Planning and Zoning, Police and Engineering. The Police
Department subsequently obtained some equipment to interface with
the PIMS System, I believe the other areas mentioned could make
good use of PC' s as soon as they could be obtained .
Funds for replacement of word processing equipment and purchase
of PC's were included in the bond issue that was sold on
June 1, 1987. A total of $150,000 was included for this purpose.
The funds were tentatively allocated as follows:
System 36 Computer $65,000
System 36 Software $20r000
Word Processors and PC's $65,000
At the present time approximately $5,000 has been expended for
the Police equipment, leaving a balance of $60,000 for word
processing equipment and PC's.
Since the supplemental report in January, 1987, we have had
specific requests from Code Enforcement and Fire Administration
for PC's as well as the four word processors that should be
replaced. Additionally, I think one PC should be purchased for
the Manager's Office and one additional PC should be added to the
Police Administration area. Following is a list of the equipment
that is being considered:
Village Manager
1
PC
Planning & Zoning
1
Word Processing Replacement
Clerk's Office
2
Word Processing Replacements
Code Enforcement
1
PC
Police Administration
1
PC
1
Word Processing Replacement
Fire Administration
1
PC
Currently we are anticipating purchasing IBM System/2 personal
computers for use as word processors and personal computers, The
cost ranges between $3,000 and $3,500 per unit depending on the
features and software included. This equipment is included on
the State of Illinois joint -purchasing contract which provides
very favorable prices.
It is my recommendation that we request the Village Board to
waive the bidding procedures and authorize the Village Manager to
purchase the equipment listed above at State contract prices or
the lowest quotes that can be obtained. These purchases would
probably be made over the next three months. Additionally, it
would be advantageous if the Village Board would authorize the
use of the existing funds from the bond issue to replace the
remaining six word processors as needed over the next six to
twelve months and to purchase other PC's as justified,
Specifically, the request should be to waive bidding procedures
for purchasing word processing equipment and personal computers
over the next twelve months at an amount not to exceed $60,000,
*avid C. Jepson
Director of Finance
l a a of, Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois 111 14 m7f, 4 PYI
INTFROFFICE MEMORANDUM
T 0 Village Manager
FROM: Director Public Works
DATE : September 21 , 1987
SUBJECT: Central Road Improvement - Rand to Wolf
For several years our long range plans have included widening
Central Road to four lanes between Wolf and Rand. There are
several factors influencing this plan, one being that St. Emily's
Church midway between the two major intersections is on a section
of a two lane road and not only is there heavy traffic for church
functions but there is also a school connected with this parish,
Further, in the near future the Village of Mount Prospect and the
City of Des Plaines are scheduled to take -jurisdictional transfer
of Wolf Road between Rand and Euclid after the State widens it
from its current two lane status to four lanes.
Long range projections show that the continued development of the
Opus Industrial Park would be the impetus needed for widening of
the roads to improve traffic flow, and the short bottleneck be-
tween Rand and Wolf we feel should be addressed in a very
positive manner.
I have had preliminary discussions with the City of Des Plaines
Engineering Division and they had indicated a willingness to
participate in the cost as part of the area that borders their
community. The State of Illinois has suggested that they would
pick up most of the cost of the improvements if Mount Prospect
would agree to jurisdictional transfer upon completion.
At the current time a Phase I study would be a full environmental
impact document that must be undertaken in order 'to stay on the
priority list with the Northwest Municipal Conference. We had
originally estimated $80,000 for the Phase I study of which our
share would have been $24,000 if we paid the full 30/10 after the
government paying the remaining 701/yO. If we decide to accept jur-
isdictional transfer the State will pick up half of the 30% and
our cost will be $12,000 less any negotiated share with the City
of Des Plaines,
If we are willing to proceed with this project we should ,elect
three to four consultants and ask for RFP I s on the Phase I
Intergovernmental Impact Study. We would also need to send a
letter to the State of Illinois requesting their participation in
this cost and probably commit ourselves to a jurisdictional
transfer.
1 \ / .1 -Imf ^ 1,/
age cf,M'cunt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM I'
TOO
Village Manager
FROM: Deputy Director Public Works
DATE: October 7, 1987
SUBJ: Prospect Meadows Sanitary District Dissolution
and Final Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)
Back in the early part of 1985, we were, notified by 'the, Prospect
Meadows Sanitary District that they wereproceedi'ng w ith dissolu.,,
tion of their District. This was in, li,ne with the provisions of
Sectio,n 447.1 of C'hapter 42 of the 1,11-inois Revised Statutes.
Our atfor n,ey's interpretatilon of thi,S statute, is �that sshould the
Sanitary D11strict's terr,!-itory be entirely contained -within the
Corporate limlts: of Mount Prospect, we have no choice but to
assume transfer of all associated assets, personal property and
responsibility of the sewer system*
On November 25, 1986, the District's attorneyt Mr. Edward J.
Bradley Jr. forwarded to the Village the following signed
documents:
10 Two assignments
2*1 Two assignments of easement
3* Two indemnification assignments
4* Three Bills of Sale
5o Financial Statement for May 31t 1985
64� A check from Prospect Meadows Sanitary District to the
Village of Mount Prospect in the amount of $16,915.06.
Execution of these documents was put on holdpending results of
the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) authorized by the
Village Board in January of 1986. This contract was with
Donohue & Associates for the sum of $32tOOO.
At the time we were notified of the District's dissolution the
District was under violation by the MSD* for failure to comply
with 'their "Show Cause" hearing for extraneous, flows. In order
to appease the MSD the Village passed a Resolution choosing the
ICAP a-Iternative for the Prospect MeadowsSen,itary District. This
was done in conjunction with the Village`sICAP' Resolution. Since
that time Donohue, &I Associates completed 'the, SES Interim Report
and three copies were submitted to the MSD as required by the
ICAP alternative in February of 19,87.
Like the Village's Interim SSES Report, the Prospect Meadows
Report had identified all sources of Infiltration/Inflow(I/I),
but did not include data from flow monitorinaA, The cast-AffPPf1VA
SM
anal
developed, wevers, d�etermined -at the, MSDIs cos,t, to�
transp�ort e,nd treat the excess was $3.8,2 p�er gallon per da,y
B
(gpd). ased on this, ana,lysis it was cost effecti"Ne to repair all
those defects; that have a, unit, cost, Jess than the $3.82/gpd, This
equated to a total rehabilitation program of $66,4,,,435.
The flow, monitoring program conducted this past summer was to
determJL,ne current I/I levels wit
,thln the D.1sricts sanitary sewer
system and to update the rep a' ir cost-effective analysis based on
those flows, The flow monitoring, revealed an 1/1 flow rate of'
1065 gallons per, capitaper day, (g�pcpd)t which far exceeds the
150 gpcpd MSD stand' ardt and a new transport an,d treatment unit
cost of $2. s0/
0p he reduced uni,t cost is due to a, higher
Population equivalent used and lower 1/1, flow rates compared 'to
the estimated ones used in the Interim Report.,
,,
Per the terms of the ICAP alternat0ive we are required to repair
all defect repair unit costs which are lower than the new MSD
transportation and treatment unit, cost shown in Appendix "C', of
the attached Final SSES Report. Donohue, esti,mates, these repairs
to cost an estimated $612'v,210, (${66v510-Publict $45,9010 -Private),
which includes engineering and conti,ngency fees. Once the,
repairs, are ma,de the I/I 'flow r,ate would be reduced to 572.gpcpd.
This 'is still morthan the 1,50 gpcpd MSD standard, but under the
W
ICAP alternative it would bring the District into compliance and
,set their standard at 572" gpc,pd,,
Another requirement of the ICA P alternative, J*.s that plans and
specificati,ons, for public sector work be subm,itted to the,
MSC....no,
lat,er than January 1, 1988t and construction work to begin no
later thanJul,y 1, 1988., A, program pl,an 'for correction of
private sector I/I sources should be developed no later than
January, 1,, 1988. Donohue estimates that the design engineering
portion of the rehab work would cost between $50,000 and $55,000,
The Village Board is now faced with two decisions:
10 Authorize the Mayor to sign all those documents
related to the dissolution of the Prospect Meadows
Sanitary District,
2. Should the Village absorb the costs of the rehab
program or should they be passed on to those
residents within the Prospect Meadows Sanitary
District.
Earlier this year we received notice from the Illinois EPA that
there may ay be funds available through Governor Thorn son's "Build
Illinois" program. However, in August we were notified that the
General Assembly had failed to i)ass legislation expanding the
funding for "Build Illinois" a*nd' that it would be solely our
respons,lbility to fund this project,
-3-
I request that this report be presented to the Mayor and Board of
Trustees at their October 13th Committee of the Whole meeting and
request permission to submit this final SSSS Report to the MBD
for their review and approval. Also, during the MSD' s review
time the Village Board will need to authorize the design
engineering that must to be completed prior to January 1, 1988
and construction work to be started by July 1, 1988.
e -nR, A,n 1e
Deputy Director Public works
I concur with this recommendation:
u0
He'rberT L. eeks
Director Public Works
GPA/J
cc Herbert L. Weeks
Jerry McIntosh
Village' of, Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Deputy Director Public Works
DATE: October 7, 1987
SUBJECT: MSD Sewer Summit Agreement
Final Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSSS)
In November of 1986 Donohue & Associates was retained by the
Village to prepare an Interim SSSS Report for submittal to the
MSD by January of 1987. The essence of this report was to take
the original 1979 SSSS report and update it to 1986 MSD standards
and costs for transportation and treatment of effluent. This
report was incomplete in that 'it did not include figures from
flow monitoring of our sanitary sewer system. The flow monitor-
ing was completed this past Summer and Donohue has now incorpor-
ated those figures into their final SSES report (see attached).
Before summarizing Donohue's findings, I feel it necessary to
briefly outline the specifics of the 1979 SSSS report and the
Sewer Summit Agreement,
The original SSSS report included a survey of our entire
separate sanitary sewer system to identify sources of infiltra-
tion/inflow (I/I) of storm water into the sanitary sewer system.
This report was submitted to both the MSD and the Illinois EPA
back in 1979.
The MSD required this report as a means to satisfy our "Show
Cause Hearing Case #407511 of extraneous flows. In the case of
the Illinois EPA their review of the report was necessary to
obtain our Step 2 and 3 Sewer Rehabilitation Grants for design
and repairs.
In 1979 the MSD' s position was that all sources of I/I identi-
fied must be removed from the sanitary sewer system in order to
meet a 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) flow rate* On the
other hand the Illinois EPA would only fund the removal of those
sources of I/I that were cost-effective to repa-.1r. T h i was
based on the analysis of whether it was cheaper to repair the
source of I/I or transport and treat it.
In 1986 the Village completed a $1.2 million Sewer Rehabilitation
Project repairing those items that were approved by the Illinois
EPA and identified as cost-effective to repair in the 1979 SSSS
Report. The final phase of this project was "Certification",
. . . L.. 4 . 1.41 ; --% a a J-% I a A ift A ; i ^^ n -r-, immmml inn nf�hniao Qpnf innq n
-2 -
sanitary sewer system . This certification process was required
by the Illinois EPA to document the performance and workmanship
of the project. It also served as our means of determining
whether or not we are now in compliance with the MSD standards.
Over the past several
years a number
of communit ies have
complet-
ed Step 3 construction projects and
have been unable to
meet the
MSD's gpcpd. As a
result of this
the Northwest Municipal
Conference initiated
negotiations
with the MSD to try
and get
them to change their
standards.
The outcome of these
negotia-
tions resulted in the
following new
standards:
is Average daily wet weather flows shall not exceed 150
gpcpd, are,
2. The "I/I Corrective Action Program (ICAP)11 alterna-
tive. This alternative represented the incremental
correction of excessive I/I removal from a cost-
effective analysis*
Because the ICAP alternative allows for more flexibility the
Village adopted a Resolution in February of 1986 choosing the
ICAP alternative for our Sewer Rehabilitation Project.
As a requirement of the ICAP alternative, the Village was
required to submit an Interim SSSS Report by January, 1987. This
report was to contain the revised list of sources of I/I that
remained to be corrected after removing those items repaired
under our Step 3 Grant and by factoring in the MSD I s new trans-
portation and treatment costs. Donahue completed this report and
copies were submitted to the MSD in February 1987. 10,
The cost-effective analysis developed in Donohue's Interim Report
determined that the new unit cost to transport and treat excess
I/I was $4.77 per gallon per day (gpd) based an MSD guidelines.
Using this unit cost and per the terms of the ICAP alternative
we would have to repair all those defects and sources of 1/1
having a unit rehabilitation cost of less than $4.77 gpd. This
meant an additional Sewer Rehabilitation program at a cost of
$99692460
A major portion of this cost was represented by 642 improper sump
pump connections at a cost to repair of $642,000, Disconnection
of these sump pumps is currently under way as part of our
Building Inspection Program. To date 608 of these sumo pumps
C
have been disconnected. The remaining 34 have been sent reminder
notices and will be disconnected shortly*
In order to aid us during the Flow Monitoring Program and help
reduce our remaining repair costs, Public Works personnel
repaired some defects identified in the Interim Report, such as
so
replacing manhole covers and manhole sealing, using budgeted
sewer maintenance funds. No other repairs were made pending the
outcome of the final report.
The Flow Monitoring Program conducted this past Summer was to
determine current I/I levels within the Village's sanitary sewer
system and to develop a new defect repair cost-effective
analysis based on the new MSD standa-rds'. The flow monitoring
revealed an I/I flow rate of' 544 ga,lions per capita per day
(gpcpd), which far exceeds the 150 gpcpd MSD standard, and a new
trans ort, and treatment unit,, cost of $3.27 gpd. This compares to
an I/I flow rate of 235 gpcpd and a unit cost o f $ 1 . 62 gpd that
was contained in the 1979 report.
During the original SSSS (1979), no flow projections were
required and, therefore, the I/I presented in the 1979 report was
much less than -identified in Donohue's final report. It is also
reasonable to believe that some additional I/I has developed
since the 1977 'investigations due to natural deterioration and
growth of the sanitary sewer system. Regarding the MSD's cost of
transporting and treating excess clear water at the O'Hara
facility, MSD's cost,s, have doubled since 1979 ($1.62 gpd to $3.27
gpd) . As a result, of' this, many I/I -defects have become cost-
effective to repair that were not determined cost-effective in
the 1979 report.
Per the terms of the ICAP alternative we are required to repair
are
Ur%
all defect repair unit costs wh,]*L,,c'h lower than the new MSD
transportation and treatment unit cost shown in Appendix I'D" of
the Final SSSS Report. Donohue estimates these repairs to cost
an estimated $2739012 ($198,820 -Public, $74p192 -private), which
includes engineering and contingency fees. After these repairs
our I/I flow rate would be reduced to 432 gpcpd. This is still
more than the 150 gpcpd MSD standard, but under the ICAP alterna-
tive it would bring us into compliance and set our standard at
432 gpcpd,,
4Another requirement of the ICAP alternative is that plans and
specifications for public sector work be submitted to the MSD no
later than January 1, 1988, and construction work to begin no
later than July 1, 1988. A program plan for correction of
private sector I/I sources should be developed no later than
January 1, 1988. Donohue estimates that the design engineering
portion of the rehab work would cost between $17,000 and $20,000.
At this point it is my recommendation that Donohuel.F.-I, final SSSS
Report be presented to the Mayor and Board of Trustees at the
October 13th Committee of the Whole meeting, and if approved
submitit to the MSD. Once they approve the report we should
secure a consultant to prepare the plans and specifications for
. 4.
submittal to the MSD by January 11 1988. We had budgeted $80,000
for the flow monitor contract, but due to an abbreviated flow
monitoring period it is estimated to be a maximum expenditure of
$52,000. The remaining funds would then be available to cover
the cost of design engineering. Funds for the constructions
costs would have to be discussed during next year's budget
hearings. e
Earlier this year I checked into the availability of funding
through the proposed expansion of Governor Thompson's "Build
Illinois" project . At that time I was told that those agencies
who had already received any type of grant would not be eligible
for funds. Also, just this past August we received notice that
the General Assembly had failed to pass legislation expanding the
funding for "Build Illinois".
Deputy Director Public Works
GRA/j
I concur with this recommendationt
------ . ...
Herber L. W—eeks
Dir'ector Public Works
cc: H. L. Weeks
Jerry McIntosh
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I'ILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
This summary was developed to provide an overview of the various
activities which have been undertaken'
by the Village of Mount
Prospect in their continued efforts to re "
duce the quantity o f
infiltration a n d inflow (i.a�entering their
r se crate
sanitary
sewer system.
This first program began in 1977 with
the initiation of a sewer
system evaluation survey (SsEs) which consisted
of the follawing
investigations: flow monitoring,ma inspections, Whale inspections, smoke
testing, dye water flooding, and internal .
'� rnal sewer television
inspection. During the flow monitoring program, several meters
experienced surcharged conditions during the recorded rainfall
events* These conditions revealed that the r
re was a significant
I/I problem existing within the Village's g system and no precise
Flow monitoring data was obtained. However, a peak I`/= rate of
3.625 mgd was determined from those defects' •
identified during
system investigations. Data collected throughout the study was
evaluated and photographs and field observations of defects were
used to estimate flows.
From the SSES results, a rehabilitation
program was developed
including those defects which were-
cost-effective to repair.
A rehabilitation program was covered under the Step 3 grant
funding program which included rehabilitation •
�.on constructx.on in the
public sector. This program had an
I/I reduction goal of
approximately 1.56 mgd after defect re .
were
effectiveness ra�:es
wel a cons.i.de.i. ad, as required and rei. current �"
MSDGC guidelines.
Actual. Y/ I reduction may be more than 1.56 m .
g`d . Construction on o f
corrective work was completed in '1986o Inaddition, the Village
rehabilita-
tionoboth privateand public i `signifi-
cant
undertaken ! " Village removal ! approximately
630 sump pumps throughan extensive disconnectionprogram,
Village • also replaced + additional manhole • !
reducesealed 68 manhole frame/ adjusting ring interfaces which will
or eliminate inflow entering sources,
entire in-whouseprogram conducted by Village has ! an
estimated1,787 w i of
A flow monitoring program was conducted in May and June of 1987
to determine current I/I levels within the Village's system,
as required * r ` defect " ! •
effective analysis based on new guidelines set forth in the MSDGC
Memorandum dated December 5, 1986* Under these new guidelines,
Ot is 1
required rrecorded flow ratesbe projected
durationreflect I/I associated with a 3 year recurrence interval storm
event of 2 hour ! projection
12.10 mgd of I/I. During the original SSES (1979) no such flow
projection was required, and therefore, the I/I presented in the
r • Report than identified our current
flow monitoring program, " a ! r ! to believe r some
additional I/I has developed since the 1977 investigations, from
natural deterioration and growth of the sanitary sewer system.
Although the I/ I peak flow rates appear to -have increased over
the years, the village has in fact, made significant progress in
reducing both infiltration and inflow in the private and public
sectors. During the recent flow monitoring program no signifi-
cant surcharging was experienced and overflows of the separate
sanitary sewers have been eliminated.
Based upon the current 1/1 flow rate, a
new cost-effective analy--
:� i s was performed to determine
�..� further rehabilitation is
needed within the Villa`. � -
�All defect repair unit costs which
are lower than the current Nis DGC trans •
portation and treatment
unit cost, have been included i ,
� an additional rehabilitation
program, The program must be undertaken•
by the Village to
conform to the requirements of the•
Ms DGC CAP (1/1 Correct �.ve
Action Program) program,
This new cast --effective analysis y has determined that an addi-
tional rehabilitation program be undertaken by the Village at an
estimated cost of $273,012,whi • ch lriC�,.11des engineering and
contingencies fees. A 2 0an ear �.
Y' planning period was used for the
cast analysis, therefore, the rehabilitation .
t�.r�n program includes the
costs incurred for those defects that' •
will l requ.�re repair more
than once over a 20 yeareriod. For r example, sealing a manhole
frame has an expected service life
of 10 years and would require
repair twi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Investigations od-
District in 1985 and 1986 to
butinginfiltrationand o
sewer system, In addition,
conducted in May d June o
flow rate*
ll•
within Prospect Meadows Sanitary
identify existing defects contri-
(I f I) to the separate sanitary
a flow monitoring program was
987 to determine the current I/I
Flow monitoring was conducted according to the guidelines set
forth in the MDCC Memorandum dated December 5, 1.986. A peak
f low rate associated with the occurrence' of a 3 year recurrence
interval storm was determined to be 874,100 gpd. With a popula-
tion equivalent of 821 PE for prospect Meadows sanitary District,
4
it appears that there are a great deal of problems existing
within their system.
with no previous rehabilitation construction being conducted
prier to flow monitoring, the high flow rates can be justified.
However, the high cast of transporting and treating the excess
clearwater resulted inmost of the defeats identified as being
cast -effective to repair. All defeat repair casts, method of
repair, repair efficiency, expected service lives and, transpor-
tation and treatment costs have been determined in accordance
with current MSDGC guidelines.
i
Based upon the results of the cast -effective analysis conducted
as part of the sewer system evaluation survey SSES) , a. rehabili-
tation program has been developed for Prospect Meadows that
� Would
cast an estimated $612,120 and remove an anticipated 32l► 865 gp d
�"
of excess I/I. The cost includes engineering and contingency
ncy
fees. It is required that plans and specifications for e
p h
public sector work be submitted to the MSDGC no later than
January 1. 1988, and construction of corrective Werk to begin no
later than July 1, 1988. A program plan for correction �` p n o f
private sector I/I sources should be developed no later than
January 1, 1988*
N
IS
M I N U T E S
Sept saber 23, 1987
W
1NEVIU-10�T'll �
V1 P ke 1:1111
The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Business District Development and Redevelop-
ment Coamission was held on Wednesday, September 23, 1987. The meeting was called to
order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Predovicb,
Members of the Commission present: Irvana Wilks, Earl Johnson, Merrill Cotten, and
Chairman Predovich, Absent were Commissioners McLean, Janisch and Keljik, Also
present was Jack Pettigrew, Consultant, Louie Velasco of the Village Plan Commission
and Kenneth Fritz, Econcmic Development Director.
The minutes of the September 9 meeting were approved as submitted on a motion by Earl
Johnson, seconded by irvana Wilks. The motion passed unanimously,
OLD BUS INESS
Tax Increment Finance District No. Target Area A
NO ON NO
Ch ml
air an Pr ich gave a recap --- o the m ers of the Comission regarding the dis-
cussion at the Committee of the Whole meeting. He indicated that many residents from
the -immediate area were in attendance at the meeting and supported a less dense
townhouse development for the Target Area site,, B.D.D.R.C. had gone on record earlier
as endorsing the concept presented by Rescorp which contained 131 apartment units. Mr.
Predovicb indicated that the Village Board would be considering action to designate a
developer with which to further define a development concept in the future, It was
anticipated that such action would be taken at the October 6 Village Board meeting.
After some discussion, the Comiss ion passed a motion which stated "based on infor-
mation on hand at this time, B.D.D.R.C. reaffirms the previous recommendation for
T,I,,F,, Target Area A indicating that the area. should 'be developed with 131 rental
unit§," The motion was passed, unanimously made, by Irvana Wilks and seconded by Earl
Johnson. The reasons cited for, this, mot,"Iton were as follows.,
1. Other proposals- that had been submitted are not concrete enough to change the
minds of the Commissioners at this time.
2. That the 130 plus rental units produces the greatest incrementO
3. The 130 plus rental units offers more opportunities for people to live downtown
and support downtown businesses,
Business District Development
and Redevelopment Commission
Minutes - September 23, 1987
Page Two
Expansion of T.I.F. Redevel. "I"It Area
Mt Jac']k Pett, grew,, Consultant wi, Tr la, Pettigrew, Allen and Payne was present to
discuss with the Criss loners the steps that will be necessary to either expand or
create a new T.I.F. District. The area of concentration as discussed by Chairman
Predovich with the Mayor, would focus on the Public Works garage site. Commissioners
discussed with r. Pettigrew the process and general timetable needed to meet the State
Statute requirements for an amended PUD District. The subject of the roll of the
0,
Commission, the staff, consultant, and Village Board was discussed.
,it was felt that the strate gy, for the, process to create or expand the develommen't wa,s
critical and should be done with the utmost care. It was recognized that the taxing
bodies need to be drawn into the discussion at the earliest appropriate time., The
Commissioners will be meetiong on a regular basis to outline the steps in this process,
ADJOURNME2ff
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. on a motion by Merrill Cotten, seconded by Earl
0
Johnson. The wtion passed unan,imously,
Kenneth Ho, Ftitzlt
Economic Development Diect
village of Mt.,,,nt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixo.i, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: October 9, 1987
SUBJECT: Real Estate Tax Stamp Procedure
I have been working on the forms and procedures for implementing ,the Real
Estate Transfer Tax and the Food and Beverage Tax which both are effective
November 1, 1987. One mailing has gone out to the 'retailers who will be
collecting the Food and Beverage Tax and an additional mailing of material
will be made prior to November 1, 1987. We have ordered the Real Estate
Transfer stamps and expect to have an informational mailing before the end
of next week* 4
One of the methods of selling the tax stamps used by some of the mu'nici-
palities is to make them available at certain other locations other than
the Village Hall. I have contacted Petersen and Haupt and they are willing
to sell the stamps for us in Chicago. Additionally, I have contacted Golden
Title Company in Mount Prospect and they would be willing to sell the stamps
for us. In any case where someone other than the Village is acting as our
agent for selling the stamps they would follow the same procedures as Village
personnel and would be responsible, for the value and -the, stamps they held.
I think it would be an advantage to the Village and helpful for those involved
i,n the real estate closings to have other locations where the stamps are
available. I am requesting the authority to continue working out details with
Petersen and Haupt and Golden Title Company for them to act as agents for the
Village to sell Real 'estate .Transfer Tax Stamps.
M
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: October 9, 1987
SUBJECT: Flood Loan Program
A total of 54 loan applications for the Village's Flood Loan Program have
been processed with total loans amounting to $359,000. All loan requests
were granted and all loans are scheduled to be disbursed by Saturday,
October 10, 1987. The loan applicants were made up of 53 homeowners and one
apartment resident. A summary of the number of loans and the amount of loans
granted is included on the attached schedule.
In order to qualify for a loan, the applicants were required to submit a
credit application, a statement of the flood damages sustained and how the
proceeds of the loan would be used. Additionally, an application fee of
$40.00 to cover the cost of a credit report was required. When the applica-
tions were received, they were reviewed for completeness and then submitted
to the Mount Prospect State Bank for a credit report. After the credit report
was obtained, a Note, Mortgage and Truth- In-Lendi ng Disclosure Form were pre-
pared along with a Village check for the loan amount. Generally the loans
were processed in 3 to 4 working days but in several cases, applications
which were received on Thursday and Friday were processed and the loan amount
disbursed on Saturday of the same week.
We have all been made aware of the destruction caused by the flood, but a
review of the statements of flood damage on the applications brings home the
personal devastation suffered by Village residents. Application after appli-
cation told of the complete loss of items that had been collected over a
lifetime, some of which can never be replaced. The loans are being used to
repair structural damage and replacement and/or repair of furnaces, appliances,
furniture, carpeting and many other items of personal property. A summary of
the statements indicated that approximately $210,000 will be used for structural
repairs and $149,000 for appliances, furniture, carpeting and personal items.
In administering this program, a special attempt has been made to advertise
the loans and :to accommodate the loan applicants. Three ads were pl aced i n
the Mount Prospect Herald and notices were included on all water bills mailed
during the month of September. Village Personnel have been available each
Saturday in September, the first two Saturdays of October and during evening
I
John Fulton Dixon
Page 2
1987 Flood Loan Program
hours when necessary. Sylvia McElderry, a secretary in the Finance Depart-
ment, deserves special mention. She has typed most of the documents,
contacted the applicants to set up appointments and helped with the closings.
Is
Barbara Dyon has prepared the special checks and other Finance employees
provided assistance when necessary.
I should also mention that Steve Markovits and John Beresheim of Mount
Prospect State Bank have provided invaluable assistance. Mr. Markovits and
Mr. Beresheim helped to establish the parameters of the program and Mr.
Beresheim personally reviewed each application. Mr. Markovits made a
commitment on behalf of the bank at the inception of the program to lend
whatever funds the Village would need for this program. Also, Mount Prospect
State Bank provided all the necessary forms, credit reports, amortization
schedules and payment booklets.
In regard to a plan for financing the loan program, it is my recommendation
that we borrow approximately 50% of the total amount of the loans and that
we finance the balance from available Village funds. I put together a number
of possible financing plans and discussed the advantages and disadvantages
with the Village Manager. Our conclusion is that the most advantageous plan
included a $175,000 bank loan @ 9% for five years and an advance of $184,000
of Village funds. The Village advance would be paid back over 10 years and
would include interest @ 8%. This plan provides a reasonable return on
Village funds and flexibility if loans are paid up ahead of schedule.
Additionally, it provides approximately $6,000 for loss and costs. The net
effect of the financing plan is that the on-going cost to the Village should
be limited to administrative time and any interest earnings on the Village
advance that would be lost if market investment rates exceed 8% in the future.
A summary of scheduled receipts and expenditures is included on the attached
schedule previously mentioned..
During the past week I contacted both the Mount Prospect State Bank (MPSB)
and First National Bank of Mount Prospect (FNB) regarding borrowing the
required funds. MPSB quoted 9% and FNB initially quoted 9j%. However, FNB
subsequently lowered their rate to 9%. Because of the limited amount of
funds to be borrowed, I do not think it would be practical to borrow a portion
from each bank. Accordingly, because of the excellent cooperation we have
received from MPSB in this program, it is my recommendation that we borrow
the $175,000 from MPSB.
It should be pointed out that the bank loan will not be a traditional
municipal loan which is exempt from Federal income tax. Because of the
nature of this loan, it will be a taxable municipal loan. With the current
prime rate at 911. the rate quoted is a very good rate.
John Fulton
Page 3
1987 Flood
Dixon
Loan Program
The steps that still need to be completed include filing the mortgages for
the 53 homeowner loans with the County Recorder and esi
tablishing nternal
collection procedures. (Finance personnel will collect the loans to help
keep costs to a minimum). Additionally, we will need an Ordinance authori-
zing the loan with MPSB. I am requesting that the Ordinance be presented
and adopted at the October 20, 1987 Board Meeting so the loan can be effective
November 1, 1987. Also, I believe we should adopt an Ordinance authorizing
the Flood Loan Program itself. These two Ordinances will be available for the
October 20, 1987 Board Meeting,
Further, one additional applicant qualified for a CDBG 0% interest loan and
has submitted an application for that program. The funds have not been
disbursed at this time but it is expected that a $15,000 loan will begranted
from CDBG funds. %
Finally, all' of the l'o,an, rec'I'pltints were thankful for the help that they re -
9
cei'ved and many asked me, to express their appreciation to the Village Board.
I beIieve , * t
1 1 s worth repeat,ing a portion of an editorial which appeared in
'the, Mount Prospect Herald on August, 210, 1987. The editorial stated:
"Instead of whining about the flood, Mount Prospect's
elected officials figured a way to help people quickly
without costing the Village bundles of money. The
Trustees didn't diddle around waiting for the Federal
government to bail out flood victims in the Village.
Instead, they dealt with a once-in-a-lifetime event
creatively, humanely, and quickly..."
The Village's Flood Loan Program has been unique, and I believe the results
justify the courage and foresight of the Village Board in authorizing this
program.
FIN"17111!
Enc
Village of Mount Prospect
Flood Loan Program
Loans Granted and Financing Plan
Loans Granted:
Number
Term
Tut
Am
1
18
months
$ 2,500
4
24
months
8,000
6
36
months
28,500
3
48
months
12,600
19
60
months
134,400
1
72
months
4,9000
20
120
months
169,000
54
$359,000
Financing Plan.
Receipts:
Flood Loan Payments
Expenditures:
Bank Loan @ 9%. 5yrs.
Village Advance @ 8%9 10 yrs.
Totals
Amount Available for
Loss and Costs
Pring �a I
$3599000
Interest Total
$132s886 $4915886
$175,000 $ 42,963 $217,963
184,000. 83,892 267,892
$3599000 $1269855 $4859855
$ c 6,031 6 31