Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0128_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 11, 1989 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:33 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 John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager Michael Janonis, Public Works Director Herbert Weeks, Street Superintendent Mel Both, Director of Inspection Services Chuck Bencic, Planning and Zoning Director David Clements and Economic Development Director Kenneth Fritz. Also present were three persons from the print media. 11. MINUTES The revised Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of March 28, 1989 were accepted and filed. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There were no citizens present at the meeting wishing to make a presentation so the Committee moved on to the next item of business. IV. PROPOSED STREET RESURFACING AND RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR THE 1989 CONSTRUCTION SEASON Mayor Carolyn Krause reviewed with Committee members the memorandum from the Village Manager regarding proposed additions to the 1989 Street Resurfacing Program. Mayor Krause stated that staff was seeking direction in three areas: 1. Deciding how additional road resurfacing funds would be spent. 2. Deferring the Forest Avenue road reconstruction project until next construction season. 3. Whether the remaining Prospect Avenue reconstruction project should include median strips. Public Works Director Herb Weeks reviewed generally with Committee members the Village's Road Resurfacing Program. Mr. Weeks indicated that staff has always tried to distribute MFT Funds for road resurfacing throughout the Village instead of concentrating repairs in one area of the Village. Mr. Weeks also indicated that future emphasis on road reconstruction would need to be concentrated in the northeast section of town where many roads were originally built on substandard bases. Finally, Mr. Weeks discussed the additional construction cost differential as well as the future maintenance costs of reconstructing Prospect Avenue, from School Street to Mount Prospect Road with center median strips. Mr. Weeks explained that in order to meet IDOT's standards, the road would have to be substantially wider if medians were included. The additional cost for medians would be approximately $400,000 for the remaining length of Prospect Avenue. After general discussion, the Village Board directed Village staff to: /. Proceed with the resurfacing of approximately nine miles of streets and the reconstruction of Greenwood Drive from Sycamore Lane to Wolf Z. Defer reconstruction of Forest Avenue until next construction season but bid the engineering work during the present fiscal year. 3. Proceed with the reconstruction of Prospect Avenue without median strips. V. UPDATE ON TIF AND PUBLIC WORKS REDEVELOPMENT SITES Mayor Carolyn Krause reviewed with Committee members the Director of Planning and Zoning's memo regarding recent activities in the Tax Increment Financing area. The Mayor noted that progress on the Hemphill townhouse development continued and that recent meetings with Fannie May Candies regarding redevelopment of Target Area D were showing some prwmioc. Planning and Zoning Director Dave Clements reviewed with Committee members a proposal received from the Russ Group for redevelopment in the 11triangle"(during a meeting with Mayor Krause, the Village Manager and &8r. Clements). The pian calls for a modest scale of redevelopment keeping with the character of the downtown. The proposal dovetails with recent Village purchases of land in the area and includes not only the expanded TIF area but also the Public Works site. Mayor Carolyn Krause indicated that she approved of the concept and thought that the developer was reputable. Consensus among Committee members was that the concept was acceptable and staff was directed to enter into further negotiations with the Roos Group. Earl Johnson and John Eile,ing of the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission appeared before Committee members to express their approval of the concept. M,. Ei1ering asked that consideration be given to inclusion of residential construction in the arca, K8ayo, Krause indicated that residential development was planned for the western cdAr of the "triangle." k8r, Timothy Corcoran also appeared before Committee members to voice his support for the concept. Yl' MANAGER'S REPORT YU)a8e Manager John Fulton Dixon reported that with the successful passage of the 911 Referendum, it was expected that the $.75 surcharge would begin to appear on telephone bills in July. k8,. Dixon anticipated a 12-14 month collection period at which the surcharge would hopefully be reduced to $-25, It was anticipated that an 18-mnoth lead time would be required to fully install the Enhanced 911 system, VII. ANY—OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to come before the Committee members. -2- VIII.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee of the Whole, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL E. JANONIS Assistant Village Manager MEJ/rcw -3- Village oftAount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON FROM: EVERETTE M. HILL, JR., ESQ. DATE: MARCH 29, 1989 SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC COURT FINES You have requested an explanation from me as to the disposition of Traffic Court fines. I have previously sent to you a memo from the Circuit Court Clerk explaining the charges which are deducted from a typical Traffic Court fine. Some of the charges are made as a result of County Ordinance; others are made pursuant to State law. As you are aware, approximately 90% of all Traffic Court cases are disposed of through Supervision. According to the Clerk's memo, when a Supervision is entered and the fine is from $0-$35, the Villae receives nothing as a result of the ticket. If the fine is $45, the Village receives e�10. Most Traffic Court fines are in the $30-$50 range. In most counties in Illinois, the Court will enter a fine on a traffic citation and the clerk will add these costs to the fine so that if the Judge assesses a fine of $50, the offender will pay $50 + $35. The entire $50 then comes back to the municipality. In Cook County, if the Judge assesses a fine of $50, the clerk does not add the costs on to the fine but rather subtracts these from the $50. What's left goes to the municipality. The methods used by the Circuit Clerk of Cook County for the distribution of traffic fines appear to be somewhat arbitrary. Further, the practice of not adding costs to the fines is inconsistent with practices in other counties and also inconsistent with the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules relating to Traffic Court penalties. Cook County municipalities may not be getting the full amounts due to them. In Mount Prospect, we write approximately 7,000 citations per year. If we are short-changed even $10 per ticket, that can add up to a sizable sum over a four or five year time period. EVERETTE M. HILL, JR. EMH/rcw GLASS HILL DALLMEYER ROTH .1. EL Pilo .312 564 P9111 P02 GLAss, HILL, DALjLME;YBR & RoTEr, Ln). ATToaaTrsys AT "W BX&DLET M. CLASS E399 S80K1E BOULEVARD Or COVU31L, EVE"ITZ M. XOUTaBKOQH, ILLINOIS 60042 WILLIAM L. LtTzLz4ouw SVz&XW3M B. DAI-LXBTER {pyy� 484.8410 MICK'Lrz M. RoTa ETAA CIERItSTELL, jjt, TO: Mr. John F. Dixon Village of Mount Prospect CONFIDEj IAL ATTORNEY C �NT— FROM: Everette M. Hill, Jr. Z -SL -1 _PRIIIYJ�EGE DATE: may 5, 1989 RE: Challenge of the Circuit Court Clerks Disposition of Traffic Court Fines This is a supplement to � previous memorandum which I sent to you. I am recommending that we explore avenues Of Proceeding against Cook County for failure to remit to the Village of mount Prospect its proper allocation Of traffic court fines. I believe the statutes and $upreme Court rule are cloar that if fees and surcharges are to be,;assessed they must be',assessed in addition to any fine. AS previously stated; in CQok County— F�jese Nees and surcharges are never assessed by th6,'judge. The Clerk merely subtracts them from the fine which is'.assessed by the Judge. Additionally, these are certain fees &no surcharges which are being subtracted from our revenues which 1 believe are not permitted by statute. I, and others have spokin with the clerk's office on numerous ocaaiQns about these ptoblems, but we get very little relief. "It seems to me that Oome court action may be necessary. A determination should be made as to whether 'we should proceed by way of class actio : n and attempt to bring' all of the Count municipalities of Cook Cc solely on ,, into the class or whether we J should proceed be4 if of the Village Of Mount Prospect. If we proceeded by,,way of Class action, I may be able to handle the matter on a contingent fee basis SO that the Village of mount Prospect woqld get no hourly billing. If I represent the Village of Mount Prospect solely, the there would be an hourly charge for time -I spend on the case when I am not on my regular retainer. Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Director Public Works DATE: April 3, 1989 SUBJECT: Water Main Pipe As I have discussed before, our infrastructure needs to be looked at for longer term on replacements. As such, there are some concerns I have which need to be addressed. Several years ago, we started to use ductile iron water main pipe, which was stronger than the cast iron pipe. However, the wall thickness of ductile iron pipe is less than the cast iron pipe. While I believe we should stay with the ductile iron pipe, I would request that any developer whose plans have not been ap- proved and is to replace or install new pipe be required to upgrade from a class 52 to a class 56 pipe. This will give us anywhere from 10 to 20/100's extra thickness,'but will also have a corresponding price increase of 20%. My opinion is that this extra cost can be justified by the increased expected life- time of the pipe. Second, I recommend a minimum pipe size of 8" in diameter for all distribution lines. I would let a 611 pipe exist as a hy- drant lead if not in excess of 21 from the distribution system. Under no circumstances, allow 311 or 411 cast iron or ductile iron pipe. RUM a 01�_f a HLW/td c: Inspection Services Fire Inspection Engineering Division Ex"WARK—W ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Special Meeting Thursday, May 11, 1989 8:00 P. M. 112 East Northwest Highway 2nd Floor ZBA-25-SU-89,. Onus North Phone 312 / 392-6000 The applicant is requesting a special use permit for an amendment of the existing PUD, Village of Mount Prospect Ordinance No. 3777 which permitted one 4 -story office building of 167,027 square feet with a setback of 453 feet from Kensington Road; to permit two 4 - story office buildings of 180,660 square feet with a setback of 345 feet from Kensington Road. Village Board action will be required in this case. In all cases where the Zoning Board of Appeals is final, a fifteen (15) day period is provided for anyone wishing to appeal their decision. No permit will be issued until this period has elapsed. MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY TRUSTEES RALPH W ARTHUR MARK W BUSSE TIMOTHY J CORCORAN FLOPOS LEORGE Village of Mount Prospect GE0 R, VAN GEEM THEODORE J WATTENBERG VILLAGE E MANAGER 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 JOHN FULTON DIXON Ex"WARK—W ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Special Meeting Thursday, May 11, 1989 8:00 P. M. 112 East Northwest Highway 2nd Floor ZBA-25-SU-89,. Onus North Phone 312 / 392-6000 The applicant is requesting a special use permit for an amendment of the existing PUD, Village of Mount Prospect Ordinance No. 3777 which permitted one 4 -story office building of 167,027 square feet with a setback of 453 feet from Kensington Road; to permit two 4 - story office buildings of 180,660 square feet with a setback of 345 feet from Kensington Road. Village Board action will be required in this case. In all cases where the Zoning Board of Appeals is final, a fifteen (15) day period is provided for anyone wishing to appeal their decision. No permit will be issued until this period has elapsed.