HomeMy WebLinkAbout0228_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 26,1"0
LINEFTIT9100"
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. Present at the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald L Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros,
George Van Geem and Theodore Wattenberg. Absent from the meeting was:
Trustee Mark Busse. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John
FultonDixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg Finance Director David
Jepson, Cable Television Administrator Cheryl Pasalic, Deputy Police Chief
Ronald Richardson, Mount Prospect Park District President Rosemary Argus,
Mount Prospect Park District Director Tom Tayler; three members of the press
and six persons in the audience.
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of June 12, 1990 were
accepted and filed.
There were no citizens who wished to be heard.
Finance Director Dave Jepson explained his report dated June 21, 1990 on the
State Income Tax Surcharge. Due to the way the State has been reporting the
State Income Tax Surcharge, Mr. Jepson indicated that the budgeted receipts from
the regular State Income Tax have been over-estimated. Mr. Jepson
recommended using only $2.6 million for Capital Projects. Otherwise, there could
be a $370,000 deficit in the General Fund. He suggested waiting until November
when better information will be available to make any decision relative to the
revenues and tax distribution.
The consensus of the Committee was to wait until 'November to make this
decision.
V.
DOG BAN
Village Manager John Dixon noted that the Village has an Agreement with the
Mount Prospect Park District to enforce any Ordinances passed by the Park
Board. He suggested the Village will have to inform the Park District of our
priority for. enforcement of the proposed dog ban. He noted that two parks over
which the Village has control were recommended by a group wishing to allow
dogs at certain parks.
Mount Prospect Park District President Rosemary Argus said there is an
Ordinance on the books at this time which provides for a $25.00 fine if a dog is
caught in the act and the droppings are not cleaned up. She said the Park Board
voted for a total ban, but they have had several meetings with groups wishing to
develop some kind of compromise. She said the Park Board is willing to work
out a compromise since ;this group is willing to pay for the privilege. She said the
Park Board has been considering allowing dogs at certain parks such as
Clearwater, Melas, Majewski and Weller Creek Parks.
Village Manager Dixon .said the Village owns five acres of land at Clearwater
Park. He said there is a jogging path and allowing dogs could pose a problem.
He also noted it would be an administrative burden to collect the proposed fees
for allowing dogs to be exercised at parks and he recommended against a fee.
Rosemary Argus said the Park Board is very concerned about children's safety and
they would never consider allowing dogs anywhere near children's playgrounds.
Lisa Snead of 121 South Wa-Pella, spoke on behalf of the group that would like
a compromise on the dog ban. She said some people live in Mount Prospect
because they are allowed to walk dogs in the parks. She said her group is willing
to do what is necessary to make it possible for a compromise.
Monica Traversong said she does not want dogs in the parks. She indicated that
a partial ban has been tried for four years but it did not work. She suggested
that dog owners should fence in their yards.
Trustee Van Geem felt the Village should not spend money to police this matter
when the Village has more important issues to address.
Trustee Arthur felt this is a Park District problem. He said the Police have other
priorities and he agrees with the total ban.
Trustee Corcoran also felt this is a Park District problem. He agreed with one
fenced -off area at Melas Park but he did not agree with the proposed fee. He
suggested the Park District should follow the lead of the Des Plaines Park District
which has its own police force for these matters.
Trustee Floros appreciated the difficult position in which the Park District has
found itself. He said that the Village staff will cooperate but this decision is up
to the Park District Board.
Mayor Farley asked why the Crumley Basin is not used by dog owners. Deputy
Chief Richardson said that people will go where it is convenient. He said the
Police Department has not had much of a problem, but if we get into stronger
enforcement, there will be overtime, Court appearances, Subpoenas of witnesses
and so on. He said that a designated area will also be difficult because people
will be saying that they were on their way from the designated area or to it when
they were caught Deputy Chief Richardson said that River Trails Park District
has its own program of education. He said staff is present at parks to give verbal
warnings to dog owners or to obtain the identity of the dog owner and to contact
the owner when the dog is running loose. He felt that not a lot of good would
come from disciplining dog owners.
Trustee Van Geem stated it would be a terrible waste of the Police force and
recommended taking Trustee Corcoran's suggestion that the Park District have its
own patrol service.
Police Chief Pavlock said that enforcement would be a low priority of necessity.
Park District Director Tom Tayler said the Park District used to hire off-duty
Officers approximately ten years ago and wondered if this could still be done. He
asked Village Manager Dixon to check into this to see if this could still be done
from a legal viewpoint.
Mayor Farley said it appears to be the Committee's consensus this is not a high
priority for the Police Department. He said the Village would have a problem
hiring personnel to cover this responsibility in the morning and in the evening.
He said the fees would not cover the cost. Apparently the Committee agrees with
the concept of a total ban.
ZMEFUMM 53001-371.1 WX #7 IT
Trustee Van Geem said the local cable company is having trouble making money
and so they have asked for relief from the Village. He said three requests in this
Modification concern him.
1. The company would like to reduce, the channels from 120 to 60,
while there are 70+ channels right now.
2. The company will have the right to reduce the cables from two to
one.
-3-
3. The company would like to do away with the Lifeline access service.
The Lifeline service allows residents to view the public access
channels such as the Village Board meetings and the school
programs.
Trustee Van Geem was concerned about ending Lifeline because this keeps the
cable company honest. ° If the price gets too high or the service gets sloppy,
residents can take advantage of this service which requires only an initial
installation fee but which is free thereafter. Trustee Van Geem said the Village
is not getting anything out of this Modification Agreement request. He said a
New York system .owned by TCI was pared down to 40 channels but the price
was still $17.50 a month.- He noted, however, that if the Village does not allow
modifications, the cable -company will raise rates more than they would have to
and then bl-an,e the :Village if they get complaints.
Trustee Vc-; Geem recommended rejecting this Modification .Agreement as it
stands now. He said he has an open mind, 'but he feels the Village should get
something if the Agreement is changed.
Mayor Farley asked if the renewal process has to start in three years. Cable
Television Administrator Cheryl Pasalic said that TCI would have to apply for
renewal three years before it expires in 1996.
Mayor Farley asked whether it is fair that the Lifeline service should be free.
Cable Television Administrator Pasalic said this was on the RFP and it was a
requirement. She said this is not unusual in Franchise Agreements.
Trustee Arthur asked how many subscribers there are. Cable Television
Administrator Pasalic said just under 9,000. Trustee Arthur said this is a business
and it is up to the, cable company to sell. If they do not produce, it is their own
problem. He said they should be required to do what is in the contract with no
reductions.
Trustee Corcoran asked what the difference in the rates would be between what
our residents pay and what 'towns with one cable would pay. Cable Television
Administrator Pasalic said that towns with one cable such as Schaumburg are
facing a $.50 increase while people in Mount Prospect would face a $3.00 increase.
The cable company feels they can save money on the electrical billswith one
cable. However, Ms. Pasalic noted that since TCI has not disclosed the financial
statement, we have no way of verifying the extent of the savings.
Trustee Van Geem also noted that TO has never forwarded the required
financials.
We
Trustee Corcoran was concerned about the name change. Ms. Pasalic said there
are no financial guarantees or Letters of Credit required in this boilerplate
document and nothing to show the parent company would back the subsidiary.
Trustee Corcoran agreed with Trustee Van Geem that the Village is getting
nothing' and' until we do, he is willing to take any calls from residents who are
complaining about the price increase.
Trustee Van Geem noted there are only approximately 15 subscribers to Lifeline
in the Village. He reiterated his belief that there is nothing in this Modification
Agreement for the Village and he suggested we forget about the proposal until
tangible benefits for the Village are offered.
Mayor Farley stated that Trustee Van Geem's concerns are very relevant and he
asked Trustee Van Geem to let us know when any changes are proposed of
interest to the Village.
Trustee Floros asked abut the penetration in town. Ms. Pasalic said there is
approximately 43%-47% penetration while 50%-609o' is typical in the United
States. Trustee Floros said that if our regulations are so strict that the cable
company must increase its rates, then we are doing a disservice to the residents.
However, he said he is not sure when we reach that point. He noted the Village
should not be unreasonable in its requirements.
Ms. Pasalic said the Village has asked for financial information to see the actual
costs involved but TCI does not provide any detailed information.
Trustee Corcoran felt the Village Board is a little bit like the ICC and must
oversee the service provided by the cable company. If they cannot provide us
with proper financials, we can. never be sure whether or not we are doing what
is in the best interests of our residents.
Trustee Van Geem agreed the Village must provide reasonable accommodation
to the cable company but, again, the lack of adequate financials prevents the
Village from making an informed decision. Trustee Van Geem feels we should
not begin the Public Hearing process on the Modification Agreement.
Trustee Arthur felt the Village should publicize the Lifeline service on the water
bills. Trustee Corcoran agreed and also suggested placing a message in the
Village Newsletter.
Mayor Farley agreed there is not much to talk about until we get a full financial
disclosure.
Trustee Wattenberg also agreed.
-5-
Village Manager Dixon said he would like to have two items on the next Board
Agenda:
1. " An Appeal of the Disconnect Case.
2. The sale of the old well site on Rand Road.
The Committee agreed to put this on the Agenda.
rMiTUNURNA111-11a
Trustee Wattenberg asked what the Village can do to bring our water rates in line
with the rates charged by surrounding towns such as Arlington Heights and Des
Plaines. He said for a person on a fixed income, it is a big problem. He asked
Finance Director Dave Jepson to look into this to see how we can reduce our
rates.
Finance Director David Jepson said that two years ago, a study by the Department
of Commerce and Community Affairs indicated that our rates were barely
adequate. There has been no increase since then. He would prefer to do any
such rate study after the audit in July for a report in August.
Trustee Wattenberg felt the high cost was due to Chicago.
Village Manager Dixon said we have had a great relationship with the City of
Chicago and we have been provided a Most -Favored Nation clause. The Village
pays a very reasonable price for the water with the City of Chicago. He said we
have never had any problems from the City of Chicago.
Trustee Van Geem said it really doesn't matter what other Villages charge. We
must cover our costs for water and distribution. He said that some towns have
part of the charge in the Real Estate Taxes. It is very difficult to compare water
rates from Village to Village.
Trustee Arthur said it was an excellent decision several years ago to buy the
Chicago water. He said he would stand by this decision anytime.
At 9:10 p.m., Trustee Arthur MOVED; SECONDED by Trustee Van Geem to
adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN P. BURG
JPB/rcw Assistant Village Manager
-6-
Village of, cunt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
NNI
L
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM is
TO: VILLAGE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: JOHN FULTON DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
RE: CITIZENS UTILITY COMPANY
DATE: JULY 20, 1990
Attached is a memorandum from the Director of Public Works which lays out most of
the factual information concerning the engineering and feasibility studies that have been
done concerning Citizens Utility.
At this point in time I wish to add a few points from the legal and financial standpoint.
Staff has met with the law firm of Moss and Bloomberg who was instrumental in drafting
state statutes that allow for condemnation of utilities, as we had mentioned to the Board
in an earlier memorandum, which is attached. During our discussions with the law firm
they had indicated that there could be substantial legal fees in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars, if this statute would be followed since it would be the first time, and most
likely be contested and challenged all the way through every court appeal possible.
However, this might allow us to find an alternate avenue for lower value. What is
interesting to note is that within the last couple of months, Citizens Utility has been
encouraged by the City of Prospect Heights to propose the purchase of the Prospect
Heights water system for one small area in the City. In doing so, Citizens Utility's
approach was very similar to a fair market value, in fact may be less than that amount.
The opportunity may be presenting itself for us to continue to review the purchase of
Citizens system to see our cost for the system can be reduced
If we review the last report from a financial standpoint we find that the costs for the
system is estimated around just under $15,000,000. In addition, there are additional costs
that would be needed to upgrade the system. Assuming $5,000,000, we would be at the
$20,000,000 cost value for the system.
In reviewing the possible costs that would be acceptable, palatable and payable by those
people in the Citizens Utility area, we have put together some numbers to determine
whether the numbers are within reach so that we could recommend moving ahead with
the next phase of the study.
You will recall that the initial study placed the customers into three specific areas
because of the boundaries which surrounded them, basically major roads. We had
determined earlier that we are not able to provide water to all three
Citizens Utility
June 20, 1990
Page 2 of 2
of the areas without extensive changes to the Joint Action Water Agency System or else
providing water from a separate source. However, we did determine that we could
possibly pick up area number one which represents the smallest area.
We have reviewed the costs of water and sewer revenues for the areas. On Attached
"A" it shows consumption for water sales of .988 million gallons per day. We then went
through and determined the charge that residents in the Citizens Utility pay for their
water services as well as sewer services. Because this area would then be required to
assist in the pay -back of the Lake Michigan Water surcharge we also placed that dollar
amount in the cost calculations and the value is just under $2,000,000 per year.
We then reviewed the cost of being within the Village's water system and that cost
comes out to approximately $1.2 million per year, or an excess that is paid presently of
$772,000 as found on Attachment "B". We then broke it down to a typical user using
7,500 gallons per month and the difference in cost for the Village customer per year
would be $292.50 and for the Citizen Utility customer it would be $508.92.
On Attachment "C" we have extracted the assessed valuation for that area of Citizen
Utility using the new assessed valuations that have just come out. We then determined
that for each one cent of a tax levy there would be $11,000 available in this area. The
debt service on $1,000,000 over a 25 year period of time is placed on the Attachment
"C" as well. Assuming that there would be $15,000,000 needed in order to buy the
system, the annual debt service is laid out for the 20 - 25 year period of time. The
estimated tax rates are also shown. What we need to remember is that about $772,000
would not be paid out by the residents on an annual basis for their water consumption
and could be made available and could reduce the cost shown here by approximately
one-half.
On the bottom of Attachment "C' is a comparison to other special service areas to show
that the estimated tax rate of 1.34 for 20 years or 1.22 for 25 years is not out of line
with other special service area tax rates that have been used in this Village. I believe
that at this time it is prudent for the Village to move forward with the next step of the
Greeley and Hansen proposal for all three studies. This will allow us to be in a position
to have a firmer dollar amount which we may be able to present to the residents. As
we do the financial considerations we find that the numbers appear to be in a palatable
level whether it is a level in which the residents in the Citizen Utility area would wish
to pay or not is a question that still remains unanswered at this time. However, before
there is a meeting with the residents in the area I think it would be prudent for us to
go through the next phase of studies that are recommended by Greeley and Hansen.
RFD/caf
Atts.
CITIZENS UTILITIES CUSTOMERS IN MOUNT PROSPECT
Neter and Sewer Revenues
Number of Customers and water Use
Number of Customers
Water Use (MGD)
Leos Unaccounted For (15%)
Voter Sales (MGD)
Water aSewer Revenue
Water Charge
Customer Charge
Water Sales
Sewer Charge
Service Charge
Lake Michigan Water Surcharge
Water Sales
Total Revenue
Area 1xroa 2 Area J Total
156 1,466 1,990 3,612
.046
.454
,662
1.162
<.0O7>�
(.O68�
<.099 >
( 174>
�
3,612 x $4.00 x 12 = $ 173`376
,988 v 365 x 1,000 x $2.35 = 847,457
$1,020,833
3,612 x $11,18 x 12 =$ 484,586
.988 ^ 365 x 1,000 x $1.28 __461,594�
�
�
Comparison of
Village water and Sewer Charges
to Citizens Utilities Water and Sewer Charges
Village Water a Sewer Charge
Water 6 Sewer Charge .988 x 365 ` 1,008 x $2,50 = $ 901,550
SSA #5 Tax Levy $108,714,000 x .0027 = 293,528
Total Village Water and sewer Charges
Citizens Utilities Charges $1,967,800
Village Charges _1z195�000
Excess of Citizens Utilitea over Village ~772,000
Comparison or
Annual Cont or Typical User
7,500 Gallons per Month
Village of Mount Prospect Customers
Water and Sewer Charge $225.00
Special Service Area #5 67,.50
Citizens Utilities Customers
Water and Sewer Charge $393,72
Lake Michigan water Surcharge _'n5.20
[xueaa of Citizens Utilities Customers over Village Customers
_q
CITIZENS UTILITIES CUSTOMERS IN m0umT PROSPECT
Financing Information
Equalized Assessed Valuation
Total Village EAV
Less EAV for Special Service Area V5
EAV for Citizens Utilities Area
Each 10 of a tax levy would produce
Debt Service Cost per $1 Million
7-1/2m 20 years $98,100
7-1/2% 25 years $89,700
$735,079,199
_��55,406
1109 923 793
20 years 25 years
$15 Million Bond Issue
Annual Debt Service $1,471,500 $1,345,500
Estimated Tux Rate $1.34 $1.22
Coot per $25,000 EAV $33* $305
Other SSA Tax Rates (1988)
5S #1 Prospect Meadows Water 5yatmn $ .954
SS #2 Golf View Estates water $1.237
SS #6 George/Albert Street $1.013
%lillege of Mbunt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM:
ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE:
FEBRUARY 2, 1990
SUBJECT:
CITIZENS UTILITIES ACQUISITION:
LEGAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to Board direction, the Village Manager, Public Works Director and Assistant
Village Manager met with principals from the law firm of Moss and Bloomberg, Ltd., for
the purpose of identifying the legal issues associated with the purchase of the Citizens
Utilities system. Messrs. Barry L Moss and George A. Marchetti reviewed with Village
staff the firm's expertise in (1) dealing with Citizens Utilities Company and (2) their
experience in water system purchases and related litigation.
Eirm Credentials
Mr. Moss indicated that his firm has served as General Counsel to the Village of
Bolingbrook for the past ten years. Bolingbrook has the unenviable burden of having
Citizens Utilities Company provide water and sewer service to approximately two-thirds
of the Village's residents and businesses. Moss and Bloomberg, Ltd., has represented
Bolingbrook's interests in all dealings with Citizens Utilities Company including, but not
limited to, rate hearings, original cost issues and service area issues. In the latter regard,
the Village of Bolingbrook was recently successful in litigation with Citizens to determine
what areas within that community Citizens' had a legal right to extend service into.
Mount Prospect staff felt that the knowledge that Messrs. Moss and Marchetti's firm had
in the areas of (1) water and sewer systems; (2) Illinois Commerce Commission
jurisdiction and regulations and (3) their intimate knowledge of Citizens Utilities
Company as an adversary in litigation and rate making cases would prove invaluable
should the Board wish to proceed with acquisition.
It is also important to note that Moss and. Bloomberg" I.td., were the principal drafters
of Public Act $3-1466, which provided for an alternate means of placing a value on a
water and sewerage system. Previously, the only recognized method was "replacement
cost less depreciation." Under the new legislation, it is possible to determine the worth
of a system using a "fair cash market value" analysis. In most cases, this latter formula
will result in a substantially lower cost figure. Mr. Moss cited as precedent for this a
California case in which a municipality utilized similar legislation to purchase a Citizens'
owned water and sewer system at a fair market cash value of approximately $5 million
whereas, the replacement cost less depreciation formula had valued the system at at least
$18 million.
The legislation in Illinois is modeled after laws like that in California. However, it has
not yet been used here and there are strong indications that any attempt to do so would
result in litigation over its validity. Messrs. Moss and Marchetti feel that the Statute
would withstand such a challenge. The fact that such a challenge is almost assured
should not by itself be viewed as a deterrent to proceeding in this direction because it
is likely that it will become necessary at some point to initiate eminent domain
proceedings which are in and of themselves resolved in the Courts.
Basic _Issues
While this initial meeting was an opportunity to gauge the expertise of Messrs. Moss and
Bloomberg in this area and to get an overall feel for the "legal" aspects of any
acquisition attempt, staff was able to get answers to certain basic issues:
1. What problems, if any, could be anticipated if the Village were to purchase
that portion of the Citizens system within the Village and left the Prospect
Heights portion to stand alone?
In the first instance, the Illinois Commerce Commission would not have jurisdiction
over this matter and so the ' Village is spared the time and expense of a Hearing
before this administrative body. While the ICC does not get involved in the
acquisition question, the "condition" of the remaining Citizens Utilities system does
become a crucial issue in determining the overall acquisition cost of the system.
As you may recall, during the presentation by Terry Hodnick of Greeley and
Hansen, it was noted that acquisition of any or all of the Mount Prospect portion
of the system would create deficiencies in the remaining Citizens system. These
deficiencies might require Citizens to construct new pumping, storage and sewage
handling facilities as well as new wells, or to acquire an alternate Lake Michigan
water source, in order to allow the remaining system to continue in operation.
Once acquisition costs are determined, the issue of establishing a cost for these
deficiencies (damages) would be a major concern of the Court.
2. Was Greeley and Hansen's approach to valuation valid?
Messrs. Moss and Marchetti were asked to review the Greeley and Hansen report
and to comment on its validity. They found the report to be valid overall
inasmuch as it followed the traditional "replacement cost less depreciation"
formula.
They also concurred in the fact that purchase of the Mount Prospect portion of
the system would create deficiencies in the remaining Citizens' system thereby
raising the issue of damages. Messrs. Moss and Marchetti indicated that they had
worked with Greeley and Hansen in the past regarding matters germane to past
attempts by Bolingbrook to acquire Citizens' system down there.
�1
The value of this initial meeting was that it identified a potential alternate means for
arriving at a value for the system. While this alternate means is available, it is not
without certain potential pitfalls. First, it has been Messrs. Moss and Marchetti's
experience that Citizens Utilities will not get serious regarding negotiations for purchase
until the Village has filed Eminent Domain Proceedings. Second, the Statutory language
regarding "fair cash market value" is untested and would likely result in some type of
appeal on that issue. Third, since the issue of cost would probably be decided by a jury,
it is uncertain which formula they would embrace; i.e., "fair cash market value" or
.replacement cost less depreciation," or whether they might be inclined to "split the
difference."Fourth, if the Village decides to pursue purchase through Eminent Domain
and a decision regarding value is rendered, tbe. Village must proceed to mrcbasg the
s4tern for the establishgd price or else it- will be liabIg-Jor 1he attorney$' fees and all
Court co5ts of Citizens Utilities assogiated-witb this litigation ( "you can't have your cake
and eat it too"). Finally, Messrs. Moss and Marchetti indicated that Citizens Utilities
Company is not adverse to litigation and will in all likelihood launch a very strong public
campaign to discourage the Village from pursuing acquisition. They will talk in terms
of astronomical costs for purchase of the system as well as raising doubts about the
Village's ability to prevail in Court. In this regard, they are sophisticated and well
armed.
Conclu5ion
It is clear that pursuit of acquisition is a matter which requires thorough review and
consensus on the part of elected officials and Citizens Utilities' customers. If there is
interest in acquisition after identifying the worst case scenario, then there is merit in
proceeding. Through the process of Eminent Domain and the existing legislation, there
is a possibility that the Village could find itself purchasing the system for substantially
less than the $14 million identified in the Greeley and Hansen report.
A prudent next step may be to authorize a fair cash market value study of the Citizens'
system to determine what the best car, scenario might be.
HA is
MEJ/rcw
U 111-139-11 CHAPTER U -- CITIES AND VILLAGES
*^, i6p4 � MCode III -10-11 1lsedehpd Cads 1901
11-189-i1. loadboid*r—Co apeWng pertar,w ale of
dale«
1 11 -UM -11. the holder of any bond or of any coupon
of any bond issued nndar, this Division 1110 may proored by
dell sea" to compel performance of all duties required by
this Division 139, Including the making and co4fttln of
smut rates for the purposes specified in that Division
199 and the application of the revenue therefrom to those
P.rur"h
11-140-4. Bonds.
11-110-1. AuUwrWWon-- rets
1 11-140-1. In every emAkipslity with a population of
140,000 or less which haat a sewage system but ass no
auiequste outlet therefor, or any proper disposition of the
arewagt thereof, without constructing an outset, sewer the
Amended by P.A. 77-942, 1 1, eff. Aug. 17, 1971.m us of which will be outside the corporate brats of
the municipality, the corporate authorities ttweroof may (1)
construct an outlet sewer, wholly without, or partially
11 -139 -It Eminent do Fair Cash t value partially without the corporate limits Of the
} 11 -139 -It For the purpose o� of aNuir~� vet"' municipality into which the sewers throughout the mmniui-
irr , extending, or inn g' ' PaltY *r"a to empty, and through which the sewers are to
g g prong .thy combined waterworks discharge their for �y
stud sewerage system under Ue therefor,
y ce any benefits, (2) construct, reearvosrs, er ung writs,
y or appropriate therefor, asy municipal msrhinery, and plants for the treatment of the amp
VTI of has htherghtt of ntil Pdomai as proms by le withinor without the cerpwrate limits of the muWdp &yy
hereafter 1 as heretofore and (3) acquire the land and machdnary for these
Purposes, and (4) otherwise provide for discharge of the
The fair crab rrsaxltet value of an existing waterworks municipality a into channels that wall prorate the
and sewerage system, or portion thereof; under health stud improve the $arnitsry a>nddthon of and nonan•
flus invasion 139, which existing system is s special use p�h the purport of an outlet sower for the mun "
property as defined in Article VII of the "Code of Civil The coat of exercising the pawen conferred by title section
procedure".approved August 19, 1981, as heretofore or shall be borne by special assessment or by taxation
hereafter amended, may be determined in accordance with upon ehe p1"oPet h' in those portions of Use muni lire
the fallowing valuation principles. sewers + whi h are ultimately .fiend their outlet through
Use onUtt sewer an
constructed.
The fair ash market value of existing facilities, whether 11-140-2. Special assessment or special taxation
real or personal, may be determined by utilizing the netearnin§ 11-140-2. 77re rats authorities of such uuuniei
for theme which art scatattributableaon to Use tofacilitiescondemnation
in question polity may maintain =keep in repair Use outlet
sewers
Preceding fiscal the r on the data the l life of the purification plants, reservoirs, Pumping works, and maw
Petition is filed, over the remaining useful Pie of the chinery provided for in Section 11-140-1. The cost of the
faca7 tseffi Said oup may be capitalized under an aur maintenance and y special
natty apdtadization and discounted m raerht vai- lalmh shall be borne b
be
us. The fair ash market value of any exteions, addsp 11401 al No int block,tion othe rY s paroel of m
Dona or improvements of the existing system mads subse assessed mars than onus in any one for such maims
quant to the data first taus cnndemustian penton is filed Hance and repair.
may be dt by utilizing Use probable net earnings
tatlri7autabk to the m question over the re 11-1404. Acquisitlon of property
Iiia of Una facilitiesr The probable aroinga may be capita 1 11-1404 The corporate authorities of such a munki.
Wised under an annuity capitalization method and dist polity may acquire by per, get, c oodareaMina, or
oouutad to present value, others ise, all Use real and ptrstanal property, rights of
way, and casements within or without the corporate limits
Of the municipality becessary for the construction and
maintenance of the outlet sewers and works authorized
Section 11-140-1. The corporate authorities have t6
same control and jurisdiction of this property which is
without as of that which is within the municipality.
11-140-4. Ordleswnes
1 11.140-4. When the corporate authorities of a mar
nicipality determine to construct improvements provided
for in Station 11-140-1, they $ball do so by an ordloarea
which shall whetbar the improvements shrill be
made by special assessment or by special taxatice, The
o $hail also the »aMM charasda, kali•
ty, and description of the improvements, either by setting
forth the same in the ordinance itsed, or by reference to
M&M, plats, planus, profiles, or spedfmUm thereof on fill
in Use office of the municipal dark, or by both
The ordinance shall also describe by reasonably well
understood boundaries,those portions of the mun%pahity
the sewerage of which is to be conducted by sewers
already laid, or by those contemplated to be laid, into and
The value of Use land and easements upon which the
facilities in situated may be determined in sorordarnce
with the foregoing principles, giving due account to the
special use of the property for water and sewerage pur.
P
For this purposes of this Section no prior approval of the
Illinois Commerce Commission, or any other body having
juruadktion over the existing system, shall be required..
Amended by P.A. 88-1466, 1 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1985.
1 Chapter 110, 17-101 st seq.
Disision act Omelet Saran OMUW Jtuaicipol Boundana
mph
I1-110-1,. Authorization—Oats.
11-140-2. Special assassment or special taxation.
11-140-8. Acquisition of property.
11-140-C Ordmance.
11-140-G. Frooeeding*—Iowa Governing.
Thin pro
for the eta
intob
ardloaft
tai1q.
11-1464
Of11-1
the a
DOOM t
collector
Was on
to mains,
the
ofthea
wen Ml
for an ti
therewiti
1 psrag
11-140-1
111-1
tiou of t
for by t
Section 1
with the
1 Puss,
P %grasp
11
11-141-2
11-141-8
11-141-4
11-141-6
11-141-4
11-141-7
11-141-8
11-141-9
i PARTNERS
F BALLO"
-081.T M. ZI-EP.-
:AS,,,.L E,JR�ANGDON. �
EDwAAOS
ACAM$
,',A.,.C'1. -MMSE
L, E.
"ZZAR '
-C-S SUL--N
ASSOCIATES
Z CX"E_
GREELEY AND H A N S E N
E N G I N E E R 5
222 SOUTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 5965 - (312) 646-1155
June 22, 1990
Mr. Herbert L Weeks
Director of Public Works
Village of Mount Prospect
1700 West Central Road
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Subject: Water Distribution System Studies
Proposal for Engineering Services
Dear Mr. Weeks:
In accordance with our meeting with John Dixon on June 6, 1990, Greeley and Hansen is
pleased to submit a proposal for engineering services for water system distribution studies. We
have divided the work into three phases as follows:
Phase I -Assess impact of Citizens Utilities' proposed acquisition of water systems
in Prospect Heights.
• Phase 11 - Evaluate water main improvements required to shift the service area of
the Lincoln Street JAWA delivery structure further north.
Phase Ill - Determine improvements required in Acquisition Areas 1, 2 and 3 to
accept Lake Michigan water delivered from the Village of Glenview.
Phase I work also includes optional study tasks discussed during our meeting. The
proposals for Phases 11 and Ill are updated versions of proposals previously submitted on
February 2, 1990,
We are available to start work upon your authonzation. We appreciate the opportunity to
submit this proposal to provide engineering services for water distribution system studies and look
forward to your favorable consideration.
TJS/jes
Enclosure
Yours very truly,
GREELEY AND HANSEN
4e�-
Terrence 'Hoclnjk, Associate
Allan B. Edwards, Partner
F 0 U N 0 E 0 1 N 1 9 1 4
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SCOPE OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STUDIES
Greeley and Hansen
June 1990
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The PROJECT comprises furnishing engineering services required for additional water system
distribution studies, conducted in three phases, to provide preliminary evaluations as follows:
• Phase I
Impact of Citizens Utility Company's proposed acquisition of the Rob Roy and Fairway
water systems, owned by the City of Prospect Heights, on the possible acquisition of
Citizens Utility Company's water system, located in Areas 1, 2 and 3, by the Village of
Mount Prospect, Study areas are located as shown on Figure 1. The impact
assessment will analyze water system improvements required for two alternate
acquisition outcomes:
1. &ft_ernate 1 - The Prospect Heights area becomes part of the water system acquired
by the Village of Mount Prospect.
2. Afternate 2 - The Prospect Heights area remains part of the Citizens Utility Company
water system after acquisition actions are completed by the Village of Mount
Prospect,
These analyses will be based on continuing to serve the future Mount Prospect
acquisition areas with water supplied by existing JAWA delivery points, The status of
a possible project to construct a JAWA delivery main in Wolf Road from the 1-90 Tollway
north to Foundry Road will also be discussed.
Additional Water -System Studies that may be included under Phase I at the Village's
option include:
Option I - Develop water and sanitary sewer improvement costs for adding the
Mudville service area for the Village's acquisition area. This area is presently served
by private well and septic systems. See Figure 1
. Option - Prepare for and attend one special meeting with residents.
• Option 3 - Provide qualitative evaluation of how proposed commingling of well and
Lake Michigan water by Citizens Utility Company will affect overall water quality in
Areas 1, 2 and 3. Compare results with Drinking Water Standards. Evaluation to be
based on existing water quality test data available from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
Phase 11
Determine water main improvements to the Mount Prospect water distribution system
to shift the service area of the Northwest Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency
(JAWA) Lincoln Street structure further north. For the current water system service
areas, the objective is to increase the quantity of flow deliverable at the Lincoln Street
structure while reducing the Highland Avenue JAWA structure service area. Results of
these analyses to be used to prepare a preliminary estimate of additional capacity
available at the Highland Avenue JAWA structure to serve customers of the Citizens
Utilities Chicago Suburban System within the Village limits, shown on Figure I as Areas
1. 2 and 3.
Long range planning studies (beyond the year 1985) are not available for the Mount
Prospect water system. The intent of the Phase 11 study is to approximate required
water main improvements using previous distribution system hydraulic network analysis
computer models developed by the Fletcher Engineering Company for 1985 water use
conditions. Future water use conditions will be superimposed on an updated version
of the existing distribution system model.
Phase III
Determine water system improvements required in Areas 1, 2 and 3 to accept Lake
Michigan water delivered from the Village of Glenview. The Village of Glenview
purchases Lake Michigan water from the Village of Wilmette.
B. SCOPE OF SERVICES BY GREELEY AND HANSEN
1 Phase I
a Obtain Basic Data
Obtain and review basic data, including a 1988 report prepared for the City of
Prospect Heights, Prospect Heights' water system maps and water supply, pumping
and storage facility capacity data. Discuss status of possible JAWA delivery main
in Wolf Road with JAWA management personnel.
Obtain and review basic data for optional studies as authorized, including:
• Option I - Obtain lot location maps showing individual residences and
verify with field survey in the Mudville service area.
• Option 3 - Water quality data for existing Citizens Utility Chicago Suburban
system and Lake Michigan water delivered by Glenview from Wilmette.
b. Analyze Improvements
Describe and analyze alternative improvements to serve the Prospect Heights service
area under acquisition outcome Alternates 1 and 2 described in paragraph A. above.
Describe and analyze improvements for optional studies as authorized, including:
. Option I -Adding the Mudville service area to the Village's acquisition area.
c. Comparative Opinion of Probable Cost of Construction
Provide comparative opinion of probable construction cost for alternative improve-
ments required for the Prospect Heights service area, and for optional study under
Option 1 - Providing water and sewer service to the Mudville service area
d. Prepare Report
Summarize Phase I analyses and results in a letter report, including optional studies
as authorized by the Village. Submit 12 copies of the final report to the Village.
e. Meetings
Attend one meeting with Village staff to review preliminary study findings and receive
comments for the final report.
Make presentation to Village Board summarizing study results.
•
Option - Prepare for and attend one meeting with Village residents to
explain findings and answer questions.
2. Phase 11
a. Obtain Basic Data
Obtain and review basic data including 1980, 1962 and 1984 hydraulic network
analyses reports prepared by Fletcher Engineering Company, JAWA delivery
capacity data, historical maximum day water use data and Lake Michigan allocation
data.
b. Recommend Additional Hydraulic Analyses
Define conditions for additional hydraulic network analyses to be performed by
Fletcher Engineering company. Alternative water main improvements to be
evaluated include:
« Alternative 12 or 16 -inch main connection in Lincoln Street from the JAWA
structure at Elmhurst Road west to Busse Road and east to. Emerson
Street.
Alternative water main improvements to improve flow distribution from the
Lincoln Street JAWA structure to the north. Such improvements may
include a 12 -inch main in Wa Pella Avenue from Lincoln Street north,
connecting an existing 12 -inch main across the C&NW railroad tracks and
Northwest Highway.
c. Comparative Opinion of Probable Cost of Construction
Provide comparative opinion of probable construction cost for alternative improve-
ments.
d. Compare Alternative Improvements
Compare alternative improvements including opinions of probable construction cost
and ability to shift flow from the Lincoln Street location.
e. Prepare Report
Summarize Phase 11 analyses and results in a letter report. Submit 12 copies of final
report to Village.
f. Meeting
Attend one meeting with Village staff to review preliminary study findings and receive
comments for final report.
3. Phase III
a. Obtain Basic Data
Obtain and review basic data regarding proposed Lake Michigan water supply from
the Village of Glenview, including expected delivery point location, delivery pressure
and flow design capacities, and proposed system operation. - Use Lake Michigan
water allocations by IDOT to estimate future water use.
b. Analyze Improvements
Describe and analyze alternative improvements to deliver Lake Michigan water to
Areas 1, 2 and 3 via the Wilmette -Glenview connection. Analyses will include a
review of pumping and storage facility requirements and preliminary computer
modeling of the water distribution system to evaluate alternative water main
improvements.
c. Comparative Opinion of Probable Cost of Construction
Provide comparative opinion of probable construction cost for alternative improve-
ments.
d. Prepare Report
Summarize Phase III analyses and results in a letter report. Submit 12 copies of final
report to Village.
e. Meeting
Attend a meeting with Village staff to review preliminary study findings and receive
comments for final report.
C. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1. Assemble basic data from existing Village records.
2. Arrange and pay for additional hydraulic computer modeling analyses by Fletcher Engineering
Company under Phase 11,
3. Forward correspondence requesting system design information from City of Prospect Heights
for Phase I and Village of Glenview for Phase 111,
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MANHOURS AND COMPENSATION
FOR
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STUDIES - PHASE I
Greeley and Hansen
June 1990
Estimated Direct
Labor - Hours
PHASE I
PROSPECT HEIGHTS STUDY
Project
Text
Partner
Manager
Engineer
Editing
A. ESTIMATED MANHOURS
1. Obtain Basic Data
0
12
6
2
2. Analyze Improvements
2
10
28
0
3. Opinions of Cost
1
2
12
0
4. Letter Report
2
8
16
6
S. Meetings
0
16
0
0
Total - Phase 1
5
48
62
=8
B. ESTIMATED COMPENSATION
1. Estimated Direct Labor Costs
Partner
5 hours
@
$45.00
$ 225
Project Manager
48 hours
@
$30.50
1,464
Engineer
62 hours
@
$18.00
1,116
Text Editing
8 hours
@
$12.00
96
Subtotal
$ 2,901
2. Estimated Indirect Costs and Fee
Direct Labor x 2.0
$5,802
3. Other Direct Costs
Local Travel 100 miles @ $0.26
$ 26
Reproduction
151
Computer - 10 hours @ $12.00
120
Subtotal
$ 229
Total Estimated Compensation - Phase I - Prospect Heights Study
$9,000
PHASE I
OPTIONAL STUDIES
1. Option 1
7,500
2. Option 2
1,500
3. Option 3
2„500
Total Estimated Compensation - Phase 1
$20,500
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MANHOURS AND COMPENSATION
U�u
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STUDIES • PHASE 11
Greeley and Hansen
June 1990
NOTE:
(1) Does not include costs for hydraulic analyses by Fletcher Engineering Co.
Estimated Direct Labor • Hours
Project
Text
PHASE 11
Partner
manager
Engineer
Editing
A. ESTIMATED MANHOURS
1. Obtain Basic Data
0
4
10
2
2. Additional Hydraulic
Analyses
2
4
10
1
3. Opinions of Cost
1
2
14
0
4. Comparison of
Alternatives
1
2
12
0
5. Letter Report
2
8
12
6
6. Meetings
0
4
0
1
Total - Phase 11
6
24
58
10
B. ESTIMATED COMPENSATION
1. Estimated Direct Labor Costs
Partner
6 hours
@
$45.00
$ 270
Project Manager
24 hours
@
$30.50
732
Engineer
58 hours
@
$18.00
1,044
Text Editing
10 hours
@
$12.00
120
Subtotal
$ Z166
2. Estimated Indirect Costs and Fee
Direct Labor x 2.0
$4,332
3. Other Direct Costs
Local Travel 100 miles @ $0.26
$ 26
Reproduction
104
Computer - 6 hours @ $12.00
72
Subtotal
$ 202
Total Estimated Compensation • Phase 11
S 6,7001"
NOTE:
(1) Does not include costs for hydraulic analyses by Fletcher Engineering Co.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MANHOURS AND COMPENSATION
FOR
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STUDIES - PHASE III
Greeley and Hanson
June 1990
Estimated Direct Labor - Hours
Project
Text
PHASE III
Partner
Manager
Engineer
Editing
A. ESTIMATED MANHOURS
1. Obtain Basic Data
0
4
8
2
2. Analyze Improvements
2
8
47
0
3. Opinions of Cost
1
2
12
0
4. Letter Report
2
8
16
6
S. Meetings
0
4
0
0
Total - Phase 111
5
26
83 7
8
B. ESTIMATED COMPENSATION
1. Estimated Direct Labor Costs
Partner
5 hours
@
$45.00
$ 225
Project Manager
26 hours
@
$30.50
793
Engineer
83 hours
@
$18.00
1,494
Text Editing
8 hours
@
$12.00
96
Subtotal
$ Z608
Z Estimated Indirect Costs and Fee
Direct Labor x 2.0
$5,216
3. Other Direct Costs
Local Travel 100 miles @ $0.26
$ 26
Reproduction
130
Computer - 10 hours @ $12.00
120
Subtotal
$ 276
Total Estimated Compensation - Phase 111
$8,100
tF
NOW
EE S AtR S
A m.ii,1 .F4'•r.�' +`` `^*Fr, '^�, q�p wiGidf
411 �/ f
A1,A lN'ICk AI ' fa
✓". ➢ may. J '_,_
0
a 4
f
rt•
• , ,! + a ca;�, + � r-.,... 1 «�"+`, ;.��:..., T".I,r� ,.■,y , 3,,5',,i..r'".,."
22woolos-
crvt. x"`vt ` rw sc J. wart dor
Heig "Y or '.
99 ,
to shopo",'
a pp
y
R .....za,. CAAfa ddP! do,_u 1 se rn 8taft,b Roy, "
n 5aa dad
J ?A .EuCta\ E �ft kte3 _
sAr 6"
Ra ndhur3lbG"" E " v Dom No 2
dcW3
Sr mase b
SM stavo,,
N
f.:
Falk
aan.) d 2 fndran Fir,
�
F •N F .., R4i�C � �0
a ,. dd5 I .......r 1�. ase rt .� '" g65C5 ..""«"".,,,:: . 1 '�' .'!n• ��~ e. .
camp Fin!
r ..
s" 1:51
Ito
�.wmneNva�a�« x �. + • � �� F... � 'eI ""`".. 06 -1
63 Camp„
p
F rt
F ,7 Fit
WT
ShdppmQ Center � C 3 � � �• a „':"y
at
PR PEct MTal4" h + Sa °1
FGam3nwl r Q 2✓«w a a
-mat ra, 8M e66� w � � j
[
.`.'�,ww»+y i� -Yom"'•' �I� " °n �. ° 6
,s�, „a.� 3�r1 � Mr?- � 4 � ,,��c s .�• *��`. I i t �+w:..:,«mo�`�°4�tr ��!r �».'�"�,a,,
r » 5
-
kgfi.
»
r..� q ... ~._.. .....
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM T= arY tsA
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director Public works
DATE: July 11, 1990
SUBJECT: Feasibility Review for Possible
Acquisition of Chicago Suburban Water and
Sewer Systems Currently Owned by
Citizens Utility Company
In 1975, consulting engineers, Metcalf & Eddy, were commissioned
to undertake a feasibility study on acquisition of the water and
sewer utility in the northeast section of the Village owned by
Citizens Utility Company. That study put a cost of approximate-
ly $13 million on the proposed acquisition. Initial negotia-
tions indicated that Citizens Utility was not amenable to dis-
posing of the property and was not in agreement over its worth.
The issue of the acquisition of this property was then deferred
indefinitely.
In the summer of 1989, the Village again received requests from
the citizens served by this utility company asking that the
Village once again pursue acquisition of Chicago Suburban Water
and Sewer Systems. Accordingly, on July 18, 1989, the Village
Board awarded a contract to Greeley and Hansen to conduct a
study of acquisition feasibility; the cost for the scope of
services amounted to $22,200. That report was completed in Janu-
ary 1990, and the engineers' estimate of cost for the water and
sewer systems less depreciation was $14,669,000. That figure is
approximately $1.5 million more than the figure indicated in the
1975 Metcalf & Eddy report. It appears that the reason the
figures have remained so close through the intervening years is
that depreciation and inflation of construction costs of the
system have remained relatively unchanged.
Since the 1975 Metcalf & Eddy report, the Village has changed
its source of water supply. We now receive water from the Joint
Action Water Agency (JAWA), and our wells are on stand-by sta-
tus. When the Village was in the planning stage for purchasing
of Lake Michigan water, Citizens Utility Company (Chicago Subur-
ban Water and Sewer systems) was invited to participate in re-
ceiving lake water. They chose not to and have, instead, re-
mained on well water to this date. The EPA has it on record
that Citizens Utility Company water contains levels of radium in
excess of allowable standards. Citizens has, therefore, negoti-
ated a contract with the Village of Glenview for water supply
via a transmission line. Recent contact with the Village of
Glenview has indicated that the contracts for design of a pump-
ing station and transmission line have been approved and have
been awarded to Consoer, Townsend & Associates.
There is still a lawsuit pending, which involves the Village of
Glenview, Citizens Utility Company, and the former owner of
Northfield Woods Utility Company. Allegedly, this utility compa-
ny had a franchised area adjacent to the village of Glenview
and, at the time Glenview purchased the system, there was a lot
of undeveloped property within the franchised area. Part of the
agreement between the Village of Glenview and the former owner
of Northfield Woods Utility Company stipulated that, during the
15 -year period after the sale, Glenview would assess a connec-
tion fee to all new customers and turn that money over to the
former owner. When t' --s .caner found out that Citizens Utility
Company and the Village of Glenview were contemplating an agree-
ment to furnish water to Citizens Utility Company, he sued both
Glenview and Citizens Utility for connection fees, based upon
the original agreement.
I understand the lawsuit was going to treat each of Citizens'
customers as a separate connection. Last winter, the lower
court finally threw out the lawsuit. However, in February 1990,
the case was appealed and was scheduled for appellate court
review. I understand that the Village of Glenview is optimistic
that they will win the case; however, the ruling is not expected
before late this fall. In the meantime, and as stated before-
hand, design of the pumping station and pipeline has been author-
ized.
It is projected that, if the courts again dismiss the case and
there is no appeal, the interconnection between the two water
systems could te in place by late 1991. Neither the Village of
Glenview nor Citizens Utility Company has acquired any rights-
of-way, licenses, permits, etc., from any agency for this con-
struction work. They will be depending upon substantial amounts
of right-of-way from the Cook County Forest Preserve; however,
traditionally, that agency has not been the easiest to acquire
rights-of-way from. If the appellate court determines that the
former owner has the right to a connection fee, then the Village
of Glenview will defer action on supplying Chicago Suburban
Water and Sewer Systems with water until the end of their agree-
ment with the former owner of Northfield Woods Utility Company.
The expiration date of that 15 -year agreement is July of 1992.
In the initial study by Greeley and Hansen, the Chicago Suburban
Water and Sewer Systems area was divided into three sections for
acquisition, with Area #1 being the least disruptive to the
existing Mount Prospect system. Areas #2 and #3 would require
additional storage, improvements within their system and the
Village's system, and increased flow rate from JAWA. Copy of
the study area is attached.
It was concluded that the JAWA connection point at Highland and
Emerson would not be adequate to supply water at a reasonable
pressure to all of the Citizens Utility Company franchised ar-
ea. The study, as originally commissioned to Greeley and
Hansen, took into consideration that Chicago Suburban Water and
Sewer systems also serves a portion of Prospect Heights, and it
was thought that Prospect Heights may purchase that area of
Citizens Utility Company which lies within their corporate bound-
aries.
Recently, the City of Prospect Heights made public that they are
considering the sale of a very small water system, which they
currently operate, within their corporate boundaries; the pur-
chaser would probably be Citizens Utility Company. Recent infor-
mation is that Prospect Heights may be planning a referendum in
November of this year to pose a question to its citizens on the
sale of this small system and on whether or not the majority of
those Prospect Heights residents who are on private wells would
want an area -wide water system developed in their community.
Informational meetings are presently scheduled with Prospect
Heights citizens to discuss these issues. The first meeting is
scheduled for July 19 at the Hersey High School auditorium. The
possibility that the City of Prospect Heights would sell its
existing small system to Citizens Utility Company (and obviously
not want to be a participant in the Village's acquisition of
that utility company) is a matter that would require additional
study so that the Village can determine its feasibility. It is
projected that the additional study for the impact of Prospect
Heights actions would cost $20,500.
Several questions still would have to be resolved. Some major
system improvements of our distribution system would have to be
addressed; i.e., the flow at the Lincoln Avenue JAWA connection
point would have to be increased in order to accommodate the
Village residents in the center of our community. This would
involve changing valves within the station to allow the extra
water to flow out, plus connection of large -diameter pipelines
from the station east to Emerson Street and west to Busse Road.
These improvements would cost in excess of $500,000. It would
also be necessary to increase the size of the valves at the
Highland Avenue/Emerson JAWA connections to accommodate the
increased flow to the Citizens Utility service area. The cost
for Greeley and Hansen's study to evaluate the water main im-
provement would be approximately $6700.
It is Greeley and Hansen's recommendation that Fletcher Engi-
neers be engaged to make a hydraulic analysis of our system
before any further plans are made. Again, complete analysis of
our system would have to be made by an independent consultant to
determine if the proper flow of water could be obtained through
the existing JAWA transmission main.
Preliminary findings indicate that the JAWA water supply to
Mount Prospect would not be adequate to serve the entire service
area of Chicago Suburban Water and Sewer Systems and that an
alternate water supply would be needed. Accordingly, it was
determined that, if the Village were to purchase the system, it
may be cost-effective for the Village of Mount Prospect to enter
into an agreement with the Village of Glenview for an alternate
water supply. Although Citizens Utility Company has indicated
that they are considering some internal improvements to their
system after acquisition of water through Glenview, our engi-
neers have not had the opportunity to address those modifica-
tions in order to determine whether or not those improvements
would be adequate. It is projected that this phase of the study
would cost an additional $8100.
A further concern on my part is that, if Prospect Heights does
not want to participate with the Village of Mount Prospect in
purchasing the existing water system, would the court systems
allow the Village to remove the existing pumping and storage
facilities,. all of which are 71rrently located within the Vil-
lage of Mount Prospect corpoz :_.'> limits. The off-the-cuff as-
sumption. would be that they would not. Consequently, our costs
could increase substantially for storage and pumping facili-
ties. Further, the Village then may also have to make some
internal improvements within the system which would serve the
customers. It is estimated that in excess of $35,000 would be
required just for Greeley and Hansen for the additional studies
as outlined.
It is probable that the hydraulic studies needed would add anoth-
er estimated $15,000. The original Greeley and Hansen report of
January 1990 indicated that Chicago Suburban Water and Sewer
Systems has an accounted -for water loss of 15%. That is a sub-
stantial amount of loss and is a subject that would also have to
be addressed. The problem may be in the accuracy of their me-
ters, or in pipeline leakage. Either way, an accelerated pro-
gram, such as we are currently working on within our own system,
could cost us substantial dollars.
Up to this point, we have been addressing potential inadequacies
of the water system. When the water system is purchased, we
would also have to acquire the sewer system. There are at least
five separate sewage lift stations within the system. At least
two of those, according to the report, have inadequate capacity
and would have to be improved. Surcharging of sanitary sewers
is still prevalent within that franchised area. It is recommend-
ed, in the January 1990 Greeley and Hansen report, that a compre-
hensive review of all sanitary sewers and their capacity levels
be undertaken. Such review was beyond the scope of the original
Greeley and Hansen study, and an additional fee would have to be
negotiated to address those concerns. Further, at least one (or
more) of those lift stations accepts the flow of wastewater from
those residents in Prospect Heights outside of our corporate
limits. How that issue should be addressed is unknown at this
time.
Citizens Utility has finished their infiltration/inflow reduc-
tion program as mandated by the MWRD. A major improvement recom-
mended for acquisition of the water supply is adding a one mil-
lion -gallon elevated tank in the northeast section adjacent to
River Road. As this area is predominately residential, heavy
opposition from the neighborhood could be anticipated. It is
projected by Greeley and Hansen, in their January 1990 report,
that our minimum cost for purchase of the system and adding
known improvements would be $20 million. This cost could esca-
late, depending upon the hydraulic analyses of the system, wheth-
er or not any water mains in the service area should be in-
creased in size or replaced due to deterioration, and whether or
not the sanitary sewer system needs major improvements.
I have talked to my counterpart in the City of Des Plaines:
They have awarded a contract to Consoerp Townsend & Associates
to undertake a study on the feasibility'of the City of Des
Plaines' purchasing the Waycinden Water Company, which is also
owned by Citizens Utility Company. This company supplies water
to approximately 536 customers within the corporate limits of
the City of Des Plaines, plus some factories and large complexes
such as United Airlines, either unincorporated or within the
corporate limits of the Village of Mount Prospect. Preliminary
indications are that these acquisition costs would fall in the
$5 million range. Comparing that cost, for 536 customers, to
the 7702 customers of the Chicago Suburban Water and Sewer Sys-
tems, you are looking at a substantial difference. Further, the
City of Des Plaines is still negotiating with JAWA for a connec-
tion point to the transmission line that feeds Mount Prospect.
The connection point could be in the vicinity of Golf Road and
Route 83 and would primarily be used for filling their new two
million -gallon elevated storage tank which, in turn, would serve
the majority of the customers within the Waycinden Water Company
area. Whether or not the Des Plaines draw on the JAWA feeder
main that serves Mount Prospect would impact an increased supply
if we were to obtain Chicago Suburban Water and Sewer Systems is
an unknown factor at this time.
M=
Owmicil-, ""An
HLW/td
attach.
PUBUTIL/CITIZENS.ACQ
FIGURE 1
rif}-wAUKEE Nf1Nti�ltt :r
662 „ ua . „ .�„•l,
,
c
'AV
Ifof
23 7
47
1AV,9,"3C" rt I t
a *
"= . Ike y^ „ _ : c
�.' Ngy 4Y ♦ k �
° AMM' rt AI'p AL
*di0 Ci*ftw i10 ♦ Ft*; iv; .. 4G# I$C1r'"
Golf Club '.* 637
• iilY i +#f*'"`(k w*w wt r ♦ Woo"I
Sh nc6f "9tKa"
ii6flN No 2�
777 ,.
MOT a
1 'Avo.:. :.
1. .
j.
f a ,
�r
STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP
LEGEND:
AREA N0. i
AREA N0. 2;;;;;
AREA N0. 3
MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
GREELEY AND HANSEN CITIZENS UTILITIES ACQUISITION STUDY
ENGINEERS JANUARY 1990
EXHIb►Y
Village of lount Prospect
Noun Prospect, Illinois �
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: EVERETTE M. HILL, JR., ESQ.
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 29, 1990
SUBJECT: LIQUOR ORDINANCE
I have discussed with the Mayor items that we need to review concerning the Liquor
Ordinance which would be appropriate to bring up sometime in the near future for a
Committee of the Whole meeting.
The first one is an Amendment to the Liquor Control Ordinance to provide for direct
Appeal to the Circuit Court. Since the Conference has not been successful in getting this
item in the legislative process in Springfield, the Mayor feels it is appropriate for us to
review it again.
Secondly, I would also like to suggest that we place in our local Ordinance provisions
for Notice of Closure of Establishments. When the Liquor Commissioner may determine
that a store should be closed for violations of the Liquor Commission that we have a
provision that there be a Notice placed on the door prominently displaying that it is
closed by Order of the Liquor Commissioner because of violation of the Local Liquor
Ordinance. I would like to talk to you about placing this in our Local Ordinance as
well.
JOHN FULTON DIXON
JFD/rcw
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
EVERETTE M. HILL, JR., ESQ.
MAY 17, 1989
AMENDMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL ORDINANCE TO PROV DE
FOR DIRECT APPEAL TO CIRCUIT COURT
Please find attached a proposed Ordinance amending our Liquor Control Ordinance.
Also attached is an earlier memo describing the problem that the amendment will
address.
As you are aware, we have had no success with the legislators in achieving such a
Statewide amendment. I was told by the Northwest Municipal Conference that it
opposed by the Illinois Retail Liquor Dealers' Association.
It is my opinion that the Village of Mount Prospect has the authority to do this under
its Home Rule powers. The amendments provide as follows:
1. All appeals shall be directly to the Circuit Court. eliminating the State Liquor
Commission from the Appellate process.
2. The licensee will be granted an automatic. stay of any suspension or revocation
by filing a Notice of Intent to Appeal with the Village Clerk within 72 hours of the
Mayor's decision.
3. The Police Department will post the premises which have been suspended or
revoked.
EVERETM M. HILL, JR.
EMH/rcw
attachment
GLASS, HILL, DALLXEYER
Arrvu.-4EYS AX "W
3 aADLE Y -M. fsLASS • u96 SKOKZZ
NORTHBROOR, ILLIVOIS 60052 WmLiAm L LiT?Lejonm
.1110EIA&7. M Ru111
n�ppw�ry 6V
EVAlk CN2197tLL, j12 ko%rrTUD
June il, 1987
Mayor Carolyn Krause
Village of mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Re: State of Illinois Liquor control Commission
Dear Mayor Krause;
we have on many occasions discussed the role of the State
of Illinois Liquor Control Commission in reviewing decisions of
Local Liquor Control Commissioners. It has been; our mutual
ooservation that the State Commission shows little respect for
local control over liquor licenses. We have found that despite
legal constraints to the contrary, the State Commission 0441,"
often substitutes its own opinions for the opinion of the Local
Liquor Control Commissioner.
It is my recommendation that we attempt to -#ve legislation
introduced in the General Assembly that would eliminate the
State Liquor Control Commission's review of Local Liquor
Commission decisions. If State Commission reView were
eliminated, the licenses would appeal decisions of the Local
Liquor Control Commissioner directly to the Circqit Court. It
is my opinion that now would a good time to attempt to got such
legislation introduced. In 1986 Governor Thompsoh had reviewed
the possibility of completely disbanding the Illinois Liquor
Control Commission, My recommendation does not go that far. It
would simply take them out of the review process.
I think this legislation is appropriate for, the following
reasons:
1. --Most decisions of municipal official$ are not
reviewatg.e by a State Commission but rather are reviewable under
administrative review directly to the Circuit Court.
2. The State Commission has no vensitivtty to local
concerns about matters involving the sale of alcohol.
GLASS, HILL, DALLMEYER& ctOTx, LTD.
Mayor Carolyn Krause
June 11, 1987
Page 2
3. Perhaps the most distasteful aspect of the current
system is that if the State Commission overrules the Local
Commissioner and the Local Commissioner wishes t* appeal that
overruling order, then the Illinois Attorney Geniral represents
the State Commission in that appeal. Effectively, we are left
with a situation where all of the prestige and resources of the
Attorney General's office (paid for by Illinois taxpayers) is
directed at defending the actions of a liquor licensee who has
already been found guilty by a Local Commissioner. The licensee
gets a free appellate lawyer at taxpayer expense! it is an
absurd and unequitable situation.
I am requesting that we attempt to recruit the Northwest
Municipal Conference and the Illinois municipal League in an
effort to introduce and support such legislation.
if I can be of any help in accomplishing that, please let
me know.
Very truly yours,
IS/ Everette M. Hi4j, Jr.
Everette M. gill, Jr.
EMhjr/hm
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACTING
PURSUANT TO THEIR HOME RULE POWERS:
SECTION ONE: That §13.124.C. of Chapter 13 of the Village Code of Mount
Prospect, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by deleting
§13.124.0 in its entirety and substituting, therefore a new §13.124.0 and
§13.124.D., so that hereinafter said §13.124.0 and §13.124.D of Chapter 13 shall be
and read as follows:
C. Any appeal from a decision of the Village President, in his capacity
as Local Liquor Control Commissioner, shall be directly to the Circuit
Court of Cook County, pursuant to Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter
1 10, Article III, Administrative Review.' There shall be no appeal to the
Illinois Liquor Commission. If the licensee intends to appeal a
suspension or revocation of license, the licensee must file a Notice of
Intent to Appeal with the Village Clerk within 72 hours of receipt of the
Suspension or Revocation Order. The filing of said Notice of Intent to
Appeal shall stay the Suspension or Revocation Order until the 36th day
after entry of the order if no Appeal is filed or upon entry of an Order
from the Circuit Court of Cook County if an Appeal is filed. The
failure to file said Notice of Intent to Appeal shall not deprive the
licensee of the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of Cook County, but
there shall be no automatic stay of an Order of Suspension or Revoca-
tion.
D. Twenty-four (24) hours before the commencement of any suspension
or revocation, the Mount Prospect Police Department shall post on all
entrances to the licensed establishment a notice that the premises is
prohibited from selling or delivering alcoholic beverages by Order of the
Mount Prospect Local Liquor Control Commissioner for violation of the
Mount Prospect Village Code.
The Notice shall be in letters not less than one-half (1/2) inch high and
shall in the case of a suspension give the times of the suspension and in
the case of a revocation state the exact time which the revocation goes
into effect.
The removal of said notice before the suspension ends by any person is
prohibited and shall subject the person to a fine of not less than $200.00
nor more than $1,000.00.11
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided
by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1990.
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
Village President
F' P 0 M N. id. M 4
LQL1 WASTE AGENCY QX HQX22jax cgo=
Wheeling Township
Baling Facility Fact Sheet
The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County !swANcC) has proposed
the development of a solid waste baling facility, administration
building and two new flood control reservoirs at a site located
northeast of the Central Road and Des Maines River Road intersection
in unincorporated Wheeling Township.
This 49.7 acre site Is adjacent to the Sexton -Maryville landfill
that. received solid waste from area Communities until the mid 1980's.
The n4arAst residential vroperty Is lonatad 800 feet to the northwest
and will be well buffered by the existing tree line and River Road.
SWANCC#s proposal for a $9 million development and related rodaway
improvements represents a significant investment in the area. The
centrally located baling fac ltY is a key element of the Agency's
comprehensive plan to address the rOgiOr'S SOlid�waste disposal
crisis. The reservoirs will help ease floudin Problems in the Des
Plaines area, but are not essentlal to the bat ng or administrative
facilities since those developments will be located Completely outside
the floodway, flood plain and flood fringe.
The proposed facility will process approximately s90 tons of solid
waste �;er day from 13 Communities. only munioiv&l solid waste from
these communities will be accepted, and all hazardous, industrial,
special, medical or liquid waste will by strictly prohibited. The
facility is one of three baling stations planned by SWANCC. Last
year, the city of Polling Meadows granted approval to a similar
The facility will operate from 5:00 AN to 6:00 PH on Monday through
Friday and a half-day of Saturday. The facility will stop accepting
waste at 4:00 PM to quarantee that all waste will be removed from the
facility by 6:00 PH.
The transfer station will be completely enclosed. All refuse will be
handled inside the transfer station, and &!-I collection vehicles will
be enclosed so that blowing paper will not be a problem.
No refuse of any kind will be al3owed to stay in the facility
overnight. The entire fac:"ItY and eqUirlment Fill be washed down at
*,hA antiC�F r)rarations each day, Collection vehicles will be
stored on the site.
A negative air press,4rs design and charcoal air filtration system
will prevent any odor problems.
The Solid Waste Agency has proposed d host of traffic controls and
improvements to looai roaae.
* All transfer trailers will be controlled by SWANCC, and the
.Agency and its member communities have the clear authority
to establish the routes of the public and private vehicles that
will use the facility.
* Traffic to and from the baling facility will be restricted to
major thoroughfares.
* Peak traffic periods for the transfer station are in the late
morning and early afternoon, not daring the early morning and
evening rush hour peaxs tnat exist on area roads.
* The baling tactility will generate a total of approximately 155
trucks per day, which represents lase thar. a 2%.increase in overall
traffic volume. This limited increase in volume will be
distributed &uronci the various roadways to father reduce any impact.
* The Solid Waste Agency has agread to make improvements on River
Road as part of its plan.
* 'rhe Solid waste Agency has conducted extensive counts of the area
traffic. Area roads are more than +ahle to handle the
minor {narAmpan in trAffi.1_
CphM
N is
M
d
tl
Y
The Solid Waste Agency has proposed d host of traffic controls and
improvements to looai roaae.
* All transfer trailers will be controlled by SWANCC, and the
.Agency and its member communities have the clear authority
to establish the routes of the public and private vehicles that
will use the facility.
* Traffic to and from the baling facility will be restricted to
major thoroughfares.
* Peak traffic periods for the transfer station are in the late
morning and early afternoon, not daring the early morning and
evening rush hour peaxs tnat exist on area roads.
* The baling tactility will generate a total of approximately 155
trucks per day, which represents lase thar. a 2%.increase in overall
traffic volume. This limited increase in volume will be
distributed &uronci the various roadways to father reduce any impact.
* The Solid Waste Agency has agread to make improvements on River
Road as part of its plan.
* 'rhe Solid waste Agency has conducted extensive counts of the area
traffic. Area roads are more than +ahle to handle the
minor {narAmpan in trAffi.1_