Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0292_001MINUTES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1990 SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER 50 SOUTH EMERSON I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, George Van Geem and Don Weibel. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Mark Busse. Also present were: Village Manager John Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director Dave Jepson, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Director of Inspection Services Chuck Bencic, Randy Patchett, Dick Bodner and Catherine Morley of RJN Associates, 18 persons in the audience and two members of the press. 11. DISCUSSION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Village Manager Dixon introduced the discussion of the Stormwater Management Projects including the financing. Finance Director Dave Jepson went through the report on the possible financing methods including Property Taxes, Special Service Area Taxes, Special Assessment, User Charges and other Taxes such as Utility Tax and Sales Tax. Mr. Jepson did a comparison of the annual charges for the Central/Wa-Pella and North Main/Prospect Manor areas. He also discussed the consideration of a Garbage User Charge to take the pressure off the Property Tax. Randy Patchett, of RJN Associates, reported on the flooding area, tributary area and immediate downstream area of the Central/Wa-Pella and North Main/Prospect Manor drainage systems. He said all the properties either receive a benefit or contribute to the problem.. Trustee Van Geem asked why people who do not flood downstream right now should want to contribute to a project to convey more water past them. Mr. Patchett indicated that everyone is a part of the drainage basin and contributes to the problem. Trustee Corcoran had a similar sentiment. He questioned whether those who do not have a problem right now would be interested in paying for the proposed projects. He asked what could be done to slow down the water in the Central/Wa-Pella area. Catherine Morley of RJN Associates, agreed from an engineering standpoint that it would be preferable to detain the water, but she said the cost would be prohibitive. Trustee Corcoran said if a User Charge would be implemented, he would like to see an incentive to reduce this User Charge. Mr. Jepson said the commercial buildings would have an incentive. However, Trustee Corcoran noted the homeowners would not have an incentive. He asked, for instance, how much it would cost Hines Lumber to solve the problem versus the money the Village would have to spend for this project. Catherine Morley said it would be difficult to determine this number especially since all the affected properties in that area would have to be examined. Trustee Arthur recommended a one-quarter percent Sales Tax which would raise enough money to do the $14 million in projects recommended by the Village Manager. He felt the Sales tax should be initiated with a Sunset Provision. He also agreed with the concept of a User Charge for garbage. Mayor Farley asked if the Village could add the one-quarter percent Sales Tax. Mr. Jepson indicated that such a Tax could be initiated by the Village but it could not go into effect until September 1. There was a discussion of the Garbage User Fee. Trustee Floros felt that if a Garbage User Fee were to be initiated, those with more garbage should have to pay a higher fee. Trustee Corcoran agreed with this approach. Mr. Jepson indicated that stickers could be used for this purpose. Village Manager Dixon said that on the East Coast, the residents are charged for any cans more than one per week. Trustee Weibel asked how much it would cost to collect the Stormwater User Charge. Mr. Jepson said it is not unusual to cost as much as 5%. Trustee Weibel said be liked the idea of an incentive for detention attached to the User Charge. He asked how many would benefit. Catherine Morley said about one- third of the commercial properties could be eligible for a credit. There was then a question about adding incentives for detention on to the Property Tax. Mr. Jepson said there could be a rebate mechanism for detention on the Property Tax. Trustee Weibel then said he would like to see the Garbage billed by the scavenger like it is done in Arlington Heights. Trustee Van Geem suggested that the Finance Cormnission look at the proposed Garbage User Fee and make a recommendation to the Village Board. Mr. Jepson said he will place this on the January 10 Agenda. Trustee Van Geem asked how we would implement a Project User Charge. Mr. Jepson said the Village would have to have an Appeal Process, a Public Hearing and then adoption of an Ordinance. He felt it would be a problem collecting because some of the people in the affected areas may not feel they should pay for the project because they are not flooding at the present time. Mr. Jepson did say the Village would have the power to shut water off. Trustee Arthur again pushed the idea of the Sales Tax due to the simplicity of the collection as well as the ability to explain the proposed Tax to the public. In respect to the issue about the Sales Tax, Trustee Weibel said he would like to see some kind of mechanism for a credit for detention. Also, he asked what impact on businesses such as Randburst this Tax would have. Mr. Jepson said that Sales Taxes are higher in Schaumburg where Woodfield is located. He said they have a one-half percent additional Sales Tax. Mayor Farley then opened the floor to comments by the public. George Watanabe said his area would receive no benefit from User Fee detention credits because his area is 100% residential. He felt the Village had some involvement 30 years ago when the homes were built. He did not feel the affected areas should or could bear the full burden of the projects. Mr. Watanabe then read a letter from Ron Wold, of 617 Forest. Mr. Wold's letter indicated that a project of this magnitude should be financed Village -wide, although a one-time charge to the people in the affected area could be considered. Lois Heitzman, 615 North Forest, agreed with the Sales Tax because it is easy to administer. A resident of 2103 Jody Court said that he had to pay about 70% of the cost for a Special Assessment to solve flooding problems in his area. He warned that any projects should not impact the downstream people. He said the Board should look at some way to prevent an increase in Taxes. He noted that the Country is in a recession, and people cannot afford increased Taxes. A resident at 104 Stratford agreed with the comments made by the preceding individual. She said she is living on a fixed income and she is being inundated with increases in Taxes. She felt the Village is trying to do too much too soon. Bill Lynch, a resident on South Louis Street, asked how many people carry Flood Insurance. He said the Reservoir Project by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District should help flooding. He is opposed to any increase in Taxes to pay for this project, but if it is necessary, he feels it should be in the Property Tax because of the Income Tax break. One of the owners of the 500 Central Building said they have underground detention which is more than adequate to hold the water runoff from his property. However, in a storm event, water comes from elsewhere and floods his property. He said it costs about $12,000 each time there is a flood to repair the boilers and the elevators. He urged the Board to consider action to improve the situation. He said it is economically unfeasible for properties in the area to provide detention. He thought it should be financed through a Property Tax. Trustee Van Geem said he agreed with the Finance Commission recommendation with some public benefit and a cost to the affected property owners. He would like to see the Central/Wa-Pella project completed and then determinee if the work is effective before considering any future projects. Trustee Floros said he is totally behind the North Main/Prospect Manor project and felt that this project should also go ahead after the additional studies are completed in March. He said the residents here have waited 30 years for action, He supports the project area User Charge and a Village Public Benefit Property Tax split 50/50. Trustee Van Geem said he also favors a 50% public benefit. Mr. Jepson then outlined the recommendation of the Finance Commission. Trustee Weibel said he supports going ahead with the Central/Wa-Pella and North Main/Prospect Manor projects subject to the additional studies expected in March. However, he has a problem with the User Fee. He said that on a Tollroad you have a choice to use it or not use it. He said this is not so with a storm sewer fee. He felt that Property Taxes should be used for part of these funds. He suggested the Village should collect one-third of the funds through the Property Tax for the Public Benefit portion with a credit for detention and two-thirds of the funds should be generated from Sales Tax. Trustee Arthur again pleaded for the Sales Tax noting the simplicity and ease of collection and explanation to the public. Trustee Floros said he could support a Sales Tax if the Restaurant Tax would be reduced one-quarter percent. Trustee Corcoran said he wants those causing the problem; in other words, those without detention to have an incentive to do something. He did not feel the Sales Tax would accomplish this. Trustee Van Geem said that he is not in favor of charging schools or churches. He said he is still in favor of a Project Area User Charge and a public benefit through the Property Tax. Mayor Farley said that he supports one-third funding by Property Tax and two- thirds by Sales Tax. He said he would support the one-quarter percent offset of the Restaurant Tax. There appeared to be a consensus to fund the proposed projects with some form of Sales Tax. Trustee Corcoran suggested that the Village develop some method to provide an incentive for properties to install detention including businesses, churches and schools. Trustee Weibel suggested some kind of cost sharing method on detention. There was a discussion about whether or not the Board had decided to proceed with the North Main/Prospect Manor repairs as recommended by RJN Associates. Several Trustees felt strongly that after the receipt of the Study in March that the Board had intended to go forward with the project. Trustee Corcoran and Trustee Van Geem disagreed and felt that the Board needs to discuss in depth whether the Village should proceed with this and other projects. Trustee Corcoran said that since construction will not begin until 1992, he would request more discussion on the topic. Mayor Farley indicated Phases 11, 111 and IV in the RJN Report will be discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 8, 1991. lummy1 -'� There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager JPB/rcw Phone: 708 / 392-8000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1990 9:00 A.M. SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER AGENDA I. DISCUSSION OF FINANCING 11. DISCUSSION OF PHASE I PROJECTS A. CENTRAL/WA-PELLA AREA B. NORTH MAIN/PROSPECT MANOR AREA 111. DISCUSSION OF PHASES H, III AND IV IV. ADJOURNMENT eon MAYOR GERALD L, PARLEY TRUSTEES RALPH W ARTHUR MARK W BUSSE TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN LEO FLOROS GEORGE R. VAN SEEM THEODORE J WATTENBERG Village of Mount Prospect VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON VILLAGE CLERK 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 CAROL A, FIELDS Phone: 708 / 392-8000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1990 9:00 A.M. SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER AGENDA I. DISCUSSION OF FINANCING 11. DISCUSSION OF PHASE I PROJECTS A. CENTRAL/WA-PELLA AREA B. NORTH MAIN/PROSPECT MANOR AREA 111. DISCUSSION OF PHASES H, III AND IV IV. ADJOURNMENT eon MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 11, 1990 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, George Van Geem and Don Weibel. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Leo Floros. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director David Jepson, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Police Chief Ron Pavlock, Fire Chief Ed Cavello, Planning and Zoning Director Dave Clements, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Police Chief Ron Richardson, Terry Hodnik and Mr. Brown of Greeley and Hansen, Fred Borich of Donohue and Associates, two members of the press and 10 persons in the audience. II. MINUTES The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of November 27, 1990 were accepted and filed. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There were no citizens who wished to be heard. IV. PUBUC HEARING - T XI IMREASE Mayor Farley opened a Public Hearing to discuss the proposed rate increase request by American Taxi- Mayor Farley noted that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Daily Herald edition of November 24, 1990. Randy Moss, of American Taxi, said that it has been roughly four years since the last rate increase. Due to the great additional expense for gasoline, automobiles and repairs and labor, a rate increase is very much needed at this time. Trustees Arthur and Corcoran said they were in favor of the increase. Mayor Farley asked what impact there would be on the Senior Taxi Program budget. Finance Director Dave Jepson said that according to the report by Nancy Morgan, the additional expense for the Program during this current fiscal year would be approximately $2,000. Trustee Busse said the Village has had a few complaints about senior taxi service. He asked Mr. Moss what American Taxi is doing to improve the service. Mr. Moss said he recently had a meeting with Nancy Morgan, of Human Services, to try to iron the problems with the program. He said that he will work very hard to make sure that good service is provided to the senior citizens. Trustee Busse said he would prefer to wait three months to monitor the improvement of the service. Mr. Moss said this would make it very difficult for someone to get a cab in the Village of Mount Prospect because the operators would not want to provide service at a lower rate in this community when the higher rates are being charged in neighboring communities. Trustee Corcoran did not feel the rate increase should be put off for three months. He felt the increase, however, should be made contingent upon good service. Trustee Weibel also felt that the rate increase should be approved contingent upon good service. He said if the Village refused the increase, he was concerned that the service would get even worse. He said the increase should be probationary. Trustee Van Geem said he is uncomfortable deciding upon a rate increase without seeing the financials and he requested copies of the financials. There appeared to be a consensus by the Committee to support the taxi increase as requested by American Taxi contingent upon good service in the next 90 days. Mayor Farley noted that the Public Hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. He asked staff to draft the appropriate Ordinance for consideration at the December 18 meeting. V. I!VBLIC SAFETY FACILITY DC 14 Trustee Van Geem urged the Village Board to go ahead with the construction of the Public Safety Facility despite the results of the Referendum. He said the building is needed and remodeling is not a wise expenditure of tax dollars. He said he has received communications from over 100 residents urging him to proceed with the project despite the results of the Referendum. Trustee Corcoran supported another Referendum in April. He feels the residents will approve the Referendum because he feels the Village can sell the need for the Facility. Trustee Corcoran supports the current site of the Public Safety Building for the new building. -2- Trustee Arthur supports a Referendum in April, but he feels the new Facility should be at Pine Street. He said there would be less cost and less inconvenience. He also suggested cutting out the purchase of furniture. He said the Facility at the Pine Street location would be only $4 million. Mayor Farley asked Fred Borich, of Donohue and Associates, to clarify the costs for these two alternatives. Mr. Borich said that the Public Safety Facility at the current site is estimated to cost $7,156,000 while the Pine Street site would cost $5,858,000 according to the original report. Village Manager Dixon indicated that the project at the current site was reduced by staff to $6,992,000. He said the actual difference between the two projects was about $1.1 million. Trustee Weibel said that we asked the voters and they did not pass the Referendum. He would be hesitant to go back to the voters with the same proposal. Trustee Busse said that we lost the Referendum by a slim margin but we still lost. He said the Village should look at other options. He said another Referendum is necessary. Mayor Farley opened the floor to comments by residents. Tom West, of 1507 East Thayer Street, said that after touring the facilities, he felt the Board should be ashamed for such a poor facility. He said that this issue has been studied to death and the time for action is now. Don Harmon, of 16 North William, said he would object to going forward without another Referendum. He said he supports the new Facility but we need another Referendum. Idyl Nipper, of 1220 East Cardinal, said she feels strongly that we can pass another Referendum. She cautioned that we should call it a Police and Fire Building. She suggested a Citizens' Committee to get out the support for the Facility. She said she has a group willing to help out and to educate residents on the need for this Facility. There was a consensus by the Committee to place this issue on the Referendum in April. In regards to the proper location for the Facility, Trustee Van Geern asked if the Village could possibly acquire the property right next to the present Public Safety Building. Village Manager Dixon said the owner may be willing to sell but the tenant has the right of first refusal. Trustee Van Geem said he needs this information before he can make a decision on the proper location. He said the Pine Street location looks very attractive but he wants to know how this would affect the redevelopment of the downtown area. -3- Trustee Arthur felt he has the information needed to make a decision about the site. He asked Finance Director Jepson to explain about the worst and best scenarios for redevelopment in the downtown area. Mr. Jepson outlined the best and worst case scenarios for redevelopment of the various downtown properties. In the worst case scenario, the Village would have to pay approximately $6.4 million and could expect to recover approximately $2.1 million in a non -TIF project and $3.6 million in a TIF project. In other words, the net cost to the Village would be about $4.3 million for the non -TIF project and $2.8 million in a TIF project. In the best case scenario, the Village's expense would be about $7.3 million and could expect to recover $4.4 million in a non -TIF area and $12.7 million in a TIF project. Under this scenario, the Village could expect a $2.9 million loss in a non -TIF project but a gain of $5.3 million with a TIF project. Mr. Jepson noted that for any project to be successful, it would have to be in conjunction with TIF financing. Also, the project would probably have to be a high-density project with a minimum of 150 apartments to make the project pay. Trustee Arthur then suggested that the Pine Street location would be excellent because it could possibly be used in the future for a Village Hall. In response to the question about the cost for the property next to the current Public Safety Building, Mr. Dixon said that the Village has an idea about the cost but the unknown is still whether or not the tenant would exercise the right of first refusal. Trustee Corcoran said he needs information to make sure that redevelopment of the Pine Street site is not viable before he can change his opinion about the appropriate location of the facility. Trustee Arthur disagreed with Trustee Corcoran and felt that we have the information from the market survey. Trustee Busse said the report on the best and worst case scenarios convinces him. He said the Taxing Districts will be upset about expanding the TIF. He also noted that for the project to be successful, it would have to be dense apartments. Trustee Busse said that he is in favor of the Pine Street location for the Public Safety Facility. Trustee Weibel said he has supported the Pine Street location for some time but he asked several questions to obtain additional information. -4- Trustee Corcoran asked how the meetings with the developers are going. Village Manager Dixon said that three developers attended a preliminary meeting last week and a fourth was unable to attend although they wanted to. He said he expects an answer from them as to whether or not they are interested by Friday. Trustee Corcoran said he would like to wait until after January 5 when we have the meeting with the interested developers. Trustee Arthur disagreed with Trustee Corcoran, saying that we already have the information. He said there is not enough time after January 5 to pass the appropriate Ordinance on the Referendum. Paul Hoefert strongly urged that we remain with the current site. He said there has been interest amongst developers all along for the property in the triangle area but the developers have been waiting for the Village to get their act together. He said that if the Public Safety Facility is moved to the Pine Street location, then redevelopment would be killed. Mayor Farley said it would be helpful to have the information from the developers on Friday. He asked that the question of the siting of the Public Safety Facility be placed on the December 18 Agenda. VI. ]2jSMSI!QN QN A -.CMSMON OF ITT Eli` MILITIES Village Manager Dixon introduced the discussion on the proposed acquisition of Citizens' Utilities. Terry Hodnik, of Greeley and Hansen, made a presentation on results of the recent studies on water quality and the additional expenses for purchase of the Citizens' Utilities system. Mr. Hodnik noted that it would not be cost effective to try to obtain additional water from JAWA. He indicated that he did not obtain information on the cost to deliver Glenview water. He suggested that perhaps the Village could obtain information from Glenview as he was unable to do this. Mr. Hodnik also said that he did not include information on cost to disconnect from the sanitary sewer north of town. He said he will provide this information to the Village Manager. Village Manager Dixon explained that the $990,000 for purchase of the Rob Roy system would be paid for not by our residents but by people living in that area. He said the cost to acquire the entire Citizens' Utilities system and improvements would be about $17 million plus the additional expense to connect to Glenview water. Village Manager Dixon then noted that he had a meeting that day with the new Administrator in Prospect Heights to discuss a possible request for water in a westerm portion of Prospect Heights. Trustee Van Geem asked if the costs outlined by Greeley and Hansen would hold up in Court if we chose to condemn the system. Mr. Hodnik said he would have to do more studies to refine the figures to withstand a Court challenge. Trustee Van Geem suggested this further study. Mayor Farley felt this was putting the cart before the horse. Trustee Busse would also like to defer any further study until he obtains the cost for connecting to Glenview water. Mr. Hodnik indicated that he will help the Village Manager to draft a letter to Glenview regarding the cost. Trustee Weibel also felt it was necessary to obtain information on the cost for the transmission of Glenview water. He said that rate increases were the big problem in the past. Trustee Arthur said be thought that water quality was the problem all along. Trustee Weibel said that the water quality complaints were lodged by a limited number of individuals. Pete Lannon, of 1409 Dogwood, said that Citizens' service has not been all that bad. However, he feels the obscene rate increases are the problem. He said profit is their motive while the Village would have a different motive. Also, by hook or by crook, he wants to get off well water because of the periodic stains it can cause to clothes. Trustee Weibel said he would like to see a Referendum on the Citizens' Utilities acquisition as soon as possible. However, he would not support two Referenda in April. He suggested putting off the Citizens' Utilities Referendum until November. Trustee Busse agreed with his approach.. VIII. MANAGER'S REPORT 1. Manager Dixon reported that the Public Works Buildings and Grounds Division has received a Second Place Award from American City and County Magazine. He commended the Department for this Award. 2. Manager Dixon reported on the Star Program through Human Services. VIII. AMMER BUSI -NESS Trustee Busse requested that the Employee Assistance Program be placed on the next Village Board Agenda. Trustee Corcoran requested a review of the lighting standards in the Village. IX ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. JPB/rcw Respectfully submitted, JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager 10 CAF/ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY REFERENDUM FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PUBLIC QUESTION ON THE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That pursuant to the authority vested in the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect by Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, 1970, an advisory referendum shall be held in the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, during the general election to be held April 2, 1991, for the purpose of submitting to the voters - the following proposition: Shall the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect authorize the construction of a new Fire and Police Building at a cost of ? " ,.SECTION TWO: That the local election official shall certify the above public question to the election authority having jurisdiction over the territory of the Village of Mount Prospect in the manner provided by law. SECTION THREE: That Notice of said election shall be published and the form of the ballot shall be prepared in the form and manner provided by law. ;E ON FOUR: That said advisory referendum regarding said public question and all matters pertaining thereto shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by statute for and during the aforesaid general election. ,JECTION FIVE: 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 Gerald L. Farley Mayor ATTEST: Carol A. Fields village Clerk Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM F1 TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 4, 1991 SUBJECT: RECAPTURE AGREEMENTS I have reviewed the comments from Village Attorney Hill concerning the two conflicting Recapture Agreements that we have in the present Ordinance. The intention of recapture is for someone to receive compensation for improvements that they put in that others may benefit from at sometime in the future. I believe that the recapture that compensates only for oversizing of extensions not needed by the developer is not sufficient enough. In many cases, there are people who have empty property who are waiting for properties next door to be developed that can simply just run a service line and receive services without having to pay for main line extensions. I do not believe this is the intent and would urge the Board to utilize Section 8.511 and allow recapture at any time when another property owner may benefit from a developer's improvements. JOHN FULTON DICON JFD/rcw attachment ............ .............. ...... ....... ....... ....... .................. ...... ....... ...... JAN 03 '91 14:23 P.2/4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, acting in the exercise of their home rule power; =TTON 1; That Section 8.511 entitled "Reimbursement for Facilities Beneficial to Property and Part of the Property Owned or Controlled by Such Person; Collection of Fees from Owners" of Chapter 8 be amended to be and read as follows: "Sec. 8.511. Reimbursement for Facilities Beneficial to Property not Part of the Property Owned or Controlled by Such Person; Collection of Fees From Owners. A. Whenever: (1) a Municipal Ordinance of the Village requires the installation of water mains, sanitary sewers, drains, roadways or other public facilities; and (2) where, in the opinion of the corporate authorities such facilities may be used for the benefit of additional property not controlled by the person of whom• installation is required; and (3) such water mains, sanitary sewers, drains or other facilities are to be dedicated to the public, the corporate authorities may, by ordinance require that additional property benefitted by such facilities not be permitted to be developed or not be permitted to connect to the facilities unless a fair and reasonable portion of certified costs of installation, including engineering costs are reimbursed to the installing party. 1. The Village shall have the sole authority to determine the following: a. The amount of interest, if any, which may be charged to a benefitted property owner (not to exceed 10% simple interest/annum); b. The method by which the costs are to be certified; C. The. fair and reasonable apportionment of costs; d. The party responsible for collection of the apportioned costs; e. The service charge due the village for establishment of the recapture ordinance; f. The amount of time (not to exceed twenty years) that the ordinance shall remain in effect; g. The amount by which the apportioned costs should be reduced due to depreciation: h. The method by which the ordinance is to be enforced; i. Any other matters pertinent to the adoption of the ordinance. B. Any ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection A herein, shall be filed with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. The ordinance shall provide that it is the responsibility of the installing owner to record the ordinance. C. The recording of the ordinance, in this manner, shall serve to notify persons interested in such additional property of the fact there will be a charge in for the connection toeand iuse of the facion to such lities tconstructed under the ordinance." 99=10—al-That Section 16.609 entitled Recapture Agreements, shall be amended to be and read as follows: "Sec. 16.6og. Recapture Agreements. See section 8.511." SECTAOR 3, That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. 9LQTTON 4• That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. .............. ...... —11- ......JAN 03 '91 14:24 .. - ......... .......... P.4/4 PASSED: This day of , 1991. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASS: APPROVED by me this _ day of , 1991. President of the Village of Mt. Prospect ATTESTED and FILED in the office of the Village Clerk this day of , 1991. Village Clerk MPrecapt.ord Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON FROM: EVERETTE M. HILL, JR., ESQ. DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1990 SUBJECT: RECAPTURE AGREEMENTS We currently have two separate Sections of our Village Code which purport to govern Recapture Agreements within the Village of Mount Prospect. I have attached both Section 16.609 and Section 8.511 to this memo. Unfortunately, the two Sections are in conflict. Section 16.609 permits "recapture" only ,for Village required oversizing or extension not necessary to the developer project. Section 8.511 permits "recapture" any time that another property owner may benefit from the developer's improvements. The two Sections represent two different philosophies of "recapture." MY recommendation is that the Village determine which philosophy it wishes to pursue and that one or the other of these Sections be eliminated. EVERETTE M. HILL, JR. EMH/rcw attachments 8.510 VILLAGE t-iVERNMENT MISCELLANEOUS PK . lISIONS 8.511 C. Effective Agreement; Enforcement. 1. Any agreement or amendment thereto executed pursuant to this Section shall be binding upon successor owners of record of the land which is the subject of the agreement and upon successor Municipal officials of the Village. 2. Any party to such agreement may by civil action, mandamus or other proceeding, force and compel performance of the agreement including any amendment thereto. (Ord. 2763, 1-17-78) Sec. 8.511. Reimbursement for Facilities Beneficial to Property not Part of the Property Owned or Controlled by Such Person; Collection of Fees From Owners. A. Whenever a Municipal Ordinance of the Village requires the installation of water mains, sanitary sewers, drains or other facilities as being essential to meet the public necessity therefor, and where, in the opinion of the corporate authorities such facilities may be used for the benefit of additional property not controlled by such person and such water mains, sanitary sewers, drains or other facilities are to be dedicated to the public, the corporate authorities may, by contract with such person, agree to reimburse and may reimburse such person for a portion of the cost of such facilities from fees charged to owners of property not owned or controlled by such person when and as collected from such owners. 1. Such contract shall describe the said property not owned or controlled by such person which may reasonably be expected to benefit from the facilities which are required to be constructed under the contract and shall specify the amount or proportions of the cost of such facilities which is to be incurred for the benefit of that property. 2. Such contract shall provide that the Village shall collect such fees charged to owners of such additional property not prior to the connection to and use of the said facilities by the respective properties of each owner. B. Any contract entered into between the President and Board of Trustees of the Village and any person, pursuant to subsection A herein, shall be filed with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. C. The recording of the contract, in this manner, shall serve to notify persons interested in such additional property of the fact there will be a charge in relation to such property for the connection to and use of the facilities constructed under the contract. (Ord. 2849, 12-19-78) 16.608 DEVELOPMENT 16.610 C. The amount to be paid shall be paid at the time when any development plan or subdivision plat is approved by the Village, provided, however, that if said develop- ment or subdivision is already approved and accepted by the Village Board, then said amount shall be paid prior to the making of the respective connection to the existing Municipal water system, or existing Municipal sewer system or any exten- sions of said respective systems on granting of permits for construction. D. The amount due and payable shall not affect or impair the liability of any person or applicant to pay for inspection, license, permit or service fees which are or may become due to the Village by reason of any law or ordinance heretofore or hereafter adopted by the Village Board of Trustees, but the amount so due shall be considered to be a charge for the privilege of using the existing sewer and water systems install- ed throughout the Village towards the cost of which the applicant or the land to be served has not made any contributions. (Ord. 3513, 4-16-85) See. 16.609. Recapture Agreements. In addition to the foregoing, the President and Board of Trustees may adopt ordinances providing for the recapture of costs expended by a developer for public improvements. Said ordinances, commonly known as "recapture agreements" are intended to compensate a developer or property owner who has installed a public improvement of a size and character greater than that required to serve the original development in order that future developments may utilize these facilities. Such ordinances, when adopted, shall provide for a fair and equal distribution of the addi- tional costs of said improvements beyond that otherwise borne by the developer and shall further provide for the payment of subsequent developers of their fair and proportionate share of the cost of said improvements.upon connection to said improvements. The recapture payments provided by such ordinances shall be paid to the Village for the use and benefit of the original developer or designated successor. Said ordinance shall further provide for a reasonable rate of interest as determined by the Village Board unless the Village waives said ;nterest. Said interest shall accrue from and after the effective date of the recapture ordinance. (Ord. 3513, 416-85) Sec. 16.610. Village Donation. Any residential development or subdivision shall be re- quired to donate fees to the Village on the basis of the type of dwelling unit in the development. Such donation shall assist the Village in serving the immediate and future needs of the residents of the development and to ensure adequate provision of public services to persons who are expected to reside within the subdivision or developmpent. A. Donation Calculation: Fees shall be donated to the Village based upon the type of dwelling unit within the development as indicated in Table VI -l. The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the total number of dwelling units times the appropriate fee for the specific type of dwelling unit as listed in Table VIA. (see Table VI -I on following page) WE Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 27, 1990 SUBJECT: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FINANCING AND ENGINEERING DISCUSSION MEETING, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, 9:00 A.M. The above -referenced meeting will be held at the Senior Center and will be televised. The meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. An Agenda is attached for your information. Attached is a memo from Dave Jepson which reviews considerations that he and I have discussed over the last week and one-half since the Finance Commission's meeting. We believe that in reviewing the recommendation of the Finance Commission that a Project Area User Charge that includes a public benefit portion would be most appropriate for financing of projects. Furthermore, that the financing of the public benefit portion of the Village -wide property should be done by the Property Tax and Dave and I both suggest that we review the Refuse Disposal User Charge to give relief from Property Tax. I would recommend that the Board look very seriously at a User Charge for recycling and yard waste disposal only. We have placed the Refuse Disposal on the Property Tax for several years, however, in the upcoming year, we will have increased our recycling and yard waste disposal cost by approximately $500,000 over the regular refuse disposal and I would recommend that we seriously consider a Recycling and Yard Waste User Fee of approximately $2.50 per month, per household and approximately $1.00 per multi- family unit be considered by the Board to give relief from the Property Tax. The other items on the Agenda deal with the discussions of the Phase I project. I believe we have already made a decision by authorizing the design work for Central/Wa- Pella. The second portion of Phase I is the North Main/Prospect Manor. We are expecting the Stanley Consultant Engineering Report in conjunction with the Village of Arlington Heights and Prospect High School to be in hand in March and I still feel we should wait until the results of that Study are in. The total cost in Phase 11 for Weller Creek channel improvements is $432 million. The cost for Weller Creek channel improvements in Phase IV is $1.76 million for a total cost of Weller Creek channel improvements of $6.08 million. I believe that it may be in the Village's best interest at this time to not consider Weller Creek channel improvements as part of our prograrn. It may be possible that there will be much opposition to improvements along this area and if work is needed to be done in this floodway, the Department of Transportation•Division of Waterways and/or other State agencies may very well have to become involved. The cost in Phase IV of the Des Plaines River drainage area work that could be done and is listed as number one priority along the Des Plaines River by the Corps of Engineers is $2,.55 million. This is a total of $8.63 million which I believe is monies that should not be considered as monies paid for by the Village for improvements for flood control. Subtracting this number from the total recommended Plan of $22.71 million, reduces the total cost exposure to the Village to $14.08 million. This is the number that I feel is a more realistic number to be reviewing for stormwater management enhancements in the Village's systems. JFD/rcw attachment MINUTES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1990 SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER 50 SOUTH EMERSON I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floras, George Van Geern and Don Weibel. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Mark Busse. Also present were: Village Manager John Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director Dave Jepson, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Director of Inspection Services Chuck Bencic, Randy Patchett, Dick Bodner and Catherine Morley of RJN Associates, 18 persons in the audience and two members of the press. 11. DISCUSSIQNQF ffQRAMA-TER MANA-GEMENT PROJECIS- Village Manager Dixon introduced the discussion of the Storrawater Management Projects including the financing. Finance Director Dave Jepson went through the report on the possible financing methods including Property Taxes, Special Service Area Taxes, Special Assessment, User Charges and other Taxes such as Utility Tax and Sales Tax. Mr. Jepson did a comparison of the annual charges for the Central/Wa-Pella and North Main/Prospect Manor areas. He also discussed the consideration of a Garbage User Charge to take the pressure off the Property Tax. Randy Patchett, of RJN Associates, reported on the flooding area, tributary area and immediate downstream area of the Central/Wa-Pella and North Main/Prospect Manor drainage systems. He said all the properties either receive a benefit or contribute to the problem. Trustee Van Geem asked why people who do not flood downstream right now should want to contribute to a project to convey more water past them. Mr. Patchett indicated that everyone is a part of the drainage basin and contributes to the problem. Trustee Corcoran had a similar sentiment. He questioned whether those who do not have a problem right now would be interested in paying for the proposed projects. He asked what could be done to slow down the water in the Central/Wa-Pella area. Catherine Morley of RJN Associates, agreed from an engineering standpoint that it would be preferable to detain the water, but she said the cost would be prohibitive. Trustee Corcoran said if a User Charge would be implemented, he would like to see an incentive to reduce this User Charge. Mr. Jepson said the commercial buildings would have an incentive. However, Trustee Corcoran noted the homeowners would not have an incentive. He asked, for instance, how much it would cost Hines Lumber to solve the problem versus the money the Village would have to spend for this project. Catherine Morley said it would be difficult to determine this number especially since all the affected properties in that area would have to be examined. Trustee Arthur recommended a one-quarter percent Sales Tax which would raise enough money to do the $14 million in projects recommended by the Village Manager. He felt the Sales tax should be initiated with a Sunset Provision. He also agreed with the concept of a User Charge for garbage. Mayor Farley asked if the Village could add the one-quarter percent Sales Tax. Mr. Jepson indicated that such a Tax could be initiated by the Village but it could not go into effect until September 1. There was a discussion of the Garbage User Fee. Trustee Floros felt that if a Garbage User Fee were to be initiated, those with more garbage should have to pay a higher fee. Trustee Corcoran agreed with this approach. Mr. Jepson indicated that stickers could be used for this purpose. Village Manager Dixon said that on the East Coast, the residents are charged for any cans more than one per week. Trustee Weibel asked how much it would cost to collect the Stormwater User Charge. Mr. Jepson said it is not unusual to cost as much as 5%. Trustee Weibel said be liked the idea of an incentive for detention attached to the User Charge. He asked how many would benefit. Catherine Morley said about one- third of the commercial properties could be eligible for a credit. There was then a question about adding incentives for detention on to the Property Tax. Mr. Jepson said there could be a rebate mechanism for detention on the Property Tax. Trustee Weibel then said he would like to see the Garbage billed by the scavenger like it is done in Arlington Heights. Trustee Van Geem suggested that the Finance Commission look at the proposed Garbage User Fee and make a recommendation to the Village Board. Mr. Jepson said he will place this on the January 10 Agenda. Trustee Van Geem asked how we would implement a Project User Charge. Mr. Jepson said the Village would have to have an Appeal Process, a Public Hearing and then adoption of an Ordinance. He felt it would be a problem collecting because some of the people in the affected areas may not feel they should pay for the project because they are not flooding at the present time. Mr. Jepson did say the Village would have the power to shut water off. Trustee Arthur again pushed the idea of the Sales Tax due to the simplicity of the collection as well as the ability to explain the proposed Tax to the public. In respect to the issue about the Sales Tax, Trustee Weibel said he would like to see some kind of mechanism for a credit for detention. Also, he asked what impact on businesses such as Randhurst this Tax would have. Mr. Jepson said that Sales Taxes are higher in Schaumburg where Woodfield is located. He said they have a one-half percent additional Sales Tax. Mayor Farley then opened the floor to comments by the public. George Watanabe said his area would receive no benefit from User Fee detention credits because his area is 100% residential. He felt the Village had some involvement 30 years ago when the homes were built. He did not feel the affected areas should or could bear the full burden of the projects. Mr. Watanabe then read a letter from Ron Wold, of 617 Forest. Mr. Wold's letter indicated that a project of this magnitude should be financed Village -wide, although a one-time charge to the people in the affected area could be considered. Lois Heitzman, 615 North Forest, agreed with the Sales Tax because it is easy to administer. A resident of 2103 Jody Court said that he had to pay about 70% of the cost for a Special Assessment to solve flooding problems in his area. He warned that any projects should not impact the downstream people. He said the Board should look at some way to prevent an increase in Taxes. He noted that the Country is in a recession, and people cannot afford increased Taxes. A resident at 104 Stratford agreed with the comments made by the preceding individual. She said she is living on a fixed income and she is being inundated with increases in Taxes. She felt the Village is trying to do too much too soon. Bill Lynch, a resident on South Louis Street, asked how many people carry Flood Insurance. He said the Reservoir Project by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District should help flooding. He is opposed to any increase in Taxes to pay for this project, but if it is necessary, he feels it should be in the Property Tax because of the Income Tax break. One of the owners of the 500 Central Building said they have underground detention which is more than adequate to hold the water runoff from his property. However, in a storm event, water comes from elsewhere and floods his property. He said it costs about $12,000 each time there is a flood to repair the boilers and the elevators. He urged the Board to consider action to improve the situation. He said it is economically unfeasible for properties in the area to provide detention. He thought it should be financed through a Property Tax. Trustee Van Geem said he agreed with the Finance Commission recommendation with some public benefit and a cost to the affected property owners. He would like to see the Central/Wa-Pella project completed and then determine if the work is effective before considering any future projects. Trustee Floros said he is totally behind the North Main/Prospect Manor project and felt that this project should also go ahead after the additional studies are completed in March. He said the residents here have waited 30 years for action. He supports the project area User Charge and a Village Public Benefit Property Tax split 50150. Trustee Van Geem said he also favors a 50% public benefit. Mr. Jepson then outlined the recommendation of the Finance Commission. Trustee Weibel said he supports going ahead with the Central/Wa-Pella and North Main/Prospect Manor projects subject to the additional studies expected in March. However, he has a problem with the User Fee. He said that on a Tollroad you have a choice to use it or not use it. He said this is not so with a storm sewer fee. He felt that Property Taxes should be used for part of these funds. He suggested the Village should collect one-third of the funds through the Property Tax for the Public Benefit portion with a credit for detention and two-thirds of the funds should be generated from Sales Tax. Trustee Arthur again pleaded for the Sales Tax noting the simplicity and ease of collection and explanation to the public. Trustee Floras said he could support a Sales Tax if the Restaurant Tax would be reduced one-quarter percent. Trustee Corcoran said he wants those causing the problem; in other words, those without detention to have an incentive to do something. He did not feel the Sales Tax would accomplish this. Trustee Van Geem said that he is not in favor of charging schools or churches. He said he is still in favor of a Project Area User Charge and a public benefit through the Property Tax. Mayor Farley said that he supports one-third funding by Property Tax and two- thirds by Sales Tax. He said he would support the one-quarter percent offset of the Restaurant Tax. There appeared to be a consensus to fund the proposed projects with some form of Sales Tax. Trustee Corcoran suggested that the Village develop some method to provide an incentive for properties to install detention including businesses, churches and schools. Trustee Weibel suggested some kind of cost sharing method on detention. There was a discussion about whether or not the Board had decided to proceed with the North Main/Prospect Manor repairs as recommended by RJN Associates. Several Trustees felt strongly that after the receipt of the Study in March that the Board had intended to go forward with the project. Trustee Corcoran and Trustee Van Geem disagreed and felt that the Board needs to discuss in depth whether the Village should proceed with this and other projects. Trustee Corcoran said that since construction will not begin until 1992, he would request more discussion on the topic. Mayor Farley indicated Phases II, III and IV in the RJN Report will be discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 8, 1991. - �11 1; Flu � There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '-N P JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager JPB/rcw FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, January 10, 1991 7:30 p.m. Trustees Room Village Hall 100 South Emerson Street I Call to Order II Accept Minutes of December 13, 1990 Meeting III Review of Flood Control Financing IV Village Revenue Sources and Financing the 91/92 Budget V Adjournment AGENDA SAFETY COMMISSION VILLAGE HALL 100 S. EMERSON STREET MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 7:30 P.M. JANUARY 7, 1990 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION, JANUARY 7, 1990, HAS BEEN CANCELLED. AGENDA Rhone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 SIGN REVIEW BOARD Monday, January 7, 1991 Trustees' Room, 2nd Floor, Village Hall 100 South Emerson Street 7:30 P. M. RMK"�M I . I 19117WKZI­ This case was continued from December 17, 1990. The petitioner requests a variation from the Sign Ordinance Section 7.305.B.1.b to allow a non -illuminated side wall sign within 48.29 feet of the interior lot line, instead of 50 feet from the nearest interior property line as required by Ordinance. The letters would be 12" and 6" in height with the extreme width of copy 15 feet long. SIGN -13 -ft Bell Federal Say:rrllg5, 200 E, KensinWn This case was continued from December 17, 1990. The petitioner wishes to modify the sign P.U.D. for Randburst by adding a sign on the east elevation of the subject premises at 200 East Kensington Road. Two existing signs are technically not in conformance with the Sign P.U.D. for Randhurst since they are backlit box signs. The petitioner proposes to replace the non -conforming existing signs with individual backlit letters applied directly to the building surface in conformance with the sign P.U.D. Management for the Rouse/Randhurst Company have given their approval to the sign changes including the additional sign to be added on the east elevation of the subject property. SIGN -14.2% St. John's Aggrtments This case was continued from December 17, 1990. The petitioner seeks a variation/Special Use (Section 7.305.A and Section 7.330.D) to erect two entrance signs to reflect a name change at St. John's Apartments to "The Lake Club Residential Apartments". Each sign is proposed to measure 3%8" high and 6' wide to be mounted on the top of the existing brick wing walls on either side of the ingress and egress to the apartment complex on Busse Road. The letters for the property name consist of 7.5" and 13" and are chrome in color. The phone numbers and definition of property are 6" high and are midnight blue in color. The background is proposed to be blue to match the color of the property exterior paint. The signs when mounted above the brick wing walls will make the total height of the sign from ground T-5" high. SIGN -1-91, Express Deli and Pantry, 400 West Central Road The petitioner seeks a variation of 11 feet from the interior lot line to a proposed freestanding sign (49 feet instead of the required 60 foot setback); a variation of the front and exterior sideyard setback of 3.75 feet instead of the required 5 foot setback and modification of the sight distance triangle by placing a 9 foot high freestanding sign within the triangle. MAYOR GERALD L PARLEY TRUSTEES RALPH W ARTHUR MARK W BUSSE TIMOTHY JCORCORAN LEO FLOROS GEORGE R VAN DEEM THEOCOREJ WATTENEERG Village of Mount Prospect VILLA" MAMAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON VILLAGE CLERK 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 CAROL A. FIELDS AGENDA Rhone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 SIGN REVIEW BOARD Monday, January 7, 1991 Trustees' Room, 2nd Floor, Village Hall 100 South Emerson Street 7:30 P. M. RMK"�M I . I 19117WKZI­ This case was continued from December 17, 1990. The petitioner requests a variation from the Sign Ordinance Section 7.305.B.1.b to allow a non -illuminated side wall sign within 48.29 feet of the interior lot line, instead of 50 feet from the nearest interior property line as required by Ordinance. The letters would be 12" and 6" in height with the extreme width of copy 15 feet long. SIGN -13 -ft Bell Federal Say:rrllg5, 200 E, KensinWn This case was continued from December 17, 1990. The petitioner wishes to modify the sign P.U.D. for Randburst by adding a sign on the east elevation of the subject premises at 200 East Kensington Road. Two existing signs are technically not in conformance with the Sign P.U.D. for Randhurst since they are backlit box signs. The petitioner proposes to replace the non -conforming existing signs with individual backlit letters applied directly to the building surface in conformance with the sign P.U.D. Management for the Rouse/Randhurst Company have given their approval to the sign changes including the additional sign to be added on the east elevation of the subject property. SIGN -14.2% St. John's Aggrtments This case was continued from December 17, 1990. The petitioner seeks a variation/Special Use (Section 7.305.A and Section 7.330.D) to erect two entrance signs to reflect a name change at St. John's Apartments to "The Lake Club Residential Apartments". Each sign is proposed to measure 3%8" high and 6' wide to be mounted on the top of the existing brick wing walls on either side of the ingress and egress to the apartment complex on Busse Road. The letters for the property name consist of 7.5" and 13" and are chrome in color. The phone numbers and definition of property are 6" high and are midnight blue in color. The background is proposed to be blue to match the color of the property exterior paint. The signs when mounted above the brick wing walls will make the total height of the sign from ground T-5" high. SIGN -1-91, Express Deli and Pantry, 400 West Central Road The petitioner seeks a variation of 11 feet from the interior lot line to a proposed freestanding sign (49 feet instead of the required 60 foot setback); a variation of the front and exterior sideyard setback of 3.75 feet instead of the required 5 foot setback and modification of the sight distance triangle by placing a 9 foot high freestanding sign within the triangle.