Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0480_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 14, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Gerald L Farley. Trustees present were: Mark Busse, George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Leo Floros, Paul Hoefert and Irvana Wilks. Also present were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Public Works Director Herbert Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Refuse Coordinator Lisa Angell and Finance Director David Jepson. Additionally, there were four members of the news media and about twenty residents. The Committee of the Whole Minutes of December 10, 1991 were accepted and filed. No Village residents appeared before the Committee. T 2 0 WoRTv 71 M -A a M J1 # Mayor Farley introduced this subject by stating that there has been a need in the community for a long time for an auditorium that would be used by community groups. He said that Dr. Thomas Many, Superintendent of School District 57, offered the possibility of expanding a proposed new Lecture Hall at Lincoln Junior High School into a 240 seat auditorium if the Village, the library and the Mount Prospect Park District would share the additional cost of the auditorium. Mayor Farley said he thought this was an excellent opportunity. to provide the auditorium at a very reasonable cost. He then introduced Dr. Many and Tom Munz, President of the District 57 School Board. Tom Munz, President of District 57 School Board, stated that the School Board had appointed a Citizens' Committee to evaluate the building needs of the District. The work at Lincoln Junior High School was separated into two phases with the second phase including a Lecture Center for the use of the school. Mr. Munz said the Lecture Center could be expanded if there is a need in the community and if the other governmental bodies would share in the additional cost. Thomas Many, Superintendent of School District 57, stated that the proposed Lecture Center was in effect a large classroom that could accommodate school drama and choral groups and could be utilized for educational purposes but it did not include a stage. The proposed Lecture Center would seat 140 and was expected to cost $250,000. The Lecture Center could be expanded into a 240 seat auditorium with a 400 square foot stage at an estimated cost of $568,000, or $268,000 more than the proposed Lecture Center. Dr. Many said he has met with the Arts Council of Mount Prospect and they endorse the project. He added that they are planning on doing Phase H of the improvements to Lincoln Junior High School in 1992 and would like to have the project completed before September. Mayor Farley said he is excited about the possibility of building the auditorium because of the need for this type of facility. He said the auditorium would be ideal for certain plays and concerts and this would be a better use of the school facilities. He said he thought the cost was modest and he commended District 57 officials for considering the needs of the community. Trustee Hoefert asked if the Village and the other governmental bodies would be sharing in the cost of features that were for the exclusive use of the School District. He also asked about user fees and the adequacy of the stage area. Dr. Many responded that it was too difficult to parcel out specific costs and that he thought it was fair to ask the other governmental, bodies to share the additional project costs to provide an auditorium rather than the Lecture Center. In regard to use fees, he said he would expect any groups other than the governmental bodies that were supporting the project to pay a user fee. These details would be worked out jointly in the future. D. Many said the stage area would be adequate for most community -produced events but that it probably would not be adequate for professional productions. Trustee Corcoran asked if the scope of the project would be changed after the work had started and if the cost could be less because of the contingency in the proposal. Dr. Many responded that the projected amounts were the Architect's estimate but that once the project was bid, the scope would not change. Trustee Corcoran added that rules for the use of the auditorium would need to be established. IR Trustee Wilks asked how much it would cost the four governmental bodies. Finance Director Jepson said that based upon an estimated cost of $300,000, it would cost each governmental unit about $11,500 per year for eight years. He added that we would calculate the specific costs after the Village sold Bonds on February 4, 1992 and after the project had been bid. Trustee Floros asked how much a free-standing facility would cost and how the proposed auditorium compared with the auditorium at Prospect High School. Dr. Many responded that the Prospect High School Auditorium has 494 seats but that it is generally not available to outside groups. It was booked for over 600 events over the past year. A cost estimate for a 442 seat auditorium five years ago was $2 million to $3 million. Trustee Floros said he generally favored sharing facilities and that it was commendable that District 57 officials thought of the needs of the community. Trustee Clowes pointed out that even though the cost would be shared by the four governmental bodies, it is all paid for by the residents of Mount Prospect. He added that he knows cultural arts are very popular at the Park District. He said he generally supports the project but he did not want the Village to be involved in the operation of the auditorium. Trustee Busse asked if it would be possible to build an auditorium larger than 240 seats. Dr. Many said that was the maximum that could be built on the space available. Trustee Busse said he had been concerned that this auditorium would be a duplication of other available facilities but he said that based upon the discussion, he was satisfied the auditorium was needed. Kathleen Pluth, Vice President of the Arts Council of Mount Prospect, said it was difficult to use Prospect High School because of the cost, availability and acoustics. She said there was good interest in Mount Prospect for community productions, and the proposed Auditorium would work out very well. Mrs. Pluth said the Arts Council is committed to encouraging all types of the fine arts to Mount Prospect and that they will also be encouraging the Mount Prospect Park District to establish an Arts Center at Lions Park. She said the Village could use two different kinds of auditoriums. Mayor Farley and Trustee Corcoran expressed concern over proposing two facilities. Mrs. Pluth responded that there are a wide range of needs and two facilities could be used. She added that it could be 8-10 years before the Park District would build a facility. Trustee Wilks said it looked like a good project and that it was a unique opportunity for the Boards to work together. She said she was supportive but needed more convincing. Carol Tortorello said as a taxpayer she was concerned about the cost and possibly setting a precedent. Diane Kumpf, President of the Arts Council, said she thought the community needed this auditorium. She added the Park District may never build an Arts Center and she .asked the Board for their support. -3- Mayor Farley said he would name a committee to work with staff to try to resolve the questions that were raised. I D) h!KftM'N1K*)I William Abolt, Executive Director of SWANCC and Brooke Beal appeared before the Committee to explain the new Project Use Agreements (PUA) that SWANCC is asking the members to approve. Mr. Abolt stated that the ongoing goals of SWANCC are to provide solutions to the economic and environmental problems associated with solid waste disposal. He said that existing landfills are being filled up and the problems will be much more complex in the future. He pointed out that one of SWANCC!s goals is to achieve a 50% reduction through recycling by 1996. Mr. Abolt said plans are proceeding for the baled, but it would be at least one more year before all the Permits are secured. He said that three transfer stations are scheduled to be built with the first expected to be completed by January 1994. He said that the transfer stations would be utilized by the member communities even if the balefill would not be constructed. Mr. Abolt said the new PUA contain revised financing plans that will allow SWANCC to refinance existing debt of $16.25 million. The new financing plan was approved by the Board of Directors in September 1991 and the PUA document was approved by the Directors, Managers and Attorneys in December 1991. If the Village approves the new PUA, no future equity payments will be required from the Village. If any member does not approve the new PUA, they will be required to make payments starting May 1, 1992 based on the previous agreements that were adopted. Mount Prospect's payment would be $37,537.50 per month for 30 months. Village -Manager Dixon said he supported the new PUA. He stated that the Managers and Attorneys had extensively reviewed the proposed agreement and that the issues that had been raised had been resolved. He added that the Village can retain some control of future solid waste costs by being a participant of SWANCC. Trustee Corcoran stated that the solid waste question is a very difficult issue to deal with . The State has mandated changes and the County has avoided the solid waste issue leaving the problem, with the municipalities. He stated that with the exception of medical costs, solid waste disposal costs have increased faster than any other Village costs. Trustee Corcoran said he thought the refinancing plan was good for Mount Prospect and that he thought the new PUA should be strongly considered. He added that the problem will not be resolved by not participating in SWANCC. - Trustee Hoetert stated that the Village has taken a very aggressive position in regard to recycling, and he was concerned that this action may penalize the Village in the future. Mr. Abolt responded that the PUA allows for the "put or pay' volume to be readjusted annually. -4- Trustee Clowes asked if incineration of solid waste would be an acceptable alternate solution. Mr. Abolt responded that even with incineration the ash must be landfilled. He added that the costs of siting an incinerator are very high and there would be even more zoning and environmental problems. Trustee Clowes also asked about the comparison of tipping fees for SWANCC and other landfills. Mr. Abolt said he expected SWANCC to charge $43 to $47 per ton compared to competitive fees in the $40 to $48 range. He stated that he expected SWANCC members to realize substantial savings after the first few years. Trustee Floros commented that he had not been informed as to SWANCCs efforts to pursue incineration. Mr. Abolt said costs and benefits have been analyzed since 1981. He said their original plans were to incinerate and landfill the residue. Now the approach to solid waste disposal is to recycle, reduce the amount of waste, landfill and possible incineration in the future. Trustee Wilks asked how long the term of the agreement would be. Mr. Abolt responded that it would be for the life of the bonds, an estimated 25 to 30 years. In response to a question on the equity payment, Mr. Abolt stated that it was based on population. He also said that the $16.25 million that had been borrowed covered all costs to date including capitalized interest. Mayor Farley said an Ordinance approving the new PUA will be presented at the January 21, 1992 Board meeting. Lisa Angell, Solid Waste Coordinator presented a summary of the solid waste program for the last six months. The Village initiated a two -phased plan on August 1, 1991 that was intended to reduce the amount of waste going to the landfill. The first phase included an expanded recycling program, and the second phase which will go into effect February 1, 1992 incudes a modified volume -based program. Under the second phase, single family residences will receive unlimited recycling and will be allowed to set out two 32 gallon containers/bags per week and certain bulk items at no direct costs. Any bags or containers in excess of the two can limit will require a sticker which costs $1.25 per sticker. Ms. Angell said the recycling program has been very successful with service currently being given to 100% of the single-family and townhome properties, 70% of the condominiums and 30% of the apartments. Efforts are being made to extend the recycling to all of the condominiums and apartments. Prior to August 1, 1991 recycling service included picking up newspaper, aluminum cans and mixed glass. As of August 1, 1991, mixed papers, mixed plastics and steel/tin cans were added. Since August 1, 732,020 pounds of mixed paper, 145,185 pounds of plastic and 100,184 pounds of ferrous metal have been collected. In total, 4,458,557 pounds, or 5,455 cubic yards of recyclables have been picked up since August 1. -5- Village Manager Dixon reported that he is working on dates for the Citizens Utilities information meetings. 0-WaCIA; 1.0) No other business was brought before the Committee. ►F301#111LR UT The meeting adjourned at 11:09 p.m. DCJ/rcc Respectfully submitted, DAVID C. JEPSON Finance Director -6- VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER 1--1 FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: JANUARY 24, 1992 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN ELIGIBILITY - C.D.B.G. FUNDS In 1990, HUD put staff on notice that our downtown area might not be eligible for continued use of C.D.B.G. funds for street and facade improvements. After that notice, staff undertook updated building and block surveys to demonstrate that there was sufficient deterioration evident to qualify for C.D.B.G. funds. We urged HUD administrators to review this updated information and to reconsider their determination. Unfortunately, after a review of all information and several meetings with staff, HUD reconfirms their opinion that downtown is not eligible for C.D.B.G. funds. HUD officials note that there is not sufficient deterioration on an area -wide basis to meet their requirements. They also believe certain items identified as factors of deterioration can be corrected through normal maintenance, and these items are not block grant eligible. It should be noted that there are fewer street improvements and facade areas in the designated Central Business District yet to be done. However, staff believes C.D.B.G. funding would be beneficial to have available when owners felt like they could participate. With this final decision by HUD, any further facade work will have to be done with general funds. It is important to emphasize that this HUD determination will not reduce our annual entitlement. Funds previously allocated for downtown activities can now be used for our single family rehab program, or other low and moderate income activities. With budget discussions set to begin next month, staff believed it was timely to update the Village Board on this matter. DMC:hg SWANCC'S RESPONSES TO OUESTIONS RAISED BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2ULUT ON 1 Has SWANCC oontacted %qm Xrif,_.35ionaf hyrirologisr, SWANCI%- f"as Ont`IVPdwitt) Patrick Enginear'nQ Inc., whose staff I nciudeS both prcjess�osjr- I W ro I ,I hYdroicQ;sts and hydrogeO'OJists. F i'P:jrPP$es of clarification, a hydroiNist specia"zes 'n the sjjrjv of surface v=,aatcr no.,v me whereas r 4 ea a hydrogeolr-,gist spc-,7'al;zSs;r, si,-,, , I . ,V-Sj'jrface or groundwater flows, nQtLm Is ft Wait% tamble wi&"'n a h -'W fof the surface? Thli&,Y-five soil borings vvere conducted on the site, ^ �i. OA-Velllhl of these borings its &tQd sma% pc:` ,etZ c)f per- e:i -tv, fhr6e feet of the ground surfAce. T'h.esa poc!�--F,mim-or, and will �;ausa no sjgn�lfiwnt Co. I Or Cor?struclOn dift;r4,,CtieG, 7nav pose no threat tc.) t; -e saj,�.4�y of ftj fa - .1, -ilitty, =$7110N-15 is Ms 89"If6r 9W f90& t"6 W41S of the 200 msidents it P,7-9 m, -m *ISO the Same 8quftr und0f the lvop'osed transfer sire? BESEOME The same aquifa,, x�sts tljs Forest River suod'vls:(7m and ;he transfer station site. The Transfer St -.*;an poses no t risk to tln�s aqu,fe,,, r! It must be kept in perspective that tie ;proposed factRy is, nolle a!andfll! or a disposal site. Leachate will not be gen6rate(3 at this faci'9111y. Ail Of the waste baling and transfer operations will be ounducted withlr; an enclosed building having a 101" thick reinforced concrete floor. Any liqulids on this floor will either f1cm to dedicated floor drains within the building connected '--, the sanitary sewer sy ,stern, be vacuumed and collected ;PtO 3 street sweeper during clewing OWStiOns or be subject to el ;— —.. Of evaporation.. Thr "nois Groundwater Protection A(I � enacted in 1987 for the purpose of Jn,pc,;-,'rg strict standards on farAliti6s which are categorized as "potential primary or secondary sours es c4 gr,)undwater pollution". Sections 3.59 and 3.60 define the units which are subje,-,l to oontrc!s under this act. Solid waste Transfer Station cparaticrs are riot defined as potential Sources under these sections of the Illinois GrounNat9ir Protect!on Act Have we vfsP.-.d the Gr,%n County Trwsfer Sfte? ME=E Patrick Engineering has -visited the Green Ccunty Wisconsin baling facility in 1988 and will revise the She on Jnnu&nj 27, 1992. �DQN-w Howmaryie*?Wrg bafiiig 1`l.11,upogragons Nas ,SW41jC.0 ana�,7* p RESEMSE In addition to the above, Patrick Engf*ering perscnfia; have visited, and observed I operations at the folloMr-Q waste baling 'renszfer,11,atior:s in the United States and the United Kingdom: Best Waste !,-C. BaI71rig T(ans!er Stallor and Ealefll, Houston, Taxes. Roanoke '.aunty Saiing Transfer and Galefill, Roincke, Virginia. Cumberland Coun-v SaFrig Transfer Station and Bale ill, Fayqtt-avi;!e, North Carolina. WMI Baling Transfer Station, Phiffsde!phia, Pennsylvania. SWANSEA neusa Baling Fac;O;t, Waiesi Jn'sd Kingdom, Durhann Refuse Baling Plant, Durhar-;, England. WilmingtorIX3�ste Saljng Strticri, Uper 1-10, England, K Mat Is Me average volume of Liquid died from a ton (or sme other spprWAdo unit of ireftswr&M-1) of beled refuse? BESEMM The amount Of HqUid �xpplled duf'ng the compression of one 3,000 lb. bale of refuse varies routinely frorn rune to occasional drippings during the day's baling operations. At sll of the facilities visited by Patrick Engineering personnel, noticeable volurnes of liquM w h era not present, In most of " e facilities toured, dry and dusty condition,-, existed, around and under the baling equipment. What Is the C-h&rnlcal aralYNS of Ms leachate eyyelled 111101n the -Wes? VO/W 09)Wt dQC(Jf0*FVM-V-,-q1 dn-e-T SWANOC have to suppOef this analysis? it must be strqsbed !,�st of all that little or no!iquids are expected to result from the processing and baling of the. re!Ljse. Tho maks-up of any liquid expelled during the baling process would vary based ori the content of the refuse. Because of the high content of paper and other absorbent rnateriolti in residential refuse, when the waste is mixes' on the floor pric,,r 410 ba!ing, ai] liquids are typically absorbed by the waste At the mor -ler pressures appiNed in lt7e baling process, these liquids are not general yj "!5queezed*' out of the bales, 11'some minor dripping does occur it is the !'esui", of no; mixing properly tl-,e ;-refuse prior to baling. � 0 N j If isolated instances of dripping Occur on the tipping floor, SWANCC will spread an industrial absorbeit, such as Oil Dry, on the liquid. The materials will then be swept up, mixed with refuse and baled. SWANCC and 6, �,0ineer, Pairick. Engineering, have visited more than 9 baling fauiNtles in t1he United States and abroad. Additionally, SWANCC has engaged the senvioas of Mr. Alar, Sowerby of Murphy Solid Waste Systems, Ltd.., London, Engl;and. 'Mr Sowerby has fret and conferred with Patrick Engineering 3 both in the United Kingdom and the United States. Mr. Sowerby is personally responsible for the design, construction and operation of over 14 baling plants in Great Britain. Mr, Sowerby has acted as s peer review committee member of the SWANCC design team and believes that squeezirgs from the bales are Inconsequel"ItU relative to the design and operations of this facility and pose no potential risk or fha?ard to the emp;oyees of the facility or the surrounding area. Finally, to operate this lasiliti, SWAUCC must meet all MWRDGC standards for wastewater, Testing of discharges to ensure compliance with the regulatory standards will be required by SWANCC in the permit process. If the wastewater violates any standa,-11s, an appropriate pretreatment system will be installed. Is the Grow County Transfer Site wmdar !o our planned operagon? Thera Is a vvy &nM p=jbjjjy that some of the ejecteri fficiale. (including myself would like to visit thi.$ parvouicir $ft. ff tfis ;s not a site similar to our planned cparatim whW bWing o1on j.S u;e Closest site, to rhj(Wc, that we nnay wmnge a WW ?6 not simIarto the proposed SWAINICCfacility. Facilities which use components similar to SWANCC-I's proposed operations are located In the United Kingdom and the Eastern United States. In designing this facility, Patrick Engineering had numerous meetings and discussions with equipment manufaCuigre and -vendors. Based cr, their recommendatlons, Patrick Engineering e,,tiosa the best transfer stations in the United States and United Kingdom to persormily iiis,pe(n and slkUkdy. SWANCC incorporated the best design features of these facilities into the proposed transfer station. Highlights of S14VANCC's design include a negative air p:,essure design coupled with a charcoal filtration system, a totally einclosed baling system from the baler hoppers to the trucks, an autoloading system, a dust collection system incorporated directly Into the balers, and a comprehensive operating plan. However, a facility which will use equipment sirroilar tc SWANCC's is planned to corse on line this Spring in the State 4 of Maine. E "TI N 2F W?wd rd= of waste does ft Waho!-q 4:0 Into? For e-omp!e, special wnste, hoz abut was*, norr-coxwolred waste, etc. RESPONSE Any liquids produced from the beling processes are nct formally classified by LE.P.A.'s currerr, classification categories. =MQUA What was the mate ringo of trate tramc survey? RESPONSE The initial traffic coints were oonducted- on June 14th and 15th of 1900 with updates oondvcted on - lartuary 13t:'I and I 5th of 1992. Was RlOv Road uWer t'.vwjstrum n cruring this timeframe? A9SEQNSE Yes, during corlslructioii ona operational !ane "n each dir P, ction WaS open at the time of the stwdy. The consIVuClIon took place cycr an extended period of time and c*uld not be avoided, River Road normaily provides two lanes in each direction. The traffic; erQllreer condvoied, traffic counts to determine the peak hours of traffic and the dli,ecflonV'z3plit- Since Des Plaines River Road was under construction, the volumes measured were lov,,gr than normal. Based on information gained from the Illincis DepartMent of Transportation (!DOT), Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS;, Cock Cciunty Highway Department and the City of Des Plaines, the Traffic Engines„ estimated that the exisling volumes were between 20 and 30 percent lower than normal. Des Plaines River Road has a capacity of approximately 41,000 vehicles per hour and is operating at R P t: approximately 57 percent of its capacity using the normal volumes. -QUEBIMM LWd SVIANCC note this abwalion on the baffic shA*? RESPONSE Yes. &ntre SWANCC, through, "he u, -.e of aerial photos, reviewed tj- ,6 eastern and central sections of the SWANCC sar,;!ce Area, Factors such as field reconnaissance, population, service area distribution, sire. zoning, traffic access and regulatory setbacks were than applied. Three potential araas near the existing Sexton landfill, near the Techny landfill and In the southern areas near O'Hare airport were identified. Of the three potential areas, two sites would need to be developed as Transfer Stations, a southern site and either the Te:, -hr -,y or proposed. Maryville area site, T,'-,8 proposed site was selected by the Board of Directors upon ihe reczrnmendation of the Executive Committee in the Spring of IM, Prior *zo site a -P rc. v at by th a SVVA M C IC Board, th e 1,:,,u r co i *n m u nit! as with I n 1 111 2 mils of the site, including M.ourit P,oispect, vierenotified of its ides-Mication and given an opporti.;nitytocoi-,)n?er.'(c,!itile -!,zite. in. adanion, during the site seir.-ction, Mount Prospect was represented on tha Executive Ojomr-nittee which oversaw the salection process. QUESIION 4 MW weiv the acqvtefon costs M%oUfled!or Mesa sites? RE$PQN$f The cost for property ',n tric- Tezhny area was 'ller.I.Ted at approxirnately $110,000 to $140,000 per gore. The cost of the Whee-ling Toov'r-ahip site Is approximately $30,000 per acre. AcQuIsitior, of the sout,",erij t,,a.r;sft)r wile is not contemplated since the preference is to lease. A WhW WOM the develoMent no: is Idandfled W Mase sites? BESPONSE The development costs for both the Techny and Wheeling Township sites were projected to be roughly the same, -QUfSIKKM At any poIP4 does tho saw&- IM -8 we 10 W IMO have acc*= to raInfall efiowing It to swchargef BESEQNSE No, this is not a cornUned sewer. It hancrie.A sanitary sewage only. TJQN 5B slas ttjJS sajnftjy wN&, itne e,er surchaiged7' Have we oorrAmied this with the MWRD in writing? SVIANCC MWIRDOC and is warirg for its writian confirmation. Cl!QN 66 Is any of Ws sly lxmillved we#ard? The overall site to be purchased encompasses a total land area of 45,8 acres of which. 7.09 acres are designated for develOPTP-nt -f the transfer station facility. 'Wetlands exist along the pe-imelker of the 43.13 acre parte' and are delineated on drawing Number 2 of t",e TEPA Deve!opment Permit Application dated Septernber ,*99*11, Depressiona! areas, inneavuring a total, g, ips-, than one acre, exist at various !outions end we outside cf :he facility footprint. In fact, viirtually all are outside of the 7,09 acre site. SWANCC has no doc-umentation whet -her these depressed areas are wetlands because they are avoided by Vhe deve!oprnent, However, if additional delineatloo is required, it will be conducted. rg"qviou 7 71 t7�-7- j i fA r7u=; irl If.sROM Even K the Army Corps were to identify w9tiands within the 7,09 acre site, the amount would be substantially less than one acre and be so small that $Vv;ANCC would fall under a nation-,Mde permit. With. anatiorwide permit, an applicant is not required to follow the lengthy individual permit proms. If this adds ax" c4xl to this site, will wo ret—.,nsld& cthar Ow that wom Indially oorWdered to be more aVwsive? Since wetiand filling is avoided, no signifvcant extra costs are expected. Through the 8AP11catfOrl Process, what additional costs including adding s4ue sweepers, etc., have been acLfed to the odginal cast of the transfer site as aVriatly eslfraaW ivid, ogain, tham(" cornMing It tO Oftf 08s IrI&OPY .#�j *,1; �:# & : G 0 No significant additional costs have been added to the original estimates for this Transfer Station. Street sweepers were and are en integral part of the cleaning operations as described in the original Deveiopment.Permit Application. Moreover, if SINANCC determines that a change, such as strest sweepers or pressurized air hose cleaning, improves the operations of the Transfer Station, they would be incorporated into the facility even if a different site were selected. F:\HO.ME\BMF\$WANCC\456J, JAI, RES 8 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois � INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L, FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 23, 1992 SUBJECT: KENSINGTON BUSE40S CENTER - FONDS I have had a conversation with representatives of the property owners at Kensington Center. I draw your attention to page 4 of the report attached. There are six items that are listed for action. The first two are repairs to inlets or outlets which is this is the responsibility of the Village since it does affect the flow of the ponds. Debris removal is also a retention purpose and it is also a responsibility that should be taken on by the Village. This may cause us to do some removal of root systems or branches of trees that are around some of the ponds and that is why there is an estimated 100 hours of work. Generally the Village has in the past been removing debris that is in the ponds that block structures. The last three items; chemical treatment, sediment removal and well operation, according to the Camp, Dresser report are more for aesthetic reasons. Estimated annual cost is $22,050. The property owners will be reviewing that. There may be some discussion among property owners as to who benefits from the chemical treatment, whether it is the property adjacent to the pond or whether the entire park benefits so there may be other angles to look at payment of those treatments. One of the good things that came out of the report is that the present wells do not need to be operated as they have been in the past and there will be some savings to those people who have paid the energy costs in the past for the well operations. There also is not a need for the aeration in the ponds if the chemical treatment is undertaken and that would also save some energy costs. JOHN FULTON DI JFD/rcc Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 24, 1992 SUBJECT: RJN ENVIRONMENTAL - FLOOD CONTROL UPDATE Staff has been meeting with RJN Environmental to determine scheduling of work so that we would have sufficient cash flow from the quarter percent Sales Tax to adequately handle future work. We also have had a meeting to determine if, in particular, one project north of Lincoln School might be handled in a different fashion and in coordination with the Central/Wa-Pella Project to cause us not to go through back yards or to take a substantial piece of property from the School District which we feel there will be some reluctance to give to the Village. RJN will present a modified plan that will coordinate both the Central/Wa-Pella area as well as the See -Gwen projects together. We would anticipate this would be moved into next year's timeframe for construction. RJN will also give an update on the status of the Village's request for funds from the State of Illinois. 4 - JOHN FULTON DIXON JFD/rcc Minutes COFFEE WITH COUNCIL Saturday, January 11, 1992 Trustees Room, Village Hall Mayor Gerald L Farley called the meeting to order at 11:10 am. Trustees present were Mark Busse, George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Leo Floros, and Irvana Wilks. Trustee Paul Hoefert was absent. Also present were Village Manager John Dixon, Finance Director David Jepson and four Village residents. Harold Rentschler, the president of the homeowners association in Prospect Meadows, expressed his concern about an increase in traffic accidents in the Prospect Meadows subdivision. He stated that there have been five accidents in the last few months, Mr. Rentschler said that because of the reconstruction on Euclid Avenue there was more traffic coming through Prospect Meadows and it appeared that the primary cause of the accidents was excessive speed. Mr. Rentschler added that he has called the Police Department and they have patrolled the area and that has helped. However, when the police cars are not visible, the traffic reoccurs. He asked the Council what could be done. Village Manager John Dixon responded that in the near term, the Village would continue selective enforcement and obtain traffic counts as to the volume of traffic. He said the issue should then be referred to the Safety Commission for their recommendation. Helen and Ken Ahlgren of 684 South Edward told the Council that a street light in front of their house has been out for over a year. Mr. Ahlgren said that Commonwealth Edison repair trucks had come to the light pole on at least two occasions but the light had not been replaced. Mayor Farley suggested that a strong letter be written to Commonwealth Edison regarding this matter urging them to be more responsive to resident complaints. He also suggested that any payments due Commonwealth Edison could possibly be withheld until the matter is resolved. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, David C. Jepson, Finance Director DCJ/sm