Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Meeting Packet 01/26/1993Minutes COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE January 12, 1993 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Mark Busse, George Clowes, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, Paul Hoefert and Irvana Wilks. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Planning Director David Clements, Finance Director David Jepson and two representatives from Broadacre Management Company. An Executive Session was immediately convened for the purpose of discussing Property Acquisition. The Executive Session was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. and the regular session of the Committee of the Whole reconvened at 7:35 p.m. Present at the Committee of the Whole were all persons listed above including Inspection Services Director Charles Bencic and Village Planner Michael Sims. In addition, three members of the media were in attendance. II. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 1992 The minutes of December 22, 1992 were accepted and filed. Trustees Busse and Clowes abstained on the vote to approve the minutes. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD 1) Mrs. Jean Reibel - 4 No. Pine - stated she and Mr. Larry Kuchera - 6 No.. Pine - represented concerned neighbors in the area of Pine and Central Streets on the plan for downtown development. They had a petition to present to the Board indicating their main concerns were the 5 story height and density of the proposed development. The neighbors in the area could support a development of 3 stories and less density. They will meet with the Planning Department to discuss their concerns. 2) Mr. Richard Hendricks - 1537 East Emmerson - expressed his concern on Christmas trees being left in the parkway. Inquired as to how the Village's Christmas tree pickup program has changed. Village Manager Janonis explained the time frame of pickup has not changed but due to disposal problems with mulch created by the trees, the Village Board decided trees must have a disposal sticker attached. The Village refuse contractor, Arc Disposal, will be picking up Christmas trees and will keep records on those not having stickers. Village Manager Michael Janonis indicated that the program would be reviewed in an effort to improve the service. IV. DISCUSSION REGARDING SITE FOR CATHOLIC CHARITIES SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT Mayor Farley opened the discussion by indicating several sites had been studied for locating the Catholic Charities Senior Housing Project and the selection was narrowed to two sites - Busse/Main and Pine/Wille. The Mayor asked for comments first on the Busse/Main site. Trustees Corcoran, Busse and Milks indi,:ated after studying reports from staff, Catholic Charities, local mer,.-hants and the library, there seemed to be too many problems with the Busse/Main site and they could not support this location. Trustee Floros made i motion to withdraw the Busse/Main site for consideration of the Catholic Charities Senior Housing Project, Trustee Clowes seconded the motion. Mayor Farley requestaad comments from the audience. Mr. Hal Predovich - Chairman of the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission indicated his Commission would support "the Pine/Wille site, not the Busse/Main site. A informal vote was taken on the motion to withdraw the Busse/Main site from consideration for the Catholic Charities Senior Housing Project and all trustees voted Aye. Mayor Farley then asked for discussion on the Pine/Wille site. Trustees Clones and P=loros indicated support for the site. Trustees Busse, Corcoran, Hoefert and Milks indicated that although they support the need for Senior housing they could not support it on this site. Noting a 4 to 2 vote against the Pine/Wille site, Mayor Farley asked representatives of Catholic Charities how this would affect the timing of the project. Mr. Jim Kleifges, Executive Director of Catholic Charities, indicated they would still like to work with the Village but was not sure how HUD would react to any delay in site selection and beginning,the project. He stated Catholic Charities will continue to work with the Vil.age but will also have to look to other communities. Mayor Farley stated the Village will continue to look for other sites for the Catholic Charities project but there was insufficient support from the Board for the Pine/Wille site. Village Manager Janonis indicated staff will continue with Broadacre on development of the Pine/Wille site and will also meet with residents of the area. John Metzenthin - menber of the Business District Development and Redevelopment Committee felt Catholic Charities would be a benefit to the site. Larry Kuchera - 6 No. Pine - felt there was a problem with the Catholic Charities at the site and also said he felt residents were not adequately informed on development plans for the area. He requested residents receive more information on any development planned for the area. Mayor Farley, Trustee Hoefert and Trustee Floros indicated that information has been available to the newspaper and at public meetings. Public Hearings will be held as a specific plan takes shape. Hal Predovich - Business District Development and Redevelopment Committee - urged the Board not to delay development of the site. Trustee Wilks felt the Village will optimize the site potential by holding to goals and she complimented residents from Pine St. for their interest and hopes it continues. Jacqueline Hinaber - President of the Library Board - indicated any development in the area will affect the library and offered to have a representative work with the Village on the development plans. Trustee Hoefert suggested identification of a lead person for the Village Manager to contact. V. Discussion Regarding Community Auditorium Trustee Corcoran gave a brief history of the proposed Auditorium Project, describing the entities involved, the costs and the establishment of the Cultural Trust Cooperative. He indicated that although bids for the project exceeded original cost estimates, the entities involved felt it was a worthwhile project. Trustee Corcoran asked the Board to consider enacting the trust agreement, but to delay any construction for one year for the purpose of fund raising to cover the additional cost of the Auditorium. He felt the Cooperative had a good chance to raise the necessary funds to equip the auditorium with appropriate acoustical amenities. Trustee Clowes questioned whether the trust could do fund raising under the 501C3 regulations and if funds donated would be tax exempt. He supports establishing the trust but not for fund raising. Staff would look into the question of fund raising by the Cooperative. Trustee Hoefert indicated organizing the Auditorium Committee and trust originally sounded easy but with four entities involved it is difficult. Fund raising will judge public interest but questioned if not enough funds are raised and the project is dropped, how will donations be returned? Mr. Janonis indicated that accurate records would be kept anc all donations would be refunded if the project does not move forward. Trustee Busse asked how much staff time would be involved. Trustee Corcoran and Manager.Janonis could not tell at this time. After further discus>sion, general support was expressed for -establishment of the Cooperative zcnd a 12 month fund raising period. Staff was directed to prepare approprizite material for adoption of the agreement. Mr. Dick Hendricks read into the records an article in the Daily Herald by a Mr. Richard Benson in opposition to the Auditorium. Trustee Milks said the points were interesting and while she did not originally support Village participation in the Auditorium, she could support establishment of the Cooperative <<nd the fund raising because it will help judge citizen interest. VI. MANAGER'S REPORT No report. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefrt inquired on the status of the T.J. Max satellite dish. Dave Clements, Planring Director said the permit had been obtained to locate the dish on the roof. There being no other business, a motion was made to enter Executive Session at 8:50 p.m. - Another motion was made to come out of Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles Bencic Inspection Services Director NW-Fillage of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 22, 1993 SUBJECT: LINNEMAN ROAD - STATUS REPORT For well over a decade, the condition of Linneman Road has been the subject of much discussion by elected officials, residents and Village staff (see attached July 1992 staff memo and representative citizen comments). This important roadway within the Village has an approximate length of just under one mile and was originally built by Elk Grove Township. The roadway was constructed on a sub -standard base and has a structural make-up that does not meet the current standards of the Village. Additionally, the roadway has no curb and gutter system and very little in the way of a storm sewer system. Within the Village, Linneman Road has a southern terminus of Dempster Street and a norther terminus of Golf Road. By Village standards and based on traffic counts, this roadway can easily be characterized as a collector street. A collector street is one that serves as a main access point to the fairly substantial residential area bounded on the west by Busse Road, on the north by Golf Road, on the south by Dempster Street and on the east by Linneman Road itself. Additionally, Linneman Road serves as an access point for the Huntington Commons development. Over the years, Linneman Road has proven to be a popular route for both Mount Prospect residents and commuters as they travel both north and south through the Village.. There can be no doubt that it is a popular route for employees who work at the United Airlines complex located in the southern portion of. the Village. Due to the heavy use of this roadway as described above and its substandard characteristics, it has deteriorated substantially over the last ten years. Public Works' crews have attempted to maintain the roadway in acceptable condition through spot patching, pothole repair and shoulder maintenance. However, this effort has, by and large, proven to be unsuccessful and has resulted in a very ineffective use of our limited resources. It is the professional opinion of Village staff that the only real cost-effective way to address the question of Linneman Road is to undertake a complete reconstruction of the roadway including the addition of a curb and gutter system and an improved storm sewer system. Without these last two amenities, the life expectancy of the reconstructed road would be seriously compromised. While residents have expressed almost a universal opinion that something needs to be done with the roadway, there has been some disagreement regarding the nature and extent of those improvements. There has been a genuine concern expressed that any type of substantial improvement to the roadway while making it safer for area residents will also attract more commuter and cut -through traffic. This argument has some merit and should be factored into any decision which follows from this discussion. Other concerns which would need to be addressed in any discussion of Linneman Road include: 1. Proper drainage for the roadway will be a critical consideration in the ultimate design of the projec,:. The attachment entitled, "Drainage Areas," indicates that over the length of the roadway drainage occurs in three separate and distinct directions. One of 1he most often heard complaints about the current condition of the roadway is that the existence of standing water after any rainfall. While some of the run-off from the roadway currently goes in the direction of the three drainage areas, a substantial amount remains on the road surface due to the fact there is no storm sewer system to convey the water in the proper directions and at the appropriate run-off rates. This issue would be, addressed during the design phase of the project. It is anticipated that with proper design including curb and gutter and a storm water sewer system, that p7oper roadway drainage could be achieved without adversely affecting existing drainage areas. Your package of information contains an attachment entitled, "Street Detention Detail," which shows how the roadway itself would be used to detain excessive storm water run-off so as not to overload existing facilities. 2. A final determination of roadway profile will have an impact on a number of parallel issues including traffic volume. In your package, you have an attachment entitled, 'Pavement Cross Sections," which shows not only the existing cross section but also two reconstruction concepts that would see the roadway reconstructed to the existing pavement width of approximate 20 feet back-to-back of curb or in the alternative, a reconstruction profile that would meet current Village standards of a pavement width of 41 feet back-to-back of curb. The two alternates impact on potential for traffic volume, ability to park along the roadway, cost of reconstruction and the need to acquire certain additional right-of-way. The 41 foot profile anticipates a single lane of traffic each way but also provides for the ability to park on each side of the street. The 20 foot profile would not provide for that ability. Some of the comments we have received over the years indicate a concern that in the area of the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way and Park property, there are no current off-street parking facilities to accommodate those who use the area for soccer, softball and general recreation. These users tend to park along the roadway both on grass surface and partially on the existing pavement. Over the years, the Park District has attempted to alleviate the situation through the creation of a gravel shoulder in the area adjacent to their property. However, these efforts are simply not adequate to address the peak time parking demand. While there is a definite need for on -street parking in certain areas along the roadway, this is not universally the situation. Therefore, some concern has been raised that the wider -roadway profile to accommodate parking will actually be used as a four -lane street. This concern cannot be completely discounted. Cost of reconstruction also directly correlates with the width of the street. Current estimates for a 20 foot wide street profile total approximately $1,150,000, while a standard 41 foot street profile would cost an estimated $1,500,000. There is an attachment in your package which provides a preliminary breakdown of those costs. It is obvious that the cost of reconstruction is substantial. To put this cost in perspective, the Village anticipates receiving approximately $1.1 million in' 1993 from Motor Fuel Tax Funds. That amount normally covers the entire Village street resurfacing/maintenance program as well as several operational expenses. Your package of information includes a memorandum from the Finance Director Dave Jepson outlining how the Village might fund such a project. As you will see, Mr. Jepson is recommending that the Village borrow the necessary funds to cover the cost of the reconstruction. Based upon the size of the project and the life expectancy of the resulting roadway, this would be a prudent course of action. While some may question the appropriateness of committing such a substantial amount of limited resources to a single project, that concern should be balanced against the fact that this project has been deferred for a number of years with the result that costs have naturally increased. The final and, perhaps, the most important factor involved in making a determination is the question of right-of-way acquisition. Approximately 13 properties along the course of the roadway have property rights to the existing center line of Linneman Road. In effect, the roadway sits on an easement that allows the Village to maintain and even reconstruct the roadway within its existing profile. However, to do anything in excess of the existing profile, the Village would have to acquire additional property dedication from the adjacent property owners. Of the 13 property owners, 6 are large public, private or religious entities with the balance consisting of single-family homeowners. In the past, the affected homeowners have expressed an unwillingness to dedicate the necessary property. I must assume at thi:i time that the larger entities would probably be receptive to a negotiated dedication of the necessary property. A negotiated settlement may or may not include the payment of value for the acquired property. The Village also has the power of eminent domain. Conclusion It is the intent of staff to bring this matter forward in an effort to begin discussion of the many components that make up a final decision on what to do with Linneman Road. Obviously, the desires and concerns of those residents who not only live on Lineman Road but also those who use Lineman Road to access their homes in the neighborhood must be consulted. Staff would anticipate renewed contact with those property owners who own to the center line of Lineman Road as well as convene as many meetings as necessary to solicit resident input. This input would be factored into a final preferred design which may include, one of the two options presented here or a hybrid configuration that might include a center turn lane or a bike lane. Due to the fact this is a technical meeting wl-ere no final decisions are anticipated to be made, mass notification of interested -parties was not undertaken. A few group leaders were contacted and invited to attend Tuesday evening's meeting. Village staff will be in attendance to provide further detail and to answer any questions that you may have. MEJ/rcc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT MOUNT PROSPECr, M LAOIS 60056 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Jannis, Village Manager FROM: Jeff Wulbecker, Engineering Coordinator DATE: July 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Linneman Road Over the past 3 weeks a number of residents have written to me expressing their concern about the condition of Linneman Road between Golf Road and Dempster Street. Enclosed are a total of 71 letters from residents who regularly use Linneman Road, including 27 who live on Linneman Road. The condition of Linneman Road is very poor. The pavement has failed in many locations. The roadway width is substandard and very little curb and gutter or storm sewer exist. The Village has maintained Linneman Road by patching pot holes as required. The Village has desired to install full roadway and drainage improvements, however the Village does not own all the necessary right-of-way to complete the improvements. In 1983, the Village surveyed the residents about their interest in dedicating the right-of-way to the Village and if they were in favor of the improvements. The answers to both were a unanimous "NO". Copies of this correspondence are enclosed. At the present time $100,000.00 has been included in this years budget for storm sewer improvements. The Engineering Division is preparing storm sewer plans and a preliminary estimate of cost for full sewer and roadway improvements. Preliminary discussions with Public Works Director Herb Weeks have set a tentative timetable for the improvements: Storm Sewer in 1992 - 1993, south half roadway improvements in 1993 - 1994 and north half roadway improvements in 1994 - 1995. The stumbling block to these improvements remains the right-of-way acquisition. Enclosed is a copy of a memo with attachments sent to Village Manager John Dixon in October of 1991 concerning the necessary acquisitions of right-of-way. The improvements including the storm sewer, cannot be completed without the right-of-way acquisition. It should be noted that 3 residents who said "no" in 1983 are included in the 71 requesting improvements in 1992. The Engineering Division will continue to proceed with the storm sewer design and estimate of cost preparation, and await your direction on the right-of-way acquisition. xc: Chuck Bencic, Director of Inspection Services June 20,1992 Dear Neighbors: Please read this letter ... it concerns the deterioration of Linneman Street. I have recently called the City of Mount Prospect in respect to the repair of Linneman Street and the gentleman that I spoke with suggested that I write a letter which I did. I received no response back and the street is still deteriorating and getting worse by the minute. Linneman Street is a safety hazard to all of us who travel it, especially if it is by foot or bike. I have attached a letter and an envelope that you can sign and stamp, respectively, and send to the city of Mount Prospect. If we all send in our letters, maybe something will be done. Please sign your letter and add to it what you wish, I have left some extra room for you to add a few words, but if you would like to type something else up, please do so. We all need to do this together to let the City of Mount Prospect know that we are fed up with the condition of Linneman Street. It's been over 15 years that this road has been in this condition, let's do something about it. Thank you, oo Linda Just a neighbor who is fed up..... P.S. Please fill in the top three lines on the letter with your name and address, and at the bottom sign and print your name. Thanks. June 20, 1992 Mr. Jeff Wulbecker Engineering Coordinator for The City of Mount Prospect 101 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Dear Mr.•Wulbecker: I am sending you this letter in regards to the detrioration of Linneman Street. Linneman Street has been deteriorating for over 15 years and all that is done to it is patch work. The street •is a safety hazard for all that travel it and is in dire need for repair, especially the southern section of Linneman Street between Dempster Street and Willow. There are road repairs going on all around this street yet no one has done anything about Linneman Street .... and it needs it the worse. This letter is to let the Ci -:y of Mount Prospect know that their tax paying citizens and voters want this road repaired... Please help us!!! Thank you: S PEAK OUT As a citizen of Mount Prospect, it is my opinion that... Linneman Street desperately needs to be repaired and widened, including the installation of sidewalks. It is an unsafe road for autos and pedestrians. This already narrow and corroding roadway creates a dangerous atmosphere, especially when pedestrians and bicyclists attempt to share the same road with the continuous stream of cars. When this occurs, the drivers of the automobiles are forced to enter the lane of oncoming traffic. Another hazard is created when it rains. The corrosion the road and lack of adequate drainage, creates large standing pools of water, once again causing the drivers veer into the other lane. of to The last major concern I have concerning Linneman Street is' the lack of adequate parking at the local Park District out door sports grounds. These facilities along with their parking areas, are accessed via Linneman Street. When there is a large event, there is not enough parking for everyone, causing them to invent their own parking spots. This in turn, causes drivers, traveling Linneman Street, to drift away from parked cars, that are literally inches away from the road itself, into the oncoming lanes. I have lived in the Des Plaines/Mount Prospect area for twenty years. I have been subjected to Linneman Street from every aspect previously referred to. In High School my bus had to drive down it and I had to use it (on foot or bike) to get to my friend's house. Now I am a resident utilizing this road continuously as one of the major accesses to my home. It is very discouraging to see a road in such need of repair for so long. Unfortunately'one day someone will be terribly hurt. For them and their family it will be too late to do something, so let's do something now. Please... Thanks for letting me SPEAK OUT. I would appreciate a response. It already looks like something is going to happen to Linneman Street because there are orange spray marks on the road. I sure hopes its a face lift for our aged road. Linda J. Peters 832 W. Partridge Lane Mount Prospect, IL 60056 I1-r�-t 1 :137 Linneman Read. Mt. Prospect, IL 60007 7u.1', 30, 15% L INNEMAN ROAD - DEATH TRAP I_innem eto Road is ma Death Trap waiting -dor a. `aiCtilit. Whether toe ce7son is as student at: .%t john's Lutheran School, agoinci to St john's Lutheran ChI_t'i_ch or Sunday. a resident 1i`einq on road. an employee =nOimi"In or Qoinn to work at Lit-,1ttosd Airlines, anyone aFinq the road. Who is Lin8ns1ian Road 1n such as dep1Q'r at Le cCnditi anT There are e.i , ( T. ) orooeriy owners along road Aho !ib9I'I half of t'nr-s 0=ad i1, fi o'B_It ,At their property. Their oropel_t:''q was in the I_i.ninco Caw vate,d Cook Co!_tnt. when Nevourchased and : waist Ja_ they trie're anne;;ed tee''< Mt. Prospect. M". Prospect is no.. poina to ._ oai, _. -oad the 1.Ilmaa7 :ioe.. lot own. ^e villoge m"aas. twice in the pest years. _.aked that rhe -.e ,owI_,e.I dedicate, the road po-tion of their orovertv to the village. I.; .I return the -i11.=age 4"oI_:ld give them. _. one time taA reduction authorization. for $hn i4 ._. , value oWF"i` their Inoarr._^ i on of the road. I_oad. The property owners HAVE REFUSED THIS Of=EEF . Whv I don't know and I tilit nC t Quing t,. A citizen who lives on Lin11eailan Rodd recently circulated a ;J .m t i .: i o I _ n L. letter t_. ..: h .e v ia, a m `" askinr that some t I ; rl ._ i . _ane. .. have writnen the villaw re'..ai_I.°"Eting that they .ma. ;g.=t:1"I contact the e1;. 6, property ot.:-Jt'Ier... ann make th.e r,T ..:- again. h o I._I. d this off.I_ again I be rejected the lllaqe I a s two 42 alternatives. !m'rlasrms the=s owners. throI_nn a Sport& Assessment, their Briare of the cost to repair the road or start c ndei7ln tmn orocaM^ed.yi`o . i l_ F :-h ® ,„ e' J m a. e, that d I_' not live o n I._:. b a n e ITS a I I Road, b I._; t e .a :M,. .,.. it t D3,, I'5 in t`ois fight, F. m.aai,;.I_;: vour viRwsknown &D., qLB,- village officials. RAI PH W. ARTHUR. , 1u uu asa iia 1�w IJ]0 131. Ca..n [d eoe Ille 1412 mss@ 1Q, 400 1.114 131• 1710 1!W 1104 - E AM,[ OVERLAND DRAINAGE OVERLAND DRAINAGE TO STORM SEWER TO HUNTINGTON COMMONS AT DEMPSTER STREET DETENTION POND LINNEMAN ROAD DRAINAGE AREAS ,1� , ��.... O_ N a Wf r0 %m OVERLAND DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWERS TO DETENTION POND AT GOLF ROAD AND LINNEMAN ROAD e 1/21/93 r__ ' 41' 1 "1 Storage Depth STREET CROSS SECTION STREET PROFILE LINNEMAN ROAD ON STREET DETENTION DETAIL EXISTING CROSS SECTION XEN BITUMINOUS SURFACE WITH AGGREGATE BASE FRIABLE THICKNESS) ,VEL SHOULDER (VARIABLE THICKNESS) DEFINED SWALE FOR DRAINAGE PROPOSED CROSS SECTION TO EXISTING PAVEMENT WIDTH 20' B/B PAVEMENT WITH AGGREGATE BASE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER NO R.O.W. ACQUISITION PROPOSED CROSS .SECTION TO VILLAGE STANDARDS 41' SB PAVEMENT WITH AGGREGATE, BASE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER R.O.W. ACQUISITION REQUIRED LINNEMAN ROAD PAVEMENT CROSS SECTIONS 1/21/93 LINNEMAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Three options. - 1. Acquire ROW and build to Village standards, 41' back/back. ROW acquisition cost: ? Roadway construction cost: $1,219,161.45 Golf Road traffic signal cost: 90,000.00 Engineering cost: 196,.374.22 Total cost $1,505,535.67 + ROW acquisition 2. Reconstruct in existing location and width, 20' back/back. Roadway construction cost: $ 996,583.80 Engineering. cost: 149 487.57 Total cost: $1,146,071.37 3. No build, continue to patch potholes as in the past. VELLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Directo� DATE: January 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Linneman Road Street Improvement Financing If the Village would undertake a major street reconstruction project such as Linneman Road, -the Village would probably finance the project through a bond issue. In the past the Village has not used borrowed funds for resurfacing projects, but we have used borrowed funds for complete reconstruction projects such as the George/Albert Street Project. Based upon an estimated cost of $1,150,000 to $1,500,000 and assuming a 10 year bond issue at 7% interest, the annual debt service would range from $165,000 to $215,000. The funds to pay the annual debt service costs could come from one of two possible funding sources. The first possibility is State Income Tax Surcharge revenue. The current authorizing legislation for these funds expires June 30, 1993 and we are not anticipating that the Surtax will continue after that date. However, — thg tax i -a extended at the same rate the Village could realize an additional $700,000 in the 93/94 fiscal year and possibly $1.1 million in 94/95. We won't know if the Surcharge will be extended until late June or July 1993. The second possible funding source for the Linneman Road Project is the increased revenue that would be realized from increasing the Village's vehicle license from $20 to $30. This level of increase should provide about $350,000 per year. The revenue projections in Mount Prospect 2000 anticipated this increase in vehicle license fees as of May 1, 1994 along with estimated expenditures of $250,000 per year for street projects. The last time vehicle licenses were increased was May 1, 1987 when the license fee went from $15 to $20. DCJ/sm PRELIMINARY LINNEMAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY T1ZET#S COMM ED u ,�,� ,no ,w ,a� ,im ,no BIRCHWOOD APARTMENTS TiC1TES PROPERTY ,.,o ,n2 ,4a iia 1— u,e u,� � 1210 � + 1206 � 4 rg PICKWICK WEST MT PROSPECT COMM ED CHRUCH OF THE ------------ -----A_ - r � PROPERTY s 1213 # 1211 APARTMENTS 7PARK DISTRICT NAZARENE i 1501 ---------- ,oao.. no. uoa nae i --------- _— a — NX TO 5W 0 1 ----- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB PROPOSED CURB REQUIRED R.O.W. ACQUISITION 1 , 1026 1022 1020 a 1 /21 /93 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JANONIS FROM: COMMANDER KOLANOWSKI SUBJECT: NEXT CHANGE ORDER DATE: 19 JANUARY 1993 The following items will be on the next change order. Items 1 - 14 relate to our construction contract with A. J. Maggio, the general contractor, and Item 15 relates to our contract with an independent testing service. All amounts are "not to exceed" figures subject to final negotiation for further price reduction. 1. gichedule extension - The general contractor has daily fixed costs such as project supervision, insurance, and bonding expenses. Delays due -to circumstances beyond the general contractor's control are reimbursable per the contract. Maggio extension breakdown: 48 days for oil tank problem 14 days due to contaminated water and soil 15 days bad soils 5 revise sub surface drainage -running sand 82 days total Total schedule extension cost - 82 days @ $523 = $42,886 2. Phone room r!gvisions - Revision of phone room needed to provide sufficient space for required phone, computer, and radio equipment. Original plan called for main phone switch gear to be located in Village Hall. Cost of providing a phone room, environmental control, and an emergency power backup system at Village Hall turned out to be greater than revising the new building during the construction phase. Total phone room revision cost = $12,227 3. Fire 12ept driyewgy revisigp- It was determined that the turning radius of the ladder truck was such that the original driveway design left the driver with little margin for error. To protect the public and Village employees the shape of the driveway in front of the Fire Department was revised to insure that the driver could concentrate on safely entering the roadway. Total driveway revision cost = $ 4,335 1 4.- Firg Qf,-Vta r o let 220 volt - Power requirements for the turnout gear drying system requires an additional 220 volt outlet. Total cost for revision = $ 592 5, e t e a - Change in exhaust fan location required to insure that engine exhaust fumes do not reenter the building. Move resulted in a longer conduit run for both power and control wiring. Total cost for fan relocation = $ 110 6. Rework dggrg - Revisions to three doors were necessary to insure the proper operation and security of the new building. Two of the doors are in the basement and one is on the first floor. Total cost of door revisions = $ 740 7. Reinforgg roofwell walls - Design change needed to insure long term stability of equipment well walls which will lead to a reduction in maintenance costs. Total cost of stiffening roof well walls = $ 1,284 8. vise storM water„ gligghargg - Design change requested by Public Works to reduce damage to landscaping and prevent erosion problems. Total cost of revising sump discharge = $ 1,925 9. C"o un"c tions & computer outlets - Additions to communications and computer outlets to insure present needs are covered and future flexibility in building is insured. Total cost for computer/communications outlets = $ 2,373 10. Revise e t"n & coo o t s - A revision in the controls for the air handling system was required to insure proper environmental control of the building. rotal cost for revising controls = $ 2,300 2 11. Delete curbs on Ma le St e - The Village is in the process of redesigning Maple Street from Northwest Highway to Central Road. To insure that one contractor is held responsible for all the curbs and gutters on Maple Street these items are being deleted from the Maggio contract and will be included in the contract for the revision of Maple Street. Total savings from deleting curbs on Maple Street = ($3,750) 12. Revise dgtgntion area lights - Lights in detention area required a redesign from ceiling mount to wall mount. Eliminating the ceiling mounted lights and rearranging the existing wall mounted lights resulted in a'cost savings. Total savings from revising lighting = ($ 164) 13. Delete gutters in under round parking garagg - It was determined that a substantial cost savings would result in eliminating the gutter system originally designed for the underground garage. Elimination of the gutter system will not have an impact on the functioning of the building. Total savings from removal of gutters = ($13,500) 14. Credit for changes in finishes - All room and floor finishes were examined in an attempt to reduce the overall cost of the building. Changes in the room schedules resulted in a cost savings. Total savings for finishes changes =($7 562) Total amount of Maggio construction change order = $43,796 15. Trow Mirza Consulting Engineers - The Village hired Trow Mirza as an independent testing service to insure that all soils were of the proper material, properly compacted prior to pouring concrete, and that the all the concrete used in the project met or exceeded engineering specifications. The problems associated with running sand and expansive clay resulted in a considerable increase in the amount of soils testing that needed to be done. Total change to consulting engineering contract = $ 8,000 D:\JK\WP\BUILD\CHNGORD4 Total additional project costs = $51,796 3 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 1992 t�`t:�NSTRUC'TION AC'TIV'ITIES FOR ITEC"EMBER 1992 1. Concrete topping installation on interior precast concrete floors was completed. 2. Masonry work continued. Exterior masonry work was almost completed. 3. All windows were installed. 4. Installation of detention equipment continued. 5. All roofing was installed. 6. Site utilities piping was completed. 7. Fire apparatus area floor slabs, except for hose tower, were poured. 8. Steel stairs were installed. 9. Framing for drywall partitions was started. 10. Plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and fire protection systems installation continued. 11. Rooftop HVAC units were set in place. 12. Building was closed in from the weather. CONSTRUCTION AC" IVITIES EXPECTED FOR JANUARY 1993 1. All interior concrete work will be completed. 2. All masonry work will be completed. 1501 Woodfield Road • Suite 200 East • Schaumburg, Illinois 60173 • (708) 605-8800 • Fax: (708) 605-8914 0 C. BENCIC E. CAVELLO D. CLEMENTS SECD. 'oNoHn M. JANONIS JEPSON A*slow= C. PASALIC Et) nvironment&Infrastructure R. PAVLOCK H. WEEKS J. WULBECKER MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY Donohue Project No. 18259.400 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 1992 t�`t:�NSTRUC'TION AC'TIV'ITIES FOR ITEC"EMBER 1992 1. Concrete topping installation on interior precast concrete floors was completed. 2. Masonry work continued. Exterior masonry work was almost completed. 3. All windows were installed. 4. Installation of detention equipment continued. 5. All roofing was installed. 6. Site utilities piping was completed. 7. Fire apparatus area floor slabs, except for hose tower, were poured. 8. Steel stairs were installed. 9. Framing for drywall partitions was started. 10. Plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and fire protection systems installation continued. 11. Rooftop HVAC units were set in place. 12. Building was closed in from the weather. CONSTRUCTION AC" IVITIES EXPECTED FOR JANUARY 1993 1. All interior concrete work will be completed. 2. All masonry work will be completed. 1501 Woodfield Road • Suite 200 East • Schaumburg, Illinois 60173 • (708) 605-8800 • Fax: (708) 605-8914 0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT aaut pf rtwM bb6wwwi �vmwrM.n FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director ,�L­i. DATE: January 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Police and Fire Building Project Costs Attached is a revised schedule of the Police and Fire Building Project costs including Commander Kolanowski's change order requests dated January 19, 1993. The total changes requested consisted of an increase of $43,796 to the Maggio Contract and $8,000 for soil testing for Trow Mirza. In addition to those changes, I am showing a reduction of $8,786 in the previous changes to the Maggio Contract. These reductions were due to lower costs for some of the previous changes than the amounts that had been authorized. Also, I have added $30,000 to the Donohue Engineering Costs due to reimbursable costs that have been paid over the term of the contract. These costs were included in original agreement but they had not previously been included in the Schedule of Project Costs. The net amount of the current changes is $73,010. This amount will reduce the Contingencies of $250,000 leaving a balance of $176,990 in the Contingencies line -item. The total cost of the project is expected to stay at $6,672,400 including unallocated contingencies of $176,990. This total is $319,520 less than the referendum estimate of $6,992,000. DCJ/sm Enc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Police and Fire Building Project Costs January 22, 1993 (1) Included in Board -approved Change Orders #1 - $19,424; #2 - $228,495; and #3 - $62,000. (2) Included in Board -approved Change Orders #2 - $40;138; and #3 - $16,780. (3) Approved by the Village Board July 7, 1992. (4) Included in Board -approved Change Order #3. (5) Included in 92/93 Budget. (6) Approved by the Village Board December 17, 1991. (7) Reductions in Change Order #2. Prior Change Contract or Approved Orders Revised Referendum Estimated n 1/19/93 Total Estimates Construction Costs Maggio Contract $4,67:5,000 $278,581 (1) $43,797 $4,986,591 $5,568,700 (8,786) (7) Engineering Costs Donohue 431,000 56,918 (2) 30,000 517,918 465,700 Trow Mirza 11,000 10,000 (3) 8,000 29,000 Furniture 295,000 90,000 (4) 385,000 295,000 Police and Fire Equipment - 150,000 (4) 150,000 - Telephone Equipment - 75,000 (5) 75,000 - Demolition and Cleanup Demolition Costs 42,500 - 42,500 95,800 Tank Removal - 89,650 (6) 89,650 - Temporary Facilities 191,500 - 191,500 150,000 Other Costs Bond Sale Costs - 24,402 24,402 - Miscellaneous Costs - 3,929 3,929 - Contingencies Offia (73,010) 176,92 416,8 6 1611 6 . -0- 6a. "72 92 i (1) Included in Board -approved Change Orders #1 - $19,424; #2 - $228,495; and #3 - $62,000. (2) Included in Board -approved Change Orders #2 - $40;138; and #3 - $16,780. (3) Approved by the Village Board July 7, 1992. (4) Included in Board -approved Change Order #3. (5) Included in 92/93 Budget. (6) Approved by the Village Board December 17, 1991. (7) Reductions in Change Order #2.