Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/1973 VB minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES April 24, 1973 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Teichert called the meeting to o~der, at~a:lS..P.M. INVOCATION Trustee Link gave the invocation. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Absent: Richardson CANVASS OF VOTES 10,706 votes were cast in the following manner: FOR VILLAGE PRESIDENT NO. OF VOTES Albert J. Motsch 531 Robert D. Teichert 6,098 * Michael H. Minton 3,917 FOR VILLAGE CLERK Donald W. Goodman 8,906 * FOR VILLAGE TRUSTEES (For a 4-year term) Leo Floros 4,626 Donald B. Furst 7,074 * Patrick J. Link 7,416 * Errol F. Richardson 6,904 * (For a 2-year term) Richard N. Hendricks 8,440 * FOR PUBLIC LIBRARY DIRECTORS Jack D. Anderson 7,312 * Samuel A. Hess 4,625 Miriam A. Star 6,187 * · Declared elected to office. Trustee Anderson, seconded by Trustee Furst, moved for passage of Resolution 14-73: A RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE VOTES CAST AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD APRIL 17, 1973, AND DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF Upon roll ~all: 'Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Motion carried. This special hearin~ was called by Mayor Teichert on Friday, April 20, 1973, pursuant to Chapv. 2. "The Board of Trustees" Section 2.103 "Meetings." of the Municipal Coda of Mount Prospect for the purpose of the canvass of votes and for a public hearing re~arding an annexation of property at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Meier Roads, known as the Sheehan property. A court reporter was present to write a verbatim reporv of the proceedings to be kept on file in the Clerk's Office. iscussion between the developer and Board of Trustees ensued regarding a letter from Kenneth O. Stonesifer to the Finance Director whereby the rate set for Special Assessment #70 was $15.062 per equalized foot for proposed Lincoln Square. The developer was of the opinion the contribution to the special assessment was not fairly equalized. In order to determine how the figure was arrived at it was decided to continue the public hearing to May 15th, 1973. The next matter to be considered on the agenda was Case 73-5P - petition of Donald Craig to annex property at Lincoln and Douglas, rezoning the property from RX to R-1. An ordinance annexing the above property and an ordinance rezoning~it from RX to R-1 were read for first reading. The Clerk was requested to advisathe Fire District of thc proposed annexation and to place the matter on the agenda May 15th. Trustee Scholten, seconded by Trustee Link, moved for passage of Resolution #15-73: . RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Motion carried. Trustee Scholten, seconded by Trustee Link, moved for passage of Resolution #16-73: RESOLUTZON DESIGNATING NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Motion carried. Trustee Ahern, seconded by Trustee Furst, moved ~o waive the rules to consider an agreemenv between the Village ~f Mount Prospec~ and the Combined Counties Police Associa- tion. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Motion carried. Trusvee Ahern, seconded by Trustee $cholten, moved to authorize the Mayor and Clerk vo si~n and attest an agree- menv between the Village of Mount Prospect and the Combined Counties Police Association as presented. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. April 24, 1973 rusvee Furst, seconded by Trustee Scholten, moved for passag~ of Resolution RESOLUTION CONFIRMING WAGES AND OTHER BENEFZTS OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT Trusvea Scholten, seconded by Trustee Furst, moved delete the first "Whereas" clause, and in the second paragraph strike th~ word "aforesaid" and add "for the fiscal 1973-7a'' in its place. Roll call vote on the amendment to the main motion: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Fursv L±nk Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Roll call yore on main motion as amended: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teicherv Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS BUILDING COMMITTEE - April 25th Agenda: Simmons Engineering - Case 73-4A; Hinz Pub- lishing Co.; and letter regarding variation for fence in rear yard to 6' in height. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSZONS AND BOARDS - May 1, 1973 ADJOURNMENT Trustee Scholten, seconded by Trustee Furst, moved The meeting be adjourned. Time: 9:45 P.M. Unanimous. MARIE T. HARD, Deputy Clerk April 24, 1973 SPECIAL MEETING of the MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the Village Hall, 112 East Northwest Highway, Mount Prospect, Illinois, on Tuesday, April 24, 1973, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. PRESENT: MAYOR ROBERT D. TEICHERT, CHAIRMAN TRUSTEE AHERN TRUSTEE ANDERSON TRUSTEE FURST TRUSTEE LINK TRUSTEE SCHOLTEN ROBERT J. EPPLEY, VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN J. ZIMMERMANN, VILLAGE ATTORNEY MARIE T. HARD, DEPUTY VILLAGE CLERK 2. MAYOR TEICHERT: The special meeting of the Village Board of Mount Prospect of April 24, 1973 will please come to order. The invocation will be given by Trustee Link. (Invocation) MAYOR TEICHERT: Will you please call the roll. (Thereupon the roll call was made by Marie T. Hard, Deputy Village Clerk.) MAYOR TEICHERT: The first agenda item is a canvass of votes of the regular election on April 17, 1973. I believe a teleform sheet has been provided for all members of the Board. The press got it, also. This is a resolution canvassing the votes cast at the regular municipal election on April 17, 1973 and the results thereof: 3. MAYOR TEICHERT: The next resolution number is 14 -73. The Chair will entertain a motion for the passage of resolution No. 14 -73. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: So move. TRUSTEE FURST: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: It is moved and seconded. Discussion? Will the Clerk please call the roll? (Thereupon Marie T. Hard, Deputy Village Clerk, called the roll and all Trustees present responded with "Aye ".) MAYOR TEICHERT: That motion carries, the resolu- tion is passed. Now, we do have basically two items here to cover. Items 5 to 10 on the agenda deal with one piece of property, which as indicated there, can be called the Sheehan property. Mr. Sheehan is the petitioner, and this is for property on the northwest corner of Lincoln and Meier, indicated on the map as the Sheehan properties, and Mr. Zimmermann,perhaps you would like to comment. MR. ZIMMERMANN: As indicated, this is the beginning of the hearing on the pre - annexation agree- ment, which hearing must be held in order that the 4. statutes, specifically provision 15.1 of Article 11 of the Municipal Code of the Cities and Villages Act would be complied with. We presented for the edification of all and specifically the Mayor and Board of Trustees, a draft of an annexation agreement between James P. Sheehan, John L. Sullivan and James Flood, doing business as J. T. Sheehan, Developers, who are the owners of the subject property, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Lincoln and Meier, the west side of town, in the County. Perhaps at this point it would be best to recapitulate and capsulize what the agreement states. Beginning on Page 2, since Page 1 is all of the whereas clauses and the legal description. Paragraph 1 indicates that the Village will annex the subject property; in Paragraph 2 that the Village will pass ordinances sufficient to rezone the property to R-1. The third thing is that the owner agrees to execute and the Village agrees to approve a plat of subdivision drawn at the owner's expense, meeting all the ordinances of the Village. The fourth paragraph indicates in .addition 5. to provide and install all storm sewers necessary to serve the subject property. These are what are normally involved with any subdivision, the public improvements that go hand in hand with approval of any subdivision plat, even those properties already in town. In addition to that the agreement here will have to be met sometime this evening, hopefully, as to how much per lot or lump sum the owner will pay to the Village to offset the already incurred village expense by reason of special assessment No. 70. At the beginning of this meeting I have passed out to the Board, and I would like Mr. Sheehan to have a copy now, a letter to Mr. Richard Jesse, our Finance Director and Treasurer, from our outside counsel and special assessment subdivision attorney Stonesifer, which, while it specifically is not aimed at this particular parcel which is the subject of this hearing, does indicate that the cost per equalized foot for the -- the figure used was $15.062 per equalized foot for the spread of the assessment in special assessment 70. As I understand how that is used and utilized is that the average front foot or the average width 6. in feet of each lot is multiplied by that figure, and that is the assessment for that lot. Or if you had a lot that was 73 feet in width on the front lot line and 75 feet in width at the rear lot line, you would multiply the average width, which is 74 feet, by that figure, 15.062,and come up with a dollar amount. It is recommended by both our Treasurer and Mr. Stonesifer that since this property was originally outside of the corporate limits and perhaps beyond ' the original area where the spread was made, that the figure that is attained after you use this formula should be 50 per cent for purposes of this particular agreement and the blank line shown in Paragraph 4. That is something we can come back to, if you like. MAYOR TEICHERT: Well, let's come back to it, for further discussion on that. MR. ZIMMERMANN: Paragraph 5. "The only laws in effect at the date hereof will apply to the subject property and future amendments and changes to the building and zoning codes or any other ordinance during the term of the agreement will not apply to the subject property without the owner's consent. fi 7. That is a normal paragraph and statement for this particular type of an agreement. Paragraph 6: The provisions and conditions and regulations set forth in the agreement will super- sede the village ordinances, codes and regulations, but where the agreement is silent the codes and regulations and ordinances of the Village will apply and control. Paragraph 7: The agreement is said to be effective for the full term allowable under the statute, which is 5 years and indicates, in 7(a), construction under any building permit issued pursuant to the terms r of the agreement that will not be completed shall remain in full force and effect for a period of 5 years from the date of the issuance of the permit. Paragraph 7(b) The agreement will bind the heirs, successors, assigns, corporate officials and their successors in office. Paragraph 7(c) Nothing in the agreement shall in any way prevent the sale of the subject property or portion thereof, and any new owner shall be benefited and bound by the restrictions contained in the agreement. Paragraph 8: In the event any provisions 8. of the agreement are invalid or unconstitutional, the invalidity shall not affect the validity of any other portion of the agreement. That is as short as I could make it. In fact, most of the time when we have an annexation of property to be developed as single- family we do not have the annexation agreements in hand. Usually the property is brought in and it is annexed and zoned all in the same meeting. And that way the developer or the owner of the property gets what he feels he needs. But in this instance I think Mr. Sheehan had his reasons for an agreement, and the Village did too, with respect to Special Assessment 70 involved with this particular parcel. MAYOR TEICHERT: O.K. The agreement basically on single - family residential property in the County contiguous to the Village would come in as R -X. Of course the petitioner wants R-1. There has been a Plan Commission report on this, the subdivision has been worked out and approved by the Plan Commission. Is that right? MR. SHEEHAN: Right. MAYOR TEICHERT: It now has the approval of the Plan Commission. So other than coming in and being 9. subject to our codes for development as single - family, probably the only salient provision that is a little different than the normal is the provision of Para- graph 4, which deals with contribution, if you will, to the existing Special Assessment 70, by the owner of the property. Is there anything other than that provision that bothers any member of the Board? George? TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Referring to Paragraph 4, I do have a concern. And that is Hatlen Heights, this general area has been provided with a storm sewer of adequate size to serve the Hatlen Heights area, plus contiguous outlying areas. Paragraph 4 specifically indicates that in addition to providing and installing all storm sewers necessary to serve the subject property the owner will pay. Well, my concern is what about these areas that are just outside of this particular devel^ 'nrnt? Are we going to have problems with the sizing 'off; the storm sewers to serve additional areas to the wst and to the south of this area? If we provide adequate sewers for this subdivision we are not going to be able to serve the area to the west. 10. I think we should take a hard look at what actually would be the plan to serve the several hundred acres that are contributory to this particular storm sewer system, so we don't end up with a bottle- : neck, a small system at this subdivision not capable of serving the vast area west of this particular property. I think it is extremely important that we don't get locked in with a system that is so small that it cannot provide adequate drainage for the areas that lie to the west and south. Question 2: On the $15.062 per foot, is that based on each and every lot that will be subdivided, or is it based on the entire tract as it stands right now? Because it could make a difference. As I understand the subdivision itself will be split down the center or the back with several lots on both the street to the west and Meier Road extended. Would this constitute several lots, or would the center lot be measured from east to west the entire width? MR. ZIMMERMANN: As far as I know it would be applied in the same fashion as the spread was made of Special Assessment 70, that is each lot taken 11. individually. Now, we did not have in our possession a final plat. There were some changes, I believe, that were made since the original petition was made before the Plan Commission for the rezoning, at which time I believe the petitioner herein also submitted a tentative plat of subdivision. So I don't have all of the calculations, but, for instance, for a 65 foot lot, and there are several here, and the latest plat -- Mr. Sheehan if you have any additional copies the Board would like to see them now, I am sure. MR. ANDERSON: My question was would a 65 foot lot go from Prairie to Meier, or would it be a sub- division down the center? MR. ZIMMERMANN: A lot as per the subdivision plat. In other words, you have two lots. The principal frontage would be on the street, so there are lots on Prairie and there are lots on Meier. At one time there might even have been lots on White Oak but those were switched around. But for a 65 foot lot, based on that calculation, it would have been $979.03. For a 72 foot lot it would have been $1092.90; for a 58 foot 12. lot $876. And that is per lot. And that is, of course, as I have indicated, based on the spread as it was made for Special Assessment 70. What Mr. Jesse is saying is he would say 50 per cent of that for this, because of its location. I guess Mr. Stonesifer was somewhere along the same line. MR. ANDERSON: You have answered Part 2. Part 1 I feel so strongly about. I feel there should be consideration given to the possible oversizing of perhaps the main line to serve the subdivision, so that we can take the adjacent areas and provide adequate drainage, rather than provide the restricted pipe sizing. I would like to have it considered. MR. ZIMMERMANN: If I can perhaps speak to that. In any subdivision situation the Board knows that it must view the plans for the improvements in the sub- division and approve them before any construction is commenced. So that what you know at that time is that our Engineering Department has looked at those plans and has recommended that they be installed, that the improvements be installed as they are presented. And I am sure that our Engineering Depart- ment, in view of your comments, while they would, I think, normally do this, will especially in this 13. instance, see to it that the lines that are being pro- vided. if they will have any effect to offset drainage from other areas, any areas west or south or even north of the subject property, that will be taken care of at this time for this particular subdivision. MR. ANDERSON: I think in the past the Village has picked up some of the costs for oversizing. I think this would be the proper time to consider it. We can't expect this developer to pay the cost of a 50 inch or 48 inch line, what would be for his use, plus whatever the Engineering Department recommends to oversize to properly serve the tributory area. This is what I was asking. MAYOR TEICHERT: That has been our custom, when we want oversize capacity, for the Village to pay the cost of the oversizing and then recapture it on properties beyond the development. I don't know if that was in the original engineering or not. MR. ANDERSON: It doesn't indicate it in No. 4. I just want to be sure it is covered. The only other concern I have -- perhaps it doesn't directly affect this parcel -- but I think as we consider new areas to be annexed that perhaps could fall within flood plain areas, watershed areas, 14. could be questionable. I think that in addition to the Engineering Department reviewing these plans, our Drainage and Clean Streams Commission has been extremely effective in correcting problems in the past, but I think we ought to look to potential areas too and try to alleviate any potential problem. It might not be a bad idea to have this Commission look into these areas that we know have been problem areas in the past, so that when we develop and annex areas of questionable -- let's say contours that could flood, I think that we should review these extremely carefully. And I think it would be appropriate to have the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission review these proposed developments like the Plan Commission does, like the Board of Appeals does. MAYOR TEICHERT: Of course we can discuss it. I don't think unless we establish, in fact, an ordinance procedure that we should now begin an in- formal procedure of examining all the plans. MR. ANDERSON: I think there are some that are obvious potential problem areas. Many of them we recognize right now are trouble areas. The Hatlen Heights area, there is another area tributory to it 15. will build up. We want to know the problems in advance, rather than try to solve the problem that has already existed. We want to take care of it in advance. I frankly don't think there is any problem there, it is a matter of a one -step operation, to have the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission review this. We spent $20,000 for a study. We expect to spend more for storm improvements. Why not let them take a look at it? MAYOR TEICHERT: Let me say this: I am not adverse to having them take a look at it. The Board will have to establish a policy then, if they wish to redefine the purpose of the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission. Right now we have a lawsuit, in which all plans must go through established procedure, which takes it through the Building Department, the Fire Department. Everyone has to put their approval on it before they come up here. You can't single out, in my judgment, one ' plan and say "We want the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission to look at it." Every development is treated the same. Do 16. you want the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission to review every request for a building permit? TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Not exactly that. I recognize it may be hard to earmark this one and that one, but I refer to larger areas that are considered for annexation that could potentially be problem areas. We talk about Rob Roy. We know that is the main stream of Mc4onald Creek: This is in the '.Hatlen area, which we know is in the Weller Creek area. We know we have had problems there. I think these should be looked into a little bit more in detail. MAYOR TEICHERT: I don't want to debate the thing on that point. We are waiting for the recommendation of the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission now on the overall flood problem. The properties themselves, so long as they are developable under our codes they are entitled ; to draw permits, regardless of what anyone says. We have to have a procedure in which we establish another body now, where we have to rely on their recommenda- tions as to what can be done. So long as the property conforms to our building code they are entitled to draw a permit. The review by another commission or body isn't going to have any force, 17. other than comment. What I am worried about is you know what we are getting into: Why shouldn't each zoning case and building permit go to the Safety Commission? TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I would like to hear dis- cussion on this. MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Ahern? TRUSTEE AHERN: I understand George's point. you are considering what effect this annexation might have, for example, in regards to what effect an area south or west of this area, not in the Village, would have on it. Carrying that reasoning out we can talk ad infinitum, then we would be talking about the area to the south of that, west of that, west of that and south of that, never ending. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: There are watershed areas, although these areas could be far beyond what we would consider a reasonable area for annexation. But these areas are defined as watershed areas, the lower areas are defined by maps. We know the tributory area to this particular intersection. We know what that is. What I had reference to is to check with the 18. Board on is the procedural suggestion of having the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission review the developments that would be pending for annexation to our village and see that we do have the capability of serving these areas and whatever is put in for storm drainage is adequate to serve the remaining areas tributory. TRUSTEE AHERN: Just looking at it, ,uppp8inq Clean Streams or anybody else will say "This area will take on so much water. What we need is 300 acre feet right there." If we don't annex it they will develop it in the County and we would have no control over it. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: We have other areas recom- mended for retention ponds. What action we are going to take now I don't know, either condemn the property or secure it by some other means. We have to take the step, we can't let it come in and hope we don't have a problem. TRUSTEE AHERN: You couldn't condemn it in the County. You would have to condemn it anyway. MAYOR TEICHERT: I think the point is well taken, but the present case we are talking about is a system that was designed with the vacant property to the west calculated into it. 19. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Sure. MAYOR TEICHERT: All the runoff and the drainage of the property is to the west, which we are now talking about. It is already calculated in the design of the system that was put in. And that is one of the purposes we have, a large public benefit in that system. That is one of the reasons we talk about recapturing from these people, because they can build in the County. They would prefer to build in the municipality and tie into the system. It is when they tie into the system we can recapture some of the public benefit money for oversizing the system originally to take on this property. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Perhaps I may have misled you. What I am saying is there is a 48 inch sewer terminating at Lincoln and Meier now. I wouldn't like to see it extended with an 18 inch sewer just to serve one subdivision, when a 48 inch is required. MAYOR TEICHERT: That was your first point. Paragraph 4 can actually carry that line, that the system will be oversized at the request of the village, and the Village will pay the additional cost of the oversizing. 20. The other is that the improvements themselves must come to the Village for approval. The sewer system and water system require the Board's approval and the engineering comes in at that time with a request for oversizing, depending on what is available. So we can catch it one of two ways. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Sure. MAYOR TEICHERT: I wouldn't mind at all that particular language, but the system as it is designed now is supposed to take these properties. But we will not recapture the money unless we let them tie into it. And the other point you are making is the oversizing. I can't see any reason why it can't be amended to carry that language or it is in our sub- division code and we do have to approve the improve- ments that go along with this. We could approve the size of the mains. So either way we would catch it. The other one is 1 think we all share your concern on an overview of the area as to where we can hold clean water. But this one is beyond our scope. That is, it has already been geared and engineered into the system that went in and does com- ply with our various ordinances, including the flood 21. ordinance. So unless we were actually going to buy this property and prevent the development of it we have nothing to do but issue permits as they conform with the ordinances. But again these properties have been engineer- ed into the system, and the important part is that they be oversized. If they are developed in the County the problem is there will be overrun flow not tied into the system. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: They feel that realistically they are not going to get the density they propose here, it is not practical in the County. I think we all agree to that. MAYOR TEICHERT: I can't agree with that, because they are still building in the County. I think it is not a good approach for a subdivision to do that, but they are still building out there. I think our big problem is not so much the sanitary as the storm. But those two points -- TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I still would like to sound out the Drainage and Clean Streams by the other Board members. MAYOR TEICHERT: What I am suggesting, again, 22. when we talk about annexing something I think you have got some bigger problems. You have got three parcels along River Road, for example. I don't think you can overlook what is happening in building and zoning in Mount Prospect. You have got to talk in terms of now articulating a procedure where all parcels go to Drainage and Clean Streams. I think it would be just as valid to say they all ought to go to the Safety Commission or the traffic section. I think the point is you are going to blossom out where everybody is giving comments. But they should give comments on the overview of the 1 i Village and leave it up to the Plan Commission and the Board of Appeals to implement those broader programs that we have by ordinance and put those in the conditions and standards. Otherwise frankly I think if we want that we would be regressing inr..overall view. It would probably take people a year and a half to get their plans through all the commissions and boards and back and forth. I think, unless I am mistaken I would say that the overview and recommendations of those 23. commissions should be implemented by us with ordinances to lay down standards that the Board of Appeals can apply. Mr. Ahern? MR. AHERN: A question to Mr. Zimmermann, really two questions. One is the method of determining what the dollar amount would be. Taking the 15.062 and multiplying it by the equalized feet would come out approximately to $14,000. Then I think he mentioned taking 50 per cent of that. I believe the public benefit was like 25 per cent. How did you arrive at the 50 per cent figure? MR. ZIMMERMANN: I can't say that I arrived at it at all. I don't even attempt here to presuppose how we arrived at it. For myself, though, if I were recommending a figure I would look upon it two ways. I would look upon the Village's interest in getting some recapture of its investment that was made by way of public benefit for the entire project known as Special Assessment 70. And I would also look to the systems serving in part this particular tract of land. So that 24. there would be, to my way of looking it, and right- fully so, something over and above the 25 per cent. TRUSTEE AHERN: It is just an arbitrary figure, isn't it? In other words, the people of Hatlen Heights, on behalf of the Village, contributed 25 per cent. Here they would be contributing 50 per cent. I can understand why it was left, because at the time it went into the Village. I just wondered how you got the 50 per cent. MAYOR TEICHERT: I can understand the calcula- tion, whatever the ultimate benefit came out to, 25 or 30. I can't remember, because there was an adjustment. I would be more prone to take that as the figure to work with. TRUSTEE AHERN: They weren't in at the time. MAYOR TEICHERT: That is what they used to talk ' about, direct and indirect benefits. I thought maybe they were feeling that this is an indirect benefit, since it was not a part of the original program. It was outside and came in after the date. TRUSTEE AHERN: Also if you didn't want the area in the Village perhaps to discourage them. MAYOR TEICHERT: I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. My own feeling would be we might 25. get some information from Mr. Stonesifer as to why that percentage was picked. It might have a valid reason, but if it didn't have I would be content to work out some percentage the public benefit was. It was readjusted after the court action, and use that as a basis unless there is some other basis for calculating the dollar amount to be contributed by the group. At least it has some rationale. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I think in view of the fact we are setting a precedent for many hundreds of acres, I think it ought to be clear right now as to what our policy is and how it was determined. MAYOR TEICHERT: There will have to be a 10 day notice. It hasn't been noticed; are you aware of that? MR. SHEEHAN: I submitted the engineering plans to the Village Engineer. He was going to go over there and take a copy of this to the Fire Department. MAYOR TEICHERT: No, that is a different one. The Fire Department is checking it from their point of view as a staff function. MR. SHEEHAN: Right. MAYOR TEICHERT: We are talking about notice to the Rural Fire District. Whenever you annex property 26. you must give a 10 day notice to the Rural Fire District, in order to annex to a municipality. There is a 10 day gap. That is what I was asking. If the 10 day notice hasn't been given, unless there are other points to be brought up on this agreement what we could do is resolve this contribution factor. You have heard the comments. It was either the Board, just when their comments indicated -- at least the rationale if figuring out the percentage. My recollection is it comes out to 70 -30, which would mean if that were the figure that after you calculate the per equalized foot then you take 70 per cent. If that were the figure we agreed on you take 70 per cent, and that would be the contribution you would make. MR. SHEEHAN: Contribute 70 per cent? MAYOR TEICHERT: Of the calculated equalized foot. In other words, each lot would be based on 15.062 per equalized foot. If it turns out we adopt 70 per cent, for example, we would calculate, for example, on a 65 foot lot roughly $979. Then take 70 per cent of that, which would probably be down to $650. 27. MR. SHEEHAN: I would like to state something here tonight. MAYOR TEICHERT: Why don't you get up to the microphone. MR. SHEEHAN: Sure. This Special Assessment No. 70, - this was for serving Hatien Heights when it was put in, the storm sewer, was it not? MAYOR TEICHERT: And the areas west of it. MR. SHEEHAN: Right. MAYOR TEICHERT: The water on the land you are developing coming into Hatien Heights. MR. SHEEHAN: Right. We are putting in the storm sewer, we are developing the land. I think it is not a good policy to charge us 70 per cent of this assess- ment. MAYOR TEICHERT: No, not 70 per cent of the ' assessment. Where do your storm sewers go? MR. SHEEHAN: I realize we have to contribute ' to connect onto this. You are talking a large sum of money for 13 lots -- 14 lots. Now we have a cost of $9.00 a foot to develop the property, just for the storm sewer alone. The subject property that we are developing, 28. we are putting in the storm system. We paid for the engineering, we have it all set up. If we pay on this special assessment we are paying for the whole thing, we are being taxed double on this. We are paying for Hatlen Heights too. MAYOR TEICHERT: No, each person in the Hatlen Heights area paid through special assessment to have a sewer system put in, and that sewer system was sized to accommodate the water that came from your land. The only reason you weren't assessed is be- cause you weren't inside the Village. MR. SHEEHAN: You don't understand. Over in Hatlen Heights, this area never had storm sewers. Am I correct? MAYOR TEICHERT: They had storm sewers but it was a tile system, field tile. MR. SHEEHAN: Well, it wasn't adequate for this. MAYOR TEICHERT: Right. MR. SHEEHAN: This special assessment was to make the sewer sizable for this area. Right? MAYOR TEICHERT: Oversized. MR. SHEEHAN: Oversized, to bring in the property west of it, in the event that would be annexed. But still you are putting the storm sewer through Hatlen 29. Heights. Now, if we pay for the full amount on this, the same as the property owners there, we are paying twice. We are paying the cost of developing our own property, plus the same cost of the people that are over in Hatien Heights. I can see paying for tying onto this storm sewer a certain amount, but I can't see paying the same amount of money that the people in Hatien Heights are paying. MAYOR TEICHERT: I understand what you are saying. Maybe that is why it is 50 per cent. TRUSTEE AHERN: I see your point, but let's assume at the time Special Assessment 70 went in that Hatien Heights was in Mount Prospect and your entire area was in Mount Prospect too. If that was the case you would have been charged then, rather than now. Further, people who live in Mount Prospect, that live as I do, for example, in the north end of Mount Prospect, probably would not benefit one iota from taking the storm water off, either your area or Hatien Heights. They, in fact, contribute 25 per cent. But 30. if your area had been in Mount Prospect at the time Special Assessment 70 was approved and passed you would have been charged the same amount that is being asked of you right now. MR. SHEEHAN: Yes, but I am paying double right now, if you look at it. I develop the area, put storm sewers through the area, plus I am paying for Assessment 70. TRUSTEE AHERN: The guy in Hatlen Heights paid $1,000. He would be paying the same amount, if you paid $1,000. He would be tied up putting in his own storm sewers. That must be why it was changed. It really a contribution to the oversizing. If at the time Special Assessment 70 went through his area was in Mount Prospect, those lots would have been charged just the same as you are charged now. MAYOR TEICHERT: Yes, but that would include the storm sewer in front of his house. He is putting a storm sewer in. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Let's look at it this way. Let's take, for example, this particular parcel of land. Let's say Hatlen Heights wasn't in the picture, wasn't even existing as far as subdivision, he has '.i 31. to build his own subdivision, provide drainage for that subdivision. Where is he going to dump this water? This is what he is paying for. The vehicle from this subdivision is Weller Creek. This is where his share comes in, Special Assessment 70, offsite, not onsite sewers. He is paying for off- site. MR. SHEEHAN: George, I would like to say some- thing right now. I'll pay for the share of the fee to the storm sewer. But I don't think it is fair for us to pay for the storm sewer that is being put through Hatlen Heights. We are being charged double. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: It just so happens it goes through Hatlen Heights. You pay for offsite storm drainage, is what you are paying for, off your tract. MR. SHEEHAN: Let's put it this way: You put the storm sewers in the property and we will pay the assessed valuation, the same as the people over in Hatlen Heights paid for it. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Subdivision improvements are required under the current regulation for subdivision improvements. Hatlen Heights does have storm sewers. They were found to be inadequate to serve this area, i as well as the area that lies to the south and west 32. of the subdivision. Right now they are taking in the drain tile system from the Kaplan & Braun development, plus the areas to the west. MR. SHEEHAN: What was the fee for Kaplan & Braun? Were they tied into this storm sewer, John? MR. ZIMMERMANN: We had an agreement with Kaplan & Braun. They paid us per lot. MAYOR TEICHERT: That was the original one. That was wiped out. MR. ZIMMERMANN: Right. MAYOR TEICHERT: Are you talking about an old agreement with Kaplan & Braun? MR. SHEEHAN: Yes. MAYOR TEICHERT: But that agreement was by mutual agreement cancelled and doesn't exist any more. That was the agreement entered into based on the first estimate of the Hatlen Heights improvement, in which Kaplan & Braun pre - committed themselves to so much per house. The engineering was actually done under Special Assessment 70. That was found to be inade- ' quate, so we by mutual agreement cancelled the agreement and all the houses in that area were assessed. 33. MR. SHEEHAN: Under this assessment right here? MAYOR TEICHERT: Yes. I don't think we are going to resolve at this sitting. Your points are well taken, we see your point, you made it. That you would, in fact, be putting a system in, as well as being charged for a system, as well as oversizing, which is like a double charge. You are going to have to give 10 days notice to the Fire District for the second meeting in May. MR. SHEEHAN: I think we could come to a con- clusion on this tonight if you could extend me a little time. I had this engineering drawn up here, I talked to the Village Engineer. We are not too far off, as far as dollars and cents go. On Meier Road he suggested the street be fully developed. If we put this Meier Road through we would put it through as half a street. The Village Engineer suggested that we develop the whole street through at our cost, and this would be de- ducted from whatever charge would be put through to us for the storm sewer. Now, would the Village Trustees agree to this? 34. MAYOR TEICHERT: That is just swapping dollars. 1 don't know that it requires agreement right now. In any event we have to get 10 days notice out. 1 appreciate what you are saying. You are saying if you put in the whole street you are to get credit for that against what we charge for the sewer. To us that is swapping dollars within our own budget, because we would either put the other half of the street in and pay for that out of our funding, or take it out of the money you are turning over. I don't think that is a big problem, Mr. Sheehan, I am saying. MR. SHEEHAN: O.K. MAYOR TEICHERT: We think it certainly saves us money to put the whole street in at the time you are doing it. But dollarwise the only place we seem to be hung up on the thing is what that figure is. I think we ought to get back to Mr. Stone- sifer, Mr. Young and Mr. Jesse to see, based on your comments and P u V- comments, what that proper per- centage ought to be. We know what the figure is for calculating the base cost. Now we have to know what that percentage would be, on an equitable basis. Right? 35. MR. SHEEHAN: Right. MAYOR TEICHERT: You will have to give notice to the Rural Fire District. That means we can't actually vote on this until the second meeting in May, be- cause there has to be a 10 day notice to the Rural Fire District. I just took John's word for it but I have a feeling he is right. This is the 24th. That puts us into the second week in May. We don't have a meeting, unless there should be a special meeting called on the 8th. There will either be a special meeting on the 8th or the regular Board meeting on the 15th. The attorney reminds me inasmuch as this is a public hearing that we would have to continue this meeting to a date certain. So not knowing if there is any particular business, if there is no objection this public meet- ing will be continued to May 15th, 1973. This will be a public hearing on the properties commonly known as the Sheehan properties, at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Meier. That is 8:00 P.M. MR. SHEEHAN: 8:00 P.M. MAYOR TEICHERT: May 15th, 1973. We meanwhile 36. will get more input on that. MR. SHEEHAN: Thank you very much. MAYOR TEICHERT: You didn't have any other problems out of the Plan Commission, did you? MR. SHEEHAN: They want me to reduce it from 14 lots to 13 lots, and that is what I did. MAYOR TEICHERT: It was resolved. O.K. That is continued, then. All right. The Clerk will see that notice goes to the Fire District. MR. SHEEHAN: O.K. Thank you. (Thereupon the further hearing of the above - entitled matter was continued to Tuesday, May 15, 1973, at 8:00 o'clock P.M.)