Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1992 COW minutes COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. September 8, 1992 I Roll Call~ The meeting wa~ called ~to order by Ma~or Gerald L. Farley at 7:3~ p.m. Trustees present were Mark Busse, George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Paul Hoefer~ and Irvana Walks Trustee Leo Floros arnved at 7:45 p.m. Also present were Village Manager M~chael E. Sanonis, Planning Director David Clements, Pubh¢ Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Planning Director David Clements, Economic DevelOPment Coordinator Ken Fritz, Solid 'Waste · · Coordinator Lisa Angell and Finance Director David Jepson. In addition, Ken Westlake, Chairman of the Solid Waste Comm~ssinn, Dick Bachhuber, Chairman of the Finance Commission, Janet Hansen, ExecuUve Director of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, seven residents and three members of the pnnt media were in attendancef H ~MAnutes of August 5, ~99~ ~' The minutes of August 25, 1992 were accepted w~th the following changes.: 1. References to Peter Hanchal on page 2 should be to Peter Hanch~r. 2. In paragraph two, page 2, the porUon that refers to "shrubs or trees" in line four should be "shrubs or evergreen trees" and in line e~ght the reference to "trees or bushes" should be %vergreen trees or bushes.", 3. Paragraph four on page 2 should b~ repla~ced with the following paragraph: '?Trustee Wilks also menlaoned that the proposed changes included a provision for a resident to plant or retain plantings on public parkways if the resident would covenant to hold the Village harmless if the shrubbery or evergreens caused an accident. Mr. Hill said the Village could sttll be included in the suit, but that th~s provision would sluft some of the liability to the homeowner. Trustee Wilks added that the Committee recommended that the Village stop the~yearly canvassing program. -Mr. Hill explained tha(a change in the tort " immunity !aw grants municipaliues immumty from !labihty from faihng to enforce then' own ordinances. Citizens to be Heard No cmzens appeared before the Committee. ' IV Discussion of Solid Waste Program Village Manager/anoms stated that the Solid Waste Commlsslon had completed a SLX-month review of the Village's Solid Waste Management Program. He menUoned that Lisa Angell, Refuse Coordinator, had compiled a report that included the results of a survey of over 12,000 set-outs over a 12-week period. AddiUonally, the report Included the new contract rates that went into effect August 1, 1992. Mr. Janoms added that the Solid Waste Commission had been instrumental in getung a commitment for a hazardous household waste pick-up in Mount Prospect and in providing for telephone directory recycling. Ken Westiake, Chatrman of the Solid Waste Commission, smd that the Solid Waste Commission endorsed the pay-by-use system for refuse pick-up. He said the Commission had recommended that the Village move from the current two container hmit to a one contmner limit and eventually, to a complete user fee. Mr. Westiake said there has been a 40% reduction in the volume.of refuse going to landfills from Mount Prospect since 1988. ~ ~ Mr. Westlake added that the volume of refuse diverted from landfills due to recycling eq s 900,000 .. pounds per month, or the equivalent of 4:5 full packer trucks. He stated tha? ap~proxa~mately 90% of Vl!lage residen? recycle on a regular is. ~ Mr. Westiake stated that at the current time .~ome 40 communities in Illinois use sor~e form of the user fee concept for refuse pick-up. He smd the concept is endorsed by the EPA and on September 5, 1992 there was an editorial in the Chicago Tribune endorsing the pay-per-bag system Currently, 92 % of Village single-family residents put out two containers or less and 42 % put out one .) contmner or less. He sa~d we should conunue to move in this drrecuon. Mr. Wesflake stated that the yard waste program of requiring a sucker for each bag has also been very successful, and he smd the SolidcWaste Commission recommended that brush be added to this program. Mr. Westlake concluded ~y saying that the two container limit had b~en fairly well received by the pubhe and there had been wrtuall); no "fly-dumping" or sticker theft reported. He smd the Commission had recommended that the Village staff develop a transition plan which included the change from two containers to one container and then to a complete user fee. The plan would include the user fee concept for single-family homes and for mulu-family homes. Along~wlth the above change, the Commission recommended that cardboard~, a~ero~l cans and ng~d~ alununum be added to' the r~ycli~ng program. ~ ~' Lisa Angell, Solid Waste Coordinator, explmned her methodology, for taking the survey of refuse patterns for Mount Prospect residents, i She smd she covered three separate areas each week for a four-week period. She commented that she only counted residences which had a set-out. The overall average for the 12-week period was 1.694 contmners per household. Ms. Angell added that this figure is consistent with the average of 1.3 to 1.5 con,hers In communiUes that have a user fee for refuse pick-up. Village Manager lanonis stated that the Village had an'opportunity to sa~;e an esumated $140,000 l~r,year by exercising an opuon in the Refuse Contrac? by paying the,con, tractor on, a unit charge 2 basis rather than a fixed fee basis. Finance Director lepson smd that the break-even point between the two options was 1.9 containers per week per resident. Based on the survey results,. Vtllage residents used 1.694 bags per week. As a result, it would be .more advantageous to pay the contractor based on the number of contmners picked-up rather than on a fixed fee basis. Mr. lepson smd this would be an advantage for the Village regardless of a two container or a one contatner hnut. ,~ The Vdlage would simply pay the contractor for the number of bags that were picked-up rather than .a fixed fee - Mayor Farley said the six-month review and the recommendations did not represent the final answers to the pay-by-the-bag system and that staff would bring back final recommendaUons in November. He said it would be appropriate for the Trustees to consult w~th theLr neighbors and residents regardihg this concept. , ~. Trustee I-Ioefert said there were a number of advantages to the pay-by-bag system. First It made residents more aware of what they purchase and the need to recycle; overall, it contributed to less waste going to the landfills; and there was greater equity and more control of refuse by individual households. He said a household could reduce their refuse significantly if they recycle. He added that if we do move toward a volume-based system, the savings should be passed on to the taxpayers. The whole reason for a volume-based system is for the good of the community, not to raise revenue. Trustee Clowes said he agreed that any savings should be passed on to the homeowner. He said he *-agreed with the concept of a user fee system because it was more equitable. He added that he preferred to move to the pay-by-bag system in one step rather than in two phases. Trustee Corcoran commented that the six-month review was a good analysis and that he would 1Lke th.e Vdlage to take a stronger role to force merchants who sell products w~th excess packaging to be eventually responsible to dispose of the excess waste. He cited the example in Germany where if you sell an item, you are responsible for eventually disposing of lt. He also said he would Ltke to see some internal incenuves for purchasing s~pplies made of recycled material. Trustee Core. om said he preferred developing a long-range strategy rather than moving in small steps. Trustee Wilks thanked the Sohd Waste Commission and smd the success of reducing the volume of refuse going to the landfills was due to their efforts. She added that she supported expanded recycling. Trustee Walks said she had three concerns with the recommendations: 1) She said she had a problem supporting a fee for brush pick-up...that this sends a message to residents to cut back on trimming; 2) She could not support the one container limit because residents are still confused about the system, and it appears the families who put out more refuse are being penalh~.~d, and 3) She could not support the complete user fee concept. She said that refuse pick-up is one of the responsibtlities of government. She added that residents of other commumt~es are envious of the resxdents of Mount Prospect because this service is prod for by property taxes. Trustee Bus~e stated thathe had a problem with the recommendation to move to a user fee system. He said it was a real burden for larger families and that there should be some trade-off. Enuly McBride, a~resident hvl~ng on South Emerson Street, smd the Village is putting a big burden on larger famdles. Instead of saying thank you to the residents for recychng it pe~alwes residents. She said she was spealong for a number of people who were distressed by these recommendaUons. 3 Peg Combs, 104 Stratford, said she agreed with Trustee WilEs. She said she was concerned because residents were being squeezed by hidden taxes. She smd she would rather pay property taxes than a user fee. She added that a charge for brush would be penalizing residents who keep thetr property in good condmon. -~ ~ '. Richard Hendnchs, 1537 E. Emerson Street, smd the unlimited refuse pick-up program has been in effect for 30 years and the Village should keep xt ~n place. Mr, Hendnchs smd he assumed that the contractor recexved the revenues for the sticker fees but he has found out that the V~!l~ge receives the revenues. He also smd he thought the recycling pwgram would pay for itself. He added that ~. if the Village is looking for more revenue, it should increase property taxes. V~llage Manager Sanonis said the user charge is more equitable because It prowdes a benefit to those who put out less refuse. He added that some of the sawngs would come back in the form of lower taxes. Mr. Sanonis stated that the stacker revenue the V~llage receives is used exclusively for the Refuse Program ~ ~ In conclusion, Trustee Corcoran said he wanted to see a total plan to move to,d~rd the pay-by-bag ~system and that the sawngs should go to the residents. Trustee Clowes stated that he could understand the concern about larger families but that businesses are subsidizing the cost and are not getung any benefit. Trustee Hoefert said everyone should pay their own way and that everyone needs 'to be aware that a crises is pending.' Mayor Farley said the co~t increases have been extraordinary and have put a strmn on the budget. He smd that speofic recommendations would be brought back to the Village Board. Sign Ordinance Review ~ : .: Ken Fritz, Economic Development Coordinator, stated that the Sign Code was adopted m 1982 after an intense review by a committee made up of staff, members of the ZBA, BDDRC, and the Chamber of Commerce. In 1986, sign design standards were adopted and a Sign Review Board was~ added The current changes are the result of a comprehensive review of the existing code by,.the .Sign Review Board. The proposed changes include the following: . Streamhning the perrmt process by ehminat~ng the $250 sign r~moval bond and reducing the sign installer's bond to $10,000. r~ Increase the permit fee from $100 to $150. Eliminate setback requirements for certain wall signs. ' ' Increase the number of tenants on multi-tenant freestanding signs from 2 · to 4 and the words from 10 to 16. ~' ~ ' Add a prows~on for temporary signs which include balloons and/or searchlights. ' ' ' Add a standard for large scale developments. Mayor Farley stated that residents appreciated the impact of the new Sign Code. He said it promoted unifonmty and more pleasing aestheUcs. Mayor Farley said he would hke the normal hours of operation on page 17, 2.b. to be more specifically defined and that on page 27, A. the word "on" on llne 2 should be "off." He also asked how late the searchlights could be on. It was explained that 11:00 p.m. was the latest hour. Also, he asked if the temporary sign provision would preclude an extended celebraUon such as the Village's 75th Anniversary activities. This item will be reviewed by the Sign Review Board. Mayor Farley said he thought the changes were beneficial and he sgpported the changes except for the provision fo, r searchlights. Trustee Fioros smd it was an excellent ordinance and there was benefit to the entire commumty. Trustee Heefert stated he also thofight the improved appearance in the Vfliag~ was 100% more pleasxng. He said that item Q on page 4 should be changed to take into consideration Village events. ee Corcoran made the following recommendations: Page 8, b. Add the words 'not abutting residential.' Page 17, 2.b. Change to 'shall be in operauofi no longer than 72 hours. Page 27, B. Tins section should be s ngthened. Page 36, E. Fees should be reviewed to reflect actual costs. Page 46, The definition of the Sign Planned Unit Development should be deleted. Trustee Willis stated that she agreed that the V~llage should comply with ttie same requirements as the business commumty. She also smd she approved of the change on page 6~ c. On page 31, the desxgnation '2'~ in paragraph B should be ehminated. , On page 43, the definmon of 'Lot' should be'consistent vath the definition in Chapter 9. On page 47, a definition for *Text Amendment" should be added. Trustee Clowes stated he was concerned that the Sign Code was too complex and the average business owner vail not be able to understand it. He said that he would like to see less restrictions on s~gn size or s~gn height. He also said he would like to see the restrictions for balloons ehmmated and that the Village should conform to the same standards as all other businesses. Trustee Busse said some of the changes were a step m the nght dLrection but that .the purpose of s~gns ~s to promote business. He also said he was opposed to raising pernut fees and that the staff should be treated like independent contractors. Adelaide Thulin, Chairperson of the Sign Review Board, said the Sign Review Board had put in a lot of hard work and existed for the benefit of the business community. Janet Hansen, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect' Chamber of Commerce, said the changes were the result of an ongoing process and that there should be more changes m the future. She said the Chamber Board does not always agree but the business owners appreciated the fact that the Village was wflhng to hsten. She added that the fee structur~e~ ~was not'a~ ,table~ to the business ~'~ owners. ' ' ~ ' - Richard Hendnchs, 1537 E. Emerson Street, smd the than es on pages 12 and 13 from 'wtthm 100 feet of a residential dmtrict" to 'property'(lot) line' is a major change from'the exastm'g ordinance. 'He smd has concern is~ the ampact on residential property,not the number of feet.~ - ' Trustee Floros smd he would support Trustee Busso's recommendation to not increase fees. Trustee Hoefert asked how the fees were determined. Ken Fritz said at was based on comparisons wath other ' mun~¢ipahfies. In a poll of the Committee, Trustees Busse, Florts and Clowes along wath Mayor Farley said they dad not support an increase. Trustee Wilks said she was leaning toward no change and Trustees Corcoran and Itoef~ert ~smd they would hke more info~:mation.' Trustee Clowes said he was concerned wath the amount of staff time committed to signs and Trustee Corcoran smd he would lake to see Village Department ol~rations ~'ev~nue based. - VI Proposed Changes to the Building and Fire Prevention Codes Mayor Farley said it was getting too late in the evening to discuss t. hm subject, but that the Board would Listen to anyone m the audaence who would lake to make comments. ~ ~ "' Craig Conety of Opus North said he ~vould hk6 to speak for Opus and other developers. He' smd they had revaewed the Code revmions and would like to make four requests: 1. They would lake ~mplementation delayed for 180 days because they currently have certmn proposals outstanding. 2. In regard to fire lanes, they asked if unobstructed paving on ~j rues could be - subsututed as a fire lane. ~' "'~ ' · 3. They requested ,~at a cerUfieate of occupancy be granted for parUal use of a butlclmg af the portion to be ,occupied had a fn'e suppression system an . ' 4: They would Like the proposed change in the definmon of a hagh-nso ~butldmg fro,m "7~5 feet to 35 feet" to be changed to "from 75 feet to 45 feet." ~ Mayor Farley,smd he will ask Village staff to respond to these requests before the changes are adopted. ' ' VII Manager's Report " ' - Village Manager Ianoms announced that a household haT~rdous waste collection wall be held at the ' Pubh¢ Works Budding on Saturday, September 12, between'8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Also, the dedication of the Historical. Socaety Museum Wll! take place on Saturday, S~ptember 12, 1992. 6 VIII Other Business Trustee Hoefert commended the 7$th Anmversary Committee for the good picnic on l~hor Day, September 8, 1992. Pachard Hendr/cbs, 1:537 E. Emerson Street, stated that m a memo to Village Manager $ohn Fulton Dixon on March 3, 1992, he thought the Village staff had made an error in interpreUng the Sign Code regarding Courtesy Home Center. Mayor Farley said he would ask for a report on the matter IX Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:4:5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David C. lepson, Finance Dtrector DC.l/sm 7