Loading...
1974-10-29 - Village Board Regular Meeting - Minutes 4048 10/29/74 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, COOK AND LAKE COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1974, AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS. President Armstrong called the meeting to order at approximately 8:05 P.M. Those present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Clerk called the roll and found the following: PRESENT: President Armstrong; Trustees Shirley, Osmon, Rathjen, Mahoney, Rech, Driscoll Also present : Daniel Larson , Village Manager; Richard Raysa, Village Attorney; Arnold Seaberg, Village Engineer; William Balling, Administrative Assistant; and Richard Glueckert, Finance Director. 1 . Minutes of October 21 , 1974 Trustee Shirley moved to approve the minutes of October 21 , 1974, as submitted. Trustee Osmon seconded the motion. Trustee Mahoney referred to page 4042, paragraph 4, and stated he voted "naye". The Clerk called the roll and found the following: AYES: Trustees Shirley, Osmon , Rathjen, Mahoney, Rech, Driscoll NAPES: None The motion carried with change noted. 2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Phoenix Development President Armstrong reviewed previous actions taken by the Board in passing Ordinance #74-22 which zoned three parcels of land around the Buffalo Grove Golf Course, and one parcel north of Route 83. He noted that part of the agreement allows the Village to enter into a five year lease purchase agreement of the golf course to be effective the first of the year. He stated when the purchase agreement was approved, the Board considered and denied a request from Mr. Wolf of Phoenix Development to exclude from the PUD Ordinance a statement that all units had to be sold as condominiums with no rentals. President Armstrong stated the "no rental" provision is unacceptable to the fee owners of the property. Mr. Louis Ancell , attorney representing Mr. Friedman, Mr. Gecht, and Mr. Eckert, the fee owners, explained the reasons for requesting a provision in the ordinance to allow for the possible rental of no more than 1/3 of the units surrounding the golf course. He stated that they desire to develop the area as condominiums; however, because of economic conditions, they would like the flexibility of rental units. He stated that obtaining financing would be difficult with the restriction as it now reads. He also questioned the legality of the restriction. President Armstrong read a letter from Mr. Bernard Wolf of Phoenix Construction Company, received October 29, 1974, which noted the Phoenix Construction Company's development approach is based upon "for sale" units, and they have no plans whatsoever for any rental development. In reply to a question from Trustee Shirley, Mr. Ancell stated in reality the property owners preferred "for sale" units also, but the property is 4049 10/29/74 very valuable and will represent a substantial investment, and with 100% requirement for condominiums , no mortgage house will agree to finance it with the present market conditions for condominiums. Trustee Osmon questioned if Mr. Ancell were the attorney for the developer also, and if there were a possible silent partner not yet identified. Mr. Ancell stated he did not know if Phoenix Construction Company were in partner- ship with the owners of the property. President Armstrong stated he asked Mr. Wolf the same question , and was advised the development will be a Phoenix Construction Company project. Mr. Ancell stated his only relationship in the matter has been to advise Mr. Friedman regarding negotiation in the sale of the golf course, and that he had nothing to do with the agreement with Phoenix. Trustee Osmon questioned if there is a valid offer to sell the golf course to the Village of Buffalo Grove. Mr. Ancell stated the offer is valid, contingent upon disposing of the matter in question regarding the restriction against rentals. Trustee Osmon felt because the Board granted the zoning based upon the purchase of the golf course, the Village has a contract , whether or not the Board grants this additional release from the "for sale" restriction. President Armstrong stated if the owners of the property are not in agreement , as they are not, the signing of an ordinance means absolutely nothing as far as the Village is concerned with the purchase of the golf course until Mr. Friedman does approve the agreement and directs Mr. Ancell to proceed with the transfer of land. Trustee Osmon questioned Mr. Raysa concerning approval of the zoning without any changes , and asked if this is the same as the signing of a contract. Mr. Raysa stated there would be no recourse in the courts to make the contract work since the zoning in the ordinance is not being recorded until such time as the golf course sale is consumated. Trustee Osmon moved to adjourn to executive session to discuss possible litigation. Trustee Rech seconded the motion , and a voice vote found the following: AYES: Trustees Shirley, Osmon, Rathjen, Mahoney, Rech, Driscoll NAYES: None The motion carried. Time: 8:30 P.M. The Board returned to the Council Chamber at 8:45 P.M. Trustee Osmon reviewed previous discussions on the agreement concerning rentals , and asked if it would be agreeable with the owners to insert a clause in the ordinance stating that in the event the developer felt they were incumbered by this restriction, the Board would review it and if found valid, the Board would consider recinding the restriction. Mr. Ancell stated he would advise his client not to accept that provision; however, he suggested a provision stating the basic purpose of the development is for the sale of condominium units , and if in the opinion of the developer, the market does not permit effectuation of such sale, the developer would have the right to lease not more than 1/3 of the units. In reply to a question from Trustee Rathjen, Mr. Ancell stated he felt the restriction is invalid. Trustee Rathjen felt that a restriction of 100% "for sale" would be just as valid as 1/3 rental and 2/3 for sale. Mr. Ancell stated he did not agree since the 100% restric- tion forcloses the ability to rent at all in the event there is no market , and felt the 35% rentals is more equitable. 4050 10/29/74 Trustee Rech stated the retention basins were to be maintained by the Home- owners Association, and questioned this maintenance if rentals are approved. Mr. Ancell stated the owners of the property would be responsible. In reply to a question from Trustee Osmon, Mr. Ancell stated this point could be included in the agreement. Trustee Rech expressed concern over the possibility that Phoenix Construction could sell to a management firm that might not properly maintain the operation. Mr. Ancell stated that through ordinances, the Village can control maintenance and upkeep of property, that the owner should be committed to maintain the retention basins, and if the Village needs a bond to guarantee it , a bond should be placed with the Village. In reply to a question from Trustee Rech regarding whether or not this is contract zoning, Mr. Ancell stated that it is not because this development is PUD. Trustee Rech stated it was not PUD, but R-9. Mr. Raysa stated this is R-9 with a special use for a PUD. Trustee Shirley questioned if this restriction applies to the three parcels surrounding the golf course and does not include the fourth parcel north of 83. Mr. Ancel'l stated this was correct. Trustee Mahoney moved Ordinance No. 74-22 be revised to grant the petitioner the right to build a maximum of 1/3 of the units or 283 rental units by making changes in Sections 2 and 4; to include in Section 5, D. , a statement that if the units are leased, the owners of the property, in conjunction with Phoenix Construction Company,would maintain the retention facilities ; to specify the rental units would be on the three parcels surrounding the golf course; to contain a recitation of the present intent of the petitioner to build only condominium units "for sale"; to contain the condition that the 1/3 option could be exercised only in the event that economic difficulties mandated it; and the judgement of the petitioner is not to be arbitrarily exercised. Trustee Driscoll seconded the motion. Mrs. Janice Dallmer, 393 Indian Hill , questioned what will prevent 1/2 or 2/3 of the development from being rented. President Armstrong stated contractually they must live up to this agreement which stipulates 1/3 rentals. Trustee Mahoney stated the motion stated they may build up to 1/3 for rental , but they may do that only if they are able to show if they have an economic need. Mrs. Dallmer asked if they have shown the need tonight. Trustee Mahoney brought up the constitutionality of the restriction of 100% sale of the units and the 2/3 - 1/3 could be upheld in court where the 100% could possibly not be supportable at all . Trustee Shirley stated that Mr. Ancell presented that if granted the maximum 1/3 rentals , it was not his client's intention to challenge that restriction and return for additional rentals and requested that statement included in the agreeme Mr. Sven Madsen, 321 Springside, suggested that the economy may c e and the Village will still be committed to 1/3 rental units , and rested the Board members to vote against the proposal which reflects the �" overwhelming view of the residents of Buffalo Grove. The Clerk called the roll on the motion and found the following: 2,/- AYES: Trustees Shirley, Mahoney, Driscoll C r` NAPES: Trustees Osmon, Rathjen, Rech The vote being tied, the Village President voted "Aye". The motion carried. 4051 10/29/74 Trustee Rech requested clarification of data discussed last week so it could be clarified in the minutes. She stated there were some statements made by Mr. Larson that were not quite accurate as they related to the past minutes ; for example, Mr. Larson stated that the Board directed that the ordinance should not be recorded. She stated at the September 3rd meeting, Trustee Mahoney moved that the ordinance pertaining to this development be recorded and Trustee Shirley seconded that motion, it was a tie vote at that time and the tie was broken. She stated in last Friday's Tribune Mr. Larson 'was quoted regarding various golf course developments and how this case compares. She felt this development could not be compared with Mission `./ Hills or Sportmans because these are Planned Unit Developments in the true sense of the word with the golf course being incorporated into the Planned Unit Development, and to equate a golf course that the Village is going to have to purchase for $1 ,100,000 at some point in time plus interest is not the same. Trustee Rech also referred to possession of the premises which was to take place on November 1 , and asked if the Board had not acted tonight and did not take possession on November 1 , would the Village have been in default of that contract. Mr. Raysa stated he did not believe the Village would be in default and in order to declare default the owners would have to give the Village some kind of notice. In response to a question from Trustee Rech, Mr. Ancell stated his clients will sign the purchase agreement immediately. Trustee Rech stated that on September 3 of this year, supposedly this entire matter had been settled, and it is finally settled tonight. Trustee Rech requested comment from Mr. Larson reference page 4047 of the minutes , "Mrs. Dallmer requested under whose instructions the ordinance was delayed in being recorded and Mr. Larson stated by the Village Board." Mr. Larson stated the majority of the Board is the Village Board, and stated he could not answer as to the exact quote because he did not check the minutes. President Armstrong stated Mr. Larson is incorrect ; that he issued the instructions, based on the fact that he knew the owners would not enter into the lease purchase agreement. 3. Standing Committee Reports Fire District Referendum Trustee Osmon stated there was a hearing in Court last Friday morning relative to the request for a Fire District referendum, at which time the Long Grove Fire Protection District presented an objection based on con- stitutional grounds and that they were not notified by the petitioner. He stated arguments have to be filed and a new court date is set for November 25. He read an open letter, regarding the attitude of the Long Grove Fire District, to the people of Buffalo Grove under the hand of Edward Osmon, Chairman, Blue Ribbon Fire Study Committee. Trustee Osmon stated Long Grove Fire Protection District has been and will be invited to all of the open meetings to present their side of the case and asked as many people as possible to attend the meetings to ask the questions that need to be asked. Mr. Raysa stated that the Long Grove Fire District's objections were based on constitutionality; a petition, bearing the signatures of 220 people in the Buffalo Grove portion of the Long Grove Fire District, in opposition to Exerpts of meeting of October 29, 1974 Osmon: Do we indeed have a valid offer to sell the golf course to the Village of Buffalo Grove in return for the Mr. Ancell : You certainly have, you certainly have. Osmon: As outlined in our numerous discussions. Mr. Ancell : No question about it. If we can dispose of this matter this evening, you will have within, I would hope, 48 to 36 hours, 36 to 48 hours , or 72 hours, the signatures because Mr. Friedman is now in town and I have all the documents with me. I could probably meet with him tomorrow morning to sign them and clean up a couple of minor title objections, and that's it and deliver the premises. Osmon: My own feeling at this point is that if we do not grant this change and we do indeed grant the zoning based on the purchase of the golf course, we indeed have a contract whether or not we grant this additional relief from the for sale only because as I understand it the contract that we are entering into is to provide zoning --- period, which had nothing to do with the agreement. If we grant the zoning, I would say we have Mr. Ancell : If the zoning is satisfactory to the owners of fee, I don't know. Right now I am satisfied Mr. Friedman isn't going to sign this contract and I don't mean it to be in any way challenging, unless this matter is worked out. Armstrong: You mean our signing this ordinance if the owners of the property are not in agreement with it , as they are not, means absolutely nothing as far as we are concerned with the golf course until he does approve it and directs Mr. Ancell to proceed with the transfer of Osmon: If I might take rest for a second of Mr. Raysa. Mr. Raysa, if in fact we do approve this zoning, based as we have it now without any changes, is this the same as the signing of a contract, have we in effect offered earnest money and validated a contract? Mr. Raysa: In connection with the golf course, we have already Osmon: Yes, they have made the offer, we in turn have fulfilled our part. Mr. Raysa: The records show, Ed, that you have in the past said okay, the zoning is okay, the golf course sale is okay, you have given the contract and one with the other sets Osmon: Then we could probably have recourse in courts to make the contract work. Mr. Raysa: No, I don't think so. Osmon : Why? That's what 1 want to find out. Page 2 Mr. Rayssa: If you recall , the zoning in the ordinance is not being recorded until such time as the golf course sale is consumated. The golf course sale won't be consumated unless the zoning is consumated. Osmon: You mean if we put a restriction on this approval 7 Mr. Raysa: One is contingent upon the other and I think your records will show this. Osmon: I would. . . .this is getting a little deeper than I had wanted it to. I 'd like to ask for a recess to talk with Raysa in conference relative to possible legal action. Armstrong: Do you make a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss possible litigation, right? Osmon : Just a five minute recess in the conference room. Armstrong: Are you making a motion? Osmon : Right. Armstrong: Any second to that motion? Rech: Second. Armstrong: All in favor signify by saying aye. 4052 10/29/74 the disconnection; and a statement by the Long Grove Fire District pleading that by taking away that portion of the District , they would not be able to service the balance of the District. Trustee Shirley commented on the open letter and stated it was an opinion of the committee; that comments about pettiness are made, and that the open letter is far greater than anything they intended to point to in the other direction. He objected to the open letter being represented as the opinion of the Board. Trustee Shirley moved that this letter not be given to the newspapers as an opinion of the Board. Trustee Mahoney seconded the motion. Trustee Mahoney stated the letter does become argumentative, but did not feel the motion is necessary because nobody has suggested the Board officially accept it. Trustee Rech agreed it is not an opinion of the Board as such and requested Trustee Shirley to withdraw his motion , since it does not request the Board's standing in any way nor alter or change the outcome of the referendum. Trustee Shirley withdrew the motion. Discussion followed on dates tax money would be received. Chief Winter stated a tax levy ordinance could be passed on May 1 . In reply to a question from Trustee Shirley, Mr. Raysa stated there were 36 petitioners to call for the referendum. Chief Winter stated they only got the number of residents required and no attempt was made to contact every single voting resident in the area. Mrs. Carolene Johnson, 6 Springside Court, stated she wanted the opportunity to vote in a referendum and expressed concern that the request for a referendum may be denied. Indian Trails Library District Trustee Mahoney referred to the recent library referendum at which the Lake County portion of the Village became part of the Indian Trails Library District, making one jurisdictional difference between the Lake County portion of the Village disappear, and moved that the Board adopt as a policy, and direct the staff that in the future when any petitioner seeks to annex further land to the Village which would be contiguous to the Library District that, as a matter of policy, request the petitioner to contact the Indian Trails Library to discuss with them the ways and means of annexing the land simul- taneously into the library district and that the library district be notified of the request. Trustee Osmon seconded the motion. Trustee Shirley stated this could not be done because all surrounding areas are already in library districts. Trustee Mahoney withdrew the motion. Discussion followed on whether an area could disannex from one library district to another. Street Names Trustee Mahoney referred to his memorandum to the Board regarding the naming of streets for former Village Presidents. He noted there have been four previous Village Presidents , two of which have had streets named for them. Trustee Mahoney felt this carried a certain sense of history in the Village and it is a way to acknowledge the dedication and hard work involved in holding the office of Village President. Trustee Mahoney moved to have the Village Manager contact developers who will be building in the Village to discuss the possibility that they might consider naming streets for Presidents Bunescue and Thompson. Trustee Shirley seconded the motion and a voice vote 4053 10/29/74 found the following: AYES: Trustees Shirley, 9smon, n. ,, Mahoney, Rech, Driscoll NAYES: N+eke The motion carried. Tax Anticipation Warrant Trustee Shirley noted the final balance of the Tax Anticipation Warrant has been paid and the total interest expense on the $140,000 was $1 ,250.80. He noted a small amount was invested until it was actually needed which collected interest which made the total net cost to the Village $550.87. 10:00 P.M. The President declared a recess. 10:20 P.M. The meeting resumed. Trustee Driscoll was no longer in attendance. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Stielow Annexation Trustee Mahoney moved to remove the subject annexation from table. Trustee Rathjen seconded the motion. Trustee Rech objected to removing from table. Trustee Shirley explained to President Armstrong that at the last meeting, it was decided not to discuss the matter until Mr. Raysa had had the opportunity to investigate the intent of the motion pending before the court and report back tonight. President Armstrong stated the petitioners were present and felt discussion could be held, then placed on table again. The Clerk called the roll and found the following: AYES: Trustees Osmon, Rathjen, Mahoney NAYES: Trustees Shirley, Rech ABSENT: Driscoll The motion carried. Mr. Richard Wexler, attorney representing Miller Builders , stated a petition was filed and a hearing held September 19th in the Circuit Court of Lake County at which time the Court ordered the Village to proceed to consider the annexation. He stated that subsequent to the order of the Court on September 19th, the Village of Long Grove filed a series of objections to the petition , one objection being notice was not given to the Long Grove Rural Fire Protection District. Mr. Wexler felt notice should be given under the statute prior to the actual annexation of the property by the Village, not prior to the final decision by the court; however, to insure the record is clear, it was determined to be in the best interest of Miller Builders, in an attempt to alleviate any future litigation, to vacate the order of September 19th. Mr. Wexler stated they refiled the petition and a hearing is set for November 15, 1974. He asked that the matter be referred to the Plan Commission due to the lengthy process. Mr. Wexler stated that 3/4 of the property owners are petitioning the court and Buffalo Grove for this annexation , but that motions have been filed by the fourth property owner challenging this annexation proceeding. He requested that the Village action and the court action coincide so that unnecessary delays to Miller Builders , in context with the Village's own planning and zoning, will not take place 4054 10/29/74 and the annexation can be accomplished in a reasonable length of time. He predicted whatever the decision of the Lake County Circuit Court , Long Grove will appeal if the judgment is in Miller Builders ' favor. In reply to a question from Trustee Rech, Mr. Wexler stated his reasoning behind the judgment being in Miller Builders ' favor is that the statute recites the conditions for annexation of this type, and the judge has already ruled on the substance of the petition. The four conditions , under statute, are that the property be contiguous to the Village, the majority of the owners be petitioners, the majority of the electors be petitioners, and the appropriate notices be given to the various units that are required to have notice under the statute. Trustee Rech questioned Mr. Raysa as to the Village's position if the annexation petition is considered by the Village and the court denies the request. Mr. Raysa stated the Village will have done a lot of work for nothing. In reply to a question from Trustee Rech, Mr. Wexler stated he felt litigation could last a month or a year. In reply to a question from Trustee Rech, Mr. Wexler stated once zoning and annexation is granted, construction would begin immediately. Trustee Rech stated she could not understand why Mr. Wexler wanted the process excelerated when Miller Builders has an unfinished development in the Village; and when the Village has received notice, because of the financial picture, Miller Builders will not be able to complete it for some time; and will not be able to give additional park land. Mr. Jerry DeGrazia of Miller Builders stated that the incomplete area is multi family units in the Mill Creek area and stated multi family units are very slow on the market at the present time. He noted the Stielow annexation is basically single family with some townhouses, and by the time the product is complete, hopefully the economy will shift. In reply to a question from Trustee Osmon , Mr. Raysa stated the Village is not obligated to conduct public hearingson the request. Trustee Mahoney moved to refer the petition for annexation to the Plan Commission, with no hearings to commence prior to a favorable ruling by the court. Trustee Osmon seconded the motion. Mr. Robert Coffin, Village President of Long Grove, stated they would be opposing this matter to the best of their ability and their reasons are sound and vital to their community. Mr. Coffin presented a map of the corridor and subject property. Trustee Rech felt it not proper to act on the particular question until after the court hearing. The Clerk called the roll on the motion and found the following: AYES: Trustees Osmon , Rathjen, Mahoney NAYES: Trustees Shirley, Rech ABSENT: Trustee Driscoll The motion carried. Plaza Verde Shopping Center Mr. Ronald Grais, representing Buffalo Grove Associates Ltd. , reviewed their request to change the Plat of Subdivision of Plaza Verde Shopping Center regarding the dedicated street and the restrictive covenants regarding 4055 10/29/74 service stations. He noted that because the street was dedicated, the Village Engineer increased the level of paving on the road at a rather substantial increase in cost and also changed street lighting rather than the lighting on the plan which was approved previously. He proposed that the Village permit them to dedicate an access easement to the Village over the driveway which would remain private, to be maintained by the developer, rather than by the Village. In reply to a question from Trustee Rech, Mr. Seaberg felt it would be advantageous to the Village for the street to be private. Trustee Rech moved to approve the Plaza Verde request for a permanent, public and municipal, access easement according to Mr. Seaberg's specifications. Trustee Rathjen seconded the motion. Mr. Seaberg stated the Subdivision Regulations require 2" concrete/8" gravel surface and he is requesting a 3/10 surface. Mr. Grais inquired of the Village Attorney if the developer meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, can the Village require more. Mr. Raysa advised they could not. Discussion followed regarding the re- quirements for construction of driveways contained in the Subdivision Regulations and Mr. Seaberg stated that updating of this section will be presented to the Board within the month. He referred to the section of the Zoning Ordinance stating that commercial driveways are subject to special consideration depending upon commercial or industrial . Mr. Raysa advised that there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to substantiate Mr. Seaberg's request for a 3/10 surface. Trustee Rech deleted "according to Mr. Seaberg's specifications" from the motion. Trustee Rathjen seconded, and a voice vote found the following: AYES: Trustees Shirley, Osmon, Rathjen, Mahoney, Rech NAYES: None ABSENT: Trustee Driscoll The motion carried. Discussion took place regarding a restrictive covenant on service stations. Mr. Graisstated he had no intention of building a service station. Trustee Rech stated the Plan Commission approved the project with the provision that there would be no gas station. Trustee Rech stated the Annexation Agreement had lapsed with the provision for the gas station; therefore, the Board followed the Plan Commission 's recommendation. President Armstrong stated it is the intention of the Board that there will never be a gas station on that property. Mr. Grais stated if that was the intention , it will be so indicated on the plat. Motor Fuel Tax Curb and Gutter Removal Program Mr. Larson reviewed with the Board a report dated October 24, 1974, regarding the error made when calculating the lineal feet of curb to be replaced. Mr. Larson stated this error was caught after work was done, and the additional expense for the curb replacement is $10,145. He explained that the bid was based on unit basis. He stated this is an extension of MFT Funds and a resolution would have to be passed for this amount. Trustee Osmon moved to approve. Trustee Mahoney seconded the motion. A voice vote on the motion found the following: 4056 10/29/74 AYES: Trustees Shirley, Osmon, Rathjen , Mahoney, Rech NAYES: None ABSENT: Trustee Driscoll The motion carried. Ordinance No. 74-38 President Armstrong read Ordinance No. 74-38, an Ordinance expanding the number of members of the Appearance Control Commission to seven members. `./ Trustee Rech moved to approve Ordinance No. 74-38. Trustee Osmon seconded the motion , and a voice vote found the following: AYES: Trustees Shirley, Osmon, Rathjen, Mahoney, Rech NAYES: None ABSENT: Trustee Driscoll The motion carried. Ordinance No. 74-39 Trustee Rech read Ordinance No. 74-39, an Ordinance reducing the number of memb ers of the Plan Commission to nine commissioners, and moved for its approval . Trustee Mahoney seconded the motion, and a voice vote found the following: AYES: Trustees Shirley, Rathjen, Mahoney, Rech NAYES: Trustee Osmon ABSENT: Trustee Driscoll The motion carried. Halloween Night Proclamation President Armstrong proclaimed Thursday, October 31 , 1974, as Halloween Night and asked for concurrence of the Village Board. Trustee Mahoney moved to concur. Trustee Rech seconded the motion , and a voice vote found the following: AYES: Trustees Shirley, Osmon, Rathjen, Mahoney, Rech NAYES: None ABSENT: Trustee Driscoll The motion carried. Dundee Road Sidewalk In reply to a question from Trustee Rech , Mr. Larson stated Mr. Brown of Cambridge-on-the-Lake has agreed to install a sidewalk along Dundee Road and has directed his engineer to contact Mr. Seaberg to work out specifics. Aspen Ditch In reply to a question from Trustee Rech, Mr. Seaberg stated there is a permanent grate on the end of the pipe at the Aspen Ditch, but there is not one on the culvert and would not recommend one. 4057 10/29/74 In reply to a question as to who is liable if there is an accident at the ditch, Mr. Larson stated at the present time Levitt is responsible; however, when the Village accepts the improvements , the Village will be responsible. Mr. Raysa suggested Mr. Larson contact the insurance company to insure the Village will be covered. Traffic Signals Trustee Rathjen inquired as to the cost of Opticom equipment for the Dundee Road traffic signals as discussed at the last Board meeting. Mr. Larson stated he has not yet received that information. Dundee Road Trustee Osmon stated he made the inspection of Dundee Road with Mr. Seaberg and Mr. McCoy on Thursday morning and there was some discussion as to the safety factor of people using the portion of the road that is not yet open. Assistance in policing the area was requested. Water Rates Mr. Mike Chamberlain, 401 Springside, questioned the difference in water rates for the Lake County portion of the Village. Mr. Larson stated the same water rates apply to all citizens , the only difference is the Lake County portion pays sewage treatment rates and the Cook County portion pays M.S. D. for sewage treatment on their tax bills. Willow Stream Park In reply to a question from Mr. Chamberlain, Trustee Osmon stated the entrance to Willow Stream Park is paved. Street Cleaning i Mr. John Panella questioned what was done with the leaves in the streets • since the street sweeper is broken. Mr. Larson stated the sweeper can pick up the leaves. Trustee Osmon moved to adjourn. Trustee Mahoney seconded the motion and upon a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. Time: 11 :50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Vi 1"rage Clerk PASSED AND APPROVED this 1/ day of - , 1974. ram% ,11 1 ag Pr s i dent