1981-06-22 - Village Board Committee of the Whole - Minutes }
skl
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS, HELD MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1981 ,
AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS.
President Clayton called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. Roll call
indicated the following present: President Clayton; Trustees Marienthal ,
Stone, O'Reilly, Gerschefske, and Schwartz. Trustee Hartstein was absent.
Also present were: William Balling, Village Manager; William Raysa, Village
Attorney; and William Sommer, Assistant Village Manager.
FAU FUNDS
President Clayton stated that she did go to Washington, D. C. last Thursday
to testify for the continuance of FAU funds. She stated that it will not be
known how successful the trip was until the votes come in. Mrs. Clayton
stated that she believes that, even if the program is discontinued, Congress
does know the position of local governments.
CABLE TV
Trustee Stone stated that the Cable TV Committee met with Warner-Amex last
Thursday; another meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. Mr. Stone stated
that they are getting close to an agreement, which could be ready sometime
in July.
TOWN CENTER
Trustee Marienthal reported that the Plan Commission Public Hearing on the
Town Center was continued until June 24, 1981 , at which time Mr. Marienthal
thinks the Public Hearing will be concluded.
NORTRAN
Mr. Pinzur stated that Nortran will probably hit a crisis before the end of
the month. The Board last week directed Mr. Pinzur to find out if the RTA
would co-sign a note for the loan of the $10,000. Mr. Pinzur reported that
the RTA would not co-sign a note, but stated that it would not matter, because
if Nortran cannot repay the loan, neither can the RTA.
Regarding collateral to be put up against the $10,000 loan, Mr. Pinzur stated
that all RTA property belongs to the Federal government, and, therefore, cannot
be used as collateral . Mr. Pinzur said that every bill which has been intro-
duced in the Illinois State Legislature, including those by Southern Illinois
legislators who have spoken against the continuation of the RTA, includes
provisions for paying all debts of predecessor agencies in the event the agencies
are changed. He does not think that the Governor or the Legislature will allow
the loans of all the towns in Nortran to be defaulted.
Mr. Pinzur named the communities which he is sure will grant loans, and the
amounts that each would contribute, totalling $191 ,000. He thinks that
Buffalo Grove would be making a serious mistake by not granting this $10,000
loan. Mr. Pinzur stated that the possibility of a Soo Line station in Buffalo
Grove would be most beneficial , and he thinks that support of Nortran at this
time would be a plus toward consideration of that station.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 22, 1981
PAGE TWO
The RTA has given Nortran permission to put the 25 surcharge into effect.
If necessary, the union will be asked to take another deferrment in salary.
The community loans will be used as a last resort. Nortran does have the
authority to pay interest on the loans from the communities. Mr. Pinzur
stated that he thinks public transportation is worth more than $10,000 to
this community. He suggested that the Village make a $10,000 loan to Nortran,
$2,500 of which could be used as Buffalo Grove's dues to Nortran, making the
net loan $7,500. Mr. Raysa is still not prepared to make a legal decision
regarding the loan; he wants to see documentation from Evanston and Skokie.
Mr. Pinzur stated that no member communities of Nortran have rejected the
loan. Mr. Balling explained that the loan could be charged against the
Corporate Fund balance, since payback is anticipated within the fiscal year.
Mr. Raysa stated that he would research the loan prior to its issue.
If the loans do not come through as promised, the Nortran Board will vote on
June 24th to shut down. If Nortran does receive over $200,000 in loans, they
should be able to run through July. Mr. Pinzur thinks that we must show the
legislators downstate that there is a commitment from the local communities.
Mr. Goldspiel pointed out that Nortran has helped Buffalo Grove when we
needed help, which was in 1976 when the route in Buffalo Grove began. The
interest paid on the loan would equal what the Village would forego in
interest if the money were invested for that period of time.
Mr. Pinzur stated that the off-hour routes on the 234 and 690 runs are not
draining the system; the drivers are under contract and must be paid anyway.
Nortran's fuel costs are approximately $7,000 per week.
Mr. Pinzur stated that, in the event there was not enough money to repay all
the loans in full at one time, each community would receive a percentage of
the money, rather than one community being paid before another. Mr. Pinzur
stated that the money to repay the loan could come from the RTA, and it could
also come from fare boxes.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the Village
Attorney preparing a document to loan the $10,000 to Nortran at an interest
rate equal to what we are getting on our present investments, along with all
contingencies discussed tonight, including the fact that the 25 surcharge
does go into effect, and that any service cuts be based on productivity and
efficiency of the system; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , O'Reilly, Schwartz
NO: Stone, Gerschefske
Mr. Pinzur thanked the Board for their time and consideration. President
Clayton stated that this item will be on the agenda for July 6, 1981 .
Mr. Raysa stated that the vote must be a majority of the corporate authorities,
since it does involve funds.
S./
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 22, 1981
PAGE THREE
YOUTH COMMISSION
Trustee O'Reilly stated that the joint meeting scheduled for tomorrow night
between the Park District, the Youth Commission, and Trustees Stone and O'Reilly
will be cancelled.
Mr. Mayfield and Mr. Gopon were present to answer questions regarding the
Youth Commission Annual Report. Discussion regarding various points in the
report then took place. It was determined that adults to be supervising the
gatherings at the Youth Center would be cleared through the Village Manager's
office.
President Clayton asked if it would be agreeable to the Youth Commission to
give them direction regarding the Commission in 120 days. Mr. Mayfield stated
that was acceptable, but that the Youth Commission would then hold off on its
ideas until after that direction had been given.
Trustee O'Reilly stated that she wishes to see the Youth Commission succeed,
and she thinks that if the Youth Commission does seem to be going in the right
direction, the Board would support the Commission, which is the reason that
she suggested re-evaluating the situation in 120 days.
Youth Commissioner, Richard Hemme, gave his thoughts on the needs of the
Youth Commission. President Clayton polled the Board as to whether they
would like to see the directive for the Youth Commission acted upon now, or
in 120 days:
Trustee Marienthal - 120 days
Trustee Stone - 120 days
Trustee O'Reilly - 120 days
Trustee Gerschefske - 120 days
Trustee Schwartz - 120 days
FUTURE AGENDA
Trustee O'Reilly stated that she would like to see a discussion on the 3-mile
residency requirement for Fire Department personnel .. Another item she would
like to have discussed would be Ordinance #81 -1 , covering the Fire and Police
Commission, specifically the removal of, or the change in, the personnel
officer and/or the Fire and Police Chiefs ' involvement in the Commission.
Mrs. O' Reilly would also like to see a policy discussion on Rescue 8, because
of the uniqueness of an ambulance company which is also made up of Buffalo
Grove employees and because of the potential conflict of interest which exists
with this company. Specific questions regarding Rescue 8 are: 1) Can the
Village restrict them in any way because they are Buffalo Grove employees;
2) Can the Village establish guidelines at least while they are operating in
Buffalo Grove. In that same vein, Mrs. O'Reilly would like to see a policy
discussion regarding Buffalo Grove paramedics and their transports in various
situations. She would like to see these discussions take place at either the
July 20th or the July 27th meeting.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 22, 1981
PAGE FOUR
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN CENTER
President Clayton stated that Notice of Public Hearing for the Town Center
(Ken Tucker & Associates, applicant) was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald
on May 20, 1981 , with the Public Hearing to be held on June 8, 1981 . At the
request of the developer, the Public Hearing was continued on June 8, 1981
until tonight, June 22, 1981 . Again at the request of the developer, the
Public Hearing will be continued until July 13, 1981 .
President Clayton called the Public Hearing to order at 9:07 P.M. , and noted
the Certificate of Publication.
Moved by Schwartz, seconded by Gerschefske, to continue the Town Center Public
Hearing until July 13, 1981 . Upon voice vote, the motion was unanimously
declared carried.
President Clayton continued the Public Hearing until July 13, 1981 , at 9:08 P.M.
RECESS
President Clayton declared a recess from 9:10 P.M. until 9:20 P.M.
ORDINANCE #79-63 - LAND AND CASH CONTRIBUTION ORDINANCE
President Clayton asked the representatives from each of the School , Library,
and Park Districts to give their comments regarding this ordinance.
Mr. Ken Swanson of the Indian Trails Library District stated that he had
spoken with Lynn Butler of the Vernon Area Library, and although neither
library has had any income from the ordinance as yet, they both support the
ordinance as it is.
Mr. John Barger of School District #21 stated that they also continue to
support the ordinance.
It was requested that there be an accounting from each school district as
to how the money is used be submitted to the Village.
Mr. Charles Cohen of District #102 stated that they are experiencing growth
in their district, and, therefore, the developer donation is crucial to their
situation. It was stated that District #96 has requested an increase in the
acreage for the schools. Mr. Cohen stated that a school site may look
sufficient to put a 2-story building on; however, because of the surrounding
homes, a 1-story building is preferable to the residents, and then the site
can be too small . Mr. Barger stated that building a Junior High on a 12-acre
site does not really give enough room.
Mr. Bill O'Reilly of the Park District itemized how the money received by the
Park District has been used. He then highlighted the changes in the ordinance
which would be requested by the Park District; a copy of these changes is on
file in the Clerk's office. President Clayton stated that it would be beneficial
for the staff and the Board to have a policy statement from the Park District.
`/
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 22, 1981
PAGE FIVE
Discussion took place as to how these proposed changes could best be
implemented to both the satisfaction of the Park District and the Village.
It was suggested that, rather than adding the suggested phrase "in concurrence
with the Park District and/or School District," to the 7th line, 8th paragraph
on the first page to the ordinance, this instead be effected through an
administrative order. President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates
favor of the above suggestion; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O 'Reilly, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
President Clayton stated that staff will be sure that this is implemented
administratively. Mr. Sommer stated that, in the years that he has worked
with the ordinance, there has not been a problem with the ordinance per se,
and he is concerned with changing the wording. He stated that there may have
been a communication problem between the Village and the different agencies,
and perhaps there should be effort on an administrative level to work out the
communication problems, rather than changing the wording in the ordinance.
President Clayton asked if Mr. O'Reilly felt that the proposed wording changes
could be solved administratively. Mr. O'Reilly stated that the Park Board
has viewed the ordinance the way a developer would view it; in their opinion,
the proposed changes are clarifications in phraseology.
President Clayton polled the Board on the basic policy question: "Yes"
indicates favor of requiring a 10 acre land donation per 1 ,000 ultimate
residents to the Park District, a minimum of 5.5 acres of which would be
active use; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
President Clayton polled the Board regarding Section 11 of the proposed
ordinance: "Yes" indicates favor of keeping the cash contributions at the
time of building permit issuance; "No" indicates opposition (agreement with
Park District recommendation) :
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
President Clayton suggested that the rest of the changes desired by the
Park District be studied by the Village Attorney to determine whether they
require an actual change in the ordinance, or just administrative implementation.
The Park District asked that specific attention be paid to water management
areas; Mr. Sommer stated that he and the Village Engineer could work out those
specifics.
Lengthy discussion took place regarding Paragraph B. , on page 5, "Fair
Market Value". During this discussion, Mr. Balling pointed out that the
Annexation Agreements require builders to meet the ordinances in effect at
V the time the permits are issued.
• `/ tro
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 22, 1981
PAGE SIX
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the Park
District 's suggestion for the changes in the "Fair Market Value" clause,
which would permit the Park or School Districts to be an objector to the
Fair Market Value; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , O'Reilly, Gerschefske
NO: Stone, Schwartz
President Clayton stated that the rest of the items would be handled
administratively.
Dr. Willard's letter of November 7, 1980 to Bill Sommer was discussed, as
was Mr. Roggendorf's letter of November 14, 1980.
Since District #102 is represented tonight, but District #96 is not, President
Clayton asked the Board if they would consider just the increase in acreage
tonight, so that Mr. Cohen would not have to come to another meeting. In
answer to a question from the Board, Mr. Cohen stated the reasons that the
school districts choose to build 1-story buildings rather than 2-story
buildings. Discusison also took place regarding the possibility of another
school ever being built in District #102.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the request by
District #96 and District #102 to require an 11 acre donation for an elementary
school , and 19 acres for a Junior High school ; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, Schwartz
NO: O'Reilly, Gerschefske
Mr. Raysa commented on the ordinance, prefacing his remarks by stating that
he has not discussed them with the staff or the Trustees. He stated the
intent of the City of Naperville case back in 1977 and our ordinance; the
Naperville case basically said that there was non-home rule statutory authority
by a municipality to require land and/or monetary donations for expenditures
"specifically and uniquely attributable to that development". The monetary
donation must go for capital improvements . Because of some things he has
heard from developers, and because of a recent article written by an
attorney for a homebuilder 's group, Mr. Raysa believes there could possibly
be some litigation which would be to the effect of making any municipal entity
that would have a Naperville-type of ordinance account for those funds and/or
lands received. Mr. Raysa would propose to see what the district 's thoughts
would be for something such as a "hold harmless or indemnification to the
Village" as far as the use of those funds that are received from the
Naperville Ordinance. President Clayton suggested that a letter be sent to
all of the districts involved asking the question proposed by Mr. Raysa.
President Clayton referred to the letter from School District #125 asking
for an increase in the site donation for a High School . After discussion,
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the change
requested by School District #125; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Schwartz
�./ NO: Stone, O'Reilly, Gerschefske
President Clayton stated that there has been a request from the developer of
the Happ Farm to reconsider our library donation in the ordinance.
`.� COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 22, 1981
PAGE SEVEN
Discussion on this request followed , during which the point was brought
out that both Wheeling and Prospect Heights are also looking into the
possibility of requiring a donation to the library.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of keeping the
library donation as it is; "No" indicates desire to look at a change in the
library donation:
YES : Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Stone, seconded by O'Reilly, to adjourn the meeting. Upon voice
vote, the motion was unanimously declared carried. The meeting was adjourned
at 11 :08 P.M.
a-m. calfi-)3,'
Janet Sirabian, Village Clerk
TO: VILL G ./OF BUFFALO GROVE TRUSTEES
FROM: CONi'.IE ROGERS, DISTRICT 96 BOARD OF EDUCATION
D.1 TE: J UNE 19, 19 31 Wflrk Shorn m n -�
RE: DEVELOPERS' DONATION ORDINA:ICE
The Board of Education asked me to represent the:n at this work-
shop, but since it' s at the sane time as our own regular Board
meeting, I':n writing you this memo instead .
1 r
In June of 19";0 the District 96 Board of Education adopted the
attached policy. The policy establishes criteria for what the Board
would consider an acceptable school site and criteria for site
. sizes. It complies with the state guidelines.
!luch of District 96 is undeveloped , and once it becomes developed
will have a great impact on the schools ( additional teachers, supplies,
classrooms etc. ) . This policy will help insure future financial
stability during a growing time. District 96 will Be affected by
any adverse tax impact created by a development and the Board of
Education will, be responsible for the education of elementary students
generated by a development.
The District 96 Board of Education appreciates the opportunity
to have input on this Developers' Donation Ordinance.
Respectfully subnitted,
Connie noJers.
District 96 Board of Education
• }}i
.� r �
�'+TTAC.� :1.!T:. �;O.tiZD POLICY 7221. 1(a) adopted : June 9, 19��0
L
- I
•
7221. 1 (a)
Developers
School Building Sites
It shall be the policy of Elementary School District No. 96 to
acquire school sites according to the following criteria: '
• 1. All elementary and junior high schools shall be located
to serve the greatest number of children possible within
walking distance of their residence. •
2 . Adjacent land use must be considered. Schools shall not
serve as buffers between residential-commercial and
residential-industrial use that will impair the educational
• program or the safety of the children.
3. Access shall be available on fully improved streets . Each
school site shall be served on two sides by streets , one
of which shall be residential or collector type. As a
general rule, major arterials shall be avoided. •
4. All sites shall be fully improved when donated, which shall
include curb and gutter, hard surface street, storm water
sewers , sanitary sewers , and any storm water detention basin
which ma.y be constructed on the site_ Gas& electricity, and
potable water must be available at the site.
5. Sites shall be relatively square and of good contour to allow
for building construction and the development of play fields .
6. All land shall be buildable land. Sites shall not be located
in floodplains or show evidence of poor drainage. Peat
deposits and retention ponds are unacceptable. Any detention
necessary on school sites shall be limited to that needed for
drainage of the site itself.
7. Whenever planning is done jointly with the park district for
a park-school site, an additional five (5) acres must be
added by the park district to the school site.
8. The following shall be the foLmulae for the donation of fully
improved school sites;
Type of School Min. Size Enrollment Number of Acres
Elementary 11 acres 600 • 5 acres plus one acre
per 100 students
•
Junior High •19 acres 900 10 acres plus one acre
per. 100 students
N
7221. 1(b)
9. If a developer' s land obligation is less than the minimum 1
size outlined_ab_ove and the district determines a need for
a site in his development, the district may purchase the
additional acreage on the same basis the donation was deter-
mined.
10. School sites have been designated on the official school map
filed with the adjacent villages . These are so located to
cover possible densities which will finally determine the
" actual need and number.
•
•
•
• I
Policy -
adopted: 6/9/80 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 96
Buffalo Grove, IL