COTW – October 21, 2015
The Committee of the Whole Meeting was held on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 in the
Board Room, 3rd Floor, of the Central Square Building.
Mayor Steven Streit, called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Council in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
PETRAKOS, CAPADONA, GILLOGLY
SMITH, DESKIN, VANDERMEER,
PERRETTA, BARTELSEN
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
S. STREIT, MAYOR
A. MATTEUCCI, CITY CLERK
B. BENSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
T. THANAS, CITY ATTORNEY
T. LEMMING, CHIEF OF POLICE
P. HIRTH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A. WAGNER, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
PRESS PRESENT
Frank Vaisvilas, Free Lance Reporter for Southtown Star, Sawat Ahmad, Reporter for Joliet
Herald News, and Cathy Wilker, Volunteer for LCTV were present to cover the Meeting.
Mayor Streit announced he attended the ICSE two weeks ago. He had conversations with
the Brokers and Retailers. The Brokers at Lockport Square are negotiating with an anchor
right now. There are some smaller things that are close to getting some leases signed.
Downtown has a possibility for Mixed Use Development. He will be showing some people
available spaces in the downtown on Friday.
Mayor Streit has been in discussion with Chevron for additional development of the 20
acres on the south end of the Business Park. He is currently working with them on the
bottom 20 acres to see if they could work something out. He would like to see a larger
parking lot put in for the Heritage Village. Midwest Soarring Foundation, who is leasing the
train station would like to do a lot of events over there.
1
COTW – October 21, 2015
Mayor Streit said Chevron is willing to work with us on that property. There is an old pole
barn down there and checking to see if they could donate that pole barn and maybe utilize
it as an Art space. Mayor Streit also mentioned that the City is starting to get information
back from the Army Corp of Engineers whether this pipeline easement is possible or not.
He asked Administrator Benson if that feedback information could be posted on the City’s
website. He has asked Ducere to put together a Public Information Meeting specifically for
this, and he said it is currently in the works.
Alderman Deskin said “On Monday, Ben and I met with two Engineers from HR Green and
a Representative from Engineer Rail Solutions in regards to the Quiet Zone Study. We
looked at all the various intersections in town. I had some concerns about 10th and
Commerce for no other reason that twenty five, thirty years ago there were some kids that
were killed in an auto accident at that intersection. I brought that to the attention of
Engineer Rail Solutions. We may need to go ahead and do some things with the alley on
Commerce Street. So, what we are going to do is speak with the Owner of the property/
Paradise Bay parking lot which is going to lead to when we get to the Council Meeting I am
going to ask to table that just so we have a conversation with the landowner at that time.
We have looked at the preliminary ideas regarding the Quiet Zone and all the various
intersections and we will be moving along.”
Mayor Streit said with this pipeline thing he doesn’t want to pay a dime for it. He said if
these guys are willing to pay for it he will consider it as long as it meets all the other
standards. That’s why we’ve been getting this together so we have an actual price for what
this would cost and what it would cost them to put it in.
Alderman Petrakos, Plan and Zoning Liaison stated “Just met with Pam and Amy. Talked
to Joe Findlay and Ben and kind of come up with a plan for the streamline of development
process . The Engineers in house reviews - how we are doing everything all the way from
A to Z. All the way down to Certificates of Occupancy and everything. It was a good
Meeting and moving forward. Expect something pretty soon.”
2
COTW – October 21, 2015
Alderwoman Bartelsen stated “I just have an update. At the last Meeting I had announced
that on October 13th Jody Mariano from Teska and Associates was going to go out and
take a look at all our main corridors on how we are going to dress them up and get ideas.
She did do that with her Associates and they made an onsite visit and documented and
measured all of the site areas and they are inputting the information into the system this
week so that we should have something for us to review next week on October 29th we
have an appointment scheduled with Jody. “
PZC CASE 2015-012: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS, BUILDING 7 IN HERITAGE
CROSSING CORP CENTER
Director of Community and Economic Development, Pam Hirth presented her Memo dated
October 15, 2015.
ML Realty who is the Developer of Heritage Crossing Corp Center is seeking Final
Development Plan approval for Building No. 7. The Preliminary Plan for this Development
was approved back in 2008. The Master Plan shows a total of 12 buildings to be
constructed out there. There’s about 2.6 million square feet of building area. There are
three buildings currently existing out there. Building No. 7 will be No. 4. It is generally
located on the west side of the Corporate Center near the southwest corner of 147th Street
and Gougar Road. It will be constructed on the 19.21 acre lot. The building itself will be
363,224 square feet. Typical of what you see out there, there will be truck docks and there
will be trailer parking. The proposed building will be constructed as the same type of
precast concrete material that you currently see established out there. Landscaping will be
consistent and they will have naturalized plantings around the detention area again as what
has been the consistent practice out there. This went to the Plan and Zoning Commission
on October 13th. No one from the Public was present to testify. Plan and Zoning
Commission recommended in favor of the proposal subject to conditions.
Director of Community and Economic Development, Pam Hirth said “Tim is here this
evening to answer any questions or concerns.”
Alderman Deskin said he spoke with Tim earlier this evening and they discussed final layer
of asphalt on Gougar and 147th Street.
3
COTW – October 21, 2015
Mayor Streit asked Administrator Benson to provide an update on the surrounding roads.
Administrator Benson explained “Right now the Developer M/L will be completing the
resurfacing of 147th. Gougar Road as you know has already been pretty much completed
for some time now. We do have an Agreement with the County that has us keeping the
roads closed on the south portion in regards to acquiring some right-of-way on the north of
143rd. We are looking to potentially change that Agreement a little bit so we can hopefully,
now that these roads will be completed by this winter, that we might be able to get these
roads opened back up fully and it might involve some other documents with the County that
we will bring for your approval. It is great that the Developer is going ahead and finishing
the resurfacing now when they’ve had the opportunity with good weather. So, it is really a
matter of just jurisdictional authority between the City and the County that we need to play
out.”
Mayor Streit asked “Where are we at with 151st Street, that one was closed or is that
147th?”
Administrator Benson answered “There is actually two closings. One is technically it’s 147th
to Gougar and it is also where 147th meets 151st.”
Mayor Streit asked “I know we had some work going on there could you bring me up to
speed to with what that is?”
Administrator Benson answered “The Developer is doing that east/west road. They’ve
already completed Gougar and so as soon as he is done with the final coat which will be on
Monday that road pretty much is ready to be opened.”
Alderman Gillogly asked “You are not guaranteeing access to 147th yet from 151st?”
Administrator Benson answered “No.”
4
COTW – October 21, 2015
Alderman Gillogly then asked “Once this is built we still can be held back on that?”
Administrator Benson answered “That is something we need to work out with the County.”
Alderman Petrakos said “If I can, while Tim is up here. We had a concern we were talking
about. You know we are cleaning up all our arteries and everything, and we sent them
some information about cleaning up our main artery which is 355 because there is a lot of
naturalized detention ponds that he has there, and they are kind of just right up against
IDOT’s fence there. So, we went and met out there and talked to him and it was just like ya,
it’s a no brainer. Everything that is naturalized, keep it naturalized. But, it speaks to the
public when you kind of cut a couple of rows there in front so it looks like it’s manicured,
somebody has been there and is cleaning up that fence so he’s been working on that so,
thank you.”
CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS,
FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION UNIT 5, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND FINAL
ELEVATION.
PZC CASE 2015-013 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS – HEARTLAND DENTAL LOT 8
IN CREEKSIDE CENTER
Director of Community and Economic Development, Pam Hirth presented her Memo dated
October 15, 2015.
“Interplan, LLC, on behalf of Heartland Dental is seeking approval of a Final Development
Plan for Lot Number 8 in the Creekside Center and it is the Lot next to the existing KFC and
Taco Bell. It is the last Lot in that particular development to be developed. It is a Mixed
Use Development right now and is located on the northwest corner of 159th Street and
Adelmann Road. The Preliminary Plans for that development was approved in 2005.
Heartland Dental is proposing a 3,616 square foot building with associated parking. The
elevations comply with the City’s design and development material requirements. They also
will be incorporating a red brick which is predominant in that development, so it will be
complimentary. The landscaping complies with the City’s requirements and we worked
with them and provided them with the KFC and Taco Bell plan so that the plantings, the
types, and the designs, are going to be very uniform and compliment the overall
development. “
5
COTW – October 21, 2015
CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
LOT NUMBER 8 IN THE CREEKSIDE CENTER.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-081/RESOLUTION FOR SURPLUS EQUIPMENT/UPDATE ON
NEW COPIERS AT CITY BUILDINGS
Administrator Benson provided his Memo dated October 15, 2015.
A Contract was coming due at the end of the year. Estimates/proposals were received
from Companies to do a comparison and we ended up selecting Konica/Minolta as a new
service provider for copiers throughout the City. There is a nice savings with that. We are
going to save about $300.00 a month. We are getting all new equipment with new
capabilities.
CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 15-081/A RESOLUTION
DECLARING A RICOH 1075 COPIER AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING TO E-CYCLE THE EQUIPMENT.
50/50 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM/RESOLUTION NO. 15-082
Administrator Benson discussed the 50/50 Sidewalk Program for new sidewalks.
The City Council expressed a desire to implement a 50/50 Sidewalk Program for new
sidewalk back in 2012. This program would only apply to requests for sidewalk to be
installed where there is currently no sidewalk. Recently, several Members of the current
City Council have also asked for the program to be resurrected. In researching the current
status, the 2012 Council passed a motion to create one, yet shortly thereafter an election
occurred and funding was tight and the decision was made not to adopt a policy. This
would require that the City Council adopt a policy that new sidewalk requests will be paid
for at 50% by the City, with the Residents providing the other 50%. It’s a matter of budget
appropriations and managing the funds each year in the sidewalk program.
6
COTW – October 21, 2015
If a 50/50 Sidewalk Program for new sidewalk is adopted, there should be certain
requirements in place to be met prior to the City taking action to construct a new sidewalk;
the requested segment of sidewalk must have logical termini, meaning that it should begin
and end at an intersection; Each property owner within the proposed area, must agree to
the installation of the sidewalk; each property owner within the proposed area, must agree
to pay for 50% of the sidewalk that is adjacent to their property in advance; there must be
budget funds designated for new sidewalk requests, and sidewalk requests are on a first
come, first serve basis, provided there are available funds.
Administrator Benson asked “Does this new Council want to affirm having a 50/50 program
for the Residents? If so, how would you like us to fund it and $20,000 more on the budget
isn’t going to strain the CIP or anything. It’s just a matter of how would you like us to
proceed?”
Director of Engineering Amy Wagner said in 2012 there was a separate program that was
discussed and approved by the City Council for a 50/50 program for installing new
sidewalks in areas where there was no sidewalk existing, and filling in a gap as well.
Alderman Capadona suggested putting the 50/50 Sidewalk Program on the Water Bills to
let Residents know it is available.
For complete discussion, the video of the Meeting is available on the City’s website.
Administrator Benson said “I think having Amy and the Engineers discretion on termini
is fine not necessarily being overly specified but I think maybe adding this language about
not available to new development, we will add that language.”
There was no direction given by the Mayor as to whether this item will be placed on the
next City Council Meeting Agenda as an Action item, or as a Consent Agenda item.
7
COTW – October 21, 2015
SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC. FOR VIDEO/DOCUMENT SERVICES
Administrator Benson presented his Memo dated October 15, 2015.
In 2013, the City of Lockport changed its website to a new Vendor called Civic Plus, which
included a section or service online through our website for document storage, called the
Document Center. To help the budget costs at the time, for startup costs associated with a
new website, the City had also used You Tube to store and play the Council Meeting
videos online. Together they provided an affordable means to share Council presentations
and documents to the Community in this age of government transparency.
Although the use of public domain video services like You Tube are affordable, the quality
and security is less than desired. The Granicus Service will also allow indexing of the video
along with the document storage associated with that video. In other words the video will
sync with those topic documents online, no more searing for documents with the video.
The 2015 Fiscal startup costs of about $1,000 for the City Clerk will need a lap top to index
the topics during the meetings, along with approximately $10,000 in equipment cost
upgrades on our server to handle these new features can be accommodated on current
2015 IT Budget. The annual charges of approximately $8,00 a year or $725 per month will
be an additional cost in the 2016 budget and has been added to the next budget year
request.
Alderman Smith asked about the length of the Contract.
Administrator Benson answered it was a three year Contract and he would look into what
would happen if we wanted to end the Contract early.
Alderman Petrakos asked “After the Contract ends and we say stop, what would we do with
all the equipment?”
Administrator Benson answered “We would still own it. They have dual servers and it’s
available in cyberspace forever according to the Contract.”
Mayor Streit said before a decision will be made on this, he would like to give everybody
the opportunity to go and check it out. Go to the City of Joliet’s website to see how it
works. They are currently using it.
8
COTW – October 21, 2015
Administrator Benson said he will contact the vendor and find out what we would do with
the equipment or video content if we cancelled or end of Contract.
There was no direction given by the Mayor as to whether this item will be placed on the
next City Council Meeting Agenda as an Action item, or as a Consent Agenda item.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Finance Director Heglund presented her Memo dated October 15, 2015.
The Budget was prepared by Finance and reviewed with each December Head. Individual
meetings were conducted with each City Council Member as well. A few changes were
made to the Budget since those Meetings occurred, noteably: removed request for sewer
Employee to go from part time to full time, added $25,00 00 for Economic Development
Consultant, and added $20,000 to Police Department Budget for Wescom Dispatch
Services.
The City will continue to draw down excess fund balance, which has accumulated over the
past few years. These drawdowns will be spread out over the next two years. This is due
to: Staff limitations, the number of projects, and the City’s long-term strategic goal of multiyear planning. The draw down will allow Lockport to complete additional infrastructure
projects, while continuing to replace vehicles and equipment and maintain operations.
Drawdowns will be shown on the Budget by expenditures outpacing revenues within the:
General Fund, MFT Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Water & Sewer Improvements Fund.
This is not a structural deficit, nor a bad problem to have. It simply means that the City is
spending down additional money that Management and Elected Officials view as above
and beyond what is needed as a reserve balance of four months of operating expenses.
On Wednesday night we will present a Budget overview, via PowerPoint. This presentation
will not cover individual line items, but rather the overall focus of the budget as a whole.
This will include: Capital Outlay, Capital Projects, Personnel changes, Major Revenue
Sources and Overall Allocation of Expenses per Department. In addition, before
Wednesday’s Meeting three copies of the Budget will be placed on file in the Clerks’ Office
and the document will be available on the City’s website.
9
COTW – October 21, 2015
Following this presentation a Notice will be published in the paper regarding a Budget
Hearing on November 4th. At that time, the Public will have a chance to raise any questions
or make any comments they have in regards to the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget. Finally, on
November 18th the Finalized Budget will be brought for a vote. The Finalized Budget must
be signed by the Mayor, signed and notarized by the City Clerk’s Office, and filed with the
County by the end of December.
Alderman VanderMeer had a concern on the Capital and how we are going to do Capital.
There are a couple of things on the list that either weren’t in the CIP or haven’t been voted
on. He feels if we have the CIP we should use that as our nexus for getting Capital
Projects done. He talked about Commerce Street. He thought maybe if it is a part of the
CIP maybe we could prioritize it. He talked about the Quiet Zone. He also mentioned he
would like to take the cost of purchasing new chairs for the Council Room out of the
Budget. He doesn’t think it is necessary to purchase new chairs. He is happy with the
current chairs and doesn’t see the need of using taxpayer’s dollars.
A discussion pursued on prioritizing, Commerce Street, and the Quiet Zone.
Mayor Streit said discussion will continue in a week or two.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY
REDUCTION IN CERTAIN PERMIT FEES
Director of Community and Economic Development, Pam Hirth presented her Memo dated
October 15, 2015.
“At the September 2nd Committee of the Whole Meeting, Staff advised the Council that
Resolution No. 13-090 which allows for a 50% reduction in certain Permit Fees was due to
expire on November 6th. The Program has been in place for 24 months. As we were
having the discussion there were several issues that had come up, the first being that there
needed to be some clarification on which fees are actually subject to this reduction. So,
I’ve identified in this Memo that it’s the following Municipal Only Impact Fees that are
included in this reduction. They include our Tap On Fees for both sewer and water, our
Municipal Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee, ESDA, Police Protection and Vehicles,
Street Maintenance and Vehicles, Infrastructure Fee and a Road Impact Fee which
depending upon magnitude of the roadway improvements that would be required to either
an arterial or a collector whatever a Developer would pay, would become a credit to what
10
they expend in making those improvements.” She reminded Council this does not include
School, Park, Library, or Fire District Fees.“ It does not include any Plan Review Fees that
would be associated with the Development.” The reason why she can’t outline what those
are is because they vary depending on the size of the home, the number of bedrooms,
etc… “For a Single -Family Detached Dwelling Unit the total Municipal Impact Fees are
$15,600. For a Single-Family Attached this would be a Duplex or a Townhome, per
dwelling unit is $14,100.00. Under our current 50% reduction program, those total
Municipal Impact Fees are reduced to $7,800 and $7,050, respectively. In addition, a
comment came up about how many more Residential Units can be anticipated in
Lockport? “ Pam Hirth provided a map to the Aldermen and Staff that reads ”Available
Residential Land”. She explained “There’s a numbering system and each number
corresponds to the description of the Residential Subdivision that is currently entitled but
not necessarily active. Looking at those numbers in addition to some numbers that are
remaining in Lago Vista as well as some numbers that are to be developed in Oak Creek
and Creekside, just on that alone we have about a little over 2,000 Single- Family
detached and Single- Family attached units that are currently entitled. What that number
does not include is an additional 659 Multi-Family units that are also entitled. In addition to
that, these are also currently all subject to some form of an Annexation Agreement. In
these Agreements, in the majority of them with the exception of maybe two, a negotiated
and or reduced Impact Fee Structure has been established. I did a rough estimate on how
many acres are left that could be developed Residential. Roughly 600 acres and this
number also includes less than the 28 percent which accounts for roads and infrastructure.
The total acreage is actually higher but I have to back out that because obviously you can’t
build on that. What I used was a standard R-1 lot size which is 9,000 square feet which is
the majority of which the Community is developed, and then I looked at the R-2 SingleFamily Residential for the Townhome and Duplex development and used that lot ratio
which I think is like 4500 square feet per unit. Again, with a rough estimate of that, there
are approximately 2800 additional Residential units. That number is about 1/3 SingleFamily attached and 2/3 Single Family detached. Those properties are highlighted on this
map that I gave you. We could have more units, we could have less units. Until we start
looking at those properties and see what the topography and conditions are those numbers
can fluctuate. But for all intents and purposes we are going to say 2800. It is likely that
over the next few years that when the City experiences its Residential growth it’s going to
be through a combination of both property to be annexed and currently entitled property. I
say that because right now with the development of Panatonni and the other interest of
Hillwood to the east of there, there has been a lot of inquiries along the 163rd Street
Corridor both on the north side and the south side of interested potential Developers. A lot
of that is a result of M//I Homes starting construction.
11
Something to keep in mind is that through these properties that still would remain to be
annexed, it has been common practice for the City to negotiate the Impact Fees during
those discussions. In addition to even Amended Annexation Agreements when brought
forth there is an opportunity to discuss how we can handle our fees. There was also some
discussion on possibly extending the Program using a sliding scale which would increase
the Impact Fee Structure throughout the designated time period as a means to incent
Developers to act sooner rather than later in moving forward with a Residential project. I’ve
included in the Staff Report what a pro-rated Municipal Impact Fee Structure would look
like if we started with the 50% went to a 75, 90, and then 100% at the end of the period.
Originally, if you recall when this program was put into place, it was put into place because
there were perceived imbalance between the Permit Fees being charged by the City
relative to the number of homes being constructed and what similar fees were being
charged by our surrounding Communities. Even though the number of housing permits
each year is one of the key pieces for Retailers, and Restaurants, and Economic
Development, we really need to think about with what we have, what there is additional ,
how do we want to take a look at this fee structure in the future? Housing market is
rebounding and as I’ve stated with M/I Homes starting construction we have been receiving
additional inquiries. This evening Staff is looking for direction from Council on how we
should proceed with the current Residential Incentive Program and hopefully we will be
able to do this on November 4th because it will expire on November 6th.”
Alderman Smith asked “I would like to know is it really a decision factor that the homes are
built because of this? What is the true factor? Are they coming here for the school? Are
they coming here for our Community in general? Is it really because the fees are reduced?
With that being said, I’m thinking hey, maybe we should go back and get the revenue that
we need. But on the turn, I don’t know, if there are some facts that state that this stuff
does help our Community to move forward then I could support that too. I guess I’m kind of
looking for some dialogue from everybody else and share their feelings on it. At this time I
could go either way.”
Alderwoman Bartelsen said “Impact Fees and doing a lower to attract the builders, I think
that’s the way we still need to go. Although the housing market is starting to move and we
have our new subdivision coming up and so forth, I think we still need to be competitive.
Other Villages are still, I don’t know what kind of incentives they have, I have not investigated
but perhaps we could find out.
12
COTW – October 21, 2015
But I think we still do need to have something, some kind of an incentive for these builders
to come in. I don’t think we are there yet that we can say, you know what, we don’t have to
do that anymore they are knocking down our doors. They are not doing that yet. We are
just beginning in that growth that we are looking for. In my opinion I think we still need to
have some kind of an incentive.”
Alderman Capadona said “I think I agree with Alderwoman Bartelsen that I don’t know if we
are quite there yet with saying that maybe we don’t need any incentives. I’m not sure if our
housing starts are there yet where trying to attract these developments, the commercial,
the retail, that they are saying this is where we want our housing starts to be. I think that if
you look at the list, these are all developments and are these going to be under PUD’S,
most of these? I think maybe that’s something that we can consider when we write that
PUD. I don’t think this is an overall Ordinance that we need to put into effect now but can
be worked out when a Developer comes here to say hey, we are willing to work with you on
the Impact Fees.”
Director of Community and Economic Development, Pam Hirth said “That’s a good point.
The ones that are on this map they already have binding Annexation Agreements that
reduce the fee structure. So, they are in place for the next x number of years. If you
focus that discussion more onto the hashed areas those properties will all have to come in
with an Annexation Agreement. As I’ve stated, with an Annexation Agreement you can
pretty much negotiate and discuss anything. If at the time someone comes in to
Annexation they will, if they ask I want reduced fees similar to what we did with Sagebrook
on the renegotiation of that Annexation Agreement, it will be brought before the Council,
Staff will provide you with the information that you need, and you can decide then on a
case by case basis whether or not we still should be in a position of reducing the Impact
Fees whether for a couple of years, or a few years in that Annexation Agreement. There
will be opportunities to still have these discussions. From a Staff opinion, I’m kind of like
you Brian, it’s like, not really sure if it really incentivized the Development that has happen.
Or whether or not it just kind of coordinated it with respect to when it was going on. But,
given the fact that we have other opportunities to negotiate and discuss this, having
something on the books or not, I don’t necessarily know that’s going to make a difference.
It does from the standpoint of being able to say we have that on the books, but if we also
say that we have in the past considered reduced fees when we talk to the Development
Community, that can also be another way of saying we are Development friendly and we
want to work with you.”
13
COTW – October 21, 2015
Alderman Petrakos said “The one thing that’s a difficult part of this whole thing is that
construction costs and building costs have not gone down. None of our projects have
come in cheaper. Nothing is coming in cheaper even through the recession. Prices were
still the prices that are going up. Copper is still going up. We are taking upon ourselves to
say we will squeeze our portion but nobody is squeezing their portion. Nobody’s building
cheaper, nobody’s cutting their percentages on some of those things. Developers are
working with it just to sell a little bit better that’s out there. With those Annexation
Agreements, the tough thing for me is that you are locking it in place for twenty years. As
much as we can sit there and say ya, ok, just do the 50% percent and it’s good we want
Sagebrook in, or whoever it is in there, those are the fees that we are going to have to live
with for twenty years. So, we are hoping he is done in two years, three years, but some
Developments may take ten. There’s Bob’s that’s still how many years and their still not
developed, and we don’t have sidewalks and so forth. So, we don’t accommodate for that
if we don’t accommodate a sliding fee scale that it falls off. These Impact Fees fall off after
a couple of years we have to be cognizm of that. I applaud Pam putting together the prorated Municipal Impact Fees because it’s ok to sit there and it is an incentive to sit there
and say start building in Lockport before anybody else. Everybody is at 50% we are going
to start increasing ours so build here now. Do that type of thing. I was debating on saying
ok that 50% maybe goes to the end of this year and we just do our fiscal year and maybe
that’s too soon of a time period to say let’s go to that 75%. Maybe 2016 was actually up to
60% so you kind of give everyone a warning and then it went up three year, three year
program to get this back up to normal. We can always change it later but it’s at least a plan
for us to do this, but when Developers come in 2016, 2017 we have a base line that we can
negotiate. The biggest thing is that we have to negotiate that Annexation Agreement that
this incentive has to come off or else it is locked in there for twenty years. If somebody is
sitting there we may be twenty years down the road where $7800.00 will not cover anything
for what we are doing. That’s the biggest thing that we are doing there. I think a sliding fee
scale that we have this now, if it starts at 75% next year or 60%, the first step of the small
increment to kind of get the word out or 75% that is something for us to decide but the
Annexation Agreements definitely have to have that tail off. Even if that is extended to a 5
year perim, I probably wouldn’t go more than 5 years. Ten years is really pushing it
because construction costs are going up by 2 to 3% every year. We are behind the times
on our Impact Fees, on everything that is there. We can’t control those items, nobody is
really helping us on those portions but, so, we are just kind of staying in time with
everything.”
14
COTW – October 21, 2015
Alderman Petrakos said “I think we all can agree to maybe keep the 50% at least until the
end of the year?”
Mayor Streit answered “I don’t have a problem extending it through the end of the year.
But I think as we look at 2016, 2017, 2018, that three year period just find what you think is
good numbers for us to increment that back up again. Yes, that helps get the message out
there to the builders.”
Chris A. from Strand Engineering was in the audience.
Alderman Deskin asked “How are we doing with Well #14. Have we drilled it yet?”
Chris A., from Strand Engineering answered “It is currently advertised for Bids right now.
Those Bids are to be open October 30th.”
Alderman Deskin said “For those who can’t keep the numbers straight, Well No. 14 is the
new one which is replacing Well No. 9 out there by Oak Prairie. The second question is
within our budget next year we have $775,000.00 which was allocated for Well No. 15. In
May or June, or whatever, when you were up here and you were talking about Well siting
which then led to this discussion that we had with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. One of my
comments at that time was, it seemed to be, my recollection of the optimal Well site from a
couple of years ago was in off of Summit Street in between whatever, Strawberry Hill
Subdivision and Lago Vista, over in that area which of course fell within that two mile buffer
area, ok. What thought has Strand given to a potential site, if we go east as far east as
these alphabet agencies want us to we have less water potential. So, where are we with
that?”
Chris A. answered “We did gain approval from all the Agencies for Well 14 for that site. We
sent in a figure showing several potential Well 15 sites.. we will call it. This included the
Well 5, 8 site, Farrell Road tank site. That was one of the sites that was on that figure and
then there were several areas basically, if you recall they said 355 Corridor and further east
is better. The further you get away from the seeps and the recharge areas, the better. So,
we just identified several areas of land undeveloped areas over there along that as well for
their consideration. Nature Preserve has come back with an answer of we don’t really see
any reason to object these. It’s kind of one of those vague vanilla answers but, so they
kind of deferred to U.S. Fish and Wildlife for impacts to the recharge areas.”
15
COTW – October 21, 2015
Alderman Deskin said “When it comes to a potential Well site, I would personally like to go
toward the optimal site which happens to be within this two mile buffer area, ok? Ask for
permitting of that area first and not give them any other options, because if we give them
this or that….”
Chris A answered “Well then they are going to go out east. Our concern with that is,
though there was a contamination….”
Alderman Deskin said “I’m not talking 5,8.”
Chris A. said “You aren’t talking that?”
Alderman Deskin said “ I’m not talking 5, 8. It’s going to be a really hard sell to the Public
to go ahead and drill another Well in an area where we know that in the past there was
bacteria.”
Chris A. said “Oh, you are talking about the previous Well 14 down at…..”
Alderman Deskin said “It’s off of Summit, wherever that was. Over in that area. It’s within
that. We are opening 5 & 8, I’m not talking about that site. I’m a little bit further west.
Where are we going with this? We do need to drill another Well next year? We have to get
permitting. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, IL Nature Preserve wants us to just go as far east as we
possibly can. Previous Well sitings, the Well sitings that we had tells us that the further we
go east it is less optimal for …”
Chris A. answered “ That’s not part of this Agenda.”
Alderman Deskin said “That’s why it is new business.”
Mayor Streit asked “It’s pretty complicated though. If you want to put something on the
Agenda for next week where we can actually look at stuff and read through it a little bit?”
Alderman Deskin said ”Well, this is why it’s new business.”
16
COTW – October 21, 2015
Chris A. answered “I will try to give a concise answer to that and I think that limiting
ourselves to that one site, or that one area they have to do a lot of, they are now going to
take on the study of that area which is kind of undefined. By limiting us to that one area I
think that that is going to draw the duration. I think we could get quick approvals on the
other areas that are already in the defined drainage seep areas.”
Alderman Deskin said “Well, of course we will, ok? But that’s not the point. The point is, is
that do we have the optimal number. The best place to drill a Well is not going to be the
place where they are going to want us to drill it.”
Administrator Benson said “One of the things that I asked Chris and Strand for a task we
are on recently is to give us an analysis of recommendations and where things are going
over the next three to five years when it comes to water and sourcing it. So, I think when
he gets that component going we can bring that back to the Council and have those further
discussions. I’m trying to get some more consensus on what we could do. Some of it is not
necessarily directed by us. We are at the helm of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on some
things. I think ultimately they will work with us it is just a matter of they want us to stay as
far away from the recharge zone as possible and part of Chris’s job is to help mitigate the
best benefit for us and the Community wherever that is.”
Alderman Deskin said “Maybe I should call you.”
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY GILLOGLY, SECOND BY CAPADONA TO ADJOURN THE COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE MEETING AT 9:01 P.M.
ALL VOTED AYE – MOTION CARRIED
Respectfully submitted by recording the minutes off the DVD,
Donna Tadey, Administrative/Deputy Clerk
17
18