Click to Home
Go To Search

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Village of Maryville, Illinois

Description Caucus Meeting
Date11/29/2006 Location Council Chamber
Time Speaker Note
6:31:12 PM Gulledge Called the Caucus meeting of Wednesday, November 29, 2006 to order, and invited those in attendance to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. After the Pledge, he asked for a roll of those officers present. Answering the roll call were Trustees Limberg, Schmidt, Bell, Callahan, Kostyshock and Garcia. Also in attendance were Deputy Clerk Fenton, Public Works Director Presson, Building and Zoning Administrator/Fire Chief Flaugher, Police Chief Schardan, Comptroller Brussatti, Foresight Maryville LLC Representative Greg Devereaux, two (2) citizens and two (2) reporters. Attorney Wigginton arrived late.
6:32:06 PM Gulledge Called for approval of the November 8th Caucus minutes. He asked if there were any questions, additions or subtractions to the minutes as prepared by the Clerk. There were none. Motion to approve was made by Limberg and seconded by Kostyshock. Voting on the motion: Limberg - yes; Schmidt - yes; Bell - yes; Callahan - yes; Kostyshock - yes; Garcia - yes. Motion carried.
6:32:43 PM Gulledge Went to first agenda item, Public Input, and invited Gerald Kimberlin to address the Board.
6:33:03 PM Gerald Kimberlin 210 South Lange, Maryville, Illinois. Discussed the clean up of the drain tile site near his property. Stated he asked that the site be cleaned up last spring; however it did not happen. After asking again a few months' later, he was told the Village would have it taken care of before making the last payment to Petroff. Stated now he has been told the payment was made, so the Public Works Department will do the work. Went on to second question: He does not understand why the Public Service Officer delivered a letter stating Madison County Transit's issue regarding his property line. Commented Madison County Transit (MCT) should have come to him directly, not through the Village. Stated he hired a separate survey company to indicate the lot lines, as he will not take Juneau's word on the issue. Stated the second opinion he obtained showed a difference of about two feet from Juneau's staking. Stated he will remove the items that are across the line. Stated he would like to know why the Village is acting as the "go between".
6:35:58 PM Wigginton Arrived and was seated.
6:36:45 PM Gulledge Stated he is not pleased with the situation either. Explained the Village tried to get an easement from MCT to run the sewer main; one of the conditions of that easement was that the Village send the letter to which Kimberlin is referring. Stated the Village will not be involved further in the issue.
6:37:24 PM Kimberlin Stated he will comply. Stated he will dispute the two foot difference between his survey and the engineers' findings.
6:37:52 PM Gulledge Commented for Kimberlin's information, MCT had their own engineer with Juneau staking the lines.
6:38:12 PM Kimberlin Asked if the sewer line will be that close to his house.
6:38:26 PM Gulledge Answered MCT wants everything off of their right of way. Commented there were two other residents that received similar letters. Stated the items were never a problem with Village.
6:39:03 PM Kimberlin Asked if the sewer line will be gravity flow and will it pick up residences on Parkview.
6:39:21 PM Gulledge Answered no, it is not gravity flow at that point; it becomes gravity flow on the corner of East Main where Louie Meier's property is and proceeds. Stated the rest is lift station due to the area in which they have to work.
6:39:38 PM Kimberlin Asked if anyone from East Main down will have to get on.
6:39:42 PM Gulledge Answered the decision has not yet been made and depends on the proximity of the homes in order to comply with the ordinance.
6:40:19 PM Callahan Commented several of the Board members felt it was odd that the Public Service Officer delivered these letters. Stated they were not aware it was going to happen.
6:40:30 PM Kimberlin Commented his understanding. Thanked the Board for allowing his address.
6:40:52 PM Gulledge Invited anyone else to address the Board. There was no one. Went to next agenda item, Foresight Maryville LLC. Stated Greg Devereaux is here. Explained he owns approximately 26 acres on Route 162 on the north side across from Cambridge House. Stated he wants to develop this ground and has been to the Planning Commission. Explained he has submitted an annexation agreement to the Board.
6:41:47 PM Greg Devereaux Stated he is one of the owners of Foresight Maryville LLC. Explained they own approximately 25 acres on the north side of Route 162 across from Cambridge House. Referred to the development plan included in the Trustee packets. Explained approximately six (6) acres in front will be zoned B-1 Commercial for retail sales tax generating commercial; on the back approximately nineteen (19) acres they plan to build a total of 88 villa units which will be attached in buildings of either two (2) or three (3) units. Further explained there will be 29 two-unit buildings, and 10 three-unit buildings. Referred to the drawing, explaining there will be one main entry through the commercial parcel and into the area for the villas. They will have two retention ponds at the location with fountains. Stated the size of the units will be comparable to the units in the Vantage Development; somewhere between 1,300 to 2,200 feet. Stated pricing will start in the $190,000 range up to the $200's, with an average price of approximately $220,000. Stated one of the builders involved is KC Construction, which is Craig Stoner who built some homes in Stonebridge and is an excellent builder with a good reputation with the city. Stated they anticipate the commercially zoned property will not be developed until some of the residential projects continue their development, including this development, Vantage, and the development across the street being done by Denny Blumberg, as well as other projects on Troy-Edwardsville Road and Lakeview Acres. Stated they are looking for a positive outcome. Stated they anticipate starting the development as soon as the weather turns in the spring.
6:45:08 PM Kostyshock Asked regarding the proposed 350 foot set back; other potential developers indicated they needed a 500 foot set back. Stated at that time all the Trustees agreed they would require a 500 foot set back.
6:45:30 PM Callahan Commented it was actually 600 feet. Commented they have already made two mistakes regarding this issue. Commented the other problem is there was a local developer that wanted to build condos on rough terrain by a four-lane highway, and the Board said no. Stated this is a perfectly flat piece of ground, for which there is no need for Planned Urban Development. Asked why they are allowing someone from another city/state to present a proposal to the Board, when they wouldn't allow a Maryville resident.
6:46:25 PM Gulledge Answered that has nothing to do with this project, as it stands on its own. Asked to whom Callahan is referring.
6:46:42 PM Callahan Answered Forest Lerch on Pleasant Ridge. Stated he was afraid he couldn't get it approved, and came back with a single family proposal.
6:46:55 PM Gulledge Answered that was his choice.
6:46:59 PM Garcia Argued the Board had said they would not approve villas.
6:47:03 PM Callahan Commented that is not the main point; Lerch had a real reason for asking for Planned Urban Development because of rough terrain and a four lane highway directly on the property. Asked what is the reason for the current proposal, and why would the Board even consider it.
6:47:44 PM Gulledge Asked clarification on Callahan's meaning of "help"; it is his understanding all Devereaux is asking to do is build villas. Commented this is a "yes" or "no" question; he is not asking for help.
6:47:52 PM Callahan Stated he is asking to break all of Maryville's ordinances and put in trailer-park density units that would normally only hold forty houses. Stated the Village has already been told the last two deals were a mistake as there was not enough frontage for large commercial retail, as they need a minimum of 600 feet, and prefer 700 feet frontage.
6:48:27 PM Devereux Commented he has spoken with many developers on both sides of the river who agree, if they are making the frontage any deeper than 300 feet, they have to jump to at least 700 feet, which is a grocery store or Target, etc. Stated this is not a use that would come on to this particular property as a commercial use, as they want corner lots with lots of traffic. Explained this is more of a neighborhood commercial development scenario. Explained how the businesses could be situated, referring to the displayed plan. Explained if they go back 500 feet, there will be a "bowling alley" effect, that will be hard to draw people into that setting. Stated they might be able to put an outlot building with strip retail behind it, which is something they might consider. Stated the Mayor had approached him saying they may have an issue with the 350 feet; he talked to people that do commercial development all the time and their opinion was 350 was sufficient for this particular site.
6:50:33 PM Callahan Commented his other issue is they are making the entrance like an "S", which makes one side smaller than other. Stated if they went in on the end, there would be a lot bigger lot; in his opinion, it does not look like there was a lot of planning into the entrance.
6:51:13 PM Devereaux Referred to the plan and explained their position on the issue. Stated the current plan gives a little diversity and the opportunity to create two different developments as opposed to one strip center. Stated his preference would be to have the road line up with the entrance across from Cambridge House, which in his opinion is a more practical way to do things.
6:52:07 PM Callahan Stated he is opposed to this because it is multi-family. Stated he does not understand how they turn one individual down who really needed help, and consider this proposal with a perfectly flat piece of ground that does not need any help. Commented the Board is not consistent.
6:53:38 PM Bell Asked who owns the lot next to the one in question.
6:53:45 PM Devereaux Answered Elmer Sepmeier. Explained the Foresight property was purchased from Rodney Sepmeier, his uncle or nephew. Commented it is his understanding Elmer has no desire to sell.
6:54:06 PM Bell Commented they have a nice residential development to the west of this property.
6:54:25 PM Gulledge Commented Callahan is referring to these homes as multi-family; it is zero-lot line in density, but the homes are owned. Garcia argued that is what they told the Board at Stonebridge.
6:54:37 PM Callahan Commented multi-family is just that; it has nothing to do with whether they are owned or not.
6:54:40 PM Gulledge Commented his disagreement.
6:54:46 PM Wigginton Explained, so everyone understands whether for or against these plans, PDR is a zoning district in and of itself; it is not based on need or terrain but is to encourage developers to come up with innovative plans. Commented Callahan is correct in the sense that developers do want to maximize the number of lots they want to get on a tract of land. Stated zero lot lines encourage home ownership, as it encourages the person to buy rather than rent. Stated they cannot figure the lot lines until the villa is built because they can't survey the lot until they go down that common wall. Stated this is the basis of this proposal. Stated the 350 feet was a recommendation to the best of his recollection from the urban planner, PGAV. Stated he knows there may be some issues as to where that came from, but based on his recollection, it came from PGAV for neighborhood style shopping. Stated for large tract shopping, you would need 800 feet.
6:56:10 PM Callahan Commented on the example of the ACE Hardware store in Troy, which is not "big box" but is a 600 foot set back.
6:56:20 PM Wigginton Clarified the Village did not invent the 350; it came to from PGAV.
6:56:28 PM Callahan Stated John told him the Board made a mistake and should have asked.
6:56:32 PM Gulledge Answered they did ask, and John is the one that told them.
6:56:37 PM Callahan Stated John told him he did not. Stated John told him if they expect commercial retail, they need 700 feet, they could get by with 600 feet, and 500 feet is "pushing it". Commented this opinion was unsolicited by him. Stated his argument is still that he does not see the economic sense for the Village; and does not understand how they can tell one individual who needed help no, and another individual yes, who does not need help.
6:57:31 PM Gulledge Commented his opinion that these are stand alone projects, and the Board makes decisions on each project that comes before them. Commented he has some problems with the annexation agreement, which he has shared with Devereaux. Stated the Board needs to look at each project individually and vote accordingly.
6:58:06 PM Limberg Commented Lerch changed his mind on the villas because he was afraid of the competition, especially with the Vantage development including so many villas. Commented developers are building villas because of poor sales for single family homes. Commented villas are attractive to people that are trying to live maintenance free.
6:59:29 PM Devereaux Commented he neglected to mention, there will be a homeowners' association that will be in charge of common area maintenance, maintenance of the exterior structures, ponds, plantings, etc. Commented further, when there is a physically rough site, villas are difficult to work with due to the resulting amount of dirt. Stated this site is well suited for villa development due to the flat terrain.
7:00:44 PM Kostyshock Commented the Village only has a certain amount of land suitable for retail, and the Village needs sales tax revenue. Commented this is the reason for his suggestion for a 500-600 foot set back.
7:01:21 PM Callahan Referred to the map and stated when he asked about the "stub" street in the Vantage Development he was told it was for future development.
7:01:35 PM Bell Commented the lots to which Callahan is referring are the single-family lots.
7:01:39 PM Callahan Commented his point is the developer knew what they were doing and planned it ahead of time. Commented his opinion that they will "stair step" the issue and eventually Maryville will end up with a whole row of mainly multi-family because they make more money selling them.
7:02:15 PM Wigginton Commented the Village made Vantage install that road. Clarified PDR is a zoning district, just as R1 or R2; it is not intended for a developer to use to do 100 small lots, but is intended to create innovation and mixed use like Vantage where there are different levels of housing. Stated the stub-in street was required by the Village. Clarified PDR is not intended to maximize the number of lots. Commented the intent was to garner creativity and innovation.
7:03:08 PM Callahan Stated his opinion the main intent was not anything to do with that but is to take advantage of situations where ground can't be developed normally because of terrain, etc. Stated his opinion that this proposal is a PDR that was designed to the advantage of the developer. Stated it has no advantage to the Village, other than the initial fees that will be collected. Stated they also have the problem that this is on the north side of town, and they have had water and lift station issues on that end of town.
7:04:12 PM Gulledge Commented the water is figured out, although not completed yet.
7:04:21 PM Callahan Answered he understands, but they had to spend money to figure this out. Gulledge argued it was not just for these people, but for the whole east side of town. Commented that for years they assumed everything on the north side of Route 162 was going to be sewered to Edwardsville/Glen Carbon. Stated now they know it can't be; however they didn't have the sewage capacity when they let Vantage go in, which is why they had to upgrade that pump. Clarified with Presson that the response time was down to ten minutes if there was a failure; putting another two to three hundred homes on it, makes that response time go to two minutes.
7:05:10 PM Gulledge Stated they are getting off the issue; Mr. Devereaux is here to discuss his project, and they need to stay on-point. Stated the Trustees need to indicate whether or not they are for the project, and if they want modifications, they need to be discussed. Devereaux went to the Planning Commission with this plan, and the Commission recommended coming to the Board. Admonished the Board that each project should stand on its own merit.
7:06:04 PM Bell Agrees each project stands alone, but they should not be judged individually but on how they fit in to the current plan for that area. Stated they have a development with town houses, SR1s and SR2s. Stated regarding the concern with the 350 foot set back, if they start going east there is a lot of opportunity for a larger set back. Stated it does not seem to fit with what they did two lots over.
7:07:31 PM Garcia Stated her agreement with Callahan regarding Lerch because they all told him no because they don't want multi-family. Commented Mayor is telling them to look at these projects independently; however why would they allow Devereaux when they wouldn't let Lerch and Lerch had beautiful condos. Gulledge argued they did not tell Lerch no. Garcia argued he knew they would vote it down because there were enough Board members that said they did not like the idea.
7:07:53 PM Wigginton Commented they are still negotiating with Lerch.
7:07:57 PM Gulledge Concurred with Wigginton, saying the Board has not turned Lerch down; they simply told him they had concerns.
7:08:01 PM Garcia Commented she is sure that is why he changed to single family.
7:08:08 PM Gulledge Commented he knows why Lerch did it.
7:08:18 PM Garcia Commented she will not be told they are going to sell those townhouses, because she is sure they will be rented just as they were at Stonebridge.
7:08:28 PM Wigginton Commented so that everyone understands, this is for informational purposes. Stated Devereaux has had one public hearing at the Planning Commission. If he wants this type of zoning, he has to have another public hearing in front of this Board, after which there would be another public hearing with notice on the annexation agreement. Stated his opinion that Devereaux is here, as Lerch was early on, to gauge whether this project will be accepted and whether he should continue with the planning and expense of the project. Commented his opinion that the Board should let Devereaux know their answer.
7:09:15 PM Limberg Commented there are builders right now that have single family homes that are rented due to inability to sell.
7:09:18 PM Garcia Answered she knows that; however she will not be told they will sell them in this instance.
7:09:25 PM Gulledge Commented Devereaux's intent is to sell them.
7:09:25 PM Garcia Commented that is his intent, but will he be able to.
7:09:33 PM Limberg Commented there are builders right now that have had houses sit for a couple of years and are now renting the houses.
7:09:44 PM Callahan Commented the economy pushes whether homes will be sold or rented; he believes this developer does not want to be in the rental business. However at the same time, if he can't sell they will not let them sit there, which is Garcia's point. Commented once the decision is made to rent, it starts spreading out. Commented the Osborn development was a little different, in that they never had any intentions of selling them. Stated at this time, all 100 units are rented and no attempt was ever made to sell them.
7:10:20 PM Devereaux Commented, generally speaking, the home building industry in this part of the world is down significantly. Explained banks will not finance projects until they are actually sold. Stated he understands their concern with the rental issue, as he is responsible for the development and it will have his name on it and will be a high-quality development. Stated they will not be rented; however he has no control over what happens after he has sold the unit. Stated his builders will sell these units. Garcia asked if that will be in writing. Devereaux asked whether it was in the annexation agreement. Gulledge answered no. Devereaux was not sure if they could add such verbiage.
7:11:26 PM Wigginton Commented he does not know how they could enforce that, as Devereaux is just the developer. Stated he is exactly right; once he sells the owner has the right to do what they will with that property.
7:11:48 PM Callahan Commented as an example, his daughter owns a condominium in Maryland Heights, and the longer she is there the more it becomes rental. Stated fifteen years ago, it started at 95% owned by the residents of the unit; now it is under 50% because more and more people realize the neighboring people rent and do not want to buy. Commented the danger is not so much at present but ten or fifteen years from now. Commented further on the fact that some of the rental owners do not live in the area; cited the example of trying to collect water fees from an owner when the tenant "skips out" on the bill. Gulledge commented they have such problems with property owners as well as tenants.
7:12:54 PM Bell Commented there is a higher likelihood of rental on townhouses and condos than single-family units.
7:13:08 PM Gulledge Asked what they have against people that rent, as he knows lots of good people that rent things.
7:13:13 PM Garcia Argued they are not saying that. Gulledge argued that is what he is hearing. Garcia argued "we" have always been against multi-family. Gulledge argued her use of the word "we", as not all the Trustees are of that opinion. Garcia concurred, saying her reason is that the property goes down.
7:13:27 PM Callahan Commented on his point that as long as they have an active group of owners on site, they do tend to take care of the property; however as they start renting out the Homeowners' Association breaks down. Commented this breakdown is seen in many subdivisions around town where people had no idea such an entity existed. Commented when you eliminate the owners and replace them with renters, that is when the deterioration is seen. Reiterated he is not speaking about at present, but about ten to fifteen years in the future. Commented when Lerch came, although they were not allowed to vote, a poll was taken.
7:14:26 PM Bell Stated his reason for his position against the project was because of bike trail access.
7:14:36 PM Gulledge Commented this is why he wants to forget other projects. Callahan commented they did take a poll, and because it was not an official vote Mayor did not have to break the tie. Gulledge answered they may have "voted"; he did not. Stated Lerch changed his mind, and Mayor knows why. Commented they are still negotiating with Lerch. Commented they need to stay on the subject at hand. Stated they need to give Devereaux their opinion and if they are against it, tell him what he needs to consider in order to make it work.
7:15:17 PM Limberg Stated his opinion that the Board is looking for some diversity with single family mixed in with villas, similar to Vantage Homes. Commented they approved Vantage with this concept, so if Devereaux were to meet that criteria he may not be met with as much resistance as at present.
7:15:57 PM Callahan Stated they still have the problem that if they go with 350 feet they won't go for big retail.
7:16:14 PM Limberg Stated his problem with that argument is the Village has had a piece of property sitting on the south side of town for 15 years that has yet to be developed.
7:16:25 PM Callahan Commented the Vantage Development was an attempt to jump-start retail; a mistake was made as they did not leave enough frontage. They can get some retail, but never the type that will justify what the Village gave up which was conceded multi-family. Stated if they continue, they will not be able to turn the next developer down, as they have set a precedent.
7:17:19 PM Devereaux Commented the parcel to the east is 80 acres which butts up to Troy Edwardsville Road. Stated that will be large enough to handle most any commercial development. Stated large retail will not come without a corner. Stated he is willing to revise the plan, but the piece to the east of him is the one that has the real commercial potential.
7:19:06 PM Gulledge Took a poll of the Board's opinion.
7:19:19 PM Limberg Stated he would like to see some single family mixed in with the villas. Stated he is okay with the 350 foot set back, as he disagrees with some of what was said; he does not believe that area will bring in a big development.
7:19:52 PM Schmidt Asked if it is out of the question to do the development as strictly single family.
7:20:11 PM Devereux Stated he would have to look closely at the issue. Stated part of the reason for the villas is a market response. Stated single family construction is dead right now. Stated if he were to do single family, he would not want lots bigger than 60 feet.
7:20:39 PM Schmidt Asked if he were allowed to do mixed use would it give another 100 feet on the frontage.
7:20:48 PM Devereaux Stated he can look at it; will be a cost issue.
7:20:59 PM Schmidt Asked if the entrance is nearest to Tuscany. He was told yes. Schmidt clarified it is not directly across from Tuscany.
7:21:25 PM Devereaux Answered, referring to the map.
7:21:58 PM Bell Agrees with Limberg that he would rather see additional single family. Commented he also likes an additional set back. Gulledge asked how much. Bell answered whatever would allow for a larger development. Commented a 700 foot set back would cut the parcel in half.
7:22:45 PM Devereaux Commented 700 feet would not be enough room to do both single family and villas.
7:22:57 PM Bell Stated he would like to see commercial frontage.
7:23:16 PM Callahan Asked why they couldn't see commercial in the plan.
7:23:18 PM Bell Agreed, and suggested they bring back a plan that has some commercial in with it. Stated he does not like the plan as drawn.
7:23:31 PM Callahan Does not like the plan as drawn.
7:23:36 PM Kostyshock Stated he agrees with Limberg on the mix of single family. Commented they need retail property and 350 feet is not deep enough. Stated he would like to see a minimum of 500 feet, although he would prefer 600 feet.
7:24:03 PM Garcia Stated she would rather see a 500 foot set back. Stated she would rather see all single family homes, as she is thinking of the future. Stated she has nothing against renters.
7:25:06 PM Kostyshock Commented regarding the roadway entrance. Stated the way it is planned, they are stopping somebody from putting a bigger retail store on the west side and the east side is not big enough for anything.
7:25:33 PM Gulledge Commented it is big enough for a restaurant, which is what Devereaux was planning.
7:25:48 PM Gulledge Stated the majority of the Board would like to see an approximate 500 foot setback and some type of mixed use with as much single family as possible. All agreed.
7:26:27 PM Devereaux Stated they will look at it and rework the plan. Thanked the Board for their time.
7:26:46 PM Gulledge Thanked him for coming. Went to next agenda item, Police Department Employee Contract and asked Schardan to discuss.
7:27:06 PM Schardan Stated the recent incident with Officer Power leaving brought more attention to the need for an employment contract for reimbursement of uniforms and items that are not reusable. Explained Wigginton drafted an agreement with Schardan's input. Stated it was included in the Trustee packets. Stated the agreement states if the officer leaves the department within two years, the cost of the items that are not reusable would be reimbursed to the Village. Stated this includes officers that don't complete or fail the Academy.
7:28:30 PM Gulledge Asked for questions.
7:28:33 PM Callahan Asked if this is a common practice.
7:28:36 PM Wigginton Answered yes. Stated it is not unusual and in fact is becoming more and more common. Stated costs of training officers are increasing each year and municipalities are looking for ways to recoup that cost in the event the employee "job hops". Explained this is not an employment agreement; signing the agreement would be a requirement as a condition of employment. Stated this particular agreement is for all police officers.
7:29:24 PM Gulledge Added this is the immediate need; however they do plan to put an agreement in place for the Fire Department and Public Works.
7:29:43 PM Callahan Commented his understanding that the Village has incurred medical expenses in Public Works after which the individual did not show up for work.
7:29:56 PM Gulledge Stated right now this is the pressing need because they need a Police Officer; they will work on the other two departments.
7:30:03 PM Limberg Commented the issue came up because they had a big expenditure on an officer, not realizing he would leave a couple of weeks after being hired. Stated they spend more money on equipping police officers than on laborers.
7:30:31 PM Gulledge Reiterated they will look at the other two departments. Stated he agrees with the plan and it is good protection for the Village.
7:31:07 PM Schmidt Asked if they can include physical examination costs.
7:31:15 PM Wigginton Stated he will look into including it. Commented he has not done it, but knows of nothing that prohibits it.
7:31:28 PM Gulledge Asked if everyone agrees on including it. All did, including Schardan.
7:31:39 PM Wigginton Commented with police officers there are a number of exams that don't apply to other employees such as psychological, drug testing, physical, etc. Stated he can look into including all testing. Stated he will work on it between now and next Wednesday when Schardan plans to hire this individual.
7:32:07 PM Callahan Asked if the employees would sign the agreement before undertaking their medical exams.
7:32:13 PM Wigginton Stated if they add the medical portion, yes, they would have to.
7:32:33 PM Gulledge Stated they may not be able to add it in on this particular new hire, as he has already taken all of his physicals. Stated they are in the position that as long as the tests come back okay, he gets the position. Wigginton admonished Gulledge should not be discussing his test results. Gulledge answered he is only saying that there has not been a problem and they hope to hire the individual next Wednesday.
7:33:08 PM Callahan Stated they could add verbiage to the effect that the expenses occurred after the agreement was signed.
7:33:18 PM Garcia Asked if they should include uniforms. Schardan answered that is covered in the agreements. Garcia stated this agreement only states "custom".
7:33:33 PM Wigginton Explained the officers receive an initial issuance, which is property of the Village. Explained in paragraph four, it states if they separate for any reason they shall return all equipment including any custom fitted. Stated they have to reimburse the Village for the cost of any custom fitted equipment, which is typically the bullet proof vests.
7:33:57 PM Garcia Asked if they reuse the uniforms.
7:34:02 PM Wigginton Answered yes, a lot of the initial issuance is reused.
7:34:12 PM Gulledge Commented his opinion this is a standard agreement. Explained after two years the agreement is void. Stated if the Village can reuse items, they won't charge the officer.
7:34:52 PM Schardan Commented the uniforms depend on the size of the individual.
7:34:57 PM Wigginton Stated the Village gets everything back, at which point they make the decision whether it can be reused, i.e., the holster, belt, ammo clip, etc. Stated this agreement pertains more to the custom items and training. Commented training is the biggest item. Callahan asked if salary can be included. Wigginton answered no.
7:35:29 PM Gulledge Asked for other questions. There were none. All trustees agreed.
7:36:03 PM Bell Commented, going back to the Forsesight issue, he displayed the comprehensive plan via the computer which shows the Village plan for commercial. Stated it goes pretty far back into those lots.
7:36:18 PM Gulledge Stated the reason they did that was for protection. Reminded the Board the Comprehensive Plan is a guide. Stated they did it because they can always scale it down but can't add to it.
7:36:44 PM Gulledge Went to next agenda item, and asked Flaugher to discuss the Fire Call issues.
7:37:04 PM Flaugher Stated he is only here to answer any questions on the information given. Bell asked if it is in the budget. Flaugher answered it is not. Referred to the handout on point totals. Stated the last page shows the total points for each individual over the course of the year; the total calls responded to; the percentage of calls; he penciled in $1.50, as that is what was done last year; last column shows the total amount that would be paid at $1.50 per point.
7:38:26 PM Bell Commented the 38,000 points in the memo was an estimate. Flaugher answered that was points, and did not include training or meeting points. Bell clarified actual calls as of noon yesterday of 51,603.
7:38:45 PM Flaugher Corrected that number includes calls, training, work details and meetings; in other words a total figure up until noon yesterday. Commented they have had three calls since noon yesterday, which are not included.
7:39:04 PM Gulledge Stated they budgeted $60,000; they appropriated $70,000.
7:39:13 PM Flaugher Stated he took the figures from the last two years and felt 5-7% growth was accurate for the community, which is how they came up with the figures for the budget amount. Explained no one could have guessed the calls would be up almost 23% over last year. Stated they responded to a total of 545 calls last year; as of 5:00 p.m. tonight they ran the 703rd call of the year. Stated they are up 158 calls over last year.
7:40:05 PM Callahan Commented the rise in calls is due to Cambridge House.
7:40:17 PM Flaugher Agreed that it had a bearing on calls this year. Stated he is here to answer questions.
7:40:31 PM Bell Asked if that is the only line item in the budget it can be paid out of.
7:40:43 PM Callahan Answered they have already used any other items from which they might pay.
7:40:47 PM Gulledge Stated they just changed the schedule to allow for more EMTs, revising the current schedule for full time and brought on more. Stated this is a Board decision, but his opinion is they have to look at what they budgeted and what was appropriated. Stated last year they paid $1.55 per point. Stated he figured the 51,603 points and added a nickel, which brings the total to $79,795. Stated with the additional 3 calls, and they may get a few more in the next day or two, the figure will be up to $80,000. Stated they just came up with another $40,000 to increase the number of EMTs. Commented it is not about the money to the firemen; they do it because they are volunteers and want to do it for their community. Stated the situation is unfortunate; it is no one's fault that the calls have increased. Stated his opinion that they should strongly consider taking the money budgeted, maybe squeeze out another $10,000 to get to $70,000; however getting to $80,000 will be tough to do without cutting other things that may come up. Commented these men do a great job and are worth every penny that the Village can pay; however the Board must also be good stewards.
7:43:40 PM Schmidt Commented another aspect is that the dollar amounts should have matched on both the budget and the appropriation.
7:44:03 PM Gulledge Answered the reason is the appropriation sets the legal limit.
7:44:10 PM Schmidt Stated they are still governed by the appropriation, so it is his opinion that is what they should be looking at as far as funds they have available.
7:44:34 PM Callahan Commented Cambridge House has been an unexpected problem. Stated he also believes the mutual aid agreements signed had some affect on increasing the number of calls. Commented because they had a shortage of people showing up for calls, they made arrangements to pay part time people to be responsible for being there. Commented he is not blaming anybody. Stated he came in to the situation after the budget was set and honestly did not pay a lot of attention to it; in fact he was the first Trustee to amend the budget. Stated they also bought equipment with help from the Fire District. Stated it is no fault of the firemen. Pointed out that the appropriation budget has a $500,000 line item "buried in" that is "Miscellaneous". Stated his opinion is they should try to pay as much as possible, and his recommendation is to pay the same as last year per point.
7:47:34 PM Schmidt Commented almost 40% of the part timers have less than two years' experience. Stated with that many people with that little experience, they need these individuals to show up for the training. Stated the effort is being demonstrated. Stated it is the Village's responsibility to reciprocate.
7:48:15 PM Callahan Stated it looks like 90% of the individuals got bonus training points.
7:48:24 PM Flaugher Explained the point system is set up that a certain amount is given for every response; for each fire training; for each EMS training; for attending meetings; and for attending work details. Stated the system was put into effect as an incentive for training and to show up for other things as well. Commented it is working. Stated each member is required to attend 24 hours of training per year, which is an average of two hours per month. Explained if they get up to 30 hours, they get a training bonus. Explained they capped the training at 50 hours to be compensated for. Stated numerous individuals have over 100 hours of training this year. Stated the incentive is there for several reasons: They want the people properly trained; also ISO pulls training records at inspection, and they have to prove how many training hours each person has. Explained the training hours goes as credit towards the ISO, which is a benefit both ways.
7:50:33 PM Garcia Asked about three members that have zero.
7:50:39 PM Flaugher Stated this means they did not meet the minimum of 15%. Stated the reason it was put in is the Village is paying for training, insurance, a death benefit through the county; and they felt to at least get a return on that investment, the men should respond to at least 15% of the calls. Stated the individuals showing zero did not make their 15% for the year. Stated at 700 calls, the required amount was 105 calls, which averages a few calls per month. Commented it used to be they were lucky to have one guy do 105 calls in a year.
7:51:35 PM Garcia Asked regarding the full time paramedics included; clarified that this list is during off-duty hours.
7:51:42 PM Flaugher Stated everything on the sheet is off-duty, which includes the part timers hired, etc. Stated no point credit is given while on the clock, including training hours.
7:52:01 PM Bell Commented he does not want to reduce the amount per point and suggests they do whatever they can to pay what was paid last year.
7:52:19 PM Kostyshock Commented it is not an easy job, and is harder now than before. Stated the Village has the only fire department in the State, and possibly in the country, that has a homecoming to pay for their own gear, ambulances, etc. Stated they owe the department a lot, as if they had to purchase all that equipment, the $80,000 they are discussing now would be minute. Stated his opinion is they should stand by the $1.55 amount, no matter where they get the money.
7:53:10 PM Gulledge Asked the trustees their opinion.
7:53:17 PM Limberg Stated the money is not the important thing.
7:53:23 PM Flaugher Agreed, there is not a person on the department that does it for the money; however the Village has always been great to do this. Commented he is sort of stuck in the middle because he has a responsibility as a Department Head to work within his means; but he also has a responsibility to look out for his men. Commented he will be happy with whatever the decision is, and is only here to answer questions. Bell commented he needs to make sure this does not happen next year. Flaugher answered no one could have imagined this much of an increase. Commented the numbers from 2004 to 2005 went down a few calls, so they thought $60,000 would be a more than accurate figure.
7:54:25 PM Gulledge Commented they need to move on; it has been established that the extra calls were no one's fault. Stated the bottom line is are they going to pay $1.55 per call or more or less. All agreed to $1.55.
7:54:38 PM Callahan Commented, though he is not making light of the process, this is a practice year for the budget. Commented he does not think they will make the same mistakes next year.
7:55:07 PM Gulledge Asked where the funds will come from. Stated the appropriation is $70,000. Garcia commented she understood they cannot go over the appropriation amount. Gulledge answered they can't.
7:55:24 PM Callahan Asked what the miscellaneous line is for.
7:55:24 PM Wigginton Commented he is unsure whether it exceeds the appropriation ordinance.
7:55:30 PM Gulledge Commented it says $20,000.
7:55:34 PM Limberg Stated they appropriated $70,000 for fire calls, $5,000 for training, and $10,000 for miscellaneous.
7:55:47 PM Gulledge Commented he does not think they can use the appropriation differently; they can use the $20,000 miscellaneous, but it can not be taken from the telephone, etc.
7:56:00 PM Bell Stated they could take it from training, as this includes training.
7:56:08 PM Limberg Stated they get training points, which justifies taking it from that appropriation. Stated plus the $10,000 in miscellaneous gives them $85,000 to use.
7:56:19 PM Wigginton Stated he believes it can be taken from training.
7:56:32 PM Callahan Asked if they have to amend the appropriation.
7:56:36 PM Wigginton Stated they do not want to go through the process of doing a supplemental appropriation ordinance at this time. Stated they have to make the decision that training in this point system at this level constitutes both fire calls and EMS.
7:56:58 PM Callahan Stated anybody that would look at this sheet sees line items for training.
7:57:11 PM Wigginton Agreed. Stated he would assume training would cover it. All agreed.
7:57:30 PM Gulledge Stated the item will be put on the agenda for next Wednesday at $1.55 per call. Went to the next agenda item, International Building Code. Stated they will pass the same ordinance that they forgot about, and wanted Flaugher available for any questions. Stated they will pass the ordinance next Wednesday.
7:57:59 PM Callahan Asked about the amendments to the budget which includes an item to buy BOCA books.
7:58:09 PM Flaugher Answered it says BOCA, but should be ICC. Commented if they remember, there were three ordinances prepared that night of which two could be passed but one had to be notified through the state, which is how this slipped through. Commented that night he asked permission to order the materials for ICC.
7:58:36 PM Gulledge Thanked Flaugher. Went to next agenda item, Employer/Employee Portion of Health Insurance cost, and asked Brussatti to discuss. Explained as of December 1st they are officially with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBS). Stated they could not take the payments on the last paychecks for the employees, as they did not know what the percentage was going to be. Stated they put together a chart showing the breakouts on the figures. Stated the Village has 21 employees using single coverage; 7 using employee plus children; 1 using employee plus spouse; 6 using family; and 6 with no insurance. Stated a rate of 20% employee share, using a 2,080 hour year results in a realized raise to the employee of 22 cents using single coverage; 83 cents using employee plus spouse; 86 cents using employee plus child; and $1.06 using employee plus family. Commented in the past they offered insurance free of charge to the employees. Commented on the sense of fairness as evidenced in the discrepancy of realized income.
8:03:37 PM Bell Commented on average, the employee is paying 25% right now.
8:04:05 PM Callahan Asked Wigginton what other communities do.
8:04:10 PM Wigginton Answered a lot have gone to the 80/20 plan. Some offer free coverage for the employee only and charge the employee for all dependent coverage. Some offer free for the employee only and have cost sharing arrangement on all dependents. Stated that is the range in the marketplace right now.
8:04:56 PM Bell Asked if the Board discussed keeping it the same across the board.
8:05:06 PM Wigginton Stated he did not realize this was going to be for discussion, but if they plan to get into serious discussions about impact on salary, they need to go into closed session.
8:05:26 PM Gulledge Stated they may have to do that because they need to make a decision. Stated they need to give Comptroller some direction in order to do payroll.
8:05:53 PM Wigginton Stated the direction would come from the Mayor's office to the Comptroller. He asked if they are putting the item on the agenda for a vote next week.
8:06:16 PM Gulledge Stated he is unsure. Stated the reason it is on this agenda is they have to make the decision on the split, as right now the Village is paying 100% of the cost. Stated he conveyed to all employees that the Village does not know what percentage the split will be, and he knows the union negotiations has a lot to do with the decision. Stated he wanted it discussed here so they can give Comptroller direction as to how to handle it for payroll purposes.
8:07:03 PM Callahan Asked if they can charge the percentage as they were being charged prior to the new insurance until an official decision can be made.
8:07:26 PM Gulledge Answered it is whatever the Board decides.
8:07:33 PM Bell Commented this will still result in a raise due to the overall cost savings.
8:07:41 PM Gulledge Commented there is no question it will change.
8:07:53 PM Wigginton Stated one of the things discussed with employees and representatives of employees is the fact that no one objected to the switching of the plans so long as the cost savings would be passed on to the employees. Stated there is no reason to delay the decision.
8:08:15 PM Garcia Stated her opinion 80/20 is reasonable. Stated they cannot continue to look at individual salaries.
8:08:53 PM Gulledge Stated if that is what is decided that is fine, but the single employee is getting hit the hardest.
8:09:07 PM Garcia Stated she understands Mayor's point, but her opinion is no other employers look at that.
8:09:27 PM Bell Stated the single employee has been paying 20% all along, so now they will still pay 20% and will be getting a raise. Stated the employee plus dependents will get a nice raise because they have been paying 28% and 30% in the past, now they will be paying 20% on a lesser amount.
8:09:53 PM Callahan Stated he does not have a problem with 80/20, but his opinion is still to give the single employee the coverage free.
8:10:06 PM Wigginton Asked, for clarification purposes, what about the employee plus spouse; is the employee free or does he pay the employee and spouse amount.
8:10:30 PM Callahan Answered anyone not taking single coverage will pay 20% of the total premium. Stated this helps the single employee in terms of compensation.
8:10:52 PM Bell Asked if the figures given are per pay period or per month. The question was raised as to how many pay periods are in a year.
8:11:16 PM Brussatti Answered the premium comes out of two pays per month. If there is a month with three pay periods, the premium is not deducted at the third pay.
8:11:24 PM Bell Commented on the amount of raise realized by the employees.
8:11:38 PM Wigginton Stated if you take the employee down to zero you need to subtract $337.82 off all premiums.
8:11:49 PM Callahan Commented some of this decision is an incentive for employees to discontinue use of dependent coverage.
8:12:07 PM Gulledge Asked what the Board wants to do.
8:12:34 PM Limberg Stated he likes Callahan's idea to offer the single employee free and an 80/20 split to anything other than single employee.
8:12:49 PM Gulledge Polled the Board. Limberg, Schmidt, Bell and Callahan agreed. Kostyshock and Garcia are in favor of 80/20 across the board.
8:13:00 PM Gulledge Stated they will put the item on the agenda for vote next week.
8:13:08 PM Brussatti Stated the other issue that needs to be discussed is that if the Board chooses, employees will be able to split up the three categories. Explained all would have the medical and could choose whether they want to be in the vision and dental plan. Stated alternatively, the Board can make it a policy that employees take all or nothing.
8:13:38 PM Callahan Answered it is a percentage; if the employee chooses not to take it, it is a cost savings to the Village.
8:13:46 PM Gulledge Agrees with Callahan. Splitting saves money. Stated, unless anyone has a problem, they should make the split a straight percentage.
8:14:16 PM Wigginton Commented that is fine; however he wants to clarify that if the employee opts not to take dental or vision, they do not receive the bonus for not taking insurance.
8:14:32 PM Gulledge Stated they had another question: It has been the policy of the Board in the past that if the employee's spouse has insurance somewhere else, they are not permitted to take the Village's option. Commented they have an instance where someone wants to leave their insurance to join the Village's. Stated his opinion they should continue the previous policy.
8:15:28 PM Garcia Commented the same holds true for employees that don't currently use the Village insurance; they will now want to take the option as it is free.
8:15:35 PM Callahan Commented then they don't have to pay for the family.
8:15:38 PM Garcia Asked won't they bring their family with them.
8:15:41 PM Gulledge Answered no, they will have to pay.
8:15:45 PM Callahan Explained they will pay 20% if they have any coverage other than single.
8:15:51 PM Bell Clarified they have six employees that don't take insurance now.
8:15:52 PM Gulledge Answered yes, it is because they are on their spouse's or retirement issues. Commented Schardan's situation is a little different, and he actually has a specific question. Stated he is retired as a police officer from Granite.
8:16:32 PM Schardan Stated he won't need the medical insurance because he is paying for it through his retirement. Stated he is keeping that insurance option, as he is unsure if he can get back into it later if he drops it now. Stated he does not have dental or vision coverage. He is asking if he can just take dental and vision for the $3.70 per month. Stated at the same time, he does not want to give up his 50 cents per hour benefit for not taking insurance. His argument is $3.70 for six employees will not "break" the Village.
8:17:35 PM Callahan Clarified Schardan receives the 50 cent per hour incentive. Stated his recommendation is to deduct the difference.
8:17:44 PM Gulledge Asked, as Schardan is appointed, does he really get his 50 cents per hour.
8:17:50 PM Schardan Stated Comptroller breaks it out as 50 cents per hour.
8:18:02 PM Wigginton Stated this issue needs to be addressed separately as Schardan is appointed and is a department head and this needs to be taken up annually. Added if any employee came in and said they only want vision and dental, he does not know if that can be done, as he has never heard of it. Gulledge commented they are trying to find out from the insurance company.
8:18:25 PM Schardan Commented these programs are different policies under different companies: The medical is BCBS and the dental and vision falls under Guardian.
8:18:37 PM Gulledge Answered they are trying to find out.
8:18:42 PM Callahan Commented, while they are on the subject, he believes the 50 cent per hour is an incentive. Stated his opinion is to raise that incentive to $1.00. Reiterated if one person taking insurance opts to terminate for the $160 per month, the Village is still ahead.
8:19:18 PM Gulledge Stated that is a good point, and they should look at it further.
8:19:25 PM Brussatti Stated in defense of Schardan, he does not feel it is fair that Schardan gets a flat $80 per month because he is salary; whereas other employees that are hourly get 50 cents per hour including overtime. Stated there are some people that work between 32 and 36 hours overtime in two weeks, and are receiving 50 cents plus time and a half, which is 75 cents per hour; whereas salaried employees get a flat $80 per month.
8:20:07 PM Gulledge Commented Brussatti's suggesting the 50 cents should be on straight time.
8:20:10 PM Brussatti Answered it ought to be.
8:20:18 PM Callahan Commented his opinion that the ordinance reads 50 cents per hour and does not say anything about overtime.
8:20:24 PM Gulledge Stated he is glad these issues came up and have been discussed, as they need to be addressed. He asked for questions for Brussatti. Bell asked how they will handle the incentive.
8:20:43 PM Wigginton Commented he and the Mayor have already looked into offering a monthly stipend instead of calculating the cost per hour.
8:20:52 PM Gulledge Thanked Brussatti. Went to next agenda item regarding E-Pay Option for Water Department.
8:21:11 PM Presson Commented they have researched the issue. Referred to the packet distributed, which shows the communities that currently use the system, including Collinsville and Highland. Explained this is a State offered program. Stated there is no cost to the Village but a small fee to the customer. Referred to the cost chart, explaining the fee is based on the amount of the customer's bill. Commented he sees no problem with the program. Commented the State gets the fee.
8:22:18 PM Bell Asked if they got any details.
8:22:23 PM Presson Answered if the Board chooses to go forward with this, the State will send over the contracts which will be given to Wigginton for review.
8:22:34 PM Bell Clarified he means more of the technical aspects, i.e., are they responsible for security of the electronic transfers and personal information.
8:22:56 PM Presson Answered yes; they provide an icon from the Village website that takes the customer to the State's site.
8:23:06 PM Bell Clarified they provide the technical expertise to set that up. He referred to the process as outlined in the packet.
8:23:27 PM Gulledge Commented he does not understand the process.
8:23:29 PM Presson Answered it is the ability for customers to pay through the website.
8:23:31 PM Gulledge Commented he understands what it is; he is asking if there is a difference between each community what the State offers.
8:23:38 PM Presson Answered no. Stated the information in the handout simply lists the communities that use the program right now.
8:23:48 PM Limberg Asked if they have a percentage of people that use it in each community.
8:23:56 PM Presson Answered they do not have that information. Stated his guesstimate would be that it would start out small, somewhere in the lower 5% range and increase as time progresses.
8:24:21 PM Callahan Asked if the state pays their bills on time. Clarified his meaning is can the Village be assured of getting the money.
8:24:35 PM Presson Explained this does not go to the State.
8:24:43 PM Garcia Asked if the handling charge covers what the credit card company charges per transaction.
8:24:53 PM Presson Answered the only fees to be paid are what is listed on the chart.
8:25:01 PM Gulledge Referred to the rate chart, saying it is approximately 2.5% on $100.
8:25:12 PM Garcia Clarified she is trying to make sure the Village will not get a bill for 3% of everybody that paid their bill.
8:25:22 PM Bell Commented according to the schedule the fee will vary depending on the amount of the bill.
8:25:39 PM Gulledge Asked for questions for Presson.
8:25:45 PM Kostyshock Asked if anyone else is doing this, and what percentage of their customers use it.
8:25:49 PM Gulledge Stated that question was asked, and Presson did not know.
8:25:52 PM Wigginton Commented there are copies in the handout of all the communities that are currently using the system.
8:26:09 PM Gulledge Polled the Board. All were in favor.
8:26:14 PM Garcia Asked if they can use a debit card.
8:26:20 PM Fenton Answered debit cards are issued by credit card companies.
8:26:27 PM Garcia Asked if it can only be used with a credit card.
8:26:29 PM Fenton Answered no; as long as the debit card is issued by a credit card.
8:26:38 PM Gulledge Answered the item will be placed on the agenda for next Wednesday.
8:26:40 PM Fenton Added the State will come out for training purposes.
8:27:05 PM Gulledge Commented if they approve the idea, they will need time to get it implemented and will include the time table in the Trustees packets.
8:27:10 PM Callahan Asked who will make up the form.
8:27:14 PM Bell Answered the State does that; they provide the Village with the link from the website. Explained the process via the computer display.
8:28:14 PM Garcia Asked how the Village receives the money.
8:28:28 PM Fenton Answered the State wires the money to the Village's bank account.
8:28:43 PM Callahan Asked about a form included in the Mascoutah information.
8:28:44 PM Presson Answered that may have been for the auto-pay option, which takes the money directly from the customer's bank account each month.
8:28:56 PM Gulledge Went to next agenda item, bids for Electric and Water Service to Park Pavilion #3.
8:29:12 PM Presson Stated the total cost for a hydrant and electrical outlet with one light is $3,730.05.
8:29:28 PM Gulledge Commented this is with the Village doing all the labor, so this project will fall on the "pecking list" order.
8:29:41 PM Bell Stated he would like to put the project on the To Do list as well as on the agenda for next week.
8:29:56 PM Gulledge Asked the Trustees; all were in favor. Thanked Presson. Went to next agenda item, the 2007 PEP Grant.
8:30:48 PM Gulledge Stated this is a $15,000 grant given annually based on population. Stated Maryville gets the minimum available due to CARD. Stated the Park Committee recommendation is to buy a zero turn radius lawn mower to give the park, meaning the area behind the seniors building all the way back into Drost Park a better cut. Stated Presson received three bids, and his recommendation is the bid from Sievers Equipment. Stated in talking with Presson, he believes it will save time, give a better and faster cut. Stated the additional $4,350 would be used to purchase stabilization rock to stabilize the bank of the Drost Park Lake. Stated this will have to be put on the agenda. Stated it is a high-labor project, and they intend to get help from the State in the summer, as the people will actually have to be in the lake to work on the project.
8:32:41 PM Bell Explained the plan is to buy a little of the material each year and start working a little at a time on the lake. Commented it is too expensive to do the entire project at once.
8:32:58 PM Gulledge Asked Trustees. All were in favor. Went to next item, Park Committee Recommendations.
8:33:19 PM Bell Stated the first recommendation, regarding the $25,000 DCEO State Representative grant, is to purchase a 40 foot octagon pavilion with cupola, to be installed by the Village. Stated the bid is from Reese Recreation. Stated they intend to use the same colors as the two smaller pavilions recently purchased.
8:34:17 PM Garcia Asked where they intend to put it.
8:34:18 PM Gulledge Answered the item has been discussed already, they are simply showing the picture of what they are installing.
8:34:31 PM Gulledge Asked trustees opinion. All agreed.
8:34:42 PM Bell Went to next recommendation to purchase a 14' by 25' canvas screen from Tri-City Canvas, including mounting brackets, not to exceed $400 for use for the Movies in the Park events. Schmidt asked if it is in the budget. Gulledge answered they will check.
8:35:23 PM Schmidt Asked if somebody can sponsor the purchase.
8:35:30 PM Gulledge Answered maybe.
8:35:31 PM Gulledge Asked trustees.
8:35:40 PM Schmidt Asked how it will be attached to the building.
8:35:42 PM Gulledge Answered they will use plastic tubing. Bell commented it will not be permanent. Continued the poll; all trustees agreed.
8:36:05 PM Bell Went to next recommendation, to pursue and install necessary parts to repair the swings at Drost Park. Explained during the summer they got an order to remove the swings because of a defect in the cross member.
8:36:29 PM Gulledge Stated he will check on the status. Stated he believes the parts have been sent; however they are not installed yet. Went to next agenda item, 2006 Tax Levy. Stated a notice was placed in the paper. Explained $1.1124 is maximized. Stated he would like to make it equal or lower than last year.
8:37:55 PM Wigginton Referred to the document included in the Trustee packets. Explained that was if they maximized all the categories. Stated they have to estimate the 2006 assessed valuation. Stated they have done a good job of this in the past. Stated last year the assessed valuation was $128,261,470. Stated this year they believe it will come in at about $141 million. Stated last year the tax rate was 1.0313%. Stated he has prepared a revised version to get down to that same amount, if they so wish. Explained since 2001 they have always been around $1 to $1.05; the last time they were as high as $1.10 was 1999. Stated if they want to get down to $1.03 as last year, he has prepared a document which will do it, and does not involve that many changes. Stated the information he has prepared will get them down to $1.0312; the General Fund levy would go from $315,000 to $282,000 which is .20 (20 cents per hundred). Stated the other category would be Working Cash and would reduce slightly from $50,000 to $48,000. Stated if these two changes are made, that will get down to .1031. Stated this would also keep them in the same range as the last five years.
8:41:06 PM Schmidt Asked why they are increasing street lighting by 60%.
8:41:23 PM Wigginton Answered because of the recently created Appearance Board, and one of the ideas is to start building funds for ornamental light posts through the Village.
8:41:41 PM Schmidt Commented his understanding those are to be paid by the developer.
8:41:44 PM Wigginton Answered no, these are public right-of-way light posts. Stated these would be to match what developers are required to install. Stated for this reason, they need to start generating more funds in that category than they have in the past. Reiterated the assessed valuation is going to go up, as it always has. Commented on the charts prepared for the public hearing, which demonstrate how Maryville compares to the other top-ten communities in terms of assessed valuation. Stated the Village has always been very conservative in the tax levy, as demonstrated in the tax levy rate comparison. Explained Maryville has consistently been around $1.00. Stated in the assessed valuation comparison, Maryville is the only community in Madison County since 2000 that has more than doubled its assessed valuation. Stated his recommendation is $1.031 mark, which is slightly below where it was last year.
8:43:21 PM Bell Commented he would like to keep it down.
8:43:29 PM Gulledge Commented other communities are trying to do the same thing. Commented his opinion that this shows the public they are good stewards.
8:43:40 PM Schmidt Displayed various charts via Power Point of figures he has put together. Explained it shows an approximate 14% increase in dollars realized over the last six years.
8:44:03 PM Wigginton Commented the chart he handed out shows actual taxes received.
8:44:12 PM Schmidt Displayed a chart and explained it shows the valuation that Flaugher puts on new construction which is showing an approximate 16% average increase in valuation. Explained this just shows Flaugher's estimation of valuation of the improvement of the property itself, which doesn't encompass the ground that it sits on. Explained there is an almost 30 to 33% that can be added on to the improvement itself. Displayed another chart showing the county comparison in the valuation itself. Commented this shows there is an approximate 31% difference in the County figure versus what Maryville shows as valuation on improvements.
8:45:49 PM Gulledge Asked Trustees their opinion.
8:45:57 PM Schmidt Commented his opinion they can be safe by possibly bumping up the valuation. Asked how they hurt themselves by putting a higher valuation than what the County does.
8:46:20 PM Wigginton Answered they have to use the assessed valuation, and then there are certain categories like General Fund that are capped, so they can only do .25.
8:46:31 PM Schmidt Clarified his point that, for example, if they raise the $141 estimate that they've got and go off of a bigger base, then the percentage of the levy would be lower.
8:46:48 PM Gulledge Answered it would be except that when they give the final readings it can change.
8:46:53 PM Schmidt Clarified that is what he means; can they bump up the $141 figure. Explained he was looking at the building permits issued by the Village in 2005. Stated that year the valuation of the property on which Maryville issued building permits totaled a little over $36 million; figuring a third of that is $12 and add that to the $128 equals $140, his opinion is they can bump the $141 figure up a little higher.
8:47:39 PM Callahan Stated the difference comes with the reassessment and the multiplier. Stated the taxes go up every year; so does the valuation.
8:47:47 PM Gulledge Answered they don't know what that is yet.
8:47:48 PM Wigginton Stated the problem is you take the assessed valuation multiplied by the categories which will increase all the calculated rates. Explained if they do this, the estimated rate will go higher than the $1.11 already posted notice for. Explained they have to post notice under the Truth in Taxation laws. Reminded the Board back in October he gave the estimates at least twenty days prior to the tax levy. Stated not less than seven, but not more than fourteen days, they have to post notice. Stated there are certain rules. Stated that is the reason it is called "Truth in Taxation": They can't purposely try to make it really high. Explained if they made that number $145 or $150, then all the calculated rates change.
8:49:01 PM Schmidt Commented they would be lower.
8:49:05 PM Wigginton Answered not if they take .25 because if you keep the same rate, it will go up. Used the example of Corporate, on the $1.11 the cap is .25. Stated .25 of $150 million would be $375,000.
8:49:28 PM Schmidt Argued if the valuation is higher and they use the same dollar amount that they are drawing from, the percentage will go lower.
8:49:37 PM Wigginton Agreed it could. Stated he understands Schmidt's point, but they don't want to fall short; however under Truth in Taxation, they have to a give good-faith estimate to keep from putting an unreasonably large figure. Schmidt argued if it is within reason, he does not see the issue. Wigginton commented Mayor has always been right on the mark. Schmidt agreed.
8:50:16 PM Bell Asked about the $1,454,133 figure hand-written at the bottom of the handout.
8:50:26 PM Wigginton Explained if they go to 1.0313, the total amount of the levy, assuming $141 is at or near the mark, that would generate a levy of $1,454,133.
8:50:48 PM Callahan Commented if the assessed valuation comes back at $145 million, the tax rate is going to be less than $1.03. Bell commented then they lose some tax money. Callahan answered correct; however wouldn't they rather lose than incur a 10 cent gain.
8:51:12 PM Gulledge Commented they have been working on this project for a month. Stated Schmidt could be right; they make their best effort in coming up with this number. Stated they added an extra million because they have always been within $1 million.
8:51:47 PM Schmidt Commented it will be interesting to see because 2005 was a quad year also for Collinsville Township.
8:51:59 PM Gulledge Answered he is right, but they won't get that until after the fact.
8:52:06 PM Schmidt Commented that is what is wrong with the process. Stated they are trying to come up with a tax figure, when they don't even have firm figures to work with from anybody.
8:52:16 PM Gulledge Answered they do the best they can. Stated the levy has to be filed with the County Clerk by the last Tuesday of December. Stated they have a public hearing scheduled for next Wednesday night. He needs to know if the Trustees are okay with what they have worked on at $1.0313. All agreed.
8:53:07 PM Gulledge Thanked everyone involved in the process. Went to Calendar Updates. Commented Santa is coming to the fire house Saturday at 10:00 a.m.; Al Hrubetz will be at a book signing at the library Saturday; The Village Hall will be closed on December 22nd at noon, and the Village Christmas Party starts at 1:00 p.m.; there is no Economic Development Committee Meeting this month; there is no Park Meeting on the 18th; the holiday lighting contest deadline for entries is December 16th, and judging will start on December 17th. Went to To Do List, page one.
8:55:50 PM Bell Requested the swings installation be put on the list. Commented they can take off the Gazette website link, as that has been accomplished.
8:56:50 PM Gulledge Went to page two: The swings were added, and the full time park employee was removed. Went to page three: There were no changes. Went to Trustees Comments.
8:57:20 PM Schmidt Expressed his thanks for getting the Gazette link on the web.
8:57:48 PM Garcia Asked if there is a way they can determine who does not need a paper copy of the Gazette. Gulledge answered they should discuss that issue another time. Schmidt commented he had an idea.
8:58:09 PM Gulledge Commented they are looking into another printer for the Gazettes. Stated Ann's Printing is a good price, but sometimes it takes too long to get them back. Stated they got one bid that would be approximately $69 dollars more; however they will give a two or three day turn around. Stated they are also getting another bid. Asked the Board if he can change printers if the cost is within reason. All agreed.
8:58:53 PM Bell Commented he needs to talk to Kime regarding a couple of small changes to his format to facilitate the web link.
8:59:06 PM Callahan Asked how much time the Village spends on the project. He was told approximately eight hours, depending on the amount of volunteer help. Callahan commented on the $500 figure, realizing the salaries are not that high; however he questions whether they could make better use of the employees.
8:59:31 PM Gulledge Answered they could, but sometimes they have volunteers.
8:59:41 PM Bell Asked how the process is done; does Kime have the electronic copy in Word already.
8:59:47 PM Gulledge Explained it is already formatted; the Village does some proofing and takes it to the printer.
9:00:19 PM Gulledge Commented he has received a very good response on the Appearance and Involvement Board. Stated the meeting will be Monday, December 4th at 7:00 p.m. Invited all Trustees to attend if they can make it to share ideas. Commented right now they have seventeen people interested. Stated they will meet in the council chamber, and he will need someone to take minutes. Fenton indicated her interest in attending, and volunteered to take minutes.
9:01:40 PM Gulledge Asked for a motion to go into Closed Session, which should not take more than ten to fifteen minutes. Stated the purpose under 5ILCS120/2(c)5 to discuss the purchase or lease of real property. Motion was made by Schmidt and seconded by Kostyshock. Voting on the motion: Limberg - yes; Schmidt - yes; Bell - yes; Callahan - yes; Kostyshock - yes; Garcia - yes. Motion carried.
9:02:17 PM Gulledge Commented they will not be taking further action tonight, and will adjourn upon coming out of Closed Session.
9:18:00 PM Gulledge Called for a motion to come out of Closed Session. Motion was made by Schmidt and seconded by Bell. Voting on the motion: Limberg - yes; Schmidt - yes; Bell - yes; Callahan - yes; Kostyshock - yes; Garcia - yes. Motion carried.
9:18:24 PM Gulledge With no further business to come before the meeting, called for a motion to adjourn. Motion was made by Schmidt and seconded by Bell. Voting on the motion: Limberg - yes; Schmidt - yes; Bell - yes; Callahan - yes; Kostyshock - yes; Garcia - yes. Motion carried.
9:18:44 PM   The meeting ended.

Respectfully submitted,

Thelma Long, Village Clerk

Produced by FTR Log Notes

The Village of Maryville