Click to Home
Go To Search

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

Village of Maryville, Illinois

Description Caucus Minutes
Date8/31/2005 Location Council Chamber
Time Speaker Note
6:40:44 PM Gulledge Called the Caucus meeting of Wednesday, August 31, 2005 to order. The Pledge of Allegiance had been recited earlier in the evening at the start of the Special Board Meeting. He asked for a roll of those officers present. Answering the roll call were Trustees Limberg, Schmidt, Callahan, Kostyshock, and Garcia . Bell was not present.
6:41:21 PM Gulledge Called for approval of the August 24th Caucus minutes. He asked if there were any questions, additions or subtractions to the minutes as prepared by the Clerk. There were none. He asked for a motion to have the minutes placed on file. The motion was made by Kostyshock, and seconded by Schmidt. Voting on the motion: Limberg - yes; Schmidt - yes; Callahan - yes; Kostyshock - yes; Garcia - yes. Motion carried.
6:41:54 PM Gulledge Stated there were four (4) items on the Meeting Agenda. Stated the items would be presented out of order to accommodate any persons needing to leave the meeting, as two items would take longer than the others. Stated the first item would be the Senior Center ceiling tile bids. He referred to the bid sheet provided by Director Presson, stating the Seniors building needed 400 ceiling tiles in order to completely renovate the ceiling. Stated the existing ceiling is in a general state of disrepair, partly due to a previous leak in the roof. Stated the recommendation from Director Presson and Trustee Bell that the Village accept the bid from Lowe's of $904, as opposed to the other two higher bids. Stated the Lowe's bid would save an excess of $200 over the highest bid. Asked to place the item on the Board Agenda for September 7th.
6:43:21 PM Callahan Asked who would be installing the tiles.
6:43:32 PM Gulledge Answered the Village employees would perform the work. Went to the next agenda item, MEGSI Membership Fees.
6:44:00 PM Schardan Stated support of the MEG unit has been an annual occurrence, although he was unsure for how long the Village has participated. Stated the fee is $1.00 per person of population, which would be a cost of $5,905. He contacted MEGSI for a report on what services they have provided in Maryville from calendar year of 2004 to present, which is a period of twenty (20) months. Reported there are five (5) active cases, with at least one (1) search warrant. They have also performed at least three (3) "Knock Talks", whereby a residence of a suspected trafficker is approached for purposes of a search.
6:44:48 PM Gulledge Asked Schardan if he thought Maryville should continue membership.
6:45:10 PM Schardan Answered that MEGSI has been an asset in helping with meth-amphetamine laboratories, of which there have been three (3) incidences in previous years. Currently, State teams have been created to deal with this situation, but MEGSI works in conjunction with these teams. Stated his opinion that continued membership will show the Village's support of getting rid of illegal drugs. Stated it is helpful to have a group to call if a drug situation arises in the Village.
6:45:30 PM Gulledge Asked if Drug Forfeiture money could be used towards payment of these dues if the Village so chooses.
6:45:55 PM Schardan Answered he was unsure if that was possible, but he would research that option.
6:46:07 PM Gulledge Asked if anyone had questions for Chief Schardan. There were none. Placed the item on the agenda for the September 7th Board Meeting.
6:46:42 PM Schardan Commented that the Department is starting on the Image Grant, which will run August 29th through September 11th. There will be officers working over time, looking for speeding and seatbelt violations. Clarified that using this grant, the State will reimburse the Village for all overtime costs.
6:47:12 PM Gulledge Went to the next agenda item, Lakeview Acres Road/East Main and Pleasant Ridge Road Improvements. Introduced Dave Brammeier, of Crawford, Buente and Brammeier, who would be presenting information on the subject. Juneau distributed handouts to all attendees.
6:48:17 PM Juneau Commented on the increased amount of development on Lakeview Acres Road as well as Pleasant Ridge Road. Talked about the increase in water and sewer tap-on fees to ensure the improvements to the system to provide for growth is paid for by the developments that are causing the need for these improvements. Stated that with roadways, there is no vehicle to pay for improvements that become necessary due to increased development. Mentioned improvements on Route 159 as an example. Stated Lakeview Acres Road and Pleasant Ridge Road are two lane, oil and chip roads, which will not hold up under both construction traffic and increased traffic use due to development. Suggested engaging a company that studies this business and can define the impacts of what the increased traffic means to these roadways, in the hope of determining a sufficient impact fee that will cause new developments to start paying for the improvements. Stated it may be possible to get a portion of the improvements paid for via grants, but the Village must come up with the majority of the money to pay for the improvements. Recommends the Village be proactive and develop a plan to have the builders pay for the road improvements. Stated Crawford, Buente and Brammier has drafted a cost analysis for this purpose.
6:54:06 PM Brammeier Began by saying they were asked to develop a method by which they could assign a cost of the roadway improvements with some kind of offsite development fee. Illinois State statutes provide a method for doing this, which will be discussed later. The work that is performed here would be augmented into an ordinance. Juneau and the Village provided the firm with a master plan and cost of the road improvements. He referred to the handout of the Impact Fee Sheet, pointing to the reference of the master plan section. Noted that the chart was broken down by single family, multi-family and commercial estimates. For purposes of this presentation, the firm adjusted all of the acreage assigned to each category, took Juneau's improvement cost figures, and identified a method by which they could assign new traffic to the development and determine the amount of public benefit. Pointed out that, as there is already traffic on these roadways, it is not possible to assign the entire cost of the project. For example, Lakeview is a $5.6 million project. All of the needed improvement is not completely due to the development of the 835 acres that might be in the area. Therefore one of the tasks for the firm is to determine the amount of public benefit, which must be subtracted out with the understanding that current residents have already paid for their part of the road system. On a preliminary basis, a determination has been made with reference to Lakeview that the public benefit is approximately 20%, having about 5,000 cars per day on that road, increasing to approximately 28,000 upon full development. For the Pleasant Ridge project, the firm has identified approximately 1,700 existing trips per day, increasing to about 17,000 additional trips, for a public benefit determined to be 10-15%. Finally, the firm evaluated what effect time would have on these projects. Referred to the third column of the chart under "Road Improvement". For example, for the Lakeview project, the base development cost is $4,264,500, which is the cost to improve Lakeview Acres and East Main in today's dollars. If that amount were to be financed, using a 5% interest rate and a 10-year period, the cost including interest would increase to $5,522,000; similarly using a 15-year time frame it would increase to $6,162,000; a 20-year time frame would be $6,643,000. The firm then worked a road assessment fee into the figures, as outlined in the third column of the chart, which divides $4.2 million among 1500 single-family homes, 352 multi-family units, and 109,000 square foot of commercial development. Using this information, the breakout given on the chart assesses a single-family unit a $2,500 fee; using a 10-year period, the cost becomes $3,250; each year between 10-year, 15-year, or 20-year period, that fee would be increased approximately $100 per year. The same scenario was developed for Pleasant Ridge. He stated there is no question that these roads need to be improved. Reiterated that for Lakeview there is an estimated excess of 20,000 daily trips, and for Pleasant Ridge there is an estimated excess of 15,000 to 17,000 daily trips. He then offered to answer questions regarding the preparation of the numbers.
7:01:25 PM Gulledge Invited questions from those in attendance.
7:01:34 PM Callahan Asked where the firm got the numbers for the multi- family estimates.
7:01:51 PM Brammeier Answered a meeting was held with the Village to determine this number.
7:02:06 PM Gulledge Explained the master plan was reviewed and the Village gave the firm a best estimate of what might happen in those areas in the future.
7:02:26 PM Callahan Stated the master plan does not call for any new multi-family, only existing. Stated he is shocked at the estimate that Pleasant Ridge would have 750 apartments.
7:03:26 PM Brammeier Explained that, looking at the Master Plan, the development will not be all commercial, nor all single-family. Stated these numbers were determined after several meetings with the Village to try to determine a split on how the fees would be proportioned. Stated any different ideas on numbers could be used in the chart and re-proportioned into dollars.
7:03:37 PM Callahan Stated his main concern is that the estimate calls for more money per multi-family acre than for single-family. Stated multi-family is carrying the cost, and he does not think the Board wants to develop 1,050 multi-family units just to pay for the roads.
7:04:07 PM Brammeier Answered that reviewing the numbers would reveal that multi-family is not carrying the cost, and referred to the Lakeview chart, noting that the comparison between multi and single family is very close, but not a substantial difference. Commented this is a preliminary plan and the firm is open to input on the acreage or any other numbers on the estimate.
7:05:14 PM Callahan Stated his main concern is the estimate does not give a fair reflection.
7:05:41 PM Brammeier Stated that in the plan for Lakeview, there are still 55 acres that can be converted to a single-family cost and come up with the same bottom line. Stated if that is one of the decisions that results from the meeting, the firm can do a sensitivity test that converts to whatever the Board decides. Stated the purpose of the meeting was to draw discussion and input on proceeding with a method by which to address, in a uniform way, a cost to recover $4.2 million in road improvements if this area develops.
7:06:40 PM Callahan Asked if any other community in the area uses this type of assessment.
7:06:45 PM Brammeier Answered yes; it is often done on a project-by-project development agreement.
7:07:00 PM Juneau Commented that these types of models started in the suburbs of Chicago.
7:07:53 PM Gulledge Reminded the Board that this is just an estimate of what may or may not happen.
7:08:16 PM Juneau Stated a category is needed to establish a cost for each type of unit. This is the vehicle being set.
7:08:56 PM Callahan Stated a $1,700 per acre differential on 165 acres is an estimate of a lot of money the Village thinks it will have if they develop multi-family, but he is concerned that the board is not in favor of this type of development. Commented that the Village is in the only school district in this region that has not asked its residents for an impact fee. Stated his concern that the Board approves $3,000-$4,000 per year, and then the school district requests another $3,000-$5,000. Posed the possibility that the Village will "price themselves out".
7:10:01 PM Juneau Responded that the school district must take care of their needs, and the Village needs to focus on taking care of its needs.
7:10:31 PM Limberg Commented that a developer is going to consider the road leading to the proposed development in making his decision to purchase land. Commented that he has been a resident since the 1950's and Lakeview Acres Road has not been improved very much since that time. Stated his opinion that if this road is not improved, developers will want to develop somewhere else.
7:11:46 PM Kostyshock Commented that before West Main was improved to a concrete street there was no development of any kind; as soon as the road was improved development took off. Commented that the only monies coming in to the Village are motor fuel tax, which will not support this type of cost. Commented that the Village cannot afford for the cost to be taken out of general funds.
7:12:37 PM Callahan Responded to Trustee Limberg's statement that there are currently two large subdivisions off of Lakeview Acres Road that are full regardless of the condition of the road. Commented that, in the past, the Village attempted to improve East Main Street and the residents would not allow it.
7:13:28 PM Garcia Stated her concern over getting easements, similar to what happened in the past.
7:13:43 PM Callahan Stated his concern for setting a precedent of adopting this set of impact fees, and then receiving requests from other entities for similar impact fees, which might result in eventually pricing out of the housing market.
7:14:29 PM Brammeier Compared the Village situation to Glen Carbon, where eventually Glen Carbon had to come up with money to improve the roads. Stated they were lucky to have some money at the time, as there had been no impact fees assessed. Stated it was a 15-year project, and Glen Carbon was not in a position to plan for it like Maryville is today. Stated this is a planning tool which will help the Village whether the decision is made to improve the roads today or in the future. Commented that the money will have been collected and escrowed into a special service fund to defer the cost of improving these roads. Commented that it is easier to collect the money now than to come back later and try to get a city-wide bond issue; it is easier to get federal funds when you already have some of these monies.
7:16:16 PM Gulledge Commented that no one likes impact fees. Stated he feels the Board has an obligation to look into ways for finding money for these improvements. Stated his opinion that the Board view these as two separate issues; if an impact fee proposal comes from the school district, the Board will need to review it. Stated his opinion that it will probably happen. Stated his opinion that the Village is not totally responsible for the school system; however the board is in control of the road situation. Commented on the current growth rate of the Village. Commented that the current board may choose not to take action on the situation, but sometime in the future the Village will need to determine how they are going to fix the roads. Commented that it will be a lot more expensive in the future than it is now. Stated he agrees with Brammier that being proactive is the best approach.
7:19:11 PM Callahan Commented there was a time when people were not building homes. Commented that if the Board implements this idea, the Village is borrowing the money and paying it back on the hope that someone the Village has no control over is going to build homes. If the Village gets into a situation where homes are not selling for whatever reason, development will stop, but the Village will still be responsible for making the bond payments. Stated his concern that the board understands it is taking a risk that there is a potential that the only way to repay the bonds will be out of general funds. Stated the board needs to keep in mind the possibility that if the building boom ends, the Village will need to raise taxes to pay for the roads that other people are using.
7:20:38 PM Gulledge Answered that this issue was presented at the meeting. Commented that a bond issue is not being presented to the board right now, the purpose of this proposal is to be on the collecting end of the situation to put funds into an escrow for use on whatever the Village chooses to do. Conceded that Callahan is right, and these issues are definitely a concern for the board.
7:20:56 PM Wigginton Added not to be confused by the word "bond" on the hand-out. He asked Brammeier to break out the numbers in these increments because he wanted to show how the cost of the project increases as the project is delayed. He would not recommend the Village immediately go out for bonds for these projects. He advocates implementing these fees to build up the funds so that at some point in time there is sufficient money that can be used as a match with a State, County or federal grant, or can be used as leverage for a bond issue. No one knows what will happen in the future; however it is known that Maryville has a finite area of land, and once it is gone, it is gone. Stated the need to capture the funds to make these improvements out of that finite area of land. Stated, from a philosophical standpoint, the board must determine whether they want the current residents to pay for the improvements, or the people that are directly benefiting from these improvements to incur the biggest cost. Crawford, Buente and Brammeier was asked to prepare these costs so the Village can support them in an ordinance to show that this cost is specifically and uniquely attributable to this development. Commented that the need is there, the question is how will it be funded.
7:24:04 PM Callahan Asked if the board could be forced into charging impact fees for the school district without this board's approval.
7:24:13 PM Wigginton Answered the school district has certain powers to impose fees depending on how they structure them. Stated if they wanted to impose an impact fee on the Villlage's particular land, research would be needed regarding the statute they used. Commented the district could raise their general fees per student.
7:25:04 PM Gulledge Commented he attended a meeting with a representative from the Chicago area where this question was asked. He stated the way it was explained at that meeting, there are other ways for a district to get the funds, and they could not force the Village to enforce an impact fee.
7:25:56 PM Wigginton Stated there are statutes that allow a municipality to enact ordinances that require a donation of either land or money for schools. If the school wanted to go after that avenue they would need Board approval to enact the ordinance. Stated this proposal is the first step; the Village is required by the statutes to assess the need, which Crawford, Buente and Brammeier has done with this report. The second part is that the cost needs to be assessed and certified by an engineer, which is what Mr. Juneau has done. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to show the kinds of costs estimated, and see if the board is comfortable with passing an ordinance that would propose a per-lot fee on a development. Stated these are the types of issues on which they need feed-back.
7:28:56 PM Callahan Stated that he would like to see a formula that does not give multi-family an advantage. Stated in this case they have an advantage per acre.
7:29:25 PM Brammeier Commented that he can equalize the numbers. Stated that the key to the process is that it be fair because there is the possibility that it could be tested in a court.
7:30:05 PM Callahan Reiterated that he would prefer multi-family not have a break over single-family.
7:30:24 PM Brammeier Stated the effect of changing the numbers is that the single-family fee would drop by a couple of hundred dollars, and the multi-family would increase substantially. Reiterated the need for fair assessments applied with rationale. Stated he would look at changing the proposal and re-submit it to the board.
7:30:58 PM Wigginton Stated that Brammeier is right in that if it is tested, the Village must show that it is equal and has a basis in reason. The reason could be that it is doubtful that this board, given its history and preference for single-family residential, would be inclined to approve 55 acres of ground dedicated to multi-family housing. Stated he would confer with Brammeier on the subject.
7:31:41 PM Callahan Asked for further explanation of how the fees increase over time.
7:32:06 PM Juneau Explained these fees should be increased by $100 per year over twenty years to allow for increased expenses. This will ensure the accumulation of the money over time.
7:33:40 PM Callahan Asked about the legality of how the improvements would take place, i.e., can the middle be fixed before the entrance or exits of the road.
7:33:49 PM Wigginton Answered that the Village will have control over at which end they wanted to start so as to avoid piece-meal development of the roadway.
7:34:15 PM Juneau Commented the money needs to start accumulating in order to avoid a piece-meal improvement situation.
7:34:41 PM Callahan Asked about the fact that the road itself will be in the district, but the Village cannot collect taxes on the existing homes.
7:35:23 PM Juneau Answered that is correct, and pointed out the large amount of undeveloped land along Lakeview Acres Road that would potentially generate the revenue.
7:35:48 PM Gulledge Commented another unfairness in the existing ordinance is that it only affects the properties that touch the roads in question. All of the other parcels that sit behind those properties are not included, although they impact the road equally with the adjacent properties. Stated this is another reason this issue needs to be addressed for fairness to all of the property owners in the area, not just the owners that border the roads in question. Stated there would not be enough money collected with the current ordinance.
7:36:37 PM Brammeier Commented that approximately 15 years ago in another community in St. Louis county, they required a developer to improve half of his frontage road. Stated that after about 15 years they realized the situation was not working. They have since implemented what is called assessment districts, which is just like the current proposal, which they have been doing for twenty years. The impact fees now apply to everything in the area; it does not matter whether there is frontage to a highway. Commented that this is not a new issue; the proposal is a way to share the cost for improvements that have to be made for new development.
7:37:27 PM Callahan Asked if the residents to whom the impact fee has been passed from the developer have any right of complaint if the roads are not fixed properly.
7:37:43 PM Juneau Answered no, the roads are under the Village jurisdictional control, but the Ordinance would be recorded with a legal description that encompasses all of these issues. The ordinance puts all buyers on notice that they are subject to a special assessment.
7:38:41 PM Schmidt Asked if the Remington area would be affected by this with their pre-annexation agreement.
7:39:09 PM Wigginton Stated he would have to review the situation and could not publicly comment anyway.
7:39:16 PM Gulledge Asked to poll the trustees on the issue.
7:39:39 PM Limberg Stated he agrees with Callahan that the numbers should be equalized, but is in overall agreement to start to raise some money.
7:39:54 PM Schmidt Agrees the numbers need to be scaled back for multi-family. Stated he would like to see more realistic figures.
7:40:18 PM Gulledge Stated he has no problem looking at new figures. Asked Callahan if he agreed to move forward on the issue; he did. Asked Garcia if she agreed. She stated she wants a guarantee that they will get the easements. Gulledge responded that they would.
7:40:49 PM Garcia Stated that the bottom line is that the buyer will absorb the cost of the fee from the developer. Her concern is that the price of the home will be raised, and that less people will purchase homes.
7:41:08 PM Gulledge Stated the intent was not to drive up the cost of homes. Stated someone needed to pay for the improvements to the roads, and he personally does not believe it is right for the people who have lived in the Village long term to pay to fix roads that they are not impacting as much as the new development.
7:41:41 PM Gulledge Asked Brammeier to re-compute new figures and re-submit the report to the Board for review. Went to Agenda item 9, Water & Sewer Rate Study.
7:43:33 PM Juneau His information was on disc but couldn't be displayed due to technical difficulties. He read the information from the printout. Commented on the current water fees, and the sewer tap-on fees, which have increased in the last few years. Referred to the historic water rates on the second page. Stated that starting from 1981, it took nine (9) years to have an increase in rates in 1992. Seven years after that they increased again in 1999. Stated the information shows the water rates have been kept up. The increase in rates is only 10 cents since 1981. Sewer rates are still $2.10. The information shows the Village has reserved monies for replacement of failed parts. Stated Table 4.4 shows current costs. The information shows sewer operation and maintenance has increased from $214,000 in 1999 to $487,000 in 2004. Water system expenses from 1999 were $382,000 to an increase currently to $1,039,000. Stated the Village has added a lot of users.
7:48:22 PM Callahan Asked about the estimated cost for water production.
7:49:03 PM Juneau Stated Chart 4.7 shows the operational maintenance of the water treatment distribution system at $658,586. Stated the Village needs to have reserved replacement costs of $100,000 per year. The Village presently has debt service repaying $22,000. Stated excluding depreciation, the Village needs to collect $784,000; including depreciation expenses the figure increases to $968,000. Regarding the sewer system, Chart 4.11 suggests a projection of continuing to collect $177,000 without depreciation and $323,452 with depreciation.
7:51:13 PM Gulledge Stated Juneau's proposal is on page 11.
7:51:31 PM Juneau Stated a proposal of a water rate increase of 10 cents per gallon, and a sewer rate increase of 90 cents.
7:52:13 PM Gulledge Added that tap-on fees for water and/or sewer are not included in any of the proposals.
7:52:43 PM Juneau Reiterated the proposal to increase the water rate 10 cents for an inside-city user, and 15 cents for an outside-city user. The sewer increase is substantial because there has not been an increase in twenty-five years. Stated sewer expenses are consistently increasing.
7:54:01 PM Kostyshock Commented on water rates. He referred to the cost sheet previously distributed. Stated the total comes out to around $2 million; however with the monies retained currently plus expected monies to be accrued, he believes the water rates can stay as they are. Stated there are currently 3,293 users, and users are added every day. Stated that, as of right now, the water department is in good shape, and believes water rates do not need to be increased due to the money set aside plus expected future money.
7:55:43 PM Presson Agrees with Kostyshock regarding water. Stated his opinion that the sewer rate is what should be concentrated on currently. Stated expenses continue to rise, and a rate increase is not unreasonable due to the fact they have not been raised in fifteen (15) years.
7:56:29 PM Kostyshock Stated that with the addition of employees, man-hours will be saved with regard to reading meters and the accuracy of the readings.
7:56:43 PM Gulledge Asked trustees their opinion about the water rate increase.
7:57:09 PM Limberg Asked Juneau why he wanted the increase; was it do to a specific item they are looking at, or simply to offset the cost of production.
7:57:22 PM Juneau Answered that expenses are increasing. Stated there has not been an increase in a substantial amount of time. He agrees the books in the Water Department are very good, but it is easier to increase by a small percentage at a time than a larger one when a need arises.
7:58:58 PM Limberg Stated his opinion not to impose an increase in water fees.
7:59:33 PM Schmidt Stated he agrees with Limberg that the rates should not be increased, but in his opinion the situation should be re-evaluated in six (6) months.
7:59:48 PM Callahan Stated his opinion that small increases should have been imposed each year before now. Commented that two years ago when discussion was held about raising rates, the compromise was to raise tap-on fees. The thought at that time was if we could generate $100-$150,000 more a year, we wouldn't have to raise rates. Commented that has been done. Commented that he has enough faith in the system that the building boom will continue. Stated the Village needs to be careful to stop spending the money from tap-ons and assuming that is part of the water bill. Commented that if that building boom ever ends, the rates will need to be raised significantly. His opinion is to raise water rates by ten cents.
8:01:31 PM Kostyshock Stated he is against raising the rates. Stated his opinion that the Village is providing a service and is not trying to make money. He believes there is enough money coming in and enough presently in the bank to leave rates as they are.
8:01:56 PM Garcia Asked if the rates could be raised for outside users only.
8:02:00 PM Gulledge Answered if inside users rates are raised, outside users will be raised a little higher, which has been done in the past, but he does not believe it would be an option to raise outside users and not inside users rates.
8:02:18 PM Garcia Responded her opinion that rates should not be increased.
8:02:28 PM Gulledge Went on to discuss sewers. Reiterated Juneau's recommendation of a 90 cents per thousand gallon increase.
8:02:45 PM Kostyshock Stated there are a few pending projects, for example a Collinsville contract next year for sewage treatment. The Department cannot say what will happen. They also do not know what might happen with the EPA, although he is sure they will add on or improve the plan. Stated they do not know what the cost to the Village will be. Compared water users at 3,000 to sewer users at only 1,800, which is a big difference. Improvements need to be made in lines, new lift stations are needed, etc. Stated sewers are not "a given" like water, as the Village controls the water, but does not control the sewers.
8:03:50 PM Presson Stated the biggest expense coming up is the contract to be negotiated and several lift stations that need to be upgraded. He recommends a 90 cent increase.
8:04:53 PM Kostyshock Asked what the 90 cent increase would add on to an average sewer bill.
8:05:00 PM Juneau Answered the average sewer user uses approximately 4,000 gallons per month, which results in a $3.60 per month increase. Pointed out in the handout that information suggests other communities' sewer rates are higher than Maryville's.
8:05:40 PM Gulledge Asked the trustees their opinion on the 90 cent increase.
8:05:55 PM Limberg Stated he agrees with the increase, but suggests the issue should be reviewed more often to avoid another large increase.
8:06:23 PM Schmidt Agrees that the Village has fallen behind on the infrastructure and more revenue is needed in that area. Asked about raising the sewer tap-on fee slightly and increase the inspection fee by $50. This would allow the user rate to lower.
8:07:25 PM Juneau Stated he does not recommend using sewer tap-on fees for day to day operations. Stated it is dangerous due to the possibility of a lull, and then the budget falls way behind. Stated sewer tap-on fees should be used for capital improvements to the sewers.
8:08:18 PM Gulledge Asked Schmidt his opinion regarding the rates.
8:08:54 PM Schmidt Agreed to a 90 cent increase.
8:09:47 PM Callahan Agrees, but commented that the water department is a business not a service.
8:10:12 PM Kostyshock Agrees with the 90 cent increase.
8:10:39 PM Garcia Commented that the fees should be doubled.
8:11:00 PM Gulledge Went on to calendar updates.
8:11:13 PM Schmidt Stated the rabies clinic is scheduled for September 10th from 9:00 am to noon.
8:11:29 PM Gulledge Went on to The To Do List, page 1. There were no comments. Went on to page 2.
8:11:56 PM Callahan Asked if there were any developments on CARD.
8:12:08 PM Mayor Answered that Badasch is on vacation and will be back on September 6th, and he is supposed to contact Gulledge. Stated the petition drive continues, and people continue to come in to sign it. Stated he received an offer for a fifth piece of land, so there are now five pieces of land to discuss with Badasch. Went on with comments on page 2.
8:12:48 PM Schmidt Asked if Petroff got started.
8:13:01 PM Gulledge Answered the construction meeting would be held Thursday, September 1st. Stated it is supposed to start next week. Went on to page 3. There were no comments. Went on to page 4. There were no comments. Mayor commented if anyone has a chance they should check out the Outreach Center. Stated the shingles would be installed Friday. Invited comments from the citizens in attendance.
8:14:30 PM Lawrence Oberkfell 125 3rd Street. Issued a complaint about construction people dumping items in his yard. Stated that today ruts were made in his yard by construction equipment in order to cut down a tree.
8:16:16 PM Gulledge Stated Public Works will check on this and find out who did the damage. Stated he would get the IDOT phone number for Mr. Oberkfell to call to complain.
8:17:50 PM Garcia Stated for the media that First Baptist Church in Maryville on September 11th is having a Special Service for all fireman and police officers in Maryville, Troy, Collinsville, and Edwardsville and the Madison County Sheriff's Department. All service men and their families are invited to the service and to a dinner to be offered afterwards.
8:18:17 PM Gulledge With nothing further to come before the Board, called for a motion to adjourn. Limberg made the motion to adjourn, and Schmidt made the second. Voting on the motion: Limberg - yes; Schmidt - yes; Callahan - yes; Kostyshock - yes; Garcia - yes.
8:18:38 PM   The meeting ended.

Respectfully submitted,

Thelma Long, Village Clerk


Produced by FTR Log Notes

The Village of Maryville