HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 02/09/1994 - City Council "1 REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 9, 1994
The Regular Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order
by Mayor Cuda on Wednesday, February 9, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Center. At roll call the following Aldermen
were present: Bolger, Locke, Bates, Lawson, Baird. Absent: None. City
Staff in attendance were: City Clerk Gilpin, City Administrator
Peterson, City Attorney McArdle, and Attorney Andrew Freund from the law
firm of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood and McArdle. Absent: Chief of Police
Joyce, Director of Public Works Batt, Director of Building and Zoning
Lobaito, and Director of Parks and Recreation Merkel.
Mayor Cuda announced that the Council had decided at the beginning of
the year that the second meeting of the month would be held as a workshop
meeting to discuss various planning and development issues in detail.
Members of the McHenry Economic Development Commission had been asked to
attend this meeting to introduce its members and detail the past history
of the Economic Development Commission and what its mission was in
working for economic development in the City of McHenry.
-� TEN MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION
L� No one signed up to speak during the ten minute public input session.
McHENRY AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Chairman Daniel Curran of the Economic Development Commission (EDC)
and past EDC Chairmen Kathleen Marinangel and Kit Carstens addressed the
Council to explain the mission of the EDC, its past accomplishments, and
its current goals. Following the presentation, there was a question and
answer period between the Council and the EDC speakers.
It was the consensus that the Council would like to meet in the
future for further discussion and to establish a definite policy as to
what kind of growth, and how to foster that growth in the future. The
Council expressed a desire to work with the EDC for betterment of the
community.
ANNEXATION EAST OF THE FOX RIVER
In 1992, the City Council, McHenry Area Economic Development
Commission, and the McHenry Area Chamber of Commerce unanimously agreed
that the City should consider annexation of the property east of the Fox
+`y River along Route 120 to Chapel Hill Road.
An informal poll of that area was conducted by Joe Gausden of the
McHenry Area Economic Development Commission to determine property
owner's interest for voluntary annexation. Mr. Gausden was at the
meeting tonight to answer questions. His survey indicated there was an
interest in annexing to the City, however the single most asked question
was when, how, and if the City would extend sanitary sewer service to the
properties.
A large scale map, which showed the individual properties along Route
120 was displayed at the Council meeting for review. Other information
presented at the meeting included sanitary sewer detail work completed by
Baxter & Woodman as to how sewer service could be brought east of the
River. The estimated cost was $2.8 million.
Also distributed was a copy of the petition presented to the
individual property owners and the businesses which indicated they wished
to voluntarily annex to the City. City Staff also contacted the Illinois
Department of Revenue(IDOR) to determine the local sales tax revenue
that would accrue to the City if the businesses along Route 120 were
annexed. The 1991 Sales Tax Revenue figure was approximately $177,000.
It is believed the tax figures for 1993 would be closer to $200,000 for
sales tax. A letter has been sent to IDOR for updated tax information
for calendar years 1992 and 1993.
February 9, 1994 Page 2
Harold Warren of Warren & Associates has worked with the City on
previous bond issues. He prepared a bried outline to illustrate the .,
feasibility of financing an additional revenue bond to construct sewer
mains proposed for the territory to be annexed. His correspondence
indicated that it was feasible.
In attendance to answer legal questions were City Attorney David
McArdle and an associate from his firm, Attorney Andrew Freund. Freund
had previously done similar work in Algonquin concerning annexing across
the Fox River. Freund advised that a letter would be needed from the
Governor's office in order to annex across the Fox River. A question
arose as to whether annexation of the river should be requested along the
City's corporate limits north and south, or just annexed within the
territory to be annexed along the Pearl Street and Route 120 bridges. He
also said that in order to annex, 51% of the owners, and 51% of the
electors have to agree to annexation.
Freund said that if the City initiates the annexation proceedings, it
would have to go to a referendum. However, if the petition is filed by
property owners east of the river, that petition could be filed with the
County Clerk. A Court hearing would be held on that petition and the
City could file a petition to intervene. Then the City could control the
actual Court process. When the Court says the City has a valid petition, --�
it would be up to the City to say whether or not it wanted to accept the
annexation petition.
Motion by Locke, seconded by Baird, to authorize the staff to make
formal contact with the Governor's office, gather information relative to
the annexation procedure for crossing the Fox River, obtain estimates of
costs, and then present the information to the Council before final
action is taken.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Locke, Lawson, Baird.
Voting Nay: Bates.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Attorney Freund outlined four objections that could be presented to
the Courts by those opposing the annexation:
(1) The property is not contiguous to the McHenry City limits;
(2) There is not an adequate description of the property to be annexed;
(3) The petition did not contain 51% of the owners, and 51% of the
electors in the area;
(4) If an owner does not wish to be annexed to the City and his property
lies within the territory to be annexed but his property is located
on the edge of the territory to be annexed, that owner could say that
he does not wish to be annexed, even if it is described in the
annexation petition. He can withdraw from that annexation as long as
it does not ruin the contiguity of the remaining parcels.
It was suggested that a public meeting be held with the people along
Route 120 who would be affected by the annexation. Questions of those
people need to be answered before the City could proceed. Questions to
be answered will likely be: Will I be able to use my property as it is
today? What will the Zoning be? How would that affect future expansion
of my business?
City Administrator Peterson noted the City has engineering and bond
figures which seem to indicate that the project could move forward. Bond
payments would be increased toward the end of the 15 year period, but if
additional commercial growth takes place in that area, the increased
sales tax could offset those larger payments.
It was pointed out that this process will be extensive since legal
descriptions on all of the parcels to be annexed must be obtained, along 14"
with legals for annexing across the Fox River. Title Reports will also
be necessary to determine that the petitioners are the owners of the
property involved.
February 9, 1994 Page 3
It would take approximately 6 months to get construction engineering
plans and that would cost form $200,000 to $300,000, Peterson said.
There are some up front costs that need to be paid before the bond issue
comes in. That money could be taken temporarily out of the Water and
Sewer Capital Improvement Fund, and paid back at a later time.
It was the direction of the Mayor and the Council to move forward on
the project.
Seven steps were outlined in order to proceed:
(1) Conduct a public meeting;
(2) Identify the owners with property identification numbers;
(3) Research land and improved property values to answer tax questions;
(4) Obtain current sales tax information;
(5) Present complete plan in determination of zoning there;
(6) Present sanitary sewer map and explanation from engineer on
implementation of the sewer project;
(7) Establish a time frame.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Bates, seconded by Lawson, to adjourn.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Locke, Bates, Lawson, Baird.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
CITY CLER MAYOR