HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 11/12/1992 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1992
A Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order by
Mayor Busse on Monday, November 12, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Center. At roll call the following Aldermen
were present: Lieder, Locke, Bolger, Donahue, Serritella, Patterson,
Adams, Smith. City Staff in attendance: Assistant to City Clerk Marth,
City Administrator Peterson, Director of Parks and Recreation Merkel,
Director of Building and Zoning Lobaito. Absent: City Clerk Gilpin,
Chief of Police Joyce, Director of Public Works Batt, Attorney Narusis.
Also in attendance were Gerald Harker, President, Illinois Division,
Centex Homes and Attorney Fred I. Feinstein of McDermott, Will & Emery,
representing Centex. The purpose of the continued meeting was to
consider a proposal from Centex Corporation for development and
annexation of the Fritsch Farm (522 acres) known as "Deerpath", located
on the southeast corner of Bull Valley and Crystal Lake Roads. The
petitioner proposes to bring 444 acres of the property into the City as a
Planned Unit Development and the remaining 78 acres, located east of the
railroad tracks, as business park zoning. This continued meeting was not
to negotiate the terms and conditions of an annexation agreement, but to
consider the concept plan proposed by Centex and provide direction to the
developer.
Mayor Busse recognized Lucy Fick of 2919 Regner Road, McHenry,
President of School District #15, who desired to speak to the Council.
Ms. Fick said she represented McHenry schools and implored the Council to
consider the children of McHenry. She stated the schools were full and
since the referendum failed, they could not accomodate any more
residential developments. She asked the Council, when working with new
developers, to either give the schools financial backing to educate the
children, or to slow things down so they could catch up. She stated that
District 15 was on the verge of bankruptcy and the High School was right
behind them.
Alderman Locke asked Ms. Fick what type of financing would be
acceptable and Ms. Fick answered anything that would basically pay for
itself. She said that the impact fees generated only paid for about 20%
of just the bricks and mortar. There is no money to build schools, buy
textbooks or pay teachers' salaries. She requested, as a minimum, a
complete building.
In his November 6, 1992 memorandum to the Council, Mayor Busse put
forth the following questions, which would provide a basis for further
discussion at this meeting:
1. Does the City wish to proceed with this development as proposed,
and direct the PUD Review Committee to consider the development
and forward specific recommendations to the Council at the
conclusion of their hearings?
2. Recognizing that under a PUD zoning classification the Council
has the authority to grant variations in lot sizes, provided the
development meets the criteria set forth in the PUD zoning
regulations, is the proposal to have the City accept 516 single
family lots (sizes of 8,400 square feet) acceptable?
3. Recognizing that any debt incurred wlll be financed by a bond
issue payable exclusively from revenues generated by the golf
course operations, does the Council want to pursue a
residential/business park/commercial/golf course development as
proposed, with the City being required to finish the golf course
at an estimated cost of $2.5 million?
Locke, referring to the minutes of October 5, asked if the developer
was still meeting with the schools. Harker stated that they would meet
further with the schools pending direction from the City Council.
Motion by Locke, seconded by Serritella, to adjourn the meeting until
the school system has an agreement with the developer that the developer
will take care of the buildings, staffing and supplies due to the impact
of the development.
November 12, 1992 Page 2.
Lengthy discussion followed as to: (1) who the developer should
negotiate with first - the City or the Schools, which would be a change
in Council procedure if it were the Schools; (2) whether the developer
would donate money to build, supply and staff a new school; (3) whether
the City should put a temporary moratorium on annexing new property and
new construction of homes; (4) should the impact fees to schools be
increased; (5) whether the proposed golf course on this parcel should be
abandoned.
Motion by Locke, seconded by Patterson, to close debate and call the
question.
Voting Aye: Lieder, Locke, Donahue, Serritella.
Patterson, Smith.
Voting Nay: Bolger, Adams.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Voting on the original motion to adjourn the meeting.
Voting Aye: Locke, Patterson.
Voting Nay: Lieder, Donahue, Bolger, Serritella, Adams, Smith.
Absent: None.
Motion failed.
Alderman Locke left the meeting at 8:05 p.m. and returned at 8:10 p.m.
Alderman Lieder took up the matter of the golf course, questioning
Merkel as to whether the golf course was a high priority with the City's
limited resources. Merkel stated that the most pressing item was the
need for a recreation center to hold some of the programs, although the
Clubhouse on this golf course would be able to provide some of those
needs. Merkel said in the long term those revenues from the golf course
could help fund and support that type of a center, but that is a policy
decision that the Council would have to make.
Lieder also questioned what revenues would be generated to pay off
the bonds for the golf course. Busse said a week -day 18-hole play before
2:00 p.m. would be $20 and an 18-hole week -day after 2:00 p.m. would be
$16. The projection for week -ends and holidays would be $35, which might
be a little high. Peterson said there are also some assumptions in there
for the use of a cart, concessions and a pro -shop. He also said that the
golf course feasibility study done in 1990 basically assumed the
marketplace':and put the fees somewhat at the mid to high range for public
golf courses in the area. It was also assumed that this would be a
better playing golf course then of its public sector counterparts that
would be the competition. Lieder expressed his concern over borrowing
$2,500,000 as the City's share for the golf course, based on today's
economy.
Bolger said he felt the golf course was an intergral part of the
whole project. He said it would preserve open spaces with less room to
build houses. He believed the developer would have to do more toward
finishing off the golf course and possibly eliminate the golf driving
range which would give more land back and eliminate the many associated
expenses. There is a very definite demand for more recreation and this
is the one opportunity, maybe the only one, that the City will ever have
to get a municipal course and be a great asset to the City, Bolger said.
The City should not pass it by.
Adams said he wanted the project to proceed to the PUD Committee to
work out some of the larger detail items. He believed the drafting of an
Annexation Agreement should also be started and that the 8,400 square
foot lot size be increased. Adams felt the matter of the golf course and
the money to fund it should be put on an advisory referendum after all
the details are worked out.
Serritella said she had a problem with a development that was not
only going to impact on the schools, but with the low percentage of who
could afford to golf in today's economy, can the City justify the
spending of that kind of money. We would also be using taxpayers money
to provide a golf course for residents from all over. She felt the time
was not right for a golf course.
November 12, 1992 Page 3.
Bolger said it would not impact on people's taxes.
Busse stated that it is a revenue bond issue with monies generated
from the golf course operations to pay on the bonds.
Smith stated that the Parks and Recreation Department provided some
type of recreation for everyone and a golf course would cover a broader
number of people from the very young to the very old who pay golf. He
believed that most people in the City who are unable to play golf is
because the local course is private. This proposed course would be open
to all residents who play golf and at a lot less money. As proposed,
Smith said, this would be the only way the City could afford to have a
golf course, with the developer providing the land and a portion of the
funds to establish the course. He believed it was an excellent
opportunity.
Patterson said he believed it would have a tax impact - not by the
golf course but the 880 housing units that would be created for the
school district to absorb.
Busse said that this is not strictly a residential unit but also 75
acres of business park and 10 acres of commercial. Being a Planned Unit
Development the tax revenue generated by the non-residential units will
off -set the impact by the residential units. Busse stated it wouldn't be
dollar for dollar, but the residential alone would generate $949,696
annually in tax revenue for District 15 and $858,059 for District 156.
This is where the negotiation with the Schools should start - is that
enough or how much more do you need? Adding in the revenues from the
commercial and business park, Busse believed that this would be the most
balanced development the City has had in a long time. This is exactly
the type of managed growth that the Council has talked about.
Patterson said it was one heck of a good development but the wrong
time in history.
Smith said the City is being pressured to stop the growth but he
wondered what percentage of students come into the Schools that are City
residents and the number that come from outside the City. He wanted to
know if it was right that all the pressure bears upon the City. The
figure of 38 to 40% was given as the probable percentage of students
generated in the City.
Patterson said it was not the City's job to make money for every
developer that comes through the doors. The City's job is to protect the
interest of ,this community and its citizenry.
Mayor Busse asked Patterson if he was advocating a no -growth position.
Patterson responded that he was not but he was advocating a position
of controlled, responsible growth. Maybe what should be asked of these
developers is not to build the City a golf course, but a school.
Busse asked Patterson what he meant by controlled growth.
Patterson said that is what we should be talking about instead of the
lining up of a golf course.
The Mayor then asked the Council to give the developer some direction
as to whether they should proceed or not proceed.
Motion by Serritella, seconded by Locke, not to proceed with the
development as proposed.
Before the vote was taken, Busse asked the developer if he wished to
say anything.
Harker stated that this project would not mean 822 homes overnight,
but would span a time period of eight to ten years. He believed some
good points were made but he thought he did not hear anyone say that this
golf course and community as proposed was undesirable, only that it was
the wrong time. Good schools are a sales asset and before the Council
closes the door on this development he hoped the Council would join them
in finding solutions to the problems stated tonight.
November 12, 1992 Page 4.
Lieder asked if Serritella would amend her motion to add
reconsideration if some agreement was worked out with the schools.
Serritella said she would not feel comfortable with that because she
felt it was not just the schools, but the timing of the development.
Busse called for the vote on the motion not to proceed with the
development as proposed.
Voting Aye: Lieder, Locke, Serritella, Patterson.
Voting Nay: Donahue, Bolger, Adams, Smith.
Absent: None.
There being a tie vote, the Mayor voted No and the Motion failed.
Motion by Adams, seconded by Bolger, to send this project and
developer to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Committee for review and
detailed discussions and to add both School District representatives and
the City Administrator to the Committee.
Voting Aye: Donahue, Bolger, Adams, Smith.
Voting Nay: Lieder, Locke, Serritella, Patterson.
Absent: None.
There being a tie vote, the Mayor voted Yes and the Motion carried.
Motion by Locke, seconded by Serritella, to adjourn the meeting.
Voting Aye: Lieder, Locke, Donahue, Bolger,
Serritella, Patterson.
Voting Nay: Adams, Smith.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
/!�[%Q/LTitC— Lill
sistant to City Clerk Ma