TOWN OF NORMAL CITY HALL NORMAL, ILLINOIS PHONE: 454-2444
PROPOSED AGENDA FOR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY July 6, 2010 7:00 p.m.
6:55 p.m. Presentation to the Council by the Bloomington-Normal Asahikawa Sister Cities Committee
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. OMNIBUS VOTE AGENDA (All items under the Omnibus Vote Agenda are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussions of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the Omnibus Vote Agenda and considered as the first item after approval of the Omnibus Vote Agenda.)
A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 21, 2010
B. Approval of Town of Normal Expenditures for Payment as of June 30, 2010
C. Motion to Waive the Formal Bidding Process and Accept Two Quotes Totaling $77,227 for the Purchase of an IBM AS/400 eServer and Related Software and Hardware for Disaster Recovery from SPS Var, L.L.C.
D. Motion to Reject a Bid to Replace the Roof at the Facility Management Building Located at 207 S. Linden
E. Motion Initiating Various Amendments to the Zoning Code – Sec. 15.7-4, Sec. 15.9 (Planned Unit Development Regulations), and Sec. 15.14 (Community Design Standards)
F. Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Bloomington, McLean County and the Ecology Action Center for Solid Waste Management Services
G. Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with the Economic Development Council to Establish and Operate an Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund for Normal Businesses in Accordance with the Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program
H. Resolution to Appropriate an Additional $285,000 of the Town’s Allotment of Motor Fuel Tax Funds for the Willow Street/Ft. Jesse Road – Beech Street to Blair Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project
I. Resolution Accepting Warranty Deed from Nancy B. Kerfoot – 2010 Vernon Avenue Bridge and Road Project
J. Ordinance Amending a Special Use Permit for Church Purposes – Heartland Community Church (1811 N. Linden)
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM OMNIBUS VOTE AGENDA
GENERAL ORDERS
6. None
NEW BUSINESS
7. None
CONCERNS
ADJOURNMENT
ADDENDUM
Minutes of the June 17, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Omnibus Vote
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE NORMAL TOWN COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, NORMAL CITY HALL, 100 EAST PHOENIX AVENUE, NORMAL, MCLEAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS – MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2010.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Chris Koos called the regular meeting of the Normal Town Council to order at 7:10 p.m., Monday, June 21, 2010.
2. ROLL CALL:
The Clerk called the roll with the following persons physically PRESENT: Mayor Chris Koos and Councilmembers Sonja Reece, Jeff Fritzen, Chuck Scott, Jason Chambers, and Cheryl Gaines. Also present were City Manager Mark Peterson, Deputy City Manager Pamela Reece, Corporation Counsel Steve Mahrt, and Town Clerk Wendy Briggs. ABSENT: Councilmember Adam Nielsen.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Koos led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. OMNIBUS VOTE AGENDA:
Mayor Koos excused himself from voting on any bills he may have incurred while performing his Mayoral duties. Councilmember Reece excused herself from voting on any bills submitted by Advocate BroMenn Healthcare and any expenses she may have incurred while performing Council duties. Mayor Koos announced Item L had been withdrawn from the Agenda.
Item H was removed from the Omnibus Vote Agenda.
MOTION:
Councilmember Gaines moved, seconded by Councilmember Scott, the Council Approve the Omnibus Vote Agenda.
AYES: Reece, Fritzen, Scott, Chambers, Gaines, Koos. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Nielsen. Motion declared carried.
A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2010: Omnibus Vote.
B. APPROVAL OF TOWN OF NORMAL EXPENDITURES FOR PAYMENT AS OF JUNE 16, 2010: Omnibus Vote.
COUNCIL MINUTES -2- JUNE 21, 2010
C. MOTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A TRANSPORT TRUCK TRAILER FROM THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 FOR THE RECYCLE PROGRAM AND APPROVE AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENT: Omnibus Vote.
D. MOTION TO WAIVE THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AND ACCEPT A TOTAL NET BID OF $84,089.00 FROM BOB RIDINGS FORD OF TAYLORVILLE, IL, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MAN-LIFT TRUCK REPLACEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION: Omnibus Vote.
E. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERN- MENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MCLEAN COUNTY FOR ANIMAL WARDEN SERVICES: Resolution No. 4519: Omnibus Vote.
F. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERN- MENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MCLEAN COUNTY FOR ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES: Resolution No. 4520: Omnibus Vote.
G. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR TECHNICAL PLANNING SERVICES WITH THE MCLEAN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: Resolution No. 4521: Omnibus Vote.
I. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FROM WAYNE AND LOIS HOCHSTETLER – 2010 VERNON AVENUE BRIDGE AND ROAD PROJECT: Resolution No. 4522: Omnibus Vote.
J. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR MIDWEST FIBER (422 WHITE OAK ROAD): Resolution No. 4523: Omnibus Vote.
K. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.4-3(B) OF THE ZONING CODE (GENERAL PROVISIONS – USES AND STRUCTURES): Ordinance No. 5343: Omnibus Vote.
L. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE STADIUM LIQUOR LICENSE: Withdrawn.
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM OMNIBUS VOTE AGENDA:
H. RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH MARCFIRST FOR LITTER COLLECTION SERVICES IN THE UPTOWN AND APPROVAL OF A FY-2010-11 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT: Resolution No. 4524:
MOTION:
Councilmember Reece moved, seconded by Councilmember Fritzen, the Council Adopt a Resolution Approving a Three-Year Agreement with Marcfirst for Litter
COUNCIL MINUTES -3- JUNE 21, 2010
Collection Services in the Uptown and Approval of a FY-2010-11 Budget Adjustment.
Councilmember Reece commented on the relationship between the Town and Marcfirst. Community Development/Purchasing Director Steve Westerdahl highlighted the changes to the contract from the previous contract, which include cleaning the cigarette receptacles in the Uptown area, as well as cleaning the gum off the sidewalks in the area. General Council discussion ensued.
AYES: Fritzen, Scott, Chambers, Gaines, Reece, Koos. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Nielsen. Motion declared carried.
GENERAL ORDERS
6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH RIVER CITY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,880,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORMAL MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND CITY HALL PROJECT: Resolution No. 4525:
MOTION:
Councilmember Gaines moved, seconded by Councilmember Scott, the Council Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Contract with River City Construction, LLC, in the Amount of $24,880,000 for the Construction of the Normal Multimodal Transportation Center and City Hall Project.
Mayor Koos commented this project was the last key project in the Uptown area and indicated he was looking forward to starting this project. Mayor Koos further offered comments on the funding the Town received from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant program.
Councilmember Scott commented on the excellent process the Town used in evaluating the bids submitted. City Manager Mark Peterson acknowledged key staff and consultants that had worked hard on this project, as well as the numerous elected officials that had supported the Town in its quest to obtain funding for the project.
AYES: Scott, Chambers, Gaines, Reece, Fritzen, Koos. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Nielsen. Motion declared carried.
NEW BUSINESS
7. CONCERNS:
COUNCIL MINUTES -4- JUNE 21, 2010
1. AMERICAN SOLAR CHALLENGE:
Councilmember Reece commented on the American Solar Challenge Car Race that is coming through Normal this weekend and encouraged the citizens of Normal to come out and show support of this event. Mrs. Reece further indicated Illinois State University had a vehicle in the Challenge.
2. STEVE WESTERDAHL:
City Manager Mark Peterson congratulated Community Development/Purchasing Director Steve Westerdahl on his upcoming retirement and thanked him for his valuable service over the years to the Town.
8. MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Koos called for a Motion to Adjourn to Executive Session to Approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2010, Executive Session and to Discuss Matters Pertaining to Collective Bargaining.
MOTION:
Councilmember Gaines moved, seconded by Councilmember Chambers, the Regular Meeting of the Normal Town Council be Adjourned to Executive Session to Approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2010, Executive Session and to Discuss Matters Pertaining to Collective Bargaining.
AYES: Chambers, Gaines, Reece, Fritzen, Scott, Koos. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Nielsen. Motion declared carried.
Mayor Chris Koos adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Normal Town Council to Executive Session to Approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2010, Executive Session and to Discuss Matters Pertaining to Collective Bargaining at 7:35 p.m., Monday, June 21, 2010.
Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 1
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount General Fund AMERENIP STARK PORTION $109.12 EVERGREEN FS INC. DIESEL FUEL 7402 GAL @$2. $19,896.61 EVERGREEN FS INC. UNLEADED FUEL 8006 GAL @$ $18,623.57 ONSRUD, CRAIG PRO SHOP INV PMT 5/30-6/1 $2,624.17 ONSRUD, CRAIG PRO SHOP TAX PMT 5/30-6/1 $183.54 ILCMA FARR AND ASSOCIATES $500.00 General Fund Total $41,937.01 General Fund Mayor & Council Administration EYE TO EYE PRODUCTIONS COUNCIL MTGS- MAY/JUNE $3,000.00 DARNALL PRINTING BUSINESS CARDS - C SCOTT $37.00 MCLEAN CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2010 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE $10.00 YWCA OF MCLEAN COUNTY WOMEN OF DISTINCTION $60.00 General Fund Mayor & Council Administration Total $3,107.00 General Fund Administration - City Mgr City Manager PETERSON, MARK ILCMA - CONF REIMB $616.05 General Fund Administration - City Mgr City Manager Total $616.05 General Fund Administration - City Mgr Uptown Project AMERENIP 108 E BEAUFORT $291.15 AMERENIP TOWN PORTION $109.12 OLD TIME JAM MARKET ENTERTAINMENT 7 6 $50.00 LAGRASSA ENTERTAINMENT MARKET ENTERTAINMENT 6 29 $250.00 General Fund Administration - City Mgr Uptown Project Total $700.27 General Fund Administration - City Mgr General Expense Dept. MILLIMAN INC ACTUARIAL VALUATION $5,781.00 MILLIMAN INC ACTUARIAL VALUATIONS $8,934.00 OLD HOUSE SOCIETY 2010 MEMBERSHIP DUES $500.00 ADVOCATE BROMENN MEDICAL CENTER WELLNESS PROGRAM - JUNE $6,187.37 Illinois State University CENSUS PROMOTIONS $1,988.60 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON FOOD/BEV PROCESSING FEE $781.82 COUNTRY ACRES LAND CORP QRTLY SALES TAX REBATE $149,157.45 MEIJER QRTLY SALES TAX REBATE $51,013.04 HOME DEPOT (FINANCE USE ONLY) QRTLY SALES TAX REBATE $13,346.50 CONKLO CONCRETE INC 2 APPROACHES- 413 RAAB $1,977.62 MISC FIRE DEPT AMBULANCE REIMBURSEMENT $436.00 JODIE BUSHUE REFUND/CLASS CANCELLED $70.00 GABRIEL MONTES PROGRAM REFUND DUE TO ILL $300.00 HUSTON JAMES REFUND FOR PROGRAM CANCEL $70.00 LAUREN CARTER DAY CAMP REFUND $80.00 ISU-CEMAST PROGRAM FV POOL RENTAL REFUND $750.00 ALEXANDER LUMBER COMPANY TRT LUMBER, PRIMEGUARD $1,190.22 General Fund Administration - City Mgr General Expense Dept. Total $242,563.62 General Fund Corporation Counsel Administration WEST GROUP IL COMP STATE BAR 2009 $146.00 General Fund Corporation Counsel Administration Total $146.00 General Fund Facility Management Administration Tom Lentz SAFETY GLASSES $300.00 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $1,684.29 AMERENIP 900 S LINDEN $63.89 NICOR GAS 305 S LINDEN #201 $33.60 NICOR GAS 305 S LINDEN #C $34.89 NICOR GAS 305 S LINDEN #102 $31.15 NICOR GAS 305 S LINDEN #202 $23.77 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP WATER TOWER 2280800 $62.29 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $3,391.06 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $41.43 AMERENIP 0926085004 112 PARKINSO $51.03 NICOR GAS 100 PARKINSON $3.91 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $53.20 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 2
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount AMBASSADOR WINDOW CLEANING WINDOW SRV - CAC $130.00 AMBASSADOR WINDOW CLEANING CITY HALL, NPD $340.00 PROFESSIONAL ELECTRIC 1/3 HP SMITH MOTOR (FDII) $202.43 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP RE-KEY CYLINDER (F/MGMT) $8.75 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO PAINT, SUPPLIES $77.74 BACON PLUMBING FIX LEAKING PIPE - EAC $125.45 WILCOX ELECTRIC & SERVICE INC AIR COMPRESSOR SVC-611BRN $960.57 WILCOX ELECTRIC & SERVICE INC SERVICE - NFD1 $401.50 CHIEF CITY MECHANICAL INC TEST BACKFLOW DEVICES $80.00 DIRECT FITNESS SOLUTIONS REPAIRS (NPD) $165.00 CENTRAL SUPPLY CO EA FLOOD SUCKER (TOW125) $34.00 MENARDS HOOKS $17.99 MENARDS FLUOR STRIP, HEX BALL, $82.19 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 CARPET RUNNER - CDM $53.10 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 CARPET RUNNER - CDM $53.10 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 CARPET RUNNER - CDM $53.10 SUNRISE SUPPLY WET MOP $21.20 General Fund Facility Management Administration Total $8,580.63 General Fund Purchasing Office Supply HASLER INC FOLDER (7/1-9/30)- CHALL $282.00 HASLER INC FOLDER-611 ANX(JUL-SEP) $150.00 W M PUTNAM COMPANY CREDIT- JUMBO CLIPS ($89.94) W M PUTNAM COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES- C HALL $234.17 W M PUTNAM COMPANY JUMBO CLIPS $14.99 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS COPIER STAPLES $78.00 QUILL CORPORATION 3HOLE PUNCH, MARKERS, PEN $58.59 QUILL CORPORATION LEGAL/LETTER STORAGE BX $206.98 QUILL CORPORATION ENVELOPES, ENDTAB POCKET $101.68 MIDLAND PAPER 20CS RECYC COPY PAPER $768.80 General Fund Purchasing Office Supply Total $1,805.27 General Fund Information Technology Administration VERIZON WIRELESS - PA ACCT 486055053-00001 $313.51 VERIZON NORTH ACCT 12 1184 2781306525 0 $296.37 VERIZON NORTH ACCT 12 1184 2792080605 0 $30.49 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ACCT 183003087 $8,178.71 VERIZON - NJ ACCT 1410420866-10158 $470.00 KOOS, CHRIS MONTHLY PHONE REIMBURSEME $129.65 CDW GOVERNMENT INC HP INK (BLK) $101.26 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC INK CARTS $47.94 MNJ TECHNOLOGIES DIRECT INC CLP DRMWR WIN LIC $782.00 General Fund Information Technology Administration Total $10,349.93 General Fund Human Resources Administration BROMENN MEDICAL GROUP EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL $1,105.00 General Fund Human Resources Administration Total $1,105.00 General Fund Police Administration GALLS INC S/S POLO W/BACK DESIGN $112.92 RAY O'HERRON CO INC HAT STRAP (5) $58.77 RAY O'HERRON CO INC RADIO CASE $24.95 RAY O'HERRON CO INC INNER/VELCRO BELT $20.95 RAY O'HERRON CO INC PANTS,SHIRTS, CAP, H/STRP $272.41 RAY O'HERRON CO INC BADGES ( COMM BAR ) $218.94 RAY O'HERRON CO INC BELT $38.82 RAY O'HERRON CO INC WMNS PANTS, GLOVE POUCH $131.85 RAY O'HERRON CO INC PANTS $231.80 RAY O'HERRON CO INC COMM BAR-MERIT BADGES $158.09 MENARDS VEST HANGERS, U-BOLTS $58.47 10-8 OUTFITTERS BOOTS $152.99 10-8 OUTFITTERS BOOTS, BADGE HOLDER $320.37 10-8 OUTFITTERS BOOTS $116.99 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 3
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount Officer Steve Koscielak BIKE SHOES $50.00 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $49.16 PURITAN SPRINGS WATER SERVICE- 6/10 $7.00 SEYFARTH, SHAW ATTORNEYS PD LEGAL SERVICES $474.21 STERICYCLE INC JUNE MONTHLY FEE $36.59 U.S.BANK CID BACKGROUND INFO $50.00 PRAIRIE OAK VETERINARY CENTER K9 CARE- RICO (6/22) $170.58 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $79.10 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER REBUILD/REPAIR - NPD $42.00 U.S.BANK TRAVEL/TRNG. EXPENSES $1,291.65 U.S.BANK TRAVEL/TRNG. EXPENSES $1,053.55 U.S.BANK TRAVEL/TRNG. EXPENSES $518.51 U.S.BANK TRAVEL/TRNG. EXPENSES $264.43 U.S.BANK STAFF & COMMAND TRAVEL/TR $2,757.87 VOHNE LICHE KENNELS INC K9 RECERTIFICATION $1,200.00 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN HANGING POCKET FOLDERS/PE $60.39 ULTRAMAX AMMUNITION FEDERAL 12GA/AMMUNITION $288.00 U.S.BANK RANGE TARGETS $560.00 Officer Jeremy Flood YOUTH PROGRAM SUPPLIES $39.43 General Fund Police Administration Total $10,910.79 General Fund Police Narcotics Enforcement IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201002 $172.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS $65.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201002 $246.05 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 200918 $475.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 200917 $90.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201000 $320.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201001 $1,076.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201001 $1,910.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201000 $430.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFETIURE FUNDS - 201000 $224.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 200918 $30.60 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201000 $2,405.00 IL STATE POLICE/ASSET SEIZURE FORFEITURE FUNDS - 201000 $7,583.00 General Fund Police Narcotics Enforcement Total $15,026.65 General Fund Fire Prevention DARNALL PRINTING BUSINESS CARDS - MATT $44.00 General Fund Fire Prevention Total $44.00 General Fund Fire Foreign Fire Tax MENARDS BUILDING PARTS/FD $462.32 MENARDS MISC BUILDING PARTS/FD $151.21 MENARDS GAS VALVE,COUPLING/FD $8.63 MR. JON HAUGE GRIDDLES STATION 2 & 3 $62.37 General Fund Fire Foreign Fire Tax Total $684.53 General Fund Fire Administration T/N FIRE PENSION FUND PAYROLL SUMMARY $43.56 CLASSIC APPAREL INC FD SWEATSHIRTS $183.00 SCOTT DANIELSON CLOTHING $44.92 MISC FIRE DEPT MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL $60.00 ACCUMED BILLING INC MAY SERVICE $6,684.30 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $840.19 AMERENIP PINE ST. SIREN $24.22 AMERENIP KINGSLEY ST. SIREN $24.24 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP RAAB RD SIREN $32.28 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP W. COLLEGE SIREN $27.14 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP PARKSIDE SIREN $28.86 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP IRONWOOD SIREN $26.64 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP STATION 3 $822.85 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP CD SIREN $27.43 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 4
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $755.48 RANEY TERMITE CONTROL INC MONTHLY SVC- NFD X3 $100.50 U S MECHANICAL SERVICES AIR CONDITIONER SERVICE $41.00 SCBAS INC HANDWHEEL BEARING,O-RING $48.25 GLOBAL EMERGENCY PRODUCTS INC REPAIRS TO SNORKEL 10/FD $7,067.50 FERNO-WASHINGTON INC REPAIR STRECTHER $200.00 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS-PALATINE HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS $1,098.90 CARLOS AGUILAR ADVANCE MEALS 2 WEEKS $285.00 MENARDS CORNER IRON $8.95 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC LEAD REFILL (NFD) $3.64 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER BATTERIES $105.80 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER BATTERIES $39.98 MILLER JANITOR SUPPLY DISH DETERGENT $49.33 KAEB SANITARY SUPPLY INC BOWL CLEANER,TOWLES/FD $41.10 MENARDS LP TANK/FD $17.82 ADVOCATE BROMENN MEDICAL CENTER PHARMACY CHARGES (#04790) $400.47 General Fund Fire Administration Total $19,133.35 General Fund Public Works Public Benefit F&W LAWN CARE & LANDSCAPING MOWING SRV- 301 FLORENCE $98.00 F&W LAWN CARE & LANDSCAPING MOWING - 1711 TAFT $128.00 F&W LAWN CARE & LANDSCAPING MOWING - 105 W POPLAR $141.00 General Fund Public Works Public Benefit Total $367.00 General Fund Public Works Waste Removal AMERICAN PEST CONTROL MONTHLY PIGEON SRV $170.00 VINTAGE TECH RECYCLERS INC ELECTRONIC RECYCLE $218.65 CENTRAL ILLINOIS TRUCKS INC HUB CAP $9.81 MENARDS HEX SLEEVES, SOCKETS $7.72 MENARDS STOP RUST, GFI WR/TR $26.20 MENARDS SHOVEL, RAKES, BRUSHES $38.30 CROWLEY ENGINEERING GROUP LLC 32GAL TRASH BIN $135.00 General Fund Public Works Waste Removal Total $605.68 General Fund Public Works Administration SEYFARTH, SHAW ATTORNEYS PUBLIC WORKS LEGAL SERVIC $656.25 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $951.31 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $1,804.19 General Fund Public Works Administration Total $3,411.75 General Fund Public Works Equipment Maintenance CINTAS CORPORATION #396 TWLS/SUPPLIES - PUB WKS $49.00 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 TWLS/SUPPLIES - PUB WRK $49.00 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 TWLS/SUPPLIES - PUB WKS $49.00 BLOOMINGTON BTB DISC PAD SET $52.56 CENTRAL ILLINOIS TRUCKS INC TENSIONER REPAIR- UNIT 11 $390.68 DENNISON CORPORATION HUB CAP $41.91 DENNISON CORPORATION AIR BAG INDICATOR LIGHT $125.40 DENNISON CORPORATION DRYER - N62 $59.99 DENNISON CORPORATION PUMP DRIVER - N71 $86.65 DENNISON CORPORATION FUEL PUMP - N71 $261.26 DENNISON CORPORATION REPAIRS - FORD TAURUS $474.67 FASTENAL COMPANY CARB CLEANER,CABLE TIE $273.18 FASTENAL COMPANY AG DRILL $274.80 FASTENAL COMPANY AG DRILL $107.46 FASTENAL COMPANY CLNR TWLS, CLAMP ASST $35.62 JOPAC COMPANIES FITTINGS (S46) $34.63 JOPAC COMPANIES HAND TOOL (SHOP) $4.99 JOPAC COMPANIES FITTINGS (A-15) $27.70 JOPAC COMPANIES FITTING (A13) $13.41 KEY EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CO MAIN BROOM BEARINGS (2) $210.92 MUTUAL WHEEL CO BRAKES - S29 $115.18 MUTUAL WHEEL CO B.U. LAMP $6.23 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 5
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount MUTUAL WHEEL CO SLACK ADJUSTER- ENG 11 $89.25 NAPA AUTO PARTS REMFG P/S PUMP $64.89 NAPA AUTO PARTS GRINDER DISCS $71.58 PETERSEN INDUSTRIES INC HYD PIPES $128.16 RAY O'HERRON CO INC 75W-4HEAD POWER SUPPLY $296.72 DON OWEN TIRE SERVICE 4-FIRESTONE TIRES $294.28 DON OWEN TIRE SERVICE 2 TRANSMASTER TIRES $158.18 DON OWEN TIRE SERVICE 4 FIRESTONE TIRES $294.28 MAAS RADIATOR REPAIR A/C CONDENSER- S18 $41.65 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 2- MHD BATTERIES $338.58 MORGAN DISTRIBUTING INC GREASE $104.59 MIDWEST EQUIPMENT II STARTER ROPE $2.00 PRAIRIE ARCHWAY INT'L TRUCKS STARTER MOTOR - S17 $309.21 PRAIRIE ARCHWAY INT'L TRUCKS ALTERNATOR, CLAMPS $288.32 PRAIRIE ARCHWAY INT'L TRUCKS SENSOR (S26) $39.31 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC REFRIGRNT, COUPLER BODY $172.07 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC BALL JOINT, COIL SPRNG, $235.86 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC BRAKE ROTORS $84.54 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC STRUT MOUNT $32.49 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC BLOWER MTR RESISTOR $11.59 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC ELEC FUEL PUMP (S-44) $53.99 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC BRAKE PARTS - B7 $315.38 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS OF BLM IL INC BEARINGS $21.02 GLOBAL EMERGENCY PRODUCTS INC BRAKE PAD KIT $622.51 PETERBILT ILLINOIS EXHAUST CLAMPS (SHOP) $11.60 General Fund Public Works Equipment Maintenance Total $6,826.29 General Fund Public Works Streets MENARDS LEATHER GLOVES $12.88 BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC REPAIR RMA EDI (2) $220.00 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $32,440.34 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP STREET LIGHTS $7,120.34 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $2,263.71 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP TRAFFIC SIGNALS $611.99 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $20.84 BLOOMINGTON BTB DEGREASER $130.00 BLOOMINGTON BTB DEGREASER $130.00 CLARK & BARLOW PITCH FORKS (PW) $66.48 FASTENAL COMPANY SPINDLE, GEARCASE CVR, $49.35 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP 2- FORD KEYS (PW/ST) $5.58 MENARDS PAVER SAND, MORTAR MIX $36.65 MENARDS PROPANE CYLINDERS $5.76 MENARDS AGENDA BOOK, PADFOLIO $16.95 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 1.2V BATTERY (#9264) $3.59 TRAFFIC SIGN STORE VARIOUS PARKING SIGNS $791.50 TRAFFIC SIGN STORE WET PAINT SIGNS $1,109.50 TRAFFIC SIGN STORE CHERRY,WALNUT- SIGNS $138.00 TRAFFIC SIGN STORE STREET - NAME SIGNS $422.00 MCLEAN COUNTY ASPHALT COLD MIX ASPHALT $147.87 MCLEAN COUNTY ASPHALT BITUMINOUS SURFACE $2,824.17 MCLEAN COUNTY ASPHALT COLD MIX ASPHALT $277.14 MCLEAN COUNTY ASPHALT BITUMINOUS SURFACE $692.07 MCLEAN COUNTY CONCRETE FLOWABLE FILL (WINSTN CT) $330.00 MCLEAN COUNTY MATERIALS CO 3/8" PEA GRAVEL $532.00 MCLEAN COUNTY MATERIALS CO CONCRETE $542.60 General Fund Public Works Streets Total $50,941.31 General Fund Parks & Recreation Rec.- Before/After School WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $249.01 General Fund Parks & Recreation Rec.- Before/After School Total $249.01 General Fund Parks & Recreation Administration Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 6
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount PRAIRIE SIGNS INC ADOPT-A-PARK SIGN $300.00 IDNR RENEWAL-LITTLG611 S61761 $15.00 General Fund Parks & Recreation Administration Total $315.00 General Fund Parks & Recreation Recreation/Athletic Prog AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $295.79 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $797.63 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $29.78 General Fund Parks & Recreation Recreation/Athletic Prog Total $1,123.20 General Fund Parks & Recreation Recreation/Teen Programs SUMMITS EDGE TEAM BLDG - CAMP PROGRAM $255.00 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP 5 KEYS/PARKS $8.60 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP 28 STAMPED KEYS/PARKS $48.16 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR PRE-BALL SHIRTS $1,596.75 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR WEE BALL SHIRTS $103.32 READ'S SPORTING GOODS 2CS COLD PACKS $35.90 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $23.10 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $89.89 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $228.05 MORTON ROLLER RINK ADMISSIONS- P/REC 6/24 $115.00 SUNSET LANES TEEN ADVENTURE CAMP- 6/30 $154.00 RAGING WAVES LLC, SERIES B ADMISSIONS: TEEN OUTING $396.68 General Fund Parks & Recreation Recreation/Teen Programs Total $3,054.45 General Fund Parks & Recreation Golf Course NICOR GAS IRNWD CLBHSE $11.31 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP IRNWD CLBHSE $1,170.75 RANEY TERMITE CONTROL INC PEST CONTROL/IRNWD $33.25 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 CARPET, TP - IRNWOOD $29.94 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 RESTROOM SVC- IRNWD $104.25 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 TWLS/SUPPLIES- IRNWOOD $93.59 CINTAS CORPORATION #396 CARPET RUNNER,TP-IRNWD $29.94 COMCAST SPOTLIGHT INC IRNWD ADS: 4/26-5/30 $910.00 CONNOISSEUR MEDIA LLC JR GOLF/IRNWD ADS-#51730 $300.00 ILLINOIS PORTABLE TOILETS MONTHLY SRV-PARKS/IRNWD $123.00 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC DIMENSION - IRNWOOD $55.81 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $24.88 PARETO-HOLLROCK TOKENS FOR INRWD/#149621 $14.65 PARETO-HOLLROCK TOKENS FOR INRWD/#149621 $195.00 EVERGREEN FS INC. UNLEADED GAS-IRNWD/218445 $2,178.88 General Fund Parks & Recreation Golf Course Total $5,275.25 General Fund Parks & Recreation Recreation/Youth Programs MINERVA SPORTSWEAR FV DAY CAMP SHIRTS $27.04 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR ANDERSON DAY CAMP $27.04 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR MAXWELL DAY CAMP $27.04 FON DU LAC PARK DISTRICT ADMISSIONS-F/FRI CAMP $208.00 SAMUEL FRENCH INC "GREASE" -SCRIPT FEES $2,030.00 BYGONES PRE-FIREWORKS SHOW: FV $800.00 TODD, H MIKE THEATER PERFORMANCE- 7/8 $550.00 PERFORMING ARTS ACADEMY OF YOUTH PROGRAM- (60%) $360.00 PERFORMING ARTS ACADEMY OF YOUTH PROGRAM (60%) $840.00 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $107.83 SUMMER THEATER SUPPORTERS SIGN MAIKING SERV. $355.00 SUMMER THEATER SUPPORTERS PRINTING SERVICES $748.50 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR JR STAFF T-SHIRTS/PARKS $11.54 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR ANDERSON DAY CAMP SHIRTS $46.16 PRAIRIE SIGNS INC ANDERSON DAY CAMP SIGNS $100.00 READ'S SPORTING GOODS C/PACKS, LANYRD, WHISTLES $27.95 READ'S SPORTING GOODS C/PACKS, LANYRD, WHISTLES $27.95 READ'S SPORTING GOODS C/PACKS, LANYRD, WHISTLES $27.95 READ'S SPORTING GOODS C/PACKS, LANYRD, WHISTLES $17.95 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 7
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $141.42 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $171.25 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $140.76 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $120.26 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $120.26 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $89.66 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $3.56 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $3.56 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $78.76 SUSAN CORTESI THEATER SUPPLIES $106.90 General Fund Parks & Recreation Recreation/Youth Programs Total $7,316.34 General Fund Parks & Recreation Tournament CORN BELT ENERGY CORP CONCESS.STAND $35.03 MID-ILLINI UMPIRE ASSOCIATION ASA 14B TOURN: 7/8-11 $7,530.00 PRAIRIELAND GOLF CARS LLC CART RENTAL: 5/28-29 $200.00 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $29.44 General Fund Parks & Recreation Tournament Total $7,794.47 General Fund Parks & Recreation Theater AMERENIP ACCT # 83436-98003/THEATE $1,004.04 BUENA VISTA PICTURES DIST OVERAGE- WAKING SLEEPING $25.10 BUENA VISTA PICTURES DIST COOL RUNNINGS $488.25 TECHNICOLOR FILM MATERIALS $23.11 PARAMOUNT THEATRICAL DIST TO CATCH A THIEF $250.00 SKY COURIER INC FILM SHIPMENT $23.11 SONY PICTURES CLASSICS INC BROKEN EMBRACE, DR PARN $995.40 SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT LONELY PLACE,YOUNG VICTOR $57.90 SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT DR STRANGELOVE $250.00 STANDARD TRUCKING COMPANY FILM SRV: 5/14, 5/28 $74.75 UNIVERSAL FILM EXCHANGE INC FROST / NIXON $250.00 WARNER BROS DISTRIBUTING LONG,LONG TRAILER,CARTOON $550.00 FEDEX FILM SHIPMENTS $273.39 ZEITGEIST FILMS MID-AUGUST LUNCH $300.00 DHL AIR & OCEAN CARTOON PACK $103.98 DHL AIR & OCEAN MAN W/SHOT LIBERTY VALANC $103.98 DHL AIR & OCEAN CARTOON PACK $103.98 DHL AIR & OCEAN SHANE $97.90 DHL AIR & OCEAN MISS GRANT TAKES RICHMOND $123.00 KINO INTERNATIONAL METROPOLIS (FRITZ LANG) $350.00 FIRST RUN FEATURES INC BEHIND THE BURLY Q $300.00 MAGNOLIA PICTURES LLC MOTHER, & I AM LOVE $700.00 ANCHOR BAY ENTERTAINMENT LLC GUAR - CITY ISLAND $250.00 CURIOUSLY BRIGHT ENTERTAINMENT LLC RENTAL- PICASSO & BRAQUE $250.00 PDA EXIT LLC EXIT THRU THE GIFT SHOP $350.00 MILLER JANITOR SUPPLY TWLS,LINERS - THEATER $219.70 RIORDAN, DAWN REIMBURSEMENT FOR PRIZES/ $141.91 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CANDY- THEATER CONCESSION $1,107.68 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA - THEATER / #63019 $296.05 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $58.20 General Fund Parks & Recreation Theater Total $9,121.43 General Fund Parks & Recreation Aquatics LIFEGUARD STORE INC LADIES POLO SHIRTS- FV $200.00 ALERT SIGNAL & CONTROL CO ANNUAL SRV: ANDERSON POOL $293.00 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $178.49 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $128.90 NICOR GAS FV CONCESS $742.44 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $472.90 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $317.34 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS PVC PART - FFAC $10.97 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $388.03 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 8
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $47.60 WEAVER'S RENT-ALL 3" TRASH PUMP,HOSE- FFAC $84.00 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES PRESSURE WASH, SUPPLIES $11.14 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $48.23 U S MECHANICAL SERVICES AAC CONDENSER REPAIR/PARK $123.00 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES PRESSURE WASH, SUPPLIES $157.85 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP 24 STAMPED KEYS $20.64 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP 24 STAMPED KEYS $20.64 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP KEY TO CODE (P/REC) $51.75 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP FORT CAM LOCK ( AAC ) $6.82 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP 4 KEYS ( AAC ) $6.88 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP KEYS ( AAC ) $3.44 BILL'S KEY & LOCK SHOP 8 KEYS (STAMPED)- P/REC $13.76 DARNALL PRINTING BUS CARDS- J DICKERSON $36.50 JEFF ELLIS & ASSOCIATES INC LIC TRNSFR- HNDLNG/SHIPNG $27.00 LIFEGUARD STORE INC KICKBOARDS/PARKS $194.50 LIFEGUARD STORE INC KICKBOARDS/PARKS $38.00 LIFEGUARD STORE INC KICKBOARDS, ROPE HOOK $119.00 LIFEGUARD STORE INC MASKS, OXYGEN ADAPTERS, $1,218.00 MILLER JANITOR SUPPLY LATEX GLOVES $108.00 MILLER JANITOR SUPPLY GARBAGE LINERS- 16NPRFP $142.68 MOHR WINDOW & DOOR INC REPAIR FV CONCESS WINDOW $314.62 PRAIRIE SIGNS INC NO FOOD SIGNS- FFAC $45.00 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $15.48 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $38.11 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $25.38 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $30.85 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $122.80 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $27.85 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $18.61 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $18.62 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $139.92 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $50.44 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $46.68 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $46.68 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $5.46 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $38.53 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $18.48 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $18.48 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $10.88 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $10.88 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $4.24 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $4.24 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $35.00 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $122.31 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $35.22 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $6.00 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $2.25 HALOGEN SUPPLY CO INC DEMINERALIZER, DEGREASER, $883.24 HALOGEN SUPPLY CO INC DEMINERALIZER, DEGREASER, $883.23 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $27.35 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS LLC SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE- DSA $35.00 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS LLC SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE- DSA $88.80 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS LLC POOL CHEMICALS - FV POOL $293.97 BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH INC POOL CHEMICALS $1,062.00 BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH INC POOL CHEMICALS $1,375.00 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $161.82 General Fund Parks & Recreation Aquatics Total $11,274.92 General Fund Parks & Recreation Golf Course Maintenance Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 9
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount PRESTIGE FLAG & BANNER STITCHED LOGO FLAG $163.62 PRESTIGE FLAG & BANNER EMBROIDERED LOGO FLAGS $792.00 PRESTIGE FLAG & BANNER EMBROIDERED LOGO FLAGS $37.22 PRESTIGE FLAG & BANNER PIN PLACEMENT FLAGS $231.82 NICOR GAS IRNWD MAINT. $14.60 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP IRNWD MAINT. $360.26 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP IRNWD GOLF IRRIG. $511.73 NAPA AUTO PARTS BATT SYS TESTER $69.99 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $25.59 MIDWEST EQUIPMENT II AIR FILTER / CLEANER $40.53 ERB TURF EQUIPMENT INC OIL FILTERS, H-GARD 5GAL $219.91 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC SWELL SMELL, FLAT WASHER, $159.33 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $897.37 R & R PRODUCTS INC IRNWD COURSE SIGNS $302.30 R & R PRODUCTS INC IRNWD COURSE SIGNS $30.79 EVERGREEN FS INC. UNLEADED GAS-IRNWD/218445 $1,237.64 EVERGREEN FS INC. DIESELEX-IRNWD/2184451 $954.70 EVERGREEN FS INC. SEED MIX - IRNWD/2184451 $75.00 EVERGREEN FS INC. GRASS SEED- IRNWD/2184451 $1,812.00 AGRIUM ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES MILLENIUM ULTRA $517.88 AGRIUM ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES PROCON Z $4,200.00 General Fund Parks & Recreation Golf Course Maintenance Total $12,654.28 General Fund Parks & Recreation Children's Disc Museum AMERENIP 5/13/10 - 6/15/10 - CDM $5,442.48 NEWS GAZETTE SUMMER FUN - CDM/60886 $224.00 AM PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS INC SUMMER 2010 AD CAM-CU $513.33 CENTRAL IL TOURISM DEV OFFICE CENTRAL IL VISITORS GUIDE $450.00 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $125.72 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR 65 VOLUNTEER TEE-SHIRTS $208.85 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR STAFF TEE-SHIRTS $1,218.00 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR CAMP TEE-SHIRTS $238.24 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR CAMP TEE-SHIRTS $130.56 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $108.90 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $62.86 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $15.62 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $33.96 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $6.02 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $133.78 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $24.23 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $100.75 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $8.94 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $23.50 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $44.70 HOBBY LOBBY STORES INC CRAFT SUPPLIES - CDM $60.57 HOBBY LOBBY STORES INC CRAFT SUPPLIES - CDM $23.50 AURORA WORLD INC TOYS FOR CDM STORE $134.60 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR STORE TEE-SHIRTS $2,782.95 LEARNING RESOURCES INC CDM TOYS (INCL CREDIT) $484.27 JUST THINK TOYS INC TOYS FOR CDM STORE $180.00 JUST THINK TOYS INC TOYS FOR CDM STORE $16.20 AURORA WORLD INC TOYS FOR CDM STORE $1,640.00 NASHVILLE WRAPS LLC RIBBON,BAGS,TILES- CDM $311.38 ZING TOYS INC INV 16938 - 4 ZYCLONES $50.00 PLASMART INC PLASMA CARS (CDM STORE) $560.00 PLASMART INC PLASMA CARS (CDM STORE) $56.00 WONDER FORGE LLC DR SEUSS ITEMS - CDM $202.00 WONDER FORGE LLC DR SEUSS ITEMS - CDM $30.30 RAVENSBURGER USA TOYS FOR CDM STORE $310.75 RAVENSBURGER USA TOYS FOR CDM STORE $39.00 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 10
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount General Fund Parks & Recreation Children's Disc Museum Total $15,995.96 General Fund Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance CCP INDUSTRIES INC LEATHER GLOVES $120.00 CCP INDUSTRIES INC LEATHER GLOVES $12.93 HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES MESH LINED PARKA, PANTS $25.00 HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES MESH LINED PARKA, PANTS $135.00 HAGEMEYER NORTH AMERICA MECHANIC GLOVES $150.96 BRAD CARMEAN BOOTS $35.00 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $239.34 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $209.01 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $78.96 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $239.00 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $61.88 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $19.52 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $94.00 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP SHED @ CHAMPION $49.35 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP SIGN W.COLL $24.28 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP HORSESHOE PIT $160.10 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP SIGN-IRNWD PK $28.99 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP MXWLL W. CONCESS $2,860.10 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP IRNWD BB DIAM. $268.65 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP MAX.S. CONCESS $188.44 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP MAXWLL S.BALL S. $140.96 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP MXWELL PK SHELTER $117.07 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP MXWELL PK TENNIS $112.84 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP MXWELL FLDS 1-4 $4,236.16 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP SAFETY TOWN $20.64 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $344.74 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $206.04 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $43.48 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $429.51 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $200.13 FASTENAL COMPANY TOOLS (P/REC SHOP) $60.14 BRADFORD SUPPLY CO PV5 MALE ADAPTER $3.73 CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO ENCLOSURE, PANEL $335.71 EVERGREEN FS INC. ROUNDUP PRO (4675450) $562.00 EVERGREEN FS INC. ROUNDUP PRO - IRNWOOD $360.00 MATHIS KELLY CONSTRUCTION 2 GAL SAFETY CAN $38.70 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $199.50 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $5.15 SPRINGFIELD ELECTRIC CO 480V CONTACTOR $77.62 SPRINGFIELD ELECTRIC CO 600V OVERLOAD RELAY $51.20 TWIN CITY ELECTRIC SERVICE - IRNWD BALL FLD $157.00 AZ COMMERCIAL AUTO SUPPLIES- PARKS/REC $98.57 DON OWEN TIRE SERVICE FLAT REPAIR, MATERIAL $27.74 DON OWEN TIRE SERVICE 2 TIRES- CUB CADET $106.58 REDNECK INC 2" ATWOOD COUPLER $57.97 TEVOERT AUTO ELECTRIC CO DRIVE, SOLENOID, LABOR $143.94 MIDWEST EQUIPMENT II STIHL- REPL PLUGS, LABOR $40.57 MIDWEST EQUIPMENT II MUFFLER REPAIRS (R-64) $410.89 MIDWEST EQUIPMENT II V-BELT (TORO MOWER) $22.41 SHAYNE ADCOCK CDL LICENSE RENEWAL $50.00 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC STARGOLD $40.53 ILLINOIS PORTABLE TOILETS MONTHLY SRV-PARKS/IRNWD $1,724.00 COPY SHOP LAMINATED PLANS $10.00 CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO CONT WHITE VINYL $44.65 ILLINOIS STANDARD PARTS INC DRILL BITS, CHEMICAL, $41.76 ILLINOIS STANDARD PARTS INC NUTS,BOLTS,WASHERS, TIES, $75.15 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC CASE OF GUYSER FOR BARN $197.28 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 11
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount LAWSON PRODUCTS INC CASE OF GUYSER FOR BARN $9.44 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC SWELL SMELL/PARKS $263.76 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC SWELL SMELL/PARKS $11.35 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC TIE HOOKS, FREIGHT $35.94 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC TIE HOOKS, FREIGHT $8.17 MCLEAN COUNTY CONCRETE CONCRETE (CHAMP FLD) $415.00 MCLEAN COUNTY CONCRETE CONCRETE (FV PARK) $148.00 MCLEAN COUNTY MATERIALS CO TOP SOIL $96.96 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $327.69 MILLER JANITOR SUPPLY TRASH BAGS,URINAL SCREEN $211.83 MILLER JANITOR SUPPLY LATEX GLOVES- 16NPR $72.36 MILLER JANITOR SUPPLY TWL/TP- 16NPRMC $147.47 WOODWORKERS SHOP INC BRIDGE PLANKS $594.00 TRAFFIC SIGN STORE PARKING ON ROAD ONLY SIGN $18.50 EVERGREEN FS INC. DIESELEX-P/REC #4675450 $1,163.33 RILCO OF PEORIA INC DRUM OF OIL, DEPOSIT $581.12 GREEN VIEW NURSERY HYDRANGEA, PERENNIALS $126.94 GREEN VIEW NURSERY KORENSPICE VIBURNUM $126.28 GROWING GROUNDS HOSTA, CANNA $96.78 GROWING GROUNDS BEDDING $19.00 GROWING GROUNDS HOSTA $55.87 MENARDS SUPPLIES - PARKS & REC $9.98 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST BLUE ANGEL HOSTA $26.38 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST AUTUMN JOY SEDUM $31.96 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST K/O ROSES, PERENNIAL-1GAL $151.82 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST K/O ROSE,SW/GRASS,D/LILY $206.15 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST SALVIA (P/REC) $23.96 PAUL BRUSH TREE REFUND $60.00 SCOTT DAPPEN TREE REFUND $60.00 FASTENAL COMPANY 10P DRVR SKST $112.79 SECTY OF STATE-MOTOR VEH DIV TITLE/PLATES-FORD VAN $105.00 General Fund Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Total $21,112.70 General Fund Concessions Golf Course PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA/CUPS- IRNWD/84871 $47.28 DENNY'S DOUGHNUTS & BAKERY BAKERY GOODS - IRONWOOD $256.00 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA/CUPS- IRNWD/84871 $226.07 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA- IRNWD/84871 $266.16 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $1,432.83 CITY BEVERAGE LLC BEER ORDER - IRNWD/3100B $477.10 CITY BEVERAGE LLC BEER ORDER - IRNWD/3100B $234.70 RA-JAC DISTRIBUTING BEER ORDER - IRNWD/751 $45.00 RA-JAC DISTRIBUTING BEER ORDER - IRNWD/751 $127.50 General Fund Concessions Golf Course Total $3,112.64 General Fund Concessions Aquatics WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $40.12 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $6.86 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $30.85 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $12.67 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS - FFAC $2,349.01 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS - FFAC $683.99 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS- FV POOL $1,745.40 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA/WTR- FFAC/116859 $839.48 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $54.30 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $275.10 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $142.50 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $163.86 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $139.84 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $172.74 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $123.40 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 12
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount PAPA MURPHYS TAKE N BAKE PIZZA 80 F/SIZE PIZZA- FV POOL $599.20 General Fund Concessions Aquatics Total $7,379.32 General Fund Concessions Recreation RANEY TERMITE CONTROL INC MONTHLY-MAXWL CONCESSIONS $70.75 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $116.72 U S MECHANICAL SERVICES W/CONC A/C- CHAMP FIELD $3,800.00 COLLEGE HILLS MEAT SHOP CHOPS & CHUCK PATTIES $213.73 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS - CHAMP EAST $1,538.50 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS - CHAMP EAST $1,826.17 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS - CHAMP WEST $1,892.10 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO SNO KING ICE SHAVER $605.74 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS- CHAMP EAST $499.28 GOLD MEDAL- CHICAGO CONCESSIONS - CHAMP WEST $315.33 KOLDAIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY TABLE TOP DISPENSER $204.00 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA/WTR-MAXWELL/ #488941 $940.00 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA- MAX COMPLX/#488941 $780.94 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS SODA, - MAX COMPLX/488941 $1,101.42 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS CREDIT- EMPTIES/DEPOSIT ($150.00) WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $29.39 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $88.20 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC SUPPLIES $1,076.18 BLUE SPRINGS INC GREASE TRAPS PUMPED $350.00 General Fund Concessions Recreation Total $15,298.45 General Fund $539,939.55 Motor Fuel Tax Fund Public Works Motor Fuel Tax KERFOOT, NANCY R.O.W- 32 BROOKWOOD $2,000.00 TESTING SERVICE CORP PIPELINE ROAD $1,558.00 ROWE CONSTRUCTION WILLOW/FT JESSE RESURFACE $136,382.79 TESTING SERVICE CORP WILLOW/FT JESSE RESURFACE $165.00 Motor Fuel Tax Fund Public Works Motor Fuel Tax Total $140,105.79 Motor Fuel Tax Fund $140,105.79 Community Development Fd Community Development Administration AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $439.24 NYBAKKE VACUUM SHOP INC RICCAR CLNR, BAGS $247.98 TOWN OF NORMAL-WATER FUND UNITY CENTER $65.70 LANDMARK LAUNDRY UNITY CENTER - JULY,2010 $1,250.00 Community Development Fd Community Development Administration Total $2,002.92 Community Development Fd $2,002.92 Energy Block Grant Fund Administration - City Mgr Energy Block Grant WILCOX ELECTRIC & SERVICE INC FV MNT BLDG, BARN, PW $2,425.00 WILCOX ELECTRIC & SERVICE INC WTP, WELL DIST BLDG $65,247.00 WILCOX ELECTRIC & SERVICE INC VARIOUS PROJECTS (PH II) $75,140.00 nergy Block Grant Fund Administration - City Mgr Energy Block Grant Total $142,812.00 Energy Block Grant Fund $142,812.00 Capital Investment Fund Other-Capital Investment Capital Investment FREEDOM LAWN MAINTENANCE HYDRO SEEDING - FV PARK $900.00 FREEDOM LAWN MAINTENANCE HYDRO SEEDING- FV PARK $380.00 PRAIRIE SIGNS INC FFAC SIGNS $385.00 PRAIRIE SIGNS INC WATER SLIDE SIGNS (3) $67.50 PRAIRIE SIGNS INC ALUMINUM SIGNS - FFAC $45.00 WATERLOO TENT & TARP CO INC PERMABRELLA (FRAME/TOPS) $5,805.00 WATERLOO TENT & TARP CO INC PERMABRELLA (FRAME/TOPS) $169.99 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC (BSN) 4 ROW ALUM BLEACHERS (2) $4,998.00 STARK EXCAVATING SHEPARD PARK PROJECT $76,144.50 Capital Investment Fund Other-Capital Investment Capital Investment Total $88,894.99 Capital Investment Fund $88,894.99 Junction Center Other-Capital Investment Junction Center Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 13
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount HOERR SCHAUDT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ADD'L SRV - ROUNDABUT $855.00 HOERR SCHAUDT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT $2,570.89 Junction Center Other-Capital Investment Junction Center Total $3,425.89 Junction Center $3,425.89 Uptown Roads Other-Capital Investment Roads & Storm Sewers FASTENAL COMPANY DROP IN 1/2 WITH LIP RAMS $18.54 LAESCH ELECTRIC INC FELL STREET PROJECT $12,661.95 MATHIS KELLY CONSTRUCTION MIXING NOZZLE $5.40 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST CATMINT (UPTWN PLANTERS) $19.18 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST PETUNIA, PURPLE GRASS $190.24 OWEN NURSERY & FLORIST PURPLE FTN GRASS $107.88 Uptown Roads Other-Capital Investment Roads & Storm Sewers Total $13,003.19 Uptown Roads $13,003.19 Uptown Program/Planning Other-Capital Investment Consultants/Studies/Misc CARDOSI KIPER DESIGN GROUP VISITOR GUIDE REVISIONS $1,216.74 Program/Planning Other-Capital Investment Consultants/Studies/Misc Total $1,216.74 Uptown Program/Planning $1,216.74 Water Fund WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS FIRE HYDRANTS (14) $21,560.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS 8" TAPPING VALVE, BOX $1,002.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS TAPPING VALVES, SLEEVES $2,156.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS 8" HYDRA STOP $4,440.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS FIRE HYDRANT $1,610.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS VALVE BOX TOP, STABILIZER $196.00 FERGUSON WATERWORKS TRU/FLO CMPD MTR $2,708.34 KILLIAN, EMILY 907 SHERIDAN RD REFUND $4.14 LAKESIDE TITLE & ESCROW AGENCY.INC 15 KINGSWOOD DR REFUND $6.13 STEPPING STONE / LINDA TOBIN 302 W VERNON #3 REFUND $46.96 FAMILY CRT CNSLING% K GALLOWAY 1607 VISA DR #10 REFUND $5.83 YOUNG AMERICA 1 UNIVERSITY CT REFUND $6.57 CLASS ACT REALTY 700 N ADELAIDE #90 REFUND $57.90 CASTLEMAN, MIKE 1703 COOK DR REFUND $9.69 DOWNEN, KENNETH 1202 N LINDEN ST REFUND $5.04 AMY PENN 1533 BEECH ST #2 REFUND $49.66 CHESTNEY, CHRIS 501 PINE ST REFUND $5.02 WHITESIDE, JOHN 408 HOVEY AVE REFUND $5.79 JACKSON, MERLE 20 ARDITH DR REFUND $5.67 REDBIRD APTS%STEVE NORTHCUTT 403 N LINDEN REFUND $3.22 STEPPING STONE / LINDA TOBIN 609 S FELL #29 REFUND $103.38 ELIZABETH GRUBER 1504 HANCOCK BWF REFUND $26.95 ORTIZ, CARLOS & AMANDA 32 NORWOOD AVE REFUND $5.37 WHITE, ANDREW 360 BEECHWOOD CT REFUND $4.64 REDBIRD APARTMENTS 306 E TAYLOR ST #2 REFUND $123.75 TSM INVESTMENTS 3172 SHEPARD RD REFUND $7.67 TSM INVESTMENTS 3180 SHEPARD SW REFUND $3.37 Water Fund Total $34,159.09 Water Fund Water Administration NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS WATER ADMIN $66.00 VERIZON WIRELESS - PA ACCT 980315707-00001 $233.76 GERDES, STEVE CONF CGO, 6/20-24/10 $196.00 OFFICE DEPOT INC COVER PAPER $55.76 Water Fund Water Administration Total $551.52 Water Fund Water Capital Investment CLARK DIETZ INC WTR MAIN/WELL REPLACEMNT $1,347.95 CLARK DIETZ INC CHERRY/GRANDVIEW CONSTRCT $1,920.00 Water Fund Water Capital Investment Total $3,267.95 Water Fund Water Distribution WEST SIDE CLOTHING JEANS - PIPP / WTR $72.00 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 14
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $305.10 MCLEAN COUNTY CONCRETE CONCRETE $298.86 MCLEAN COUNTY MATERIALS CO TOP SOIL $161.92 PRAIRIE ARCHWAY INT'L TRUCKS REPAIRS - UNIT W14 $197.67 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS WATER DISTRIBUTION $1,287.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS 6,12,18" EXTENSIONS, WIRE $1,952.40 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS MANHOLE COVER, FRAME, $336.44 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS RISER BOX $288.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS 12" HYDRANT EXT $414.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS VALVE SEAT, LOWER ROD, $882.48 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS 18" METER PIT INSULATORS $84.88 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS ROD ASSEMBLY $180.52 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS HOSE NOZZLES $92.64 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS RATCHET WRENCH, REDUCER, $176.40 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS RATCHET WRENCH, REDUCER, $214.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS PIPE LUBE $143.76 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC REGENCY DRILL, HEX NUTS, $171.90 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC REGENCY DRILL, HEX NUTS, $4.63 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC REGENCY DRILL, HEX NUTS, $63.54 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC REGENCY DRILL, HEX NUTS, $63.12 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC REGENCY DRILL, HEX NUTS, $19.31 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC TIE HOOKS $35.94 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC TIE HOOKS $8.17 MENARDS SPRY RUSTOLEUM, HEXBOLT, $17.62 MENARDS DIGITAL COAX CABLE $24.94 MENARDS 20LB NORTHERN BLEND $239.94 MENARDS COAX CABLE, BATTERIES, $66.22 MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION RENTALS SAFETY VEST $16.25 Water Fund Water Distribution Total $7,819.65 Water Fund Water Treatment WEST SIDE CLOTHING JEANS- SYLVESTER / WTR $35.00 MINERVA SPORTSWEAR LADIES- WTR/DEPT SHIRTS $57.68 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $4,786.90 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP RECORDING EQUIPMENT - MAY $21.65 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP HERSHEY RD BOOSTER PUMP - $650.37 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP PUMP STATION - MAY 2010 $1,153.10 CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO TD FUSES $71.64 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $22,295.25 SPRINGFIELD ELECTRIC CO BUSDROP GRIP (WTR) $14.27 SPRINGFIELD ELECTRIC CO TD FUSES $26.68 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS WATER TREATMENT $99.00 BLOOMINGTON OFFSET PROCESS CCR REPORT POSTAGE & PRIN $8,510.80 MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION RENTALS NYLON SLINGS $31.67 MICKEY'S LINEN TWLS/SUPPLIES (#4474-1) $33.17 AZ COMMERCIAL BODY FILLER, ORNG CLNR $40.76 FASTENAL COMPANY TROD, PARTS- WTR/BLM0440 $10.46 HACH COMPANY CHEMICALS FOR WTP $1,234.04 MATHIS KELLY CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE PATCH, ADHESIVE $43.02 MATHIS KELLY CONSTRUCTION ACRYLIC ADHESIVE $13.59 MATHIS KELLY CONSTRUCTION LIME MESH VEST $16.16 MENARDS CAULK, LUMBER, P/TWL HLDR $24.05 MENARDS 4 1/2" ANGLE GRINDER $59.00 MENARDS LUMBER, SILICONE, SCREWS, $48.11 MENARDS PLSTC WOOD, DUCK PRO $9.86 ROGERS SUPPLY COMPANY THERMOSTAT $30.23 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC PENCILS $10.50 ROCKFORD INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY GRINDER WHEELS $17.73 BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH INC LIQUID CHLORINE $1,684.00 HICKMAN,WILLIAMS & COMPANY 75.66 TN LIME $10,327.59 Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 15
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount USA BLUEBOOK 55GAL OPEN-TOP TANK $315.43 Water Fund Water Treatment Total $51,671.71 Water Fund $97,469.92 Water Capital Investment Water Capital Investment SCADAWARE INC CNTRL HRDWARE-HI SRV PUMP $1,763.12 BOWEN ENGINEERING CORP CLEARWELL PROJ-FEB/MARCH $63,573.94 BOWEN ENGINEERING CORP MGMT FEES-CLEARWELL PROJ $74,641.93 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS 12" HYDRANT EXT $414.00 Water Capital Investment Water Capital Investment Total $140,392.99 Water Capital Investment $140,392.99 Sewer Fund Sewer Administration MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION RENTALS BOOTS $21.35 ANDERSON ELECTRIC INC NRTHBRDG LIFT/STA CONTRLS $259.00 ANDERSON ELECTRIC INC IRNWD L/STA BYPASS PUMP $1,341.24 AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $291.47 CORN BELT ENERGY CORP SEWAGE PUMP STATIONS $2,466.27 INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES INC ELECTRIC SERVICE $198.68 LEXINGTON FORD LLC TRUCK TEST- U26 $19.50 E J EQUIPMENT INC REPAIR KIT (PUSH CAMERA) $495.06 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS SEWER $425.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS HAND TITE PLUG $110.00 WATER PRODUCTS CO OF ILLINOIS 8" GASKET, COTTON SWAB $17.75 MATHIS KELLY CONSTRUCTION WATERSTOP HYDRAULIC CEMNT $38.16 MATHIS KELLY CONSTRUCTION GREEN PAINT $74.52 MCLEAN COUNTY CONCRETE CONCRETE (GREENBRIAR) $249.00 MENARDS PRIMER,PARTS- IRNWD L/S $47.72 MENARDS FILL & SEAL $2.99 Sewer Fund Sewer Administration Total $6,057.71 Sewer Fund Sewer Capital Investment CLARK DIETZ INC ARC FLASH STUDY (PUMPSTA) $396.00 ITT WATER & WASTEWATER USA IRNWD L/STA STNDBY PUMP $51,031.11 Sewer Fund Sewer Capital Investment Total $51,427.11 Sewer Fund $57,484.82 Sewer Replacement Fund Sewer Capital Investment ITT WATER & WASTEWATER USA IRNWD L/STA STNDBY PUMP $50,000.00 Sewer Replacement Fund Sewer Capital Investment Total $50,000.00 Sewer Replacement Fund $50,000.00 Parking Fund College Ave Parking Deck Administration AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $2,428.88 Parking Fund College Ave Parking Deck Administration Total $2,428.88 Parking Fund Beaufort St Parking Deck Administration AMERENIP ELECTRIC SERVICE $3,093.60 Parking Fund Beaufort St Parking Deck Administration Total $3,093.60 Parking Fund $5,522.48 Health & Dental Ins Fund Administration - City Mgr Health Insurance SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO OF CANADA PREMIUMS - JULY,2010 $2,790.54 Health & Dental Ins Fund Administration - City Mgr Health Insurance Total $2,790.54 Health & Dental Ins Fund $2,790.54 Gen Veh Replacement Fund Police Administration 10-8 OUTFITTERS SQUAD FLASHLIGHTS $2,382.24 CDS OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES MOBILE VIDEO SYSTEM $76,849.50 Gen Veh Replacement Fund Police Administration Total $79,231.74 Gen Veh Replacement Fund Public Works Waste Removal CITY OF BLOOMINGTON TRK TRAILER (RECYC PRGRM) $15,000.00 HALL, MIKE TRAILER LIC/S STATE $105.00 Gen Veh Replacement Fund Public Works Waste Removal Total $15,105.00 Gen Veh Replacement Fund Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Town of Normal Expenditures to be Approved for Payment as of: June 30, 2010 Page 16
Vendor Name Description Transaction Amount LANDMARK FORD '10 FORD ECONOLINE $17,512.00 Gen Veh Replacement Fund Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Total $17,512.00 Gen Veh Replacement Fund $111,848.74 Grand Total $1,396,910.56 TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
Motion to Waive the Formal Bidding Process and Accept Two Quotes Totaling $77,227 for the Purchase of an IBM AS/400 eServer and Related Software and Hardware for Disaster Recovery from SPS Var, L.L.C.
PREPARED BY: Mindy L. Hite, Director of Information Technology
REVIEWED BY: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager
BUDGET IMPACT: The total cost of this project is $77,227. $83,200 is budgeted in FY 2010-11 ($20,800 in line item 510-7710-431.75-45 and $62,400 in line item 733-4010.415.75-45). This purchase will result in a budget savings of $5,973.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
ATTACHMENTS: Quotes
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the Town purchased the AS/400 eServer for hosting the Sungard H.T.E. General Governmental and Financial software. Since that time, funds have been set aside in the Equipment Reserve Fund for its replacement, which is budgeted in the current fiscal year.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The cost of the IBM AS/400 eServer is $34,037. Additionally, in the past three audit reports there has been a finding directing the Town to develop and implement a Disaster Recovery Plan for its general governmental and financial software operating system. Staff is recommending the Town enhance the server with the hardware and software for data replication. The eServer will then be relocated off site at the Water Treatment facility. This will provide the necessary backup for the most critical system in the Town’s network. This will be viewed as a positive step by the auditors and better equip the Town to work through a disaster situation. The cost of this upgrade is $41,700, which brings the total cost to $77,227.
The AS/400 eServers can only be purchased through an authorized IBM Business Partner. SPS VAR (formerly H.T.E. VAR) has been the Town’s IBM representative since 2000. Since they are the hardware partner for Sungard H.T.E., they fully understand the needs and requirements associated with the software the Town uses. Therefore, staff is recommending the formal bidding process be waived.
6/3/2010
SPS VAR, L.L.C Proposal For Normal IL 9405-520 to 8203-E4A Upgrade
June 3, 2010
Rack Mount 8203-E4A
Donald Conrad SPS VAR, LLC SPS VAR, LLC 3168 Mercer University Dr. 770 216-4438 Suite 200 [email protected] Atlanta, GA 30341 www.SPSVar.com
These prices are for your information only and are subject to change. 1 6/3/2010
Configuration Summary:
8203-E4A $29,967 8 GB Total Memory 418 GB RAID5 Disk (Useable) Quad 10/100/1000MB Ethernet Card 2 Line WAN Internal LTO4 Tape Drive Three Year 24x7 Hardware and Software Maintenance 35 User License Installation and Migration to 6.1 $5,850
Hardware, Software & Maintenance Upgrade Total: $35,817 5% Customer Discount $1,791 Total $34,027
Options Naviline Rack Server Appliance $4,260 IBM Rack $3,910 PowerWare 3KVa UPS $2,750 Additional User Licenses (Per 5 Users) $1,250 IP Printer $3,000
*Any Travel and Living Expenses capped at $1500
These prices are for your information only and are subject to change. 2 6/29/2010
SPS VAR, L.L.C Proposal For Normal IL Repurpose 520 for HA/DR
June 29, 2010
9406-520
Donald Conrad SPS VAR, LLC SPS VAR, LLC 3168 Mercer University Dr. 770 216-4438 Suite 200 [email protected] Atlanta, GA 30341 www.SPSVar.com
These prices are for your information only and are subject to change. 1 6/29/2010
Configuration Summary:
9405-520 $39,700 Upgrade Memory to 4GB IBM Power Down / Power Up Move Assistance SunGard NoMax NoMax Implementation and Training One Year NoMax Maintenance
Total Estimate $39,700
Options (Additional Price) Additional Disk $1,000 IBM Physical Move $4,000 8GB Total Disk $1,500
*Any Travel and Living Expenses capped at $1500
These prices are for your information only and are subject to change. 2 TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
A Motion to Reject a Bid to Replace the Roof at the Facility Management Building located at 207 S. Linden
PREPARED BY: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager
REVIEWED BY: Mark R. Peterson, City Manager
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
BACKGROUND
In 2006, Council approved the purchase of the property located at 207 S. Linden, formerly known as the Pet Supply building. Since that time, the Town has used that building to house its Facility Management operations, as well as for general storage needs.
The roof of the building is quickly deteriorating and is need of replacement. Given the condition of the roof, staff issued an invitation to bid for a roof replacement.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Town staff issued an invitation to bid on May 21, 2010. Bids for replacement were due on June 24th, 2010. One bid was received from Whistle’s Tremont Roofing, Inc. in the amount of $22,000.
Given that the Town only received one bid for a project for which there are several qualified contractors in the area, staff is recommending that Council reject the bid. Assuming Council rejects the sole bid, staff will re-examine the bid documents and attempt to rebid the item in the late summer or early fall when roofing activity tends to slow down for many contractors. Staff will also consider bidding this work in conjunction with the Police Department roof, which is also budgeted for replacement in the current fiscal year.
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
Motion Initiating Various Amendments to the Zoning Code -- Sec. 15.7-4 (Parking Impact Zone), Sec. 15.9 (Planned Unit Development Regulations), and Sec. 15.14 (Community Design Standards)
PREPARED BY: Mercy Davison, Town Planner
REVIEWED BY: Mark R. Peterson, City Manager Steven D. Mahrt, Corporation Counsel Greg Troemel, Director of Inspections
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Code Revisions
BACKGROUND
In January 2010, the Town Council asked the Planning Commission to generate a list of potential zoning code amendments pertaining to Planned Unit Developments within the Parking Impact Zone and to the Community Design Standards. Through this exercise, the Planning Commission was expected to focus on code changes that would encourage the appropriate redevelopment of underperforming multiple family residential properties near the ISU campus. The Commission was also expected to review the Community Design Standards based on the application of the code in the past 7 years.
Town staff started working with the Planning Commission at its February 2010 meeting. By May 2010, the Commission approved a list of potential zoning code amendments for the Town Council to formally initiate. Town staff made it clear to the Planning Commission members that their recommendation in favor of starting the public hearing process to review proposed code changes does not require them to ultimately support the proposed code changes.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
In order to demonstrate how the code makes redevelopment challenging near the ISU campus, Town staff presented the Planning Commission with a summary of the types of waivers that recent student- oriented Planned Unit Development have received within the Parking Impact Zone. Common waivers include failing to meet the minimum amount of common recreational space and the 20% green space, and exceeding the floor-area ratio.
In response to a request from the Commission, Town staff also researched 7 other college communities’ zoning requirements near campus areas. Staff found varied approaches in these communities, with many using a highly negotiated PUD type of process for student development.
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
After significant discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the Town Council initiate the following potential zoning code amendments:
1. Amendments to residential PUDs within the PIZ
a. Eliminate the requirement for common recreational space b. Eliminate the floor-area ratio c. Eliminate the minimum open space required of PUDs d. Eliminate the density maximum, allowing density to be controlled instead by the combination of setbacks, building height maximum (4 stories in R-3A and 6 stories in R- 3B), minimum open space required by the Community Design Standards (proposed 15%), and parking minimum
2. Apply the same density strategy listed above in 1(d) to multiple family sites not using the PUD provisions. This would be the case when a developer builds one building on one lot.
3. Clarify the PIZ provisions in a manner that more clearly states that PIZ heights and setbacks control over any underlying transitional requirements.
4. Amendments to the Community Design Standards
a. Clarify how the code applies to already-developed sites – in sum, apply the CDS to the portion of the site being developed rather than requiring the entire site to come into compliance. i. Base the tree and shrub counts on the site perimeter adjacent to the area being developed. The resulting quantity of required trees and shrubs will be planted in the highest priority locations. ii. Require the addition of CDS-compliant screening to any existing parking lot given the amount of green space available. If the parking lot is resurfaced or rebuilt, the area being resurfaced or rebuilt must come into compliance. b. Reduce the number of trees and shrubs required on small sites. Currently, sites smaller than 5 acres need 1 tree per 33 feet of perimeter, and sites larger than 5 acres need 1 tree per 25 feet. The proposed change is to 1 tree per 50 feet and 1 tree per 33 feet, respectively. c. Permit a developer to buy out of 25% of the required trees as of right. (Current code only permits a “buy out” when there is not enough space for the trees.) d. Clarify the definition of significant tree. Also, increase minimum size requirement for evergreens to be considered significant. e. Reduce the number of trees required to replace “significant trees” and clarify how that number works with the baseline number of trees required on the site. f. Permit up to half of the trees screening parking lots from public ROW to be ornamental rather than all shade varieties. g. Clarify how to calculate the minimum amount of interior parking lot landscaping. h. Reduce the amount of overall green space required on a site located within the Parking Impact Zone from 20% to 15%. This would apply to residential and commercial. i. Eliminate the different requirements for the number of trees and shrubs in interior parking lot landscaping islands based on the number of spaces. Require all parking lots with a minimum of 40 spaces to have at least 2 shade trees and 5 shrubs per 20 parking spaces. j. Require decorative outdoor lighting to have interior louvers to prevent glare when the brightness reaches a minimum amount.
If the Town Council initiates these amendments to the zoning code, they will proceed to the Planning Commission for a public hearing in August.
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE FOR THE TOWN OF NORMAL, ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal is a home rule unit of local government with authority to legislate in matters concerning its local government and affairs; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal has enacted a comprehensive Zoning Code incorporated as Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code 1969, as amended; and
WHEREAS, after notice and hearing as required by law the Normal Planning Commission did on August 5, 2010, recommend certain amendments to the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, it is the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Normal to amend the Town Zoning Code as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE TOWN OF NORMAL, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 15.7-4 Parking Impact Zone be and the same is hereby amended as follows with strikeouts indicating deletions in text and underscore indicating additions to text:
SEC. 15.7-4 PARKING IMPACT ZONE.
A. Purpose. The Parking Impact Zone is an area of the Town of Normal in which, due to density and use, there exists greater parking needs than is customary in other areas of the Town. Restrictions regarding location, size and construction of parking in these areas are eased to facilitate a greater number of parking spaces. Additionally it is the purpose and design of the Parking Impact Zone to relax certain lot density restrictions so density is controlled by required green space, building height and off-street parking requirements.
C. Conformance With Other Code Sections. Except as specifically set forth in this Section, all other Zoning Code and Municipal Code Sections remain in full force and effect in the Parking Impact Zone. In the event of conflict or ambiguity in application of the Zoning Code the Zoning Administrator is directed to give priority to code provisions that require a greater number of
1
off street parking spaces and allow greater lot density for residential use within the Parking Impact Zone.
O. Four-Story Building Height. Except for properties zoned R-1A, R- 1B or R-2, Iin the Parking Impact Zone the greater of the height allowed in the underlying zoning district or in the R-3A Zoning District, buildings up to four stories or forty-five feet (45’) will be permitted in derivation of other applicable code sections.
Q. Density. Except for properties zoned R-1A, R-1B or R-2, within the Parking Impact Zone lot density shall be controlled by building height allowed within the Parking Impact Zone, required number of off street parking spaces and required yards within the underlying zoning district. The following code sections shall not apply within the Parking Impact Zone:
1. Transitional yard requirements set forth in Section 15.4-5 B; 2. Minimum lot size per dwelling unit as required in the underlying zoning district regulations; 3. Maximum net density, maximum floor area, minimum open space and minimum common recreational space required in R- 3A and R-3B Planned Unit Developments as set forth in Section 15.9-14
SECTION TWO: That Section 15.9-14 of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
SEC. 15.9-14 SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.
A. Intent. It is the intent of this Section to provide specific additional regulations for Planned Unit Developments located in residential zoning districts.
B. Permitted Uses in a Residential Planned Unit Development. In addition to the lawfully authorized uses permitted in each zoning district, the following additional uses are permitted in a Residential Planned Unit Development:
1. Residential Planned Unit Developments in the R-1AA, R-1A and R- 1B Zoning Districts.
a. Semi-detached single-family dwelling units (one (1) dwelling unit joined to one (1) other dwelling unit by a party wall);
b. Attached single-family dwelling units, townhouses and row houses in groups of no more than five (5) dwelling units per building;
2
c. Uses authorized in the underlying zoning district by special use permit or after site plan review.
2. Residential Planned Unit Developments in the R-2 District. Same as in the R-1 District.
3. Residential Planned Unit Developments in the R-3A and R-3B Districts.
a. Semi-detached single-family dwelling units (one (1) dwelling unit joined to one (1) other dwelling unit by a party wall);
b. Attached single-family dwelling units, townhouses and row houses in groups of no more than five (5) dwelling units per building;
c. Multi-family dwellings or apartment dwellings;
d. Uses authorized in the underlying zoning district by special use permit or after site plan review.
4. Detached single-family mobile homes (R-4 Zoning District only).
5. Detached single-family manufactured units (R-4 Zoning District only). (Amended 11/20/95 by Ord. No. 4356)
C. Minimum Land Area Requirement for a Residential Planned Unit Development.
1. In R-1AA, R-1A and R-1B Planned Unit Developments – five (5) acres.
2. In R-2 Planned Unit Developments – five (5) acres.
3. In R-3 Planned Unit Developments – one (1) acre.
D. Minimum Dwelling Unit Requirement. No Residential Planned Unit Development shall contain less than five (5) dwelling units.
E. Density, Floor Area and Common Recreation Space and Requirements For Residential Planned Unit Developments outside of the Parking Impact Zone. In accordance with the following table:
District R-1A R-3B ______R-1B R-4 R-2 Zoning R-1AA R-3A
3
Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Common Net Density Floor Area Open Space Recreation (Dwelling (% of Land (% of Floor Space (%of Units/Acre) Area) Area) Floor Area) ______
2.00 10.0% 800% 25% 4.00 20.0% 380% 18% 8.00 34.8% 210% 14% 10.00 40.0% 180% 13% 23.00 52.8% 140% 12% 58.00 80.0% 85% 10% 8.00 34.8% 210% 14%
4
F. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. Two (2) parking spaces for each dwelling unit.
G. Architectural Plans. When townhouses (rowhouses) are proposed as a part of a Planned Unit Development in the R-1AA, R-1A, R-1B and R-1 Districts, building elevations and architectural renderings shall be required with submission of the preliminary development plan.
H. R-3A and R-3B Planned Unit Developments within the Parking Impact Zone. Within the Parking Impact Zone, R-3A and R-3B PUDs shall not have a maximum net density, maximum floor area, minimum open space or minimum common recreational space. Such PUDs shall meet the minimum green space requirement as set forth in SEC. 15.14-7(D) and minimum parking requirements and setbacks established in SEC. 15.7-4.
SECTION THREE: That Section 15.14-2 of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
SECTION 15.14-2 – APPLICATION.
A. This Division shall apply to all new development in the following Zoning Districts, which development requires the issuance of a permit by the Town of Normal. The application of this Division to sites developed prior to 12/1/03 is explained in Sec. 15.14-2(B) below. Development does not include interior building repairs or modifications. No permit shall be issued except upon approval of the development plan in conformance with the procedures and standards set forth in this Division. Maintenance standards in this Division apply to all development approved pursuant to this Division. Zoning Districts which are subject to this Division are as follows:
1. R-1AA – Single Family Residence District 2. R-1A – Single Family Residence District 3. R-1B – Single Family Residence District 4. R-2 Mixed Residence District 5. R-3A – Medium Density Multiple Family Residence District. 6. R-3B – High Density Multiple Family Residence District. 7. C-1 – Office District. 8. C-2 – Neighborhood Shopping District. 9. C-3 – Community/Regional Shopping District. 10. B-1 – General Business District. 11. M-1 – Restricted Manufacturing District. 12. M-2 – General Manufacturing District 13. S-2 – Public Lands and Institutions District
B. Exceptions. 5
1. In the R-1AA, R-1A, R-1B and R-2 Districts, this Division only applies to the development that involves a Special Use Permit or a Planned Unit Development.
2. Hard surfaces dedicated to equipment, product, or merchandise storage are exempt from the parking lot interior landscaping requirements set forth in SEC. 15-14-7(G).
3. The M-2 district is excluded from the Building Design Standards Deleted: is established in SEC. 15.14-7(A).
4. The M-1 district is excluded from the following Building Design Standard: Sec. 15.14-7(A)(6)(d) Rooflines.
5. Sites developed prior to 12/1/03 must come into compliance with the landscaping provisions of this Division to the extent that the site is altered. In order to establish the number of plantings required, the site perimeter adjacent to the site alterations will be measured. The baseline tree and shrub requirements set forth in Sec. 15.14-7(D) shall be calculated based on that perimeter. The plantings required will then be installed on the site where plantings are deficient, including along public right-of-way, in areas that screen parking, and within the parking lot. If a parking lot is being resurfaced as part of the project, it must come into compliance with the interior parking lot landscaping standards of this Division.
Adding or replacing signs shall not trigger compliance with the entire Division. However, new freestanding signs must be landscaped around the base.
SECTION FOUR: That the definition of Significant Tree contained in Section 15.14-4 of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
SIGNIFICANT TREE – Any deciduous, shade-variety tree or any evergreen tree with at least a 12-inch diameter as per standard Diameter Breast Height or any evergreen tree 8 feet or more in height. Trees listed in SEC. 8.7-4(A) of the Code are not significant trees, regardless of size.
SECTION FIVE: That Section 15.14-5 A. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by deleting the phrase “five (5)” appearing in line two of said Section and substituting therefore the following phrase “two (2).”
6
SECTION SIX: That Section 15.14-7 A. 6. c. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
c. Multi-Sided Facade Treatment. Each building shall incorporate similar material types and design elements on all sides of a building. Facades fronting a public way (excluding alleys), or adjacent to residential zoning shall incorporate at least two of the following elements or equivalent design elements:
SECTION SEVEN: That Section 15.14-7 B. 3. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by deleting said Section 15.14-7 B. 3.
SECTION EIGHT: That Section 15.14-7 C. 1. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
1. Natural or existing topographic patterns shall be preserved and developed. Modification to topography will be permitted only where preservation is not technically feasible due to site construction, or where it contributes to improved site appearance.
SECTION NINE: That Section 15.14-7 C. 3. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
3. Preservation and Replacement. On properties developed prior to 12/1/03, all healthy significant trees on a site shall be preserved Deleted: A where feasible. No tree shall be removed until the Town determines it is not a healthy significant tree. Where preservation is not feasible, significant trees that are removed must be replaced on-site. Trees on sites with a landscaping plan approved after 12/1/03 may not be removed unless the Town determines the tree is unhealthy or a hazard, regardless of size.
7
SECTION TEN: That Section 15.14-7 C. 5. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
5. Tree Replacement Requirements. For every significant tree removed from a site there shall be a tree replacement at a ratio of Deleted: as follows: 1:1. All new trees must be at least 4” caliper and all of them offset the original baseline number of trees required on site.
Deleted: a. Less Than (1) Acre: 1 to 1 ratio of replacement tree to removed tree, SECTION ELEVEN: That Sections 15.14-7 D. 2., 3. and 4. of the Municipal with at least one 6-inch caliper or two 4- Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same are hereby further inch caliper replacement tree(s) and additional trees that meet minimum amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore requirements set forth in SEC. 15.14- indicating addition to text: 7(D)(6)(c). ¶ ¶ b. (1) Acre up to (10) Acres: 1.5 to 1 2. Overall Landscaping Requirement. At least twenty (20) percent of ratio of replacement tree to removed tree, with at least one 6-inch caliper, or two 4- the total land area of any development must be landscaped with the inch caliper replacement tree(s) and exception of properties located within the Parking Impact Zone, additional trees that meet minimum requirements set forth in SEC. 15.14- where at least fifteen (15) percent of the total land area of any 7(D)(6)(c).¶ development must be landscaped. Landscaping must be dispersed ¶ c. More Than (10) Acres: 2 to 1 ratio of throughout the entire development and must not be concentrated in replacement tree to removed tree, with at one area. Fifty (50) percent of the required landscaping must be least one 6-inch caliper or two 4-inch caliper replacement tree(s) and additional located along streets, parking lots and yards adjoining residential trees that meet minimum requirements set zoning. With the exception of parking lot interior landscape forth in SEC. 15.14-7(D)(6)(c). ¶ requirements set forth hereafter, required landscape is not required to be evenly spaced throughout the development. At least fifty (50) percent of all trees planted on site, including significant trees preserved on site, must be large, shade tree species.
3. Minimum Planting Requirements. The purpose of this provision is to establish the minimum number of trees, shrubs and plantings Deleted: o required for a site. The plantings shall be used to satisfy the public frontage, parking lot perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping, and adjacent residential requirements. Significant trees preserved on site shall count toward the number of trees for the site. Shrubs may be replaced with ornamental grasses or perennials (ground cover plantings not included); however, such replacement shall not exceed 50 percent of the required number of shrubs. The following ratios shall be used:
8
a. Five Acres or less: (1) tree and (5) shrubs for each 50’ of Deleted: 33’ perimeter lot footage
b. Over Five Acres: (1) tree and (5) shrubs for each 33’ of Deleted: 25’ perimeter lot footage
At the election of the property owner, up to 25% of the plantings may be planted with the owner paying the fee in lieu explained below. Also, when planting on-site is not feasible, as determined Deleted: W by the Committee, the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu to the Town of Normal. The fee in lieuwill be used to pay for a comparable Deleted: , which fee planting on Town property. The fee schedule is as follows:
Large shade tree $500 Ornamental Tree $300 Evergreen $300 Shrub $75 Ornamental Grass $30 Perennial $30
4. Detention/Retention Basins and Ponds. Detention/retention basins located on the same lot as the development or within a Planned Unit Development may be counted toward the overall green space required on a site. Detention basins and ponds shall be landscaped along the perimeter of the high water level of the basin or pond. Such landscaping shall include at least one shade or ornamental tree per 50 lineal feet, and a combination of evergreens, shrubbery, hedges and/or other live planting materials. At least 50 percent of the trees surrounding the detention/retention basins and ponds must be medium- to large-sized, long-lived shade trees.
SECTION TWELVE: That Section 15.14-7 D. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by adding a new subsection 7. to read as follows:
7. Signs. Freestanding signs must be landscaped around the base.
SECTION THIRTEEN: That Section 15.14-7 F. 3. b. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969 as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
b. A 15-foot to 19-foot perimeter landscaped area may be Deleted: fifteen provided for yards along a public street where a landscaped Deleted: (15) berm or decorative fence plus a dense planting is provided. Deleted: shall If a berm is used, the tree plantings required in Sec. 15.14- Deleted: fence, berm or continuous 7(F)(5)(a) must be installed. planting screen 9
SECTION FOURTEEN: That Section 15.14-7 F. 5. a. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969 as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeouts indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
a. One tree for every 25 lineal feet of perimeter area, Deleted: shade excluding driveway openings. At least half of these trees must be shade varieties. Trees may be spaced evenly or grouped.
SECTION FIFTEEN: That Section 15.14-7 G. 1. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969 as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by adding the following to said subsection G. 1.
In the M-1 and M-2 Manufacturing Zoning Districts parking lot interior Landscaping requirements of this section shall apply only to customer and employee parking areas and not storage or large truck maneuvering areas.
SECTION SIXTEEN: That Section 15.14-7 G. 3. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeout indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
3. Minimum Landscape Coverage.
a. Parking lots with 40 to 200 spaces shall have at least seven (7) percent of the interior lot area landscaped.
b. Parking lots with more than 200 spaces shall have at least ten (10) percent of the interior lot area landscaped.
c. Parking lots that provide in excess of 125 percent of Deleted: with more than 200 spaces, parking spaces required by Town code shall have at least and fifteen (15) percent of the interior lot area landscaped.
d. Interior parking lot landscaping shall be calculated in the following manner. Multiply the number of parking spaces by 300 square feet to determine the area of the parking lot. Calculate 7, 10, or 15 percent of that area to determine the interior parking lot landscaping area requirement.
e. Parking lot interior includes only the parking spaces and drive aisles adjacent to the spaces. The following illustration shows which areas of a parking lot are considered to be “interior parking lot landscaping.”
10
ADD ILLUSTRATION
SECTIONSEVENTEEN: That Section 15.14-7 G. 5. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeout indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
5. Minimum Plant Quantity
a. 40 or more parking spaces: 2 trees and 5 Deleted: -200 shrubs or ornamental grasses per 20 spaces.
Deleted: b. Over 200 parking spaces: 2 trees and 5 shrubs or ornamental grasses per 40 spaces. SECTION EIGHTEEN: That Section 15.14-7 H . 4. of the Municipal Code Town of Normal, Illinois 1969, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows with strikeout indicating deletion in text and underscore indicating addition to text:
4. Luminaires. In order to prevent unreasonable light pollution, any luminaire and all non-decorative wall-mounted luminaries used for area light shall use a full cutoff luminaire positioned in a way that the cutoff effect is maximized. Tilt arms are prohibited. Decorative light fixtures must include internal louvers to minimize glare as determined by Town staff.
SECTION NINETEEN: That the Municipal Code, Town of Normal, Illinois, 1969, as previously amended and as amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION TWENTY: That the Town Clerk be and she is hereby directed and authorized to publish this ordinance in pamphlet form as provided by law.
SECTION TWENTY-ONE: That this ordinance shall take effect ten days after the date of its publication.
SECTION TWENTY-TWO: That this Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Home Rule Authority granted the Town of Normal by Article 7, Section 6, of the Illinois Constitution, 1970.
APPROVED:
______President of the Board of Trustees of The Town of Normal, Illinois
11
ATTEST:
______Town Clerk
(seal)
The foregoing ordinance was voted upon and passed by the President and Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal on the ____ day of ______, 2010, with ______voting aye; ______abstaining; ______voting nay: and ______absent.
AYE NAY OTHER AYE NAY OTHER Councilwoman Reece Councilman Chambers Councilman Nielsen Councilwoman Gaines Councilman Fritzen Mayor Koos Councilman Scott
The foregoing ordinance was approved by the President and Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal on the _____ day of ______, 2010.
The foregoing ordinance was published in pamphlet form on the ___ day of ______, 2010.
12
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Bloomington, McLean County and the Ecology Action Center for Solid Waste Management Services
PREPARED BY: Mike Hall, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: Pamela S. Reece, Deputy City Manager Tom Ramirez, Waste Removal Supervisor
BUDGET IMPACT: There is no impact to the Town’s budget. All compensation for these services is paid by McLean County from the Solid Waste Landfill Hosting Fund.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Proposed Agreement
BACKGROUND
In 1991 the Town together with McLean County and the City of Bloomington adopted an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) to fulfill mandated requirements of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). This plan is updated and reported to the IEPA every five years. There are three key elements to the implementation of this plan: 1) waste source reduction, 2) recycle and reuse, and 3) disposal in landfills. When the ISWMP was first adopted the implementation was managed by a County Solid Waste Coordinator who was compensated from funds generated by a tipping fee placed on waste disposed at the local landfill.
From 1998 through 2004, the Town was party to an intergovernmental agreement with McLean County, the City of Bloomington and the McLean County Regional Planning Commission for the Commission to provide all management services including solid waste reduction and recycling education programs after the County Solid Waste Coordinator position was eliminated. The Commission, in turn, subcontracted with the Ecology Action Center to provide the education programs.
In the renewal of this agreement in 2004 and 2007, the Ecology Action Center was assigned all duties previously provided by the Commission in addition to the educational services. The current agreement expires December 31, 2010.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Due to constrained budgets by all three governments, the Ecology Action Center is proposing to freeze their compensation for the first year of the proposed agreement with maximum 3% annual cost of living adjustments for the remaining two years. TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
All services to be provided by the Ecology Action Center by this proposed agreement are listed in the appendix.
The McLean County Solid Waste Technical Committee has endorsed this agreement and recommends that all three local governments approve it. Both the County and the City of Bloomington will consider it in their upcoming meetings.
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MCLEAN COUNTY AND THE ECOLOGY ACTION CENTER FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal is a Home Rule Unit of local government with authority to legislate in matters concerning its local government and affairs; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Normal to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with McLean County, the City of Bloomington and the McLean County Regional Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NORMAL, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That the Town of Normal hereby authorizes the President of the Board of Trustees to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Solid Waste Management Services. A copy of said Agreement is marked Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION TWO: That the Town Clerk be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the signature of the President of the Board of Trustees on said agreement and to retain a fully executed original of said agreement in her office for public inspection.
ADOPTED this _____ day of ______, 2010.
APPROVED:
______President of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal, Illinois
ATTEST:
______Town Clerk
(seal)
AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into as of this 1st day of January, 2011, by and between the City of Blooming- ton, Town of Normal, and County of McLean (hereinafter referred to as the “City”, “Town”, and “Coun- ty”) and the Ecology Action Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Center”).
A. Purpose of This Agreement:
The purpose of this agreement is to establish a framework for the continuing administration and im- plementation of the McLean County Solid Waste Program, hereafter referred to as the “Program”, to include solid waste and waste reduction education programs for the City, Town, and County and as- sist the City, Town, and County in meeting the requirements of the Illinois Solid Waste Management Planning and Recycling Act, which requires Illinois counties to administer a solid waste management plan to reduce waste and recycle 40% of the waste generated.
B. Period of Agreement:
The period of this agreement is three (3) years, commencing January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2013. This agreement shall be automatically renewed on a calendar year basis unless any party otherwise indicates. Either party may terminate this agreement for any reason with a minimum of sixty (60) days written notice to the other party.
C. Services:
1. City, Town, and County
The City, Town, and County shall:
a. provide program guidance and oversight through participation on the McLean County Solid Waste Management Program Technical Committee and b. provide funding for the project in accordance with item “D” of this agreement.
2. Center
The Center shall:
a. provide a Solid Waste Coordinator for the community b. provide the solid waste and waste reduction services to the City, Town, and County as out- lined in the Appendix; and c. complete the following reporting requirements: 1) quarterly progress reports to Bloomington, Normal, and the McLean County Board Land Use Committee; 2) annual reports to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; 3) five year updates to the McLean County Integrated Sol- id Waste Management Plan as required; and 4) periodic reports to the McLean County Solid Waste Management Technical Committee as needed.
D. Project Costs:
Payments of $7,918 shall be made by the County by the first (1st) week of every month of the agree- ment, pending the receipt of an invoice from the Center by the fifteenth day of the preceding month. An annual cost of living increase will be added to the monthly fee after January 2012 and January 2013 equal to that year’s consumer price index or a maximum of three (3) percent of the monthly contract cost. The total cost of the contract will not exceed $293,685, which includes a three (3) per- cent increase per year in January 2012 and January 2013.
It is understood by all parties that payment in support of this agreement is contingent upon availability of Program revenue and/or funds provided through the City, Town, and County General Revenue Funds.
E. The Center shall save and hold the City, Town, and County, (including its officials, agents and employees) free and harmless from all liability, public or private, penalties, contractual or other- wise, losses, damages, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, causes of action, claims and judgments, resulting from claimed injury, damage, loss or loss of use for any person, including natural per- sons and any other legal entity or property of any kind (including, but not limited to, choices in action) arising out of or in any way connected with the performance under this agreement, for any costs, expenses, judgments, and attorney’s fee paid or incurred or paid for on behalf of the City, Town, and/or County, and/or its agents and employees, by insurance provided by the aforemen- tioned government bodies.
F. This agreement may be modified by mutual consent of the parties hereto and agreed to in writing and does not preclude separate agreements between the Center and individual units of govern- ment for additional services.
______City of Bloomington Date
______Town of Normal Date
______County of McLean Date
______Ecology Action Center Date APPENDIX
The Center shall: a. provide the following solid waste/waste reduction services to the City and Town:
keep the EAC open to the public 40 hours/week for telephone and walk-in information and a specia- lized library with materials for teachers, businesses, and students of all ages about nature and solid waste reduction; produce and illustrate instructions to residents on how to recycle; produce corrective slips for people who recycle improperly; conduct Earth Schools hands-on recycling classes in Bloomington and Normal elementary schools; design and produce door hangers, bookmarks, and other materials to encourage new recyclers; offer recycling programs and events such as Earth Day and America Recycles Day through the Child- ren’s Discovery Museum; write and distribute publicity as necessary; offer after school recycling programs offered for area youth at various locations; offer a recycling education and promotion program for middle and high school students; summer reading program for Bloomington and Normal Public Library; provide speakers to community groups including civic groups, religious groups, and social groups; coordinate public event recycling where feasible at Bloomington and Normal events; coordinate the battery recycling program at Interstate Batteries and Batteries Plus; coordinate the CFL recycling program at area drop-offs; administer the plastic garden pot recycling program. b. provide the following solid waste/waste reduction services to the County:
conduct Earth Schools hands-on recycling classes in County elementary schools; coordinate a Recycling Month event and accompanying activities; attend public festivals to distribute recycling information and provide recycling activities; provide a speaker to community groups as requested; provide newsletters to McLean County residents by download on the EAC website; provide two electronic newsletters per year to McLean County schools; provide online newsletters to email subscribers on a regular basis; facilitate submission of grant proposals by local businesses and schools and apply for relevant grants for McLean County, such as solid waste planning grants and/or household hazardous waste collection grants; create and present educational displays; develop public information guides; write and distribute press releases as appropriate; attend solid waste conferences and educator’s training workshops when appropriate; assist in adult ecology/recycling classes taught through extension program; maintain and moderate the McLean County Freecycle group, a free electronic exchange community to reduce waste; coordinate two Freecycle Free-4-All events each year; coordinate sustainability events to encourage recycling within the context of other environmentally positive practices;update recycling and hazardous waste information for the www.Earth911.com na- tional website and local websites; provide up-to-date information on local recycling and household hazardous waste disposal through the Ecology Action Center website. c. perform the following responsibilities in the role of Solid Waste Coordinator:
organize and record minutes of meetings of the Solid Waste Technical Committee; coordinate and administer County Solid Waste Grant Program involving schools, rural communities and not-for-profit businesses and agencies; co-sponsor, organize and promote Household Hazardous Waste Collection events; offer the McLean County Recycling and Waste Reduction Awards Program, including soliciting en- tries and evaluate applications, award certificates and recognize winners at meetings and through the media; annually determine McLean County’s recycling rate as prescribed by the Illinois Environmental Pro- tection Agency (“IEPA”) and provide this information to the public and the IEPA; review waste facility site applications as needed; coordinate McLean County Solid Waste Plan updates; coordinate implementation of McLean County Solid Waste Plan.
d. provide for the administration of the program to include:
the submission of quarterly progress reports to the City, Town, and County on the activities con- ducted in compliance with this agreement; the combining of relevant programs as appropriate to avoid duplication and reduce costs and time; the submission of required reports and updates to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA); the invoices for services performed in accordance with item “D” of this agreement and; the reporting of program activities to the McLean County Solid Waste Technical Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
A Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with the Economic Development Council to Establish and Operate an Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund for Normal Businesses in Accordance with the Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program
PREPARED BY: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager
REVIEWED BY: Mark R. Peterson, City Manager Steven Mahrt, Corporation Counsel
BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 of the Town’s $488,500 EECBG allotment is proposed to be used for this purpose. This item is budgeted in line item 225-1035-413.30-90
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution and Agreement
BACKGROUND
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) appropriated funding to the United States Department of Energy that is to be passed along to states and municipalities on a formula basis through the previously created Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program. The Town of Normal was eligible to receive $488,500 under this grant program. In May of 2009, the Town Council approved a project list for this grant program and staff subsequently applied for full funding to the Department of Energy. That application was approved and staff is now in the process of implementing the various components of the grant program.
Included in the EECBG application was funding to establish an energy efficiency revolving loan fund for Normal-based businesses. This fund was proposed to be administered by the Economic Development Council (EDC). The goal of the fund is to assist local businesses in making energy related improvements to their facilities.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Over the last several months, staff from the Town of Normal and the EDC have worked together to craft a program that we feel will provide great benefit to the business community. The program will be available to all businesses, excluding home-based businesses, located in Normal. Eligible businesses will be able to receive a low-interest loan for up to 50% of the project cost with a maximum loan of $15,000. The terms of individual loans will be based on the estimated pay-back period of the project with a maximum term of five years. TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
Eligible activities can be wide ranging, but must lead to a reduction in energy consumption or the production of energy from renewable sources. A three person committee consisting of a Town of Normal representative, EDC representative and an objective commercial lender will be created to review and approve all submitted applications.
The proposed agreement provides flexibility to change the program guidelines, if deemed appropriate by the Town and EDC, so long as the changes comply with the federal grant standards. Such changes may be necessary down the road after the program administrators gain a better understanding the business community’s demands for energy related improvements.
Assuming Council approval, the Town and the EDC will begin to market this program to the community and also work with other incentive providers to maximize energy saving opportunities for our local businesses. Examples of other entities offering incentives for energy improvements include Ameren, Nicor, Cornbelt Electric and the State of Illinois.
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF NORMAL AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE BLOOMINGTON-NORMAL AREA TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A REVOLVING LOAN FUND UNDER THE FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal is a home rule unit of local government with authority to legislate in matters concerning its local government and affairs; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received $488,500 pursuant to the EECBG Program; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal desires to use $100,000 of its EECBG grant to establish a Revolving Loan Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Council of the Bloomington-Normal Area is able and willing to establish and manage a Revolving Loan Fund Program for eligible activities under the EECBG Program; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Normal that the Town of Normal enter into an Agreement with the Economic Development Council of the Bloomington-Normal Area to establish and operate a revolving loan fund under the Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NORMAL, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That the Town of Normal hereby authorizes the President of the Board of Trustees to enter into said Agreement with the Economic Development Council of the Bloomington-Normal Area. A copy of said Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION TWO: That the Town Clerk be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the signature of the President of the Board of Trustees on said contract and to retain a fully executed original of said contract in her office for public inspection.
ADOPTED this day of , 2010.
______President of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal, Illinois
ATTEST:
______Town Clerk
(seal)
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
Resolution to Appropriate an Additional $285,000 of the Town's Allotment of Motor Fuel Tax Funds for the Willow Street/ Fort Jesse Road - Beech Street to Blair Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project
PREPARED BY: Gene Brown, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Mark R. Peterson, City Manager
BUDGET IMPACT: Funding in the amount of $501,200 is budgeted in line item 213-7045-431.51-83 of the Motor Fuel Tax Fund. Project received $285,000 in funding through the State of Illinois’ Emergency Repair Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed MFT Resolution
BACKGROUND
The FY 2010 – 11 Motor Fuel Tax Budget includes funds for the resurfacing of Willow Street/Fort Jesse Road from Beech Street to Blair Drive. In late May of 2009 Representative Brady requested funding from the State of Illinois through the state’s Emergency Repair Program (ERP), part of the new capital infrastructure and jobs program, for this project. On September 14, 2009 it was announced by Representative Brady that the town would receive $285,000 to help cover the estimated $408,000 project cost. An agreement with IDOT was approved at the October 5, 2009 council meeting for use of the ERP funds. Also at that meeting a resolution appropriating $123,000 of motor fuel tax funds for this project was approved. A contract was awarded to Rowe Construction Co. it the amount of $501,100.02 on May 3, 2010. An additional $100,000 was also appropriated on May 3, 2010.
The project consists of removal of approximately 2-1/2” of the existing Portland cement concrete surface and replacement with a new bituminous concrete surface. Project also includes removal and replacement of deteriorated curb and gutter as required.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
This resolution will appropriate an additional $285,000 of the town’s allotment of motor fuel tax funds for resurfacing of Willow Street/Fort Jesse Road from Beech Street to Blair Drive, an amount equal to the $285,000 reimbursed to us from IDOT per the local agency agreement approved at the October 5, 2010 meeting. To date we have received $270,750 of the $285,000. The remaining amount will be reimbursed to the town upon completion of the project.
Resolution for Improvement by Municipality Under the Illinois Highway Code
BE IT RESOLVED, by the President and Board of Trustees of the Council or President and Board of Trustees Town of Normal Illinois City, Town or Village that the following described street(s) be improved under the Illinois Highway Code:
Name of Thoroughfare Route From To Willow Street / Fort Jesse Rd Beech Street Blair Drive
1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, 1. That the proposed improvement shall consist of Portland cement concrete surface removal and bituminous concrete surface placement and miscellaneous curb and gutter removal and replacement and necessary incidentals.
. and shall be constructed various wide and be designated as Section 09-00239-00-RS
2. That there is hereby appropriated the (additional Yes No) sum of one hundred thousand
Dollars ( $285,000.00 ) for the improvement of said section from the municipality’s allotment of Motor Fuel Tax funds. 3. That work shall be done by contract ; and, Specify Contract or Day Labor BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is hereby directed to transmit two certified copies of this resolution to the district office of the Department of Transportation.
Authorized MFT Expenditure I, Wendellyn J. Briggs Clerk in and for the
Town of Normal City, Town or Village County of McLean , hereby certify the Date foregoing to be a true, perfect and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the President and board of Trustees Council or President and Board of Trustees Department of Transportation at a meeting on July 6, 2010 Date IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this day of Regional Engineer (SEAL)
City, Town, or Village Clerk
Page 1 of 1 BLR 09111 (Rev. 7/05) Printed on 7/1/2010 1:44:14 PM TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
Resolution Accepting Warranty Deed From Nancy B. Kerfoot— 2010 Vernon Avenue Bridge and Road Project
PREPARED BY: Steven D. Mahrt, Corporation Counsel
REVIEWED BY: Mark R. Peterson, City Manager
BUDGET IMPACT: Funds are available in line item 213-7045-431.48-45 in the amount of $778,785 for the project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed resolution and deed
BACKGROUND
The 2010/11 budget includes funds for the improvement of the bridge on Vernon Avenue crossing North Sugar Creek. This project necessitates the acquisition of road right of way or temporary construction easements from seven different parcels.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Mrs. Kerfoot residing at 32 Brookwood Drive has executed a warranty deed conveying permanent row and a temporary construction easement to the town. Under federal law the town is required to offer compensation no less than the appraised value as prepared and reviewed by two qualified appraisers. Mr. Brad Park and Mr. Jay Heap served as appraiser and reviewing appraiser in connection with this project. Mrs. Kerfoot was offered $1,000 for the 255 square foot permanent row and $1,000 for the 892 square foot temporary construction easement for total compensation of $2,000. Mrs. Kerfoot accepted this offer and conveyed the requested row and easement.
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WARRANTY DEED FROM NANCY B. KERFOOT – 2010 VERNON AVENUE BRIDGE AND ROAD PROJECT (32 BROOKWOOD)
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal is a Home Rule unit of local government with authority to legislate in matters concerning its local government and affairs; and
WHEREAS, Nancy B. Kerfoot, the owner of property described herein, is willing to convey a Warranty Deed for right-of-way and temporary construction purposes as set forth in said Warranty Deed; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Normal to accept said Warranty Deed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NORMAL, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That the Town of Normal hereby accepts the Warranty Deed for right-of-way and temporary construction purposes. A copy of said Warranty Deed is marked Exhibit "A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION TWO: That the Town Clerk be and she is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution with the attached Warranty Deed in the office of the Recorder of Deeds for McLean County.
SECTION THREE:
A. PIN: Part of 14-34-226-018.
ADOPTED this ______day of ______, 2010.
APPROVED:
______President of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal, Illinois
ATTEST:
______Town Clerk
(seal)
Prepared by: Steven D. Mahrt, Corporation Counsel, 100 East Phoenix Avenue, Normal, Illinois 61761
Return to: Clerk, Town of Normal, 100 East Phoenix Avenue, Normal, Illinois 61761
EXHIBIT A
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
July 1, 2010
An Ordinance Amending a Special Use Permit for Church Purposes – Heartland Community Church (1811 N. Linden)
PREPARED BY: Mercy Davison, Town Planner
REVIEWED BY: Mark R. Peterson, City Manager Steven D. Mahrt, Corporation Counsel Greg Troemel, Director of Inspections
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECOMMENDATION: Approval (6-0)
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance; Zoning Map; Aerial Photograph; Staff Report to the ZBA; Minutes of the June 17, 2010 meeting are included in the Addendum.
BACKGROUND
In 1999 Heartland Community Church purchased approximately 27 acres of land on the west side of North Linden Street, south of Interstate 55. The Constitution Trail runs along the west boundary of the property. The land was then annexed (Ord. No. 4600), rezoned from Agriculture to R-1A Single Family Residential (Ord. No. 4605), and preliminarily subdivided into three lots (Res. No. 2649). A special use permit was then approved for the construction of the Heartland Community Church on Lot 1 (Ord. No. 4616). In 2004 the church purchased the long, narrow piece of land that runs parallel to the Constitution Trail. The attached illustrations show an aerial photograph of the church site and zoning in the area.
In 2009 the church amended its Preliminary Subdivision Plan (Res. No. 4331) and rezoned a portion of the site from R-1A to S-2 Public Lands and Institutions (Ord. No. 5238) in order to permit the construction of an age-restricted housing development. Although the project was approved by the Town, it failed to obtain financial assistance from the State of Illinois and has not been built.
At this time the church proposes to add a 6,000 square foot addition to the west side of the existing church building. The addition will utilize the same materials and architectural style. The new space will be primarily used for youth programming. The site provides more parking than is required by code.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Zoning Code sets forth standards for Special Uses in Sec. 15.10-5(a)(2). The standards include the provision of adequate off-street parking, avoidance of any negative impact on neighboring properties, tasteful signage, adequate screening, and overall compatibility with surrounding land uses. Special Use TOWN COUNCIL ACTION REPORT standards specific to churches are set forth in Sec. 15.10-4(F) and include building setbacks, a height maximum, and location adjacent to a major street.
Staff believes the proposed building expansion at the Heartland Community Church meets these standards. The building addition is on the rear face of the building and will be built to match the existing structure. The addition is screened on the west by the tree line along the Constitution Trail. Parking is adequate. As a result, the addition should not have any impact on the residential uses in the area.
The project technically requires a variance from the Community Design Standards landscaping provisions. Per code, any development triggers full compliance with the standards. However, Town staff has routinely recommended applying the standards only to the portion of the site being altered. In this case, the building addition will be landscaped around the foundation. Furthermore, as part of a 2009 parking lot expansion, the church landscaped the parking area to meet code.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the Amended Special Use Permit for Heartland Community Church at its June 17, 2010 meeting. A church representative was available to answer questions, but no other members of the public testified. Based on its findings of fact, the Zoning Board unanimously (6-0) recommended in favor of the proposed Amended Special Use permit with a variance from the Community Design Standards.
Based on the reasons set forth above and the positive ZBA recommendation, Town staff recommends the Town Council approve the proposed Amended Special Use permit with the previously explained variance from the Community Design Standards.
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHURCH PURPOSES – HEARTLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal is a Home Rule unit of local government with authority to legislate in matters concerning its local government and affairs, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Normal has enacted a comprehensive Zoning Code incorporated as Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code, Town of Normal, Illinois, 1969, as amended; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Zoning Code, certain uses are permitted by special use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council approved a special use permit for the property described herein for church purposes by Ordinance No. 4616; and
WHEREAS, a petition has been received to amend a special use permit for Heartland Community Church at 1811 North Linden in Normal, Illinois; and
WHEREAS, after notice and public hearing as required by law, the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Normal did on June 17, 2010, recommend approval of an amended special use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Normal to approve an amended special use permit for Heartland Community Church at 1811 North Linden.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NORMAL, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That this ordinance pertains to plans and records on file in the office of the Town Clerk regarding the petition of Heartland Community Church for an amended special use permit for a church building expansion at 1811 North Linden. Said property being more particularly described as follows:
All of Lot 1 in the Heartland Community Church Subdivision of the Town of Normal, McLean County, Illinois.
SECTION TWO: That the report and recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals be and the same is hereby received, placed on file and approved.
SECTION THREE: That an amended special use permit is hereby approved for a church building expansion on the above described property, to be constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the plans on file in the office of the Town Clerk, provided, with the following conditions and waivers:
A. Waivers: The Community Design Landscaping Standards shall apply only to that portion of the property being altered by the building expansion.
B. Conditions: None.
SECTION FOUR: That except as provided herein, all use, occupancy and maintenance of the property described herein shall comply with all applicable Town Codes and Ordinances.
SECTION FIVE: That the Town Clerk be and she is hereby directed and authorized to publish this ordinance in pamphlet form as provided by law.
SECTION SIX: That this ordinance shall take effect ten days after the date of its publication.
SECTION SEVEN: That this ordinance is adopted pursuant to Home Rule Authority granted the Town of Normal by Article 7, Section 6, of the Illinois Constitution, 1970. APPROVED:
______President of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal, Illinois
ATTEST:
______Town Clerk (seal)
The foregoing ordinance was voted upon and passed by the President and Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal on the ____ day of ______, 2010, with ______voting aye; ______abstaining; ______voting nay: and ______absent.
AYE NAYOTHER AYE NAYOTHER Councilwoman Reece Councilman Chambers Councilman Nielsen Councilwoman Gaines Councilman Fritzen Mayor Koos Councilman Scott
The foregoing ordinance was approved by the President and Board of Trustees of the Town of Normal on the _____ day of ______, 2010.
The foregoing ordinance was published in pamphlet form on the ___ day of ______, 2010.
By using this Web Site the user acknowledges his/her understanding of, and agreement with, the disclaimers and copyright restrictions on this data. Complete disclaimer at http://www.McGIS.org/disclaimer Jun 7, 2010 By using this Web Site the user acknowledges his/her understanding of, and agreement with, the disclaimers and copyright restrictions on this data. Complete disclaimer at http://www.McGIS.org/disclaimer Jun 7, 2010
Zoning Board of Appeals
Case #: 10-06-06-SU Prepared by: Mercy Davison, Town Planner
Special Use Description: Amended Special Use Permit to permit the construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. building addition at 1811 N. Linden (Heartland Community Church)
Staff Recommendation: Approval with variance for landscaping
PROJECT INFORMATION
In 1999 Heartland Community Church purchased approximately 27 acres of land on the west side of North Linden Street, south of Interstate 55. The Constitution Trail runs along the west boundary of the property. The land was then annexed (Ord. No. 4600), rezoned from Agriculture to R-1A Single Family Residential (Ord. No. 4605), and preliminarily subdivided into three lots (Res. No. 2649). A special use permit was then approved for the construction of the Heartland Community Church on Lot 1 (Ord. No. 4616). In 2004 the church purchased the long, narrow piece of land that runs parallel to the Constitution Trail. The attached illustrations show an aerial photograph of the church site and zoning in the area.
The original special use permit allowed the church to build only a portion of the approved parking lot and to complete the parking lot at such time as the church determined that it needed more parking. The church expanded the parking lot to the originally approved size in 2009 and landscaped accordingly.
In 2009 the church amended its Preliminary Subdivision Plan (Res. No. 4331) and rezoned a portion of the site from R-1A to S-2 Public Lands and Institutions (Ord. No. 5238) in order to permit the construction of a age-restricted housing development. Although the project was approved, it failed to get state assistance and has not developed. The attached illustration shows the proposed site of the age-restricted housing.
At this time the church proposes to add a 6,000 square foot addition to the west side of the existing church building. As shown on sheet A4, the addition will utilize the same materials and architectural style. The new space will be primarily used for youth programming.
The existing church has 182 parking spaces. The zoning code requires 1 parking space for every 3 seats in the sanctuary space. Thus, this site is required to have 95 spaces.
A representative of the church will be available to answer questions during the public hearing.
ADJACENT ZONING AND SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning District Land Use Subject Property R-1A Single Family Residential Church Adjacent North R-1A Single Family Residential Agriculture Adjacent West R-3A Medium Density Multiple Family Multiple Family Residential Adjacent South R-1A Single Family Residential Agriculture Adjacent East R-1B Single Family Residential Residential (Pheasant Ridge)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Zoning Code sets forth standards for Special Uses in Sec. 15.10-5(a)(2). Pertinent standards include the following:
º Off-street parking and loading areas where required or provided, shall be located and designed in a manner which will maximize the items referred to in Paragraph (a) above (including maximizing pedestrian and automotive safety and convenience) and will minimize any adverse economic, noise, glare or odor effects of the special use on adjoining or nearby properties;
º Screening and buffering materials shall be sufficient to insure that the proposed special use will have no greater impact on surrounding land uses than other uses authorized as a matter of right;
º Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting shall be located and designed to maximize traffic safety and compatibility and harmony with adjoining or nearby properties and so as to minimize glare, noise and adverse economic impact on surrounding properties or authorized land uses;
º Required yards and open spaces shall be sufficient to insure that the proposed special use will have no greater impact on surrounding land uses than other uses authorized as a matter of right;
º The site on which the special use is located shall be designed to make the proposed use generally compatible with adjoining or nearby properties;
º The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located and of the entire municipal code, including but not limited to Division 14, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the President and Town Council pursuant to the recommendations of the Zoning Board of Appeals or as allowed for a Planned Unit Development.
Special Use standards specific to churches are set forth in Sec. 15.10-4(F). These standards include building setbacks, height maximum, location adjacent to a major street and similar requirements.
The Special Use standards are intended to ensure that specific uses do not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff believes the proposed building expansion at the Heartland Community Church meets these standards. The building addition is on the rear face of the building and will be built to match the existing structure. The addition is fully screened on the west by the mature tree line along the Constitution Trail. The addition of non-sanctuary space does not require any additional parking spaces. As a result, the addition should not have any impact on the residential uses in the area.
The project technically requires a variance from the Community Design Standards landscaping provisions. Per code, any development triggers full compliance with the standards. However, Town staff has routinely recommended applying the standards only to the portion of the site being altered. In this case, the building addition will be landscaped around the foundation. Furthermore, as part of the 2009 parking lot expansion, the church landscaped the parking area to meet code.
4. Staff Recommendation:
For the reasons set forth above, staff recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals forward a positive recommendation on the Amended Special Use request with a variance for landscaping to the Town Council.
Zoning Board Action
____ Approved
____ Conditionally Approved
____ Denied
To all Applicant(s) - Please note that: a. The approved variation will expire within one year from the date of the Board decision if the applicant failed to obtain a building permit (Section 15.12-5(E)(3) b. No application for variation which has been denied wholly or in part by the Zoning Board shall be submitted for a period of one year from the date of said order of denial except on the grounds of error in the original proceedings or change of conditions found to be valid by the Zoning Board of Appeals (Sec. 15.12-5(E)(2) c. Decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeal concerning a variation request in R-2, R-3A, R-3B, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1, and M-2 Zoning Districts shall be considered a provisional decision for a period of 10 days. During the 10-day provisional period, any member of the Town Council may file in writing with the City Clerk a stay of decision. This provision gives the Council the opportunity to review the action of the Zoning Board and render a final decision, which may only be reviewed in the courts in accordance with the applicable statutes and law of the State of Illinois. Please see Sec. 15.12-5(E)(1)(a) of the Zoning Code for additional information.
AYE NAY OTHER AYE NAY OTHER Randy Schaab Corrine Brand Janet Hood Tony Penn Gary Blakney Todd Anderson Keith Palmgren
______Chairman / Date
Addendum
TOWN OF NORMAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010, 5:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 100 E. PHOENIX AVE. NORMAL, IL
Members Physically Present:
Mr. Anderson, Ms. Hood, Mr. Blakney, Mr. Schaab, Ms. Brand and Mr. Palmgren
Members Absent:
Mr. Penn
Others Present:
City Manager, Mark Peterson, Corporation Counsel, Steve Mahrt, Town Engineer, Gene Brown, Inspections, Director of Inspections, Greg Troemel, Town Planner, Mercy Davison and Office Associate, Sheila Elgin
Call to Order:
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and noted a quorum was present.
Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of the May 20, 2010, meeting were approved as submitted. Motion to approve carried 6-0.
Public Hearings:
a. 10-06-06-SU: Amended Special Use Permit, 1811 N. Linden (Heartland Community Church building expansion)
Mr. Dean Eckhardt, 2801 Rainbow Ave., Bloomington, IL, was sworn in by Chairman Anderson. Mr. Eckhardt said that they were proposing to a 6000 sq. ft. addition to the south of the existing building.
Ms. Davison said that the addition was designed to match the existing building and is located far off the street. They will relocate the existing foundation landscaping. A waiver will be needed for landscaping requirements to be applied only to the proposed addition. As part of the 2009 parking lot expansion, landscaping was added to the parking area to meet code. Staff supports the variance and Amended Special Use request. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 2 JUNE 17, 2010
Ms. Brand asked if there would be less landscaping. Mr. Eckhardt said that they would be moving the existing foundation plantings to the perimeter of the addition.
Mr. Troemel said that this is the first church to come before the board with the parking requirements being based on seating instead of building square footage.
There was no one else to speak regarding the application and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Schaab moved, seconded by Ms. Brand, to recommend approval of the application to Council with the landscaping variation.
Ayes: Mr. Schaab, Ms. Hood, Mr. Blakney, Mr. Palmgren, Ms. Brand and Mr. Anderson Nays: None Motion declared carried.
Ms. Davison said that this item will come before the Council on July 19, 2010.
b. 10-05-05-A: Appeal of Zoning code Administrator’s Code Interpretation (continued)
Chairman Anderson said that this is a continuation from the May meeting. Tonight’s proceedings will be the same as last month.
Mr. Mahrt said that this is an appeal by Kristie Embry challenging Mr. Troemel’s interpretation of the Zoning Code. She is challenging two interpretations. One is that the 1010 S. Main St. parcel is not in the Parking Impact Zone. She is challenging his interpretation that it is in the Parking Impact Zone. She is also challenging his interpretation that a building located within the Parking Impact Zone that is within 100’ of a single-family residential district can be a four-story building. She contends that the height of the building is limited to two stories. The Zoning Board has the authority to review Mr. Troemel’s decisions in relation to those issues. The code provides that if the Board finds that Mr. Troemel misinterpreted or erroneously applied the Code, then they can overturn or modify his decision with regard to either or both of those issues. If they find that he did not erroneously apply the code or misinterpret the code, then the decision would be to sustain the action of the Zoning Administrator. In making their decision, they have no authority to modify the code as it exists. They are simply to determine whether he applied the code correctly. During last month’s meeting, Mr. Schaab asked whether or not the language of the ordinance creating the Parking Impact Zone controlled over the Zoning Map. At that time Mr. Mahrt stated that it was his opinion that the language of the ordinance controlled over the map. He has since sent the Board a memo explaining that opinion was in error. The Board should all have a copy of that memo and a copy went to Ms. Embry’s ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 3 JUNE 17, 2010
attorney, Mr. Hug, as well. Although Illinois law provides that the ordinance controls the map, the Town Zoning Code states the exact opposite. The map controls and it can only be impeached by an ordinance adopted by the Town Council after the publication of the map. There has been no ordinance adopted by the Town Council after publication of the map showing this parcel in the Parking Impact Zone.
Chairman Anderson said that Mr. Peterson also wanted to speak.
Mr. Peterson, City Manager, said that he wanted to express his appreciation to the Board for granting the Town’s request for a continuance of the hearing made at the conclusion of the May 20 meeting. He said that he wanted to acknowledge that Mr. Troemel was put in a difficult situation at that meeting. He was given the task of explaining his interpretation of the Zoning Code without benefit of legal counsel. The Town’s Corporation Counsel, Mr. Mahrt, is serving as an advisor to the Board; therefore, it would not be appropriate for him to represent Mr. Troemel. Nor would it be appropriate for any member of his staff to represent Mr. Troemel. When staff discussed the issues prior to the May 20 meeting, they believed the issue before the Board at the time was a relatively straightforward Zoning Code interpretation matter. They did not feel it would be necessary to provide Mr. Troemel with legal representation. However, they did not expect that Ms. Embry and her attorney would introduce arguments involving case law and legal theory, not to mention a number of photo-shopped exhibits. Mr. Troemel was in no position to address those types of arguments without benefit of legal counsel. Mr. Peterson said that he wanted to apologize and took responsibility. He said that it is his responsibility to provide his staff with the resources that they need to effectively carry out their job duties and it was his error in not making sure Mr. Troemel had the advice and support of legal counsel. He said that given the Town’s fiduciary responsibilities to its taxpayers, the Town doesn’t typically hire private outside counsel to represent staff in this type of matter. We typically look to other government agencies for assistance and we have done so in this case. The City of Champaign has graciously agreed to provide us access to one of their staff attorneys, Mr. Joseph Hooker. From this point forward, he will be assisting Mr. Troemel in this matter in presenting information to the Board.
Chairman Anderson said that comments would be allowed based on last month’s meeting and following would be any rebuttal.
Mr. Troemel thanked the Board for allowing the matter to be carried over and allowing staff to further consider many of the issues that were talked about. Mr. Troemel said that they plan to focus on the two primary issues at hand – the fact that the map carries the day, which is supported by our ordinance, and that the applicant claims that this should have been limited to a two-story building. They will show the steps taken to apply the four-story building structure. Mr. Hooker has prepared a power point that they will go over and then Mr. Troemel will answer any questions from the Zoning Board or applicant. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 4 JUNE 17, 2010
Mr. Hooker said that he was Assistant City Attorney with the City of Champaign. He said that he had been with the city for 14 years, since May 1996 to present. One of his primary duties is to advise the City’s Planning Department, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Committee. He is also an instructor for land use law at the University of Illinois in the Department of Regional Planning. He has a Masters in Urban Planning in addition to a Jurist Doctorate from the University of Illinois. He is also a member of the American Planning Association and American Institute of Certified Planners. He is very familiar with zoning issues and the particular issues that they are contending with in this particular hearing and the law that underlies that.
Mr. Hooker said that he had reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting and had reviewed the power point presentation presented by the applicant and had discussed the matter with staff. He said that the two issues are contesting the notion that 1010 S. Main St. is in fact in the Parking Impact Zone given the conflict in the actual text in the Zoning Ordinance and the way that the map is drawn on the official zoning map. The second issue pertains to how the three levels of regulation yield the maximum height of a building at this particular location.
Mr. Hooker said that he wanted to expand on a couple of comments made by Mr. Mahrt. The issues before the board are narrow. They are not being asked to appeal from the Special Use approval that has already occurred. They are not being asked to give judgment on whether it’s good policy the way the code is written or whether they are happy with the outcome. They are specifically being asked in this appeal to determine whether the Zoning Administrator erroneously applied the provisions of this code. This code includes the official zoning map that is incorporated by reference in the code. They are looking at the map and code language as well. The single most important code provision that applies here is the notion of the presumptive validity of the zoning map. Section 15.10-4 provides that at any point in time, essentially the latest revised zoning map in affect at that time, shall raise a rebuttable presumption as to the zoning status of the land, building or other uses within the Town of Normal. Mr. Hooker said that the use of the term “shall” is not discretionary, and it is a requirement that is imposed on staff and the Zoning Administrator in this case. The code goes on to narrowly limit the circumstances that they can consider to rebut that presumption of validity – solely and exclusively by the provision of an ordinance duly adopted after the effective date of the zoning map. That is the window that they have to look at ordinance language. It has to be after the effective date of the zoning map. The language is clear, it is not ambiguous, there is no discretion permitted there.
Mr. Hooker said that the official zoning map, in this particular situation is the one that was approved in March of this year, 2010. In that map there is nothing disputed, it shows the entire site to be in the Parking Impact Zone. There is not dispute about that fact. There is likewise no dispute that the actual text in the zoning ordinance does ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 5 JUNE 17, 2010
reference that the boundary dividing the Parking Impact Zone from areas not in the Impact Zone is Church St. extended. There is no dispute about that. The question becomes which controls. In this particular case the facts are clear that the actual text was last presented and approved by the Town in an amendment in 2008. That amendment had nothing to do with the language in question, but is clear that that is the last time that the Town of Normal saw that language and approved that language along with all the other amendments. Clearly that happened before the official zoning map that is controlling in this case was approved. The provision that actually has the text is clearly in conflict with how the map was drawn where it bisects the subject site, but there is no question that the text was approved prior to the time that the map was approved.
Mr. Hooker said that having looked at those facts, the conclusion is clear that the map controls. There is really no dispute about that in the way that the code in Normal is written. Because of language that limits the circumstances, the types of evidence that you can consider to rebut the validity of the map, the conclusion is that the entire site of 1010 S. Main is in the Parking Impact Zone because the map controls. He said that he understood that there were a lot of arguments on whether that makes good sense as a policy matter and he understood that staff was prepared to offer some rebuttal on some of the claims made by the appellants in this case where they made argument that it doesn’t make any sense. The code in this particular case is clear, it is not ambiguous. He suggested that a fair amount of testimony that was presented at the last meeting was not relevant at all to this particular issue. The Zoning Administrator had no authority to choose between the text and the map. If he follows the code language, the map controls. Regardless of what he thought would be the better approach from a policy standpoint or what would get the best result on whether this development would be approved or not, the map controls according to the Code and likewise, this body has no authority to disregard that particular section and to engage in consideration about some of the things that were argued at the last hearing. Only the Town Council has the power to change the official zoning map enacted by a legislation of that case. There is formal resolution that is passed adopting the official Zoning Map from year to year.
Mr. Hooker said that this body does not have any power or authority in this particular case to look at case law to decide whether the code in question, the unambiguous code language in this question, is a violation in some manner of state law. Those are matters that are completely outside the authority of this Board and things that they cannot consider. Mr. Hooker said that he had looked at the cases and there are some interesting arguments that can be made both ways. Were this matter to be brought before the proper body to consider such a thing, it would have to be a court of law to look at any kind of a claim that the code may say one thing, but state law says you cannot follow that provision of the code. That is not what is before them today and they do not have authority to get into that, so it is not relevant.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 6 JUNE 17, 2010
Mr. Hooker said that the second point of the appeal was being referred by the appellants as bootstrapping, the notion that the Zoning Administrator erroneously manipulated the code or chose between various code provisions to get a certain result, namely that a four-story building is permitted in this particular case rather than a two- story building. He said if you logically go through the sections in question, you will see that he interpreted the code in a correct, straightforward manner. There is no doubt that there are three different layers of zoning regulation in this particular case. That is something you have to bear in mind when determining whether the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation was correct or not. The Special Use Standards come into play because the developer submitted this as a Special Use request in the B1 zoning district. The first level of regulation is that it is in the B1 General Business District, so all of those regulations would ordinarily apply. The next level is that this is presented as an application for Special Use. That means that the Special Use Standards is overlay and the Special Use Standard kicks in at this point. Then in paragraph P, the section that governs this particular case because the proposal did involve a multiple family dwelling in the B1 General Business district, it says that the greater of the height allowed in the Parking Impact Zone or the following: for lots adjacent to or within 100’ of a single-family residential district, the facts in this particular case, in accordance with the R3-A medium density multiple family residence district standards. That is the Special Use Standards, but there is another level of regulation that is involved as well because the map controls and we now know that this particular property, under the terms of the code, is in the Parking Impact Zone. So what are the R3-A Medium Density multiple-family residence district standards for 1010 S. Main St.? You then have to look at paragraph O in section 15.7-4 because this property is in the Parking Impact Zone. This paragraph provides that in the R3-A zoning district, buildings up to four stories or 45’ will be permitted. That is the ultimate basis for the Zoning Administrator’s determination that a building of that height, under these circumstances, if all the other conditions of the Special Use Permit application are met, is permitted. He said that rather than the notion of some kind of bootstrapping or some inappropriate behavior by the Zoning Administrator, he is simply recognizing the indisputable fact that there are clearly three layers of regulation affecting this property. There is no question about it because of the way the code is structured in this case. Another way to show how the code sections interact with one another, 1010 S. Main is in the B1 zoning district but it was submitted for approval as a special use and hence you apply section 15.10-4-P and you go beyond that knowing that the property is in the Parking Impact overlay zone, you go further to find that under paragraph O, the regulations in this particular case do permit a building that is four stories tall. He said that he would respectfully submit to the Board that the Embrys are essentially arguing that the Zoning Administrator should ignore that there are three levels of regulation because they are not happy with the result. He said that it is fairly straightforward and there was nothing inappropriate about the way he analyzed the code and it is pretty clear that he applied it correctly in this circumstance. So the question to the Board is did the Zoning Administrator in this particular case, erroneously interpret or apply the zoning ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 7 JUNE 17, 2010
regulations in this case in reaching the conclusion that the height restriction is four stories or 45 feet. He would say that the answer is clearly no and that the decision in this case should be to deny this appeal.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Palmgren if he had read all of the minutes from the previous month. Mr. Palmgren said that he had. Mr. Palmgren asked that in regard to the Parking Impact Zone, what does an overlay zone mean? Mr. Hooker said that the overlay zone is a zoning district that was adopted in 2001 and that you apply special conditions to the properties in that zone in addition to the conditions that are already applicable because of the underlying zoning district. The notion of the overlay zone is that you do have to comply with the B1 zoning except where the overlay zone provides for different regulations. Complicating matters further is that this was submitted as a Special Use. This is a complicated situation. He said that he is focusing narrowly on how the decision was arrived at.
Mr. Schaab asked that as a quasi judicial board, is it fair to say that the Board should listen to and apply all testimony given to them. Mr. Hooker said that not as the question was phrased. He said that they should not consider evidence that is not relevant to the issue before them. Mr. Schaab said that case law was presented stating that wording preempts maps, so why would they not consider that if they are a quasi judicial board and it was provided by testimony under oath. Mr. Hooker said that saying that a hearing is quasi judicial does not mean that they have the same jurisdiction as a court and that you can consider the same types of disputes as a court. It means is that they are acting somewhat like a court in that they are weighing evidence and applying that evidence to particular issues. That is where the term quasi judicial comes in and that is distinguished as legislative where the obvious example would be the Town Council passing zoning regulations. That would be a legislative act. It is a less formal process. There is some general fact finding that goes on and they vote up or down on a proposed zoning text amendment for example. Quasi judicial is that you are dealing with a specific dispute involving specific parties and specific issues. You are acting like a court in that sense, but you are not making legislation, you are making a decision like a court would. But that is an entirely separate matter to the question of what is your jurisdiction, what is the issue before you in this particular case. That is whether the Zoning Administrator correctly interpreted the Normal code. You don’t have the jurisdiction to resolve issues that a court could resolve. That is not to say that there is not some remedy that they could see in a court in this particular case. It is simply to say that the Board does not have the authority to look at those issues. The analogy that he would draw is that it’s a constitutional claim. They say that their due process was violated. This body is not authorized to engage in that kind of inquiry. They are essentially suggesting that you consider Illinois common law, court law in this particular case. If you wanted to get into it he would argue that issue, but the Board doesn’t even have the authority to look at it, it is not proper for them to look at it, they are not equipped to look at it. That is something that a judge should look at. That is what it means to be quasi ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 8 JUNE 17, 2010
judicial, not that they are the same as a court and you can consider types of claims that a court can entertain.
Mr. Hug said that the Board just took legal advice from a staff member’s attorney and not from their own and seemed to be willing to disregard the information that he might have. He said that he would like to address the quasi judicial question from Mr. Schaab.
Mr. Brian Hug was sworn in by Chairman Anderson. Mr. Hug said that he represented Ms. Embry and said that he understood that he was still under oath. He said that he would like to note that at the last meeting and at this meeting Chairman Anderson had not sworn everyone in. At the last meeting Mercy Davison testified regarding your practices of bootstrapping and should not have testified because she was not sworn in and he also wanted to note that the city manager was not sworn in earlier. He said that there have been some issues and he understands that it is a little less rigid than a normal hearing, but he asked that the Board be a little more willing to listen to both sides and not take legal advice from the opponent of the applicant. He said that he would be happy to explain the distinction that he believed that they were just misled on.
Mr. Hug said that the Board is being asked both by their attorney and by Mr. Hooker to make a decision on which law to apply, specifically, whether or not the ordinances or the common law controls. That is being asked of you by Mr. Hooker. He is saying that you shouldn’t consider the common law. The honest truth is that he is asking you to make that decision. That is a typical decision made by boards on what law they’re interested in, what law they are going to apply. If it’s not raised by an applicant at this level, he cannot raise it in court. If he doesn’t mention it at this level, he cannot raise it in court. If we don’t raise an issue here, it can’t be raised later on. So the fact is, that is an important issue that the Board must decide. They must decide what law they are going to follow. He said that he had questions of the witnesses before he went into detail of why the law that should be followed is not as Mr. Hooker suggests. Mr. Hug asked if he was allowed to ask questions of the witnesses.
Ms. Brand asked if it was appropriate for Mr. Hug to question witnesses. Mr. Mahrt said that it was appropriate. It is part of the due process of the hearing. Either side can question either party’s witnesses. It is unusual. We generally don’t have that occur before this Board, but it is allowed. You can establish reasonable procedures such as no badgering of the witness and civility rules so you don’t have to allow cart blanche such as two hours of grilling a particular witness that is redundant or irrelevant.
Ms. Brand said that if they were going to be taking testimony in a fashion that a court of law would, she would feel more comfortable continuing this matter further until ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 9 JUNE 17, 2010
the Board has an opportunity to decide what rules they want to use to hear this kind of testimony in terms of badgering witnesses, who can be called, is it just limited to individuals that have already provided testimony before the Board up to this point. She said that she was concerned that they were going to be a little more informal than it should be. Mr. Mahrt said that they didn’t need formal written rules for the Chair to control the meeting, to provide an orderly meeting, and a meeting that is conducted with civility. He said that he could assist in that regard as well. Ms. Brand said that if they were going to be asked to consider case law, she would like to be provided with a copy of those cases if it is not inappropriate. Mr. Mahrt said that he could offer an opinion with regard to case law and he tried to address that in his memo to the Board indicating that Illinois case law appears to be different from the Town of Normal Zoning Code. Their jurisdiction is to review Mr. Troemel’s interpretation and application of the Zoning Code. If they believe that the Zoning Code somehow violates Illinois law, that is outside the scope of this particular case. If they feel strongly about that after they listen to all of the evidence and the facts of this case, after they make their decision in this case, if they still have a strong opinion about whether or not the Zoning Code somehow conflicts with Illinois law and that bothers them, then they can forward a recommendation to the legislative body, the Town Council, expressing their concerns. The Town of Normal as a home rule unit has authority to home rule around common law and around statutory law except in those areas where we are preempted by the legislature or in those areas that deal with Constitutional principles or concepts.
Mr. Blakney asked if the scope of the Zoning Board had nothing to do with the case studies that they were about to hear, should they even hear it since the Town law takes precedence over State law in this case. Mr. Mahrt said that he was not sure if Mr. Hug’s questioning of Mr. Troemel has to do with case law. He didn’t think that he would ask questions of Mr. Troemel with regard to Illinois law since Mr. Troemel is not an attorney. He does not have any expertise to guide the board or produce relevant testimony in that regard. If they want to know about Illinois law, he suggested they ask him for his opinion.
Mr. Schaab said that he had similar concerns and based on what Ms. Brand was saying, maybe one of the stipulations could be that questioning does not involve case law since they are not really supposed to consider that. Mr. Hug said that he did not intend to go into case law with Mr. Troemel.
Mr. Hug asked if they had any objections of him asking about the Town’s ordinance. The Board responded that they did not.
Mr. Hug asked Mr. Troemel if he was thoroughly acquainted with the zoning ordinance for the Town of Normal. Mr. Troemel replied that he was. Mr. Hug asked if he was thoroughly acquainted with every district in the Town of Normal. Mr. Troemel replied yes. Mr. Hug asked if he was acquainted with the boundaries of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 10 JUNE 17, 2010
every district in the Town of Normal. Mr. Troemel said that he was not. Mr. Hug asked how long Mr. Troemel had had to job of Zoning Administrator. Mr. Troemel replied 10 years, since May of 2000. Mr. Hug asked if he worked regularly with the boundaries of the zoning districts in the Town of Normal. Mr. Troemel said that he did. Mr. Hug asked if it was true that preparation of the map was his responsibility. Mr. Troemel said yes, he assisted in the preparation of the map. Mr. Hug said that preparation of the map would be a matter of reviewing every ordinance of the Town of Normal to make changes to that map. Mr. Troemel said that he assisted in the process. Mr. Hug asked if when Mr. Troemel assisted, did he double check the actual boundaries by reading the boundaries. Mr. Troemel said that he personally did not. Mr. Hug asked if someone from the Town of Normal did. Mr. Troemel said yes. Mr. Hug asked of that responsibility was delegated by him to somebody. Mr. Troemel said no, as a matter of Town policy it is basically the supporting ordinances for any rezoning are forwarded through the Clerk’s office and ultimately to the Engineering Department for issuance of the zoning map. Mr. Hug asked if Mr. Troemel checked to see if it was correct. Mr. Troemel said no that he was not the final layer. Mr. Hug asked if he had some input on checking to see if that was correct. Mr. Troemel said yes. Mr. Hug asked if Mr. Troemel at any time checked to see if the PIZ was correct. Mr. Troemel said not specifically, no. Mr. Hug asked why not. Mr. Troemel said that he relies on the published zoning map as his tool to enforce the appropriate zoning ordinances. Mr. Hug asked if it was correct that he was involved in confirming the published zoning map. Mr. Troemel said that was correct. Mr. Hug asked if before the map was published, he compared the map against the actual language of the PIZ. Mr. Troemel asked if he meant when it was created in 2001. Mr. Hug said at anytime. Mr. Troemel said no. Mr. Hug said that the two parcels that they were talking about are at 1010 S. Main St. Mr. Troemel said that Mr. Hug was. Mr. Hug said that it was an issue of this appeal. Mr. Troemel said that was correct. Mr. Hug said Mr. Troemel was also aware that the PIZ incorrectly has some property not listed on Cypress. Mr. Troemel said that he was not aware of that prior to the last hearing. Mr. Hug asked if he had driven the boundaries of the PIZ. Mr. Troemel said that he had not consciously, but he was sure he had as a matter of routine. Mr. Hug asked if it was correct that under the Town’s ordinance to change and amendment to a district requires that the president or board of trustees or a property owner or party to a valid enforceable purchase option contract make an application to change district boundaries. Mr. Troemel said that was correct. Mr. Hug said that zoning staff is not allowed by ordinance to change district boundaries. Mr. Troemel agreed. Mr. Hug asked in what year the change to the PIZ was made. Mr. Troemel said that based on his exploration, the Parking Impact Zone was created initially in 2001. The subsequent map change to include the entire 1010 piece took place in 2003. Mr. Hug asked if there was a map in 2001 or 2002. Mr. Troemel said yes. Mr. Hug asked if those maps were accurate. Mr. Troemel said that they were at the time. Mr. Hug asked if Mr. Troemel compared the 2003 map with the 2001 or 2002 map. Mr. Troemel said that he did not. Mr. Hug asked if Mr. Troemel looked when he saw the 2003 map, did he find any ordinance that changed the Parking ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 11 JUNE 17, 2010
Impact. Mr. Troemel said that he did not. Mr. Hug said that an amendment to the district requires an application. Once an application is made, the public is notified that an application to change zoning has been done, is that correct? Mr. Troemel said that if it is a specific property that is going to be considered as a rezoning, as policy we notify people within 400’ of that property and put a public notice in our recognized paper.
Mr. Hug asked if Mr. Troemel notified the public for a change in the PIZ. Mr. Troemel said that he did not personally. Mr. Hug asked if anybody did. Mr. Troemel said that as a matter of practice, the annual zoning map does not get considered by the Planning Commission. It is considered by Council by ordinance at a March meeting without specific notice to the entire community. Mr. Hug said that there was no hearing for a modification of the PIZ. Mr. Troemel said that there was not a Planning Commission hearing for the purpose of amending the map, nor is there when we publish the annual zoning map. Mr. Hug said that there was no notice to the neighbors. Mr. Troemel said that he would defer to the Board’s attorney as to whether or not publishing an agenda for a Town Council meeting is public notice because that does happen. Mr. Hug asked if there was an application to change the PIZ. Mr. Troemel asked if he was referring to 1010 S. Main. Mr. Hug said correct. Mr. Hug asked if at any time were the neighbors advised that the PIZ would be changed at 1010. Mr. Troemel said that not in regard to the PIZ, no. Mr. Hug asked if at any time were the neighbors provided an opportunity to testify before any body of the Town of Normal regarding a change in the PIZ at 1010. Mr. Troemel said that regarding a change, no. Regarding the application, yes. But regarding a change, no. Mr. Hug said that each of the steps that they have talked about is a step required by the Town’s ordinance. Mr. Troemel said that was correct. Mr. Hug said that there was no approval by the Planning Commission or the Zoning Board of Appeals of a change to the PIZ. Mr. Troemel said that with regard to the 1010 application, no. Mr. Hug asked if at any time ever. Mr. Troemel said not to his knowledge. Mr. Hug said according to the Town’s ordinance, neighbors that own 20% or more of adjoining property may petition the City Council when an application goes before the City Council for a change in zoning, they may petition and protest, is that correct. Mr. Troemel said yes. Mr. Hug said that protest would cause a super majority of the Council before they may change the ordinance. Mr. Troemel said correct. Mr. Hug said that none of that occurred. Mr. Troemel said not to his knowledge. Mr. Mahrt said that it might be helpful to indicate or specify as to what. Mr. Hug said the change in the PIZ to 1010. Mr. Mahrt said he means the publication of the map. Mr. Hug said that he was talking about any change in the PIZ to 1010. Mr. Mahrt said which occurred during the publication of the map. Mr. Hug asked if the change of 1010 into the PIZ done in the normal course of business of the Town of Normal.
Mr. Hooker said that he took issue with that question and it was vague. He said that the map did change it through the annual approval of the map. He said that he didn’t think that there is any dispute that there is nothing on record to show that there was a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 12 JUNE 17, 2010
formal application made to amend the map in the manner that Mr. Hug is discussing. He has very amply covered that for the record. He said that for the record, he understands that we are not disputing any of that as far as what the facts show.
Mr. Hug asked if the change in the PIZ was not done in the normal procedure by the Town of Normal. Mr. Troemel said that in regard to the inclusion of the south two thirds of the 1010 property considered by the Planning Commission as a specific zoning code change or zoning map amendment, no.
Mr. Schaab asked what defined normal procedure. Mr. Hug said that the normal procedures for changing a zoning district, including the PIZ, is to have an application, (Mr. Troemel said correct) send notice (Mr. Troemel said correct), to hold a hearing (Mr. Troemel said correct) before a hearing body to make a recommendation to the Town Council (Mr. Troemel said correct), to provide an opportunity for the neighbors to express their concerns (Mr. Troemel said correct), and to provide the neighbors an opportunity to protest your ordinance of they so desire and none of that was followed in this circumstance. Mr. Troemel said that specifically with regard to 1010, no. Mr. Hug asked if it was a practice of the Zoning Department or the Engineering Department to change the borders of a zoning district without authorization by the City Council. Mr. Troemel said that it was not. Mr. Hug said that the zoning map was approved by a resolution, correct? Mr. Troemel said that was correct. It was not passed by an ordinance changing the map and changing the PIZ. Mr. Troemel said that he would argue that our code states that it was.
Mr. Hug said he would like to go over stuff about bootstrapping and asked if it was okay with the Board.
Mr. Schaab said that he wanted some clarification from Mr. Mahrt. He asked if as far as notification being sent to people, is it in the guidelines that you have to be within so many feet of the proposed change to receive personal notification. Mr. Mahrt said that we provide courtesy notices to neighbors. The usually and customary manor in which property is rezone is that the applicant, the owner of the property, petitions to have it rezoned, in which case there is a hearing process and it goes to Council. Courtesy notices are provided to adjoining property owners. Occasionally the Town Council will initiate a zoning change on its own and zone a property. In that case notice goes out to the affected property owner and public notice goes out and again courtesy notice goes out to adjoining property owners. Mr. Schaab said that in this case, notification to neighbors is a courtesy not a requirement. Mr. Mahrt said right. Mr. Schaab said then if making changes to the PIZ, is publication that Town Council is going to take action on this, and he assumes it is 30 days out, is that considered enough notification for the community to know this change is coming. Is that considered notification? Mr. Mahrt said that the Council annually adopts a zoning map and it is on a public meeting which the public has notice of the meeting and the agenda, so in a sense, yes that provides a form of notice to the entire community of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 13 JUNE 17, 2010
what kind of action that the Council is taking. Is it the same kind of notice that is used when there is a map amendment petitioned by a property owner; it is different. He is right; it is a form of notice.
Mr. Hug asked Mr. Troemel regarding section 15.5-2 of the zoning ordinance whether the ordinance itself requires that amendments to such map shall be by ordinance duly adopted by the Corporate authority, is that correct. Mr. Troemel said correct. Mr. Hug asked if there was an ordinance that duly adopted an amendment to the map. Mr. Troemel said that he would refer back to Mr. Mahrt’s argument that yes, it was published and identified on a Town Council meeting agenda, a public meeting. Specifically as it relates to 1010 property, was there a specific courtesy notice given to property owners within close proximity to 1010, no. Mr. Hug said that he had just told him that the map was changed by a resolution, so the map was not changed by ordinance. Mr. Troemel said that he believed that there was a change and up until this past year, it was approved by ordinance and most recently it was by resolution. Mr. Mahrt said that they would check the records, but he believed that the zoning map was adopted by ordinance of the Town Council. Mr. Mahrt said that he did not understand the question as to what ordinance he was talking about in relation to the zoning map. Mr. Hug said that there was clearly an amendment to the zoning map, is that correct. Mr. Mahrt said that he was not sure what he meant by there was an amendment to the zoning map. Was he talking about was there a revised zoning map published in March. Mr. Hug asked if the zoning map was changed to change the districts. Mr. Troemel said specifically as related to 1010, no. Mr. Hug said that there was no amendment to the zoning map to change 1010 and put it in the PIZ. Mr. Troemel said that by inherently by the annual adoption of the map, yes there was. Mr. Hooker said that there was no dispute about the facts to the extent that Mr. Hug is suggesting there was no formal application made by an applicant saying they wanted to change the zoning of 1010 S. Main in order to include the entire site in the Parking Impact Zone. The answer is no, clearly that never happened. We are not suggesting in any way that it did. Likewise, the record is clear that at some point prior to 2010 and it was carried over from that point on, the official map was approved in a manner included the entire site in the Parking Impact Zone. There is no dispute about the facts and there is not a lot to gain by continuing. He suggested that the witness in this case was not equipped to deal with the nuances of whether it was an ordinance or resolution and he thought they were clouding the issue.
Mr. Blakney said that the Parking Impact Zone was added to the Town map in 2001 and in 2003 was when the additional part of 1010 S. Main was added and adopted by the Town Council to the map; was it in 2003? Mr. Troemel said that as a result of the hearing and based on his investigation to see when the map actually changed, that is what he confirmed by looking at the annual published zoning map that takes place in March. The map had already been published in 2001 so the next published map was the one that came out in 2002 which showed the property being bisected along Church St. The next 2003 published map included the rest of the 1010 property and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 14 JUNE 17, 2010
since that date has been included. He was not aware of that until a couple of months ago.
Mr. Hug asked if in Mr. Troemel’s research, was there anything on any of the paperwork that he or the Town of Normal has that indicates to the Town Council that there was an intended change for the PIZ to include all of 1010. Mr. Troemel said that was there a specific zoning map amendment for the 1010 property as it relates to whether or not the entire piece was in the impact zone, no. Mr. Hug asked if there was any way that he believed that the Town Council was aware that they were amending the PIZ to include 1010. Mr. Mahrt said that he did not think that it was appropriate for the witness to speculate as to what the Council thought or didn’t think. Mr. Hooker said that he wanted to make the clarification that at all times part of 1010 was in the Parking Impact Zone. The way that this is developing is that there is a suggestion that it wasn’t at all in there. Mr. Hug asked Mr. Troemel if regarding the property south of Church St., is there anything in the paperwork that he has that suggests to him that the Town Council was aware that they were changing the PIZ. Mr. Troemel said that as it relates to a property owner’s application to amend the map, no. Mr. Hug said as it relates even to discussion among the Town Council members, were they told in a hearing. Mr. Troemel said that he could not say, but he could not find anything to support that.
Mr. Hug asked if there was any place where Mr. Troemel had used the three layer step to get from a B1 zoning area to a B1, R3-A, PIZ, four-story building. Mr. Troemel said specifically, other than the 1010 property, no. This is the first time that they have interpreted the zoning ordinance to allow these three layers to play on themselves to get a result. Mr. Troemel said yes. Mr. Hug asked if Mr. Troemel was acquainted with all of the B1 zoning areas in the Town. Mr. Troemel said yes. Mr. Hug said that there is no other place in Town where he had placed a four-story building in B1 next to a residential zoned area. Mr. Troemel said that he could not say that that was true. Not using this process. We have several B1 zoned properties with multiple-family dwellings in them that are in excess of two stories, but not using this specific process. Mr. Hug said not next to R1. Mr. Troemel said that they were adjacent to R1 zoning. Mr. Hug asked where they were. Mr. Troemel said that he could not give specific addresses, but several properties along the 500, 600 and 700 block of South Main Street. Mr. Hug asked what the properties were. Mr. Troemel said that they were mixed use, commercial, multiple-family dwellings. Mr. Hug asked what the names of the properties or how did he identify them. Mr. Troemel said by address. Mr. Hug asked what was being used in those properties, was there business on the first floor. Mr. Troemel said that there was business on the first floor and dwelling units above the first floor. Mr. Hug said they weren’t four-story buildings. Mr. Troemel said that we have a few. Mr. Hug asked which ones. Mr. Troemel said Junction Place that had five different addresses, one of which is 800 S. Main. Mr. Hug said that it was not adjacent to an R1, R2 or any residence. Mr. Troemel said that it was contiguous to residential zoning to the west. Mr. Hug said ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 15 JUNE 17, 2010
that was R3-A. Mr. Troemel said yes. Mr. Hug said it was not contiguous to R2. Mr. Troemel said that particular property, no. Mr. Hug said that the ordinance prohibits buildings in B1 over two stories if next to R1 or R2, is that correct. Mr. Troemel said that as a transitional height issue, yes. Mr. Hug said that same transitional height issue applies to the R3A district next to an R1 or R2. Mr. Troemel said that was correct. Mr. Troemel said that he retracted that answer and there is not a transitional height issue between R3 properties and R1 properties. There is a setback transition, but there is not a height transitional issue between R3 and R1. Mr. Hug said that R3 has a height limitation. Mr. Troemel said that it has a height limitation, but there is not a transitional issue. Mr. Hug said that that height limit is two stores. Mr. Troemel said outside the impact zone. Mr. Hug said correct. Mr. Hug said that he had no further questions for Mr. Troemel.
Mr. Schaab asked Mr. Hug that at the last meeting they discussed that this property was divided into multiple parcels, tonight he made the statement that it is two parcels. Mr. Schaab said that he did not think that you would bisect a piece of property and say that half is in and half is out. Mr. Hug said that the evidence presented last time that showed the plat that was laid out; north of Church St. there are three or four lots. South of Church he thought there were seven separate lots. Church St. was the dividing line. It did not separate the lots, it went down Church St. There are multiple parcels involved. The PIZ did not extend to the platted parcels south of Church St. Mr. Schaab asked Mr. Mahrt if, regarding the Parking Impact Zone, when changing from B1 to R1 or R1 to R3, we publish that notification. Is the Parking Impact Zone considered the same as far as notification goes? Mr. Mahrt said that the Parking Impact Zone would have gone through the public hearing process.
Mr. Blakney said that in going through the Zoning Code there is no other place in the Code that specifically outline whether a lot or section of lots is zoned R1-A, R1-B, B1, only the parking Impact Zone has a written description of the boundaries of it. Reading the boundaries, you would realistically need to go to a map to know exactly where it is anyway. Is this a requirement of having the written description? Mr. Mahrt said that all of the underlying ordinances that affect the zoning change have a meets and bounds description or some sort of language, survey plat, something showing what is being changed. So in order to implement the overlay zone, there needed to be a description as well. Mr. Blakney said that is because it is an overlay zone. Mr. Mahrt said that is the way you do zoning changes. Mr. Blakney said that earlier the Heartland Church and been there and their total property consists of four different lots. It is treated as one whole lot. How does that differ from the property on South Main St. that may have four or seven platted lots but is one parcel of property as far as use. Mr. Mahrt said that the Zoning Code provides that under the definition of lot, it can include or is not necessarily limited to lots of record. So you can have multiple lots of record that are combined under one ownership and those are considered a lot for application of setback requirements and other zoning regulations. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 16 JUNE 17, 2010
Mr. Hug said that he would ask the Board to consider, knowing the ordinances, but even Mr. Mahrt’s letter that suggests that your presumptive credibility of the change in the ordinance was somehow legal, even his letter suggests that is wishy washy. He asked them to think about the fact that there was never a notice to anybody about a change in the PIZ. There was never a public hearing, there was never an application. His client testified last time that they live right next to the University Theater, so that puts them easily within the 100’ or 400’ courtesy notice area. But if you don’t know about something, you can’t complain. The ordinance requires that an application be made to change a zoning district. This includes the PIZ. Your policy is that you notify neighbors. Your practice is that you provide a public hearing to the neighbors when there is a change. Your practice also provides that the neighbors with 20% or more of the property next door would be provided an opportunity to protest and forces and majority vote of the City Council. You can’t do any of that if you don’t know. In this case none of it was followed. He knows and they know it was a mistake. There was nobody that made a conscious decision to include this piece of property into the PIZ. Greg looked at the records and he did not find any indication that the Town Council was told that they were making an amendment to the PIZ. Basically, someone in Engineering made the amendment to the PIZ. The question should arise of how many other areas have been rezone without legislative authority, because when the Town Council was unaware that they were making an amendment to the PIZ, then they did not do it legislatively. It was slipped past them, not intentionally perhaps, but it was still done. So then the question that comes up is if they really didn’t make an amendment to the ordinance, how can you provide on the map what requires an ordinance to change it. It was never enacted properly in the first place. The provision that Mr. Mahrt cited to you is not terribly unusual. Where that comes in play is where there is language placing ordinances and the map is drawn and there is some question about whether that map matches that language and the map controls. Here there was no attempt to notify anybody that there was a change. He is suggesting that you don’t even get to the point that there is some sort of protection because we just kind of slipped it in. The City Council didn’t know about it and we slipped it in and it got passed and got through. Everybody admits that the process wasn’t followed. If the process wasn’t followed, what makes it legal. We now know that the ordinance requires a specific amendment. Amendments to such map shall be by ordinance duly adopted by the court with authority. The court with authority shall, by resolution, publish a copy of the map. So the resolution just publishes a copy of the map. The ordinance never adopted any amendment to the map. He is suggesting that you don’t even get to the point of protecting the map until you follow the ordinance in the first place. It is not a hard decision. It is not rocket science. It is not difficult. You don’t get there. You can’t use a provision of the ordinance to make something legal that wasn’t legal in the first place. Mr. Hooker is trying to tell them what they can and can’t do. He is not going to go there. It is not Mr. Hug’s role or Mr. Hooker’s role. They can make some decisions and one of the decisions is that this was done wrong. The map was not properly amended. There was never an amendment to the map and the PIZ does not apply in this case. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 17 JUNE 17, 2010
Mr. Hug said that in regard to the bootstrapping, we now know that this particular use of ordinance has never occurred in the Town of Normal before. If you look at the PIZ ordinance, it is very specific, if it’s not allowed in the PIZ ordinance, then it is not allowed. We are here today with a new attorney following an unusual continuance last month. After the evidence was in, after there was a motion pending, we are sitting here today because the staff member or the city manager felt like they should have had an attorney. His client is in the same position except they got blamed by an interpretation that neither the Board, the Planning Commission, nor the City Council were aware was even an issue. While they are looking at bootstrapping, they don’t have any evidence that it has been done before somewhere else. It is an unusual sort of thing, in an unusual case, to get a four story building that the Town Council shot down back in the fall. Was the other developer entitled to the same benefit. Was the public aware that this bootstrapping would be done to get to the end result. He suggested no. He said that if it is not done, if it is not a practice, maybe it is not time to start it. The PIZ was supposed to be strictly construed. Strictly construe it. If you are a neighbor, would you have anticipated that this bootstrapping would occur. The reason that he says that is that they now have extensive power points to try to explain how it happened. Even Mr. Hooker indicated that it was confusing. If it is that confusing, you didn’t understand and the City Council didn’t understand that it was being done. He was suggesting that it was never intent that it be done and the City Council should indicate whether that was really their intent or not. Recommendations were made to the City Council. In Greg’s initial report to the Board, he indicated that this should go to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Hooker would like to say that you can’t consider this and that because you just need to go to court. Fighting city hall is hard. Fighting lawyers hired by city hall is hard. It costs a lot of money. This is not a wealthy neighborhood. The Town of Normal hasn’t done things like this before. They haven’t changed zoning and not got approval. They haven’t bootstrapped approving a four-story building that is next to homes that would have been protected under the B1 or R3-A zoning. It is not the way that they do business. He asked that they not do it in this case. He asked that the Board find that the bootstrapping was improper. It is an improper interpretation of the code and find that the PIZ was not properly extended and not entitled to the protection of the ordinance.
Mr. Schaab asked Mr. Hug if he agreed that public notification of Town Council agenda is considered notification. If they publish it like they are supposed to legally, in Mr. Schaab’s mind, it is notification whether you read it or don’t read it, it is irrelevant. If they follow the rules and publish their agenda, would he consider that notification. Mr. Hug said that was notification only of the agenda. He said that he did not have the agenda in front of him, but it is certainly not a notification of a change in zoning. Mr. Hug said that if staff did not know there was a change in zoning, how would the public know. Mr. Schaab said that they were also required supply that information, if requested, prior to the Town Council meeting. He said that when they did this, he could not tell him if it was or was not in there. Mr. Hug said that he understood and it was not his obligation to present it to them. He said ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 18 JUNE 17, 2010
that he had asked for some of that stuff in the past and was unable to obtain it. He said if the Town Council was not advised that there was being a change in the PIZ, is it notification. It’s not notification to anybody of there being a change. So no, he doesn’t believe in that case that it is notification. If staff didn’t know that there was a change, then how was the public to know. If staff didn’t know, how was the Town Council to know. Nobody knew, so no, you didn’t have notification.
Mr. Blakney asked if it was within the realm to determine whether and make a decision whether the current map that was adopted by resolution of the Town Council yearly in March is now an incorrect map or that it is the map that is used for zoning now and we cannot make any changes to anything that happened prior to back in 2001 or 2002 or 2003. Mr. Mahrt said that there were two issues to the question. One has to do with the appeal and whether or not Mr. Troemel erroneously applied the code in some way when the code clearly states in 15.12-3 that the Zoning map is presumptively correct and that it can only be changed by legislative action after the publication of the map. The map was adopted by an ordinance in March and there is no ordinance indicating any change by the Town Council. So they have one question with regard to this specific case. Facts may have come out in this case that may cause the Board to reach some opinion as to the validity of the map and it would be within their authority to pass on whatever opinion they may arrive at as a body with regard to that issue to the legislative body. Only the legislative body has any control over the map or over the code.
Mr. Hooker said that what illustrates that they have gone far beyond the scope of what the appeal is and what they have the power to do is when Mr. Hug talked about whether this legislation was properly passed. Clearly that is not something that the Board is authorized to decide. It is not the appeal in this case. The appeal is directly, and Mr. Hug has not tried to dispute, whether the Zoning Administrator correctly interpreted the code at the time that he interpreted it in this particular case. Mr. Hug has offered no argument or evidence to refute the notion that this map was in fact passed. The map does now show, and did for the purpose of the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation, the entire site in the Parking Impact Zone. Mr. Hug makes interesting arguments, but that is for a different body. The appeal in this case is very narrow, very clear. We did not file the appeal, they did. He didn’t decide what powers the Zoning Board has, the zoning ordinance does that. He said that the decision that the Board has is fairly clear cut. That’s not to weigh in at all on 95% of Mr. Hug’s argument, because his argument is not on point as far as what the very specific issue is before the Board. This has already gone through the Special Use Permit approval and we are talking about some interpretation at this late date. In any event, it is clear what the issue is before the Board and he suggests that the Zoning Administrator correctly interpreted the code and map that he had to deal with at the point that he made those decisions.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 19 JUNE 17, 2010
Mr. Hug said that he was not asking the Board to determine that the City Council did not properly pass it. He said that the evidence shows that. The evidence shows that nobody knew what they were passing. If they didn’t know what they were passing, if there were no proper procedures followed, how do you support that. Mr. Hooker does the legal thing that his argument is off point. It is not. How do you support when the processes haven’t been followed. That nobody knew it. We are just going to use it even though the map was changed as a result of somebody in Engineering, we are just going to use that and make that our decision point. You can’t even get to that point. It wasn’t done right in the first place. The City Council did not change the map. The City Council never amended the map according to the ordinances or according to any other process. They never amended the map. The map was amended by staff. Staff does not have legislative authority. Mr. Hug said that he did not know when Mr. Troemel learned of the problem. He says that the maps drawn in 2001 and 2002 clearly indicate Church St. There has never been anything else to change that. You can’t jump to say we made a mistake and that mistake is now the law. It wasn’t even legislated. He asked the Board to make a finding to that effect.
Mr. Schaab asked Mr. Mahrt what the question before them really was. He said that the way that he saw it was that they are ruling on whether Mr. Troemel errored on his ruling based on the map regardless of how it was put into place. Mr. Mahrt said that the appeal has to do with whether or not Mr. Troemel erroneously applied the Code. Was it a mistake for him to rely on the map. Did he use proper interpretation in getting to the four story height decision. Those are the two issues. The other issue, was the map mistakenly amended to include all of 1010 S. Main, is beyond the scope of this particular appeal. Is there a relief for the applicant. Yes, but it is not in this form. The applicant can petition the Town Council and go to court and do anything else the applicant desires to do to seek that relief. With regard to this particular appeal and the issues before the Board, they are quite limited.
Mr. Blakney said that he had worked in the construction business since the early 60’s and throughout all of it part of his duties were to get building permits or to find out what a property is zoned so that he would know whether a 25’ or 30’ room addition could be added onto a residence. In his experience with Bloomington/Normal and the County, the map was always used. In Bloomington’s old place they had a large map on the wall that was color coded and had overlays where they had changed some zoning and that is what was used to determine the zoning on the properties that he had questions on or whether he needed to get permits on. He said that he believed that the County uses Sidwell and the Town has their color coded map. He said that he did not believe that ever in his experience ever had anyone get out the zoning book to find out zoning on a property. The maps were used.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was any question on what the Board would be voting on. Ms. Hood said that she wanted to clarify that they were going to vote in
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 20 JUNE 17, 2010
two separate actions. Chairman Anderson said that he believed that they should be separate.
Mr. Blakney moved, seconded by Ms. Brand, that the Zoning Code Administrator did not erroneously apply any provisions of the Zoning Code with regard to application of the Parking Impact Zone and the appeal be denied.
Ayes: Mr. Blakney, Ms. Hood, Mr. Schaab, Ms. Brand, Mr. Palmgren and Mr. Anderson Nays: None Motion declared carried.
Mr. Schaab moved, seconded by Ms. Brand, that the Zoning Administrator did not erroneously interpret sections 15-10.10 and 15.7 to set height for the proposed development at four stories or 45’ considering that the property is located in the Parking Impact Zone.
Ayes: Mr. Blakney, Ms. Hood, Mr. Schaab, Ms. Brand, Mr. Palmgren and Mr. Anderson Nays: None Motion declared carried.
Chairman Anderson asked if there were any recommendations that the Board would like to make for the Council to consider relating to mapping or application.
Mr. Schaab moved, seconded by Mr. Palmgren, to recommend to Town Council that they review the verbiage in the Town Zoning Code as it applies to the Parking Impact Zone as well as the map, to make sure that they coincide with each other and pass a new ordinance.
Ms. Hood suggested doing that prior to next March.
Mr. Schaab amended his motion to include prior to next March. Ms. Hood seconded the amendment.
Ayes: Mr. Blakney, Ms. Hood, Mr. Schaab, Ms. Brand, Mr. Palmgren and Mr. Anderson Nays: None Motion declared carried.
Mr. Hug asked if it was correct that the Board makes findings of fact. Mr. Mahrt asked if he was looking for a record for appeal purposes or for his file. Mr. Hug said that it was a city ordinance subject to administrative review of the findings of fact.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 21 JUNE 17, 2010
Mr. Mahrt said that the findings of fact will be presented to the Board at the next regular meeting for adoption.
Other Business
None
Adjournment:
There being no further business, Ms. Brand moved, seconded by Ms. Hood, to adjourn the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila Elgin Office Associate