HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 04/24/2001 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time:
Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, April 24, 2001
50 South Emerson Street 7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Dennis Prikkel
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Irvana Wilks
I1. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2001
I11. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
The Village Departments that coordinate the development process have been working for some
time to modernize Village Codes and make the development process more "user friendly." The
latest step in that effort has been to clarify when and how the Development Code applies to
developments. The Development Code contains procedures for subdividing property,
construction and design standards for public and private improvements, and various procedures
related to development.
A key section of the Development Code identifies those types of projects to which the Code is
applied. However, the text of that section is difficult for developers to interpret, making it difficult
for them to anticipate required improvements related to their development, redevelopment or
expansion. In addition, the Development Code as currently written applies to each of these types
of projects in an "all or nothing" manner. That is, modest expansions or improvements can be
held to the same site and right-of-way improvements as a newly constructed facility. This
standard has required some projects to request exceptions from the Code and may have had the
effect of discouraging others from proceeding.
The changes proposed for the Development Code would clarify the type of projects that require
the improvements spelled out in the Development Code. Aisc, the changes would prescribe
varying levels of improvement, depending on the scale of the development project. The details of
these changes are described in the attached memo and graphics from Public Works Project
Engineer Chuck Lindelof. These proposed changes have been presented to the Plan
Commission and Economic Development Commission; both bodies were supportive of the
changes (minutes of those meetings are attached). Further amendments to the Development
Code, focused on modernizing technical standards for physical improvements, are also being
made and will be presented to the Village Board for review by summer.
Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE
OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD
CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT
PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 8471392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064.
V. MULTIPLE BOND RATINGS
This topic was requested for Committee of the Whole discussion by the Village Board.
The Village of Mount Prospect has historically utilized the services of Moody's Investors Service
to rate its credit worthiness. Typically this is done in conjunction with the issuance of general
obligation bonds. For many years, Moody's has rated the Village's outstanding general obligation
debt at Aa. in 1998, they revised their rating formula and began utilizing suffixes of "1 ," "2" and
"3" to further reflect the strength of the credit ratings, with a "1" being of a higher credit worthiness
than a "3." The Village's debt has been rated Aa3 since 1998. While not the best rating
available, that being Aaa, debt rated in the Aa category is considered to be of excellent quality.
Attached is a copy of the most recent credit rating analysis prepared by Moody's Investors
Service for the Village.
There are two other major credit rating services which are generally accepted by investors; those
being Standard & Poor's and Fitch/IBCA. In the Midwest region, Standard & Poor's has a much
greater presence than Fitch/IBCA. Attached is a summary of the ratings assigned by Moody's,
Standard & Poor's and Fitch.
Opinions vary as to whether the benefits of obtaining multiple ratings outweigh the costs involved.
The most obvious benefit of multiple ratings is that it provides a "second opinion" on a
government's financial condition for the government, its residents and investors. If a
government's bond rating is relatively strong or improving, multiple ratings could be a positive
public relations move.
The Finance Commission reviewed this subject matter and made a recommendation, which is
contained in the draft minutes of their last meeting (included), Appropriate staff will be on hand to
answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VI. ACCEPTANCE OF CREDIT CARD~ FOR MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS
Another Committee of the Whole topic requested for discussion by the Village Board involves
whether the Village should allow for the payment of taxes, fees or services charges. The Village
of Mount Prospect currently does not accept credit or debit cards.
On the surface, one would think that accepting credit and debit cards would be an easy decision
to 'make. It makes sense from a pure customer service standpoint. However, the matter of
whether or not to accept credit and debit cards is one that has been debated by cities and villages
extensively for many years. Municipalities provide many services to the public that are not
voluntary in nature, such as water and sewer service, the real estate transfer tax, traffic citations,
building permits and vehicle stickers. Residents are required to "consume" these services and
pay the appropriate fee if they meet certain criteria. This is much different than a business entity,
or park district for that matter, trying to get consumers to voluntarily purchase goods or services.
At the heart of the debate is the fact that municipalities accepting credit cards must pay a fee to
the bank processing the credit card transactions. This fee can range anywhere from 2% to 3.5%
of the amount charged, depending on sales volume and the number of transactions. The credit
card companies strictly prohibit businesses and governments from passing on the credit card fee
as a surcharge to the customer. Therefore, a municipality collects only 97% or 98% on the dollar
when a customer pays the fee or tax by using a credit card. Some view this as the cash
customers subsidizing the customers that choose to pay by credit card. The controversy is that
you want to improve customer service, but do you improve it to one group of customers at the
expense of other customers?
The Finance Commission considered this topic and made recommendations, which are contained
in their draft meeting minutes (included). Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions
and facilitate discussion.
VII. FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
The financial health of the Village is of paramount importance to the Mayor and Board of Trustees
and administration. Constant review of the Village's financial position with regard to revenues
and expenditures allows budgetary decisions to be made in an informed manner. To that end,
the Village has engaged in quarterly reporting of the Village's financial position.
This year, it is especially important to be vigilant given the recent closing of Montgomery Wards
and J.C. Penney department stores at Randhurst Shopping Center along with a general
weakening of the national and local economies. Other impacts occasioned by State legislation,
litigation and the recently completed Census, will affect the Village's revenue and expenditure
totals.
Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth has prepared a general overview of our revenue and
expenditure position based upon the recently completed first quarter. While it is early in the year,
and clear trends have not been established, there is enough information to begin looking for
areas of concern that merit close scrutiny and some preliminary strategic discussion.
Appropriate staff, will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VIII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
H:\GEN~Cow~Agenda\042401 COW Agenda.doc
Village of MoUnt Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER 0~ ~
DATE: AP~L 18, 2001 ~
S~CT: DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
~e Village Dep~ents that coordinate ~e development process have been working for some time to
Village codes ~d m~e ~e development process more "user biendly". ~e latest step in ~at effo~ h~ been to
el~i~ when ~d how ~e Developmem Code applies to developments. The Development Code contains
proeedu~s for subdividing prope~, cons~ction ~d design st~d~ds for public and private improvements, and
v~ious proeedu~s related to development.
A key section of~e Development Code identifies ~ose Wpes of projec~ to which the code is applied. However,
~e te~ of ~at section is difficult for developers to inte~reg making it difficult for ~ to ~ticipate required
improvemen~ related to ~eir development, redevelopment, or exp~sion. In addition, ~e Developmem Code as
cu~n~y ~iRen applies to each of these ~es of projects in ~ "all or no~ing" manner. ~at is, modest
exp~sions or improvemems can be held to the s~e site ~d right-of-way improvemems as a newly cons~cted
faeiliW. ~is s~d~d has required some projects to request exceptions bom the code, ~d may have had the
effect of discouraging o~ers bom preceding.
The ch~ges pressed for the Development Code would cl~i~ the ~pe of projec~ that require ~e improvemems
spelled out in the Development Code. Also, the changes would prescribe v~ing levels of improvemem,
depending on ~e s~le of the developmem project. The derails of ~ese changes are described in the a~ehed
memo and graphics bom Chuck Lindelof, Project Engineer in Public Works. These proposed changes have been
presented to ~e Plan Commission and Economic Development Commission; both bodies were suppoRive of the
changes (minutes of ~ose meetings are aRached). Fu~her amendmen~ to the Development Code, f~ussed on
modernizing technical smd~ds for physical improvements, are also being made and will be presemed to ~e
Village Bo~d for review by summer.
This pressed ~endment to the Development Code will be presented at ~e April 24, 2001 CommiRee of the
Whole meeting. Please fo~ard the aRaehed info~ation to the Village Board for their review. Appropriate staff
will be at ~e meeting to discuss tiffs maRer.
William Cooney, Jr., J(ICP
/mb
\\DP0t\V02\DEPT~COMD~ADMN~BILL\MEMOS~MEJ\development code changes.doc
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BILL COONEY
FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LINDELOF
DATE: MARCH 14, 2001
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS
Chapter 16 of the Village Ordinances, also known as the "Development Code" contains a
statement of purpose in Section 16.102:
"... It is intended to provide for the harmonious development and redevelopment of the
Village and its contiguous areas; for the coordination of streets within new subdivisions with
other existing or planned streets; for the dedication and acceptance of land required for
public uses; for the preparation of subdivision plats and the procedure for their submittal
and recording in and about the Village in accordance with the authority vested in the
Municipality under the provisions of the 'Revised Cities and Villages Act' of the State."
To accomplish this goal, the Development Code has set forth guidelines to define
"Development", and attach appropriate requirements. Section 16.106, "Scope of
Development Regulations", defines those projects subject to the permitting and
construction requirements contained elsewhere in Chapter 16. However, the criteda set
forth in Section 16.106 are unclear and incomplete.
To address this shortcoming of the Development Code, staff from Public Works,
Community Development, and the Fire Department have been developing a "tiered"
approach to regulating development. Specifically, we propose establishing three (3)
distinct levels of development, based upon the scope of the proposed construction.
These are shown graphically in the attached charts and summarized below:
Development: Construction classified as "Development" will significantly alter the
characteristics of a site. Projects included in "Development" are new residential
subdivisions, new non-residential buildings, new parking lots, and large building or
parking lot expansions. The permitting and construction requirements for this type
of construction remain as it is currently detailed in the Development Code;
essentially requiring compliance with all Development Code standards.
age 2
Proposed Development Code Modifications
March 29, 2001
Site Improvements: The classification of "Site Improvements" is attached to
construction that will improve the site, but not change the overall characteristics of
the site. Projects included in "Site Improvements" are new single family homes,
small auxiliary structures, and small building or parking lot expansions.
The permitting and construction requirements for this type of construction are
significantly less than that currently detailed in the Development Code for
"Development". These construction requirements include full right of way
improvements (such as installation of parkway trees, but excluding pavement
widening and streetlights), perimeter curb around any new parking areas, and
landscaping.
Maintenance: Construction classified as "Maintenance" represents repairs to existing
facilities on site. No extra development requirements are associated with
"Maintenance" projects. The purpose of this classification is to insure that
maintenance projects comply with the Village's construction standards.
The different project classifications and associated permitting and construction
requirements are reflected in the attached Code revisions. This information is also
presented in a previously mentioned pair of diagrams detailing the permitting process.
These diagrams will be inserted into Section 16.106 of the Code.
We intend to present these proposed Code modifications to the Village Board at the
earliest possible Committee of the Whole meeting.
It should be noted that we are continuing to work on modernizing the construction
standards and organization of the development code, which will be presented for
adoption in the next couple of months.
If you have any questions, feel free to call,
Chuck Lindelof
C:\My Oocuments\dev code changes\F'lanCom-1 a.doc
ARTICLE I
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND ENFORCEMENT
SECTION:
16.101: Title
16.102: Purpose
16.103: Interpretation, Conflict
16.104: Enforcement, Penalties for Violation
16.105: Effect on Existing Building Permits and Zoning Certificates
16.106: $ccF: cf Development, Improvement, and Maintenance Regulations
16.107: Scope of Subdivision Regulations
16.108: Prohibition of Sale
16.109: Permits and Certificates of Occupancy
16.110: Recording
16.111: Exceptions
16.112: Severability
(For clarity, all section numbers specified in the explanatory notes refer to the revised code sections.)
16.106: ~COPE O? DEVELOPMENT~ IM2PROVEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS:
All developments, site improvements and maintenance shall be constructed in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section. Ckagtcr. XT ........ h~ll ................ 4.~ I., ......... .4 ..... ~-1,,~ ?C11~..,:~
A. Development
1. Scope of Development
a. Any residential development of any parcel of land involving construction of ch: two or
more dwelling units.
b. Any commercial, industrial, muki-famil¥ residential, or institutional development of any
parcel of land involving the construction of any new building(s) or structure(s).
Exempt from this are auxiliary structures such as garages and storage facilities for an
existing building provided that the footprint area of the auxiliary structure does not
exceed 25% (cumulative) of the footprint area of the primary structure(s).
(Sections 16.106.A.l.b and l6.106.A.l.e were combined Also, the 500 square foot minimum building size
originally specified was eliminated)
c. Any development involving expansion by more than twenty 25% (cumulative) of the
footprint of an existing commercial, industrial, multi-family residential, or
institutional structure, u .......... :.~,~ ~--:' .... .4 .4,1~1 ...... :.4 .............. ~-
(Section 16.106.A. 1.c was modified to note that building expansions are cumulative when determining the
scope of the development. Thas a property owner could not avoid the more strict Development requirements
by dividing a planned expansion into multiple phases. Also, the reference to single family residences was
eliminated becauxe it is addressed in Section 16.106. B. 1.a.)
d. Any new parking lot or parking lot expansion (cumulative) greater than 50% of the
original parking lot area.
" .__.tr ....... cf any public cr pr:.'.'at:
^ ... a~.,~, .......r ....parz:! cf !and invc!:Sng tk: ........ :~
....... , ...... ~ ..... r ............... or ~..~ v ......v .............. ~. rd. ~.712, 2 7
2. Development Requirements
a. All requirements listed under "Improvement Requirements" in Section 16.106.B.2.
b. St0rmwater detention for the entire site.
c. Full right of way improvements including the following:
(1) Pavement widening as needed.
(2) Curb and gutter installation as needed.
(3) Streetlights
d. Curb and gutter around the perimeter of all parking lots and driveways.
e. Parking lot lighting.
f. All construction shall comply with the Construction Specifications contained in Chapter
16__~.
(Section 16.106.A.2 was inserted to better define the requirements associated with site developments.)
B. Site Improvements
1. Scope of Site Improvements
a. Any construction ora single family residence on a single parcel of land.
b. Any auxiliary structure such aS garages and storage facilities for an existing building
provided that the footprint area ofthe auxiliary structure does not exceed 25%
(cumulative) of the footprint area of the primary structure(s).
c. Any construction involving the expansion of the footprint by less than 25% (cumulative)
of an existing commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential structure.
d. Any parking lot expansion (cumulative) less than 50% of the original parking lot area.
2. Site Improvement Requirements
a. Stormwater detention for the net increase in impervious surface.
b. Public sidewalk along the along the right of way adiacent the site. This sidewalk must be
extended along the entire length of the property, even if the scope of improvements
would not otherwise extend that far. The sidewalk must be installed through an'/
asphalt driveways, but may be gapped at existing concrete driveways.
c. Curb and gutter around the perimeter of all parking lots and driveways being improved.
d. Public utilities (water and sanitary) must be extended to and across the site when all of the
following apply:
(I) The subject property is not currently serviced by Village of Mount Prospect
water or sanitary.
(2) Village of Mount Prospect utilities exist within 200' of the site.
(3) The proposed improvements include modifications to one or both of the existin[,
water and sanitary services;
(4) All existing buildings presently within the Village that are being served by a
private well are exempt from Section 15.105.D until such time that their well
becomes inoperable at which time they will be required to connect onto the
Village water main.
e. All construction shall comply with the Construction Specifications contained in Chapter
16.
C. Maintenance
1. Scope of Maintenance
a. Any construction involving the replacement in kind (same diameter, location, slope, etc.)
of existing utility services or mains.
b. Any repairs of a parking lot, driveway, sidewalk, or other pavement.
c. Any alteration of ground elevations performed to address settlement or heaving of existing
ground, to restore the pre-existing ground elevations, or to improve drainage.
2. Maintenance Requirements: All construction shall comply with the Construction Specifications
contained in Chapter 16. Where replaqing or repairing existing facilities in kind would
conflict with the Construction Specifications contained in Chapter 16, the Construction
Specifications contained in Chapter 16 shall govern.
(Sections 16.106.B and C were inserted to better define the scope and requirements associated with site
improvements and maintenance.)
(Insert Tables I-1 and 1-2.)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TI~,
MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION
April 4, 2001
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to order by Plan Commission
Secretary CarOl Tortorello at 7:09 p.m. at the Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect,
Illinois.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Gary Grouwinkel
Bill Reddy
Matt Sledz
Carol Tortorello
Absent: Michael Zadel, Chairman
Antoinette Astreides
Edwin Janus
Village Staff Present: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Chuck Lindelof, P.E., Project Engineer
Others in Attendance: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Secretary Tortorello said that the minntcs could not be approved because
there were only three members present at that time, which did not constitute a quorum, and that the
minutes would have to be approved at the next meeting. Secretary Tortorello asked Michael Blue to
present the first item of business, changes to the Development Code.
NEW BUSINESS:
Michael Blue said that the Village Departments that coordinate thc development process have been
working to modernize Village codes and make thc development process more "user friendly'. He said
that the latest step in this effort has bccn to clarify when and how the Development Code applies to
developments.
He reviewed the flow chart, which summarizes changes to the Development Code and presented different
scenarios where the "levels" of thc code would bc applicable to the project, depending upon the scope of
the project. He clarified that the current code standards have required some projects to request exceptions
from thc code, and may have had the effect of discouraging others from proceeding.
Mr. Blue summarized the proposed changes, how they would apply to possible redevelopment projects,
and answered questions from the Plan Commission. Chuck Lindelof also answered questions from the
Plan Commission and clarified how other sections of the Village Code would be revised. The Plan
Commission concurred that thc proposed code changes would benefit the Village and help developers
better understand how they would be required to redevelop a site.
OLD BUSINESS:
NONE
SUBDIVISIONS:
NONE
COMMENTS AND OTHER BUSINESS:
NONE
Mount Prospect Plan Commission page 2
April 4, 2001
At 8:20 p.m. Secretary Tortorello asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved by a voice
vote and the meeting was adjourned:
Michael ]Blue, AICP,, Deputy Director of Conu.~nity Development
~y ~or~n~l~y, kICP, Senior Pla~r .
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2nd Floor Conference Room, Village Hall
Thursday, April 5, 2001
8:00 a.m.
The meeting of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) of the Village of Mount Prospect was held
on Thursday, April 5, 2001 in the second floor conference room of Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street,
Mount Prospect, Illinois.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Norm Kurtz called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Commissioners John Arndt, Kevin Davies,
and David Lindgren were present. Commissioners Pat Biedar, Brace Gillilan and Ben Trapani were absent.
Also present were Mayor Gerald L. Farley, William J. Cooney, Director of Community Development,
Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development and Madeleine Franklin, Executive Director
of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the February I, 2001 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Status Update
Mr. Cooney provided a general update on the economic activity throughout the Village. He indicated that
the AutoBam dealership was underway with the construction of their new showroom facility. He indicated
that they hope to complete that project by Jane. Mr. Cooney also provided an update of activity at the Mount
Prospect Plaza, which included the rehabilitation of the Dominick's facility and a new Sears electronic
facility. He indicated that he had met with brokers for Osco who were interested in purchasing the Central
Plaza Shopping Center at the northwest comer of Rte. 83 and Central. He stated that they are reviewing the
purchase and demolition of the existing facility and constructing a new 10,000 s.f. Osco Pharmacy. In
addition, Mr. Cooney provided a general update of various projects that are soon to be underway in the
downtown area, including the Train Station, Streetscape, General Store, and Norwood projects.
Mr. Davies provided an update on the status of Randhurst Mall. He stated that Rouse currently does not have
control over the Ward's lease and that they are awaiting word from Kimco regarding potential tenants. He
stated that he did not have anything to report at this time regarding the status of that lease but they were
clearly watching to ensure that a viable tenant ultimately is located there. He stated that the Egg Factory
restaurant had recently opened and was doing very well. He did note that Randhurst was being affected by
the many national tenants that are undergoing bankruptcy. He stated he did not believe the number of recent
vacancies was a reflection of Randhurst so much as of the national economy.
NEW BUSINESS
Proposed Development Code Modifications
Mr. Blue indicated that staff was proposing modifications to the Development Code in a continued effort
to streamline the development process in Mount Prospect. As currently written, the Development Code has
an "all or nothing" application to developments. He stated that there is no middle ground for minor
improvements to projects and that the way the current code is written it can discourage investment in the
conomic Development Commission
April 5, 2001 Minutes
Page 2
Village. He stated the proposed modifications would provide a tiered approach to development and that it
would apply reasonable requirements to varying levels of improvements. He stated that staff would be
coming forward in the next several months to propose technical modifications to the Development Code but
at this point the proposal is for the application component of the code.
There was general discussion by the commission members regarding the proposal and a motion was passed
supporting the modifications as proposed by staff.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman Kurtz indicated that in light of the recent referendum results throughout the metropolitan area, he
thought it was critical that the Village Board move forward with the Village Hall improvements without
going to referendum. He indicated it was clear that the voters continue to vote down these referendums
regardless of the long term impact on the community and that the Board shouldn't go to referendum unless
required to by law. Other commission members indicated their agreement with that statement and that the
Village Hall project was very important for the overall development efforts in the downtown.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
William J., Cooney, Jr., AICP
Director of Conununity Development
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS
FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DATE: MARCH 9, 2001
SUBJECT: MULTIPLE BOND RATINGS
PURPOSE:
To discuss the merits of obtaining multiple bond ratings on the future issuance of general
obligation bonds.
BACKGROUND:
The Village of Mount Prospect has historically utilized the services of Moody's Investors Service
to rate its credit worthiness. Typically this is done in conjunction with the issuance of general
obligation bonds.
For many years, Moody's has rated the Village's outstanding general obligation debt at Aa. In
1998 they revised their rating formula and began utilizing suffixes of I1", "2" and "3" to further
reflect the strength of the credit ratings, with a "1" being of a higher credit worthiness than a "3".
The Village's debt has been rated Aa3 since 1998. While not the best rating available, that being
Aaa, debt rated in the Aa category is considered to be of excellent quality. Attached is a copy
of the most recent credit rating analysis prepared by Moody's Investors Service for the Village.
There are two other major credit rating services which are generally accepted by investors, those
being Standard & Poor's and FitclVIBCA. In the Midwest region, Standard & Poor's has a much
greater presence than Fitch/IBCA. Attached is a summary of the ratings assigned by Moody's,
Standard & Poor's and Fitch.
DISCUSSION:
Opinions vary as to whether the benefits of obtaining multiple ratings outweigh the costs
involved. The most obvious benefit of multiple ratings is that it provides a "second opinion"
on a government's financial condition for the government, its residents and investors. If a
govemment's bond rating is relatively strong, or improving, multiple ratings could be a
positive public relations move.
ultiple Bond Ratings
Mamh 9, 2001
Page 2
While all three rating agencies would deny this, there are some issuers who believe that if a
government is close to being upgraded by one rating agency obtaining a second rating might
help, especially if the second rating agency assigns a slightly higher initial rating.
In addition to the public relations perspective, issuers try to obtain the highest bond rating
possible in order to lower their borrowing cost. Generally, the higher the credit rating the
lower the net interest cost on bond issues. However, the savings are really only noticeable if
the rating jumps a full letter, such as from Aa1 to Aaa. A move from Aa3 to Aa2 would not
result in any noticeable savings.
The cost of seeking dual or triple ratings varies based upon the size of the bond issue. For
our $2.1 million bond issue from last year we paid Moody's $3,250. If we issue a $15 million
bond issue later in 2001, the rating fee would be closer to $10,000. The fees charged by
Standard & Poor's and Fitch/IBCA would be very similar. Besides the actual rating fee itself,
there is obviously more staff time put forth in seeking multiple ratings. Staff would have to put
in anywhere from ten to twenty hours in putting together a proper initial rating presentation.
Subsequent rating submittals would require a nominal amount of time.
I requested that the Village's financial advisor, Ronald Norene, provide his opinion as to the
merits of obtaining dual bond ratings. Attached is a copy of his memorandum. It appears
that Mr. Norene does not feela second bond rating is necessary in most cases.
Obviously many governments do take the position that the benefits of two ratings exceed the
costs involved. In the Chicagoland area there are thirty governmental entities that obtained
both a Moody's and Standard & Poor's rating. The governments are listed in a letter I
received from Standard & Poor's (copy attached)..
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is presented for purposes of Village Board discussion.
DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DRE
c: Finance Commission Members
Carol Widmer, Deputy Finance Director
\~OP01\V01~USERS~DELLSWOR\Corresp\IntI~.001\Multiple Bond Ratings.doc
Moody's Investors Service
99 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
June 5, 2000
Mr. Douglas Ellsworth
Village Manager
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mr. Ellsworth:
We wish to inform you that on June 2, 2000, Moody's Rating Committee reviewed and assigned
an Aa3 rating on the Village of Mount Prospect General Obligation bonds.
In order for us to maintain the currency of our ratings, we request that you provide ongoing
disclosure, including annual financial and statistical information.
Moody's will monitor this rating and reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to revise or
withdraw this rating at any time in the future.
The rating as well as any revisions or withdrawals thereof will be publicly disseminated by
Moody's through normal print and electronic media and in response to oral requests to Moody's
ratings desk.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, p~ease do not hesitate to contact me or the
analyst assigned to this transaction, Iliana Pappas at (212) 553-7738.
Sincerely,
Ni¢ole Johnson
Senior Vice President
NJ:ko
cc: Mr. Ron V. Norene
1LV. Norene & Associates, Inc.
Lake & Waukegan Office Center
1701 Lake Avenue
Glenview, IL 60025
Mount Prospect (Village of) IL
Contacts
Iliana Pappas 212-553-7738
Ed Krauss 212-553-0822
Moody's Rating
Issue Rating
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2000 Aa3
Sale Amount $2,165,000
Expected Sale Date 06/06/00
Rating Description General Obligation
MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 RATING TO THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, IL'S
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2000
$25.3 MILLION DEBT AFFECTED
Opinion
Moody's Investors Service has assigned a Aa3 rating to the Village of Mount
Prospect, II's $2,165,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2000. The bonds, which
are secured by the village's general obligation' unlimited tax pledge, will be used to
finance flood control projects. Moody's also at this time, affirms the Aa3 rating on
the Village's $23.1 million in outstanding general obligation bonds. Th~rating
assignment reflects the village's modest tax base growth, above-average
socioeconomic indices, satisfactory financial position and manageable amount of
rapidly retired debt.
MATURE COMMUNITY WiTH MODEST TAX BASE GROWTH AND HIGH WEALTH
LEVELS
The home-rule village, located in Chicago's northwest suburbs, has recorded slow,
but steady tax base increases over the last several years mostly due to
reassessment. Since fiscal 1994, the village tax base has increased 2.8% annually.
Going forward, Moody's expects modest taxable valuation growth to continue due
to reassessments as well as some construction in the residential sector. Full
valuation per capita in the village is a healthy $59,245. Population growth, like tax
base growth, has been modest, increasing 1% from 1980 to 1990 and another
0.7% from 1990 to 1998. Additionally family and per capita wealth levels exceed
state averages.
SATISFACTORY FINANCES WITH INCREASING FUND BALANCES
The village's financial operations are satisfactory and are characterized by a diverse
revenue stream, a dependence on sales tax revenue and growing fund balances. The
village has a diverse revenue stream with sales tax, property tax and state income
tax representing 26.8%, 24.7% and 15% respectively of operating revenues. The
village's General Fund balance, which was $4.6 million, or 19.8% of revenues in
fiscal 1996 has increased to $6.4 million or 25.4% in FY 1998, which Moody's
considers satisfactory given the reliance on economically vulnerable sources such as
sales taxes and income taxes. Although unaudited FY 1999 results preclude full
analysis, the General Fund balance decreased to 85.1 million (23% of revenues) due
to transfers to'the Vehicle Replacement fund and Capital Improvement fund. In FY
2000, the General Fund may decrease to 85.5 million or 21.0% of General Fund
revenues due to additional transfers to the Capital Improvement Fund. It is worthy to
note that both the Vehicle Replacement and Capital Improvement Funds have sizable
reserves that provide added financial flexibility against short-term contingencies.
Moody's expects that the Village's finances will remain stable due to conservative
budgeting as well as sufficient reserves.
MODERATE DEBT BURDEN WITH RAPID PAYOUT
Overall debt burden is moderate at 3.4%. Bond payout is very rapid, with 100% of
the debt retired in nine years. The village has minimized tax base suppor~ of bonded
debt by applying non-levy revenues such es sales tax and TIFs to specific projects.
The village may issue an additional 811 million of general obligation debt in 2001 to
fund the construction of a new village hall and a parking lot. Moody's expects that
the district's debt burden will remain manageable due to the rapid retirement of debt
as well as the variety of revenue sources used to pay debt service.
KEY STATISTICS
1998 estimated population: 53,581
1999 full valuation: 83.2 billion
1999 full value per capita: $59,245
Debt burden: 3.4%
Payout of principal (9 years): 100.0%
FY'98 estimated General Fund balance: 85.4 million (25.4% of General Fund
revenues)
Copyright 2000 by Moody's Inve~tor$ Service, 99 Church Street, New York, NY 10007. Afl rights reserved.
TAB~: 15-2
Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch's Bond Rating Classifications
RATING SYMBOL
Standard &
General Quality Characteristic Moody'st Poor's~ Fitch'ss
Prime Quality Aaa AAA AAA
Excellent Quality Aa AA AA
Upper Medium Quality A A A
Lower Medium Quality Baa BBB BBB
Marginally S .p~'ulativ.e. Quality Ba BB BB
Yep/Specul~ove Quahty' B, Caa B, CCC. CC 'B, CCC, CC
Default Quality Ca. C C. D C. DDD, DD, D
~. Bonds rated by Moody's ~ith the suffix "-1" (e.g., A-l) indicate the stronger credits in that category.
' Standard & Poor's uses a suffix of "+" or "-" (e.g. A+) to indicate rel~.tive position in the rating
category. . .
_. s Fitch ut, es a suffix of" +" or "-" (e.g. A +) to indicate relative position in the rating category. Fitch
also aulgos trend indicators (arn~ws) to indicate if fundamentals are improving ( l ), stable (~).
declining ( ~, L or uncertain ( $ ).
Sot~ecz: john Petersen and Ronald lq~rhes./nnot~#ve Capiltll Fbu~tu:ing (Ghlcago: America~ Planning
Association. 1985): and Fitch Investors Service. Fitch buights (New York. 1989).
' 03/13/01 14:10 FAX 18479985503 R.¥.Norene Assoc
R.V. NORENE & Associates. Inc.
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug EIIsworth, Director of Finance, Village of Mount Prospect
From: Ron Norene, Financial Advisor
Date: Mamh 13, 2001
Subject: Bond Ratings
There are three bond f~ agencies: Moody's Investors Service; Standard & Poor's
Corporation; and F~ch IBCA. Each agency charges a fee for its mt~ and while the fees
am generally comparable, F~ch has slightly lower fees.
When preparing to issue bonds, a decision must be made as to whether one or more
ratings should be requested and purchased or the bonds should be sold on e non-rated
basis. Reasons for selling on a non-rated basis include: the debt might be assigned a non
investment grade rating ma.king market access almost impossible; the I~(elihood that the
prospective assigned rating would be in the Baa/BBB range which, even though this is an
investment grade rating category, would immediately eliminate a part of the universe of fr~al
investors and underwriters/dealers; the issue is so short that the cost of the raling could not
be recovered in the probably interest rate savings attributable to the expected rating; the
bonds qualify for munidpal bond insurance and would therefore cam/the Aaa or AAA rating
of the Insurance company. There could be a situation where the rating agencies would not
be willing to assign any rating due to credit concerns.
The use of one rating agency ,~er than another is primarily govemed by what the frei
investor market requires/or is used to seeing and, for Illinois general obligation credits and in
our opinion nationwide general obligation credits, that is primarily Moody's Investors
Service.
When we am preparing an issue(r) for market we form an opinion based upon our research
as to what rating we expect the issuer to receive. When the rating is assigned, if we do not
feel lhat it confirms the strength of the issuer we will consider whether a second rating
agency should be requested to rate the issue. In large part, the raling has to be two
notches below whet we think is appropriate for us to recommend the use of an additional
rating agency - - if the issue wire to end up with a split ratings one notch apaff, for example
3/13/01 14:10 FAX 18479985503 R.¥.Norene Assoc [~03
R.V. NORENE & Associates, Inc.
Aa3 (Moody's) and AA from e'~her Standard & Poor's or F~h, we would not recommend
purchasing the extra rating as the pricing of the interest rates on the bonds would probably
be to the lower rating. If the pricing of the bonds does not change and them is an extra
rating cost, them is really no mason for purchasing the extra rating.
Some issuers go to the other rating agency(les) for local pordical masons - - being able to
point to a higher ra~. We have one norlh suburban issuer who has a Moody's "Aa1"
(next to "Aaa") and also paid for a F~tch AAA rating. I asked the lead undenvrlter i~ the AAA
resulted in any savings and his comments wes 'NO" - - "It only cost money for the
A norih suburban high school district last year sold general obligation bonds with a Standard
and Poor's 'AAA" - - they had a Moody's "Aa1' on their outslanding bonds. The same
week we sold general obligation bonds for an Illinois Moody's "Aaa' =ommunity. The
Standard and Poor's issue had interest rates approximately 10 basis points higher (worse)
which says to me that the Standard and Poor's ~g did not command comparable
attraction in the manet - - this has also been our experience in the past. If, and when, the
other rating agencies have comparable market acceptance we w~l readily recommend their
use provided they provide ratings we think am appropriate.
Flon
-2-
0 South ~ackcr Dri~' Spiro C. Hountalas
Suite 2915 Director
Chicago. Il. 60606 Global Ratings Developmcnt
Tel 312 669 9176
312 399 7476/Cellular
Fax ti2 669 9189
sp~hountal' stal~dRrdandp~rs.com
renrua~a~, zvvt Standard & Poor's
A Division of TbeMcOra~.HittCorat~ies
Mr. Doug Ellsworth, Director of Finance
Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE OF I~OUNT PROSPECT
100 South Emerson Street FINANCE DEPT.
Mount Prospect, illinois 60056 ~
IAR - ? 2001
Dear Doug: RECEIVED
Thank you for your interest in obtainin~ a rating from Standard & Poor's. After discussing the plans of
constructing a new Village Hall, the related bond issuance and your desire to obtain another perspective
as to the Village creditworthiness, ! share your iutarest to work together.
Consider the added value ora Standard & Poor's rating:
·A Standard & Poor's rating is a widely accepted "second opinion" for you and investors as to
your overall creditworthiness - n distinct advantage in a competitive market.
·Local analysts from our Chicago office will visit any sites you request to showcase your commuuity
to us. Our office staffs ! 8 professionals, iucludiug 1 ! analysts specializing in public rmance.
·Our service to you does not end with the bond rating. We are an ougoing resource available to assist
you in making well-informed furore decisiom.
· Standard & Poor's can provide you and your financial advisor with feedback as to the impact of
subsequent decisions by the Village on your bond rating.
·Management mectings may be held either in your (~ffices or our Chicago or Hew York offices,
whichever you prefer.
As requested, the following Chicagoland communities use Standard & Poor's GOratings:
DuPage Cnty (AAA) Bloomingdale (AA) Vernon Hills (AA.)
DuPage Cnty Forest Pr (AAA) Ka~e County (AA) W~eeling (AA)
Dapage Water Corem (AAA) ~mte Cnty Forest Pres (AA) Cook Couuty (AA-)
Naperville (AAA) Lombard (AA) Joliet (AA-)
Buffalo Grove (AA+) McHenry Cons Dist (AA) Chicago (A+)
Hoffraan Estate~ (AA+) Oak Park (AA) Hickory Hills (A+)
Lake Cnty Forest Pres (AA+) Olympia Fields (AA) Lockport (A+)
Schaumburg (AA+) Orland park (AA) West Chicago (A+)
Addison (AA) Palatine (AA) Homer Towuship (A)
Aurora (AA) St. Charles (AA) Oswego (A-)
We are eager to start a long business relationship with the Village of Mount Prospect and welcome the
opportunity of rating your next bond issue. I will contact you during the week of March 19 to discuss the
above further. Thank you for your consideration.
~pifo C. Ho~n-talas, Director
Global Ratings Development
Mount Prospect, IIHnois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DATE: MARCH 12, 2001
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF CREDIT CARDS
PURPOSE:
To solicit direction from the Village Board as to whether the Village should be accepting
credit/debit cards for the payment of taxes, fees or service charges.
BACKGROUND:
The Village of Mount Prospect does not currently accept credit or debit cards for the
payment of taxes, fees or service charges.
DISCUSSION:
On the surface, one would think that accepting credit and debit cards would be an easy
decision to make. it makes sense from a pure customer service standpoint. However,
the matter of whether or not to accept credit and debit cards is one that has been
debated by cities and villages extensively for many years. Municipalities provide many
services to the public that are not voluntary in nature, such as water and sewer service,
the real estate transfer tax, traffic citations, building permits, and vehicle stickers.
Residents are required to "consume" these services and pay the appropriate fee if they
meet certain criteria. This is much different than a business entity, or park district for
that matter, trying to get consumers to Voluntarily purchase goods or services.
At the heart of the debate is the fact that municipalities accepting credit cards must pay
a fee to the bank processing the credit card transactions. This fee can range from
anywhere from 2% to 3.5% of the amount charged, depending on sales volume and the
number of transactions. The credit card companies strictly prohibit businesses and
governments from passing on the credit card fee as a surcharge to the customer.
Therefore, a municipality collects only 97% or 98% on the dollar when a customer pays
the fee or tax by using a credit card. Some view this as the cash customers subsidizing
the customers that choose to pay by credit card. The controversy is that you want to
Acceptance of Credit Cards
March 12, 2001
Page 2
improve customer service, but do you improve it to one group of customers at the
expense of other customers?
Vision Partners, Inc. is a consulting company that helps businesses and governments
understand and implement credit/debit card acceptance. According to one of their
representatives, local governments that accept credit cards see approximately 5% to
10% of customers utilize credit cards for vehicle stickers and water bills. If we were to
accept credit cards, and were to pay a 3% fee for accepting the credit cards, we would
lose approximately $9,000 to $18,000 in water revenues and $2,100 to $4,200 in
vehicle sticker revenue.
In addition to enhanced customer service there is another benefit to accepting credit
cards. Making it easier for cash-strapped customers to pay could improve on our
collection efforts for such revenues as traffic citations and vehicle stickers. This should
not be a tidying factor, however, since our collection ratios are very good for vehicle
stickers and traffic citations.
While the service fee is substantial, the actual cost of setting up the system to accept .
credit/debit cards is relatively minor. Th® cost of the credit card terminal and printer is
approximately $700. The cost of a debit card pad is approximately $350. The batch
software is approximately $1,000. We would also recommend hiring a company to help
us develop an RFP, analyze proposals and negotiate the bank contract. This service
would run approximately $3,000.
We recently asked all of the Northwest Municipal Conference members to complete a
brief survey on the acceptance of credit/debit cards. Following is a su_mmary of the
findings.
· Of the 31 municipalities responding, 15 (or 48%) said they accept credit cards for the
payment of all or some municipal services.
· Of the 31 municipalities responding, 5 (or 16%) said they accept debit cards for the
payment of all or some municipal services.
· Out of the 15 communities that accept credit cards, 8 accept only MasterCard and
Visa; 5 accept MasterCard, Visa and Discover; I accepts only Discover; and 1
accepts all major credit cards, . .
· Out of the 15 communities that accept credit cards, 7 accept them for all services; 3
accept them for all services but ambulance services; 2 accept them for all services
except ambulance services and the real estate transfer tax; 1 accepts them for all
services but vehicle stickers and ambulance services; I accepts them for all services
but building permits and ambulance services; and 1 accepts credit cards for just
police citations.
cceptance of Credit Cards
March 12, 2001
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Village Board discuss this matter from a policy standpoint and
provide direction to staff for the following questions:
· . Should the Village accept credit cards?
· Should the Village accept debit cards?
· For what services, fees and taxes should we accept credit/debit cards?
· Which credit/debit cards should we accept?
DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
c: Finance Commission Members
Carol Widmer, Deputy Finance Director
~DP0 l~V01\USERS'tDELLSWOl~Revenue~Credit Cards~Sd Memo 3-12-01.doc
FINANCE COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
MARCH 22, 2001
VILLAGE HALL BUILDING
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order ar 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Kom and
Commissioners Charles Bennett, George Busse, Vince Grochocinski, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic.
Also present were Village Manager Michael Sanonis, Community Development Director Bill Cooney,
Community Development Deputy Director of Community Development Mike Blue. Building Division
Coordinator Bill George, Director of Human Services Nancy Morgan, Deputy Director of Human
Services Jan Abemethy, Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer
and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned m approve the minutes of January 25, 2001 seconded by
Commissioner Charles Bennett. the minutes were accepted as presented.
III. DISCUSSION REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND PERMIT FEE INCREASE
Commissioner George Busse began the discussion by asking Mr. Cooney if the commission could see
a list of the different types of permits issued, how many of each is issued and what the particular costs
for the various permits are. Mr. Busse also asked what the historical growth has been in the number
of permits issued as well as the number of inspections performed: Community Development Deputy
Director Mike Blue stated that the number of inspections is growing at a faster rate than permits.
Currently there are approximately four inspections performed for each permit issued.
Building Division Coordinator Bill George provided examples of several scenarios in which permits
are issued and how from beginning to end the process works. He provided-examples of the various
inspections that are performed along with examples of the work involved throughout the inspection
process and lastly, how final approval of a project is achieved.
Chairman John Kom complimented Community Development Director Bill Cooney for the article in
the Village Newsletter about planning a construction project. Mr. Korn stated that the article would
be very helpful to residents who are having work done on their homes.
IV. DISCUSSION REGARDING HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND
LONG-TERM FUNDING
Commissioner George Busse stated that he would like clarification on how time is allocated within
the department and how money is allocated and if k can be allocated more effectively. Commissioner
Ann Smilanic stated she thinks that most people in the Village think Human Services is for Senior's
only.
Human Services Director Nancy Morgan began with an overview of the history of the Human
Services Department. Ms. Morgan stated how the department has evolved from providing only senior
activities and services to the addition of services for families and youth's, home nursing care and
social services and finally Community Programs. Commissioner George Busse said he would like
to see the budget reflect more specific categories within the Human Services Department. Mr. Busse
would like to see the budget reflect the following categories: 1 -Administration, 2-Nursing, 3-Youth,
4-Social Services, 5-Recreation and Education. The commission would like to change the perception
that seniors come first, therefore they agreed that Human Services should modify the way they
advertise the various services they provide.
Commissioner George Busse also mentioned that Human Services should review how and where their
money is spent. Mr. Busse suggested that Human Services look at spending money on the programs
that will make the biggest impact and have the most interest.
V. DISCUSSION REGARDING MULTIPLE BOND i~,ATINGS
Finance Director Doug Ellsworth led a discussion on whether the village should go out and solicit for
two bond ratings. Mr. Ellsworth stated the advantages and disadvantages of obtaining two bond
ratings. After an in-depth discussion, the commission agreed that they did not see a valid reason to
solicit for two ratings. Commissioner George Busse motioned that the village should continue to use
only one bond rating. Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded the motion. All commissioners voted
in favor of the motion.
VI. DISCUSSION REGARDING CREDIT/DEBIT CARD ACCEPTANCE
Finance Director Doug Ellsworth led a discussion on the possibility of accepting credit/debit cards
for customer service transactions throughout the village. One dilemma mentioned by Mr. Ellsworth
was the fact that there are mandatory fees imposed by the credit card companies that the village would
be responsible for. If the village were to enhance their customer service and accept credit/debit card
payments the cost of providing this service would be 2-3 % of the transaction. Commissioner George
Busse asked Mr. Ellsworth approximately how much money this would be a year. Mr. Ellsworth
stated that it could quite possibly equate to $20,000 - $25,000 a year.
There was an open discussion by commissioners on their views on the acceptance of the cards and
most members voiced their opinion against acceptance. They felt that there was not enough of a
demand at this time from the residents to warrant the need for the cards acceptance. Commissioner
George Busse motioned to not accept credit/debit cards at this time, which was seconded by
Commissioner Ann Smilanic with all commissioners in favor.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman John Korn handed out a draft of a letter to Mayor Gerald Farley regarding the Finance
Commissions dissatisfaction with how some departments have asked for additional funds for their
budget. He stated this letter would be typed and distributed to the appropriate individuals.
m. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman John Korn summarized the topics discussed at several of the most recent board meetings.
Mr. Korn mentioned that the Manager's office was putting together a survey that will be distributed
to new residents to see what they like or what attracted them to the village. The Finance Commission
feels that the survey should target the residents that are leaving the village instead. The commission
feels that the value of the new resident's input is less valuable than that of the resident who is leaving.
IX. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth advised the Finance Commission that Pre Budget meetings will
begin next month and that the Police Department, Fire Department and Community Development
Department are scheduled for the meeting in April.
X. Next Meeting: April 26, 2001
Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to adjourn and Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. The next meeting will be April 26~.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Burkemper
Administrative Assistant
Finance Department
3
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DATE: APRIL 17, 2001
SUBJECT: FINANCIAL REPORT- QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2001
Following is a brief summary of the Village's financial activity as compared to budget for the
first quarter of the current fiscal year.
REVENUES
The approved 2001 Budget includes projected revenues of $81,226,945. At the end of the
first quarter of the year, we have brought in actual revenues of $16,694,462, representing
20.6% of budget.
The following table summarizes our year-to-date actual and annual projected revenues by
major classification.
Revenue Type YTD Actual Annual Projection % Collected
Property Taxes $ 4,209,363 $10,101,003 41.7%
Other Taxes 5,288,141 17,626,375 30.0
Licenses, Permits, Fees 1,055,880 3,085,900 34.2
Intergovernmental Rev. 1,659,509 10,643,066 15.6
Service Charges 2,946,493 12,861,980 22.9
Fines and Forfeits 107,053 510,000 21.0
Investment Income (654,408) 5,335,687 (12.3)
Reimbursements 69,493 566,656 12.3
Other Revenue 1,090,365 3,144,308 34.7
Subtotal $15,771,889 $63,874,975 24.7%
Other Financing Sources 922,573 17,351,970 5.3
Total $16,694,462 $81,226,945 20.6%
Excluding one-time Other Financing Sources such as bond proceeds and land sale
proceeds, actual revenue collections are closer to 25%.
Quarterly Financial Report
April 17, 2001
Page 2
Property Taxes: Since property taxes are mostly distributed by the County in March and
September, a 42% collection rate is to be expected. We did collect approximately 1% less
in 2000 than we had originally anticipated, which equates to about $100,000. The shortfall
can in part be attributed to properties we purchased within the TIF district coming off the
tax rolls. Another partial explanation for the shortfall is an increase in the number of tax
appeals filed with the County. We will have to monitor our tax collections in 2001 to
determine if the lower collection percentage can be expected to continue.
Other Taxes: Some of the larger revenue sources included in this category are the sales
tax and home-rule sales tax, special service area taxes, utility taxes and TIF revenues. As
of March 31st we have received 30% of our annual projection.
When the 2001 Budget was presented, sales tax receipts of $7,731,600 were projected
for the year. Retail sales in the last few months of 2000 were incredibly strong, resulting
in tax receipts of $8,108,000 for that year. What this means is that our 2001 tax receipts
can come in almost 5% below the prior year and we can still achieve budget. With several
large retail stores closing this year, and with the economy softening, the conservative
revenue estimate for 2001 will prove to be very beneficial. For the quarter just ended, we
are showing sales tax receipts of $2,071,568, which is 26.8% of budget. However, it should
be noted that the first quarter revenue figure includes only one month of actual receipts and
two months of estimates, since there is a two-month lag in the time the state collects and
distributes the funds. Even with the 5% cushion, we will have to watch this revenue source
closely. The one month of actual collection reported this year is down a full 18% from the
prior year. However, the amount we received last year for the same period was
extraordinarily high.
As would be expected, our collection experience with the one-half percent home-rule sales
tax is very similar tothe regular sales tax. A total of $816,626 has been recorded as
revenue, which is 27.6% of our annual projection of $2,958,000. The one month of actual
collection is down 19% from the prior year.
Revenues from the special service area tax came in at $665,000 for the fiscal quarter,
which is 42% of budget. Since this tax is assessed and collected as part of the property
tax process, the collection rate should always be similar to that of the property tax.
Another large revenue source for the Village is the utility tax. Of the 3.3% tax,
approximately 60% is for General Fund operations and 40% goes into the Street
Improvement Fund. A total of $2.9 million was projected for 2001. Through March 31st we
have recorded revenue of $1,009,009, which is 34.5% of our annual projection. The
telecommunications tax is generating strong revenues with our having received $453,035
Quarterly Financial Report
April 17, 2001
Page 3
(32%) of annual projection thus far. The utility tax on natural gas also is running ahead of
projections, with our receiving $283,367 of the $345,200 annual estimate. As we get into
the warmer months, the natural gas tax receipts will be greatly reduced.
Tax increment revenues from the first installment of the property tax levy came in at
$350,000, or 49% of annual projection.
Licenses, Permits and Fees: We have collected 34% of the $3.1 million projected for this
revenue category. The largest revenue source in this category is the vehicle license fee
from which we have collected $594,600 (43%) of the $1,392,000 projected. Since the new
license must be displayed by April 30'", we expect to receive a significant amount of license
revenue in the month of April.
The infrastructure maintenance fee is the second largest revenue source ~n this
category. We projected a tota of $420,000 for the year, of which $61,780 has been
recorded as revenue. Unfortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court two weeks ago upheld a
previous court decision that ruled the infrastructure maintenance fee unconstitutional.
According to legal counsel, however, it is only the fee assessed against the wireless
telecommunications companies that was ruled unconstitutional. The Court must still
determine how that ruling is to be implemented by municipalities. According to our legal
counsel, there is a likely chance we will have to return all of the infrastructure maintenance
fees collected from wireless companies going back to 1998 when the fee was first imposed
If that is the case, the fiscal impact to the Village will be a loss of approximately $150,000
per year. We would also have to pull approximately $450,000 out of our General Fund fund
balance to repay the fees collected in prior years. As soon as we learn more about the
court ruling we will notify you of the impact on the Village.
Intergovernmental Revenues: The Village has received $1,659,509 (16%) of the
$10,643,066 projected for the year. The reason the collection percentage is so Iow in this
category is that $3.9 million of grant proceeds are expected for the year, almost none of
which has been received thus far. Most of the grants are for construction activities that are
programmed for the summer months.
Our share of the state income tax is the largest single source of revenue in this category.
We have recorded $1,033,722 of revenue as of March 31s', which is 25% of our annual
projection. We wi II also have to watch this account over the next several months. Since
the recent census shows the State's population increased 8.6% and the Village's
population increased only 5.8%, we will be receiving approximately 3% less from the State
than we normally would have received. Fortunately, income tax receipts were strong in
2000, coming in close to what we projected for 2001. There[ore, if total income tax receipts
for the State increase by 3% in 2001 we should still achieve our projection for the year.
Quarterly Financial Report
April 17, 2001
Page 4
Service Charges: We have collected $2,946,493 in service charges during the first three
months. This represents 23% of the $12.9 million we originally projected. Water and
sewer service charges, which account for approximately one-half of the total, came in at
approximately 21.5% of annual projection. This level of collection is expected, since water
consumption is higher during the summer months.
Fines and Forfeits: This revenue category, consisting mostly of police citation collections,
is showing actual collections of $107,053 through March 31si, corn pared to the $51C 000
projected for the year. This represents a budget realization percentage of 21%. This
revenue source warrants monitoring over the next three months. Actual receipts in 2000
totaled $436,806, which was down significantly from the $531,500 originally projected. It
appears the trend for less citation revenue is continuing in 2001.
Investment Income: As can be seen from the table on page one, we are showing
negative investment earnings of $654,408 through the first quarter of 2001. The negative
earnings is the direct result of a sharp decrease in the market value of the equity mutual
funds held by the Police and Fireflghter pension funds. The collective value of their mutual
fund investments dropped by $2,040,087 during the first quarter. Offsetting almost half of
the loss in equities was $815,389 of earnings on the pension funds' fixed income
investments. Investment earnings for the Village's non-pension fund investments was a
positive $570,290.
Reimbursements: Receipts of $69,493 represent 12% of annual projection. This is a
timing issue, as we do expect to come very close to our projection by year end.
Other Revenue: This category is showing receipts of $1,090,365, which is 34.7% of the
$3,144,308 projected for the year. The Village's contributions to the Police and Fireflghters'
pension funds account for approximately one-half of the total for this revenue category. Of
the $1.43 million budgeted for the two funds, $599,658, or 42%, has been collected and
remitted. The other major revenue sources in this category include employee and retiree
contributions to the pension funds and health insurance programs, and developer
donations. All of these sources are very close to a 25% collection ratio.
Other Financing Sources: This category includes interfund transfers as well as one-time
revenue sources such as proceeds from bond sales and the sale of property. As of March
31st we ara showing revenue of $922,573, which is only 5% of the $17,351,970 projected
for the year. Anticipated bond sale proceeds of $15,425,000 account for a significant
portion of the budgeted revenues in this category. As you know, the Village Board has not
yet authorized the issuance of bonds for the new village hall/community center.
Quarterly Financial Report
April 17, 2001
Page 5
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES
As of March 31st, the approved budget for the year 2001 was $66,963,154. After the first
three months of operation a total of $11,257,794 had been expended, which is 16.3% of
budget.
It is very difficult to gauge the level of budgetary compliance this eady in the year by using
only the total expenditure and budget figures. The majority of capital spending tends to fall
during the summer months. The Village's debt service payments mostiy come due in May
and December. The following table might help illustrate how the Village's spending
compares to budget as of March 31, 2001.
Expenditures %
Expenditure Category Incurred to Date Annual Budget Expended
Wages $ 4,028,285 $18,830,500 21.4%
Employee Benefits 1,488,286 5,202,344 28.6
Other Employee Costs 62,900 358,900 17.5
Pension Costs 825,746 3,661,958 22.5
Contractual Services 2,620,184 13,530,182 19.4
Utilities 76,158 573,350 13.3
Insurance 780,432 3,780,667 20.6
Commodities, Supplies 282,403 1,344,350 21.0
Other Expenditures 423,255 935,106 45.3
Interfund Transfers 160,493 641,970 25.0
Sub-total $10,748,142 $48,859,327 22.0%
Capital Expenditures 295,077 15,639,355 1.9
Debt Service 214,575 4,464,472 4.8
Total $11,257,794 $68,963,154 16.3%
As can be seen in the table, expenditures of a more operational nature are closer to 22%
of annual budget.
Wages of $4,028,285 are only at 21.4% of budget because of position vacancies and in
part due to the fact we do not have an agreement with the firefighters' collective bargaining
unit yet.
Employee benefit costs are running slightly ahead of budget due to the Village's
contributions to the police and firefighter pension funds being at 42% of budget for the
reason explained earlier.
Quarterly Financial Report
April 17, 2001
Page 6
The Other Expenditures category includes the CDBG Single Family Rehab program, the
real estate tax assistance program and the majority of expenses pertaining to the
downtown redevelopment efforts. This category is showing expenditures of $423,255,
which is 45% of budget. A significant amount of money ($323,513) has been spent on site
cleanup in the TIF district already this year.
Very little has been spent out of the $15.6 million budgeted for capital expenditures. As
previously mentioned, the majority of the projects will be undertaken in the summer and
Fall.
It also might prove beneficial for you to see how the various departments' spending is
falling in comparison to budget, so the following table is presented.
Expenditures %
Department/Program Incurred to Date Annual Budget Expended
Public Representation $ 23,067 $ 107,006 21.6%
Village Manager's Office 265,780 1,181,960 22.5
TV Services Division 48,084 165,863 29.0
Village Clerk's Office 35,034 143,370 24.4
Finance 315,813 1,321,370 23.9
Community Development 320,892 1,522,171 21.1
CDBG 4,476 499,376 0.9
Human Services 132,840 672,810 19.7
Police 2,336,292 9,430,288 24.8
Fire 1,796,763 7,575,651 23.7
Public Works 3,360,672 18,056,726 18.6
Community Service 53,713 262,696 20.4
Capital imp. Projects 657,800 15,835,114 4.2
Debt Service 214,575 4,357,372 4.9
Pensions 825,746 3,668,508 22.5
Risk Management 705,754 3,520,903 20.0
lnterrund Transfers 160,493 641,970 25.0
Total $11,257,794 $68,963,154 16.3%
For the most part, the operating departments are running relatively close to budget. The
only programs materially over or under budget are CDBG, Debt Service and Capital
Improvement Projects.
The above table shows the TV Services Division has expended 29% of its budget one-
quarter of the way through the fiscal year. The variance can be attributed to the fact the
Quarterly Financial Report
April 17, 2001
Page 7
Division has spent 41% of its equipment budget and 46% of its supply budget. The Division
Head believes this program will come in at or below budget for the year.
Expenditures of the Community Development Department are at 21% of budget due mostly
to position vacancies.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) expenditures are at 1% of budget. The
Board just recently approved the agreements with the socia service agencies to be
awarded CDBG monies.
The Human Services Department spending is also significantly under budget. There is
$25,000 budgeted for computer programming that has not yet been spent. There are also
many expenses that are incurred during the summer months. It is expected that actual
expenditures will come closer to budget as the year comes to an end.
Public Works Department expenditures were at 18.6% of budget at March 31s'. The large
variance is due to the budgeting of large improvements and maintenance programs that
will be initiated during the summer months.
SUMMARY
After just three months it is somewhat difficult to evaluate revenues and expenditures as
they relate to annual budget. From looking at the numbers, it appears that revenues and
expenditures are generally in line with our budget.
There are several factors that will come into play over the next three to six months that may
adversely affect our budget to actual comparisons and will affect our budgetary outlook for
2002. Following are some of the more relevant issues that we are watching closely:
Revenue Issues
· Sales tax and home-rule sales tax receipts could fall significantly under budget due to
the softening economy and the closure of several large retail establishments.
· The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled the infrastructure maintenance fee should not have
been assessed against wireless telecommunications companies. This will result in a
loss of approximately $150,000 per year.
· The recent census will minimize the amount of new money coming into the General
Fund from the state income tax and certain other state-shared revenues.
· Police citation revenue came in almost $100,000, or 20%, below budget in 2000. The
first three months of 2001 are seeing similar activity.
· We have to monitor our property tax collections closely to determine if the lower
collection percentage of 2000 is continuing due to more tax appeals being filed.
uarterly Financial Report
April 17, 2001
Page 8
Expenditure Issues
· We were recently informed that our health insurance premiums are going to go up an
average of 15% effective July 1~t. When the budget was compiled we estimated an 8%
increase. The additional expense for 2001 will be approximately $80,000.
· The State Legislature recently amended the Pension Code to give significant pension
benefit enhancements to police officers, similar to what was granted to firefighters a few
years ago. The additional expense to the Village beginning in 2002 is estimated to be
$70,000 per year.
· The Northwest Central Dispatch System is in the process of amending its budget and
member assessment formula. The changes are expected to increase the Village's
costs by approximately $100,000 per year beginning on May 1% The additional
expense for 2001 will be about $67,000.
· We still need to resolve the funding sources for the debt service on a new village
hall/community center before the Board is asked to make binding decisions on that
matter.
We will have a much better handle on our revenue and expenditure picture as we get into
the mid-year review and 2002 financial forecast in August, At that time we will need to
solicit direction from the Board as to the level of tax increases they would like to hold to in
2002. This will assist the staff in putting together a balanced proposed 2002 Budget,
D~LLSWORTH. CPA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
c: department directors
Finance Commission members
I:\Corresp\IntI~2001\QUARTERLY F-S REVIEV, A3-31-01.doc
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, April 26, 200!
7:00 p.m.
Village Hall Building
100 South Emerson Street
2na Floor Conference Room
I Call to Order
II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of March 22, 2001
III Community Development Department - Pre-Budget Discussion
IV Fire Department - Pre-Budget Discussion
V Police Department - Pre-Budget Discussion
VI Other Business
VII Chairman's Report
VIII Next Meeting: Thursday, May 24, 2001, 7:00 p.m.
IX Adjournment
NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs
some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South
Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064.
FINANCE COMMISSION
~NUTES OF THE ~VIEETING
MARCH 22, 2001
VILLAGE HALL BUILDING
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at ?:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and
Commissioners Charles Bennett, George Busse, Vince Grochocinski, Tom Pel~as and Ann Smilanic.
Also present were Village Manager Michael Sanonis, Community Development Director Bill Cooncy,
Community Development Deputy Director of Community Development Mike Blue, Building Division
Coordinator Bill George, Director of Human Services Nancy Morgan, Deputy Director of Human
Services Jan Abernethy, Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer
and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to approve the minutes of January 25, 2001 seconded by
Commissioner Charles Bennett, the minutes were accepted as presented.
HI. DISCUSSION REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND PERMIT FEE INCREASE
Commissioner George Busse began the discussion by asking Mr. Cooney if the commission could see
a list of the different types of permits issued, how many of each is issued and what the particular costs
for the various permits are. Mr. Busse also asked what the historical growth has been in the number
of permits issued as well as the number of inspections performed. Community Development Deputy
Director Mike Blue stated that the number of inspections is growing at a faster rate than permits.
Currently there are approximately four inspections performed for each permit issued.
Building Division Coordinator Bill George provided examples of several scenarios in which permits
are issued and how from beginning to end the process works, He provided examples of the various
inspections that are performed along with examples of the work involved throughout the inspection
process and lastly, how final approval of a project is achieved.
Chairman John Korn complimented Community Development Director Bill Cooney for the article in
the Village Newsletter about planning a construction project. Mr, Korn stated that the article would
be very helpful to residents who are having work done on their homes.
IV. DISCUSSION REGARDING HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND
LONG-TERM FUNDING
Commissioner George Busse stated that he would like clarification on how time is allocated within
the department and how money is allocated and if it can be allocated more effectively. Commissioner
Ann Smilanic stated she thinks that most people in the Village think Human Services is for Senior's
only.
Human Services Director Nancy Morgan began with an overview of the history of the Human
Services Department. Ms. Morgan stated how the deparUnent has evolved from providing only senior
activities and services to the addition of services for families and youth's, home nursing care and
social services and finally Community Programs. Commissioner George Busse said he would like
to see the budget reflect more specific categories within the Human Services Department. Mr. Busse
would like to see the budget reflect the following categories: 1-Administration, 2-Nursing, 3-Youth,
4-Social Services, 5-Recreation and Education. The commission would like to change the perception
that seniors come first, therefore they agreed that Human Services should modify the way they
advertise the various services they provide.
Commissioner George Busse also mentioned that Human Services should review how and where their
money is spent. Mr. Busse suggested that Human Services look at spending money on the programs
that will make the biggest impact and have the most interest:
V. DISCUSSION REGARDING MULTIPLE BOND RATINGS
Finance Director Doug Ellsworth led a discussion on whether the village should go out and solicit for
two bond ratings. Mr. Ellsworth stated the advantages and disadvantages of obtaining two bond
ratingsi After an in-depth discussion, the commission agreed that they did not see a valid reason to
solicit for two ratings. Commissioner George Busse motioned that the village should continue to use
only one bond rating. Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded the motion. All commissioners voted
in favor of the motion.
VI. DISCUSSION REGARDING CREDIT/DEBIT CARD ACCEPTANCE
Finance Director Doug Ellsworth led a discussion on the possibility of accepting credit/debit cards
for customer service transactions throughout the village. One dilemma mentioned by Mr. Ellsworth
was the fact that there are mandatory fees imposed by the credit card companies that the village would
be responsible for. If the village were to enhance their customer service and accept credit/debit card
payments the cost of providing this service would be 2-3 % of the transaction. Comrrdssioner George
Busse asked Mr. Ellsworth approximately how much money this would be a year: Mr. Ellsworth
stated that it could quite possibly equate to $20,000 - $25,000 a year.
There was an open discussion by commissioners on their views on the acceptance of the cards and
most members voiced their opinion against acceptance. They felt that there was not enough of a
demand at this time from the residents to warrant the need for the cards acceptance. Commissioner
George Busse motioned to not accept credit/debit cards at this time, which was seconded by
Commissioner Ann Smilanic with all commissioners in favor.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman John Korn handed out a draft of a letter to Mayor Gerald Farley regarding the Finance
Commissions dissatisfaction with how some departments have asked for additional funds for their
budget. He stated this letter would be typed and distributed to the appropriate individuals.
III. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman John Korn summarized the topics discussed at several of the most recent board meetings.
Mr. Korn mentioned that the Manager's office was putting together a survey that will be distributed
to new residents to see what they like or what attracted them to the village. The Finance Commission
feels that the survey should target the residents that are leaving the village instead. The commission
feels that the value of the new resident's input is less valuable than that of the resident who is leaving.
IX. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth advised the Finance Commission that Pre Budget meetings will
begin next month and that the Police Department, Fire Department and Community Development
Department are scheduled for the meeting in April.
X. Next Meeting: April 26~ 2001
Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to adjourn and Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. The next meeting will be April 26~.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Burkemper
Administrative Assistant
Finance Department
3
MAYOR ~
Gerald I~ Farley VILLAGE MANAGER
Michac! E. Janonis
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. CorcoranpaulWm. Ho~fettVillageof MountProspect VILLAGE CLERKvelma w. Lowe
R/chard M. Lohrswrfer
Dennis G. Pfikkel Community Development Department Phone: 847/818-5328
Michaele W. Skovaon Fax: 847/818-5329
Irvana K. Wilks 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392-6064
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME:
Senior Center Thursday
50 South Emerson Street April 26, 2001
Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
1II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of March 22, 2001
ZBA-05-01 / 617 N. Fairview
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. ZBA-06-01 / 1020 S. Linneman / Gettysburg Development / Map Amendment and Variation
to create (2) lots that have 63.23' lot widths. NOTE: The Map Amendment is Village
Board final and the Variation is ZBA final.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion on Proposed Development Code Modifications
Overview of changes proposed to the Village Code to mainstream the development process
VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, bUt because of a disability needs some accommodation to
participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056,
847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CASE NO. ZBA-05-2001 Hearing Date: March 22, 2001
PET/TIONER: Kevin & Julie Anderson
PUBLICATION DATE: March 7, 2001 Daily Herald
REQUEST: Variation for a side yard setback for a shed
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger
Leo FIoros
Elizabeth Luxem
Keith Youngquist
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotton
Richard Rogers
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES: Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Anderson
Mr. & Mrs~ Gene Seaberg
Tom Grigis
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the January 25, 2001 meeting were
approved with one abstention by Elizabeth Luxem. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-05-01, a request for a
Variation for a side yard sethaek for a shed.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the
item, a request for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed. As background to the case, Ms. Connolly explained
that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. She said the
property owners received a building permit to construct a 10'x12' shed three-feet from the interior lot line. When the
Village conducted the final inspection, it was learned that the shed is located 1 1/2 feet from the lot line instead of the
required 3-feet.
Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioners thought that the existing garage met Village setback requirements and
located the shed in line with the garage. The petitioners are applying for a variation because the shed is complete and,
as stated in their application, the shed would have to be disassembled in order to relocate it to the loeafion required by
code. Ms. Connolly pointed out that there is no fence adjacent to the shed and the petitioners state that they can
maintain the area between the shed and the neighbor's property with their lawn mower.
Ms. Connolly said staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan and visited the site, and found that thc
subject parcel is out of any flood zone and is rectangular in shape. The parcel is developed with a single family home
and a detached garage. The applicants constructed a 10'x12' shed 1.5-feet from an interior lot line and the Zoning
Ordinance requires a three-foot setback.
Ms. Connolly said that, in order to approve a variation, the request has to meet the standards for a variation as listed in
the Zoning Ordinance. These standards relate to an irregular shape of the property or a topographical attribute unique
to the lot. The standards also require that the variation not impact the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood
character.
Ms. Connolly stated that the reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner. Thc subject
property is similar to many other lots in the Village. She said the shed is not permanently attached to the ground and
Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2001
Arlene Juraeak, Chairperson Page 2
could be taken apart, relocated, and meet the required 3' setback. However, the shed would not be likely to have a
negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, and the petitioners states that they have the
ability to maintain the 1.5-foot area between their property line and their neighbor's property.
Ms. Connolly said that, while the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the
submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends
that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a shed to encroach 1.5-feet into the required three-
foot side yard setback for the residence at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. She said the Village Board's
decision is final for this case.
Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly ifa plat and drawing for this shed had been submitted when a permit was requested.
Ms. Connolly said yes and that the property has been re-surveyed since the shed permit was issued. She said that the
permit for the shed showed a 3' setback from the property line.
Kevin and Julie Anderson, 617 N. Fairview, were sworn in. Mrs. Anderson testified that when she applied for a shed
permit, using a then current plat of survey, that she drew the shed in pencil on the plat flush with the the garage. She
said that staff told her that her submittal was acceptable. She said that when the property was re-surveyed the shed was
1.5' from the property line. Mrs. Anderson explained that the shed is not on a concrete slab, but on foundation blocks,
a sample of which they brought to the meeting. The foundation blocks contain a crosshair design in which the 2'x4'
joints fit. She said that there are twelve of these blocks under the shed and pointed out that if they had used a concrete
slab that the property line discrepancy would have been noted in the "pre-pour" inspection of the slab. However, they
used the blocks because water is retained in that area and they thought the blocks would provide a more level and
sturdy platform for the shed. Mr. Anderson said he had received a quote from a contractor for $500 to move the shed
using a front-end loader. He said that they would need to dig out the foundation blocks and move them to the new
location of the shed.
Ms. Juracek asked Mrs. Anderson what was the dimension of the shed with respect to the garage, 3' or 1.5'? Mrs.
Anderson said she had questioned staff about what the measurement meant when she was applying for the shed permit
and was told the overhang might be included in the setback shown on the plat of survey. Mrs. Anderson said that the
setback shown on the plat does not include the overhang and feels they were misled in that instance.
Hal Ettinger asked Mr. & Mrs. Anderson if the garage was existing when they bought the property. Mr. Anderson said
yes, they bought the property with the garage that way ten years ago. Mr. Ettinger asked the petitioners if they were
told when they were applying for a permit that the shed had to be setback 3-feet from the lot line. Mrs. Anderson said
yes, she understood that the shed had to be located three-feet from the lot line.
There was discussion about using the fence along the north lot line as a point of reference to measure the 3-foot
distance. It was noted that there is a 9-foot gap between that fence and another fence along the east (rear) property line
that extends west along 9-feet ofthe petitioners' north lot line. Ms. Juracek said it would be helpful to see the original
plat and asked that the original permit application be included in the packet to go to the Village Board with the ZBA's
recommendation. After further discussion among the petitioners, it was determined that the fences were in place at the
time of construction of the shed.
Mr. Ettinger asked if they had purchased the shed or constructed it. Mrs. Anderson said that they had purchased it, but
some construction was necessary because it was a "kit".
Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Zoning Board.
Mr. & Mrs. Gene Seaberg, 619 N. Fairview were sworn in and gave testimony that they felt the shed looked good and
did not detract from the neighborhood. They stated that they had no problem with the location and said they would
have built the shed the same way. They said their garage is also close to the property line and that it has been that way
for 27 years.
oning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2001
Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 3
Tom Grigis, 701 N, Fairview, was sworn in and said that he has no objections to leaving the shed in its current
location. He said that, while it is physically possible to move the shed, it is not economically wise and would not be
level when moved.
Julie Anderson presented a list of 36 neighbors who signed their names to a petition stating that they had no objections
to leaving the shed where it is.
At 7:55, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members.
Elizabeth Luxem said that it was natural for the homeowner to assume their existing garage conformed to Village
codes and to align the shed with the garage. She said that she didn't feel they had located the shed 1.5-feet from the lot
line to get around code requirements. She said that she would not vote to recommend approval ifa contractor familiar
with Village codes had erected the shed, but that she would vote in favor of the request in this instance.
Keith Youngquist said he felt the same way and that this had been an honest mistake. He said that he would vote in
favor of the petitioner's request because the shed was located the same distance from the lot line as the garage and that
the shed was not visible from the street.
Ms. Juraeek said she also usually votes to follow Village codes, but in this case she could understand the owners
wanting to align the shed with the garage for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, she would vote to recommend approval
because the location did not have a negative impact on the neighborhood character and had the same setback as the
existing detached garage.
Elizabeth Luxem moved to recommend to the Village Board approval for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed
at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Ettinger, Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 5-0.
Chairperson Juracek introduced the next item under New Business, election of a Vice Chair to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, to ensure continuity in running Zoning Board meetings in the event of her absence.
Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals; Leo Floros seconded the
motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Flores, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 5-0.
At 8:00 p.m., Leo Flores made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice
vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
/