HomeMy WebLinkAboutTab 6: Fee Information
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 17, 2014
SUBJECT: FEE INFORMATION
During the recent budget discussion for fiscal year 2014, staff communicated that the
Village continues to experience a structural financial deficiency whereby the revenue
growth does not match the expenditure growth on a an annual basis. This differential
typically is about 1% to 2%. Therefore, staff undertook a preliminary review of existing
fees that are charged for services comparing the current levels to other communities
and comparing the cost charged to the actual cost to provide the service in terms of
personnel and material costs.
This material is provided for general information with additional discussion regarding the
potential revenue and service impacts to be part of the discussion prior to the
preparation of the budget for 2015. It is recommended that the fee discussion be
considered as a complete package not as individual fees per any one particular service.
A total package discussion would reduce the need to revisit each individual fee on a
piecemeal basis and cause less confusion when implementing any modifications. These
fees are only charged when a service is needed or requested and are intended to be
somewhat self-supporting.
Community Development:
Community Development reviewed the fees and how they compare with what is
charged by surrounding communities. For example, the majority of the small fees in
Community Development (driveway, fence, deck, etc.) do not cover the actual cost of
providing the service. Therefore, the larger project fees cross subsidize the smaller fee
permits. Unfortunately, with the ebb and flow of economic conditions the larger projects
and fees that are attached to them may not be enough to cover the smaller project fees
in any particular year. The differential between the smaller projects and the larger
projects could be closed, but not eliminated through modest increases to permit fees so
that economic fluctuations do not negatively impact the Community Development
budget. The smaller project permit fees will always benefit from the cross subsidization
because without it the smaller permit fees would have be set too high to cover actual
Re: FEE INFORMATION
April 17, 2014
Page 2
expenses and would risk compliance. The housing and compliance related fees were
also reviewed and staff recommends that these fees remain unchanged at this time.
Fire Department:
There is also information regarding the fire inspection fees and how the Village
compares to surrounding communities in the fees that are charged and the actual
personnel and material cost to provide this service. The fire inspection fees are in a
similar position as Community Development fees. In addition, there is a comparison of
ambulance fees charged by other communities and the actual cost the Village incurs to
provide the ambulance service on a per call basis. The Village is below the average of
what other surrounding communities charge. The structure of how the ambulance fee is
designed regarding residents and non-residents would not be recommended to be
altered, but there is an option for additional revenue to help offset the cost per call.
Police Department:
Information is included that shows the cost of false alarms and some local ticket
charges are low in comparison with the average charged by surrounding communities.
The recommendations for discussion are very modest in terms of overall additional
revenue. The administrative cost of the majority of the fees will not be covered by the
fees even with a modest increase, but the differential will not be as great between actual
expense and revenue generated.
Public Works:
The spreadsheet provided by public works illustrates the vast majority of their fees are
set through the development process in cooperation with Community Development.
They are recommending discussion on a small number of fees, including construction
trees and sampling fees.
Human Services:
Human Services review of their fees found that the level and amount of fees were
adequate to cover the personnel and material costs at this time.
Village Manager’s Office:
A review of the current liquor license fees along with a comparison of how the Village
fees compare with surrounding communities is provided. Included in the spreadsheet is
a summary of potential additional revenues based on different percentage increases
and respecting the different classes of licenses and what is already charged compared
surrounding communities. In recent years staff (Administrative Assistant to the Village
Re: FEE INFORMATION
April 17, 2014
Page 3
Manager Doreen Jarosz) has worked very closely with the licensees help streamline the
process for them in terms of getting their materials in on time and through the process
without delay. The additional time accounts for approximately 30% to 35% of her work
to assist in the processing of these licenses and any violations that may occur. This
additional time has been well appreciated by the licensees.
Conclusion:
This information is provided as a starting point of discussion regarding the overall fee
structure and potential for such fees to assist in closing a portion of the structural
differential between revenue growth and expenditure growth. Any changes that are
implemented will not eliminate the differential completely and would not be intended to
do so.
DAVID STRAHL
c: Village Manager Michael E. Janonis
Finance Director David Erb
H:\VILM\BUDGET\2015\VB Cover Memo Fee Discussion 4-2014.docx
COMMUNITY
1 0 9
I LVA I q I
Village of Mount Prospect U molint P -131
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 16, 2014
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEE REVIEW
The Community Development Department conducted an analysis of fees collected by the Department for
various services. Specific attention was given to reviewing building permit, rental licensing, and zoning
application fees. Staff reviewed fees collected by the Department for the previous calendar year and
surveyed fees charged by surrounding municipalities. The following memo provides an overview of fees
collected and potential adjustments. Attached to this memorandum are copies of the fee surveys
performed and tables analyzing permit data.
Building Permits
In 2013 the Building Division collected slightly over $878,000 in permit revenue. This amount does not
include fees charged for inspection bond deposits, nuisance abatements, or other similar fees which the
Village reimburses back to a permit applicant at the conclusion of a project. The budget for the Building
Division includes $876,610 in 2014 expenses including staff salaries ($323,000), benefits ($158,000),
inspection services ($318,000), and other support costs ($76,000). The majority of permit fees collected
by the Department were last updated in 2003.
When considering inspection and average building division administration costs per permit, several
permit types operate in a revenue negative manner. Table 1 on the following page demonstrates that most
of the permit fees for commonly issued small residential permits do not cover the actual cost to the
Village. As the conditions of each permit issued can vary, inspections are calculated on an average per
permit type. Failed and follow up inspections are not included in this calculation. Administration costs
include only Building Division staff time to open /close a permit, route plans if necessary, and schedule
inspections. Plan review by other Departments was not included as most of these permits are issued over
the counter or involve limited review. Inspection costs include the actual cost to perform an inspection
based on the Village's inspection services contract with TPI Consultants.
Community Development Department Fee Review
Page 2
Table 1: Building Permit Analysis
Permit Type
Average
Fee
Ins ections
Administrative
Costs
Rev/Loss
Average
Number
Inspection
Costs
Driveway
$25
2
$67
$18
($60)
Electrical
35
1.2
40
15
($19)
Fence
40
1
33
14
($8)
Flatwork
46
2.36
79
19
($51)
Generator
75
2.32
77
19
($21)
Grading Excavation
40
1.5
50
18
($28)
Hot Tub /Spa
25
2
67
14
($56)
HVAC AC and Furnace
50
2.39
80
15
($45)
HVAC AC Only
25
2.13
71
14
($60)
HVAC Furnace Only
25
2
67
14
($56)
Interior Remodel Basement
190
7
234
27
($71)
Interior Remodel Bathroom
175
8
268
28
($121)
Interior Remodel Kitchen
280
9
301
30
($52)
Roof Residential
25
1
33
12
($2 l )
Deck
121
3
100
20
($0)
Storage Shed
25
1.15
38
15
($28)
Water Heater
33
1
33
12
($13)
Under the Village's current fee structure, the minimum permit charge amount is $25 for projects valued at
$1,000 or less. For each additional $1,000 in valuation $10 is added to the permit charge. Minimum
electrical and plumbing permits are also $25 but have additional fees added based on number of circuits
or fixtures respectively. These calculations cause each permit type to have a different fee structure which
can be difficult to decipher and administer correctly. Also, as noted in the table above, the fee structure
results in several permits which cost only $25 to obtain. Fence permits are specifically called out in the
code at a cost of $40.
To both simplify the fee structure and to make permits more cost neutral, staff would recommend raising
the minimum permit fee from $25 to $75 for all projects with a construction valuation of less than $7,500.
Doing so would make permits such as fences, shed, roofs, and water heaters cost $75. For projects in
excess of $7,500 valuation, staff proposes to keep the existing $10 per additional $1,000 valuation.
Additionally, staff would propose to eliminate fee add -ons for individual electrical circuits, plumbing
fixtures, among others.
By increasing the minimum fee to $75, the Village would cover its actual cost of processing each permit.
It also would not have a significant effect on existing larger permits. For projects which were valued at
$7,500 or greater, raising the minimum fee would not add additional costs to these permits under this
proposal. Based on 2013's permit history, the potential change would increase permit revenues from
$878,000 to $971,000. A difference of $93,000.
Community Development Department Fee Review
Page 3
Staff reviewed the permit fees charged by other comparable communities and found the Mount Prospect
fees trend to be some of the lowest. Other communities also charged $25 minimum for a permit, but most
were between $50 and $75. The proposed base fee increase would therefore be comparable to
surrounding municipalities.
Reinspection Fees
Currently the Village charges for reinspections based on an escalating scale. The first reinspection costs
$50, second $75, third $100, and so on. Staff does not recommend making changes to this fee structure as
our inspection costs are covered based on these fees. TPI would still charge the Village for an inspection
($33.50) regardless of how many reinspections are required. The escalating scale covers the Village's
administration costs to reschedule and process the follow up inspection.
Rental Licensing
The Community Development's rental licensing program issued 1,468 licenses for 6,266 individual units
in 2013. Currently, the Village charges a minimum fee of $75, or $40 per unit licensed, whichever is
greater. Based on this fee structure a landlord which rents one unit (i.e. a single family home or condo)
their fee would be $75. If a landlord rented a four unit apartment building their fee would be $160 (4 x
$40). The minimum and per unit fees are reduced to $67 and $36 respectively if the landlord completes
all three levels of the Village's Crime Free Housing Program.
The following table compares Mount Prospect's rental licensing fees with those of surrounding
communities which have similar programs. Based on this review, Mount Prospect's fees trend slightly
below the mean. Mount Prospect's program generates more revenue than Arlington Heights and Des
Plaines, but less than Buffalo Grove, Hoffman Estates, Prospect Heights, and Schaumburg's. A direct
comparison could not be made to Elk Grove, Palatine, and Rolling Meadows as their programs are run
differently than the other communities. Elk Grove only licenses single family homes, while Palatine and
Rolling Meadows base their license fees on the number of violations and inspections performed at a rental
property.
Table 2: Rental License Fee Comparison
*Revenues Assuming Mount Prospect Licensing Conditions (i.e. 1,468 licenses and 6,266 units).
Fee Calculation Examples
Minimum
Per Unit
Single Unit
6 -Flat
MP Revenue*
Mount Prospect
$75
$40
$75
$240
$274,960
Arlington Heights
$60 (1 -5 units)
$13
$60
$78
$125,854
Buffalo Grove
$75 SF Home /Condo
$150 Apt Complex
$30
$75
$510
$312,735
Des Plaines
$100 SF
$50 Townhouse
$20
$100 house
$50 townhouse
$120
$198,040
Hoffman Estates
N/A
$150
$150
$900
$939,900
Prospect Heights
$100
$100
$100
$600
$626,600
Schaumburg
$60
$60
$60
$360
$375,960
Elk Grove
Only licenses Single Family Homes - $20
Palatine/Rollin Meadows
- Sliding Scale Based on Number of Violations/Inspections
*Revenues Assuming Mount Prospect Licensing Conditions (i.e. 1,468 licenses and 6,266 units).
Community Development Department Fee Review
Page 4
The Housing Inspection Division's total budget for 2014 is $538,036. This includes staff salaries
($323,000), benefits ($148,000), and support costs ($66,000). Current revenues account for 50% of the
Division's expenses. The Division also generates revenue through fines and judgments as a result of
property maintenance violations. Over the past five years the Division has averaged $50,000 in
judgments each year and has collected $16,000 annually. Judgments are typically paid at the time a
property changes ownership and as a result can be collected several years after a judgment is issued.
Zoning Fees
Over the last two years the Department has processed a total of forty -five zoning applications with a total
of $27,050 in revenue from application fees (2012 = 28/$16,550, 2013 = 17/$10,500). The fee schedule
has various scales for residential and commercial properties. In general, fees for single family properties
are $100. Fees for other properties are based on the size of the lot under a sliding scale (between $250 to
$2,500).
Similar to permits identified above, single family variation and conditional use requests operate in a
revenue negative manner. Fees for these projects are set at $100 per application. Direct costs which are
incurred by the Village include mailing of public notices ($40 /average) and publishing a public notice in
local newspaper ($145 /average). Additional staff time is also spent on these projects by processing the
application, reviewing plans (multiple departments), placing public notice signs, writing staff reports,
attending hearings, and producing minutes or ordinances. Staff would estimate total staff time to process
a zoning request would be approximately ten hours when all Departments and staff positions are
considered. At a minimum, staff would recommend increasing the fees to cover the expenses related to
public notification. Raising the fee from $100 to $250 for instance would cover these expenses.
For commercial projects, fees collected per project tend to be slightly higher as the properties are
generally between 1 to 10 acres in size, and petitioners often seek zoning relief for more than one item.
The Village still incurs the cost of publishing a notice in the newspaper but does require the petitioner to
mail the notices to surrounding properties. Similar to residential projects, there is a large amount of staff
time which goes into processing an application through the entire zoning process.
A survey of surrounding municipalities demonstrates a wide range if fees collected for these services. For
residential or small commercial projects, Mount Prospect's fees trend to the lower end of the fees
collected by our neighbors. For larger commercial projects (5+ acres) our fees seem to be comparative to
those charged by Arlington Heights and Schaumburg on the higher end.
Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, staff's initial recommendations related to fees would be as follows:
• Raise the minimum building permit fee to $75. For permits which exceed $7,500 in construction
valuation an additional $10 per $1,000 valuation would be added to the permit fee,
• No changes to the reinspection or rental license fees,
• Increase zoning fees to cover our costs for processing applications for smaller projects
(residential /small lots).
Community Development Department Fee Review
Page 5
This memorandum and supporting documentation is submitted for consideration at the April 22, 2014
Financial Planning Workshop. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter.
rian Simmons., AICP
Rental License Fees
- Comparable Community
Minimum
Survey
Per
Mount Prospect
$75
Unit
$40
Arlington Heights
$60 per building (1 -5 units)
$13
Des Plaines
Single Family - $100,
Condo /Apartment -
Townhouse - $50
$20 per unit
Elk Grove Village
Single Family - $20
N/A
Hoffman Estates
$150
$150
Prospect Heights
$100
$100
Schaumburg
$60
$60
Palatine
Sliding Scale based on number of violations. Rental
license fee
Multiple Dwelling (Apartments)
25% of Units Inspected,
Whichever is Greater
Per building $ 102
Per unit $ 20; 50% of Units Inspected
Per unit $ 56 ; 100% of Units Inspected
Per unit $ 92; All Other Rental Dwelling Types
(Condo, Townhome, SFR) 0 - 3 Violations $ 71; 4 or
More Violations $ 128
Rolling Meadows
Sliding scale based on number of violations. Multi-
family 20 percent of units inspected: $20.00 per
dwelling unit; 50 percent of units inspected: $55.00
per dwelling unit; 100 percent of units inspected:
$90.00 per dwelling unit. ; Single Family Condos -
0 -3 violations, inspected every 3 years: $30.00; 4
or more violations, inspected every 12 months:
$90.00; Single- family dwelling - detached and
attached (i.e. SFR, Townhomes) - 0 -3 violations,
inspected every 3 years: $50.00; 4 or more
violations, inspected every 12 months: $150.00
P.'
after het
�2 7
7
1�
525+
S25 *SBtper
pmlPa
M1aed +30
�
nv perm{
per' .Irtesl
Use TPl Catle
�pv
ben
Type pfn
nee see
Df
aC.
D., ul
—n
I—M
—12—
&1-3
N17—
—03
712—
Il ia.
I Per
IY
Heights
1 OGO I.Wl
41—
s"O.,U.
va ue Ptus
pool Sd5lhf Decks
5525 per
31,000 va ue,
bt 1. par
%3 445tht
�
ceaeln
pemrss
Lo Ol
"U.".
-amts'
real
slo (—o.� -
$l'.0
ce
th
hmly
home) Ef
lout
Gas . —
P
a
per
53500
635.00+
39Mead Plus
�
530 perg50,000
Ai o00 of
xupeB
850+
iS50 +same
Elk Grove
$50 NSFR
—dl
W—.1
.-m—
j—
32D:. - A500
1535
550
925
IPor d— �
HoRmen
r
Ov
-d
ml.
100a.,
---d
115a
1
lo% &,
OM Of pemkl fee. 820
3500
P.O
s-V
535
E45lshed
MFR
muDa
' fixtures
ResideRlal
340 (PI
Wheeling
eatlBlonet
$70D cock
canneIXian
Fee}NVry
�p
d
.0
— 117
.1
12. 1�
1.
.1.10
Side Bet
.7
pmleq
�A..
2.
pro! n on
ore en
.—d
PBcerer
34$ Us!
N
Wo for
6i0
380
650
Sao
340
plamdn
Din
%4p
Eat
35000
SB."
%] Uh
h
38 000
eellnvs.
580
W0 fvr
P.& Ring.
p er
>5V o
$71
$111171$.
$75$20 — ft
VD
$50 +A20
.1 Per
- um.
sq
b20.
SfOOfgenere €Some
min
LU
V
SaOtper t'+bJ aft.
Pad ns00
AS..
+
$950 per
min+
WA
a
61500
35 +5t9Fxlpm
Et
61200
449 DD
4i.
SnQ eO
6280«
Stsm
.%D.Op
3205
599
&:
$50.00
520.00
ESJ
ecas!acn
o, o(re..mr,mt
: .re =om
rmtwe
3am'.t. re
S.. arture cnn
&F
uA
SEar..N rez
ssC.'ccmeae:
Paw
saps
S'a^
's":
:run.
: %PD
>i;ntitb _SSA L4
1.
E71
7.
M M
a
Meatows
P 75
-5
1 L
1.5
7�
1—
�T—
% °4a nse rea ask'
Al
ff
1
L.
W
Plannina and Zonin¢ Fees - Comnarahle Communitv Survev
oaatd i
Deaaptipn
De:<bPboo
=.N At
Da:rri _..
pbv
:. amaeat
Da.m tine
Amauas
Dean bon
Amoaat
Deaertp+bn
ampbpe
[trrttll:lenal uses
Pl. to R -E, R1, Ra zntl 0.
RE eh
$pe Cai 1-% vugh R� }Dls'.dc[s
I.00
CvndGlvnal USe Permits
$38500
Rezoning
t $SCC Filing ke7$asP Cepas�'
1g Pbn
Review
Zc gRppaal
$2D0.
rtnR
t fm fearing fee.
A ll iediviaual b[ single- ramilq
$3x.CD
Fem r 4[o cG e,har dlsrrc.<fvssi(,canona
cial uzez raFerryin all vtner disodctz icther
2 ..x
Elanned Unit Dev�opments
T20.
<_pecal UZe Ferrol:
$1sGx Filing fee!$asC
Pzelimmary5iw plan Feview
$] , C p
2en n8
Vanaace
reGueats
than RE tM1mugM1 R -]j
epvzit Sr hearing fees
--
$i..x PAS $I,^..x per .at
- --
CtFmr proAert as ess tiuclane
$25.^..00
0 -L33 acres
$9x.Lb
'El— Un tDwelvpment amendment
1.00
M srorV ansc2m'srg
R".
E and remM.tgkez as
! edM he runty
P° s w 0 3
$2 CP
_4drr ar.ane
T.
most. a: r)
subdlvls eF(resetH NZmn
mrders of Gcrt aM
coca Counties.
acres
$}s.. Filing lee Alus cs[t
M!naz Variance fiesidential
! OPF.er prepertles greatertnani
$sx.
a -ass
±.aP.DO
Plannaa w!. Da,relepmam - ncx aavctppmept
2abx
- iandaM Va. ^.a.iOns (ZmISrg RVard
iss[�
Renaantia: zoning vadatlGn
urrea wer the $JS.x
inai ss:e plan review -3 tar
$ x
A V., a
$ssex
acre and less thanS ave =.
acrea
of A:F°Ps1
aadinevaliv- $i;�^e per
pma noaleen nasea.
.0 acres
... ,�
corer prcFe:: e< greater thart5
$1.asa.x
s- sssa<rea
31.5eo.x
•frig ervx zY Cn by Plan COmmeson {cot
A rcera :petal uae or. asses volt
200 CC
MaVorvanabana {ary cpup<aj
xaox
_.
a 1.,apa.aal D'avina
SasDCC aeppzie
Final s:ee plan wew.+
$sxca
kiaj. n udentiai
Crrar
Svsx
acre aria la•a lc ar.•ea
than
DevelvamenU
Vanaben
acaa
v° GuLments
Othsr prepart'as gre.ter than l0
$ =5oa.x
SO Lh.99aces
$1,cOP.x
2vning [cwt amer•amene
1x.v0
Amercdmems,Rax[c•MaA)
220th
b nt for
evelp hxrprvjec5
TFIM Farty rzte
Mnvz Varance Revdzntlal
$aCC lm
r .aria less YF.an SS acres
nrep[Piarr(PreRminary Planreview- n[esfive
$a25.x +t5(,ot +Cvvnry
[EVrI.- A, Clher 1F
her prepertles greatertnan l5
ceaential
Ren
$2xx
xres
$a,SPC.x
35 +xres
$3,J...
zcresa lA,,
Lancept Plani.'*.alim!narr Plan review -sites large is0.+25.x
SOx
for each atre vrfraRion over t!ve
Appeal_
RS..
Final S:bdivs!Cn
Teat A. nament(Rezoning
Mmg fees
$250x+ PUNlcaban
.. Foy OthariVpa
!
Mop —d—
Uait Cevebpment &P(anred Uni;kmendmemz
Miavr Varianrn
'strict
525CW
than five zcres
ow tortes vvaraC;e by Me Vnlagefor aAx lO i nRlal aepa bled with P -1114
vwry of petitb zflled pursuant Narxl additienai payment as pe <essa:S Yp cover Y:liage
Ttle 17 c a.
�
Variance- Reslaential
$:00.00+ ?ubllu - ton
av+puMkatbnw
G..mmerical
res less than Sa¢e
$2-RE
0 -a 19 acres
$1,2x.OP
Mafcr Variaem Com- maria4
District
$3..1q
! fireater:n l aceC004acrosy6C00ommercial0
p asd
-
I—than: nacres
cand'drorral uae
$200A0 plea -11—
er t
no sed
5t,asax
Sa 1a sxrea
$l,sx.x
dm ' ePmn
Si.ob
cnansa<rea
lxfi a tnanl acme
-
-
cna
3 Pre er lnan;.b atrea
Si,sx.x
is+atret
SL—
s!ze ran ae.,re,.€xnPaiag
saxx
Fmpert:ea grenertnan 15 acres
$2,5...
scecbl uae—RE N.Arrr_nemertes}
_I.e plan i?°alew -signs
C1...x
Qfherre¢vert^
Untler3,x0 Aare feet(gmsz)
5 =..x
spetla L'se iezcept PL*Dj
$Ax,x
Tta+-- _dint
$SxRE
2E..
N—A Ca:ely ?merit
Appeal
$250..
All drive- tF.OUghtz
$S,WOx
vVVi Arzrendmentz.
Modif eibn to an appreved FllD
$ubd!vislGn, eiu'ept
$Sx, +55$.xfvr epcb new bt
��e Amentlmem
53..x
repairing planning and zoning
$250.CC
nsolidaGans
Special hearing Pee {all reGCaztsi
55CO.oa
land UU VOriativrrs
pAmcmdment (R -3 andR
D11-1
Say RA
GI.SB aces
$xODO
Map A:nendrnent Ali other
$q.x
mn;sg ce te Fm
52D-x
—AR acraa
$L1Dbm
$1,300Pt
TED
0-14.83 acres
$1,SOV.x
- z
i5t acres
51,8x..
� �
Caruo(ldatbes
Minin:�m Dapaslta cr Legal
Nc4ces and CVUrt Reporter
elat
$IxPO
Ad $3x.x
2oning Hearing Agri
$SROG
Plannine and 2ontne Fees- fomnamble Community Sumev lPaee 21
CITY OF ROLLING MEADOWS
ifILLAGE OF
WHE ELI NG
VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG
WIFAGE OF HOFFMAN WALES
VILLAGE OF PALATINE
as x.r_xsx
-
,x s_u
Fct
SLSOE as
> ie a,.fs
5zEem
� °�' ? iz � °
Si_a'
�, a..an rxe 5'v0,.. pus Sihm;eraer
-e
Six -SS
s _
s,:e'rEm
a saes
5
_
e _ 5.saa
�sm�
3 I eeSVno
¢^ar
u .�3rxc s s.s+
,z
Sin
_. n.t.... z ,.xi,nv „5
vvc:xtcs s
Sn. ?S
<LUVea
5955 ee
t4
aeroro
4 - _0�vern,¢
a mrx °. n.a Res � 3:A.T,
�•'°,
ct � eG..o
.. .e ssacm
Snw a
5sseo
S.ro
-
=c _ se
Stnao
esdeeM _-
Se -
4 sc
Sh0.m±EStss. ttaer
rte_
a e..e<a -,e aex
ssm
.ten,.. �e=,,.a
wzs,a
si>
FIRE
� 912 Lf :14 1 LTA I m I LI I I
V Village of Mount Prospect
Fire Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DAVE STRAHL
FROM: FIRE MARSHAL
DATE: APRIL 16, 2014
SUBJECT: COST ANALYSIS OF FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMIT &
PLAN REVIEW FEES
Survey Results
The Fire Department surveyed 18 communities through the Northwest Municipal
Conference to conduct a cost analysis of their permit and plan review fees. Overall, the
survey showed that 14 municipalities have all encompassing permits, meaning they do
not charge additional fees for inspections related to permitted work. Four municipalities,
however, do charge additional fees for permit based inspections. For example, these
communities may charge an additional fee for hydrostatic testing of a fire sprinkler
system. Based on the responses from the participating communities, permit and plan
review fees vary both in their method of calculation and cost.
The following provides a detailed breakdown of the survey results:
I. Fire Sprinklers
a. Permit Fees
i. Public Municipalities: Calculate their sprinkler permit fees in a
number of ways. The most common methods are:
• Set Fee Ranges from $50 to $150.
• Cost per Square Foot Ranges from $0.07 to $1.00 per
square foot.
• Cost per Fire Sprinkler Generally $1.00 per sprinkler head,
with a set minimum fee.
Note: Some municipalities have an additional charge for
hydrostatic testing.
Cost Analysis of Fire Department Permit & Plan Review Fees
April 16, 2014
Page 2
ii. Private Contractor: Private contractors generally base their fees
on the number of sprinkler heads. They charge between $392
and $1,672 (more if there are greater than 500 sprinkler heads).
b. Plan Review Fees
L Public Municipalities: A majority of sprinkler plan review fees are
based on the number of fire sprinklers being installed. The cost
per fire sprinkler ranges from $1.00 to $3.00 per fire sprinkler. A
set minimum fee of $50 is fairly common.
ii. Private Contractor: Private contractors generally base their plan
review fees on the number of sprinkler heads. Their fees range
from $207 to $982 (more if there are greater than 500 sprinkler
heads).
II. Fire Alarms
a. Permit Fees
L Public Municipalities: Calculate their fire alarm fees in a number
of ways. The most common methods are:
• Set Fee Ranges from $50 to $250. Some municipalities
also charge an additional fee for large buildings, which is
then based upon square footage.
• Cost per Square Foot Average cost is $0.07 per square
foot.
• Cost per Device Ranges from $1.00 to $5.00 per device.
ii. Private Contractor: Private contractors generally base their fees
on the number of devices. They charge between $392 and
$1,387 (more if there are greater than 125 devices).
b. Plan Review Fees
Public Municipalities: Most charge a set amount, which ranges
from $50 to $250.
ii. Private Contractor: Private contractors generally base their fees
on the number of devices. They charge between $202 and
$1,022 (more if there are greater than 125 devices).
Cost Analysis of Fire Department Permit & Plan Review Fees
April 16, 2014
Page 3
III. Fire Standpipes (Permit Fees)
a. Public Municipalities: Generally calculate their fire standpipe permit
fees in one of the following two ways:
• Set Fee Ranges from $75 to $547.
• Cost per Standpipe Ranges from $50 to $60 per
standpipe.
b. Private Contractor: Private contractors charge from $222 (no
inspections) to $547 (with inspections) per standpipe.
IV. Fire Pumps (Permit Fees)
a. Public Municipalities: charge between $75 and $402 per fire pump.
b. Private Contractor: Private contractors charge from $202 (no
inspections) to $402 (with inspections) per fire pump.
V. Kitchen Hood Suppression Systems (Permit Fees)
a. Public Municipalities: charge $40 to $772 per kitchen hood
suppression system.
b. Private Contractor: Private contractors charge from $392 (no
inspections) to $772 (with inspections) per kitchen hood suppression
system.
VI. Resubmittal Charges: Some municipalities also charge a fee for re- submitted
drawings. These fees range from $50 to $100.
Overall, the results of the survey show that Mount Prospect's permit and plan review
fees are on the low end when compared with other communities in the area. In
determining how to restructure our fees we discussed the need to bring our fees more in
line with the ranges for our comparable communities and private industry. We
determined that permit fees should cover the personnel costs necessary to conduct the
needed inspections. This rate was determined to be approximately $50 per hour for
both wages and benefits. In addition, we decided that plan review fees would need to
be revised to cover the personnel costs associated with completing the review. This
rate was determined to be approximately $60 per hour for both wages and benefits.
Note: The Village of Schaumburg, a comparable community, charges $67 per hour for
similar plan reviews.
Cost Analysis of Fire Department Permit & Plan Review Fees
April 16, 2014
Page 4
Recommendation
Based upon our research and cost analysis I am recommending a number of changes
be made to our permit and plan review fees. Our current and proposed fees are
outlined in the attached "Fire Department Permit & Plan Review Fee" sheet. These
proposed changes would bring our fees more in line with our comparable communities
and help cover the costs we incur to provide these services. Even given these fee
increases, it is important to note that private contractors currently charge more solely for
their plan review fees than the Fire Department would charge for its permit and plan
review fees combined.
Utilizing the attached fee schedule, a fire sprinkler permit containing 100 fire sprinkler
heads would break down as follows:
1. Permit fee of $175 (equal to 3.5 hours of inspection time). This includes a
hydrostatic test at 2 hours, a final inspection at 1 hour and travel time of 0.5
hours.
Note: As the number of sprinklers increase, so does the amount of on -site
inspection time.
2. Plan review fee of $200 (equal to 3.3 hours of plan review and process time).
The total permit and plan review fee would therefore equal $375, which is well within the
range charged by our comparable communities and private contractors.
It is important to note that we are recommending a couple of new, or restructured, fees:
1. Revised plan review fees for egress review The Fire Department has been
conducting egress reviews of all commercial occupancies for over 10 years. We
have, however, only been charging $35 for these reviews, regardless of the size
of the building. The proposed fee structure would be based upon square
footage, taking into account an hourly rate of $60 per hour for these types of
reviews. Also included is a final inspection fee to cover the cost of reviewing
egress components during this inspection. This structure is more in line with
other municipalities and the private sector.
2. Expedited plan review fee The fee schedule also includes a new fee for an
expedited plan review. This additional fee would guarantee that a plan review
would be completed within five business days. The proposed expedited fee is
the same as what that Building Department's private contractor charges for this
service.
Cost Analysis of Fire Department Permit & Plan Review Fees
April 16, 2014
Page 5
3. Re- inspection fee: A re- inspection fee is being proposed to help cover the costs
of re- inspections /review, which would be charged on the third inspection /review.
Additional Revenue
Based upon the proposed revised fee schedule we project that the Village would collect
additional revenue of between $35,000 and $45,000 per year, dependent on
construction projects. This would amount to a 200 percent increase in projected
revenue, obviously dependent on the amount of construction that occurs in the Village.
If you have any questions about the results of the permit and plan review survey or the
proposed fee structure please feel free to contact me.
Bryan Loomis
:l
Fire Department Permit and Plan Review Fees
PERMIT FEES
* ** Indicates New Permit Category
Automatic Fire Sprinklers
Number of New or Relocated Sprinklers Current Fee Proposed Fee
1-20 $75.00 $100.00
21-100 $100.00 $175.00
101-200 $125.00 $200.00
201-300 $150.00 $250.00
301-400 $175.00 $350.00
401-500 $225.00 $450.00
An additional $25.00 per 100 or
Over 500 fraction thereafter $1.00 per sprinkler
Standpipes Systems Current Fee Proposed Fee
$50.00 for each standpipe 150 for each standpipe
system system
Fire Pumps Current Fee Proposed Fee
$75.00 each pump regardless of 200 each pump
size regardless of size
Fire Alarm Systems Current Fee Proposed Fee
$75.00 for any system 200 for any system
Miscellaneous Fire Suppression Systems Current Fee Proposed Fee
Other suppression systems: $50.00 $200.00
Kitchen hoods $50.00 $200.00
Underground tanks (install/ remove)
Gasoline storage tanks
$35.00 $150.00
$125.00 $200.00
Re- inspection fee after second inspection's ** Current Fee Proposed Fee
$0.00 $100.00
Final Inspection Fee (commercial only)*'*'* Current Fee Proposed Fee
$0.00 $50.00
Fire Department Permit and Plan Review Fees
PLAN REVIEW E XAMINATION FEES
* ** Indicates New Plan Review Fee Category
Fire Sprinklers Current Fee Proposed Fee
Residential (131))
$50.00
$120.00
Number of New or Relocated Sprinklers Current Fee Proposed Fee
1-20 $50.00 $120.00
20 -200 $50.00 $180.00
200 -500 $50.00 $240.00
Greater than 500 $50.00 $360.00
Fire Pump Current Fee Proposed Fee
$50.00 $120.00
Standpipes Current Fee Proposed Fee
$50.00 $120.00
Fire Alarm Current Fee Proposed Fee
$35.00 $120.00
Miscellaneous Current Fee Proposed Fee
$35.00 $60.00
Other Suppression Systems * ** Current Fee Proposed Fee
$35.00 $120.00
Tent * ** Current Fee Proposed Fee
$35.00 $40.00
Egress (Commercial Only) * ** Current Fee Proposed Fee
Under 1,000 square feet $35.00 $60.00
1,000 to 2,500 square feet $35.00 $120.00
2,500 to 5,000 square feet $35.00 $180.00
Greater than 5,000 square feet: $35.00 $240.00
Greater than 50,000 square feet $35.00 $320.00
Greater than 100,000 Square feet $35.00 $480.00
Re- review fees after second review * ** Current Fee Proposed Fee
$0.00 $120.00
Expedited plan review five day turn around * ** Current Fee Proposed Fee
1.5 times permit and plan
$0.00 review fee
Fee Schedule for Permits and Plan Reviews SurveyApril 2014
11. How do you charge for
1. Do your permit fees encompass 9. How do you charge for construction or kitchen
all required inspection and re-3. Do you charge an 4. How much do you 5. How much do you 8.Does your department use an b. If yes, can you provide a c. If no, does your sprinkler plan
reviews? Per 10. How do you charge for fire system plan reviews? Per 13. Please provide any
inspections for the type of permit 2. How much do you charge for extra fee for charge for standpipe charge for fire pump 6. How much do you charge 7. How much do you charge for outside
contractor for plan fee schedule the contractor department do plan hour? Per square-foot? Set alarm plan reviews? Per hour? hour? Per square-foot? Set 12. Do you charge for additional
information or
Municipalitybeing issued?sprinkler permit fees? hydrostatic testing?permits?permits?for fire alarm permits?kitchen hood permits?reviews?uses? Please attach.reviews in house?amount? Per
square-foot? Set amount? amount? revised plan reviews?attach fee schedule.
$11.00 per $1000.00 of No. Except where the
Yes. However, only one re-$11.00 per $1000.00 of work work valuation plus a Hood suppression is $11.00 per scope is increased,
inspection. Subsequent inspections valuation plus a plan review fee plan $11.00 per $1000.00 of work $11.00 per $1000.00 of work We conduct all building $1000.00 of workadditional plan
review
are that is based on the number of review fee of $80.00 per valuation plus a plan review valuation plus a plan review fee MEPFP reviews in valuation, plus $110.00 plan and permit fees
are
Arlington Heights$70.00 per inspection.sprinkler heads installed.No.standpipe.fee of $110.00.of $220.00.For structural review only.house.Set amount.Set amount.review fee.applied.
In-house review = $225. Large
projects to FSCI - price based on In-house - $195 Large projects Houses and small projects - no Yes/No. Houses and
BarringtonYes.their fees.No.DNA.DNA.FSCI Fees.DNA.large projects to FSCI.small projects in-house.Set amount in-house.Set amount in-house.Set amount. No.
No. There are additional inspections
on an hourly basis and plan review
fees, if necessary. There is a $125.00 for first 100 heads, $1.00
separate fee when required for tests per additional head; $150.00 for Yes. $100.00 for
based on the type of system standpipe review; $100.00 for $250.00 base fee up to 50,000 $250.00 for first 50,000 sq. ft. additional review of
(sprinkler/fire alarm/hood and duct hydrostatic test; $250.00 for fire Yes. See answer to See answer to question and $50.00 for each additional Costs of contractor reimbursed $250.00
for first 100 heads and $50.00 for each additional 10,000 $200.00 for hood and duct resubmitted alarm
Carpentersvillesystem).pump testing, if necessary.question 2.2.See answer to question 2.50,000 sq. feet.$0.00 Yes.by applicant.Yes.$1.00 per head after first 100.sq. feet.system review.systems.
Commercial - $125.00 plus
Yes. Re-inspections are billed Commercial - $125.00 plus review. review. Residential - $75.00 Yes. B&F Construction and Lake
Deer Parkseparately.Residential - $75 plus review.No.$75.00 plus review.N/A.plus review.N/A.Zurich Fire Rescue Dept.$100.00 plus $3.00 per head.$150.00 plus $5.00 per device.$150.00
set fee.No.
Review of revisions after
Base fee of $85.00 plus 1% of project value plus Construction plan review is plans have been
$1.00/head. New systems add $85.00 plus $15.00 RPZ $30.00 for plan review plus 1% of project value plus $30.00 No separate charge for review on No separate charge for review on $30.00
per $50k of value of approved is $30.00 per www.desplaiens.org City Code
Des PlainesYes.$15.00 for RPZ.No.(new systems).system fees.$80.00 plan review.No.Yes.sprinklers.alarms.project.$25K of value of project.10-2-1.
Yes, fees vary
$100 flat fee plus $10.00 per $50 partial permit fee $50 partial permit fee plus $100 flat fee plus $10.00 per depending on size of
Elk Grove VillageYes$1,000 of construction valueNoplus $25$25$1,000 of construction value0NoN/A.YesSee No. 2See No. 6See No. 2 or No. 6review
$95.00
Yes. The permit fee covers all rough Depends on the amount of heads $175 for new installations. **Large buildings over 500,000 $95.00 Kitchen hood mechanical;
inspections, hydro tests, functional being relocated,No. It is part of the We do not charge for sq. ft. are by the hour for $95.00 for
Hoffman Estatestests and acceptance tests.new, or removed.Sprinkler Permit Fee.$65.00 per standpipe.annual testing.testing.kitchen hood suppression.Yes. Fire Safety Consultants.Yes most
times.Per head.Under 500,00 sq. ft. is a flat rate. Per system.No.
Single Family 13D system
$150.00 flat fee for kitchen hood review is a flat $150.00 review
Lake ZurichYes.$125.00 plus $3.00 a head.No.$150.00 flat fee.$150.00 flat fee.$150.00 plus $5.00 per device.suppression permit.No.Yes.$100.00 plus $3.00 a head.$150.00 plus $5.00 flat
fee.$150.00 flat fee.No.and $150.00 permit.
$.07 a square foot with a Per square foot if the building is
$130 per pump, again, if the minimum of $125 if the building fully covered by smoke detectors,
If the standpipe is pump is included with does not require full smoke Per square foot for each building. with a minimum of $125. Pull
$.07 a square foot, with a minimum included in the sprinkler sprinkler permit, then no fee detection, and only pull stations, We do have a minimum fee of stations and A/V devices are
LibertyvilleYes.charge of $125.No.permit no, if not, $130.is required.then it is $130 per floor.$130 No.Yes.$125.$130 per floor.Set amount of $130 per system.No.
It would be part of the fire
sprinkler system permit.
However, there should also
$50 plus $5 per 1000 sq. ft.be an electrical permit $50 plus $2 per 1000 sq.ft.I am sure that they would send Yes. We do some of the
We also utilize Fire Safety Same as a sprinkler application through the We also utilize Fire Safety Kitchen Suppression Systems Yes. Fire Safety Consultants, you a fee schedule (847)
697-smaller projects in The review is covered by the The review is covered by the
Morton GroveYes.Consultants for larger projects.No.system.Building Department.Consultants for larger projects.$100 per system.Inc.1300 house.permit fees.permit fees.Set amount $100 per
system.No.
Suppression $40.00 Base fee plus
$40.00 Base fee plus $1.00 a $1.00 a nozzle and Mechanical
$40.00 Base fee plus $1.00 a head device if sent out to a third $40.00 Base fee and $25.00 per
if sent out to a third party, or 1-20 party, or 1-25 devices $200.00 equipment if sent out to a third
No. We would charge $40.00 after heads $205.00 or 21-100 heads $205.00 Plan Review $100.00 Plan Review plus or 26-50 devices $ 435.00 Ext, party, or $390.00 per hood if in Yes. If
we do it is Kelly Reynolds Base Fee plus number of Base Fee plus number of gas
Nilesthe second inspection.$435.00 Ext, if in house.No.plus $40.00.$40.00.if in house.house.or Fire Safety Consultants.See their web sites.Yes.Base Fee plus number of heads.devices.appliances
& nozzles. Yes. See above Fees.
Consultants fees based
No. It includes 2 inspections for each Consultants fees based on number on number of standpipesConsultants fees based on Consultants fees based on Consultants fees based on
permit only, the contractorof sprinklersplus $70 dollars or 10% number of pumpsnumber of devices plus $70 number of hoods plus $70 dollars
would have to pay prior to the 3rd plus $70 dollars or 10% of the fee of the fee whichever is plus $70 dollars or 10% of dollars or 10% of the fee or 10% of the fee whichever is See
FSCI for fee schedule. Not
Northbrookinspection.whichever is greater.No.greater.the fee whichever is greater.whichever is greater.greater.Yes.attached.No.No.
Palatine fee scheduled
attached. We rarely issue
separate permits for fire
alarms or sprinkler systems.
No. Reinspections are charged at the Per number of heads, first 100-We require one permit per
end of the project. $55 each Per project valuation plus number Part of the project $55 each additional up to another project and charge one fee for
Palatinereinspection.of heads.Yes. $55.valuation.Part of the project valuation.Part of the project valuation.Part of the project valuation.No.N/A.Yes.100 heads is $27.Per project valuation.Per
project valuation.No.the valuation of the project.
Plan review: $88 per Plan review: 5-100 devices Hood and Duck (UL 300) Changes in field are
Yes. $8 per 1,000 sq.ft. riser; Acceptance test: $103; acceptance test: $103 low Based on number of heads for Fire alarm reviews are based on reviews: Original - $108 and provided as
as-builts. If
of floor area with a $57 per riser with a Plan review: $108 for each voltage electrical work: $103. UL 330 Review for each original plan review. Other fees may # of devices: Plan review:
5-100 acceptance test: original - $88. additional work is done,
Fees based on number of heads minimum charge of $54. minimum charge of pump; Acceptance test: $108 Different fees for under 5 system: Plan review: $108 and Yes. We have a include hydrostatic
test, devices $103; acceptance test: 5-Other fees for additional and an addendum to the
for plan review. See attached fee See attached fee $108. See attached fee for each pump. See devices and over 100. See acceptance $88. Other fees for commercial, residential acceptance
test and assorted 100 devices $103 and low existing systems. See attached original plan will be This fee schedule is for fire
SchaumburgYes.schedule.schedule.schedule.attached fee schedule.attached fee schedule.alterations. See fee schedule.No.and fire plans examiner.witnessed tests, and inspections. voltage
electrical work $103. fee schedule.charged.systems.
$10.00 per 1000 sq ft of floor area. See answer to question Yes. B&F Construction Code
StreamwoodNo.$75.00 minimum.No.2.See answer to question 2.$100.00 $100.00 services.Yes.$50.00 $50.00 $50.00 No.
The Village charges a regular
permit fee based on the cost of the
job. The fire department charges Case by case basis.
an additional fee which they See answer to question See answer to question One review: No.
Vernon HillsYes.determine.2.2.See answer to question 2.See answer to question 2.See answer to question 2.No.Yes.Determined by Fire Department.Determined by Fire Department.Determined
by Fire Department.5 or 6 reviews: Yes
Sprinkler System permit Included in the "Chemical Agent
fees applies. No No-On a case to case basis we Fire Suppression System." Base Village fees, including permit
separate fee for See attached copy of fee may use use an outside fee plus $5.75 for each tanke of Yes, see attached fee fees, are adjusted annual (Jan
WheelingYesSee attached copy of fee scheduleNoindividual standpipes$114.75 scheduleN/A.contractorNot attachedYesPermit fee includes plan reviewPermit fee includes plan reviewagentschedule1)
based on the CPI.
Yes. Only if minor
Yes. Flat permit fee based on 3rd Fee is based on number of Mechanical hood & duct system modification to an
party - all reviews and inspections Based on Fire Safety Consultants No. Included in above devices and incorporates a $772 per hood ansul system Yes. Fire Safety Consultants, existing
system - case by Set price includes inspections as
Winnetkaincluded.fees.said fees.$547 $402 range.based on number of nozzles.Inc.See attached.case basis.previously stated.Same as sprinklers.Same.No.
1-20 = $75 21-100= $100 100-
201= $125.00 201-300=$150
300-400= $175.00 400-500=
$225.00 over 500 =$.25 a fire $50 for hood and $50 for
Mount ProspectYes sprinkler No$50 per standpipe$75.00 $75.00 suppression system No.N/A.YesPer plan $50Per Plan $50Per Plan $35No
1
n
D
Q�
m
m
O
Z
v
z
m
m
2
O
v
(D
m
W
c
m
O
c
A
O
N
W
n
c
v
C
H
m
a I -n
C
D
3
s
v
n
(D
n
2
D
Z
m
0
n
D
r
n
r
m
z
--i
W
r
r
z
D
m
U)
9:E
w
w�a
m
m
z=
0
m
p
m
D
O
S
77
0
O
W
W
O
O
5�
N
c
c
0
W
v
<
+)
W
N
0
rr
(D
—
CD
O
zJ
6
i
00
=
o
c
m
°
m n
( � D
(n
'n
o
=
(D
D
(A
�
CL
CD
CD
(D
W
S
G
m
w
N
w
O
En
69
Eli
69
(fl
09
Eli
CO
CO
V)
�
D
(�
V
W
1
CD
W
—
(fl
J(D
C)
-+
CO
W
CA
N
O
W
- �
j
(I
O
W
J
O
O
(n
O
- i
O
O
(D
Cl)
Cn
(n
Cn
(n
O
N
Cn
(n
O
W
W
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
to
A
A
CD
0
U)
0
0
CD
0
0
0
0
0
EEn
EA
Eli
69
69
Efl
ffl
E9
Eli
Efl
Efl
Efl
69
H3
Efi
D
V
A
J
A
(fl
m
J
J
o
N
CO
J
r
A_
w
W
co
cn
(n
W
(n
Cn
N
O
Cn
co
J
Cn
(n
0
O
(p
T
O
O
O
O
O
(D
O
J
(n
W
O
O
O
A
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
J
O
O
O
O
O
A
0
CD
(D
0
0
0
0
CD
W
O
O
O
O
O
E!)
to
Hi
Eli
En
Efl
69
Ef3
169
-69
Efl
E9
fA
199
Efi
Z
O
T
O)
A
W
O)
W
CO
W
Cn
J
W
CD
J
W
O)
W
r
m
N
m
W
(n
J
cn
W
O
Cn
W
J
Cn
Cn
O
fA
N
V
J
O
O
(n
O
O
O
W
(n
.A
O
O
O
v
(O
W
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
m
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
Z
Eli
Eli
Efl
kn
EA
�69
E19
EEi
Efl
Eli
169
E69
Eli
1.9
Efl
CD
00
V
(n
J
J
(n
J
O
N
(n
CX)
O
W
�
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
6
(n
Ui
CF)
O
(D
O
O
O
N
O
W
O
O
El)
AA
Efl
69
69
Efl
69
09
69
Efl
69
E13
f,9
Eli
s9
D
ti
O
m
(D
M
W
(D
J
Cr,
M
O
CO
CO
J
A
r
N
V
W
7>
Cn
O
N
W
O
O
(n
O
(T
A
O
O
W
W
W
CO
W
(n
O
O
O
Cn
O
N
(O
W
0
0
0
0
0
(D
O
O
O
O
O
N
A
A
O
O
Cn
0
0
0
W
O
O
O
O
O
tli
Vf
EA
EA
09
Eli
69
Hi
Efi
Efl
69
Ef)
EA
Hi
C9
J
Cn
Cn
A
(D
W
J
(n
A
r
(li
W
W
O
W
Cn
O
j
O
A
N
O
(n
O
(n
V
9)
W
O
A
CD
(D
O
O
N
O
O
O
(T
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
A
0
0
(D
0
0
0
0
0
(D
0
0
0
0
0
EA
Eli
Efl
Eli
Efl
Efl
Eli
Efl
U)
EA
ffl
Efl
El)
Hi
E�
m
W
ILI
A
W
CO
(n
CO
CO
Cn
A
Cn
W
O
Cn
Cn
A
A
r
0)
(n
O
m
J
O
co
O
J
O
J
O
W
m
V
J
O
Cn
(n
O
CO
O
O
(n
(9
O
(n
O
Z
O
W
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cn
0
0
0
0
0
-{
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O I
O
O
Eli
fR
Efl
Hi
b9
C9
Efl
Efl
Efl
EG
Efl
EA
fA
to
ffl
O
w
00
V
Cn
J
J
Cn
J
m
N
Cn
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
W
m
O
(n
V
O)
O
CD
O
I O I
O
N
O
W
O
O
D
Z
m
0
n
D
r
n
r
m
z
--i
W
r
r
z
D
m
U)
POLICE
� 91 M:r O WA I kTA I m I LI I I
ADM 14-73
çÔÑÑÜÖØ Î× ðÎÈÏÉ íËÎÊÍØÚÉ
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVE STRAHL
ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DEPUTY CHIEF WAGNER
DATE: APRIL 16, 2014
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO EMAIL REQUEST
POLICE DEPARTMENT REVENUE/FEE/FINES
On 31 March 2014, you made an inquiry, via email, as to obtaining information on the
overall fees collected/assessed by Village Departments in preparation for the first
quarter budget review on April 22, 2014. At that time, a joint workshop with the Village
Board and Finance Commission will be conducted.
inquiries given available staff time to compile the data:
Identify the fee that is either collected or authorized by your department for a
service provided by your department.
Identify the date of the last fee increase and what the fee is currently, in addition
to the amount of revenue the fee generates now.
Estimate or actual cost assignment of the providing the fee in terms of personnel
and material investment to deliver the service.
Estimate of additional revenue that might be generated if the fee were to be
increased by a specific percentage or dollar amount.
A survey of the fee in comparison to similar fees in comparable communities.
Alarm renewal license fee
Effective January 2014, the renewal fee was increased
from $10 to $25; in 2013 approximately $18,080 was collected, expected collection in
2014 is $45,200 based upon the increase; there are approximately 1808 alarm holders;
approximate cost associated with alarm license renewals is police administrative time,
to include false alarm tracking of 10 minutes per renewal, for 301 hours ($8,235 in
labor); current fee of $25 comparable to surrounding communities; (does not include
Finance Department time).
Page - 1 -
ADM 14- 73
False alarm fees
last review was in early 1990s, sliding scale ($0 to $100); collected
in 2013 was $8,445 based on 725 billable activations; police administrative time is 3
minutes per activation; 1,140 activations ($1,558 labor), false alarm response time by
patrol officers: 1,140 activations, 10 minutes per activation ($7,980 labor), approximate
total cost of police time for false activations in 2013 was $9,538; current false alarm
fines are a sliding scale of $0, $0, $10, $20, $50, $60, $75, $75, $75, $100; suggested
false alarm fine sliding scale $0, $0, $25, $25, $50, $75, $75, $100; unable to accurately
gauge in any given year fines assessed, however, there should be an increase given
the higher fines are activated sooner in the process; current scale is less than
surrounding communities; proposed scale would be in line with surrounding
communities (does not include Finance Department costs).
Parking tickets
Last update approximately 20 plus years ago, current fine is $20 with
a late fee of $30; 2013 total fines levied based on 7,314 tickets issued is $146,280;
approximate cost associated with 7,314 tickets issued is 6 minutes per ticket ($30,719
labor), administrative review ($60,341 labor); suggested increase to $25 per ticket;
based on 7,314 tickets in 2013 ($36,570 increase over 2013); current fines are less than
surrounding towns (most minimum $25 to $30); specific violations: fire hydrants/lanes
currently $20 should go to $50, with a late fee of $75, handicapped violations are
currently $100 unless posted then $250, suggested increase late fee to $375, (does not
include Finance Department time).
Compliance tickets
Last update approximately 20 years ago; current fine is $20 with
a late fee of $30; 2013 total fines levied based on 1855 tickets issued is $37,100; cost
associated with 1,855 tickets issued, 15 minutes per ticket ($19,478 labor),
administrative review ($15,304 labor), suggested increase to $25 per ticket, based on
1,855 tickets in 2013 ($9,275 increase over 2013), Specific violations: seat belt is
currently $20, suggested fine of $50 with a late fee of $75, distracted driving is currently
$20, suggested fine of $75 with a late fee of $110, rail road crossing gate violation is
currently $20 should match State fine of $250, generally less than surrounding towns
(most minimum $25 to $30), (Does not include Finance Department time).
Moving tickets
6,152 tickets issued, fines collected are regulated by the court;
unknown amount collected in 2013; cost associated with issuance is 15 minutes per
ticket ($258,384 labor) administrative review ($50,754 labor). Finance Department
tracks fines collected from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Parental responsibility tows
- 26 tows in 2013 at $150 per tow ($3,900), costs
associated with this activity is generally 30 minutes per tow (26), ($1,092 labor)
administrative review ($215 labor), suggested increase to $250, current fee lower then
surrounding communities with a similar ordinance.
Animal redemption fee
- $25 per occurrence; updated 2010 (annual budgeted cost of
$3,100), cost associated with redemption of animal 10 minutes ($5 labor), any increase
would be negligible.
Page - 2 -
ADM 14- 73
Parking Boot redemption/removal
- current $60; unknown when last reviewed,
approximate costs associated with the booting process, redemption and removal is
based on approximately 2 hours of labor ($100 labor), suggested increase to $100,
unknown comparables for surrounding communities (Does not include Finance
Department time).
Crash report fees
current fee is $5 per crash report when requested by mail; no
charge for window copy; unknown amount of 2013 fees collected; cost associated with
this process is 10 minutes ($5 labor), suggested fee $10 by mail, walk up window $5,
surrounding communities $10 fee.
C: Chief Semkiu
Deputy Chief Semkiu
Commander Eterno
Sergeant Griffin
Page - 3 -
t �
�� �
E
°
C
0
C
0
C
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
L
.L2
L
)
Q
w
'
'
. 2
'N
'
'
'
'
O
Q
O
O
O
@
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
�
>
cn
L
N
L
O
N
-p
000000m
a)
0
3
0
-2
0)
c
m
c
m
c
m
c
m
c
m
c
m
c
@
a?
a
LL
o`
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Q
o
C
p
C
a)
C
a)
Q)
@
Y
p
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
L
>O
L
L
L
U
@
o
LL
LL
W
W
W
W
W °
o
°
° c
°
°
°
o
a
c
a)
0
-
0
m
o
o
a)
a)
C E°
a)
c E
m
C E
m
c E@
U)
-a
O
T
T
T
c�
T
T
-E
T
-E
T
E
o
E
E
E
p
U
D
5
aaaaaaa
N
N
N
41
O
a) ()
Zw-
Q)
@
°
U)
N
cn
N
U)
U)
N
N
.7
'
'
w
-c
C
fl.
Q
�'
O
N
O
N
Q)
O
a)
Q)
m
7
m
7
CT
7
m
7
m
7
m
7
(T
Q
L V)
L -.
°
L V)
Q
L U)
O
L V)
C
U)
a
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
0
a)
(D
w
a)
3 c>
3 c
3 c
3 c
@
c
2.
>,
T
>T
T
T
m
c E
L
m'
C E
m'
E
rn'
E
L�-
o
a)
a)
a)
a)
m
o
o
@
@
@
@
@
@@
o
C
- 2
C
°
c
E
Q)
E
a)
E
°
E
a)
E
o
E
Q)
E
m
E
Q)
.v
CL
U
'a
U
CL
U
a
U
'Q
U
'a
U
'Q
u 0
@ a)
U°
a)
@ a)
a)
@ Q)
a)
@
o
@
a
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>,
T
T
T
T
T
T
m a
0) 7 0
m
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0) O
C
Q) o
� O�
O
CL
U
i2
Q
L1
Q
CL
0_
Q
a
v
—
L
0
L
3
(O
C6
�_
Q)
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
a"i
a
a�i
a�i
m
a
m
3
a
3
c
c
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
o -
�
• o -o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.o -
. o -
p
cn
a
c
N
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL'
V) C
V) C
U) C
U) c
a
Y
(9
—
Q
°
E
(D
Q)
to
c75
cT
<n
05
0
05
0
�
a)
ai
�
@
�
>
>
@
>
• U)
>_
. in
>_
. tn
>_
• tn
>_
• U)
, U)
>_
. U)
>_
.>
>
a) @
Q) @
0)
°
aaaaaa
a
s
>
�
>
a
>
>>
2
'>
'>
O>
L
O>
O
O
O
_>
O
O
O j
O j
U
@ C
>°) 3
U) a)
a)
U)
o
c
c
E
c
c
c
c
c
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
p
a)
p
0)
m
m
m
m
0)
a.
m
p
p
o
c 72
@
°
C?
°�
m
3
T m
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
T
T
T U
o v)
p
p
FR
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
°
c
a
a
o
a
a
'=
°�
a)
> a)
-
Q)
-
LO
o
o
o
E
m
E
Q)
E
a)
E
a)
E
a)
E
Q)
E
0
EEEEEFLFL
@
@
@
@
@
m
@
�
°
�'_
N
_
a) a
c'
o
U)
a) m
�5 C
a
° o
LO
MM
N
@
Q)
0
m CL
ca
o
fl_
0
Q
0
CL
0
CL
0
CL
0
CL
0
°
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a .
N m
= mmmmmmmm
V) m
T
>,
>,
>,
T
>,
>,
T'
=
N m
N m
U) 2
Lo Lo
69
U)
a
@
C
`
N
N
Q)
a)
N
a)
a)
Q)
C
@
C
@
C
@
C
@
C
@
C
@
C
@
C
O T
p
C
p T
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
C
O T
C
O T
C
O
N
ON
cn
a)
O
>
a)
>
Q)
>
0
>
a)
>
Q)
>
a)
>
Q)
>
a)
M
M
c6
(4
c4
!0
U
C @
U
U
@
Q)
Q)
Q)
a)
Q)
Q)
Q)
a)
@
@
C
o ER
LO
@
Q)
O
'�
C6
C
C
�n
dLL�
@
EL
'- U
N
C
'- U
c4
c6
c0
c0
ca
cD
c0
c9
C
'- U
C
'- U
C
'- 0
5 .�
EA
U
C
-
c
c
c
c
c
c
70 C.ma'a
o
>>
5aa
--
0_
o
in
E
@
o
o
@
as
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
C
0
c
0
c
0
c
o
.2 2:
U-
c
o--
Q
Q
-
Q
-
CL
-
a
-
CL
-
a
--
Q�
v �-
°
a)
U
O
O
°)
m
Q)
a)
C
N
N
in
(n
N
U
U
to
N
N
(n
N
in
V)
Q) a
N a
cn
cn
U)
In
N
!n
In
N
a) •Q
Q) - 0
a)
O
w
v-
_
_
_
-
_N
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
O O
C
O Q
T
O Q)
O Q)
_
= C
Lo
(n
N
(n
'O
- O
L
a
L
a
.O
a
.O
a
L
L
a
L
a
L
a
L
a
L
a
L
a
L
a
L
a
L
a
L
°
a) —
U)
Q)
U
a)
@
0
@
7
@
7
@
7
@
7
@
7
@@
7
0
U
U
U •?
-0
m
7
7
7
Q)
O
'a
7
7
C
C
Q
7
Z3
C
C
7
C�
C
7
7
() p
a)
—
Q) p
U)
W
U)
U)
W
U)
U)
N
a) O
_
Q) O
a) �
Q
C/)
Cf)
U)
C)
U)
0
(n
U)
U)
U
U)
U)
(n
Cn
U)
LL U
LL
LL U
D
D
m
m
Z)
m
m
LL U
LL U
LL
N
m(n
�)
U
@
V
@
U
D
O
@
E
a)
v
O
@
Q
E
a)
c
`
O
a)
4)
o
C
-0
U)
U
�
N
o
E
E
:s
U
@
LL
@
LL
O
0)
�
U
@
C
C)
N
C
>
Q)
U
U
C
.--�
O
0
o
:3
U)
C
U)
7
N
7
0
O
c
a
o
°
N
LC)
U
L
Q)
N
a)
M
a)
o
U
@
E
CL
°
�a
O
7
0
o
(n
N
Q
C
m
O
0
Q
@
CL
'�
N
'�
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
a)
'D
O
N
C
U
@
'o
@
\
O
O
a)
O
o
v)
0
0
Q
8)
0
0
0
0
0
0
O$
0
0
0
0
o
O
LC')
O
LO i
o
0
0
0
0
8)
O
a
O
N
O '
0
0
0
0
0
0
8)
O
LO
O
CD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0�
O
O
LL')
O
O
LO
r-
O
N
O
�j
O
L!')
O
O
O
O
LO
Ln
O
O
o
�
0
0
c)
0
O
O
N_
O
LO
O
O
Ln
LO
LO
O
M
N
O
m
-
LC)
I-
O
O
N
E
O_
C)
O
U
p
O
LC)
N
`-
Ln
LE')
(fl
In
O
O
Q
M
M
69
_
ER
_-
EA
c0
6
U}
O
H}
N
Ef3
LO
Ef}
Ff}
N
Ef3
N
69
N
EA
M
Fff
N
ER
N
EA
N
64
ER
Co
ER
ti'
U3
LC)
Q4
O
U}
_
Ef}
N
6o.
M
69
EA
f�
U-}
Ef}
_
Ef}
u i
EA
O
64
O
t=
Ef3
ER
O
64
EPr
U
0
ER
t�
EA
N
69
O
U-)
N
69
6q
«')
6-1
EA
6n,
M
Ea
M
U)
m
L
7
(D
M
CD
(O
Z
o
N
O
O
O
O
O
-
O
O
0
C?
O
C
O
O
I-
r-
r-
O
O
O
,
N
IT
It
V
V
U
M
O
O
O
V
1
Q
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
M
c�
Eb
L2
2
Ln
C
O
C
O
C
O
O
in
CD
m
a
)
@
LL
cL
n.CLQaam
r'
�_
E
C
a
0
a
0
a
0
0
0
O
N
CO
V'
M
oc
0
Ep
a
N
o
U
U
U
(p
(p
o
O
m
c
C
o�
C`
N
Q)
Q)
C
C
�
W
C
�j
0
E9
O
0
CO
O
CC
(D
N
0-
a
W
�o
OLLLL
LL
O
O
.X
°-
�-mcoc0000aoom000ccaoo
a
c
a
��
D
O
.0
N
N
N
41
U)
Q
�
CO
LO
L(')
LO
LO
LO
LE)
LC:
LO
�j
'U
LL
T
L
...
_
a)
C
CL
CL
E
CL
U)
U)
�--
e'
r
C
Q)
V)
V
L_
C
U)
E
E
E
a)
a)
O
Lo
Q
a)
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
o
C
C�
O
m
O
L
4)
(]
3
O
U
-p
a)
Q)
a)
O
O
_
p
—
-p
°
D
U
U
U
U
U
L
U
0
a
L
L
'@
O
C
'�
m
o
a)
_
a)
o
U
m
ca
m
ca
m
cv
O
U
a
.�
o
a
C
8)
U
O
o
a)
Cn
a)
(n
a)
Cn
m
(n
o
(n
0
(n
C
(f,
Q)
c/�
m
o
U
0
O
a)
LL
U
U)
>
a
c
8)
U
c
U)
n
E
E
Q
>
__
>>
C
C
�c
C
°
a)
U
U
()
-
v
00a)a)a)a)a
a)
N
m�
'D
a)
Q)
�
Q
C
Q
a)
@
L
o
a)
.O
o
L
U
x
V)
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
C
a
O
o
.o
Y
Y
a)
C
(D
(D
U
LL
@
Y
@
Y
CO
Y
C
C
a
.0
Lli
a)
3
a)
O
D
U
U
U
U
U
C�
U
U
LL
U
@°
�...
Q)
.°
L
LL
a
LL
LL
a
LL
@
L
°
O
3�
C
C
O
L
@
C
Y
a)
Q)
E
Q)
_rn
C
C
C
U
a)
O
iQ
3
C
O
U
v-
Q
LL
U)
a)
U)
a)
0
a)
U)
a)
U)
o
U)
Q)
U.
C
U)
a)
a)
m
Q
a-
LL
.o
o
�
._
o
(8))
LL
E
E
E
E-
m
CL
a)
LL
(n
8)
0
0
w-
�-
C
°°
E�
U
C
m
C
a)
Q)
Q)
a)
a)
a)
T
Q)
LL
U
LL
Q
U
U
CL
m
N
m
O
O
O
N
a)
I
CD
0
U
a)
c6
ca
c4
O
o
8)
m
O
C
O
p
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
a)
C
.
(!�
C
o
N
4)
LL
LL
LL
C1
LL
W
Q)
Q)
Q)
E
C
o
C
o
C
O
=
=3
�
:N
FL
t
�
()
L
U
�
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
O
C
2
E
U)
E
C
C
a)
C
Q)
U�
>'
C
U
L
L
L
L
w-
>
Q)
a)
@
Z
O
O
a)
J
m
J
@>
C
C
@
W
C
@
E
0-
C
Q
CL
a.
O
o
U
Q
V
o
U
0
U
0
U
0
U
C.
L�
o
U
-
c0
o
U
�
Q)
4)
0
U
C
U
0
O
0
U
a
m
E
a)
C >
�°
@
O
m
m
m
'3
rn
m
m
.°
-
U
C
°
w.
p
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
-
CL
LL
L
C �
Q)
. Q
a)
a)
N`
d
Q
a
N
Q)
m
@
m
@
m
@
•-
•-
'�
cn
o
a)
>
—
a)
C
C
C
c
c
0
a)
�°
o
n
co
'D
—
�
C
a-
Q
o
r
—_
Q)
Q)
a)
O
(U
U
@
(1)
CL
CL
4)
O>
�
0
0
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
L
�
4)
.
_
'-
@
L
p
p
T
O
O
E�
cp
@
O
w
Q)
O
L
N
>
a)
>>>
Q)
Q)
C
O
F -
JLY(n»>
LL
LL
a
QY
>LLCT)
UH
cnUUUUUUUU
U
U)
Cry
CnmUUm3
20>-
LL
000000
a
c
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
m
m
rn
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a)
o)
m
o)
a)
(D
(D
�
.O
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
p
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
'C
c
'-
C
-
c
-
c
-
c
-
c
-
c
C
'-
c
-
c
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
@
��
Q)
Q)
a)
a)
N
Q)
a)
a)
()
a)
a)
Q)
()
a)
Q)
a)
a)
Q)
Q)
a)
a)
a)
Q)
a)
(L)
a)
Q)
Q)
C
Q)
a)
a)
c
a)
m
o
a)
a
Q)
o
a)
°
a)
Q)
N
Q)
N
Q)
a)
a)
a)
a)
N
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
Q)
a)
a)
a)
O
Q)
c
(1,
C
Q)
a)
a)
N
a)
Q)
(n
Cn
C\
C`
Cn
C/)
C\
U)
U_)
U)
U)
to
U)
U)
U_)
• y
C
C
C
c
C_
C
C
C_
C_
C
C
C_
C_
C
C_
i
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
>
m
m
rn
m
m
m
m
mmmmmmmm
m
rn
m
m
rn
rn
m
m
rn
rn
m
m
m
rn
rn
m
m
Q)
a)
4)
@
Q)
a)
@
Q)
@
,E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
W
W
W
W
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
>
>
>
>
»»
>>
a
<
a
a
Q
a
Q
a
Q
a
<
a
a
Q
O
LL
1
SERVICES
Mount Prospect MOUNT PROSPECT
Village of Mount Prospect y��yk,_Es Nu0
Human Services Department s
V �
Q d' ~
,p
SFry CAN"
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM NUMANSERYICES
TO: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DAVE STRAHL
FROM: HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 17, 2014
SUBJECT: FEE ASSESSMENT
Fees collected in the Human Services Department are for medical screenings
administered by the Public Health Nurse. Current screenings being offered and
associated fees are; Fasting Lipid profile $20, Total Cholesterol $4, Blood Sugar test $1,
Flu Shot for spouses of employees $20 and PT /INR $7.
Fees have not increased during the last two and a half years since Jill has been in the
position. Approximately five years ago the flu shot given to employee's spouses
increased by $5. The fees are intended to cover the cost of the testing supplies. There
are specific materials purchased for some of the screenings and other supplies are
purchased in bulk and used for all screenings, i.e. alcohol swabs, cotton balls, band
aids etc. The estimated cost of supplies for screenings /tests are; Fasting Lipid profile
$15, Total Cholesterol $4, Blood Sugar $2, Flu Shot $15.50 and PT /INR $6.50.
The average amount of time spent administering these tests is 15 minutes. Some of the
screenings require more time than others. This includes the testing and consultation
with the nurse regarding the test results. Jill spends more time with patients needing
information and education regarding health issues related to test results. The cost for
personnel time based on Jill's current salary is $10.00 for a fifteen minute time period
spent with a resident. The fees cover the cost of materials needed to deliver the
service. Increasing fees would bring in a minimal amount of revenue due to the amount
of screenings /tests administered on a monthly basis. Jill administers approximately 15-
20 screenings /tests per month. Additionally, the fees are in line with surrounding
communities and medical facilities. Jill spoke with the nurses in the Village of Arlington
Heights and Wheeling Township regarding fees. Arlington Heights has a similar fee
schedule for screenings and tests. Wheeling Township is charging less for some of
their screenings. Thev are charging $16 for the Fasting Lipid profile and $6 for the
PT /INR. In conclusion, the fees are covering the cost of services provided and
reasonable based on the marketplace.
Julie Kane
JK/jk
HAJulie K\2014 fee assessment.docx
4/17/2014
VILLAGE
MANAGER'S
u
v
- O
-
u
r v > n
v
u
Y
y
O
u I
v - o v
`° o
°
m r
r v
a s
o o y v a
v
c c o
` - 7.
`° 3
o m
v"
n o
- u
H _
0
o
o O O
°U
c
c.
c
c
c
N
V
\
c
\
c
\
c
O
.N
d
d'
H
V
° o - o
0
a
m
- y o
f ° o
`o
m y +, o
° O°
o ,m o o
p c
a
o
m o
o
"' o\
,�
- v -
v ti
o
o
0 0
°
o
v v
'^ o ni o n
o
d
3
ti ti
O
ti
o
ti
'^
o
`°
R
o o w -°
0 . c
ti
o
on
_
v
o
v
Im
G
CL
Q
d
Z
+n v c
V 3
'^ v c
3
o o
o
o
° d VI
m
,.
i
O
( p O
\
` V1
O O
O
V
V1 V1
O
O
O \
V1 `
\
`
W
M
\ \
O
O
O
V1
O
O
to
O
O
V1
O
O
O
w 8
m 0
m to
N O
m O
t0 YI
c
c
�
d
f
V1
V1
1/t
V1 V1
1/t 1/t
N N
O
S
c
W
I°
O Q=
CO
o \
N C
m
C N
o \
N
\
\
\
N
\
\
o
N
m
N
�o o
N N
m
N N
V
o
Z
d
d
O O
vt O
W
O O
O a
O
O
O
O
O
o vl
iD W
aa
W 8
Lq
o
c"
c
d
m
titititititi
ti
ti
ti
v.titiv.
-
v.
d
c ao
y
3
0 m
o o
0 0
o
o
0
� m
o o
0 0
a a
o
0
o
o o
o O
o�
o
o
c
o
O
Io
o
o
0
0
vi
o o
0 0
�o �o
a
m
N N
n n
o
o
•' z �'
+ +n
+n +n
+n +n
+n
+n
+n +n
+n
+n
+n
v
+ +n
v v
y
H
�
v
C . 3
u
J
C a r
N
i c C
d N
O O
O
vt O
O O
O
M
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
V O
o
R
n
W T
O V
N
N
O tD
n
n
h
tD
O
0
m
c 3 m
i 3
p d
o o
o 0
o
0
o o
0 0
o
0
o o
0 0
o
0
o
0
o
0
O
0
o o
o o
N m
h
o
0
p !y
d f 3 LL
O
W
W T
V V
O
N
c W
c
to
O
N
W w
w N
N N
w
z
a a
c c
o o
.n
o
o o
o
o
O
o o
m 0
d O m
o
0
0 0
o
i°
O
m o
0
0
y
_ a d
c
o\\\
o
o n
n
o
c
n
c
o n
m o
d d
m
m
E 0
L a
d ....
m
o o
0
n �
.n o
0
�
o o
0 0
o
o
N
o o
o 0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o o
0 o
0
m o
0
0
d d
°
'^ �n :
o o
0 0
.n o
0
o o
0 0
0
o
N
o o
o 0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
o
0 0$
o o
0
0
0
d d L
y
a J
n
o
o v
o
o n
o
�0 �
n
0
N
o
n
m m
N N
d
u
m
m
a m
v8
=
v
w
o
°
v v
`
a
o
V
J
d
LL
a
o o
t'°
o
v`
v
a
n
" «
p
f0
a (7
>
v
x `°
o
d c
a c
w
v o
o
-
o
$
°
m°
m
Q m
O w
o x
z
rG
io
Ji i
Q m
V d
a
N
J
Q
H
O
Z
L _0
LLI
r
U
J
O o
U N
W J
w
L a
U
z
W
U
J
cr-
O
D
l J
J
of o
0 0
0 0
N
11
CD 'o
CD
.
Q c
v
a�I
Q
nl lD
M o -
Q
z
O
U
Y-m
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u1
N
0
0
° p
0
0
0
° p
0
p
0
0
v
p
0
0
LO
O
n
0
�
O
L
0
VT
V
U
a
O
ry
N
V}
4/T
N
(D
M
V}
n
to
N
N
1
M
U
D
V}
V1
VT
VT
VT
t/T
QJ
V}
V}
o
a
v
0
a+
O
O
°
O
O
0
0
Co)
0
0
0
o
c
v
0
o
0
o
r
o
0
o
C
0
o
0
ir1
0
,n
° o
0 0
°
o
O
o0
0
00
0
0
0
Zr
7
U
-1
</}
�"�
VT
�
N
</}
t4
Ul
VT
V}
t4
V}
V}
Vi
V}
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl,
°
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
NO
O
O
O
O
O
In
O
L
0
to
0
V1
O
u'1
O
L(1
O
-1
O
V1
O
O
O
O
tll
of
V1
V1
O
t/1
O
N
C
I�
n
N
O
LL
O_
N
N
N
.--i
N
N
N
N
V1.
N
N
vi
N
N
N
M
N
—M
O
V!•
VT
to
V}
`
to
Vf
<?
VT
uT
V?
VT
n
V?
V}
VT
VT
d V*
++
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
°
O
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
°
0
O
0
O
C
C
O
O
V1
O
O
O
O
O
L
O
In
O
O
O
✓1
O
Lr
u1
O
to
O
N
O
Lf1
i
O
C
1�
Lr
O
L
N
N
el
1
N
N
N
V?
N
N
V}
N
N
N�
V}
VT
t/}
Vf
to
V?
V}
V}
V?
t?
UT
VT
to
11T
U
Y
C
7
m
Dl
.
O
O
CD
co
N
.-i
M
N
0
.
1-4
N
O
0
0
0
O
V
C
06
Y
-
v
�
Q
Q)
N
m
U
_
N
V
06 Q1 Q
Vf
N N
E Y
m
w O m
m
m
V)
u o2S Q) 7
w
L G
C
L
f6 N fD
�,
m 2 � N
m
> O
Y
p
w
V
m
p
an
(U
N
LL
d
� Q) m CL
W >
Y
L
p 00
-C
m Z
C v
u
in LD
_
LL
Q1 U •- Q) >
L m
�
:vt
O
LLM
N
Q O
Y Y
aj
_
co m
O
Q
if
I-
m m O
QJ
i
i
C
Y d V
3
d
y
p
N=
Q
t` C
LL Q
p
U N L ^
+
u
j
OD
=
N
Qj
O
c 0
m j
ro
m N
p C V
m m m
Q
O
�c
Q
L
°
Q >.
= z U y o
u
>
2
Y
L
i7
G
m
i
oZf C O Q)
QJ
�n
v w
m
N O
m v u
n
E n
m
- U F-
U W m
M
ZT
d
O
E
Y L
c ..
Q1 L E d
m
7
LL
QJ
m
> m m N
m
J
Ln
QJ O
K O)
c
F- m E
II
i
7t
>
m
m
'a
u-
O
=
m�
3 c
V c
in
m+
v
U
v
L
F
Y m
}, m
— O C O
O
L
bQ
C
Cvi
m Q
= 2 m
? U vt
w
O
U
LS
C
C
m m
L 3
a v
m
m uD Q
_
m
Q
m ro
m
c
2
.-
p 41
tlD
..
Y
O
, 6
Q1
Y C
U
N d
U Cc:
O
O
Q
O
C
m
a c -
J
6
_O
Q)
N
m
tin
C
an
.H N
d
(- Ql L
m C c .n
v
c
m
i
m
c
m
v
_a
C
- O
m W W m
CO
d
cr
C
i
C
O
y ✓�
X N
O
m > C
p
Y
u
O
Ql
=5
0)
D
C
y
Q1 U
C Y
4J 0
m O Q1
O
Q
C
N
>-
L
H
K
v
i - N
•�
U
C
u
•
•
m
O
C
m ,
V
CO O
u
0
m
Y
d
M
O O
Q
N O
J O L K
Q
O
d
"p
C:
QJ
U
f
Y —
vi O
_
N
.-
C
N L
m
O
-
O
i
O
w
m
u
Q
V V
Q d
m l7 w 5 m
d
m
c
G
S
m
Q
bz
0
m
Q
p
m
C
O
J
- O
V)
a
Y
c
m
p
Ql
b
Q
O
a
>
L
>
L
o
> c
U
Q/
Y
Q)
m
Q)
U
CIJ
QJ
QJ
m
m
LL
c
m
- 0
>'j
C
QJ
C
m
C
m
C
10
U
Ll
7
C
m
Q
N
U
I
U
O
U
m
CC
G
C
m
O
p
7
p
N
u
7
OD
C
C
4J
QJ
Q1
m
a
v
v
v
m
m
,m
m
v
v>
E
v
Cl)
Q
C_
C
O
QJ
QJ C
QJ
'i-
m
O
Q1
O
O
m
O
O
O
m
Q
LD
V
_
1
O
d
m
(D
cc�
2
m
F
(D
V
V
v)
m
c-1
N
m
CY
L!1
W
V
d
d
d
d
d
w
w
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
N
V7
V1
V)
N
V1
Vl
V)
of o
0 0
0 0
N
11
CD 'o
CD
.
Q c
v
a�I
Q
nl lD
M o -
Q
z
O
U
Y-m