HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Police/Public Works/Finance/VMO Fee Review 05/27/2014
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: MAY 20, 2014
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS/FINANCE/VMO FEES
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 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. General information from Community Development, Fire,
Police, Human Services and Public Works was provided to the Village Board members
and Finance Commission members at the Financial Planning workshop on April 22. As
part of that information staff proposed a more detailed discussion regarding fees and
permits in Community Development and Fire Departments which took place on May 13,
2014. The discussion this evening will include fees in Public Works, Finance, Village
Manager’s Office, and Police.
Staff is recommending consideration of increasing fees to an amount that is more in line
with the average fee levels of comparable communities and to cover more of the actual
expense of providing the services attached to the fees. Staff is further recommending
that the fee discussion focus on the comprehensive fee package within each
department and not focus on one specific fee.
Police Department
:
The Police Department has numerous fines and fees associated with various activities
that they undertake as part of the overall service to the community. The Police
Department has attached a general information memorandum outlining all the current
fees and comparison with surrounding communities. There is also an estimate of the
amount of revenue that could be generated through the recommended changes in the
fees.
Re: DISCUSSION ON FINANCE/POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS/VMO FEES
May 20, 2014
Page 2
Vehicle Sticker Enforcement: The current practice is that if a resident is cited they have
the opportunity to avoid the citation fine of $36 if they come in (within 10 days) and
purchase the vehicle sticker at the current rate at the time plus a 50% to 100% penalty
for not purchasing on time depending on the time of the purchase. The estimated
amount of revenue that is written off through this practice is about $70,000. Police staff
is recommending continuing this practice to encourage compliance. The write off
practice of the tickets is not without cost to the Village in terms of staff time to enter and
delete the tickets once the citations are issued.
General Parking Citations: The general overhead cost per citation is calculated at
$11.05. All general parking citations are set at $20 per violation currently and police
staff is recommending different levels of fines depending on the violation.
General Parking Violations: The current citation level of $20 has not changed in
33 years. The police staff recommends increasing the fine level to $30. This is for
general parking violations and does not apply to commuter parking lots or fire
and fire hydrant violations.
Fire Lane and Fire Hydrant Violations: The police staff is recommending an
increase to $50 from $20 due to the seriousness of the violation and the interest
to deter parkers from using the fire lane. This recommended increase would be
comparable to other surrounding communities, but still below the average rate.
The average rate is $70.38.
Failure to Pay Daily Commuter Parking Fee: This is the citation for not paying for
the commuter fee. Generally parkers that forget or are rushed to get to the train
have utilized the ability to mediate the tickets through notifying the police while on
the train or paying once they return and the ticket is forgiven. Police personnel
keep track of the mediated tickets so there is no blanket forgiveness for repeated
violations. The recommended fine increase to $50 from $20 will deter parkers
from taking the risk of using parking here compared to the paying parking rates
downtown.
Handicap Parking Violations: No Change.
General Local Compliance Tickets: The general enforcement costs are calculated at
$17.34 per citation.
Equipment Violation: Staff is recommending an increase from $20 to $30 which is
still slightly below the average of surrounding communities of $35.63.
Seat Belt and Distracted Driving Violations: Staff is recommending an increase
from $20 to $50 based on the seriousness of the violation and the citation allows
Re: DISCUSSION ON FINANCE/POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS/VMO FEES
May 20, 2014
Page 3
the driver to avoid court and court costs and any points against the driver’s
license.
Burglar Alarms and False Alarm Fees: Staff estimates that it costs a minimum of $26.92
in staff time for a residential alarm response and a minimum of $47.72 for a commercial
alarm response.
Licensing Fee: Staff is recommending the fee remain the same at this point and
review it again as part of the FY 2017 budget discussion.
False Alarm Fees: Staff is recommending changing from a seven tier system to a
four tier system for ease of administration. A four tier system would allow for the
first two activations to be free, activations 3-5 set at $50 each, activations 6-9 set
at $100 each, and any activations beyond 10 set at $150 each. This would
provide economic incentive to address the reason for the false alarm sooner by
the owner of the alarmed facility.
Parking (Boot) Fee: Staff is recommending no change at this time.
Parental Responsibility Fee: Staff is recommending no change at this time.
Animal Licensing Fee: Staff is recommending that this not be considered at this time
based on the cost of administration and the limited value that might be obtained from
the licensing.
Barking or Stray Dogs: Staff is recommending increasing this fee from $25 to $30 to be
in line with other surrounding communities rates. The staff time required for responding
to these calls ranges from $16.43 to $26.63 depending on whether the time required of
the call is ¼ hour or ½ hour.
Other Animal Violations: The current fee of $100 is adequate and could be revisited in
FY 2016, if necessary.
Public Works/Finance
:
The vast majority of fees that Public Works charges and collects are pass through costs
for services provided by a third party or set through the development process. Examples
of such fees are the meter connection costs.
There is an attached memorandum from Finance that illustrates the issue with the yard
waste sticker not covering its costs. There is a need to address the cost of the yard
waste stickers since the current fee no longer covers the cost of the sticker. Staff is
recommending the fee increase to keep up with the cost as the sticker fee increases.
Re: DISCUSSION ON FINANCE/POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS/VMO FEES
May 20, 2014
Page 4
The current fee is $2.25 with a direct fee paid to our vendor in the amount of $2.24. In
addition, the Village pays outside retailers $.05 per sticker sold as a handling fee so the
stickers sold outside the Village facilities are not covering the cost of the stickers
charged to the Village by the vendor. The cost of the sticker, by contract, is to increase
by the CPI of between 2% and 4% annually. To keep the sticker ahead of the cost
increases for the next few years, staff is recommending the fee increase to $2.50.
Village Manager’s Office (VMO)
:
There is an attached memorandum that illustrates the current fees for liquor licenses
and the fees from surrounding communities in addition to an analysis of the options for
increasing the fees. A chart is also included showing the different classes as closely as
they match up among communities since some classes are depicted slightly differently
in other communities compared to Mount Prospect. The current liquor license fees are
below average in a number of classes, however, recommending the fees increase to the
average amount possess some issues with the Village license matrix. The Village
license fee structure has differentials in license fees based on the variety of alcohol that
the business serves or sells. For example, the license fee for a restaurant with a lounge
is higher than a restaurant that only serves beer and wine at the tables. This differential
is available because there is not as much opportunity for a beer and wine service
provider to have as many sales options to serve and charge for the same variety of
beverages available under a lounge license which would include a wider variety of
service options. Based on the complexities of increasing the fees to the comparable
community average, staff is recommending increasing the liquor license fees 10% for
select licenses, which is the first increase in fees since the early 1990s. The staff is not
recommending an increase in the fee for licenses for non-profit establishments, recently
created corkage and cosmetic classes, or the movie theater class. The 10% increase
will retain the differential between the classes as already established by the Village fee
matrix.
Summary
:
Appropriate departmental staff will be present to answer any questions regarding the
recommendations presented. It is recommended that the discussion of the proposed
changes be undertaken in a general fashion for time efficiency purposes.
DAVID STRAHL
c: Village Manager Michael E. Janonis
H:\VILM\BUDGET\2015\5272014 COW\VB Fee Discussion Police PW Fin VMO Memo.docx
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT
OPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
TO: MR. J. DAVID STRAHL
ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
MR. DAVID ERB
FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: DEPUTY CHIEF TIM JANOWICK
FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION
SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS OF FEES AND FINES
DATE: MAY 14, 2014
The police department collects fees related to services and licenses provided including Alarm
Licenses, Traffic Crash Reports, and Vehicle Immobilization Devices (the “Boot”). In addition,
the department also issues parking and compliance citations with standard fines assessed for each
violation. The following is a review of the fees and fines associated with the police department
and recommendations related to changes in the fee and/or fine structures associated with services
and enforcement activity provided in the community.
PARKING CITATIONS
GENERAL PARKING CITATIONS
Parking citation fine structures have remained unchanged at least since the adoption of the 1981
Code by the village board. The current fine for a violation of the general parking citations is
$20.00. Examples of general parking violations include, but are not limited to the following
violations:No Parking Zone, Overnight Parking, Parking on an Unplowed Roadway Within 24
Hours After a 2 or more Inch Snowfall, and Blocking the Sidewalk. General parking citations do
not include the following violations: Obstructing a Fire Lane, Parking Within 15 Feet of a Fire
Hydrant, Failure to Pay Daily Fee, Handicap Parking Restrictions, and Vehicle Licenses
(Village Stickers).
Enforcement Costs:
The costs described below do not include charges related to parking citations referred to
collections.
Printing Cost / Citation $ 0.32
Police Officer Salary / Citation $ 5.20
Page 1 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Supervisor Salary / Citation $ 1.75
CSO Data Entry Salary / Citation $ 0.65
Records Clerk Salary / Citation $ 2.21
Finance Clerk Salary / Citation $ 0.92
Total $11.05
Recommendations:
The police department recommends general parking citations have a fine structure as follows:
$30 initial fine;
$50 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$75 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
The fine structures have remained static for at least 33 years. The increase places the Village of
Mount Prospect slightly below the 13-community average of $31.53 (see attached chart) and at
the median of $30.00.
Projections:
Considering officers issue approximately 8,300 parking citations for all other parking violations
except those delineated below, the initial fines assessed on these violations is $170,000.00
annually. Using a recommended initial fine of $30.00 for all other parking violations, initial fine
revenue would be assessed at $249,000.00.
FIRE LANE AND FIRE HYDRANT PARKING CITATIONS
Fire Lane Violations [18.1321(A)]:
Recommendations:
A review of fine structures for this type of violation in neighboring communities indicates Mount
Prospect is significantly lower in the assessment of fines. Considering the importance of this life
safety aspect of the parking code, the police department recommends the following fine
structure:
$50.00 initial fine;
$75.00 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$100.00 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
The increase places the Village of Mount Prospect below the 13-community average of $70.38
(see attached chart) and at the median of $50.00.
Projections:
Officers issue approximately 250 parking citations each year for parking in posted fire lanes.
Based on the current fine structure, $5,000.00 in initial fines are assessed each year. Under the
proposed fine structure, $12,500.00 in initial fines would be assessed.
Page 2 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Fire Hydrant Violations [18.1303(A)(2)(b)]:
Recommendations:
Village code currently lists the penalty for violating restrictions for parking within 15 feet of a
fire hydrant at $20.00. A review of fine structures for this type of violation in neighboring
communities indicates Mount Prospect is significantly lower in the assessment of fines.
Considering the importance of this life safety aspect of the parking code, the police department
recommends the fine structure:
$50.00 initial fine;
$75.00 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$100.00 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
The increase places the Village of Mount Prospect below the 13-community average of $70.38
(see attached chart) and at the median of $50.00.
Projections:
Officers issue approximately 30 parking citations each year for parking within 15 feet of a fire
hydrant. Under the current fine structure, $600.00 in initial fines are assessed each year. Under
the proposed fine structure, $1,500.00 in initial fines would be assessed.
FAILURE TO PAY DAILY FEE PARKING CITATIONS
Failure to Pay Daily Fee [18.1322(G)(1)]:
The current fine for failing to pay the daily fee at the village’s commuter parking lots is $20.00.
Considering the average daily cost to park a vehicle in a Chicago parking garage is $35.00 (worst
1
in the nation according to NBC 5 News article dated 26 March 2014), Mount Prospect
essentially offers a Chicago-bound commuter a $15.00 discount on parking when they are issued
a citation for failing to pay the daily fee.
Recommendations:
To encourage compliance with paying the daily parking fee, the police department recommends
the fine structure for failing to pay the daily commuter parking fee be increased from the current
fine of $20.00. Other communities, such as Northbrook, have differentiated fines for failing to
pay the daily parking fee in their commuter lots. Based on previous discussion, the police
department recommends the fine structure for failing to pay the daily fee be increased to:
$50.00 initial fine;
$75.00 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$100.00 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
1
Connolly, C. “Chicago ranks first in worst parking,” NBC 5 Chicago. Accessed 16 May 2014 at:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/Chicago-Named-Worst-City-For-Parking--252439671.html
Page 3 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Projections:
Community Service Officers issue approximately 450 parking citations each year to commuters
who fail to pay the required daily parking fee. Using the current fine structure, $9,000.00 in
initial fines are assessed each year. Under the proposed fine structure for this violation,
$22,500.00 in initial fines would be assessed.
HANDICAP PARKING CITATIONS
Handicap Parking Violations [18.1324]:
Recommendations:
Village code is contemporary with the state statute fine structure with a $250.00 fine assessed.
The police department recommends the village continue its vigilance to future changes in the
state statutes governing handicap parking violations and adopt appropriate changes to the village
code as changes occur on the state level.
Projections:
Approximately 100 parking citations are issued each year for violating parking restrictions in
spaces reserved for vehicles displaying handicap placards or hanging tags. Fine revenue
generated for this violation is approximately $25,000.00. Based on the recommendation to
maintain the status quo regarding the fine for this violation, fine revenue would remain the same.
VEHICLE LICENSES (Village Stickers)
The police department routinely enforces the village ordinance requiring residents and
businesses owning or storing vehicles in Mount Prospect to obtain a Mount Prospect Vehicle
License. The current charge for a passenger vehicle license is $36.00. In December 2013, the
village board approved raising the vehicle license fee to $40.00 in 2015 and to $45.00 in 2016.
Each year the village issues village vehicle licenses, a portion of the residents and businesses fail
to comply with the ordinance and the payment of the fee. The fine for a parking citation issued
for failing to purchase and display a current village vehicle license is $36.00 with a late charge of
$54.00 if payment is not received within ten days. The current practice allows for the citation to
be voided if the resident or business purchases the vehicle license within ten days of the issuance
of the citation and presents proof of purchase to either the Police Department or the Finance
Department. Approximately $70,000.00 in fine revenue associated with village vehicle licenses
were voided last year.
Administration and Enforcement Costs:
The costs of administering the village vehicle license were presented to the village board in late
2013 during the discussion over raising the license fee.
Page 4 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Recommendations:
Since the Village Board already approved a new vehicle license fee structure in December 2013,
no additional changes need to be considered at this time. However, the issue of late fees was not
included in the board’s decision. Late fees/fines for village vehicle licenses are established by the
village code in Section 17.110: Violation Citations. The police department recommends the
following fine structure with the below listed late fees be assessed to parking citations issued for
failing to purchase/display a current village vehicle license:
FY2015FY2016
Initial Citation Fine $40.00 $45.00
Fine after 10 days $60.00 $70.00
Fine at final notice $95.00 $105.00
The police department further recommends continuing the practice of voiding citations of
residents and businesses who obtain a village vehicle license within the 10 day window between
the issuance of the citation and the application of late fees. The objective of law enforcement
activity related to enforcing this ordinance is to obtain compliance with the submission of the
appropriate fees for the current year.
Trends in Parking Citations:
The three-year average [2011-2013] is 8,105 parking citations issued per year. Through the first
four months of 2014, the number of parking citations issued is 24.6% greater than the same four-
month period in 2013 and 50.96% higher than the January-April period in 2012. Based on the
total parking citations issued January-April 2014, the department estimates the total number of
parking citations issued for the year will be approximately 8,500.
Page 5 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
COMPLIANCE CITATIONS
GENERAL COMPLIANCE CITATIONS
Officers issue compliance citations for minor equipment violations (i.e., only one headlamp,
expired registration, failure to wear a seat belt, distracted driving, etc.). Compliance citations
currently carry a $20.00 fine if payment is submitted within ten days. Similar to parking
citations, the compliance citation fine rises to a total of $30.00 after ten days and then to $50.00
at final notice. The compliance citation fine has remained constant since at least 1984 based on
research of the village code.
Two violations permissible to be charged using the compliance citation are Failing to Wear a
Properly Adjusted Seat Belt and Distracted Driving. The two violations correlate directly to
injuries sustained in traffic crashes and contributing causes of traffic crashes, respectively.
Despite their significant correlating effects, the fine remains the same as an inoperable headlamp
or expired registration.
Enforcement Costs:
The costs described below do not include violations related to compliance citations referred to
collections. On average, an officer spends one-quarter of an hour initiating a traffic stop,
speaking with the driver, issuing a compliance citation, and completing a Traffic Stop Report.
Printing Cost / Citation $ 0.32
Police Officer Salary / Citation $10.40
Supervisor Salary / Citation $ 1.75
CSO Data Entry Salary / Citation $ 0.65
Records Clerk Salary / Citation $ 2.21
Finance Clerk Salary / Citation $ 2.21
Total $17.34
Recommendations:
Compliance citations issued for violations other than Failing to Wear a Properly Adjusted Seat
BeltandDistracted Driving are recommended to have a fine structure as follows:
$30 initial fine;
$50 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$75 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
Of the seven surrounding communities issuing compliance citations, the fines range from $20.00
to $50.00. An increased fine of $30.00 places the Village of Mount Prospect below the 8-
community average of $35.63 (see attached chart) and at the median of $30.00.
Page 6 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Projections:
Considering officers issue approximately 1,250 compliance citations for all other compliance
violations except those delineated below, the current initial fines assessed on these violations is
$25,000.00 annually. Using the recommended initial fine of $30.00 for all other compliance
violations, initial fine revenue would be assessed at $37,500.00.
Seat Belt Violations [18.1530]:
Recommendations:
Compliance citations issued for failing to wear a seat belt should be accompanied by a higher
fine considering the safety implications involved. In order to encourage compliance, public
education combined with persuasive fines should be employed. With the safety implications in
mind, the police department recommends the fine structure for failing to wear a seat belt as
follows:
$50 initial fine;
$75 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$100 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
Projections:
Officers issue approximately 600 compliance citations each year for failing to wear a seat belt.
Based on the current fine structure, $1,200.00 in initial fines are assessed each year for this
violation. Under the proposed fine structure, $3,000.00 in initial fines would be assessed.
Distracted Driving Violations [18.12-610.2]:
Recommendations:
Compliance citations issued for distracted driving should be accompanied by a higher fine
considering the safety implications involved. With the safety implications in mind, the police
department recommends the fine structure for distracted driving as follows:
$50 initial fine;
$75 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$100 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
Note:For violations occurring within school or construction zones, a compliance citation will not
be issued and a mandatory court appearance will be set through use of a uniform traffic citation.
Projections:
The revised distracted driving statute became effective on 01 January 2014. Officers issued
approximately 80 compliance citations January-April of this year. As a result, establishing a
trend and projecting revenues is rough, at best. Based on the current fine structure, $5,000 in
initial fines would be expected assuming the issuance of 250 citations. Under the proposed fine
structure, $12,500.00 in initial fines would be assessed.
Page 7 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
BURGLAR ALARM LICENSES AND FALSE ALARM FINES
The Village of Mount Prospect maintains a burglar alarm license for residences and businesses
maintaining active alarm systems. The cost of the license is $25.00, renewable annually, and
processed through the police department. Renewals of alarm licenses are required by February 1
each year. Licenses not renewed by February 1 are charged a 25% penalty.
The fines are assessed through a 7-tier system during a calendar year. The first two activations
resulting in false alarms are done without a fine assessed. Beginning with the third activation, a
$10.00 fine is charged. Charges escalate based on the number of false alarms received until fines
reach their maximum of $100.00 at 10 false alarms or more. The false alarm fines assessed by
the village are significantly below those of neighboring communities (see attached chart). In
addition, the 7-tier fine structure is a lengthy process before reaching the maximum fine.
When the police department receives a dispatch to respond for the activation of a burglar alarm
at a residence or a business, two officers are dispatched to the location of the alarm. Generally, a
residence will occupy ¼ of an hour of each officer’s time. Large commercial and retail facilities
can occupy up to ½ of an hour of each officers time. Depending on the time of day, the response
to an alarm consumes significant resources. The issue becomes problematic with repeated false
alarm responses to the same location.
The overwhelming majority of burglar alarm activations handled by the police department are
false alarms. In fact, only a handful of burglar alarms each year are the result of criminal activity.
As a result, police response to burglar alarms is much more an act of a public service than an
act of criminal detection and enforcement.
The following table provides data related to the number of licenses issued, alarms answered, and
chargeable activations.
AlarmFalse Alarm
Locations w/ Locations with
Chargeable
ActivationFines
YearLicenses Chargeable10+ Chargeable
Activations
Responses
Activations Activations
1,159$8,445.00
20131,8087253687
1,109$7,335.00
2012
1,6476923666
1,085$7,700.00
2011
1,5866313393
1,145$6,385.00
20101,5726853742
1,035$9,057.00
20091,5036473442
Page 8 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Alarm License/Response Costs:
¼-Hour ½-Hour
Printing Cost / Citation $ 0.32 $ 0.32
2 Police Officers Salaries / Alarm $20.80 $41.60
Supervisor Salary / Review $ 1.75 $ 1.75
Alarm Data Entry Salary / Alarm $ 2.21 $ 2.21
Finance Clerk Salary / Alarm $ 1.84 $ 1.84
Total $26.92 $47.72
Costs do not include postage, employee benefits, or fuel and vehicle operating costs and
depreciation for responses to false alarm activations.
Alarm Licensing Fees:
Recommendations:
Regarding alarm license fees, the village adopted an amendment to the ordinance effective 01
January 2014 raising the licensing fee from $10.00 to $25.00. At this time, the police department
recommends remaining with the $25.00 licensing fee and revisiting the fee during preparation of
the FY2017 budget.
Projections:
Using a five-year average of 1,623 alarm licenses, expected revenue from the new licensing fee
is $40,575.00. Assuming a similar number of alarm licenses in 2014 as in 2013, the village could
potentially realize revenues of $42,500.00.
False Alarm Fines:
Recommendations:
As stated previously, false alarm fines are structured significantly lower than other area
communities and the structure contains seven tiers. Most false alarms are related to equipment
malfunctions, pets, or operator error, although weather may occasionally cause false activations.
With respect to the seven tier system, the police department recommends consolidating to afour
tier system. Considering the primary causes of false activations, a four tier system will encourage
owners to address malfunctioning equipment in a timely manner, ensure pets are properly
secured, and activate/de-activate alarms with due care.
In consolidating to a four tier fine system, the police department recommends the following fine
structure:
False Activations #1-2, Free;
False Activations #3-5, $50.00;
False Activations #6-9, $100.00; and
False Activations #10 or more, $150.00.
Page 9 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Projections:
Under a four tier system, revenue generation will be slightly more difficult as useful data for this
type of analysis is not readily available. Generally, the changed structure represents a 29%
increase in fines for ten false alarm activations. Using 2012 and 2013 data regarding false alarm
responses, the following comparison illustrates the prospective change in revenues under the
four-tier fine structure in comparison to the existing seven-tier fine structure. The illustration is
not a reflection of actual fines received in 2012 and 2013, and the illustration is only a
demonstration for potential fine revenue under the recommended four-tier fine structure using
2012 and 2013 data.
AverageAverage
#Locations7-Tier Fine 4-Tier Fine #Locations of7-Tier Fine 4-Tier Fine
# False Cost Per Cost Per
of False Structure Structure False Alarms Structure Structure
AlarmsLicensee Licensee
Alarms 201220122012201320132013
7-Tier/Year 4-Tier/Year
26
$2,065.00 $3,100.001$2,065.00$3,100.000$0.00
18$1,265.00 $1,900.001$1,265.00$1,900.000$0.00
16$1,065.00 $1,600.001$1,065.00$1,600.000$0.00
13$765.00 $1,150.002$1,520.00$2,300.000$0.00
12
$665.00 $1,000.000$0.002$1,330.00$2,000.00
11$565.00 $850.000$0.003$1,695.00$2,550.00
10$465.00 $700.001$465.00$700.002$930.00$1,400.00
9$365.00 $550.000$0.003$1,095.00$1,650.00
8$290.00 $450.001$290.00$450.001$290.00$450.00
7
$215.00 $350.003$645.00$1,050.004$1,160.00$1,400.00
6
$140.00 $250.001$140.00$250.003$645.00$750.00
5$80.00 $150.0012$960.00$1,800.0011$800.00$1,600.00
4$30.00 $100.0010$300.00$1,000.0016$480.00$1,600.00
3$10.00 $50.0028$280.00$1,400.0029$290.00$1,450.00
2$0.00 $0.0072$0.00$0.0067$0.00$0.00
1
$0.00 $0.00233$0.00$0.00227$0.00$0.00
366 $7,985.00$15,550.00368 $9,540.00$14,850.00
ACTUAL COLLECTIONS2013 $8,445.002013 $8,445.00
:
2012 $7,335.002012 $7,335.00
2011 $7,700.002011 $7,700.00
2010 $6,385.002010 $6,385.00
While the fine structure changes for licensees who experience a larger and disproportionate
number of false alarm activations, the vast number of alarm licensees will not experience any
change. In 2012, 295 (80.6%) of the licensees experiencing false alarm activations did not incur
any fines. In 2013, 294 (79.9%) of the licensees did not incur any fines as a result of false alarm
activations. Licensees with ten or more activations in 2012 represented only 1.6% of the
locations with false alarms, but 26.2% of all false alarm activations for the year. In 2013, the
licensees with ten or more activations represented 1.9% of the locations with false alarms, but
20.9% of all false alarm activations for the year.
Page 10 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
Under the recommended four-tier system, licensees with a disproportionate number of false
alarm activations will see fines increase at a more rapid rate, particularly at locations with ten or
more false alarms each year. The objective of the stringent fines is to strongly encourage
compliance with diagnosing and conducting repairs to malfunctioning systems. Police response
to activated alarms absorbs significant resources that could be better directed to other community
concerns and problems. By reducing the number of false alarm activations, the police department
can better use the resources to address those concerns and problems.
PARKING “BOOT” FEES:
At this time, the police department recommends maintaining the status quo regarding the fees
and processes related to the use of the vehicle immobilization device (“Denver boot”) due to the
low frequency of implementation as a result of personnel reductions implemented in 2010,
particularly with respect to community service officers. While the department continues to make
an effort to use the immobilization device, the available resources are constrained in the
identification of parking ticket scofflaws and the application of the device. Increasing fees at this
time would not assist the village in gaining compliance with the payment of parking tickets nor
would the village realize any significant increase in revenues generated as a result.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FEE:
The village currently maintains a parental responsibility fee for vehicles towed and impounded
when a minor (under the age of 21) operates or is in possession of a motor vehicle while under
the influence of or in the possession of alcoholic beverages. The $150.00 administrative fee is
paid at the police department prior to the release of the vehicle. Many neighboring communities
incorporate this fee under their administrative towing fees. Most neighboring communities
currently have a $500.00 administrative fee. At this time, the police department recommends
maintaining the status quo in regards to the parental responsibility fee.
ANIMAL LICENSING FEE AND ORDINANCE VIOLATION FINES:
Currently, certain violations of the village’s animal control ordinance are subject to citation on a
parking citation, specifically barking or stray dogs. Fine are assessed at the same rate as parking
violations of the village’s vehicle code related to stopping, standing, and parking. Complaints
related to animal bites are subject to citation on a local ordinance citation and are referred to the
Cook County Circuit Court for adjudication.
Animal Complaints Costs:
Barking or Stray Dogs:
Generally, one officer is dispatched to investigate barking or stray dog complaints. An officer
will spend between ¼ and ½ of an hour investigating, citing, and report writing related to these
offenses. All cases are reviewed by a supervisor and data entry is completed by a records clerk.
The approximate costs associated with these violations include:
Page 11 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
¼-Hour ½-Hour
Printing Cost / Citation $ 0.32 $ 0.32
Police Officers Salary / Case $10.40 $20.80
Supervisor Salary / Case $ 3.50 $ 3.50
Records Clerk Data Entry Salary / Case $ 2.21 $ 2.21
Total $16.43 $26.83
Recommendations:
Animal Licenses:
The village does not currently collect license fees for dogs and cats. Many neighboring
communities do require licenses for dogs and cats at minimal cost, generally $5.00 per animal.
At this time the police department does not see a need to begin an animal licensing program due
to the lack of significant animal problems within the village. The police department’s
recommendation is to maintain the status quo in relation to the licensing of animals.
Barking or Stray Dogs:
Fines for parking citations issued for barking or stray dogs should mirror the other proposed fine
structures included in this review partly due to the costs incurred while investigating these
ordinance violations and partly to maintain uniformity in the village’s fine structure. The police
department recommends increasing fines associated with barking or stray dogs as follows:
$30 initial fine;
$50 total fine after ten days have passed without payment; and
$75 total fine upon final notice or as prescribed by ordinance.
The redemption fee for an impounded dog is currently $25.00. The amount charged is in line
with neighboring communities. The police department does not recommend any changes to the
redemption fee at this time.
All Other Animal Violations:
All other animal violations related to animal bites or scratches, abuse of animals, and possession
or sale of illegal animals are best adjudicated in the local courts. The minimum fines currently
prescribed by ordinance are $100.00 for these offenses. The current minimum fine is an
appropriate starting point for assessing fines for these types of violations. The police department
does not recommend changing this minimum fine at this time. In addition, the village board
approved changes to the ordinance regarding vicious animals in February 2014. The police
department recommends reviewing the ordinance in 2016 to determine if any changes are
necessary unless state statute or other environmental changes prompt an earlier review.
Projections:
The police department does not expect significant additional revenue as a result of these changes.
Page 12 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
CONCLUSION:
A summary of the proposed fees, fines, and projected revenues follows:
Police Department Fee and Fine Summary
Fee or Fine Current Proposed Current Projected
Type Fee or Fine Fee or Fine Revenues Revenues
General Parking
$20.00 $30.00 $170,000.00 $249,000.00
Violations
Fire Lane Violations $20.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $12,500.00
Fire Hydrant
$20.00 $50.00 $600.00 $1,500.00
Violations
Daily Fee Violations $20.00 $50.00 $9,000.00 $22,500.00
Handicap Parking
$250.00 $250.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Violations
General Compliance
$20.00 $30.00 $25,000.00 $37,500.00
Citations
Seat Belt Compliance
$20.00 $50.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00
Citations
Distracted Driving
$20.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $12,500.00
Compliance Citations
Parental
$150.00 $150.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Responsibility Fee
*
Alarm License Fees $25.00$25.00 $16,000.00 $40,000.00
$10.00-$100.00 $50.00-$150.00
False Alarm Fines $8,445.00 $14,850.00
7-Tier Structure 4-Tier Structure
Animal Fines:
$20.00 $30.00 Negligible Negligible
Barking or Stray Dog
*
Recently changed on January 1, 2014 from $10 to $25
Please contact me if you have any additional questions regarding the proposals contained in this
document. The police administration team will be appearing before the village board when these
items are discussed on Tuesday, 27 May 2014.
Attachment
Community Fine and Fee Comparison Chart
Page 13 of 14
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENTOPS 14-75
FORMAL MEMORANDUM
CONTROL NUMBER
c: Michael Semkiu, Chief of Police
John Wagner, Deputy Chief of Police
Michael Eterno, Commander
Timothy Griffin, Sergeant
Page 14 of 14
SummaryofComparableCommunitiesPoliceFines/Fees
Animals:
ParkingTickets:ParkingTickets:ParkingTickets:ParkingTickets:Parking:VillageParking:BootCompliance:Compliance:Compliance:FalseAlarms:ParentalAnimals:DogAnimals:StrayRecords:
Alarms:FeesAnimals:FeesOther
AllOthersFireLaneFireHydrantHandicapStickerProcessingEquipmentSeatBeltDistractedFinesResponsibilityBite/BarkingReports
Violations
$0iffixedinCrashis$5;All
$25;$30after101st$50;+$50$25feepaidat
21days;othersfree
ArlingtonHeights
d;$35after31d;$50fine$50fine$250fine$30feeNoneeachsubsequent;$200feePDbefore
Otherwiseunlessover50
$45after52dmax$500release
$30/$45pages
Firstfree;$50finefirst
$10policeonly;#2$75fine;offense,$55$100finenoCrashis$5;All
$20fine;$20fine;$20fine;$250fine;$20fine;$20fine;$20fine;$20police&fire;#3$100fine;$20fine;late;license;othersfree
BuffaloGrove
NoneNone$10fee
$25late$25late$25late$300late$25late$25late$25late$20fineno#4$175fine;$25late$75and$100$50fineallunlessover50
permit;$45late#59$200fine;fineother;$55latepages
#10+$250finesubsequently
OutstandingfinesNotavailableonNotavailableon$10ifoutsideFirst2free;
Crashfreeto
Upto$250as$0iffixedwithin$500finetoparents$5licensingfee,$250$750
$30fee;+$100;ComplianceCompliancecompany;#35$110each;1st$50;$100
DesPlaines
involved;$5to
$25$100$100determinedby21days,forordinance$3feeifspayed/basedonStartat$25
$80fineTowedafter24Ticket:MustgoTicket:Mustgo$125if#67$220each;subsequent
insurance;Others
signageotherwise$25violationbykidsneuteredseverity
hours,no"bail"tocourttocourtmonitoredbyPD#8+$550each
freeto50pp
First3free;#45
Outstandingfines$25;Feechanges
NotavailableonNotavailableon$50ea.;#610Crashis$5;
only,nofeeOR
onslidingscale$25feepaidat
ComplianceCompliance$100ea.;#1115Allothersfree
ElkGrove
$25fine$50fine$50fine$250fine$25fee$200"bail"and$25uponrenewalNone$5licensingfee$25PDbefore$25
Ticket:MustgoTicket:Mustgo#150ea.;#1620unlessover50
administrativebasedon#ofrelease
tocourttocourt$200ea.#21+pages
hearingactivations
$300each
Residential:First
3free;Nochargefor
$20/day
#48$50each;lessthan50
Glenview
$25$35$35$250NoneN/AN/AN/ANoneNoneNone$100fineimpoundment$100fine
#8+100eachpagesonall
fee;$100fine
Business:First3reports
free;#4+$25
Crashis$5;
First2free;
Allothersfree
HoffmanEstates
$30fine$50fine$50fine$250fine$30feeN/A$50fine$50fine$50fine#35$100each;$500fee$5licensingfee$50fine$50fine$50fine
unlessover50
#6+$200each
pages
$50fine1st;
$200second
Crashis$12thru
Noboots,NotavailableonResidential$75plusanimal
First5free;$50fine;
DocView,$5non
vehiclesareComplianceBusiness$100mustbe
Niles
$50fine$250fine$250fine$250fine$40fee;
$50fine$50fine$100fineeach$200feeFreeNoredemption$50fine
residents,free
immediatelyTicket:MustgoHighRiskchipped;
subsequentfee
residents;All
towed+$200feetocourtInstitution$125Viciousanimal
otherreports
$500public
freeto50pages
safetyfee
Crashfreeto
First3free;
$25fine1st$25fine1st
residents,$5non
$15fine$25initialfee;#45$120;
offense;#2offense;#2
residents,online
Northbrook
commuterlot;$100fine$100fine$250fine$30fineN/AN/AN/A$20peryear#67$240;#811None$10fine
$30;#3$50;$30;#3$50;#4+
$13;Allother
$30fineothersthereafter$480;#12+
#4+$150$150
freeunlessover
$1000
50pages
$30fine;$30fine;$30fine;$30fee;$30fine;$30fine;$30fine;$30fine;Crashis$5;
$50late3660$50late3660$50late3660$30fine;$50Outstanding$50late3660$50late3660$50late3660$50fineevery$30fine;$50late;$30fine;Allothersfree
Palatine
$500fee
days;days;days;late3660days;balance+$50feedays;days;days;falsealarm$50late$15redemption$50lateunlessover50
$7560+days$7560+days$7560+days$7560+days$7560+days$7560+days$7560+daysfeepages
SummaryofComparableCommunitiesPoliceFines/Fees
Animals:
ParkingTickets:ParkingTickets:ParkingTickets:ParkingTickets:Parking:VillageParking:BootCompliance:Compliance:Compliance:FalseAlarms:ParentalAnimals:DogRecords:
Alarms:FeesAnimals:FeesAnimals:StrayOther
AllOthersFireLaneFireHydrantHandicapStickerProcessingEquipmentSeatBeltDistractedFinesResponsibilityBiteReports
Violations
Nochargefor
$0iffixedwithinDangerousdog
First3free;$20fine;
lessthan50
$30fee;10days;$250;
RollingMeadows
$50fine$50fine$50fine$250fineN/A$50fine$50fine$20fee$100each$500feeNoredemption
pagesonall
$100fineotherwise$50Viciousdog
subsequentfee
reports
fine$500
Residential:First
2free;#35
$110;#67$225;
Notavailableon#8+$335
ComplianceBusiness:First2
Schaumburg
$40fine$100fine$100fine$250fineNone$50fine$50fineNoFee$500fee
Ticket:Mustgofee;#3$110;
tocourt#4$225;
#5$335;
#69$560;#10+
$1120
$30fine;Crashis$5;
$30fine;$30fine;$30fine;$250fine;$30fine;$30fine;$30fine;$30fine;$50late;$30fine;Allothersfree
Wheeling
NoneN/A$500fee
$50late$50late$50late$500late$50late$50late$50late$50late$15redemption$50lateunlessover50
feepages
First2free;
Crashis$5;
MountProspect
$36fee;#3$10;#4$20;
$20fine;$20fine;$20fine;$250fine;$20fine;$20fine;$20fine;$20fine;Allothersfree
CurrentFinesandFees
$36fine;$60$25fee#5$50;#6$60;$150NoneMinimum$100Minimum$100
$30late$30late$30lateNolatepenalty$30late$30late$30late$30lateunlessover50
$54late#79$75each;
Assessed
pages
#10+$100each
First2free;
MountProspect
$30fine;$50fine;$50fine;NoChange$40inFY2015NoChange$30fine;$50fine;$50fine;NoChange#35$50;NoChangeNoChangeNoChange$30fine;NoChangeNoChange
ProposedFinesand
$50late$75late$75lateProposed$45inFY2016Proposed$50late$75late$75lateProposed#69$100;ProposedProposedProposed$50lateProposedProposed
FeesAssessed
#10+$150each
Averagefines/feesof
UnabletoUnableto
neighboring
accuratelyaccurately
jurisdictionsĂƐĞĚŽŶ
$250perstate
$31.53$70.38$70.38
$30.58determineToo$35.62$41.25$42.00VariableVariable$394.44determineToo$84.54$33.75$52.00Variable
ƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ statute
fewagenciesforfewagenciesfor
DŽƵŶƚWƌŽƐƉĞĐƚ
comparisoncomparison
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨĞĞƐ
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVE STRAHL, ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 21, 2014
SUBJECT: FEE ANALYSIS – YARD WASTE STICKER
PURPOSE:
To present for the Board’s consideration a recommendation to increase the fee charged for yard waste
stickers.
BACKGROUND:
The Village provides for unlimited pickup of solid waste refuse as part of its refuse collection program.
Collection of yard waste though requires a sticker be purchased and affixed to the yard waste container
or optional participation in a subscription service for unlimited pickup. The current cost to the resident for
a yard waste sticker is $2.25. The fee is meant to cover the cost of providing yard waste service and is
not a revenue generator. Stickers can be purchased at Village Hall, Public Works or several businesses
throughout the village.
DISCUSSION:
The cost for residents to purchase a yard waste sticker has not increased since 2006. At that time the
charge to residents was increased from $1.75 to $2.25. The increase was done in conjunction with the
new 10-year agreement with ARC.
ARC currently charges the Village $2.24 per sticker. There is an annual increase built into this charge
based on CPI, with min/max ranges 2%/4%. Also, businesses that sell the sticker on behalf of the Village
receive a $0.05 commission on each sticker sold. At the current rate structure cost exceeds revenue
generated.
Below is a table showing the current rate structure of the yard waste sticker along with staff
recommended increase beginning in 2015.
A proposed increase in the yard waste sticker to $2.50 should be sufficient to cover the cost of the
program through 2017.
A survey of neighboring communities shows the average cost of a yard waste sticker to be $2.38, with a
low of $1.95 (Northbrook) and a high of $3.07 (Glenview). Several communities, including Des Plaines
and Rolling Meadows include the cost of yard waste collection in their annual cost of the refuse program.
Section 19.202 permits for the fee to be set “As determined by the Village Manager.”
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the fee for yard waste collection stickers be increased to $2.50 effective January 1,
2015.
David O. Erb
Finance Director
H:\VILM\BUDGET\2015\5272014 COW\Fee Analysis - Yard Waste Sticker.docx
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: MAY 22, 2014
SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE FEE REVIEW
BACKGROUND
As part of the comprehensive review of fees, liquor license fees were also analyzed and
compared to comparable communities. These fees have not change since 1994.
Village resources and personnel, particularly the Administrative Assistant to the Village
Manager, are in demand all year to handle new applications, monitor licenses, process
violations or to address questions, and demand peaks during spring with the annual
license renewal process. The Administrative Assistant estimates that a license renewal
takes about 10 hours to process which equals to $364 in staff cost per license. Also,
renewal documents are sent to license holders’ certified mail and with 67 license
holders this is equal to about $540 in mailing costs. There are additional soft costs that
include police personnel time spent on license enforcement and investigations.
Applicants and license holders are required to pay for background checks and
fingerprinting, which are about $45 per person. Based on the current fees compared to
the average in surrounding communities, and staff time involvement, liquor license fees
are recommended to be reviewed.
DISCUSSION
Table 1, “Liquor License Fee Comparison – April 2014,” was compiled by staff and
presents fee data on classifications that currently have license holders with the
exception of not-for-profit organizations, and application fees from the Village’s
surrounding communities. Most communities have a similar fee matrix to the Village’s
irrespective to the wide range in license and application fees as full service license
holders are charged a higher liquor license fee than a licensee that serves only beer
and wine. However, license classifications may have slight variations among the
communities included in this review. Table 1 shows that annual fees range from $1,000
to $7,500 and application fees range from $55 to $10,000. Overall, the results show the
Village’s liquor license fees range from 10% to 35% below average depending on the
type of license.
Liquor License Fee Review
May 22, 2014
Page 2
Upon initial review it would seem plausible to adjust license fees to a dollar amount or
percentage within the surrounding communities’ average. However, this is complicated
by the fee differentials between the full service, beer and wine only, or other liquor
license types. The current fee matrix has Restaurant Wine and Beer Only (F-2) license
at $1,000 less than Restaurant with Lounge (F-3) and if the fees were to adjust with
respect to the average then the $1,000 gap would diminish as F-2 would have to
increase more to meet the average than F-3 to meet its average. Another fee
differential to consider is the gap in license fees among the liquor license categories
(Package, Food Service and Specialty). As the fee differential between liquor license
types change, it is recommended a cost difference remain between the classification
types with the boarder service license charged at a higher rate.
CONSIDERATIONS
The option to increase fees by a set percentage that brings the fees closer to the
average, but not at average across the board would retain the established fee
differentials between licenses. This recommendation for a fee increase keeps the
Village below the overall average and competitive in the marketplace. The exceptions
to the fee increase would include Restaurant Corkage (F-7), Movie Theater (S-5) and
Cosmetic Facility (S-6) licenses as these were recently established extensive review,
and Private Club (F-4) and Golf Course (F-6) licenses as these are currently held by
not-for-profit organizations. Table 2, “Liquor License Fee Collection Totals,” provides a
summary of current fees, and 10%, 15% and 20% fee increase scenarios.
APPLICATION FEE
When businesses apply for a new liquor license there is a one-time $250 non-
refundable application fee in addition to the liquor license fee. This fee helps offset
administrative costs associated with a new application and represents that the business
is sincere in their pursuit of a liquor license. As shown in Table 1, the surrounding
communities’ application fees range from $10,000 to $55. The average fee from the 8
communities that charge between $55 and $1,000 is $380.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes a liquor license fee increase of 10% to the select licenses which
maintains the license type differentials while moving fees closer to the surrounding
communities’ average. Staff also proposes a $50 increase in the application fee to be
comparable with the surrounding communities to offset administrative expenses. A
straight percent increase from the base fee does not create the need for individual
license fee adjustment to reflect the surrounding communities’ average which would not
take into account the value of the license type differentials. The fee increase will help
2
Liquor License Fee Review
May 22, 2014
Page 3
offset some of the processing costs of new applications, renewals, and staff time for
liquor license administration.
Doreen Jarosz Alexander Bertolucci
Administrative Assistant Administrative Intern
to the Village Manager
AB/
H:\VILM\BUDGET\2015\5272014 COW\LiquorLicenseFeeMemo_V.2_5.22.14.docx
3
TABLE1LIQUORLICENSEFEECOMPARISON
APRIL2014
AnnualLicenseFeeApplicationProcessingFees
PackageSaleRestaurantRestaurant
PackageSaleRestaurantMovie
SupermarketWineandwithoutWineandBanquetHallBowlingAlley
Municipality
LiquorStorewithLoungeTavern(S3)TheaterNewApplicantRenewalNotes
(P2)BeerOnlyLoungeBeerOnly(F5)(S2)
(P1)(F3)(S5)
(P3)(F1)(F2)
ArlingtonHeights$3,700$3,700$2,700$3,800$2,700$4,600$4,600$4,600n/a$4,600$135n/a
BuffaloGrove$2,500$2,500$1,800$2,300$1,500$2,300$2,500n/a$2,500n/a$500n/a
DesPlaines$1,815$1,815$1,815$1,815$1,815$1,815$1,815n/a$2,420n/a$55$55
ElkGrove$1,000$2,700n/a$2,900$2,900$2,900$2,500$2,900$2,100n/a$500n/a
Glenview$2,000$2,000n/a$2,400$1,000$2,400$3,000$3,000$3,000n/an/an/a
HoffmanEstates$2,400$2,400n/a$2,400$2,400$2,400$2,400n/an/an/an/an/a
$2,200forall
categorieslisted,
Northbrook$2,000$2,000$2,000$2,000$1,130$2,000n/an/an/an/aexceptrestaurantwithn/a
wineandbeeronlyis
setat$1,100.
SellerandServicePermit
(ForEstablishment'sStaff)
Palatine$3,271$3,271n/a$3,251$2,136$3,251$3,251n/a$4,338n/a$200n/a=$20Filingfeeanda$7
renewal
ParkRidge$3,000$4,000$2,000$3,000$2,000$3,500n/an/an/an/a$350$100
Failuretosubmitthe
applicationforrenewal
priortothe90day
RollingMeadows$3,700$3,700$3,700$3,800$3,600$3,800n/a$3,800n/an/a$1,000$1,000
deadlineshallcausethe
applicationfeetobe
doubled.
Fingerprintingand
Schaumburg$3,000$3,000$1,700$3,000$1,700$3,000$3,000n/a$3,000n/a$300n/aBackgroundChecks=$44
perperson
$10,000forall
categorieslisted,
Skokie$1,600$1,600n/a$1,600$600$1,600n/an/a$1,600n/aexceptrestaurantwithn/a
wineandbeeronlyis
setat$4,500.
P1andP2$10,000;
P3$7,500;
Wheeling$7,500$7,500$5,000$2,500$1,750$2,500$2,500$2,500$2,500n/aF1,F2,F5,S1andSn/a
2=$2,500;
F2$1,750.
MountProspect
$2,000$2,000$1,750$2,000$1,500$2,500$2,000$2,500$2,000$3,000$250
Max$7,500$7,500$5,000$3,800$3,600$4,600$4,600$4,600$4,338$4,600$10,000
Min
$1,000$1,600$1,700$1,600$600$1,600$1,815$2,500$1,600$4,600$55
Average
$2,884$3,091$2,589$2,674$1,941$2,774$2,841$3,360$2,682n/a380Theapplicationfee'saverageonly
CurrentFeeincludescommunitieswithfeesthatare
31%35%32%25%23%10%30%26%25%n/a34%
againstaverageequaltoorlessthan$1,000.
FeeAdjustmentScenarios
10%increase$2,200$2,200$1,925$2,200$1,650$2,750$2,200$2,750$2,200$3,000
againstaverage24%29%26%18%15%1%23%18%18%NoChange
15%feeincrease$2,300$2,300$2,012.50$2,300$1,725$2,875$2,300$2,875$2,300$3,000
againstaverage20%26%22%14%11%4%19%14%14%NoChange
20%feeincrease$2,400$2,400$2,100$2,400$1,800$3,000$2,400$3,000$2,400$3,000
againstaverage17%22%19%10%7%8%16%11%11%NoChange
H:\VILM\BUDGET\2015\5272014COW\LiquorLicenseFeeComparisonApril2014_v.2.xlsx
NOTE:COMPARISONDOESNOTINCLUDEALLAVAILABLELIQUORLICENSES.PLEASESEEATTACHEDMEMOFORDETAILS.
TABLE2LIQUORLICENCEFEECOLLECTIONTOTALS
APRIL2014
IfŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ͙
Current
Class10%15%20%
EstablishmentCount
FeeTotalFeeTotalFeeTotalFeeTotal
BalzanoLiquor;D&HLiquors;JayLiquors;Mt.ProspectLiquors;White
P1General5$2,000$10,000$2,200$11,000$2,300$11,500$2,400$12,000
Eagle
Costco;FiestaMarket;FreshThymeFarmersMarket,LLC;OscoDrug
P2SuperMarketStore;CVSPharmacy;Walgreens#00209(Kensington);Walgreens9$2,000$18,000$2,200$19,800$2,300$20,700$2,400$21,600
#05107(Elmhurst);WalMart#1681;WorldMarket
P3WineandBeerOnlAldi1$1,750$1,750$1,925$1,925$2,013$2,013$2,100$2,100
y
P4WineOnl0$1,500$0$1,650$0$1,725$0$1,800$0
y
P5HomeDeliver0$2,000$0$2,200$0$2,300$0$2,400$0
y
ChipotleMexicanGrill;ChungkiwaRestaurant;DaeJangKum;Fellini;
RestaurantWithout
F1IzakayaSankyu;LePeepCafé;MIRestaurant;NewPusanRestaurant;10$2,000$20,000$2,200$22,000$2,300$23,000$2,400$24,000
Lounge
Torishin;TaqueriaLosArcos
Arnie^ĂůĞƌŶŽ͛ƐPizzeria;AvantiCaféandSandwichBar;Frankie'sFast
RestaurantWineand
F2Food;Mr.Beef&Pizza;Photo'sHotDogs;PeiWeiAsianDiner;Tortas8$1,500$12,000$1,650$13,200$1,725$13,800$1,800$14,400
BeerOnly
Locas;YupinThai
BarLouie;BBBBQGrill;BillyGoatTavern&Grill;BlackCowKitchen&
Bar;BlackFinnAmericanGrille;BuffaloWildWingsGrillandBar;Canta
NapoliRistorante;CravePizza;E&OFood&Drink;ElSombrero;
F3RestaurantWithLounge ŵĞƌƐŽŶ͛ƐAleHouse;Jameson'sCharhouse;KampaiJapaneseSteak23$2,500$57,500$2,750$63,250$2,875$66,125$3,000$69,000
House;MariscosElVeneno;DŝĂ͛ƐCantina;MinaRestaurant;Mrs.P&
Me;NinaRestaurant;Pap'sGrill&Bar;Rokudenashi;RetraBistro;Sam's
Place;Tony^ĂĐĐŽ͛ƐCoalOvenPizza
F4PrivateClubProspectMooseLodg1$750$750NoChange$750NoChange$750NoChange$750
e
F5BanquetFacilitBristolCourtBanquetHall;EmeraldBanquets;VictoriainthePark3$2,000$6,000$2,200$6,600$2,300$6,900$2,400$7,200
y
F6GolfCourseMt.ProspectParkDistrictGolfCourse;ProspectHeightsParkDistric2$2,500$5,000NoChange$5,000NoChange$5,000NoChange$5,000
t
F7RestaurantCorkag0$750$0NoChange$0NoChange$0NoChange$0
e
S1HotelHolidayInnRandhurstBanquetHal1$2,500$2,500$2,750$2,750$2,875$2,875$3,000$3,000
l
S2
BowlingAlleyBrunswickZone1$2,500$2,500$2,750$2,750$2,875$2,875$3,000$3,000
S3
dĂǀĞƌŶDŽƌĞƚƚŝ͛Ɛ͖YeOldeTownInn2$2,000$4,000$2,200$4,400$2,300$4,600$2,400$4,800
S4
GourmetBeverageShop0$1,500$0$1,650$0$1,725$0$1,800$0
S5
MovieTheaterAMCRandhurst121$3,000$3,000NoChange$3,000NoChange$3,000NoChange$3,000
S6
CosmeticFacility0$250$0NoChange$0NoChange$0NoChange$0
S7Caterer0$1,000$0$1,100$0$1,150$0$1,200$0
S8
SpecialConditions0$2,500$0$2,750$0$2,875$0$3,000$0
Total$143,000$156,425$163,138$169,850
67
AdditionalRevenue=Ψϭϯ͕ϰϮϱΨϮϬ͕ϭϯϴΨϮϲ͕ϴϱϬ
H:\CLKO\WIN\AlexProjects\Surveys\LiquorLicenses\LiquorLicenseFeeComparisonApril2014_v.2.xlsx