Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/1990 FC minutesFINANCE COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting November 29, 1990 I Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Commission members in attendance were Richard Bachhuber, Paul Davies, John Engel, Newt Hallman, James Morrison, Tom Pekras, and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Human Services Administrator Nancy Morgan, Assistant Human Services Administrator Jan Abernethy, Larry Smith of the Daily Herald, Finance Director David Jepson and Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer. Trustee George Van Geem arrived at 9:15 p.m. II Approval of Minutes The minutes of the October 25, 1990 meeting were accepted as presented. III Chairman Richard Bachhuber read a letter of resignation from Commission Member John Mussar. Chairman Bachhuber stated that Mayor Farley will name a replacement for Mr. Mussar in the near future. IV Social Agency Funding Finance Director David Jepson stated that at the October 25, 1990 meeting, seven social agencies presented requests for funding totaling $45,060, and the Human Services Staff had recommended funding five of the seven for a total of $20,660. There were a number of questions that had been raised over the method of allocating funds, the amount of funds the Village was contributing and whether the Village should be contributing anything to social agencies. Mr. Jepson mentioned that the Village first started contributing in the 82/83 fiscal year and that since that time the number of requests has increased each year. Mr. Jepson pointed out that traditionally funding for social agencies has been provided by townships and the United Way. Human Services Administrator Nancy Morgan stated that there are many agencies that they use for referrals and distributed two lists to the Finance Commission: 1) Referrals Made to Other Agencies; and 2) Agencies That Could Request Village Funds. (See Attached) The second listing contained 80 possible agencies. During the discussion by the Commissioners, the majority of the Commissioners did not believe the Village should make contributions to social agencies. However, Commissioner Jim Morrison recommended that the Village continue support, but he suggested setting a cap at the amount the Village contributed. He suggested 10% of the Human Services budget as a maximum. Commissioner. John Engel also supported making limited contributions based upon recommendations by the Human Services Staff. A Chairman Bachhuber then presented a statement reaffirming the Commissioner's recommendations that were made in 1984. That recommendation stated in part: Contributions by the Village to private civic organizations may be acceptable for civic events which all Mount Prospect residents may attend. Contributions to charitable or social organizations should be made only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Village officials generally should allow residents to make their own choices with regard to contributions to charitable or social organizations rather than determine these choices for residents through the use of the Village's taxation and expenditure practices. The Commissioners approved the statement with minor changes. (See attached) Stormwater User Charge Study Mr. Jepson reported that at a Committee of the Whole Meeting on November 27, 1990, the Village Board made a commitment to proceed with the first part of Phase I of the Stormwater Management Project; namely, improvement in the Central and Wa-Pella area. Also, the Board took the position that consideration will be given to the Prospect Manor and North Main area after receipt of a joint -study that is currently being conducted. The Village Board asked that the Finance Commission study funding alternatives for the improvements and make a recommendation as to the best source of funding for the project. Mr. Jepson then reviewed the contents of the report prepared by RJN Environmental Associates which evaluated a user charge as a feasible means of funding at least a portion of the proposed Stormwater Management project. The study determined that a user charge is considered to be an equitable and legally defensible source of revenue and will provide a dedicated source of revenue enabling long-term planning of Stormwater Management programs. It was reported that a Stormwater User Charge could be easily understood, fair and reasonable. It provides that the Village assess all contributors to the problem including schools, churches and other public entities while giving credit to those properties that have detention facilities on- site and who have in effect reduced their contribution to the stormwater problem. RJN presented various methods for determining the charge but recommended the impervious area method as the most appropriate. The impervious area method is being used by many of the more than 70 communities throughout the country who have already implemented a Stormwater User Charge. This method establishes a flat rate based on the average impervious area of a single-family residential unit (SFR). Other users are then charged based on a multiple of that base rate. Mr. Jepson pointed.out a user charge is much more equitable than property taxes for a business which had provided for detention. A spirited discussion ensued among Finance Commission members during which many questions were raised concerning the need for a stormwater management project, what such a project will accomplish, what benefits will be derived from such a project, who will actually benefit, and the proposed time frame of the project. Also several commissioners were concerned that a 75% credit for on-site retention was too high in relation to the benefit received. Specifically, Commissioner Hallman OA stated that only the properties that directly caused or benefitted from the improvement should share in the cost of the projects. Commissioner Davies stated that many homes in the Village would not receive any benefit from the improvements. Mr. Jepson reminded the Commissioners that the Village Board had made a commitment to proceed with the first project and that the Finance Commission had been asked to review the funding alternatives. He then presented a schedule showing the impact on the Village's property tax levy if the flood projects would be financed from property taxes. The Finance Commission members concluded that while Phase I of the project is not going to answer all the needs of the Village, it is a starting point. Additionally, the majority of the members felt that the user charge was a more equitable way of funding the project than a property tax. The final vote was five ayes for the user charge, one vote for property taxes and one vote for special service taxes. The next meeting is scheduled for December 13, 1990. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. CLW/sm 9 Respectfully submitted, Carol L. Widmer, Assistant Finance Director