Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/1987 FC mintues1 MINUTES FINANCE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1987 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were the following Commission members: Paul Davies, Thomas Pekras, Ann Smilanic, Richard Bauchhauber. Also present at the meeting were: Finance Director David Jepson, Assistant to the Village Manager Michael Janonis and Bryan Portman, Assistant Manager for the Mount Prospect Holiday Inn. Arriving late to the meeting were: Newt Hallman and Trustee George Van Geem. The purpose of the meeting was to review the financial condition of the General Fund, revenue and expenditure projections for the next several years and to explore the feasibility of other revenue sources to supplement current revenues. Finance Director David Jepson reviewed with Commission members a series of memos outlining General Fund revenue and expenditure requirements for fiscal years through 1991. Mr. Jepson's projections, based upon current trends in revenues, showed an approximate annual shortfall in General Fund of some $600,000 per year. Staff had presented several scenarios calling for various increases in the Property Tax Levy as well as the addition of alternate revenue sources to help alleviate the projected shortfalls in General Fund revenues. Mr. Jepson stated that with Sales Tax receipts showing a no -growth trend for the foreseeable future, the burden for funding a projected shortfall would fall either on the Village Property Tax or on the development of new alternate revenue sources. It was Mr. Jepson's recommendation that the Village look toward broadening its revenue base and, thus, shift some of the burden for recovering the shortfall away from the Property Tax. There was general discussion among Commission members regarding the revenue projections and expenditure levels as outlined in Mr. Jepson's memos. There was extensive discussion regarding alternate revenue sources and which particular sources the Finance Commission felt were viable and acceptable to the community. Mr. Bryan Portman, Assistant Manager for the Mount Prospect Holiday Inn, was present to discuss his views and opposition regarding the proposed H^ A/Motel Tax. It was Mr. Portman's contention that, among other things, the Hotel/Motel Tax was very selective in its application because of the fact that there were only two hotels in the Village at present and of those two, Holiday Inn .vas, by and large, the biggest revenue generator. He also indicated t;he propose! 3% Tax would very likely put the Holiday Inn at a competitive disadvantage in bidding for large corporate customers. Commission members expressed the following opinions regarding specific revenue sources: Paul Davies indicated that he favored an ambulance fee for non-residents as well as the Real Estate Transfer Tax if the Tax were placed upon the buyer of the property. He also indicated that he was in favor of the Food and Beverage Tax but against the Hotel/Motel Tax because he felt it was too selective. Mr. Davies also indicated that he favored an increase in the vehicle stickers as a means of funding additional road repairs throughout the Village. He was against removing the refuse collection fee from the Property Tax. Overall, Mr. Davies favored a broadening of the revenue base within the Village as well as seeking modest increases in the Property Tax. Newt Hallman indicated that he was against an ambulance fee regardless of who it was imposed against. He felt that this type of tax was improper based on the fact that ambulance service was a basic service provided by villages and should be included in the Property Taxes. Mr. Hallman also indicated that he favored a Real Estate Transfer Tax if imposed upon the buyer as well as a Food and Beverage Tax; the Hotel!\' -tel Tax and a modest increase in the Property Tax. Mr. Hallman also indicated he supported an increase in the vehicle sticker fee as a means of funding additional road repair work in the Village. He was also opposed to separating the refuse fee from the Property Tax as well as generally supporting a broadening of the Village's revenue base. Ann Smilanic indicated that she was opposed to an ambulance fee; had no strong feeling regarding a Real Estate Transfer Tax and was against the Hotel/Motel Tax as well as separating refuse fees from the Property Tax. Ms. Smilanic indicated she opposed increases in the Property Tax and thought that a Utility Tax may be another source from which to draw revenue. She also favored a broadening of the revenue base. Ms. Smilanic added that the Village should give serious consideration to reducing budget expenditures as another means of controlling revenue require- ments. Richard Bachhauber indicated that he was against an ambulance fee for non- residents, however, he supported the other possible sources including the Food and Beverage Tax and specifically stated that he wished the refuse fees to remain as part of the Property Tax. Mr. Bachhauber indicated that he was generally amenable to increases in the Property Tax because of the fact that it remained as one of the few deducible items on one's Federal Income Tax Return and felt that we should take advantage of that Tax break. Mr. Bachhauber also indicated that the Village should lo. ' into budget reductions as another means of control. Tom Pekras stated that he supported a non-resident ambulance fee, the Real Estate Transfer Tax ar;d the Food and Beverage Tax. He indicated opposition to the Hotel/Motel i ::_x because of its selectivity in the face of only two hotels in the Village. Mr. Pekras indicated that the Village should strive to maintain a low Property Tax and should broaden its revenue base as a means of keeping the Property Tax low. He indicated he was against a Utility Tax as well as separating refuse fees from the Property Tax. Mr. Pekras also indicated that he thought the Village should look at budget reductions as a means of controlling revenue needs. General discussion among Commission members resulted in a consensus that the Village should seek to broaden its Tax revenue base through identifying alternate revenue sources such as those identified above. There was also an indication that the Property Tax, because of its deductibility on one's Federal Income Tax, should remain as a means of raising revenue for Village operations. Finally, there was the feeling that it may be necessary to look at specific program or service reductions as another means of controlling revenue requirements. There was no further business to discuss among Commission members and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. MEJ/rcw ager