The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. OLD BUSINESS 10/18/05 VILLAGE BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2005 AGENDA ITEM X. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-27 -05, 109 Mac Arthur Boulevard DEFERRED - No documentation attached Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospel-i: MEMORANDUM i TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-35-05 - TEXT AMENDEMNT (SIGN CODE) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT In response to comments from the previous Village Board meeting, Staff conducted further research on el tronic message centers to confirm display time regulations, obtain lighting level information, and regulations pertaining to scrolling text. It is important to note that industry standards for electronic message centers do not exist. Therefore, Staff had to interview sign companies, sign installers and people involved with the research and development of electronic message centers to obtain answers. After speaking to multiple sign vendors and conducting research on the internet, Staff confirmed that the electronic message center's display time was based on specific site conditions such as traffic volume, traffic speed, and the length of the message. Very few municipalities have specific regulations that address display times for electronic message centers. However, Whiteway Signs provided a summery of display times the Federal Highway Administration had on file for a handful of states. The average display time ranged from 2-6 seconds (see attached e-mail). The electronic message center's light levels are also based on site specific conditions (existing lighting from street lights, other businesses, etc.). The proposed text amendment requires a dimmer for the new electronic message center. Since the sign is required to obtain Special Use approval, it is required to meet the standards listed in the Sign Code, which states the sign shall not endanger the visibility, public safety, comfort or general welfare. If the Village determines the light levels are too bright and endanger visibility, the Village can require the sign be 'turned down' using the dimmer switch. The attached e-mail for the Director of R&D at Whiteway signs provides details on sign lighting levels, called 'nits', the impact different colors may have on eye sensitivity, and a recommendation that the factory settings establish light levels at 2000 nits (night) and 5000 nits (daytime). The light levels a sign emits are different from parking lot lighting measurements; however it is important to ensure both types of lights do not create a glare. The proposed text amendment provides the Village the ability to control lighting on a case-by-case basis, which is essential because ambient light levels vary throughout the Village. However, the Board may prefer the Sign Code be changed to list specific nit regulations for the factory settings. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended prohibiting scrolling text. Staff learned, from talking with Whiteway's R&D Director, that there is a difference between flashing and scrolling text; scrolling text does not have a 'startle factor'. Also, a continuous message (scrolling) may be easier to read if the sign is designed properly. The attached e-mail provides a summary of findings on how a person's brain processes a streaming/scrolling message. Consequently, the R&D Director felt that scrolling text could be appropriate for certain signs at certain locations. ,PZ-35-05 October 14,2005 Page 2 Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 18, 2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. w- Ijmc H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&z 2005\MEJ Mcmos\PZ-35.0S MEJ MEMO 2 (Sign Code Text Arnaldmenl Elcc.t Message Ccnters).doc From: Bob Flannery III [mailto:rbfiii@whiteway.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 20052:51 PM To: Connolly, Judy Cc: Rick Schultz; Kevin Crowe Subject: RE: Electronic message centers Hi Judy, It sounds like you guys are making some nice progress with the updated sign codes for electronic message centers. Thank you once again for seeking our expert opinion on this topic. I was able to find some research from the Federal Highway Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, regarding the first question you had below with regards to message intervals. The Federal Highway Administration states, "The entire message cycle should be readable at least twice by drivers traveling at the posted speed." What this means, for example, is that if a driver is 300 ft away from the electronic message center sign and driving towards the sign at a minimum of 35 MPH (50 feet per second), he or she should be able to read the entire message cycle at least twice. Assuming there are at least 2 messages in the message cycle (which is the minimum) that would mean that the sign would have to change every 3 seconds for the driver to read the entire message cycle twice. I have also found in my research of the Federal Highway Administration the timing interval limits from various states. They are as follows: California: 4 second interval between messages Iowa: 4 seconds Kentucky: 2 seconds Louisiana: 5 seconds Nevada: 3-6 seconds New Jersey: 2-4 seconds South Carolina: 5 seconds Washington: 4 seconds West Virginia: 5 seconds These were the only states that specified specific interval levels for messages. The rest of the states left it open. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to give Rick or me a call. I have attached my contact info below. Rick will be emailing you tonight with an answer to question #2 regarding lighting levels. I would assume that this same info provided above can be applied to "streaming messages" that are referenced in the third question below. I hope your meeting goes well next week. Thanks. Bob Flannery ****************************** Robert B. Flannery III Vice President of Sales and Marketing White Way Sign Company 1317 N. Clyboum Ave. Chicago, IL 60610 rbfiii@whiteway.com w: (312) 642-6580 f: (312) 642-0272 www.whiteway.com ****************************** Page 1 of2 Connolly, Judy From: Rick Schultz [RickS@whiteway.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 11 :44 AM To: Connolly, Judy Cc: Bob Flannery III Subject: Electronic Message Centers Judy: I thought I'd forward a few thoughts on your sign issues after our conversation yesterday. The time a message is motionless on a sign is referred to as the "dwell" time. Combining the dwell times of each frame in a message yields the "cycle" time. As Bob's E-mail showed, time should be proportionate to the average speed of a moving viewer. Dwell time is proportionate to the length of a message, to allow an average reader to comprehend the message without undue distraction. Dwell time as a rule of thumb, is 2 seconds for every 10 words of copy, minimum. The maximum is unlimited, but should be chosen so as not to cause a slowdown in traffic by people wanting to view an entire message. One runs a risk by having a too long dwell time of having drivers focus too long on the message waiting for subsequent frames and not focusing on their driving. The 15 seconds proposed in the revised ordinance is much longer than is common in the industry. As an example, the sign at the Mount Prospect Park District uses a 2 second dwell time. The Allstate Arena highway sign uses a 5 second dwell.(much larger array) Food for thought. Lighting levels for signs are specified in "nits" . The nit is the unit of luminance and is defined as candela/square meter. To put this in perspective refer to the following table. Luminance condition 3000-6000nits bright sunny day 200-1500nits cloudy day .0006-.006 nits full moon 300 nits shop window(night) 20 nits street light The way a measurement is taken is to illuminate a white flat white surface and average a luminance reading over a 1square meter area from a fixed distance perpendicular to the surface. The Luminance reading refers to the intensity radiating from a flat surface and so is particularly applicable to signs. The industry standard for outdoor signs is 5000nits for daylight operation, 1200-3000nits for night operation. Realize that for an illuminated sign to be readable it must be of a greater luminance than ambient light. In bright sunlight a sign must exceed the luminance of the sunlight for it to be useful. Most manufacturers can set the daylight/nighttime luminance of their signs to accommodate this requirement.The preferable method of dimming control is via a photocell and sensing the ambient light. Another factor in setting the luminance is viewing angle. A street level pedestal sign in which a driver is approaching the sign head on should be set at a lower luminance than a sign high in the air. Sign color is also a factor in deciding luminance levels. The human eye is most sensitive at 555nM (yellow/Green) .In comparison the eye is 1/3 to 1/6 as sensitive to red light at 630nM and 1/3 to ~ as sensitive to blue at 470nM. In addition background color plays a role (contrast) in sign legibility. The industry answer to these variables is to set a maximum limit for day and night and allow field adjustment to reduce levels based on conditions. I would suggest 5000 nits daytime and 2000nits nighttime as maximum limits. Streaming messages are really just a special case of short dwell time multiple frame messages. The advantage of streaming a message is that a greater amount of information can be presented on a moderate size sign while avoiding the appearance of flashing words at the viewer. It is recognized as less distracting than slower frame by frame presentation of data. Studies on cognition show that our brains process a streaming message differently than reading discrete words. It requires less concentration to read a streaming message. The brain only focuses on the new data and remembers the already processed information. This leaves the viewer less occupied with the message while not affecting the information transfer. A smooth scroll should be employed and avoid stuttering and jerkiness. Flashing should be avoided interspersed with scrolling. Hope this information is helpful. Rick Schultz Director of Research and Development 10/1312005 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 ~.~. 101'" Jo<" TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: PZ-35-05 - TEXT AMENDEMNT (SIGN CODE) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-35-05, a re est to amend the Sign Code regulations for electronic message centers, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their September 22, 2005 meeting. The text amendments are applicable only to new signs that have an electronic message center component. The Sign Code would be modified to require a 15 second display time, prohibit animation of text graphics and scrolling text (but allow static logos). Gas station price signs and fast food restaurant menu boards would be exempt from the Special Use approval process; all other signs with an electronic message center would continue to be required to obtain a Special Use permit. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Text Amendments at their August meeting. There was significant discussion concerning the 5 second display time proposed by Staff. Several Commissioners stated a 5 second display time was too short and that the sign text should not change more frequently than once every 15 seconds. There was discussion on clarifying regulations for menu board and gas station signs to ensure the signs would have a static display. The case was continued to the September meeting so Staff could modify the amendments to reflect discussion from the August P&Z meeting. The Commission discussed the revised text amendments at the September meeting. Minor modifications were made to the proposed amendments. Several Commissioners reiterated their support for a 15 second display time. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the proposed text amendment, as modified at the September P&Z meeting (attached), for Case No. PZ-35-05. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their September 30, 2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. 0ll ~! Ijlllc H \PlAN,Pl;ulIIillg & Zouiug COM!\.f\P&Z 2005\MEJ MClllos\PZ.)5-05 MEJ MEMO (SilP1 Code TeXI AmcudtnQll ElccL Message CClllcrs) doc September 22, 2005 l'lanning & Zoning Commission l\Iecting 7.330: SPECIAL USE: The following signs may be allowed by special use permit issued in accordance with the general objectives outlined in Sections 7.101 and 7.720 of this Chapter. A. Electronic Message Centers: 1. The electronic message center shall serve the public convenience at that location and shall be located no closer than six hundred feet (600') to another such device directed to the same street. 2. The sign message is not required to shall periodieally include public service information such as time, temperature, date, weather, traffic conditions or other messages of interest to the traveling public, but such information may be displayed at the owner's discretion. 3. The electronic message center shall be designed and located such that the entire sign message will be legible to the motorists viewing the sign; the Plannin2 & ZoniD2 Commission may require the size of the sie:nface and amount of text to be modified to ensure the information is legible. In addition, the sie:n must be constructed from non-reflective materials and illuminated in a manner that does not create a ~dare. 4, The size of the sil!n must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the sign structure shall otherwise conform to all applicable regulations as specified in this Chapter. 5. The sign message shall not consist of flashing, scintillating, chasing or animated lights or include animated pictorial graphics; the text shall be a uniform color and it cannot scroll unless specifically approved by the Plannin2 & Zonine: Commission. The sie:n shall not change more frequently than once every 1'.'/0 (2) seconds lifteen (15) seconds, text shall appear in a uniform manner and be displayed subiect to the si2n's location and it shall be displayed in a unifol'm manner. A shorter display time may be approved by the Plannine: & Zonin2 Commission when traffic pattcrns and/or volume warrant a shortcr displav time. 6. Prior to applyine: for a Special Use permit, the Applicant shall submit photos of the proposed si2n as it would appear durine: the day and the evenin2. Dependine: on the existing lightin2 levels at thc proposed location. a dimmer seHin2 may bc required for thc si2n so the text is less brie:ht at ni2ht. 7. Menu boards used at drive-thru lanes and signs used bv gas stations to displav 2asoline prices only do not require a Special Use permit. Information shall be displaved in a static manner (no motion permitted), have a uniform color, and illumination levels cannot exceed surrounding light levels. !" MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-35-05 Hearing Date: September 22, 2005 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 2005 REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Sign Code - Electronic Message Centers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland . Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: . None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning Intern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Bill Cooney, AICP, Director, Community Development Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Minerya Armando Celaya Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the August 25,2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5- 0; Marlys Haaland and Chairperson Juracek abstained from the vote. After hearing three cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-35-05, text amendments to the Village's Sign Code for Electronic Message Centers. She said that the Village Board's decision was final for the request. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that as discussed at the August P&Z Meeting, recent technology improvements make electronic message center signs affordable and more durable than changeable copy signs. Consequently, the Village has experienced an increase in the number of Special Use applications for electronic message centers and anticipates receiving more requests in the future. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Sign Code are intended to provide regulations that ensure the character of the Village is not adversely impacted by future electronic message centers, yet reflect changes in the sign industry. She said that Staff revised the text amendments to reflect discussion from the August P&Z meeting. However, Ronald Roberts had some suggestions and would like them included. Ms. Connolly presented changes to the proposed Text Amendment and incorporated Mr. Roberts' comments. The Commission discussed allowing graphics on the electronic message sign boards. It was decided that animated graphics were not allowed, but logos were permitted to be displayed. The text amendments were modified to read: Arlene Jurcek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 200S PZ-3S-0S' Page 2 A. Electronic Message Centers: 1. The electronic message center shall serve the public convenience at that location and shall be located no closer th~n six hundred feet (600') to another such device directed to the same street. 2. The sign message is not required to shall periodically include public service information such as time, temperature, date, weather, traffic conditions or other messages of interest to the traveling public, but such information may be displayed at the owner's discretion. 3. The electronic message center shall be designed and located such that the entire sign message will be legible to the motorists viewing the sign~ the Plannine & Zonine Commission may require the size of the sienface and amount of text to be modified to ensure the information is leeible. In addition. the sien must be constructed from non-reflective materials and illuminated in a manner that does not create a elare. 4. The size of the sien must be approved bv the Planniuf! & Zonin!! Commission and the sign structure shall otherwise conform to all applicable regulations as specified in this Chapter. S. The sign message shall not consist of flashing, scintillating, chasing or animated lights or include animated pictorial eraphics; the text shall be a uniform color and it cannot scroll unless specifically apPl"Oved bv the Plannillf! & Zonine Commission. The sien shall not change more frequently than once every two (2) seconds fifteen (15) seconds. text shall appear in a uniform manner and be displayed subiect to the si!!n's location and it shall be displaved in a uniform manner. A shorter displav time may be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission when traffic patterns and/or volume warrant a shorter display time. 6. Prior to applying for a Special Use permit. the Applicant shall submit photos of the proposed sign as it would appear durine the day and the eveninf!. Dependineon the existine Iif!htinf! levels at the proposed location. a dimmer settin!! may bereQuired for the sien so the text is less brieht at nieht. 7. Menu boards used at drive-thru lanes and siens used bv ens stations to display easoHne prices onlv do not require a Special Use permit. Information shall be displayed in a static manner (no motion permitted). have a uniform color. and illumination levels cannot exceed surroundine HeM levels. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments as modified during the September 22, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Case No. PZ-35-05; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ..., ~ ; '\! 1. ~ .,.:" \ ,,\~ \ '~. I .. Judith M. Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner /jmc H:\PLAN\PIaMing & Zoning CQMM\P&z 2005\Mmules\PZ.)S.OS {Tn.l AmOldmc::nt Scp1C:mbcr Mect~g dec message Caller signs) doc CASE SUMMARY - PZ-35-0S Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENEJURACEK,CHAffiYERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMEBR 22, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-35-05: TEXT AMENDMENT (ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BACKGROU1\1) A public hearing was held on August 25, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Petitioner") regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of the Village's Code, concerning sign regulations for Electronic Message Centers (Section 7.330.A). The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the August 10,2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. The case was continued to the September 22, 2005 P&Z meeting. As discussed at the August P&Z Meeting, recent tec1mology improvements make electronic message center signs affordable and more durable than changeable copy signs. Consequently, the Village has experienced an increase in the number of Special Use applications for electronic message centers and anticipates receiving more requests in the future. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Sign Code are intended to provide regulations that ensure the character of the Village is not adversely impacted by future electronic message centers, yet renect changes in the sign industry. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The proposed text amendments would affect Section 7.330.A of the Sign Code for Special Use approval as it relates to new electronic message centers. Staff proposes two types of signs be exempt from the Special Use: menu boards at fast food drive-thrus and signs for gas prices only be exempt fi'om the Special Use process. All other signs will continue to be installed subject to obtaining Special Use approval. Staff proposes that the Sign Code be amended as listed below; changes are indicated in bold (red) text. 7.330: SPECIAL USE: The following signs may be allowed by special use permit issued in accordance with the general objectives outlined in Sections 7. ]01 and 7. 74Q..of this Chapter. A. Electronic Message Centers: 1. The electronic message center shall serve the public convenience at that location and shall be located six hundred feet (600') to another such device directed to the same street. PZ-35-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 Page 2 (Previous changes that would allow signs closer than 600' have been eliminated.) 2. The sign message is not reQuired to shall periodically include public service information such as time, temperature, date, weather, traffic conditions or other messages of interest to the traveling public, but may be displayed at the owner's discretion. 3. The electronic message center shall be designed and located such that the entire sign message will be legible to the motorists viewing the sign; the Planning & Zoning Commission may require the size of the signface and amount of text to be modified to ensure the information is legible. In addition, the sign must be constructed from non-reflective materials and illuminated in a manner that does not create a glare. 4. The. sign structure shall conform to all applicable regulations as specified in this Chapter. unless the maximum size sign permitted by the Sign Code is deemed too lan?e for a particular location. 5. The sign message shall not consist of flashing, scintillating, chasing or animated lights or include e:raphics; the text shall be a uniform color and it cannot scroll unless specifically approved by the Planning & Zonine: Commission. The sign shall not change more frequently than once every 1YtQJ.Il seeemis fifteen (15) seconds, subiect to the sie:n's location and it shall be displayed in a uniform manner. A shorter display time may be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission when t,'affic Ilattcrns andlor volume warrant a shorter display time. 6. Prior to applying for a Special Use permit, the Applicant shall submit photos of the proposed sie:n as it would appear during the day and the evening. Depending on the existing lighting levels at the proposed location, a dimmer setting may be required for the sie:n so the text is less bright at nie:ht. 7. Menu boards used at drive-thru lanes and sie:ns used by gas stations to display gasoline prices on Iv do not require a Special Use permit. Information shall be displayed in a static manner (no motion permitted), have a uniform color, and illumination levels cannot exceed surrounding light levels. STANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS Section l4.203.D.8.b lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. The standards relate to: . The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; . The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity; . The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; . Consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; and . Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. The proposal to amend the Village's Sign Code would be applicable to the entire Village. The changes would create nonconforming signs with respect to the length of display time. However, the size and location of electronic message centers would not change. The proposed text amendment would require new signs to display text for 15 seconds, which is a longer interval than the current two (2) second minimum display time. The proposed changes would not reflect Special Use permits approved by the Village within the last several years. The Village Attorney reviewed the feasibility of applying the new regulations to the existing signs. He found that in order to make the changes applicable to existing signs, the revised ordinance must evidence an intent to be PZ-3S-0S Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 Page 3 applied retroactively by specifically stating that it applies to pre-existing signs. In addition, the validity of a retroactive application of the new ordinance will depend upon whether the public welfare demands retroactive application and whether the pre-existing sign owner suffers an unreasonable exaction, i.e., does the public benefit outweigh the owner's burden? If a sign owner's cost to change the frequency is minimal and the Village can document the public benefit in promoting public safety, the owner's burden would not outweigh the public benefit. Therefore, the retroactive application of the ordinance should be valid. If the owner's cost is not minimal, there may be a different result depending upon whether the owner's burden is outweighed by the public benefit. If the owner's cost to change the frequency may be high, the Village could provide for a reasonable period of time in which to complete the chlmge. It will be very difficult for the Village to document the public benefit in requiring the existing signs to be displayed for 15 seconds; therefore, Staff does not propose the new regulations apply to the existing signs. Also, as stated in the previous Staff Report, Staff recommends a five (5) second display interval. However, the current text amendment has been modified to reflect the Commission's recommendation. In addition, the Sign Code currently does not limit Message Centers to freestanding signs. Staff does not propose to change this because there may be locations where a wall sign that includes an Electronic Message Center is appropriate. The proposed text amendments include provisions to ensure wall signs with electronic message centers do not create a hazard or glare. A Special Use permit would be required for this type of sign, which would allow the P&Z the ability to review the design to ensure it is desi!,l11ed properly. RECOMMENDA TION - The proposed text amendments meet the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following: 'To approve the proposed text amendments to the Village's Sign Code as make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the text amendments as outlined above for case PZ-35-05. The Village Board's decision is final for this case." I concur: ~ll Gr:~. Williaml J. Cooney, CP, Director of Community Development H \PlA''':\PI.Ulning &. ZOllill~ COMM\P&.Z :'OOS\S,,,ff Mcnlo\J'Z-35-O:'i MF.:ti02 (IClIlamcndmml. dC'Cbonic menage board) doc ~ MINUTES OF THE REGl!LAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-35-0S Hearing Date: August 25, 2005 PETITIONERS: Y 1llage of Mount Prospect PUBLICA TION DATE: August 10, 2005 REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Sign Code - Electronic Message Centers MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Tom Reindl, 600 Business Center Drive, MP (Northwest Electric) Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 9:24 PM Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-35-05 a review of text amendments to the Village's Sign Code for Electronic Message Centers. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Mr. Rogers inquired whether the Commission wanted to vote on the proposed text amendment at this meeting or if they preferred to just discuss the proposed changes. The P&Z decided to discuss the changes and have Staff modify the proposed text amendments based on this evening's discussion. The changes would be brought back to the Commission at the September 22, 2005 meeting and would be voted on at that time. Joseph Donnelly said the Commission had been requiring a 15 second display time for electronic message board . signs, and asked why the text amendment called for a five (5) second display. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, explained that research indicated that a 15 second display was not appropriate for all uses as the entire message may not be able to be read due to the lengthy display time. She said that since the electronic message centers required Special Use approval, the Commission could require a longer display time if they determined five (5) seconds was too short for a specific location. Mr. Donnelly inquired about a two (2) minute display interval for CVS signs and said he preferred a 15 second display time. Mr. Rogers said the Commission should review the requests on a case by case basis, and that he wanted a 15 second display. He said a shorter display time could be approved if it was deemed appropriate. He described the Northwest Electric sign and noted how its multiple colors make it difficult to look at and drive. He said that the Frankie's sign was too distracting. Mr. Rogers stated that the text amendments should require a more static message and have less scrolling text. He said it is distracting when the text appears from various directions and that he prefers uniformity when displaying text because it minimizes distractions. Planning & Zoning Commission meetmg August 25, 2005 Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-35-05 Page) .. Mr. Donnelly said that it is difficult to read scrolling messages at higher traffic speed and that only static messages are legible. Leo Floras said that he disagreed and that it was not the government's responsibility to regulate signs so closely. He noted that too much regulation limits businesses ability to advertise their products. He said that the business suffers when the sign is not legible and that most businesses use signs as a means of improving their business. Mr. Rogers said that regulations are necessary because the signs can distract drivers. Mr. Floros said that most drivers will focus more on the road and their driving than the sign. The Commission discussed to what extent signs can and should be regulated. Keith Youngquist said that 15 seconds is too long to display a message because the entire message cannot be read at one time. Ronald Roberts said that one line of text should have different regulations than a multi-line message. He said he prefers the Sign Code adopt a more conservative approach to sign regulations. Mr. Youngquist stated that electronic message centers are becoming more prevalent. The Commission discussed whether a 600' separation between electronic message centers was sufficient. Tom Reindl, 600 Business Center Drive, was sworn-in. He said that his sign has an electronic message center and it has been in use for almost three (3) years. He said it has been a beneficial tool in promoting products and attracting customers. He summarized how electronic message centers are used differently by chain stores than by independent stores. He described how the timing interval helps 'punctuate' messages and said that you may loose information when the interval is too long. He said it has been his experience that people respond differently to the timing of the signs and that he prefers a three (3) second interval. He noted that a 15 second display would not be appropriate for their use.There was discussion on landscaping and how trees can block signs. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, raised the issue oLhow the 600' separation can limit competition and create advantages for businesses with the electronic message centers. She asked whether the Commission wanted the text amendment to include provisions that addressed lot width. There was further discussion on spacing between signs and the length of time the text should be displayed. The Commission made the following modifications to the proposed text amendment as outlined in the Staff Report: Sec. 7.330.A.l: Continue to require a 600' separation between electronic message centers; the Commission will review Variation requests for signs located closer than 600' from another electronic message center; Sec. 7.330.A.2: Eliminate the requirement to display time and temperature; Sec. 7.330.A.3: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.4: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.5: Per the 3-2 vote, the Commission is requiring a 15 second display time with the stipulation that a shorter display time may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Also, the electronic message center text has to be a uniform color, the text cannot scroll, and the text has to appear on the message center in a uniform manner, i.e. cannot explode onto screen from various locations. Sec. 7.330.A.6: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.7: Create regulations that require gasoline price signs to be static, that the signs have intensity and color regulations. j Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25, 2005 1 RJch~rd Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-35-05 Page 3 Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue the case until the September 22, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting when the Com..:nission will review the modifications to the Staff Report; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floras, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After discussing circular driveways, Joseph Donnelley made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. H \PJ..AN\Pbnni.n. &: Zonul, COMMoP&.z 2005\Minules\Pl.)~.O~ le~l amOlciltlt'nl . rice "leu bddoc Judith M. Connolly, AICP Senior Planner gw 9/30/05 mla 9/28/05 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 (SIGN REGULATIONS) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WHEREAS, the Petitioner (the President of the Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an application for certain text amendments to Chapter 7 (Sign Regulations) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend various regulations; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks amendments to subsections 7.330.A.2 through 7.330.A.7 of Section 7.330, entitled "Special Use," of Chapter 7, entitled "Sign Regulations," of Article III, entitled "General Provisions," of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held to consider the proposed amendments, being the subject of PZ-35-05, before the Planning and Zoning Board Commission on September 22, 2005, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect .Journal & Topics on the 10th day of August, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have considered the requests being the subject of PZ-35-05; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees finds that it is in the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect and its residents to approve the proposed amendments. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO' Section 7.330, entitled "Special Use," of Chapter 7, of Article III of the Village Code is hereby amended to delete subsections 7.330.A.2 through 7.330.A.7 in their entirety and replace said sections with the following text to be and read as follows: 2. The message on the electronic message center may include public service information such as time, temperature, date, weather, traffic conditions or other messages of interest to the traveling public. 3. The electronic message center shall conform to the following requ irements: ~ Ch. 7, Text Amendment - Sign Code Page 2/3 a. It shall be designed and located so that the entire message is legible to motorists intended to view it; b. It shall be constructed from non-reflective materials and illuminated in a manner that does not create a glare, and c. The amount of text shall be limited so as to display a message that is legible to motorists intended to view it. 4. The size of the electronic message center shall conform to all applicable regulations as specified in this Chapter. 5. The message format shall conform to the following requirements: a. The message shall not consist of flashing, scintillating, chasing or animated lights, or include animated pictorial graphics; b. Text shall be uniform in color, appearance, and font; c. Text shall not scroll, if it may create a hazard to motorists; d. The message, including single and multiple lines of text, shall not change more frequently than once every fifteen (15) seconds; e. A display time, shorter or longer than that provided in subsection 5(d) of this section, may be required due to site-specific circumstances, traffic patterns, and/or volume warranting a shorter or longer display time; and f. The operation of an electronic message center under a special use permit for an electronic message center, which was granted prior to the effective date of subsection 5(d) of this section and permitted a message display to change more frequently than as provided in that subsection, shall be a nonconforming use and require a new special use permit upon the extension, expansion, enlargement, increase in intensity or destruction over fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the electronic message center. 6. Prior to applying for a Special Use permit, the Applicant shall submit photos of the proposed electronic message center, as it would appear during daytime and evening hours. Depending on the existing light levels at the proposed location, a reduction in the brightness of the text may be required after sunset and before sunrise. 7. Menu boards used at drive-thru lanes and signs used by gas stations to only display gasoline prices do not require a Special Use permit. Such information shall be displayed in a static manner (no motion permitted), have a uniform color, and illumination levels shall not exceed surrounding light levels. ", SECTION EIGHT: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder.of Deeds of Cook County. Ch. 7, Text Amendment - Sign Code Page 3/3 SECTION NINE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: . PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:ICLKOlfrlesIWIN\ORDINANCIText Amend Ch 7 Sign Ordinancemessagesignsocl2005.doc INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: AUGUST 5, 2005 SUBJECT: WATER & SEWER RATE STUDY AND COMBINED SEWER PROJECT FUNDIN SOLUTION PURPOSE To present the results of a water and sewer rate study conducted for the purpose of funding water and sewer operations and provide a funding source for the combined sewer project. BACKGROUND A study of the Village's combined sewer system was completed in 2004. The study showed extensive repairs were needed to the system estimated at $15,000,000 over a 10-year period. In addition, the Water and Sewer Fund has been operating at a deficit for the past several years as operating and capital expenditures exceeded revenues generated by user charges. In response to these two items, a water rate study was conducted to determine the appropriate level for water and sewer charges. The study took into consideration the regular growth in operating expenses and the additional capital needs related to the combined sewer project. DISCUSSION The Water and Sewer Fund is classified as a Proprietary Fund, which means revenue generated through user charges and other water and sewer related functions is intended to fully support the operation of the fund. Over the past several years this has not been the case. Expenditures for operating and capital items have exceeded annual revenue causing a draw down of fund balance. Although fund balance in the Water and Sewer Fund remains strong (currently above 25%), this spending pattern cannot continue without an adjustment to the water and sewer rate structure. In addition, a new funding source is needed to support the current and future capital needs of the water and sewer system. An analysis was conducted on the water and sewer fund to determine the appropriate level of user charges needed to support regular operating expenditures. Included in the attachments are summary sheets of the results of the study. Attachment A is a summary of projected operating and capital expenses for the five-year period 2006-2010. Attachment B is a summary of water and sewer rate projections needed to support the projected spending plan during the same five-year period. Attachments C1-C5 are the individual rate calculation sheets illustrating how the rate projections were derived. Attachment D is a summary of rates being charged by other JAWA communities, Mount Prospect residents supplied by Illinois American Water and the communities supported by the Northwest Water Commission. An explanation of each of the attachment will follow. Water & Sewer Rate Study and Combined Sewer Project Funding Solution August 5, 2005 Page 2 Attachment A is a summary of projected operating and capital expenses for the five-year period beginning 2006. This information was pulled from the Five-Year CIP with no changes except for one item. In the Five-Year CIP, the combined sewer project anticipated expenditures of $2 million in each of the first two years then $1.5 million for the remaining three years. In Attachment A, the amount budgeted each year for the project has been reduced to $1 million. Discussions with the Director of Public Works indicated that the issues listed in the combined sewer project study could be addressed at this lower spending level although it will take approximately fifteen years to complete versus ten years under the original plan. Column one of Attachment A shows total annual expenditures for the Water and Sewer Fund. The next three columns show capital projects broken down by water and sewer functions with a sub- total for all capital expenditures. The last three columns show the operating expenditures again broken down by water and sewer with an operating sub-total. The final column is the average growth in operating expenditures over the five-year period. Based on this information, the growth in operating expenditures averages 4.37%. If you recall, the annual increase to water rates has been 4% the past several years. This was done to have more moderate increases on a regular basis than large spikes to the rate every few years. Attachment B is a summary of water and sewer rate projections needed to support the projected spending plan during the five-year period. The first four columns show the projected water rate, projected sewer rate, the combined total rate and percent increase from the prior year. Based on the current spending plan, rates in the first year are projected to go up 20.5%. The large increase in the first year is due to several factors. First, annual rate increases in the past have failed to keep pace with the normal growth in operating expenditures. Second, a portion of the water rate has been subsidizing sewer expenditures. The current sewer rate is $0.40. The actual rate needed to support the sewer function in 2005 is $1.36. Finally, capital projects have been funded using available fund balance rather than through current revenues. The increase for years two through five show a downward trend from 11.5% in year two to just 1 % in year five. This is due to lower planned capital expenditures for these years (see Attachment A). For comparison purposes a schedule showing how the rates would be affected if a flat annual increase of 5% (after the initial increase) were used rather than the trending schedule calculated under the expenditure formula (final two columns). As you can see by year four, the projected rates under both methods are nearly identical. It would be at this point where we would next evaluate water and sewer rates. Attachments C1 through C5 are the individual rate calculation worksheets illustrating how the rate projections were derived. The top section of each worksheet includes the formula used to arrive at the projected water rate. The water rate includes an operating and a capital expense component. Revenues generated outside the water charge are deducted from total expenses. For water purposes these are Special Service Area taxes and other miscellaneous revenues (interest income, tap-on fees). The new total is then divided by estimated number of gallons billed (1,457,175) to come up with the projected water rate. As a side note, the Special Service Levy adds approximately $1.05 per 1,000 gallons to the water and sewer rate and is set to expire in 2017 per Village Ordinance. The next section of the worksheet includes the formula used to arrive at the projected sewer rate. Again, the sewer rate consists of an operating and a capital expense component. Like the water rate, revenues generated outside of sewer charges are deducted from total expenses. For sewer Water & Sewer Rate Study and Combined Sewer Project Funding Solution August 5, 2005 Page 3 purposes this includes interest income and other miscellaneous revenues. The new total is then divided by estimated number of gallons billed (1,457,175) to come up with the projected sewer rate. The new revenue component under this section is made up of a proposed monthly customer service fee and an additional amount to be added to the sewer rate. These additional revenues would be used to support the combined sewer project. The monthly service fee is proposed at $5.00 per month. The additional amount added to the sewer rate is $0.26. These charges will be described in further detail later in this memo. The third section of the worksheet provides information on the current rate, the proposed rate according to the expenditure formula and actual rate adjustment that would be made. This section also includes the dollar and percent increase from the current rate to the actual rate adjustment. For example, on Attachment C1, the current water rate is $4.09. The current sewer rate is $0.40 for a total combined rate of $4.49. The proposed rate perthe formula is $3.78 for water and $1.37 for sewer for a total combined rate of $5.15. The actual rate adjustment would be $4.09 for water and $1.06 for sewer for the same combined rate of $5.15. Rather than adjust downward the current water rate, the sewer rate increase was reduced to return the same combined rate as the formula. The sewer and water rates would then be corrected in the following year to reflect their appropriate amounts. The increase in the rate from 2005 to 2006 is $.66 or 14.8%. Including the new revenue component needed to fund the combined sewer project, the increase in the rate is $0.92 or 20.5%. The last section of the worksheet describes the new revenue component of the sewer rate calculation. In order to fund the projected $1 million annual combined sewer project expense, a monthly customer sewer fee is proposed. The monthly fee of $5.00 per month is proposed. Based on the number of accounts currently active with the Village, this new fee will generate $628,140. The balance of the $1 million needed is proposed to come from an additional sewer charge of $0.26 per 1,000 gallons. This additional sewer fee will generate $378,866. For comparison purposes, if the sewer service fee were to be increased to $7.50 per month, it would generate $942,210 annually. This lowers the additional amount needed from the sewer rate to $0.04. The monthly service fee could be implemented immediately to begin building a reserve for the combined sewer project. Attachment 0 is a summary of rates being charged by other JAWA communities, Mount Prospect residents supplied by Illinois American Water and the communities supported by the Northwest Water Commission. The current Mount Prospect combined rate for those users on the Village water system is $4.49 (per 1,000 gallons). The average rate among the communities surveyed is $4.47 with a high rate being charged to Mount Prospect residents serviced by Illinois American Water ($7.30). The low rate is from Elk Grove Village with a rate of $3.67. Four of the ten communities charge a monthly service fee that ranges from $5.20 to $9.00 month. Three communities were able to provided future projected increases in their water and sewer rates. These projected increases range from 5% to 5.89%. .-...~~-_.._.._.._~_._----------,,~.._-~-~~=""""""'=,"",.,,=".~".".,'.c"CM"~"'",,;"'~""","~_~'''~__'_._~.~____~~___ Water & Sewer Rate Study and Combined Sewer Project Funding Solution August 5, 2005 Page 4 CONCLUSION The rate increases being recommended are necessary to maintain the funding needed to support ongoing operations. In addition, the new revenue component for the sewer function is necessary for support of the combined sewer project on a pay as you go basis. The additional cost to the typical homeowner as a result of these rate increases is $148.32 per year. Increases to Village water and sewer rates have traditionally been done on June 1. Along with the proposed rate increases we would recommend to move the annual rate increase from June 1 to January 1 to match the Village's budget cycle. The initial rate increase would be anticipated for January 1, 2006. RECOMENDA TION It is recommended that the Village Board approve the following: 1) Implement a monthly service fee for all users of $5.00 beginning as soon as possible; and 2) Implement the proposed rate increase for the first year from the current combined rate of $4.49 to $5.41 beginning January 1, 2006; and 3) Authorize future annual water and sewer rate increase of 5% each January 1, thereafter {fiL?<&// ~/ ~ K- DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DOE Copy: Finance Commission 1:\Water & Sewer\W&S Rate Study Memorandum.doc Attachment A Village of Mount Prospect Water and Sewer Expenditures Operating and Capital 2006 - 2010 Total Sub-Total Sub-Total % Growth in Total Capital Operating Operating Year Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses 2006 10,229,238 2,435,685 7,793,553 2007 11,127,925 3,009,975 8,117,950 4.16% 2008 11,179,537 2,705,468 8,474,069 4.39% 2009 11,382,223 2,532,505 8,849,718 4.43% 2010 11 ,465,434 2,219,112 9,246,322 4.48% Average Growth in Operating Expenses 2006-2010 4.37% - -' ~- ---~~~--"'-'~"'~=""'==_''"'';''~",*",',~1.m~?'';?h'''''-~'''9"'''''~'''''''~''"''~~~,~~______ Attachment B Village of Mount Prospect Water/Sewer Rate Summary 2005 - 2010 Per Expenditure Formula Per 5% Formula Year Water Rate Sewer Rate Total Rate % Increase Total Rate % Increase Current Water and Sewer Rates 2005 $4.09 $0.40 $4.49 $4.49 Proposed Water and Sewer Rates 2006 $4.09 $1.32 $5.41 20.5% $5.41 20.5% 2007 $4.34 $1.69 $6.03 11.5% $5.68 5.0% 2008 $4.37 $1.69 $6.06 0.5% $5.96 5.0% 2009 $4.45 $1.75 $6.20 2.3% $6.26 5.0% 2010 $4.45 $1.81 $6.26 1.0% $6.58 5.0% Attachment C-1 Village of Mount Prospect Water and Sewer Rate Calculation 2006 Budget Year Water Rate Formula: WR = (OP + DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR) / Vol Where: WR = Water Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures SSA5 = Special Service Area #5 Tax Revenue OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) WR= (OP + 6,178,450 DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR )/ Vol $3.78 o 1,006,710 (1,531,825) (141,500) 1,457,175 Sewer Rate Formula: SR = (OP + DS + Cap - OR - new rev) / Vol Where: SR = Sewer Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) new rev = Additional revenues to support combined sewer project SR= $1.37 (OP + 1,615,103 DS + Cap - Total Current Rate (2005) $4.09 OR - new rev.)/ Vol (47,500) (1,000,000) 1,457,175 Sewer Total $0.40 $4.49 $1.37 $5.15 $1.06 $5.15 $ Increase I $0.661 % Increase 14.8% $0.26 $0.26 $1.32 $5.41 $ Increase I $0.921 % Increase 20.5% o 1,428,975 Water Proposed Rate Per Expenditure Formula $3.78 Actual Rate Adjustment $4.09 Add'l amount for new revenue $0.00 Total Proposed Rate (2006) $4.09 New Revenue (new rev): Customer Service Charge-Sewer $5 per month, per customer ($5 x 12 x 10,469) Additional Sewer Fee (per 1,000 gal) ($.26 x 1,457,175) 628,140 378,866 Total New Revenue 1,007,006 Attachment C-2 Village of Mount Prospect Water and Sewer Rate Calculation 2007 Budget Year Water Rate Formula: WR = (OP + OS + Cap - SSA5 - OR) I Vol Where: WR = Water Rate OP = Operations Expenditures OS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures SSA5 = Special Service Area #5 Tax Revenue OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) WR= ( OP + 6.439,669 OS + Cap - SSA5 - OR) I o 1,551.475 (1,531,825) (141,500) 1,457,175 $4,34 Sewer Rate Formula: SR = (OP + OS + Cap - OR - new rev) I Vol Where: SR = Sewer Rate OP = Operations Expenditures OS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) new rev = Additional revenues to support combined sewer project SR= (OP + 1,678,281 Cap - OR - new rev.)1 OS + 1.458,500 (47,500) (1.000,000) 1.457,175 $1.43 o Water Sewer Total Total Current Rate (2006) $4.09 $1.32 $5.41 Proposed Rate Per Expenditure Formula $4.34 $1.43 $5.77 Actual Rate Adjustment $4.34 $1.43 $5.77 Add'l amount for new revenue $0.00 $0.26 $0.26 Total Proposed Rate (2007) $4.34 $1.69 $6.03 $ Increasel $0.621 % Increase 11.5% Vol Vol New Revenue (new rev): Customer Service Charge-Sewer $5 per month, per customer ($5 x 12 x 10,469) Additional Sewer Fee (per 1,000 gal) ($.26 x 1,457,175) 628,140 378,866 Total New Revenue 1,007,006 Attachment C-3 Village of Mount Prospect Water and Sewer Rate Calculation 2008 Budget Year Water Rate Formula: WR = (OP + DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR) ! Vol Where: WR = Water Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures SSA5 = Special Service Area #5 Tax Revenue OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) WR= (OP + 6,721,748 DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR )! (141,500) $4.39 o 1,346,968 (1,531,825) 1,457,175 Sewer Rate Formula: SR = (OP + DS + Cap - OR - new rev) ! Vol Where: SR = Sewer Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) new rev = Additional revenues to support combined sewer project SR= $1.42 (OP + 1,752,321 DS + Cap - OR - new rev.)! o 1,358,500 (47,500) (1,000,000) 1,457,175 Water Sewer Total Total Current Rate (2007) $4.34 $1.69 $6.03 Proposed Rate Per Expenditure Formula $4.39 $1 .42 $5.80 Actual Rate Adjustment $4.37 $1.43 $5.80 Add'l amount for new revenue $0.00 $0.26 $0.26 Total Proposed Rate (2008) $4.37 $1.69 $6.06 $ Increase I $0.031 % Increase 0.5% Vol Vol New Revenue (new rev): Customer Service Charge-Sewer $5 per month, per customer ($5 x 12 x 10,469) Additional Sewer Fee (per 1,000 gal) ($.26 x 1,457,175) 628,140 378,866 Total New Revenue 1,007,006 Attachment C-4 Village of Mount Prospect Water and Sewer Rate Calculation 2009 Budget Year Water Rate Formula: WR = (OP + DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR) / Vol Where: WR = Water Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures SSA5 = Special Service Area #5 Tax Revenue OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) WR= (OP + 7,018,912 DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR )/ 1,144,005 (1,531,825) (141,500) 1,457,175 $4.45 o Sewer Rate Formula: SR = (OP + DS + Cap - OR - new rev) / Vol Where: SR = Sewer Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt Service Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) new rev = Additional revenues to support combined sewer project SR= $1.49 (OP + 1,830,806 DS + Cap - OR - new rev.)/ o 1,388,500 (47,500) (1,000,000) 1,457,175 Water Sewer Total Total Current Rate (2008) $4.37 $1.69 $6.06 Proposed Rate Per Expenditure Formula $4.45 $1.49 $5.94 Actual Rate Adjustment $4.45 $1.49 $5.94 Add'l amount for new revenue $0.00 $0.26 $0.26 Total Proposed Rate (2009) $4.45 $1.75 $6.20 $ Increasel $0.141 % Increase 2.3% Vol Vol New Revenue (new rev): Customer Service Charge-Sewer $5 per month, per customer ($5 x 12 x 10,469) Additional Sewer Fee (per 1,000 gal) ($.26 x 1,457,175) 628,140 378,866 Total New Revenue 1,007,006 Attachment C-5 Village of Mount Prospect Water and Sewer Rate Calculation 2010 Budget Year Water Rate Formula: WR = (OP + DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR) / Vol Where: WR = Water Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt SeNice Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures SSA5 = Special SeNice Area #5 Tax Revenue OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) WR= (OP + 7,332,220 DS + Cap - SSA5 - OR )/ Vol $4.44 o 810,612 (1,531,825) (141,500) 1.457,175 Sewer Rate Formula: SR = (OP + DS + Cap - OR - new rev) / Vol Where: SR = Sewer Rate OP = Operations Expenditures DS = Debt SeNice Expenditures Cap = Capital Expenditures OR = Other Revenue Vol = Annual Water Billing (gallons) new rev = Additional revenues to support combined sewer project SR= (OP + 1,914,103 DS + Cap - OR - new rev.)/ Vol $1.56 o 1.408,500 (47,500) (1,000,000) 1.457,175 Water Sewer Total Total Current Rate (2009) $4.45 $1.75 $6.20 Proposed Rate Per Expenditure Formula $4.44 $1.56 $6.00 Actual Rate Adjustment $4.45 $1.55 $6.00 Add'l amount for new revenue $0.00 $0.26 $0.26 Total Proposed Rate (2010) $4.45 $1.81 $6.26 $ Increasel $0.06/ % Increase 1.0% New Revenue (new rev): Customer SeNice Charge-Sewer $5 per month, per customer ($5 x 12 x 10,469) Additional Sewer Fee (per 1,000 gal) ($.26 x 1,457,175) 628,140 378,866 Total New Revenue 1,007,006 Attachment D Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois Water Rate Comparison JAWA Communities, Illinois American Water and Northwest Water Commission Water JAWA Communites Elk Grove Village Hanover Park Hoffman Estates Mount Prospect Rolling Meadows Schaumburg Streamwood $3.22 $3.61 $3.20 $4.09 $3.78 $3.99 $3.47 Sewer $0.45 $1.55 $0.80 $0.40 $1.13 $0.81 $0.66 Northwest Water Commission Arlington Heights $3.68 $0.32 Buffalo Grove $1.80 (1) Wheeling $3.68 $0.32 Palatine (3) (3) Illinois Americn Water Mount Prospect (2) (2) Projected Monthly Future Total Service Fee Increase $3.67 $0.00 n/a $5.16 $0.00 n/a $4.00 $0.00 (4) 5.89% $4.49 $0.00 n/a $4.91 $6.30 5.50% $4.80 $5.22 n/a $4.13 $9.00 5.00% $4.00 $5.20 n/a $1.80 $0.00 n/a $4.00 $0.00 n/a (3) (3) n/a $7.30 $0.00 n/a High Mount Prospect-Illinois American Water $7.30 Low Elk Grove $3.67 Average All Communities (excl. Buffalo Grove) $4.47 Notes: (1) Cook County Residents, included in taxes. Lake County Residents, $14.50 per month flat fee. (2) The Illinois American water rate is made up of multiple fees. Basic seNice water charge $0.52 Water use charge $3.51 Supply charge $1.36 Sewer charge $0.66 Fire protection charge $1.01 State recovery tax $0.24 Total $7.30 (3) Unable to determine. Multiple rate schedules for incorporated versus unicorporated. Also billed use varies by gallons and cubic feet. (4) Four-year average - 2006 through 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE VILLAGE CODE AS TO WATER AND SEWER RATES AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION FEES Passed and approved by the President and Board of Trustees the _ day of October, 2005. Published in pamphlet form by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the day of October, 2005. r "~>,~------ ---~~~-------_._-~-_.__.__.._..._._~_._-----_._--~...~==-~-~'~~~'-----'---,,~_. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE VILLAE CODE AS TO WATER AND SEWER RATES AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION FEES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 9.410(A) entitled "Water Rates" of Appendix A, Division II of the Village Code, as amended, is further amended in its entirety; so that Section 9.41 O(A) of Appendix A, Division II shall be and read as follows: " Sec.9.410(A) WATER RATES: A. All Village users within the village, having a direct or indirect connection with village water mains or pipes: $4.09 per 1,000 gallons or portion of 1,000 gallons of water consumed. All village users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with village water mains or pipes: $8.18 per 1,000 gallons or portion of 1,000 gallons of water consumed. All village users located outside the boundaries of Special Service Area Number 5 shall pay an additional monthly availability charge based upon the size of the water meter as follows: 5/8 inch meter % inch meter 1 inch meter 1 Y2 inch meter 2 inch meter 3 inch meter 4 inch meter 6 inch meter 8 inch meter $ 10.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.50 $ 42.50 $ 87.00 $150.00 $250.00 $475.00 $990.00 B. Hook-up charge for water furnished by the truckload: $10.00." SECTION TWO: That Section 9.507 entitled "Sewer Rates" of Appendix A, Division II of the Village Code, as amended, is further amended in its entirety; so that Section 9.507 of Appendix A, Division II shall be and read as follows: " Sec.9.507 SEWER RATES: C. All village sewer users within the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village sewer and water mains or pipes: $1.32 per 1,000 gallons or portion of 1,000 gallons of water consumed. All village sewer users within the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes and not with the village water mains or pipes: $3.53 per month per dwelling unit. All village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's water and sewer mains or pipes: $1.32 per 1,000 gallons or portion of 1,000 gallons of water consumed. All village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes, but not with village water mains or pipes: $3.53 per month per dwelling unit." SECTION THREE: A new Section 9.507.1 entitled "Sewer Construction Fee" shall be added to Article V Sanitary Sewer System, of Chapter 9 entitled Public Utilities, Pavement and Tree Regulations, which shall read as follows: " Sec. 9.507.1 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FEE: A. Sewer construction fees for all village sewer users within the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village sewer and water mains or pipes shall be as set forth in Appendix A, Division II of this code. B. Sewer construction fees for all village sewer users within the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes and not with the village water mains or pipes shall be as set forth in Appendix A, Division II of this code. C. Sewer construction fees for all village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's water and sewer mains or pipes shall be as set forth in Appendix A, Division II of this code. D. Sewer construction fees for all village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes, but not with village water mains or pipes shall be as set forth in Appendix A, Division II of this code. SECTION FOUR: A new Section 9.507.1 entitled "Sewer Construction Fee" of Appendix A, Division II of the Village Code, shall be inserted and read as follows: " Sec. 9.507.1 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FEE: A. All village sewer users within the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village sewer and water mains or pipes: $5.00 per account, per month. B. All village sewer users within the corporate lImits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes and not with the village water mains or pipes: $5.00 per month per dwelling unit. C. All village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's water and sewer mains or pipes: $5.00 per account, per month. D. All village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes, but not with village water mains or pipes: $5.00 per month per dwelling unit." SECTION FIVE: That the fees set forth in Section One and Section Two of this Ordinance shall be applied to all water and sewer bills rendered on or after January 1,2006. ^- -~-'-"'-~---'-----'-~--~--~-~~"'~'-'~""-""""""~"",.,,=,r'-'"?,,,,,'1W<'~'.'ii._='."",_______'_'._____~_,____,__,__,,__..___._ SECTION SIX: That the fees set forth in Section Three of this Ordinance shall be applied to all water and sewer bills rendered on or after November 1,2005. SECTION SEVEN: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. Irvana K. Wilks, Village President ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk