Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1359_001a I MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 22, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gerald Farley at approximately 6:12 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Trustees George Clowes, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks, Timothy Corcoran and Richard Hendricks. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant to the Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director David Jepson, Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer, Fire Chief Ed Cavello, Inspection Services Director Chuck Bencic, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, Jeff Wulbecker, Dan Jakes, Robert Reels, Lonnie Jackson, Del Ulreich, Steve Dumovich, Ruth Maychszak, Jan Abernethy and Human Services staff. H. MINUTES Acceptance of the Minutes of March 8, 1994 was made by Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Hoefert. Trustee Wilks requested some revisions of her comments and of revisions of what a resident stated at the end of the meeting. The minutes were approved as revised. Trustee Clowes and Trustee Hendricks abstained. anNERMINANXIM__:__ 6 C Trustee Hendricks stated that he had been requested to sign a letter rejecting the SRA Route 83 IDOT proposal at the March 16 Village Board meeting. He refused to sign at that time because he felt it was premature to send a letter rejecting a plan prior to hearing from the citizens of the Village which was scheduled at a meeting on March 19th. He also stated that he objected to the letter because there was no reduction in speed limit as requested, and there was no rerouting of Route 83 as requested by some of the residents at the March 19th meeting. However, he would sign the letter but he feels that the letter has already been sent to IDOT. Mayor Farley said that the lowering of the speed limit and the rerouting of Route 83 are items which need to be discussed by the entire Village Board prior to communicating that to [DOT. He also felt that Trustee Hendricks' comments should be made under the section of "Any Other Business" and not under "Citizens to be Heard". Trustee Clowes stated that he feels Trustee Hendricks is bringing up some additional points which need to be communicated to IDOT based on the citizens input from March 19th. The questions presented include the rerouting of Route 83 and putting a full interchange at Arlington Heights Road; also some consideration on the impact on traffic level due to the *-V improved road surface needs to be addressed by MOT. He felt it was important for the - I - Village to enforce the speed limits on Route 83. The Village should dictate the items to IDOT and not be in a reactionary mode to IDOT's revisions. He also stated that it was important to communicate residents' comments to IDOT so the comments can be made part of the record. Trustee Wilks asked if the recommendations from citizens will come back to the Board for approval. Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that follow-up communication with the Board is expected. Now the original proposal from IDOT has been rejected by the Board. No other options are available at the time from IDOT. At this point we are setting parameters internally in order to deal with IDOT based on residents' concerns. He expects the discussion to continue and the Saturday meeting was only a beginning. There may be additional meetings if necessary to finalize our position. He reminded the Board that this issue will not be resolved in the thirty -day window for public comment. He stated that citizen comments will be communicated to IDOT. :3 I:N 11" 1 1 Mr. Janoni's responded to the three questions that had been received at the previous meeting. Question No. 1: Why not hire back police officers on overtime instead of hiring three new officers? He stated that hire -backs of officers is somewhat limited due to the fact that they are for special details, and special details have beginnings and ends. Hiring police officers back on overtime is inefficient in relating to a long-term sustained police enforcement effort. QUestion No. 2: Village Board had made a commitment to address the problems that were identified in the special service area which was defeated. Is the Board still committed to providing the resources necessary to address these problems? He stated that resources are being committed with additional personnel, Visions funding, and Crime Prevention funding. Question No-, 3: The citizen was opposed to the hiring of a traffic engineer and felt the service could be contracted out. The decision as to whether to hire the traffic engineer is yet to be approved and still under discussion by the Village Board. Mr. Janonis stated that this is the third in a series of budget hearings the departments that will be presented tonight are Fire, Inspection Services, and Human Services Departments. There will be a need for a special Committee of the Whole meeting on March 29 for a budget 'wrap-up and discussion concerning the refuse contract. Fire Chief Ed Cavello provided a general overview of the Fire Department budget. He highlighted the recommended 17 man shift, the purchase of a new piece of equipment ((quint), the elimination of the volunteer fire fighter stipend, the elimination of the funding for the ESDA volunteers, and the elimination of the training academy. He stated that the response time i has been aided by automatic responses of other departments. Reciprocal aid agreements of Mount Prospe&-aifd Prospect Heights have necessitated a serious consideration for the 17 man shift. The reason for a 17 man shift is to provide the same number of firefighters on a piece of equipment which would respond in an automatic aid response in either Mount Prospect or Prospect Heights. Therefore, it would be an equal exchange of personnel for fire services, regardless of where the response originated from. A general discussion followed in which numerous Trustees and the Mayor discussed the various fine items in the Fire Department budget. Among the items discussed were a detailed explanation of mutual and automatic aid agreements, details of the benefit of hire -back to create a 17 man shift and what the total number of days such hire -backs would occur, the manning of emergency ambulance vehicles, the transportation procedures for residents being transported by a Mount Prospect ambulance, the detailed cost of the volunteer firefighter stipend and the ESDA stipend, the cost details of privatization of ambulance service and the accounting procedures to show realistic expenses within each department and all associated personnel costs. 1p Chief Caveflo responded to the specific operational funding level questions by describing the service provided including the definition of automatic aid, which is aid that is dispatched to a specific zone by another community and mutual aid, which is called on as needed to supplement firefighting activities for a large incident. The hire -backs to maintain a 17 man shift would only occur less than one-half of the days of the year, therefore, it would not be an excessive cost. There would not be a need which would require a hire -back every single day of the year to provide the service necessary. He further stated that in order for automatic aid agreements to work, it is important to respond with in-kind services. For example, if we expect Prospect Heights to respond with three men on an engine, the Village must also respond to three men on an engine to its designated zone. He also discussed the ambulance transportation policy to which hospitals the Village has an EMS relationship with. He also outlined the details of the cost savings of eliminating the volunteer firefighters stipend. 11 Extensive discussion of the paid -on-call volunteer firefighter stipend ensued. The discussion also touched on items which are provided by the Village, such as, clothes, training, etc. which would be eliminated therefore, the paid -on-call participants would then have to purchase equipment out of their own pockets. Therefore, the number of paid -on-call volunteers would decrease over time due to the cost outlay of the participants. It was also discussed that paid - on -call firefighters do not supplement full-time firefighters and there is limited use of paid -on- call firefighters. Their use typically is limited to participation with firefighters on large incidents and supplement training with the full-time firefighters. Some Trustees stated their support for adding the paid -on-call firefighters back into the budget and suggested that the Chief find another item to cut. However, this opinion was not a majority opinion. Overview of the Inspection Services Department: Inspection Services Director Chuck Benclic provided an overview of Inspection Services highlighting the cross -training of all inspectors necessary f6r overall enforcement of Village Codes, the future use of computers and the replacement of radio equipment. Computer usage will be necessary for proposed permit tracking. He stated that the level of inspections has increased over time based on the number of reinspections and the focus of the proposed additional new inspector will be for multi-family inspections. Another capital item that he is requesting is the replacement of the Topographical Maps. The current-maps were completed in 1978 and are badly outdated. He also stated that the budget of his department includes an increased resurfacing program. General discussion followed in which numerous Trustees and the Mayor discussed various fine items in the Inspection Services budget. Among the items discussed was the funding of the Traffic Engineer and the necessity of hiring an additional employee compared to contracting out such service, the funding for the sidewalk hazard study, and general overview of the resurfacing program. 1 Discussion concerning the traffic engineer focused on the justification for such a traffic engineer compared to contracting out for that service. The need for the traffic engineer is based on the need to respond to the numerous SRA projects which pass through the Village and in order to be pro -active instead of reactive to traffic needs so that timely responses can be formulated. The training necessary for a traffic engineer would include an engineering degree and some specialization in traffic engineering. It is not necessary to hire a Professional Engineer (PE). The limited amount of staff time which is not dedicated to other projects minimizes the level of engineering which can be done in-house for these road projects. However, a review can be performed to determine the internal traffic engineer costs compared to bidding out the services. Even though the traffic engineer's function would be to focus on traffic engineering, the cross -training of the additional engineer would supplement the engineering staff extensively. The discussion concerning resurfacing also touched on how streets are rated and then prioritized for resurfacing or reconstruction. The emphasis on road resurfacing and reconstruction is to not only prioritize specific problem areas but also to spread out reconstruction projects throughout the Village. Human Service Director Nancy Morgan provided an overview of the Human Services budget. She stated her department places special emphasis on ensuring that all staff are cross - trained so that services are provided to a broad based group of residents, and there is minimal need for specializing. The 'increases in the budget are due to increased hours for the bilingual social worker. Part of the justification for the increase of hours for the bilingual social worker is due to the service provided to the residents and the increased demand of services as a safety net. Urban problems have been effecting services provided and in order to develop and continue a realistic approach to service delivery the additional staff in this department and other departments will provide the expertise necessary to address the needs which have been identified. Hopefiffly, this additional service will reduce expenditures in the future for services related to the fall -out of such urban problems. She also highlighted a major revision in the way record-keeping and services are monitored. This new means of record-keeping will assist the department in monitoring the true cost for specific services. General discussion followed in which numerous Trustees and the Mayor discussed various line items in the Human Services budget. Among the items discussed were: the cost of additional staff mainly the bilingual social worker, the Network 50 cost and the benefit the Network 50 Program is providing, and the need to provide a general review of services available to residents in order to determine if services provided by the Human Services Department were duplicated by another service provider. Nancy Morgan responded to the questions and comments. She stated that there is no detailed information concerning the actual number of residents who have received jobs through Network 50. However, the department is in the process of defining follow-up procedures to monitor the success of the program. She also stated that the department is constantly reviewing its services to determine whether other service providers are more capable of providing the service than the Human Services Department in order to minimize duplication. She stated that the service the Village provides relates to expediting the ability of receiving services to residents who are in need. The department does utilize other service providers and provides a large number of referrals to those other agencies as part of its normal daily activities. Mayor Farley stated the next meeting on March 29 will be a budget wrap-up where it is hoped the Board will come to an agreement for all departments. Also a presentation concerning the refuse contract is also anticipated. Trustee Hendricks stated that he had filed an appeal for the fence on 2 North Edwards and it was heard before the Board on March 18. In reviewing the file he has found discrepancies and would like to discuss these prior to the Village Board meeting of April 5. Mayor Farley stated this item is for reconsideration and it is up to the entire Village Board to determine whether a motion for reconsideration will be approved. Trustee Wilks asked Trustee Hendricks whether he would sign the Route 83 letter to IDOT if he had the opportunity. Trustee Hendricks stated that he would sign the letter if it was redrafted in order for the entire Village Board to go on record to come out in opposition. mtffill�M �W al The Committee of the Whole meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAIHL Assistant to the Village Manager I MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 29, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gerald Farley at approximately 6:15 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Trustees George Clowes, Timothy Corcoran, Richard Hendricks, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Trustee Clowes arrived at 6:17 p.m. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant to the Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Director of Public Works Glen Andler, Solid Waste Coordinator Lisa Angell, Finance Director Dave Jepson, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, Fire Chief Edward Cavello, Police Chief Ron Pavlock and Planning Director Bill Cooney. Approval of the Minutes of March 22, 1994 was deferred since they had not been completed and submitted prior to the meeting for review. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Resident Jim Johnson, 1802 Pheasant Trail. He wanted to confirm with the Board that the additi6nal staff that they have added in this budget are to address the south side issues and increased services specifically relating to the south side. Frank Vlasny, 2103 Jody Court spoke. He stated that 1993 was a bad year for residents in addition to the Village. Costs have increased and all taxes have increased which are affecting residents adversely. He stated that according to his figures, the additional tax increase proposed and approved by the Board amounted to $876 per resident. He recommended the Board look at ways to cut costs such as why add three more Police Officers without assurances crime will be decreased, combine the Police and Fire Departments' function, disband Human Services and contract out for Paramedic services. Joe Sodaro, 1777 Crystal Lane, spoke. According to a survey recently done by Terry Parke's office, 60-70% of the people want less Village services. He felt the Police services should be increased and spending and increased costs are out of control. He wants to stop expanding governmentand is concerned that the apathy of the czenry allow such tax increases to occur. Trustee Corcoran stated that he does not see apathy among citizens especially if one looks at the citizen turnout on the March 19 meeting concerning the Route 83 SRA. Dennis Pftger, 1731 Pheasant Trail, stated that he is a participant on the Visions Sub -Committee and is quite happy with the funding that the Village has earmarked for the additional Police, Inspectors and Bi -Lingual Social Worker and feels that these services are desperately needed on the south side. 1994MI995 BUDGET DISCUSSION Farl 0genitig, �Rernatks , m Gerstd,11-1,"I Mayor Farley stated that the Village Board is responsible for establishing the spending policies for the coming year. Unfortunately, the slow economy has made this years budget especially difficult because ,of the levels of service which have to be maintained with limited funds. He read the recommendations from the Finance Commission to the Village Board. Dick Bachhuber,,, Chainnamof the Finance Cornmlssllonspoke. He stated that his Commission spent many hours reviewing the budget and stated� that the budget recommendations submitted by the Finance Commission reflects a generally conservative outlook on municipal services. Refuse Contract Overview Ken Westlake, Solid Waste Cornrnlssl1onChalrTnan, spoke. He stated that the Mount Prospect program has been very successful and has had three good years with Arc. Arc also came in with the lowest bid among the seven that provided bids. Included invith the bids was an expansion of the Recycling Program, the continuation of the Brush Program in the same fashion that it is now, direct bng of white goods. This new program is expected, to increase the diversion rates of Mount Prospect's solid waste by 10-20%. Trustee Wilks stated that she had received 80 phone calls about the refuse charge remaining on the property tax and of those 80 calls,, her tally was 79-1 to keep the charge as part of i tax. Trustee Hoefert stated he agrees with the analysis of moving to one container based on the increased recycling effort. Trustee Clowes stated he was pleased with the bid result. However, he would like to see SWANCC cost reductions similar to the amount of reduction's that Arc has provided in their latest bid. Mayor Fariey stated the question before the Board is whether to accept the Arc bid for a three-year period. Trustee Hendricks requested unlimited pick-up at the meeting with the Solid Waste Commission and his review of the bid results submitted to the Village Board show a substantial savings to the residents. Total savings which he projects is approximately $108,537 for the three-year period of the contract. He stated he does not agree with the Commission's recommendation and would like the Village Board to consider unlimited pick-up. Trustee Clowes stated that it is a good point that Trustee Hendricks brought up concerning unlimited pick-up. However, one critical component of unlimited pick- up is increased tipping fees due to additional refuse. Therefore, we will end up paying more to SWANCC for unlimited pick-up. Village Manager Janonis stated that in order to cover the total cost of the program, there is a need for revenue which is generated by the sale of refuse stickers. All revenue goes back into the program to cover the total costs. The Village does not make any money on the program. For example, 6100 tons of waste was diverted which amounted to avoided tipping fees by recycling. With unlimited pick-up, there would be no incentive for recycling. For example, the refuse stickers generate a specific amount of revenue which if not available would have to be made up through increased property taxes. Therefore, technically, the sale of refuse stickers reduces the amount of property tax reliance to cover the refuse program. Trustee Wilks asked if the revenue were not available from the sticker sales, how much additional revenue would have to be generated through the property tax. Dave Jepson stated that the property tax would have to increase approximately $80,000. He also stated that if one could add 10% diversion to the recycling program, there would be a $24,000 savings in tipping fees. Mayor Farley summarized the position of the Village Board as 6-1 in favor of the Arc contract. He also summarized the position of the Village Board for the five- year contract. The consensus was approximately 6-1 to sign up for the five-year program. Trustee Skowron stated that she would like to bid the last two years and would like an overview of the past history if we had provided a five-year contract previously. Mayor FarIley requested additional information about the five-year contract option by the April 5 Village Board meeting. Trustee Clowes stated he thought it was a gond idea to use the CPI as a basis for future cost increases: ` • • • i , • i • tv I I LIP • r • - - i a U • �a a a i a s i `• �' i .a • • • i a • • • • i i i • •• ` • i i a • a i i • .. i a a i • � � � � � • i • a - a • • ` a iii • i • i • i • • a i i i • i i • • • • # i • ••• i ` i a i a i a f a i s a r i a ♦ a a i • i i i a i a i • i; a a • M ` • a • • • ` • a a i • a a i ,. a ,. a i i • r r r r • i• i`i a a a • ii` i a`• � a i ` a i a a` a ,.a � i i •i • a a a i Communications Division was discussed; specifically, the Village Newsletter. There was general discussion concerning the frequency of the Newsletter, however, no specific direction was provided to the staff. 2. Funding of Communications Division. The Finance Commission had recommended this Division be discontinued. The general consensus was to continue funding cable with the consensus of 6-1. Trustee Hendricks recommended the Cable Division be deleted. In the absence of documentation proving that the cable funding is not worthwhile, cable should be continued as is. Resident Ernie Lasse, 805 Soutih Elm, spoke. He recommended a citizens survey to determine the effectiveness of the Cable Division. Manager Janonis stated that the Village must do a survey as part of its cable renewal process and that will take place this coming year. 3. Computer System Funding. General consensus supporting this expenditure. Manager Janonis stated that last year was the first year the budget included contingencies for possible emergency funding. There is an option to put some of the proceeds from the Pine/Wille sale into a contingency fund. A general question of the need for continual funding for the Solid Waste Coordinator was discussed. Herb Weeks stated that there remains a need for Solid Waste Coordinator in order to police fly dumping. There also remains work to be done in managing the solid waste program for mulb-family dwelling units. There was general consensus to support the Public Works Budget as presented by staff. 5'. The addition of three new Police Officers was discussed. General discussion concerning the three additional Police Officers followed. The three new Police Officers are part of the overall package as verified by the Visions Sub -Committee which remains very supportive of the overall package presented by the Village. Therefore, the Finance Commission recommendations would be rejected. Trustee Clowes recommended that the value of the three additional Officers by quantified in order to know what benefit is being received. He supports the three additional Officers. E Mayor Farley summarized the Village Board's position as general consensus for the addition of three new Officers. 6. Planning Department was the next area reviewed. Economic Development Fund. Trustee Hendricks questioned whether the full $25,000 needed to be put into► the fund and asked if the funding could be split over a couple of fiscal years. Manager Janonis stated that any expenditure of this fund would • need Village Board approval and any amount not spent would roll into next year's • The general consensus of i was • support this • • consensus. Trustee Hendricks voiced opposon • the funding. 7. Fire Department Budget. General consensus of the Board was 4-2 to fund the 17 -man shift - Trustees Clowes and Hendricks voiced opposition to this funding. Manager Janonis stated that at the suggestion of Trustees Clowes and Wilks, at the last Committee of the Whole meeting, he instructed the Fire Chief to add the EDA and paid -on-call funding back into the budget and reduce other items to make up the difference. He assured the Board that service would not be compromised. Trustee Hoefert suggested that a future Committee of the Whole discussion occur about the necessity of the paid -on-call personnel. Purchase of a Quint. General consensus of the Board was 6-1 with Trustee Hendricks opposing the purchase. 8. Inspection Services Department Addition of Inspector. General consensus of the Board was 6-1 with Trustee Hendricks against the addition. Trustee Clowes recommended this position be reviewed in three years to determine if the need remains after the three year period. Addition of Traffic Engineer. General consensus of the Board was 5-2 with Trustees Hendricks and Clewes voicing opposition to this expenditure. L I Trustee Corcoran recommended a three-year sunset to review whether there continues to be a need for the Traffic Engineer after a three-year period. The need should be based on the comparison of bid for services between what the Village could provide and what private contractors can provide. 9. Human. Services Department If, Additional of Bi -Lingual Social Worker from part-time to full-time. General consensus of the Village Board is to approve the increase in hours and funding. Consensus was 6-1 with Trustee Hendricks against. ons Group Funding. General consensus • the Board was to approve the funding with a general consensus of unanimous support. A review of the Network 50 Program and the value the program is providing prior to next fiscal year. A follow-up report about Sales Tax projections and the additional revenue generated • Sales Tax. Dave Jepson stated he would report to the Village Board periodically about the new revenue sources and • they are tracking over time. Manager Janonis suggested that a Committee of the Whole meeting be set up in the near future to talk about general financial issues prior to these issues becoming critical. Mr. Janonis stated the Budget is up for first reading on April 5 and a Public Hearing on April 19 with the second reading at that time. He said he would like to thank Finance Department staff for budget assistance and pulling all the documentation together. V. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hendricks stated he has signed the letter objecting to the Route 83 SRA and the letter has been sent out. Trustee Wilks stated the Village recently received Tree City USA Award and said there were still some campaign signs on light poles throughout the Village. Manager Janonis stated the Public Works Department is in the process of pulling those signs down at this point. Trustee Corcoran would like a scheduled Committee of the Whole meeting in the near future to discuss emergency preparedness. 61 VL ADJOURNMENT The Committee of the Whole meeting/Budget Hearing was adjourned at 10.10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID BTf AH L D l oc Assistant to the Village Manager VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT Q -11-t U06)JUMMI"Myce) TO* Michael E. Jannis, Vie Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director T" D_ DATE: April 22, 1994 SUBJECT: Charges Billed to the Village for Yard Waste, Brush and Excess Refuse Containers During the discussion of the refuse disposal conawt at the Village Board meeting on April 5. 19949 a question was raised about whether the Village should require the contractor to submit stickers from the containers and bags of yard waste as support for the amounts billed to the Village. This becomes an even more important issue under the new contract because the Village will not only be payimga unit fee for yard waste, but also for refuse I containers or bags in excess of the two container limit. Another way of stating the question is: How can the Village verify the unit charges that will be billed by the refuse contractor for yard waste and brush as well as for additional refuse containers? An appropriate internal control program requires the following elements: 1) There should be reasonable assurance that the charges would be accurate; 2) The cost of the controls should not exceed the benefits to be obtained; and 3) 'Me evaluation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgements by management. ,Xazd W=1 ad, Dwsh residents are required to put a s&Jw on all yard waste containers, but no t-. sticker is required for bnnh. When the yard waste and brush are picked up, the contractor counts the number of containers of yard waste and the number of bundles of brush and bills the Village for the total units. The contractor is not required to submit the stickers to the Village as backup for the amount billed. The conditions m1a tht an == remain basically the same as the old contract with the exception of a verification provision. In the new contract, the Village can require the contractor to submit the stickers from the yard waste as proof of the number of units picked up. However, the logistical and administrative burden of physically removing, delivering and counting individual stickers present ,Practical problems that suggest an alternative approach would be more practical. Additionally, the is no provision for substantiating the number of brush units without a sticker. In an attempt to overcome a potential problem for both the refuse contractor and the Village to count refuse stickers removed from the yard waste containers, an alternative approach was considered. One Nfichael E. Janonis Page 2 Charges Billed to the Village for Yard Waste, Brush and Excess Refuse Containers of the options included in the new contract is for the contractor to provide and sell the stickers for yard waste and brush and to keep the proceeds of the sticker sales as compensation for the pick up and disposal of the yard waste and brush. Except for the fact that a separate sticker would be needed (which would be an additional burden for residents), this is a very attractive option for the Village. Under this situation, the Vie would not have to administer the sticker inventory and sales, and we would not need to be concerned about the number of units picked up. However, because we do not require a sticker for brush we would need some other method for verifying the number of brush units. One of the provisions in the new contract that could address the brush issue is for the Village to pay a monthly fee per single family residence for brush pickup. The fee quoted for the first year is $.70 per month per single family residence which equates to an annual charge of $112,770. This total is the equivalent of 91,700 units at $1.23 per unit. This option would be the easiest way to administer the brush charge, but it also appears to be the most expensive. Based on estimated brush units of 72,000 for 1993/94, this, option would cost the Village about $24,000 more than paying on a unit basis. It appears that it would be a practical approach for the refim contractor to sell a separate sticker for yard waste and to let the contractor keep the proceeds from the sale of the sticker as compensation. With this option the sticker price for yard waste for the first year would be $1.30. The Village would then need to accept the count of the brush bundles picked up and initiate some method of testing the counts to verify their reasonableness. (Possibly a separate brush sticker that would be provided, at no charge to the resident may be required). 11ndu 1g, Mi , the Village requires a refuse sticker on all containers or bags over a limit of two. However, the Village does not pay an additional unit charge to the refuse contractor because the monthly fee per residence includes unlimited pick up. JjDAU The new gM=, an option was included to pay the contractor a monthly fee based on a maximum of two containers per resident plus a unit charge for all containers above the two container limit. This option will cost an estimated $17,600 less to the Village than the unlimited pick up option. The two container maximum is the most economical option for the Village, but it again raises the issue of how to substantiate the number of additional units to pay the refuse contractor. We could request that the contractor submit stickers from the additional containers as proof of pickup but the same administrative problems associated with brush collection would be duplicated with refuse. Also, this approach would, mean that a different sticker, would be sold, with the proceeds corning to, the Village. The sticker price, for excess refuse contam*ers forthe sty would be $1.10 per, sticker. Michael E. Jannis Page 3 Charges Billed to the Vie for Yard Waste, Brush and Excess Refuse Containers N , k�$ , 't .-T! w=:�n After discussing these issues, Herb, Glen, Lisa, and I agreed that these solutions do not meet the criteria for an effective and efficient control progrm- It appears that the better approach for Vie residents, the Village and the contractor would be to have a program with the folio wing features: 1. There should be one sticker that could be used for either yard waste or excess refuse containers. (Ms is more convenient for residents). 2. The contractor should sell the stickers and keep the proceeds so that neither the contractor or the Village would need to count stickers removed from yard waste or refuse containers. (Ms provides for ease of adMI'Mistration). 3. Brush should be paid through a monthly fee so that the question about verifying the number of units billed by the contractor would be eliminated. However,- the monthly fee would need to be more in line with the amount currently being charged for 72,000 units. Mfis removes the need for additional audit,procedure;). 4. The contraMr should supply statistical information to the Village regarding sticker sales, yard waste,brush, and excess refuse containers. (11iis would provide a basis for future decisions by the Village). We then approached Jim Vellenga, General of Arc Disposal, Inc. to discuss these issues as well as certain procedures for implementing the new contract. During this meeting we pointed out that there was a concern about verifying the number of units that would be billed to the Village and that the new contract prov, kiled *9 ftcon rotor "uW nod to am in the stickers to the VilkSe. We also suggeAW, that it wouW bei I to have only one sdcJ= and for the owbuftr to sell the stickers and kM the receipts ftm the, sticker sates as compensadion for pick up of yard waft and excess refuse containers. To make the promsac'CePtable, we told Am that they would need to come up with one sticker for both yard waste and refuse and the unit charge for brush would need to be reduced. Mr. Vellenga said he would discuss these issues with the owners of Arc Disposal and get back to us. Arc Disposal submitted a proposal that would include the features outlined above for the following consideration: 1. The monthly fee for brush pick up would be reduced from $.70 per resident per month to $.56. In the second and third years the amounts would be $.59 and $.63 rather than $.73. and $37. This reduction represents a decrease in their fee of $22,550 per year. 2. The fee that Arc Disposal would require for a combination sticker would be $1.20 the first year, $1.26 the second year and $1.32 the third year plus anything the Village would add to cover the tipping fee for the excess refuse containers. Michael E. Jannis Page 4 Charges Billed to the Village for Yard Waste, Brush and Excess Refuse Containers To evaluate the financial impact of the Arc proposal, I compared the net costs to the Vie where the Village would sell the stickers and where the contractor would sell the stickers. In the evaluation, it was necessary to use assumptions regarding the various quantities of yard waste, brush,and excess refuse containers. The assumptions I used were sed on our actual experience for 1993/94 and from our discussions with Jim Vellenga. The assumptions I used and the unit costs are included in attached Schedule 1. The comparisons of the net costs to the Village are, included in attached Schedule 2. It was also necessary to estimate the selling price of the refuse stickers over the next dim to five years. The Village established a price of $1.25 for yard bags in 1990 and maintained that price for stickers from 1991 through the present time. Based on the new Arc proposal it will be possible to continue the $1.25 price for the first year of the contract. However, because costs are increasing about 6 % per year in years 2 and 3 it will be necessary to increase the price in year 2 if we are to recover the increased costs. Rather than increase the sticker price each year, I assumed the sticker price would be $1.40 for years 2 and 3 and then go to $1.55 for years 4 and 5. Based on the assumptions in Schedule I and the estimated sticker prices mentioned above, the following summary shows the net costs to the Village if the contractor would sell the stickers compared to the Vie selling the stickers: Net Costs to the VUlage Contractor Sens Stickers $96,650 $841,000 $103X775 $96,1850 $122$,900, Village Sells Sticker1103,575, a IN 1112M, Net Cost to the Village S 200 $,,(6.,=, $1 J From the above summary it can be seen that the sum of the annual net costs to the Village over the five year period would be an estimated $1,225. If the contractor would sell the stickers, it would eliminate the need for the contractor and the wee to count stickers removed from yard waste and refuse bags; it would eliminate the question over how to verify the number of brush units billed to the Village; it would make it possible to continue with one sticker; and it would free the Village from the responsibility of controlling and distributing stickers. It is staffs unanimous recommendation that we accept the revised proposal from Arc Disposal Co. to pay the reduced monthly fee for brush pick up and to allow the refuse contractor to sell a combination yard waste and refuse sticker. DCJ/sm Enc. Qu=illka Yard Waste Brush Refuse Containers (In excess of 2) Stickers Sold Unit Costs Yard Waste & Brush (per Unit) Brush (per SIF per Month) Refuse Containers (Excess of 2) Tipping Fees (per Refuse Container) Sticker Price Contractor Compensation Village Compensation (1) Assume 6% Increase VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Yard Waste, Brush, and Excess Refuse Containers Schedule 1 Quantities and Unit Costs Assumptions Arc Refuse Contract 8/1/94 - 7/30/" Year I Year 2 $1.35 1$1.43 $1.52 $.56 $.59 $.63 M- $.71 1659000 162,500 162,500 160,000 1603,000 72$000 74,000 761,000 789,000 80,000 35,000 32p500 32,500 301,000 301,000 200$000 1959,000 195,000 1901,000 190,000 $1.23 $1.29 $1.35 1$1.43 $1.52 $.56 $.59 $.63 $.67 $.71 $.55 $.60 $.65 $.69 $.73 $.47 $.50 $.55 $.58 $.62 $1.25 $1.40 $1.40 $1.55 $1.55 $1.20 $1.26 $1.32 $1.40 $1.48 .05 .14 .08 .15 .07 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Net Costs to the Village Village Sells Stickers vs Contractor Sells Stickers Schedule 2 Yew 1 wear 2 Year 4 Year Villm Sells Stifle s Yard Waste $ 202,950 $ 209,625 $ 219,375 $ 228,800 $ 236,800 Brush (Unit Fee) 881,550 951,450 102,60{') 1151,550 1211,600 Refuse Containers 191,250 191,500 21,125 201,700 21,900 Tipping Fees 161,450 162250 17,875 179400 181,600 Supplies & Commissions 15,60015,200 15,200 $ 343,200 $ 356,425 $ 376,575 $ 397,650 $ 414,100 Less Sticker Revenue 273, (273, 2(224.5 Net Costs S 93 LLju4251 _ 119 C0RU q m 31 -1 i I Stickers Brush (Monthly Fee) $ 9Ot2OO $ 951,050 $ 101,500 $ 107,950 $1171600 Tipping Fees 4 -AL 16.=,, 17 $1061,650 $111,1300 $119375 $ 125,350 $1361,200 Less Sticker Fees 7 - _ Net Costs S 2§66501, MAINT Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 2271994 RE: SOLID WASTE CONTRACT EXTENSION As a follow-up to the April I memo outlining Public Works" recommendation to award the residential solid waste contract I would once again like to address the Village's opportunity for entering into an extended five (5) year contract with ARC Disposal. The attached graphs demonstrate the financial benefits to the Village under a five year contract. TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION COSTS - FIVE YEAR A comparison of bid prices illustrates that the cost to the Village at year five (5) is less than the next lowest bidders' first year pricing. A SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING CURBSIDE COLLECTION/TRANSPORTATION A comparison of six (6) suburban communities illustrates the Village's fee for solid waste senvices during years four and five would be less than the current solid waste fees for the communities surveyed. In addition'. ARC Disposal will extend year five (5) of the contract an additional nine (9) months with no cost *increase. The extension would allow for the Village's solid waste contract to coincide with the Village's fiscal year. Based on these cost comparisons, it remains the Public Works Department's recommendation to enter into a five (5) year contract under the following terms and conditions. The unit price increase for years four and five will be based on the percentage change in the C.P.I or P.P.I. index with a low of 4.5% and a cap of 7.5%. '11C increase shall be based on the perc-entage change in the index for the pnior tvvelve (12) inonths ending July 3 1. Year five 5') of the contra.et to be extended an additonal nine. (9) months xvitbout a cost increase. $4,000,000 $3,750,000 $3,500,000 $3,250,000 $3,000,000 $2,750,000 $2,500,000 $2,250,000 $2,000,000 $1,750,000 $1,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,000,000 Total Refuse Collection Costs - Five Year Modified Volume -Based Single/Multifamily Combined Totals ARC Disposal Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot BFI ARC Disposal Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot BF1 Year 1 $1,244,411 $1,845,857 $1,901,596 $2,165,021 $2,408,231 $2,477,158 $ 3,082,M Year 2 1,322,980 1,973,365 1,996,583 2,230,183 2,482,982 2,579,677 3,203,937 Year 3 1,407,510 2,109,943 2,097,011 2,297,374 2,561,522 2,685,796 3,331,938 Year 4 1,506,036 2,257,639 2,243,802 2,458,881 2,740,829 2,873,801 3,565,174 Year 5 1,611,458 2,415,673 2,400,868 2,631,003 2,932,687 3,074,967 3,814,736 Total $7,092,395 $ 10,602,477 $ 10,639,860 $ 11,782,461 $ 13,126,250 $ 13,691,399 $ 16,997,874 Costs shown above include the following: Modified volume -based single-family refuse services including recycling Additional single-family containers Multifamily refuse services including recycling Yard material collection & disposal services Years 4 & 5 are based on an annual =ncrease of 7 % Note: There are no tipping fees included for refuse. VJL [SWBID94.XLS] 4/22/94 * Year I * Year 2 * Year 3 IlYear 4 RRYear 5 - ----------------------- .. . ..... . . ......... Solid Waste/Recycling Curbside Collection/Transportation Per UniVPer Month 1994-1995 Cost Comparison $12,00 . . ..... . . ..... . . . ........ . . . . . . ..... $10.00 . . . .......... . $ 8.00 $6.00 . . ........ Y $4,00 y e a r $2.00 r $0.00, Mt, Prospect Northbrook Morton Grove Wilmette Wheeling Palatine Elk Grove . ................ -- ......... . . 0 Modified I 11 unlimited I ................. 90-dified A41', PwVect $4.95/6.41 Northbrook Morton Grove Wilmette N/A $7.78 N/A VW16-ehr! paiatine N/A N/A Elk G rove N/A Unlimited . . ...................... N/A $6.75 N/A $8.26 $8.74 $10.00 $10.48 CommUn-ity ML Prospect uril't Cost $4.95/5.28 contrlct Contr,-7,ict Tef-r-,,s&r-:7xr,"Ination bid pending Cufrent ARC Contrwt DVe pending Northbrook 6.75 negotiated annual increases BFI 2000 (non-SWANCC) from 4,25% to 8.48% Morton Grove 7.78 negotiated cost of living increase Groot 1997 (average 30%) Wilmette 8.26 negotiated 80% of CPI BFI 1996 Wheeling 8.74 negotiated CPI: hauler must Waste Mtg. 1996 justify increase in labor/operating costs Palatine 10.00 negotiated CPI: 7.5% cap BFI 1998 (labor/equipment/fuel) Elk Grove 10.48 pending pending Waste Mtg. 1994 No tipping fees included. Year 4 & 5 costs are based on an annual Increase of 7%. VJL [SWBID94.XLS]Graphics VILLAGE Of MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Jannis, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Directbf;�� DATE: April 22, 1994 SUBJECT: Extension of the Solid Waste Contract for an Additional Two Years Included im thenewsofifid waste contract is a provision for extending the contract two additional years (yem, 4 land 5),wifth the mutual agreement of,'b0th Parties- We eXPMS`SW Ourmterest in extending the contrwt becauseArc'sbase charges for the first year were 33 % less dw the secondlowest bidder and 24�% lower f year 3 than, the second lowest bidder's Charges for Year L Under the3e circumstances, the extension of the contract to years 4 and 5 would result in unit charges that would be 12 % to 20% lower than the second lowest bidder's charges for the first, year. We think extending the contract would be a real advantage for the Village because it would allow the Village to lock in the excellent bid prices for the extended period. The estimated charges for years 4 and 5 would also be lower than the amounts currently charged to six neig hbozing communities. For example, Arc's, maximum charge in year 4 would be 17 % lower than the amount Northbrook is currentlypaying i ,P andlin year 5' it wouldbe at least 4% lower than, the amount Northbrookiscurrend, y paying, (Northbrook has the lowest chargeof any of the smiother communities surveyed.) Additionally, Northbrook has an clause which would increase their fee by at least 18 % in year 4 and 23 % in year 5. our compar, wns, with other communities only include the charges for single-family units. However, one of the elements of Mount Prospect's contract is a charge for multi -family units. Arc's fee for multi -family units in year I is 64 % less than the second lowest bid. For the fifth year, the maximum increase would still be 52 % lower than the second lowest bid for year 1. This means that the maximum charges to the Village, in year 5 would be $163,744 lower than the second lowest bid in year 1. This is a significant savings. When we expressed our interest in extending the contract, Arc's first proposal was a fixed unit charge that amounted to a 7.5 % increase in year 4, and 8.3 % iin, year 5. We then countered with an increaw pegged to the CPI with a ceiling of 7-1/2% and a floor of 4-1/2%. This would, provide anupside protection to the Vie and a downside protection, to Arc. This seemed like a reasonable compromise for both the Vie and for Arc Disposal. At the Village Board meeting, Trustee Corcoran suggested that we look at a composite index rather than the CPI. A composite index would be a weighted index based upon a labor component, an equipment component and a fuel component. When we discussed this with Arc Disposal, they were Michael E. Jannis Page 2 Extension of the Solid Waste Contract for an Additional Two Years originally open to it, but later responded, that we were making it too complicated. It appears like they do not have the specifics readily available and they are concerned with administering the various factors on a timely basis in the future. I Trustee Corcoran supplied us with a number of indices and we obtained others from the Library. There are dozens of indices available to choose from in addition to the CPI. My own evaluation is that a composite index or an industry specific index would be more accurate, but this factor is not as critical when a floor and a ceiling are included. For example, from 1981 through 1993 the Consumer Price Index (CPI) exceeded the ceiling once and was below the floor 10 times. 'Mere were only two years '(1989 and 1990) that it was within the range of 4-1/2% and 7-1/2%. A schedule of the CPI Brom 1971 through 1993 is ached. One of the other common indices that is available is the Producer Price Index, or PPI. This index is a composite index, but it does not include the food component or the housing component. When we suggested this index to Arc Disposal, they agreed that they could accept it as long as we included the floor of 4-1/2 % and the ceiling of 7-1/2 %. This index is readily available and is commonly used. Because of the excellent prices contained in the new Arc Disposal contrart, I believe it is in the Village's best interest to extend the contract for years 4 and 5. Also, because of the availability of information and the simplicity of administration I think the PPI Index would be rophate to use for the increases for years 4 and 5. Enc CONSUMER PRICE INDEX All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) , 1982-1984 = 100 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics How to figure the percentage increase between any two months: Subtract the index for the earlier month from the later month. Divide that number by the index for the earlier month. And then multiply by 100 by moving the decimal two places to the right. PERCENT INCREASE YEAR Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep, Oct. Nov. Dec. DEC. -DEC. 1971 39.8 39.9 40.0 40.1 40.3 40.6 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.9 40.9 41*1 3.3 1972 41.1 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 41*7 41.9 42.0 42.1 42.3 42.4 42.5 3.4 1973 42.6 42.9 43.3 43.6 43.9 44.2 44.3 45.1 45.2 -45.6 45.9 46.2 8.7 1974 46.6 47.2 47.8 48.0 48.6 49*0 49.4 50.0 50.6 51.1 51.5 51.9 12.3 1975 52.1 52.5 52.7 52.9 53.2 53.6 54.2 54.3 54.6 54.9 55.3 55.5 6.9 1976 55.6 55.8 55.9 56.1 56.5 56.8 57.1 57.4 57.6 57.9 58.0 58.2 4.9 1977 58.5 59.1 59.5 60.0 60.3 60.7 61.0 61.2 61.4 61.6 61.9 62.1 6.7 1978 62,5 62.9 63.4 63.9 64.5 65.2 65.7 66.0 66,.5 67.1 67.4 67.7 9.0 1979 68.3 69.1 69.8 70.6 71.5 72.3 73.1 73.8 74.6 75.2 75.9 9 76 .7 13.3 1.980 77.8 78.9 80.1 81.0 81.8 82.7 82.7 83.3 84.0 84.8 85.5 86.3 12.5 1981 87.0 97.9 88.5 89.1 89.8 90.6 91.6 92.3 93.2 93.4 93.7 94.0 8.9 1982 94.3 94.6 94.5 94.9 95.8 97.0 97.5 97.7 97.9 98.2 98.0 97.6 3.8 1983 97.8 97.9 97.9 98.6 99.2 99.5 99.9 100.2 100.7 101.0 101.2 101.3 3.8 1984 101.9 102.4 102.6 103.1 103.4 103.7 104.1 104.5 105.0 105.3 105.3 105.3 3.9 1985 105.5 1U6.0 106.4 106.9 107.3 107.6 107.8 108.0 108.3 108.7 109.0 109.3 3.8 1986 109.6 109.3 108.8 108.6 108.9 109.5 109.5 109.7 110.2 110*3 110.4 110.5 1.1 1987 111.2 111.6 112.1 112.7 113.1 113.5 -113.8 114.4 115.0 115.3 115.4 115.4 4.4 1988 115.7 116.0 116.5 117.1 117.5 118.0 118.5 119.0 119.8 120.2 120.3 120.5 4.4 1989 121.1 121.6 122.3 123.1 123.8 124.1 124.4 124.6 125.0 125*6 125.9 126.1 4.6 1990 127.4 128.0 128.7 128.9 129.2 129.9 130.4 131.6 132.7 133*5 133.8 133.8 6.1 1991 134.6 134.8 135.0 135.2 135.6 136.0 136.2 136.6 137.2 137.4 137.8 137.9 3.1 1992 138.1 138.6 139.3 139.5 139.7 140.2 140.5 140.9 141.3 141*8 142.0 141.9 2.9 1993 142.6 143.1 143.6 144.0 144.2 144.4 144.4 144.8 145.1 145.7 145.8 145.8 2.7 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To ; Michael Janonis, Village Manager From ; Bob Roe l s, Environmental Health Coordinator Date: April 19, 1994 Re ; BOCA PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE I have attached a summary of the staff and Visions Housing Committee recommendations and comments for consideration at the Committee of The Whole Meeting on April 26, 1994. We have incorporated suggestions when there was agreement between staff and the committee. I have provided the comments from the committee, and listed staff's recommendation when there was disagreement. A strong effort has been made to keep the number of amendments to the BOCA code to a minimum. Recommendations to amend the code were made 1) as a matter of housekeeping to be consistent with Village Codes, 2) avoid duplication, and 3) to address specific problems not addressed by the BOCA code. The outstanding issue to be decided by the Village Board is the composition and operation of the appeals board. An appeals board reviews the interpretation of the code by the Code official. There are no fines or penalties for an appeal. There could be an application fee. An appeals board composed of persons representing apartment building owners, managers, tenants, and single family residents may be a positive resource for continuing input into the program. It may also be a benefit for a person to appear before their peers. The disadvantages of an appeals board are listed below: 1) The appeals board may allow persons to delay the correction of violations. 2) The appeals board may add another layer to the bureaucracy. 3) The appeals board may be more cumbersome, and time consuming for staff. The alternative would be to use the appeal process similar to the building code. Appeals would be directed to the Director of Inspection Services, and may eventually reach the Village Manager and Village Board levels. Through this process a number of suggestions and comments that could not be incorporated into these recommended code changes were made by members of the Visions Housing Committee. I have listed these suggestions below: 1. The use of reinspection fees to encourage compliance. 2. A shopping cart ordinance is desired. Lisa Angell of Public Works has already compiled sample ordinances from several communities. 3. A standard lease be required. 4. Tenants are required to list all occupants on the lease. The owner and/or manager is required to obtain the information from the tenants. 5. Require occupancy limits as a rider on lease. 6. Prohibit working on cars on public streets. 7. An administrative hearing board be implemented. A administrative hearing board would replace the court system. There is strong support for an administrative hearing board. This is under consideration, but would require additional clerical staff to manage the records. At present every effort is being made to make our enforcement procedures and the court system work effectively. Members of the Visions Housing Committee have started a court watch. Attorney Buzz Hill has prepared a draft ordinance if a decision to pursue this route is made. 8. The occupancy code is desired to give owners a minimum standard for the maximum number of tenants. Most owners would comply if there was a standard. Enforcement of the Occupancy Code will be difficult, but is strongly desired. 9. Enforcement of drinking laws in common areas of the building such as the laundry facility. 10. Strong support for strict enforcement of the Housing Code. 11. Requiring screened garbage enclosures. 12. Restrict Zoning of apartments in the south end of Mount Prespect. 13. Use the media to publicize the problems in the area. Not just Mount Prospect. Many of these items would best be implemented in the Tenant/Landlord Ordinance. we will be approaching the Board in the near future to address the items listed above. Many members of the Visions Housing Committee expressed their strong desire to work on projects that will help. Some ideas from other communities that could be implemented are listed below. 1. A professionally printed and illustrated guide on how to comply with the Property Maintenance code in several languages. 2. A handout on "How to be a Good Neighbor" in several languages. 3. A seminar or class on how to maintain your property. 4. A landlord training school similar to driving school for traffic violators. BR's Att. cc: Chuck Bencic, Director of Inspection Services File MINUTES OF VISIONS GROUP HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING 2-28-94 Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TOO: 708 / 392-6064 A meeting of the Visions Group Housing Committee was held 2-28-94 at the Council Room of the Senior Citizen Center. The meeting began at 7:15 P.M. An attendance list is attached. The purpose of the meeting was to give a overview of the 1990 BOCA Property Maintenance Code which Village Staff is recommending the Village Board adopt. Village Manager Michael Janonis gave a overview of what the meeting was for and indicated there would be two (2) additional meetings to go into more detail of the code. Frank Krupa gave a history of our existing Property Maintenance Code and reason why staff feels the BOCA Property Maintenance Code would better serve the Village and the property owners. Bob Roels went through the staff comments, proposed revisions and corrections on the code. Comments by those in attendance included: 1) On Section PM 301.8 - Motor Vehicles - the question was raised as to the length of time - 30 days - it takes to remove a vehicle. Mike Janonis said he thought it had something to do with legal regulations. We will check with the Police Chief. 2) Question was asked on Village enforcement of doing vehicle maintenance on Public R.O.W. Property owner does not allow mechanical work on private property so residents take car out to street to do work. Does Village code cover this activity? 3) Graffiti ordinance requires removal of graffiti in 30 days. Owners think this is too long. Suggest removing ASAP. Check with Chief Pavlock on this ordinance as it was suggested by him, GERALD L FARLEY TRUSTINS GEOPGA A. CLOWES TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN FOCHAR0 N. HENORICKS PAUL WIM HOEFEAT Village of Mount Prospect MICHAELE W SKOWRON 1AVANA K. WRAS VtUA104 MAXIA"'11 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAR E JANONIS V1UAW'rwUX'k CAPAX A. RELM MINUTES OF VISIONS GROUP HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING 2-28-94 Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TOO: 708 / 392-6064 A meeting of the Visions Group Housing Committee was held 2-28-94 at the Council Room of the Senior Citizen Center. The meeting began at 7:15 P.M. An attendance list is attached. The purpose of the meeting was to give a overview of the 1990 BOCA Property Maintenance Code which Village Staff is recommending the Village Board adopt. Village Manager Michael Janonis gave a overview of what the meeting was for and indicated there would be two (2) additional meetings to go into more detail of the code. Frank Krupa gave a history of our existing Property Maintenance Code and reason why staff feels the BOCA Property Maintenance Code would better serve the Village and the property owners. Bob Roels went through the staff comments, proposed revisions and corrections on the code. Comments by those in attendance included: 1) On Section PM 301.8 - Motor Vehicles - the question was raised as to the length of time - 30 days - it takes to remove a vehicle. Mike Janonis said he thought it had something to do with legal regulations. We will check with the Police Chief. 2) Question was asked on Village enforcement of doing vehicle maintenance on Public R.O.W. Property owner does not allow mechanical work on private property so residents take car out to street to do work. Does Village code cover this activity? 3) Graffiti ordinance requires removal of graffiti in 30 days. Owners think this is too long. Suggest removing ASAP. Check with Chief Pavlock on this ordinance as it was suggested by him, 4) Sec. PM 401 .2 - requires hallways and stairways to be lit at all times with a 60 watt bulb for every 200 sq. ft. Request was made to consider natural lighting and/or light sensors which would automatically turn lights on. Mike Janonis explained this could be a problem for inspectors if hallway is dark trying to determine if sensor is bad or light bulbs are burned out. We will consider suggestion. 5) Question asked on possibility of yellow flashing warning devices be installed at entrance to Rec-Plex. Staff will contact County Highway Department for information. Several of the single family homeowners asked what they could do to help. Mr. Janonis gave information on programs that have been used in the past, such as neighborhood watch groups and court room watch groups. This will be discussed further in our next two meetings. Mr. Janonis also discussed occupancy regulations. The Village Attorney will attend a meeting - probably the March 28 committee meeting to discuss the, legal ramifications of occupancy ordinances. Chuck Bencic informed the property owners the Cook County Highway Department speed study on Dempster Street has been completed and their report should be available in the next couple of weeks. He al so requested the property owners notify the Village of the meeting dates and locations of the new master association they have formed. The next meeting will be March 14, 1994, 7:00 P.M., at the Police and Fire Building Conference Room. CB: rm Attach. c Nichael Janonis, Village Manager Bob Roel s, Environmental Health Coordinator Frank Krupa, Inspector File MAYOR GERALD L A&ALEY TRUSIM1116 GEORGE A. CLOWES TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN RICHARD N HENDRICKS PAUL WM. HOEFERT Village T ly Mount Tr T ct MIC HAELE W., SKOWRON IRVANA K. WILKS VILLA12 atR 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE CLINK CAROL A. FIELDS Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TDD: 708 / 392-6064 MINUTES OF VISIONS GROUP HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING 3-14-94 A meeting of the Visions Group Housing Committee was held on March 14, 1994 at the Police and Fire Building Conference Room. The purpose of the Meeting was to discuss the recommended changes to the BOCA Property Maintenance Code in detail, and have the Village attorney review the problems with the enforcement of Occupancy Codes. Chuck Bencic presented the recommended changes in Chapter 1. Bob Roels presented the recommended changes in Chapters 2, and 3. Frank Krupa presented Chapter 4. Questions, comments and recommendations were accepted as each item was discussed. The Village Attorney, Buzz Hill presented the enforcement problems of an occupancy code. The following is a summary of the comments and recommendations: 1. Add ''are" prior to clean and sanitary to Code Section PM 103.4. 2. Code Section PM 104.10 the question of who is liable was raised. The commentary explained that the Village would be responsible for the defense. The Village Attorney explained that as long as the Village Staff was acting in good faith no one is liable. 3. PM 106.6 - Do we have capability of checking for outstanding violations? Yes 4. PM 108.5 - It was suggested that we call the owner first prior to making repairs. 5. PM 109.2 - Service by mail limits the maximum fine per day to $500/day. 6. Appeals - Peer pressure may benefit appeal process. - Could be more cumbersome. - May allow persons to use the system to delay correction of violations. - May be more effective if reviewed by peers. - Appeals process does not levy fines. - May add another layer to the bureaucracy. 7. The Property Code does address tenant and owners responlsibiLities- 8. The requirement for a standard lease corm would be he.Apful to address occupancy problems, and tenant and owner responsibilities. 9. PM 301.3 Suggestions that section also include parking lot striping, curb stops, speed bumps, and stop signs. n 10. PM 302.11 Locks should be required on windows if not already required. 11. RM 401.2 Lights required in common hallways, and stairways. Provisions for natural lighting, the use of timers, or equivalent amount of light or wattage should be added. 12. An administrative hearing board may be a more effective enforcement body than housing court. 13. Court watches may make housing court more effective. 14. Reinspection fees will also improve compliance. 15. The occupancy code is desired to give owners a minimum standard for the maximum number of tenants. Most owners would comply if there was a standard. A general discussion of enforcement and penalties developed. An administrative hearing board that can levy penalties is an alternative to the court process. The next meeting is March 28, 1994, 7:00 P.M., at the Police and Fire Building Conference Room. Bob BR: Attach. c 0 Michael Janonis, Village Manager Chuck Bencic, Director of Inspection Services Frank Krupa, Inspector File MAYOR GERALD L, FARLEY TRUSTEES GEORGE A, CLOWES TIMOTHY J CORCORAN RICHARD N, HENDRICKS PAUL WM, HOEFERT MICHAELE W SKOWRON Villw~e of Mount Prospect IRVANA K, WILKS VILLAGE MANAGER 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAEL E, JANONIS VILLAGE CLERK CAROL FIELDS Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 MINUTES OF VISIONS GROUP TDO: 708 / 392-6064 HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING 3-28-94 A meeting of the Visions Group Housing Committee was held on March 28, 1994 at the Police and Fire Building Conference Room. The purpose of the Meeting was to discuss the recommended changes to the BOCA Property Maintenance Code in detail, and collect all comments on the recommended code changes. Bob Roels informed the committee that the Village Manager has scheduled a meeting with the Chief Judge in early May. A list of the Housing Court dates for the reminder of the year was distributed for interested members to attend. Frank Krupa presented the recommended changes in Chapter 5 and 6. Bob Roels presented the recommended changes in Chapters 7, 8, and 9. Questions, comments and recommendations were accepted as each item was discussed. Oral and written comments were accepted from the committee on the entire code. The following is a summary of the comments and recommendations: 1. Reduce the time limit to remove graffiti from 30 days to a much shorter time period. Add section 21-1306-F of the Village Code which requires the removal of graffiti. The code requiring the removal of graffiti is in the existing Village Property Maintenance Code and needs to be included in this code change. 2. A shopping cart ordinance is desired. Lisa Angell of Public Works has already compiled sample ordinances from several communities. 3. A standard lease be required. 4. All occupants are required to be listed on the lease. The owner, and manager is required to obtain the information from the tenants. 5. Require occupancy limits as a rider on lease. 6. An administrative hearing board be implemented. A administrative hearing board would replace the court system. There is strong support for administrative hearing board. This is under consideration, but would require additional clerical staff to manage the records. At present every effort is being made to make our enforcement procedures and the court system work effectively. Members of the Visions Housing Committee have started a court watch. Attorney Buzz Hill has prepared a draft ordinance if a decision to pursue this route is made. 7. The occupancy code is desired to give owners a minimum standard for the maximum number of tenants. Most owners would comply if there was a standard. Enforcement of the Occupancy Code will be difficult, but is strongly desired. 8. Enforcement of drinking laws in common areas of the building such as the laundry facility. 9. Strong support for strict enforcement of the Housing Code. 10. Require screened garbage enclosures. 11. Restrict Zoning of apartments in the south end of Mount Prospect. 12. Use the media to publicize the problems in the area. Not just Mount Prospect. 13. The policy on the removal of abandoned and inoperable autos by the Village, and enforcement of the code prohibiting the abandoned, and inoperable autos on property, be reviewed. Many members of the Visions Housing Committee expressed there strong desire to work on projects that will help. Some ideas discussed that other communities have implemented are listed below. 1. A professionally printed and illustrated guide on how to comply with the Property Maintenance Code in several languages. 2. A handout on "How to be a Good Neighbor" in several languages. 3. A seminar or class on how to maintain your property. 4. A landlord training school similar to driving school for traffic violators. Bob BR: Attach. c: Michael Janonis, Village Manager Chuck 8encic, Director of Inspection Services Frank Krupa, Inspector File Conrad May 410 S. Can-Dota Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 January 7, 1994 Distrubution: Mr. Charles Bensek, Mr. Mike Janonis, Mr. Robert Roels, Trustee Irvana Wilks Dear Sir or Madam, This memo is to communicate my thought that occured after the December 30th. 1993 meeting held at the village hall. 1. THE OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THEIR PROPERTIES IN A RESPECTABLE MANNER (CLEAN & REPAIRED). 2. THE VILLAGE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODES AND FOR TAKING LIGHTING QUICK & SEVERE ACTION TOWARDS THE NEGLECTFUL & SLOPPY OWNERS. 3. INSPECTORS ARE TO BE ASSIGNED EXCLUSIVELY FOR MULTI- FAMILY BUILDING INSPECTIONS & ENFORCEMENT. 4. THIS PROGRAM IS TO BE FUNDED THRU FINES TOWARDS THE NEGLECTFUL OWNERS AND AN ANNUAL FEE CHARGED TO ALL APARTMENTS. 5. BOCA OCCUPANCY CODES MUST BE INSTITUTED. LEASES ARE TO CLEARLY STATE THE NAMES OF THE OCCUPANTS AND THE BOCA OCCUPANCY LIMITS FOR THAT APARTMENT. THE VILLAGE IS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER FOR ANY OCCUPANCY VIOLATIONS. 6. OWNERS MUST BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT SCREENING HIS\HER TENANTS WHO LATER CAUSE PROBLEMS. The problem buildings are predominantly owned by wealthy investors and managed by so called "professional" management companies; the quality buildings are primarily owned by blue collar workers and they are the building managers. It costs the village about $10,000 per year per building to have daily police visits to some of the problem buildings. Ideally, the owner of the problem building should be charged for not screening his tenants. The problem buildings are making it more difficult for the quality buildings to attract and retain quality tenents. Quality people do not want to live in a complex where there are daily police calls, disrespectful people, congregations of people, curtains blowing out the windows, drug dealings and junk cars. The inspection program that I like would have the following characteristics: 1. Annual inspection of outside, common interior areas and 1 apartment (for a six flat) selected at ramdom. 2. Reinspection for correction of code violations. If the codes have not been satisfactorily corrected, then a ticket would be issued on the spot. 3. All additional visits beyond step 2 would be billed at $50 per visit for the village's time. 4. Heavy fines would be levied. In severe cases, $500 per would be suitable. 5. Although collection is anticipated to be a problem, liens should be filed after 60 days of invoicing. A lien would present problems to the owner when the building is refinanced or an equity loan is obtained. 6. Eyeball each complex once a month for any code violations. 7. The village would run credit reports for a nominal fee. The credit report is an excellent and low cost way to screen problem applicants. People who have been irresponsible with their credit generally are problem people. 8. The village can hire two additional inspectors. $180,000 should more than adequately cover the costs of the program (wages, health & workman's comp. insurances, pension, auto, legal fees, court costs, and other overhead items). Since there are 6,000 rental units, a $30 per apartment annual fee can be charged. Additional revenues would also be generated frc.-., fines. The village will have to be so strict as to discourage the irresponsible management companies and owners from having property in Mt. Prospect. The more buildings that are acquired by irresponsible owners and management companies, the worse the problem will become. Also a program that would encourage owner occupied 6 flats should be instituted. The program can have the following characteristics: 1. The owner puts down 20% instead of 30% percent and the village would guarantee the other 105-5. 2. The owner would be required to occupy the building for 5 years. During this period he would learn by trial & error. If after this 5 year period he/she moves, then he/she already knows how to properly run a building and should not have a problem building. 3 The owner and/or spouce must own 100% of the building. No partnerships! 4. Only one 6 flat per owner under this program. 5. The program must be structured that ranagement companies can not get involved. -2- Mr. Roels later asked me the question "What can Mt. Prospect do to make the area attractive to tenants". Upon thinking, I have the following comments: 1,0, Strict enforcements of codes to have quality buildings. Quality people will not rent a sloppy apartment. A major complaint from people is that the vast majority of apartments are pig sties. These pig sties will only attract problem people. 2 A number of single and divorced women want a safe complex. They will never rent in a complex where there is poor lighting, junk cars and scummy looking people congregating in groups. 3. Mt. Prospect presently has a lot going for it. The following are available within a close driving distance: a. Shopping (Dominicks, Jewel, White Hen, Randhurst, Woodfield, cleaners, auto repairs, gas stations), b. Recreation (park district facilities, Busse Woods, movie theaters, bowling, Rosemont Horizon Stadium), c. Doctors, hospitals and drug stores, d. Education (grade schools, Dist. 214, Roosevelt Univ., Harper College) , e. Close to the tollway, train station and airport (a plus). Please note that I am speaking only for myself and do not represent any other person or group. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached after 5:30 at 259-6467. Very truly yours, -3- Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: MAYOR FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: TRUSTEE GEORGE A. CLOWES DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1994 SUBJECT: INSPECTION TOUR OF SELECTED APARTMENT BUILDINGS Following up on Trustee Wilks' suggestion, I asked Village Inspector Frank Krupa to take me on a brief Inspection tour of selected apartment buildings in the Village, which he did on Thursday, January 28, 1994, Since some Trustees are not available during the day for such tours, I have noted my observations and made some preliminary suggestions,,, Relative to other Cook County communities, Mount Prospect has a large number of apartments (61058 - 1980 census). In the Northwest suburbs, only Schaumburg has more (6,733); Arlington Heights has fewer (5,697), as does Des Plaines (4,324). According to Mr. Krupa, most Mount Prospect landlords own only one building. A few landlords, including some large institutions, own several buildings. Most landlords do not live in their buildings. There is not much turnover in building owners. Because of time restrictions, we visited only buildings on the south side of the Village. At my request, we visited only one well-managed building and spent most of our time viewing 10-2,0 1 buildings with miscellaneous problems. My comments do not apply to all apartment buildings, only the problem sample I visited. The comments refer only to common areas and exteriors. I!R,Q Lgg,k_Qf gec',grily You could just walk right into many buildings; often,, buildings did not have working intercom/buzzer devices, and some that did have intercoms did not have lists of tenants to go with them; many had broken entry door locks/door frames or entry doors jammed open; lack of light in hallways; padlocks on storage lockers had been broken or had the door jimmied open. Lack offlre saf - Broken smoke detectors; smoke detectors that needed new batteries; unlit Exit signs; large expanse of drywall not replaced in basement after flood damage. Lagk Qf safety. Torn stair carpet not replaced /repaired; handrail on stairs too low; danger from falling debris from flaking of outside brickwork; overhead hot water pipes without strapping; holes in exterior walls where laundry dryer exhaust should go (rodent access). Lack of,cl ,, nlingss. Accumulation of dust and cobwebs; accumulated dirt on carpets, walls, and doors; smell of urine in one hallway; feces on one wall; garbage littered around dumpsters. Lac,h g-f-corrigiLve m alntgng : Broken/missing tiles in hallways and laundry rooms; snow and ice not removed from sidewalks around buildings, from steps, or from entranceways; obscene graffiti not removed from walls in storage locker area; holes smashed in drywall not repaired, or repaired and not taped/painted (in corridors, storage locker areas, and laundry rooms); covers missing from baseboard heaters in hallways; broken/loose screens; shopping carts in parking lots; parking lots not snow -ploughed. INSPECTION TOUR OF SELECTED APARTMENT BUILDINGS Llik, Neglect of mortar/brickwork repairs; lack of repair of broken fencing around garbage dumpsters; broken wash machines and dryers not replaced; broken windows not replaced; ill-fitting doors not replaced or repaired; broken shrubs and trees not replaced; swimming pool filled in rather than being repaired or replaced to meet code. L f g,ggility in it in m inIgngingg: Paint drips on carpets and railings; holes in drywall not repaired in workmanlike manner; paint daubed along edges of carpeting (lack of masking tape); smearing of Sackrete on wall in attempt to repair mortar on outside brickwork. Lack of control of ,tenants: Drying of laundry on railings in hallway, causing water damage to carpet and staining walls; holes smashed in drywall in hallways; breaking of locks on doors; breaking of doors and glass panels in doors; money stolen from washers and dryers (reportedly); graffiti on walls; dirt tracked into building; broken windows; broken screens; tires stored on balcony; lack of landlord access to rental unit without tenant permission, despite non-payment of rent and indications of damage to interior of apartment; some units appear to have multiple families residing in them. L =*, * Apparently no agreed maintenance standards among building owners in the same complex --- or lack of enforcement of such standards. For example, inconsistent exterior paint colors, unsightly exterior brickwork maintenance, names on mailboxes apparently changed/added at will by tenants. ahggggg ,Qf m,C ifttgna,psg Ila - Given the amount of maintenance /cleanup work there was to do, __ _ ff the number of maintenance staff appeared inadequate. Limited management expertiseZstaff support. Given the large number of units in some complexes, together with the number of ongoing maintenance and "tenant" problems., the management expertise and support staff appeared inadequate. INITIAL THOUQHTS: Criminal damagg I j2rJy Landlord should be able to inspect the unit of a tenant, with or without cause; I am surprised that this is not already written into leases. However, Village staff should not be permitted to enter apartment units unless (a) requested by the tenant or the landlord, or (b) if there is good reason to believe criminal property damage has occurred or will occur, or (c) if there is a public health/safety problem. The Village should help landlords quickly remove any tenant who has caused criminal damage to the interior of an apartment or who refuses to control for bugs/rodents. [How do we ensure that it is the tenant at fault and not an unscrupulous landlord?] Tgngnt rgal2gnsibill"Ji , gj: Tenants must be reminded on a regular basis of their responsibilities for 9 property maintenance/keeping their children under control. [Any effective penalties?] Qwng,rr.I n_aib1JiJies* As part of the apartment licensing process, owners should agree to maintain their property per current Village code. [Licensing frequency? Enforcement?] Qwngg, gp_qp&,[2JioD, Landlords are often antagonistic when they receive inspection reports on violations. One way to develop a more cooperative attitude is the following: Before going on an inspection, send an incident report sheet to the landlord, tell them when you'll be coming, and ask them to fill out the form with a list of items they think need to be fixed and a timeframe to fix them in. Then when the inspector goes out, they can compare the two lists and develop a joint signed agreement on what needs to be done by when. INSPECTION TOUR OF SELECTED APARTMENT BUILDINGS COMMENTS The following comments are on the goals of the Mount Prospect Rental Property Owners Association (delivered to Village on 12-21-93). g,aDartmen1Jn5=ti!2,n fee.,- The apartment fee is = what puts Mount Prospect at a disadvantage in attracting desirable tenants. Mount Prospect attracts both desirable and undesirable tenants, but desirable tenants are not attracted to undesirable buildings. However, I would like to see a sliding scale of charges, dependent upon how much time the inspector has to spend on a particular complex. If there are minimal problems and rapid correction of the problems, then only a basic charge should apply. If there are lots of problems and continuing delays in correcting them, then a higher charge should apply. Limit C14, ns tqhealth, I S a 10 laft qygnd,,g1the tics I thought that's what we did --- although some repairs I saw would not meet an "esthetics" standard. Could we have some documentation of specific cases where so' -called "ridiculous" demands have been made by inspectors? [Or should we just move forward?] Kgggr M.Qmn!�Ijgx _t Prospe , dgwn: I have no argument with that. I also agree with developing an , _g§ occupancy standard --- one that's fair and consistent with health and safety concerns. As a government minimalist, I would prefer not to have to add more inspectors and social workers ... but if some owners don't invest some of their time (and money) in tackling problems on their own initiative, then the Village has to step in. If there's criminal activity, it's the Village's job to step in. But if there's a maintenance problem, the owners can either fix it on their own initiative, or wait until an inspector tells them to do it. Why wait? Owner, inspect thyself. 1,Jufldi,np,jjhoq1d hgvg hg11swilth nameLa_,nd maj,lboxes with toI: I agree. But why do some owners apparently need an inspector to tell them they need to do this? Or to replace sod? In ctor oE_QiLt_y '* "al atted _Mg Qff iq 1 4 Good idea, especially to use them in a positive way. This might revive certain associations that appear to exist in name only. L 'gggl, issue§ rgggrding, M112ancy 1,im,i'ls: We certainly need an attorney here. Using the condominium law to assess fees on violators is a good idea, but who bills the fee and how do they collect it if the violator doesn't give a darn? Where's the teeth? P,1g_fgaa,1g.qgl build ing ffi,,anagers_Lh _gp Q,Aql,ht gp _uraged: This is a positive way of putting it. I agree very strongly. Cone xga with ingig-mpan aggrgr gwngr,gg,n bg lqft glgng : I don't agree at all, based on the sample of buildings that I saw. If owners want to be left alone, the solution is in their hands: Maintain the buildings; put in professional building managers, evict tenants that violate rental agreements or trash apartments and common areas; and improve the screening of incoming tenants. Qwners. a§§g_qiations ,.and village wgrk ther fqr.gg. lu Q -tion: Let's do it. Hope these observations, suggestions, and comments are helpful in developing a strategy to address the problems that some of our apartment buildings/complexes have. George Clowes VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Blinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM J. LOONEY, JR, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Wqc DATE: APRIL 21, 1994 SUBJECT: DRAFT ORDINANCE: ELIMINATION OF SECOND HOUSEKEEPING UNITS Attached is a draft ordinance designed to amortize the elimination of second housekeeping units in the Village of Mount Prospect. The proposed ordinance would make all second housekeeping units illegal as of January 1, 2000. Staff has drafted this ordinance in response to concerns previously raised by the Village Board. Staff has researched Village records to determine when second housekeeping units became illegal in single family residential zoning districts. The Village adopted its first zoning ordinance on December 4, 1923. This ordinance provided for two districts; residential and industrial. The residential district permitted single family and two-family homes within the district. The Village wnended the zoning ordinance on May 2, 1944 and created six separate zoning classifications. Two of the newly created districts included the R-1 Single Family Residential District and an R-2 Two - Family Residential District. Second housekeeping units were no longer permitted within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. All existing second housekeeping units within this district became legal non -conforming uses. Therefore, all second housekeeping units constructed after May 21 1944 in a §ingle family zoning district would be considered illegal structures per the Village Code. Given this information, it is likely that the majority of second housekeeping units within the single faryffly districts are illegal. The attached draft ordinance amendment would prohibit individuals from continuing the use of all second housekeeping units as of January 1, 2000. All second housekeeping units that were established prior to 1944, and which are currently viewed as legal non -conforming uses, would become unpermitted, illegal and subject to abatement by the Village. If adopted, the time period between the date of adoption and January 1, 2000 would be known as the, amortization period. All existing legal non -conforming uses would be permitted to remain until January 1, 2000. The proposed ordinance amendment does provide for relief from the amortization period if an owner of an existing legal, non -conforming use had recently made improvements to the secondary housekeeping unit. The intent of this provision is to mitigate any potential economic hardship that the ordinance could impose on an individual. Michael E. Janonis Page 2 April 21, 1994 The roord , sues that should be discussed by the Village Board pposed imance raises, several policy is at their Comrmittee of the Whole meeting. These issues include the length of the amortization P eriod, the enforcement- method for this ordinance, the economic impact of the ordinance, etc. 'Ptease forward this memorandum and the attached draft ordinance to the Wage'Board for their I revie'w'. Staff will be available at the April 26th, Committee of the Whole meeting to, discuss this matter. BZ/caf 4/18/94 *RDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 14 OFTHE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Article III entitled "General Provisions" of Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby, further amended iby adding thereto Section 14.312 entitled "Elimination of Second Housekeeping Units"'* so that hereinafter after said Article III of Chapter ,14 shall include Section 14.312 which Section 14.312 shall be and read as follows,., Sec. 14.312. Elimination of Second Housekeeping Unilt& A. Prohibited Acts. No person shall: 1. Enter into any lease or rental agreement of any kind or nature or otherwise maintain or permit the use for living purposes, of a second housekeeping unit that was established after May 21 1944. 2. Establish, install or construct a second housekeeping unit within the corporate boundaries of the Village of Mount Prospect. 3. Subsequent to January 1, 2000 enter into any lease or rental agreement of any kind or otherwise maintain or permit the use, for living purposes, of a second housekeeping unit regardless of when the unit was established. 4. Subsequent to January 1, 2000, have or maintain any second kitchen unit within a dwelling unit. 5. Establish a second utility hook-up or separate utility meter of any kind for any second housekeeping unit. 6. Rent or lease, with or without a written agreement, for any period of time whatsoever, a second housekeeping unit in the Village of Mount Prospect without registering with the Village as set forth in paragraph C of this Section 14.312. B. Time Periods; Amortization Period. Any second housekeeping unit established subsequent to May 2, 1944 was and remains illegal, unpermitted and subject to abatement and other penalties. Any second housekeeping unit established prior to May 2, 1944. Sec. 14.312 Page 2 of 4 -1 , has previously been deemed a legal non -conforming use in the Village of Mount Prospect. As of January 1, 2000, all such units, regardless of when established, shall become unpermifted, illegal and subject to abatement and other penalties. The period of time between ;1 1994 and January 1, 2000, shall be known as the "amortization period". Each and every second housekeeping unit in the Village of Mount Prospect shall be registered with the Village Clerk not later than January 15 of each year during the amortization period on a form available from the Village Clerk. This registration shall state the name and address of the legal and beneficial owner(s), the address of the premises and the earliest date of which the registrant is aware that the premises were used as a second housekeeping unit. D. Relief from Amortization Period. If an owner of a home containing a second housekeeping unit has within the ten (10) years immediately prior to the adoption of this Section 14.310, expended monies specifically in the repair or remodeling of the unit, that owner may apply to the Village Manager for relief from the five (5) year amortization period. If the owner is able to prove by clear and convincing evidence, to the satisfaction of the Village Manager, that (1) the owner has expended the monies during the past ten (10) years immediately preceding the adoption of this Section 14.312; and (2) the potential revenues from the rent or lease of that unit have not been sufficient to recover the actual expenditures, then the Village Manager may extend the amortization period for that premises, in one (1) year increments not to exceed an additional five (5) years, so that the owner may recover such expenditures. For purposes of this Section 14.312, potential revenue is not the equivalent of actual receipts, but shall be computed according to the following formula: Number of months transpired since expenditure. x The average monthly rental charge for the premises since expenditure. Potential revenue. This relief shall be available only for those units legally established prior to May 2, 1944. E. Burden of Proof Prior to January 1, 20009 it shall be presumed that any second housekeeping unit in existence in the Village of Mount Prospect is illegal and unpermitted. Therefore, the Village may initiate any action available under the law to abate such a use or to enforce penalties against the Sec. 14.312 Page 3 of 4 use. The burden of establishing that the second housekeeping unit was in existence prior to May 2, 1944, and therefore is a legal, non- conforming use shall be on the party making the claim of a legal, non- conforming use. F. Exceptions. This Section 14.312 shall not be applicable to a Group Community Residence or a Family Community Residence as defined in Section 14.2401 of this Chapter. G. Penalty; Persons Subject to Penalty. Persons violating any portion of this Section 14.312 shall be subject to a minimum penalty of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00). Each day that the violation continues shall be considered a separate violation. Any legal or beneficial owner and any tenant or lessee shall be jointly and severally liable for any such violation. SECTION THREE: That Article XXIV entitled "Definitions" of Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended to add in proper alphabetical sequence the following definitions; so that hereinafter said Section 14.2401 shall include: "FREE AND UNLIMITED Existence of a passageway that is neither locked PHYSICAL ACCESS nor obstructed from the second housekeeping unit to the entire remainder of the dwelling unit that is intended to permit all persons on the premises to have access to the entirety of the premises. KITCHEN UNIT Any living area which contains: 1. a cooking surface; 2. a refrigeration unit; and 3. hot and cold running water in an area not used as a bathroom. SECOND HOUSEKEEPING Any living quarters, located in a single family UNIT residential zoning district that: 1. is within the walls of another dwelling unit or physically connected to a detached single family home; and 2. is held out for rent or lease to the public or a portion 'of the public; and 3. contains its own kitchen unit that is in addition to the main kitchen unit in the residence; and 4. does not have free and unlimited physical access to the remainder of the dwelling unit. Sec. 14.312 Page 4 of 4 For the purpose of this Chapter, second housekeeping units shall specifically not include: (1) ,sleeping, rooms or, separate, living, quarters which are not held out to the public for rent or lease or (2) those units which have free and unlimited physical access to the rest of the dwelling unit. " SECTION FOUR: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effective 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 1994. Gerald L. Farley Village President Carol A. Fields Village Clerk Villa, e of Mount Prospect 9 Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: APRIL 22, 1994 SUBJECT: FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA ITEMS The following is a compilation of potential Committee of the Whole discussion items proposed over the last several months by Board members or staff. Board members have indicated a desire to: (1) Determine the necessity of discussing a particular item; (2) Rank the items in order of importance so that each can be scheduled appropriately and (3) Articulate the scope and nature of the desired discussion for each item so that staff may be better able to prepare material and conduct necessary research. The following items have been raised for potential Committee of the Whole discussion: Disaster Preparedness Single -Family Conversions Carbon Monoxide Detector Ordinance Liquor Code Revision (includes Amendments to the Parental Responsibility Ordinance) Zoning/Property Maintenance Code Violation Review Assault Weapon/Gun Control (Local Action) Purchasing Policy Review BOCA Property Maintenance Code - other Landlord -Tenant Regulations Village Finance Issues Final Policy Decisions regarding Wedgewood Terrace Flood Control Project Tax Caps/Unfunded Mandates (Local Position) Some of the items which appear on the list will be discussed at the April 26 Committee of the Whole meeting. Others will require additional preparation based upon Board direction. There may also be other issues or topics which have been raised but are not contained in the list. It is anticipated that the Board will review each of the items and discuss within the context of the three factors listed above. With appropriate direction, staff can prepare each item for discussion at a future Committee of the Whole meeting. MICHA- is MEJ/rcc /16 ............... d���x���w 'GE . . .. ......... - . . .. . ............. . . .............. . ..... . . DEPUTY VILLACLERK ALL MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY TRUSTEES GEORGE A. CLOWES TIMOTHY J, CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENDRICKS PAUL WM. HOEFERT MICHAELE W. SKOWRON Village of Miount Prospec,t IFIVANA K. WILKS VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E, JANONIS 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK CAROL A. FIELDS Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TDO: 708 / 392-6064 NOTICE �IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 1994 has been cancelled. ET6 #a SAJ%W CONOCKSION VIIJAGE HALL 100 &EMERSON MOUNT PROSPECT, ILUNOIS 7:30 PAL well uy I UV 1 0 Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TOO: 708 / 392-6064 MAYOR MWS GERALD L FARLEY TRUSTEES GEORGE A. CLOWES TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENDRICKS PAUL WM. HOEFERT VoUllage of Mount, Prospect MICHAELE W. SKOWRON IRVANA K. WILKS VILLAU 14AXAM 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE CLERK CAROL A. FIELDS ET6 #a SAJ%W CONOCKSION VIIJAGE HALL 100 &EMERSON MOUNT PROSPECT, ILUNOIS 7:30 PAL well uy I UV 1 0 Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TOO: 708 / 392-6064