Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1716_001Village fn rospect 5 Mount Prospect, Illinois F'Ir . .... . INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 7 TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager FROM: David Jepson, Finance Director "Ill RE: Comparable Community Expenditures and Revenue Survey DATE: January 25, 1985 The Finance Department of the City of Park Ridge recently completed its third annual survey of budget expenditures and selected revenues from nineteen comparable communities. The two attached schedules are taken from that survey. Schedule 1 is a comparison of adjusted budget expenditures on a per capita basis and Schedule 2 shows payments that a typical family (2.9 persons) makes directly to the municipality. The survey was dated December, 1984 and was taken from 1984/85 budget amounts. In schedule 1, budget amounts have been adjusted to represent the same services in each municipality and specifically exclude Community Development Block Grant projects and Flood Control projects, From the schedule, it can be seen that Mount Prospect's expenditures per capita are the lowest of the nineteen communities and are approximately half as much as the highest community. The $427 per capita expenditures in Mount Prospect are $41 less than Des Plaines, $108 less than Arlington Heights, and some $160 less than the average of all communities. This is the third consecutive year that the Village of Mount Prospect's per capita expenditures have been the lowest of the nineteen municipalities surveyed. Schedule 2 shows the annual revenues that each municipality receives directly from a typical household. These direct payments include vehicle and dog licenses, property taxes, water and sewer charges, garbage pick-up fees (if separate from property taxes) and utility taxes. Mount Prospect ranks twelth in the nineteen communities. It is more difficult to compare direct payments in the sample communities than expenditures per capita because of the influence of other revenue sources such as sales tax. However, the comparison is worthwhile and shows the typical Mount Prospect family paying $88 less than the average of all the communities and less than half the amount of the highest two communities. We all recognize that each municipality is unique and needs and priorities vary from community to community, However, I believe the survey information demonstrates the continuing effort to provide necessary services to the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect at the lowest possible cost. DCJ/caf Atts . dule 1 COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON (1) PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE COMPARISON DECEMBER 1984 ( 1 ) Source - City of Park Ridge (2) Adjusted budget includes total City Budget including MFT, Library,, Garbage and excluding Park District, Electric Utility, Sanitary Districts, Community Development Block Grants, Bus Service, Flood Control Proceeds, Cemeteries, and Golf Courses,, (3) The budget has been increased for these cities for the amount paid by all households for scavenger service. Adjusted Expenditures Rank Muni c i p alit y� Bu 2 Is Population er Capita 1 Winnetka $109759e510 129800 $840e59 2 Naperville 40,414,971 49,9215 821e19 3 Lake Forest 119181,116 152520 720943 4 Evanston 529177,422 731306 707,91 5 Oak Park 38,1655199 54,800 696.45 6 Highland Park (3) 20,595,596 30,611 672*82 7 Schaumburg (3) 33,036,494 53,305 619.76 8 Wilmette 169754,761 28,200 594.14 9 Northbrook (3) 17s3655386 305,887 562.22 10 Arlington Heights (3) 37,476,727 709000 535.38 11 Niles 1691859770 309363 533908 12 Elmhurst 2355595740 449213 532*87 13 Deerfield 8$864s331 17,430 508.57 14 Downers Grove (3) 21s110s761 429691 494,50 15 Skokie 29,614,208 60,287 491,22 16 Glenview (3) 16,095,612 33,500 480*47 17 Des Plaines 25,905,140 55,1374 467.82 18 Park Ridge 161710,507 38,034 439.36 19 Mt. Prospect 22,459,185 52,612 426.88 MEAN $249128,1023 41,766 $586.61 ( 1 ) Source - City of Park Ridge (2) Adjusted budget includes total City Budget including MFT, Library,, Garbage and excluding Park District, Electric Utility, Sanitary Districts, Community Development Block Grants, Bus Service, Flood Control Proceeds, Cemeteries, and Golf Courses,, (3) The budget has been increased for these cities for the amount paid by all households for scavenger service. MEAN 17.21 21,42 5,61 41,96 132,39 48,38 36,46 245.64 Assumptions for 1 1 1 97s000 $12935 17,350 Sample Family Gal. Yearly EVA (1) Source - City of Park Ridge & 549.,07 2.9 persons per family COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON (1) Schedule 2 ANNUAL REVENUES RECEIVED FROM AVERAGE HOME DECEMBER 1984 Vehicle License Municipal Total Under Over Dog Garbage Water Utility Sewer Property Di rest Rank Municj6pal i 35 D.P. 35 Hope License Charge Bill Tax 0%1 Lnarge Tax Payments 1 Oak Park 304,00 30.00 10*00 01,00 167.81 96-75 50*44 590e52 975e52 2 Evanston 35.600 50*00 5900 0,00 120.63 96*75 40,20 601e52 949*10 3 Winnetka 10000 20900 10*00 0100 127.33 96.75 50,93 445o90 760-91 4 Arlington Hghts, 20eOO 20*00 5,00 105-12 242s50 0000 0*00 283.85 676,47 5 Highland Park 30.00 30*00 5*00 129w60 86.88 96e75 18000 240.664 636,87 6 Naperville 12*00 12.00 8*00 0000 105e61 96,75 186*00 196-77 617-13 7 Deerfield 25.00 25e00 5*00 46*32 146.55 0000 98.56 254e87 601.` 8 Park Ridge 23*00 23o00 5.00 0000 165.74 87e08 0000 263.20 567 * 0 9 Glenview 10,500 20*00 5,00 126*00 101985 96*75 9*70 144*01 513,631 10 Lake Forest 25.00 50*00 7e50 0000 107.63 96*75 10*76 210*45 508,09 11 Wilmette 20.00 30*00 10,600 0000 81.70 96-75 0.00 245.33 483.78 12 Mt. Prospect 15*00 15.00 5-a00 0*00 191,009 0,000 12.61 222*60 461,v30 13 Downers Grove 0,000 00-00 00,00 87.00 103.79 0100 87*30 159*62 437*71 14 Northbrook 10000 20.00 10000 106920 106.70 0000 24,25 131*34 408e49 15 Des Plaines 15-00 15.00 4*00 61,44 160981 0000 0,00 147,48 403*73 16 Skokie 10,00 10,00 8.00 0,00 114-10 0100 0,00 255*39 397,49 17 Elmhurst 12.00 12,00 2,00 51*60 91.80 0,00 70,03 151a11 390J 18 Niles 15m00 15o00 0000 0.000 133*86 58.05 0,000 122,49 344.4 19 Schaumburg 10000 10,00 2*00 84,00 159.04 0,00 33,o95 0000 298*99 MEAN 17.21 21,42 5,61 41,96 132,39 48,38 36,46 245.64 Assumptions for 1 1 1 97s000 $12935 17,350 Sample Family Gal. Yearly EVA (1) Source - City of Park Ridge & 549.,07 2.9 persons per family � � :.... .� ©, . � � .:\ ..,:. -_� /\ \�/\�\<\ �t\w%© 2}�°\\� \��m\y..>:y\ ~��� \\\\�\ � \ d \� \: `� «� ^ // ^2 \. \� \ �` \� �� \�� OW R XF ZE a...� �. JT 4 -FM—_ __ 3K VTE X wdf P-8- I DOW$ 3-008009SO 4004MO 50001,11'' 3000004LO 20011 1000ofto 3 a a — I Lk a iea4�es � �aesiee iea4�es � �aesiee of A.-..,,Owlt Frovect 1955w86 o f S e vil" e Porsoml S4rvkes 84185 85186 BodW -BudgO.- W7 =7 4 Z sz Isis 15A 17LI 171A SA oil s 37A 3&2 30J 3U 92 qmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm� 27 275*7 240 2AS f t 3# �. _ �. _ - _ � � �� �� �-. .� _ � � d� � -� �� -. �. a � � � �, __ - - � '�-= � � �' �� "gin �� � � �� a .. . — -�, e ��. �, _. �- 76175 77175- 79177 »iia aen9 am eveo 41 azrei aaro2 auea eu#s MAN I egg S=Tt , UZI 1915/76 to, 1"5/86 9 v W r w �\mom \ \\.� .\» �� � ��� �� � �� � �j\/ % +\ � \� \% \ +f �\� $ « _ a. � .p2°w »:.z . : � \� \� «_:,�� !: 2=.� ?!. Ck*/� :. \�::� �$, « « \ \� ©«.. �- »»«� < ?/d� }\�: . </:#\©?\G d��:$ <°�< $ ! $ JANUARY 23, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P*M* by Village Manager Terrance L. Burghard. Commissioners present: Richard Bachhuber Paul Davies Newt Hallman Maxine Holderried Thomas J. Pekras Ann Smilani c " I$ Also present. Terrance L. Burgh.rd , Village Manager 0 David C Jepson,, Finance D 1'rector BUDGET OVERVIEW Village Manager Burghard presented an overview of the 1985/86 budget. The following points were emphasized,*, 10 The 1985/86 budget of $23,785,510 'is 5.8% higher than the 1984/85 budget of $22,485,445, Increases 'Include 0 the following . Lake Michigan Water $2,000,000 Insurance Costs 200rOOO Street Paving Program 150,000 C.D.B.G. Rehabilitation Program 100r000 Village/District 214 Home Project 70fOOO Coupled with the above increases are decreases 'in Capital Expenditures for water system 'improvements, sewer rehabilitation, computer-aided dispatch, and telephone equipment. Additional decreases are due to the re -organization of the Health Division. 2 There 'is no increase 'in the number of full-time personnel in the 1985/86 budget. There were 240 full-time 'in 1984/85 and the same number is proposed in 1985/86, However, there is a recommendation for realignment of positions,, With the consolidation of the Health Division w ith Code Enforcement, one secretarial position was, i eliminated and the position of Health Director will not be fl*lled,, One full-time clerical position "in the Police Department was eliminated and replaced by two part-time positions. One full-time position previously assigned to Community Development (Special Projects Assistant to Village Manager) has been eliminated. The full-time positions mentioned above have been replaced with an Administration Secretary for the Cable Co-ordinator, a Programmer/Computer Operator in Finance, a maintenance 'worker in Water, and an Administrative Aide a in Public Works* Finance COMIL. Aon Minutes January 23, 1985 Page 2 of 3 I I Overall, the full-time equivalent positions increased from 273.8 to 275.7, however 'it was pointed out that the Village will have 8 less full-time employees in 1985/86 than 'in 1977/78. 3* There are no new fees or proposed fee 'increases, and the proposed 1985 tax levy will be $53,000 less than was requested 0 in 1984 (before abatements),, The tax rate "is projected to be $//,94 compared to a 1983 rate of $1.02 and a 1978 rate of $1*39* The. Village Manager concluded by stating the '1985/86 budget hold -the -line bud g e 1 • _ • Finance Director David Jepson commented on the various revenue sources that will fund the 1985/86 blidg0t. For f irst t ime sales tax rece 1'pts, will be the greatest sing..LQ,- source of revenue- to f inance thid budget. Sales tax rece ipts are expected to produce $4,30'0,000, or 18% of the total budget. Other majorsources of revenue are. 'property taxes* other taxes (State income Tax and Motor Fuel Tax) f ees, grants service changes; special service area taxes; 'investment income; and, available fund balances. Mr. Jepson compared indi'vidual sources for 1984/85 and 1985/86 and the reasons for the changes, It was pointed out that property taxel's are budgeted upon antici'plated receipts and" not on the tax levy. For example,property tax receipts 'in the 1985/86, budget will be primarilv from the 1984 levy, The full effect of the proposed 1985 levy wi*11, not be realized until a 0 the 1986/87 budget. Additionally, investment income is expected to total $2,618,200 in 1985/86 with, $1,900,000 earned inthe Police and Firemens' Pen'sion, Funds. IV�GENERAL DISCUSSION C..ommi'ssion members asked questions regaraing sales tax allocations and the business climate in Mount Prospect. General satis,facti"on was expressed' with -the Villagelz efforts to mainta 'in the strong sales tax base. Add itional aiscussion centered on property tax rates and the re-allocati'on of property tax dollars 'in the proposed 1985 levy., Z111i 1111 Il , Village Maftager Burghard explained that these two areas of the budget represent only 2.6% of the total budget, Included 0 in this total 'is an amount for salary increases for all departments except Public Works, Mr. Burghard pointed out that the total amount 'is 'included 'in this section of the budget and will be redistributed to various departments after the Finance Commission Minu-L January 23, 1985 Page 3 of 3 public hearings and adoption by the Board. One additional full-time employee 'in the Cable T.V. Program is recommended in the budget. The purpose and scope of the Cable T.V. Program was discussed by Commissioners, Mr. Burghard summarized by stating that 'it is new area and the Village is attempting to take advantage of this technology as a means of bringing information on the activities of local government to the residents of Mount Prospect'. VI4, MANAGEMENT SERVICES Mr. Jepson reviewed Management Services which includes the Finance Department, the Village Clerk's Office and Risk Management, the fund used to account for the Village's self- insurance program. Eleven different programs are included with insurance costs accounting for 2/3 of the total amount budgeted for this area. Attached is a summary of a, schedule of net insurance costs that was distributed to Commission members. A considerable amount of discussion followed regarding the Village's Insurance Programs, It was pointed out by Mr. Jepson that options to the current medical plan are being investigated, and a report will be prepared for the Village Board prior to the renewal of the existing plan. There has been a re -organization of the F inance Department and the Village Clerk's Office recently, The Village Clerk has moved into a new office located on the first floor of the Village Hall and, has been assigned the supervision of Customer Services, In the 1985/86 budget one of the employees in the Clerk's Office has been transferred to Customer Services, Additionally, two part-time positions have been eliminated and replaced by a Programmer/Computer Operator min Data Processing. Capital expenditures 'include a word processor, a check signer, a micro -computer which will double as a data entry terminal, and a provision for some additional telephone equipment. I The Commissioners expressed satisfaction with the 1985/86 - budget and the information that had been provided, I VI I I * ADJOURNEMNT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9.*40 P.M& 0 01� Qb�,p WbW04 ?f4*4r" David C. Jepson Director of F inance TILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT NET INSURANCE COSTS 1983/84 - 1985/86 Actual Estimated Budge 83/84 84/85 85/86 Net Insurance Costs: Medical Insurance $319,611 $386r200 $472r700 Workers Compensation, Liability, Property 343 r6 7 1 33 r400 400,000 Miscellaneous Costs & Credits $ 12,618 $ 81850 3r400 Totals 675,896 726,450 876r100 I.R.M.A. Assessments (1979-1983) $187,316 $ $ Net Insurance Casts $8631212 $7261450 $8761100 Source of Funding: General Fund $693x466 $640,150 $743,300 Water Fund 136,052 112 r 200 130,600 Parking Fund 41250 2,800 3,000 Risk Management Fund 29,444 ( 2 8 r 7 0 0) ( 8 0 0) "Totals $863x212 $726x450 $876,100 0' 04v Village of Nlount Prospect V, Z111 1, Mount Prospect, Illinois mm IL,,01,44# 4 #4 ""ao $Froo"91"'r INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager FROM: David Jepson, Finance Director RE: Comparable Community Expenditures and Revenue Survey DATE: January 25, 1985 The Finance Department of the City of Park Ridge recently completed its third annual survey of budget expenditures and selected revenues from nineteen comparable communities. The two attached schedules are taken from that survey. Schedule 1 is a comparison of adjusted budget expenditures on a per capita basis and Schedule 2 shows payments that a typical family (2.9 persons) makes directly to the municipality. The survey was dated December, 1984 and was taken from 1984/85 budget amounts. In schedule 1, budget amounts have been adjusted to represent the same services in each municipality and specifically exclude Community Development Block Grant projects and Flood Control projects. From the schedule, it can be seen that Mount Prospect's expenditures per capita are the lowest of the nineteen communities and are approximately half as much as the highest community. The $427 per capita expenditures in Mount Prospect are $41 less than Des Plaines, $108 less than Arlington Heights, and some $160 less than the average of all communities. This is the third consecutive year that the Village of Mount Prospect's per capita expenditures have been the lowest of the nineteen municipalities surveyed. Schedule 2 shows the annual revenues that each municipality receives directly from a typical household. These direct payments include vehicle and dog licenses, property taxes, water and sewer charges, garbage pick-up fees (if separate from property taxes) and utility taxes. Mount Prospect ranks twelth in the nineteen communities. It is more difficult to compare direct payments in the sample communities than expenditures per capita because of the influence of other revenue sources such as sales tax. However, the comparison is worthwhile and shows the typical Mount Prospect family paying $88 less than the average of all the communities and less than half the amount of the highest two communities. We all recognize that each municipality is unique and needs and priorities vary from community to community. However, I believe the survey information demonstrates the continuing effort to provide necessary services to the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect at the lowest possible cost. I DCJ/caf Atte_ hedule 1 COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON (1) PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE COMPARISON DECEMBER 1984 $2491289023 41,766 $586.61 (1) Source - City of Park Ridge (2) Adjusted budget includes total City Budget including MFT, Library, Garbage and excluding Park District, Electric Utility, Sanitary Districts, Community Development Block Grants, Bus Service, Flood Control Proceeds, Cemeteries, and Golf Courses. (3) The budget has been increased for these cities for the amount paid by all households for scavenger service. Adjusted Expenditures Rank Muni ci alit Budq!et (2) Po2ulation er, Ca p'i to 1 Winnetka $109759*510 129800 $840s59 2 Naperville 40,414,971 49,9215 821.19 3 Lake Forest 119181,116 15,520 720.43 4 Evanston 5291779422 732706 707*91 5 Oak Park 38,165,199 54,800 696.45 6 Highland Park (3) 209595,596 30,9611 672.82 7 Schaumburg (3) 33,036,494 53,3305 619,76 8 Wilmette 1697549761 289200 594,14 9 Northbrook (3) 17,3659386 30,887 562.22 10 Arlington Heights (3) 37,476,727 70,000 535,38 11 Niles 16,185,770 30,363 533*08 12 Elmhurst 2395599740 449213 532.987 13 Deerfield 898649331 17,430 508-57 14 Downers Grove (3) 2191109761 425691 494,50 15 Skokie 29,614,208 60,287 491,922 16 Glenview (3) 16t0959612 333,500 480.47 17 Des Plaines 2529052140 55,374 467.82 18 Park Ridge 16,710,507 38,034 439.36 19 Mt. Prospect 22,459,188 52,612 426.88 $2491289023 41,766 $586.61 (1) Source - City of Park Ridge (2) Adjusted budget includes total City Budget including MFT, Library, Garbage and excluding Park District, Electric Utility, Sanitary Districts, Community Development Block Grants, Bus Service, Flood Control Proceeds, Cemeteries, and Golf Courses. (3) The budget has been increased for these cities for the amount paid by all households for scavenger service. COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON (1) Schedule 2 ANNUAL REVENUES RECEIVED FROM AVERAGE HOME DECEMBER 1984 Vehicle License Municipal Total Under Over Dog Garbage Water Utility Sewer Property Di rest Rank Municipality 35 H.P. 35 H.P. License Charge Bill Tax Charcie Tax Pavments 1 Oak Park 30.00 30,00 10.00 0000 157.81 96,75 50.44 590.52 975.52 Evanston 35.00 50.00 5.00 0.00 120.63 96.75 40.20 601.52 949.10 3 Winnetka 10.00 20*00 10.00 0.00 127.33 95.75 50.93 445.90 760.91 4 Arlington Hghts. 20.00 20.00 5.00 105.12 242.50 0.00 0.00 283.85 676.47 5 Highland Park 30.00 0*.00 5.00 129.60 86.88 96.75 18.00 240.64 636.,87 6 Naperville 12.00 12.00 8.00 0.00 105.61 96.75 186.00 196.77 617.13 7 Deerfield 25.00 25.00 5.00 46.32 146.55 0.00 98.56 254.87 601.`t 8 Park Ridge 23.00 23.00 5.00 0.00 165.74 87.08 0.00 263.20 1 567.00--'1) 9 Glenview 10.00 20.00 5.00 126.00 101.85 966-75 9*70 144.01 513.31 10 Lake Forest 25.00 50.00 7.50 0000 107.63 96.75 10.76 210.45 508.09 11 Wilmette 20.00 30.00 10.00 0.00 81.70 96.75 0.00 245.33 483.78 12 Mt. Prospect 1.5.00 15.00 5.00 0.00 191.09 0.00 12.61 222.60 461.30 13 Downers Grove 0.00 0.00 OROO 87.00 103.79 0.00 87.30 159.62 437.71 14 Northbrook 10.00 20.00 10.00 106.20 106.70 0.00 24.25 131.34 408.49 15 Des Plaines 15.00 15.00 4.00 61.44 160.81 0.00 0.00 147.48 403.73 16 Skokie 30.00 10.00 8.00 0.00 114.10 0.00 0.00 255.39 397.49 17 Elmhurst 12.00 12.00 2.00 51.60 91.80 0.00 70.03 151.11 390,F 18 Niles 15.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 133.86 58905 .0000 122.49 f 344.4 19 Schaumburg 10.00 10.00 2.00 84.00 159.04 0.00 33.95 0,000 298.99 MEAN 17.21 21.42 5.61 41.96 132.39 48.38 36,46 245.64 549.07 Assumptions for 1 1 1 975000 $1,935 179350 2.9 persons Sample Family Gal. Yearly EUA per family y (1) Source - City of Park Ridge