HomeMy WebLinkAbout2256_001l
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
OCTOBER 2, 1984
CALL TO ORDER
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krause called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
INVOCATION
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Trustee George Van Geem.
ROLL CALL
ROLL CALL
Present upon roll. call: Mayor Carolyn H. Krause
Trustee Ralph W. Arthur
Trustee Leo Floros
Trustee Norma J. Murauskis
Trustee George R. Vain. Gee
Trustee Theodore J. Wattenberg
,APPROVE MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Mayor
and Board of Trustees held September 18 1984.
Upon roll call: .Ages. Arthur, Floros, Murauskis,
Van Gen-em, . Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
APPROVE BILLS
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Murauskls, moved to
approve the following list of bills.-
ills:General
GeneralFund 378,186
:Revenue Sharing Fund 12,550
Motor Fuel Tax Fund 4,941
Community Development Block Grant Fund 30,100
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund 5,829
Waterworks & Sewerage. Fund:
Operation & Maintenance 171,253
Parking System Revenue .Fund 11080
Risk Management Fund 12,196
Capital Improvement, Replacement or
Repair Fund. 2 , X149
Trust Fuad. 41635
Police Pension Fund 18,352
Firemens' Pension Fund 5,042
+646,213
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Floros, Murauskls,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
A request was submitted by the Mount Prospect Jaycees to
JAYCEES HAUNTED
waive all the .fees connected with conducting a Haunted douse.
HOUSE.
The haunted house will be located behind Busse's :f'lo'wers
WAIVE FEES
at Evergreen & Elm Street.
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by 'Trustee Mu.rauskis , moved
to waive all the fees normally charged for conducting a
haunted house.
Upon roll call.- Ayes . Arthur, Floros, Murauski s ,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays. None
Motion carried.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Xrause proclaimed the week. of October 8 --- 13, 1984
FIRE
PREVENTION WEEK
as Fire Prevention Week in Mount Prospect.
EMPLOYEE Mayor Krause and the Village Board then congratulated
RECOGNITION o.those members of the Fire Department having served the
FIRE DEPT. following number of years with the Village:
Thomas O'Neill 5 Years
Philip Knudsen 5 Years
Russell Schmidt 5 Years
Keith Destree 5 Years
Marlene Ha3ek 10 Years
William Amundsen 10 Year ' s
Mathew Canning 10 Years
Kurt Straub 10 Years
Mark Ceisel 10 Year
Michael Lipnisky 10 Years
Randy Cherwin 10 Years
Mark Pope 10 Years
Gary Klein 10 Years
Phillip Moll 10 Year's
Randy Werderlitch 10 Years
Brian Ipsen 10 Years
Donald Burger 10 Years
PROCLAMATION mayor Krause then presented a Proclamation honoring t
LEAGUE he
LA LEC La Lei League, founded 'in Mount Pro eco 'in 1964.
OLD BUSINESS
I.R.B.IS An Ordinance was presented for second reading that would
LEES authorize the of Industrial Revenue Bonds for
MARKETING Lees' Marketing for a building to be constructed within
the Rauenhorst Center for Business.
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Van Geem., moved
ORD.NO.3460 for passage of Ordinance No. 3460
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR -,THE FINANCING BY
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, OF AN INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND ,
SERIES 1984 (LEES' MARKETING SERVICES, INC.)
AND CONFIRMING THE SALE THEREOF, AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEME`.gTr A
MORTGAGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT, AN ASSIGNMENT
AND AGREEMENT, A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Upoxi roll call: Ayes:
'
Arthur, Floros, Murauskis.,
Van Geem, Wattenberg''
Nays: None
Motion carr,�'ed.
I.R.B.'S An Ordi'nance was presented for first reading that would
ROSCOR also authoriize the 'issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds
CORP. in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 for Roscor Corporation.
Roscor 'is also proposing building within the Rauenhorst
Center for Business. This Ordinance will be presented
October 16th for second reading.
NEW BUSINESS
SAFETY The three,recommendations of the Safety Commissioll
COMMISSION relative to proposed traffic control amendments were
continued to the next meeting of the Village Board so
that interested parties could be notified that consideration
will be given to their requests.
I
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Terrance L. Burghard presented the
October 2, 1984
Page 2
bid results of the fo-10-lowing items.
The following biger received for a 3/4 pick-up truck. BIDS:
PICK UP TRUCK
Bidder Make/Model Bid Price Deliv
ery
Schmerler Ford, Inc. Ford F-250 $9,795.00 90-120 Days
Chicago GMC Fruck Center GMC TC20903 9r885.00 90 Days
Elmhurst Motors, Inc. For F-250 1Or393.00 90-120 Days
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Arthur,, moved to
cu'th the recommendation of the administration and
conr wi
accept the low bid submitted by Schmerler Ford, Inc. SCS MERLER FORD
for a 3/4 ton pick-up ton in amount not to exceed $9,795.00.
Upon roll call: Ayes.- Arthurr Floros, Murauskis,
'Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
The following bids were received for the roof replacement at ROOF*- VILLAGE
Village Hall, 100 S. Emerson Street. HALL
Van Doorn Roofing $27,800.00
R & D Roofing Co., Inc. 32,430.00
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Murauskis, mode d,,to
concur with the recommendation of admin'ii,strat,ion and Pt, VAN DOOR
ow N
the lbid for a replacement roof at Vi' Hall as subtoted
ROOFING CO.
by Van Doorn Roofing', Inc. in an amount not to exceed $27,800.00.
Upon roll call.- Ayes: Arthur, Florosr"Murausk's
I Van Geem,,
Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Bid were received for uniform rental and cleaning service as PUBLIC WORKS
UN
shown on the attached bid tabulation, attached to these minutes. IFORMS:
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Murauskis, moved to STEINER CORP.
accept the low of 15each for weekly rental of shirts and pants
30� for cleaning shirts and 35� for cleaning pants for the
Public Works Department., which bid was submitted by Steiner
Corporation, at a total cost not to exceed $14,800.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Floros, Murauskis, Van Geem,
Wattenberg
Nays.- None
Motion carried.
GVW TRUCK
The following companies submitted bids for. a 34,000 GVW truck
chassis. -
Bidder Make/Model Bid Price Deliy2r-,
Elmhurst Motors For F-800 $30,860.00 140 Days
Schmerler Ford Ford LN -8000 34,553.00 150-180 Days
Pollard Motor Co. Int. S1954 35,784oOO 90-150 Days
Fruend Equipment Int. S1954 36,158.00 120 Days
The apparent low bid was submitted by Elmhurst Motors, however
it not meet specifications.
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Murauskis, moved to SCHMERLER
accept the low qualified bid for a 34,000 GVW truck chassis FORD
as submitted by Schmerler Ford in an amount not to exceed $34,553.00.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Floros, Murauskis, Van Deem,
Wattenberg
Nays.- None
Motion carried.
r'- !M . . ............... ... . .... . .. . .... .. . . . .......... ... . . ... ................ ......... ..
8 CU.YD.DUMP
Bids s ere received from the llowing, companies
BODY
for one 8 cu. yd. dumpbody,.-,
Bidder Mak
R.G. Smith ipmen Heil S 395
General odd Sales Corp., Perfec boll <, 5
# G # SMITH
Trustee Wattenberg , seconded y Trustee ,r : s s ,
EQUIPMENT CO.to
movedconcur t recommendation of staff
c the low bid submitted R.
# in n amount of exceed_ _G. _ 1
Equipment .
for an 8 cu. yd. dump body.
Upon roll call.- Ayes: Arthur, Floros, Murauskis,
.... Van Geem, W t,enbx rg
Nays. None
Motion e. #
E P.(C,'}H GE .EQUIPMENT
i{�� /}�'�}�'Mr.
r r amts r _ xc
no additional monies a.five year old snow blower.
It was reported erb Weeks, Director of Public
Works, that, this piece of equipment, pme .s faultyn .
its design, ackn,. g manufacturer, however
the manufacturer has agreed to givei E!
different piece of equipment to handle the same job
as an even exchange.
REQ#NO.47-4
Trustee ,ten er , seconded by Trustee fan G ym. ,
e
at
moved for passage of Resolution No. ; 47-,84
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF
MUNICIPAL, EQIPM T OWNED, BY THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT (snow blower)
Upon roll call: Ayes.- Arthur,, for s , Murauskis,
Van Geem,Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
DUPLICATINGThe
Village Manager presented d recommendation by
COSTS
David Jepson, Director of Management Services,, erei.
XEROX -OFF -SET
r# Jepson proposes the replacement of the existi.n
�EQUIPMENTI""T
A. B. Bich. 360 � Gff Se machine with, a 9500 Xerox
machine. I
It s necessary for a .eosin areeet to
e executed for this, 9500 Xe ,x machine, therefore
Village Board action is required.
XEROX 9500
Trustee atter erg, seconded by Trustee Arthur., move
to authorize the administration to enter into t .e
necessary agreements with Xerox in order to lease a
9500 copy machine
Upon roil call: Ayes.- Art,h r Floros , Murauskis,
Van Gecm, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Mr. , Jepson stated that delivery of the 9500 would be
some 3 to 4 months.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
SALE OF An Ordinance was p're'sented for first reading that t cul
VILLAGE OWNED authorize the sale of a 1974vehicle .in the upcoming
PROPERTY auction conducted by the Northwest Municipal Conference.
(VEHICLE)
Trustee Arthur, recon ed ' : y Trustee Murauskitioved
•jctoberII • J-1
r C1 yt--
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Murauskis, moved to ADJOURN
adjourn the meeting.
Upon roll call.- Ayes: Unanimous
Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 P.,M.
Carol A. Fields
'Village Clerk
Page 5 October 2, 1984
.. . ..... . . ....... . .. ....
to waive the r'ule requiring two readings of an ordinance
WAIVE RULES
in order to take action on the proposed disposal f
o
Village owned eq I .p en (vehicle).
Upon roll call: .yes o- Arthurf Floros, Murauskis,
Van Gem, Wattenberg
Naysee None
Motion carried.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Murauskis, moved for
passage of Ordinance No. 3461
ORD.NO. 3461
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE BY PUBLIC AUCTION
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
Upon roll call*- Ayes** Arthur, Florosr Murauskis,
Van Geemf Wattenberg
Nays.- None
Motion carried.
A Resolut"
ion was presented that would establish the
A
HNDICAPPED
procedures involved with filing a complaint of discrimination DISICRIMINAT ION
by handicapped
persons.
COMMPLAINT
PROCEDURE
Trustee Watten berg,1, seconded by Trustee Murauskis, moved
for passage of Resoluto
ion No. 48-84.
RES NO. 48-84
Upon roll call*- Ayesso Arthur, Floros, Murauskis,
Van Deem, Wattenberg
Naysm- None
Motion carried.
A Resolution was pre s�ented that e:o:pres,s,e(,1 the
of COngratlulations CHICAGO the Village to the Ch:"Lcago Cubs, ba!jeball
team'on earning
the title of National Leiaigue East 'iVis'J_'on ChaTiipxon,s for
CUBS
1984.
BASEBALL
TEAM
'Trustee Murauskis, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved for
passage of Resolution No. 49-84
RES.NO-49-84
A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL
TEAM AS THE NATIONAL LEAGUE EAST DIVISION CHAMPIONS
FOR 1984
Upon roll call*- Ayes: Arthur, Floros, Murauskis,
Van Deem, Wattenberg
Nayso-None
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Murauskis, moved to ADJOURN
adjourn the meeting.
Upon roll call.- Ayes: Unanimous
Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 P.,M.
Carol A. Fields
'Village Clerk
Page 5 October 2, 1984
.. . ..... . . ....... . .. ....
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
CASH
POSITION
OCTOBER
10, 1984
Cash & Invest.
Receipts
Disbursements
Cash & Invest.
Balance
9/27 through
Per Attached
Balance
9/26/84
10/10/84
List of Bills Transfers
10/10/84
General &jpecial Revenue Funds:
-
General Fund
Revenue Sharing Fund
$ 11882,625
25,394
$671,412
68,585
$336s398
3,603
$ 1t613,639
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
856,985
3,044
250,177
90,376
609,852
Community Development Block Grant Fund
3,438
15,000
14,816
3,622
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
121,783
1,372
14,448
108,707
Enterprise Funds:
Waterworks & Sewerage Fund:
Operations & Maintenance
19606,912
151,926
109,116
1,649s722
D. I. & E.
Parking System Revenue Fund
68,705
4,231
4,093
68,843
Internal Service Fund:
Risk Management Fund
209,071
5,102
6,140
208,033
Capital Projects:
Capital Improvement, Repl. or Repair Fund
416,712
1,453
99
418,066
Corporate Purposes Construction Fund 1973
394,920
78
642
394,356
Special Service Area Construction #5
1,538,921
3,500
1,542,421
Debt Service Funds:
Corporate Purposes 1973
303,072
547
303,619
Corporate Purposes 1974
650,976
1v093
-
652,069
Communications Equipment 1984
34,756
241
5,010
29,987
Special Service Area #1
29,203
112
-
29,315
Special Service Area #2
.28,827
85
28,912
Special Service Area #3
4,572
14
4,586
Special Service Area #4
11,074
34
11,108
Special Service Area #5
269,076
1,021
270,097
Special Service Area #5 Bond Reserve
327,055
327,055
Trust Agency Funds:
Trust Fund
Police Pension Fund
301,873
6,660,582
2,763
65,718
5,530
-
299,106
Firemen's Pension Fund
8,149,496
126,359
-
6,726,300
8,275,855
Special Assessments:
S/A Funds - Prior to 1940
125,542
-
-
125,542
S/A Funds - After 1940
6,339
34
-
6,373
$24,027,
$519,724
$750,07-
Tf 5- -.7-9 7 -�,56 1
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 1
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
JAMES ABBOTT B-686
REFUND BOND B-686
$500 00
$500.00
MS. GLORIA ACCORSI
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL.
$11.34
$11 34
-AMOCO OIL COMPANY
REGULAR GASOLINE
$7060 72
$79860.72=�
K Ls BAUER
WORKMENS COMPENSATION
$862 00
$862900'-
862.0fl-RICHARD
RICHARDCACINI
REFUND-- OVERPAYMENT OF FINAL WATER BI
$57.12
$57.12
GARY DEVITO B--1189
REFUND BOND B-1189
$100000
$100000
MR. PHILIP DIMASO
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$20 50
$20.50
MR. DONFRIO
REFUND BOND B-1306
$35 00
$35.00
FINN BUILDERS B-216
REFUND BOND B-216
$500.00
$500 00
Go FINN B-673
REFUND BOND B-673
$500.00
$500.00
JCL POOLS B-940
REFUND BOND B-940
$100.00
$100.00
MR. JOSEPH F. KRAUSE
REFUND -OVERPAYMENT OF FINAL WATER BI
$2.10
$210
MR. NORMAN LEMVIG
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$2011
$2011
LES & SONS
REFUND BOND B-624
$500.00
$500.00
MR SMINJAN LEWITSKI
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$102.90
$102.90
LORENS RODDING C PLBG
REFUND BONG} B-1081
$100,00
$100000
MIDWESTERN ATHLETIC DISTRIBUTORS♦IN
EQUIPMENT
$2,545*00
52.545 00'
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE EXPLORERS POS
BANQUET 10/04/84
$200*00
$200 00-�
n0l)S -0139
REFUND BOND 0139
$250.00
$250*00
_)APPAS B-1007
REFUND BOND B-1007
$100000
$100.00`
ROLL ACCOUNT
PAYROLL ENDING 10/11/84
5237,250.04
�-
PAYROLL ENDING 10/11/84
$21 *909.61
PAYROLL ENDING 10/11/84
$617*80
r
PAYROLL ENDING 10/11/84
til 9444.41
$261-9221986'--
261t221986PETTY
PETTYCASH - MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL SUPPLIES
$5.00
$5.00='
PIZZA HUT, INC.
REFUND LIQUOR LICENSE
$500.00
$500.00
QUINLAN L TYSON
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$14 70
X14 70
RoG. MEYER CONCRETE A-10444
REFUND BOND A-10444
$100400
$100.00'
TELE-COLLECTIONS INC*
SERVICES RENDERED
$469.00
$489.00
H J VAN DRIEL
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$58,80
$58 80
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
"A" TOTAL
$276,73815
___-GENERAL FUND
$2469104 76 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GT
a
$19444 41
r
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 2
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
DATER E SEWER FUND — O&M $221179 18 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $617:80
RISK. MANAGEMENT -FUND 5862 00 TRUST FUND $59530 00
.M �+.. 4. A. Jt, -4. 1. _J4..+. d. _S..A. v4 A. 4 4 a%. R.. +. #..0 . "A. 4, .4 �..t..A..► .4 * ,+err ,�.. J4 1. +4 .". -4. p..6. d= .4 r .4 -A= -.4, * ,.4 .h .%, 2t..4 J4 .1...11..4 1..L ./+ 1. d. Jt +h A. 4. A. 41. J�. A .%. A. .P. Js .A. �. J4. A .1= .�..�.. ads .4 .+. !...L
Y 4� + 16` Y 4 -91 Y 'Y` "Y' Y 4` Y Y 'Y` i" Y 'v. Y Y M Y Y Y ry` Y Y M '"I` i" Y Y Y i" i` "s` s` Y M Y Y Y 4` V" M i` %. 1f' �.' Y Y -r M M �M" Y '4 V` 1+` 1f` Y' Y a" '1P Y Y ,i` h" i` "Y" 't` M 'Y` '1r` 'Y" Y' ".` Y Y 1` M Y 4` 'ti` 'e 4` Y �► 'W 't" Y M Y `f^'M i` 'Y "a`
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION DIVISION
CAROL
Aw FIELDS
SERVICES RENDERED
560.00
$60*00
MARCD
SIMEON KARLAN9 MD
MEDICAL EXAMS
$132 00
$132 00
PETTY
CASH — MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$7.26'
$100.00
$100.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$25010
$32036'-
To Jo,
WATTENBERG
CONFERENCE REIMBURSEMENT
$65 25
$65 25-
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION DIVISION
$98,&40
iTOTAtr4-
289.b1
GENERAL FUND
.0%. p_ "�YMMMYY'Y "L^Y4YYMY M YY YM h`p..*i`"i`Y_.._ YYYi`4 A.
M . Y MYM'Y"YY"/`YIt`YYY rN*y"Y Y Y'Y`Y-rYYMY4'�t`Y Y1 r`4. rY*Yu -A. -YM YY
VILLAGE MANAGER*S OFFICE
I,BoM. CORPORATION
OCTOBER PAYMENT—MEMORY TYPWRT
575.44
$75.44
ILLINOIS CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIO
MEMBERSHIP
$160 00
$160 00
KNOWLEDGE INDUSTRY PUBLICATION
SUPPLIES
$29 50
$29s50
NAT* L FEDERATION OF LOCAL CABLE PRO
MEMBERSHIP
$100.00
$100.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
533 64
$33,64
0SC,O
SUPPLIES
$139*80
$139980'-
PADDEN & COMPANY* INC.,AGENT
OCTOBER EQUIPMENT CHARGE
$98,&40
$98.40
PETTY CASH — MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$19 63
=
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$10 60
�-
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$33.60
�=
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
517 ll
$80.94'
PETTY CASH — POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$8000
$8000""
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
SERVICES RENDERED
$71367501
$7136750
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
SUN OFFICE EQUIPMENT CO*.w INC*
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
$216 50
$216*50
V & G PRINTERS INC*
PRINTING
$19*30
PRINTING
$90 50
$109e80
"'4BRIESEN & REDMOND
SERVICES RENDERED
$19307*40
$19307*40
VILLAGE MANAGER#S OFFICE
ft4"u*TOTAL'%"-
$99726092
GENERAL FUND
$99726#92
-4...1..1. Aw A. 16, A .Is .0. A. -K. J. J1. a. J. -A- A. .0. -.06. -Al .0- A. .0- A. �A. A. A. .6..0.
le, le I%- Nft ft, -w- 1*1 -#1 111, ft, w. ft� I'll 1%, 18, IV, It, lip- * '41 1*1 le IV, 14,
.0- -A. A. 10. .0. Al -A. * .9w 'A. ....4.. 4. A. p. +A, -A. A..01 A. -0- .0%. J. -A. .11. -A. .01. -Al .1. .01 A. J. p. ,A.
IP le le 14, 1w, ne. It, r.
.0, A. -4. A...0..0. 4, p. Q1. Al, p. A. A, A, K.
It, IV, ft� 119, S. Al -A, .4, A. .0..
-
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
AT&T
TELEPHONE SERVICE
54.80
$4*80
AT&T
TELEPHONE SERVICE
S29283o63
$2t283*63
DECISION DATA COMPUTER CORP*
MAINTENANCE BILLING
$21 00
$21 00
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
TELEPHONE SERVICE
�$90o75
590v75
1Y SERVICESt INC*
SERVICESRENDERED
$131*25
SERVICES RENDERED
$196*88
$328*13
h, NT PROSPECT STATE BANK
SERVICES RENDERED
$75*00
$75,00"",I -
PETTY CASH — MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL G SUPPLIES
51e40
Slo40'PITNEY
BOWES
POSTAGE METER RENTAL
$104*25
$104*25
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC*
OFFICE SUPPLIES
5180*73
$180*73
TRIO OFFICE MACHINES G EQUIPMENT CO
SUPPLIES
$80 00
580000
XEROX CORPORATION
COPIER USAGE E MONTHLY CHARGE
$27,e06
$27*06
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
YTCiTAL
$3,196w75
GENERAL FUND
$39196e75
-4. A- -A. .0k. A. -A. A. -4 -A. .0. .0%, 1& 'A. .A. -A. -A. .0. -2- .0 Q%. Al -A- A. A. .06 A. 04., 4. A. A.
N, w. V, It, Ak. IV, IV' It- *I-%, no'
GENERAL FUND $1035.34
1 Mh Y ti i A.
Y' i' M �,i '4 if"` 'fir �i' Y Y M M .` i Y '4 N. M M S S v'e le S A Y A.
Y A.
4� mit` M* Y Yom` YM� M Y 1xt` Y r Ay"�y"41t-` Y 1 'V` Y 'Y` M M '4 Y' i h Y i`~!" 1�i` +�+++ Y Y Y 'sem M '�Y"'�'Y"�Y` � �r` 1�t'+ 1"�W Y M "�` Y Y Y r Y Y A. A.
�►"' A.
RISK MANAGEMENT
FORT DEARBORN LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN OCTOBER PREMIUM S2015#18 $2:01! �=
HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION OCTOBER PREMIUM LIFE INS $11423.39 $1942:
VILLAGE OF M P EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS 10/2/84 $19839*46 $19839#46'-
RISK MANAGEMENT TOTALS 55.278 03
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $51278*03
Al Al .06 .4.. A.A. ..i. JL. v J ..t5. J1r d4 44 -As JI. 11..06 A. Jb J1r A. 1r � a{.1a A. A..4 �. Jl. +i4 � 4..i4 .Rr .!y J4.. -0..A� aL �b a. -06 .lSr �4 1v 4. * 4. ti1.+* it' -A..4..^, A. * .A. +b A * . i_ .4 J1. 1. qtr .!. Jt. , $... A, .4. '4
++..►....IV .rt. �L .+4. 1..�..+►.. J�. �. X14..4 A .+� . �..► 1. J. J..�4. �. � a..a+ J4 �.L..J4. rte.
V` S `Y'r "r+ 'Y" Y YY Y Y i" 'M 1• V` IV, 1%- �` '1� M Y 'Y i� 1% 4. -Y` ft- 1%, 1%,M 1t` 'Y 'Y V` Y Y 4` 4' I` 'w` t, 'yam EYP le Y 1%, h` ft, 1% i" M Y Ma, 'Y- 4` v 'Y' i` Y ." Y 'Y` i` tea` 1` 'Y i` 'S` i%. _s* I%- Y Y i '%_ 'S` i M Y ti" ft, Y Y '1P Y 'y" IV, 14ft 1%, -.1 ft, Y i'
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALEXANDER BATTERY CO.1 INC. SUPPLIES 5595.00 $595 00
ALL STAR CAR WASH OCTOBER WASH PLAN $131.25 $131 25
AMERICAN DATA PRODUCTS SUPPLIES $114*59 $114959
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 4
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
VILLAGE CLERK#S OFFICE
EVERGREEN CARTAGE
SERVICES RENDERED
$18.45
$18*45
MOSER—SCHMIDT PAPER COm
SUPPLIES
$306eOO
$306 00
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS
LEGAL PAGE AD
520.00
52o r",
PETTY CASH — MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$25*00
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
54 55
$29.
SERVICE SURVEYING E ENGINEERING CO
SERVICES RENDERED
$300000
5300.00
V & G PRINTERS INC.
PRINTING
$255o5O
$255 50
XEROX CORPORATION
MONTHLY EQUITY PLAN
$105,84
$105.84
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
4T0TAL4-='
$19035*34
GENERAL FUND $1035.34
1 Mh Y ti i A.
Y' i' M �,i '4 if"` 'fir �i' Y Y M M .` i Y '4 N. M M S S v'e le S A Y A.
Y A.
4� mit` M* Y Yom` YM� M Y 1xt` Y r Ay"�y"41t-` Y 1 'V` Y 'Y` M M '4 Y' i h Y i`~!" 1�i` +�+++ Y Y Y 'sem M '�Y"'�'Y"�Y` � �r` 1�t'+ 1"�W Y M "�` Y Y Y r Y Y A. A.
�►"' A.
RISK MANAGEMENT
FORT DEARBORN LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN OCTOBER PREMIUM S2015#18 $2:01! �=
HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION OCTOBER PREMIUM LIFE INS $11423.39 $1942:
VILLAGE OF M P EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS 10/2/84 $19839*46 $19839#46'-
RISK MANAGEMENT TOTALS 55.278 03
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $51278*03
Al Al .06 .4.. A.A. ..i. JL. v J ..t5. J1r d4 44 -As JI. 11..06 A. Jb J1r A. 1r � a{.1a A. A..4 �. Jl. +i4 � 4..i4 .Rr .!y J4.. -0..A� aL �b a. -06 .lSr �4 1v 4. * 4. ti1.+* it' -A..4..^, A. * .A. +b A * . i_ .4 J1. 1. qtr .!. Jt. , $... A, .4. '4
++..►....IV .rt. �L .+4. 1..�..+►.. J�. �. X14..4 A .+� . �..► 1. J. J..�4. �. � a..a+ J4 �.L..J4. rte.
V` S `Y'r "r+ 'Y" Y YY Y Y i" 'M 1• V` IV, 1%- �` '1� M Y 'Y i� 1% 4. -Y` ft- 1%, 1%,M 1t` 'Y 'Y V` Y Y 4` 4' I` 'w` t, 'yam EYP le Y 1%, h` ft, 1% i" M Y Ma, 'Y- 4` v 'Y' i` Y ." Y 'Y` i` tea` 1` 'Y i` 'S` i%. _s* I%- Y Y i '%_ 'S` i M Y ti" ft, Y Y '1P Y 'y" IV, 14ft 1%, -.1 ft, Y i'
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALEXANDER BATTERY CO.1 INC. SUPPLIES 5595.00 $595 00
ALL STAR CAR WASH OCTOBER WASH PLAN $131.25 $131 25
AMERICAN DATA PRODUCTS SUPPLIES $114*59 $114959
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10%10/84
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATET
TELEPHONE SERVICE
AUBURN AUTO E TRUCK PARTS
PARTS
ERKEY CAMERA SHOP
FILM PROCESSING
'IN J. CONDON
CAR ALLOWANCE OCTOBER 84
'. ..I SION DATA COMPUTER CORP.
MAINTENANCE BILLING
EMPLOYEE DATA FORMS* INC.
SUPPLIES
PHIL HERMAN
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
I B. Mo CORPORATION
OCTOBER COPIER CHARGE
$275.89
COPIER— MONTHLY PAYMENT
IBM
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-- MEMORY TYPWRT
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
TELEPHONE SERVICE
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$22.22
TELEPHONE SERVICE
►14100
TELEPHONE SERVICE
THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
JOE MITCHELL BUICK: INC.
TACTICAL UNIT CAR
MULTICOM INC4
PAGERS— MONTHLY RENTAL
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC*
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$27.96
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$172124
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$11.60
OFFICE SUPPLIES
ARA RESEARCH# INC*
TEXT
PETTY CASH — POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$148
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
x20.00
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
611*25
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$6/00
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
PETTY CASH -- PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
PROSPECT BOARDING KENNEL
STRAYS AUGUST 84
RAPP' S
SUPPLIES
SCHMERLER FORD INC.
PARTS
SMITHKLINE CLINICAL LABORATORIES# I
SERVICES RENDERED
SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION
SERVICES RENDERED
THE TRAFFIC INSTITUTE
SUPPLIES
TRI STATE ELECTRONIC CORPORATION
SUPPLIES
VITAL RECORD BANC* INC*
SERVICES RENDERED
PAGE 5
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
$6*83
$6.83
$100000
$100000
$35.m91
$35.91
$4000
X40*00
572 40
$72.00
$26.50
$26*50
$9.70
%970
$275 39
$275.89
$551 78
$46.00
$46.00
$45.16
$22.22
►14100
$118 67
$35.00
. 35 00
$100.00
$100.00
$133100
$133100
$57.31
$27.96
$172124
$11.60
$269 11
$100000
$1000001-
100 00�$76970
$76970
$148
x20.00
611*25
`
$6/00
$114*43�
$34.18
$3418
$593100
$593.00
$51*59
$51 59
$149*90
5149*90
$98000
$98*00
$28.47
$28147
$20*00
$20.00
24
$/1n3*24 1
#$/1 n3
i�40 i 00
S40 i OO 1
VENDOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT
WARNING LITES OF ILLINOIS
3M BUSINESS PRODUCTS SALES 9781
POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL FUND
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
SUPPLIES
MICROFILMING
$3,x255 40 REVENUE SHARING FUND
PAGE b
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
$141 50 $141050
$80,,75 $80 75
TOTALLY $3,785'
$595 00
^Y` N, 1%, M 'Ir"li" Y Y "Y" i" �If" mss" 1f"Y, "�Y" '1A Y T �r i M Y' M A.
� tie, +�"' � � 'Y Y —%,-I * M i!" IV, lw � � � � 1#""Y` M � -w- -%` �I�i+' moi` Y M -116. 461 -v, ft— M 1` Y M ft, w. -e w. Si. -v. 1` � -- Yr IV- 1�i" ��Y 'Y M'1P M � *
46
FIRE E EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
ABLE FIRE SAFETY EQUIP
SUPPLIES
$120 00
$120*00
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS FORD. INC&
PARTS
$127 13
5127 13
DENNIS AMBER
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$35 00
$35*00
AMERICAN SCIENCE CENTER INC*
MI SC SUPPLIES
525*45
$25 45
ATET
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$2.47
TELEPHONE SERVICE
S8664
`1
B E H INDUSTRIES
[OFFICE SUPPLIES
$23 50
0
EDWARD CAVELLO
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$35 00
535 00
COLLEGE OF LAKE COUNTY
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$9b 00
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$225*00
$321 00
KENNETH CHMIELESKI
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
'535.00
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$35.00
$7000
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
ELECTRIC SERVICE
$6*99
ELECTRIC SERVICE
$6099
ELECTRIC SERVICE
$6099
$20 97
DECISION DATA COMPUTER CORP.
MAINTENANCE BILLING
$128* 50
$128w50
MICHAEL FIGOLAH
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$35 00
X35 00
JOHN GIBSON
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
535 00
535.00
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
TIRE REPAIRS
$47.00
TIRE REPAIRS
$10.96
TIRES
$479049
TIRE BALANCE
$6 75
$544 2O
VENDOR
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10'10/84
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
ILLNOIS CABLE COw
SUPPLIES
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO*
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$164m19
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$2223
TELEPHONE' SERVICE
_LINOIS FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION
TRAINING EXPENSE
$250900
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$300o00
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
INDUSTRIAL GAS C EQUIPMENT
SUPPLIES
FELLY SERVICES,► INC.
SERVICES RENDERED
PAT KIMBALL TRAVELS INCo
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
M & R RADIATOR INC.
RADIATOR REPAIR
MAGNATAG PRODUCTS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE GROUP
SUPPLIES
HEIGHTS AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY
MISC SUPPLIES
$1,117.85
PARTS
$10*96
PARTS
$56.06
PARTS
$51.11
MISC PARTS
$145.39
MISC PARTS
`_ZONAL FIRE PRCT ASSOC*
SUPPLIES
iIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
SUBSCRIPTION
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
TRAINING
NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INCe
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$106*02
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OLYMPIA DODGE OF DES PLAINES• INC*
MISC PARTS
PARA RESEARCHf INC
TEXT
PETTY CASH — MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$18.01
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
PETROLANE GAS SERVICE
FUEL
PHOTO TONNE
SUPPLIES
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC*
OFFICE SUPPLIES
RAND C CENTRAL SHELL
VEHICLE REPAIR/FD
® RECORD RESOURCES CORPORATION
SUPPLIES
REUS S SPORT L SKI
EQUIPMENT
SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATION
MACHINE RENTAL.
PAGE 7
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
$35 00
$35400
$164m19
$2223
$131.67
$318m09
$250900
$300o00
$250 OO
$800000
$44*80
544.80
$459.38
$459038
$200.00
$200400
$40.00
540 00
-$213 20
$21320
$175 00
$175*00
$1,117.85
$10*96
$56.06
$51.11
$145.39
$85.68
$1 467 05
$91.53
$91.53
$12 55
SI2 55
$390 00
$390.00
$89.45
$89.45
$106*02
59.12
$115014
$135012
$135*12
$100.00
$10000 0=
$18.01
�-
$5*54
$23.55"
x414.05
$414.05
$688
56.88
$200* 21
$200.21
$19.89
$19.89
$74,.50
$74.5O
$29070 86
S2t070.86
-42.25
$42.25
M M Y i M Y 'ok'Y� M 1` Y M ' f` 1 !` 'Y` M 1* A.
Y * "w" M 1v- -it- Y Y '1t"' M -,&--0- -01''++' Y �i�i" -r IV, 1f` `1` A. Y Y +'Ir 'Y ir'� �4A" i Ili` 1*1 1%1 a fti" 1
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE
NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH SYSTEM SERVICES 10/84 519.940.92 $19994092' -
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE Y; TOTAL $199940*92
GENERAL FUND $19,940.92
'1f`Y"Y MYrY�'Y�'i""Y'Y'v'YY1iM�MMrY'fY'Y�Y`YYYY�`+i�Y'V'MMY'1 1�"iPM'Y1#""►`4'YMM A.* 1% M�'t4`YM'Y"Y"ti`+hl`YMY4"YM1`�"�'
HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
BOWEN HARDWARE CO
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
$19 56
PAGE 8
JUNE Fo KERSTEIN
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
$40 0{
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
$4000
• 0
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
FIRE EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$103 ll
S94,,44
1°
55::
THOM PSON ELEVATOR INSPECTION SERVIC
SERVICES RENDERED
$50 00
$50000
XEROX CORPORATION
COPIER USAGE C MONTHLY CHARGE
$27.06
$27.06
FIRE C EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT*
-
YMTOTAL
$9t2f 2
GENERAL FUND
$99176*47 REVENUE SHARING
FUND
$48*95
M M Y i M Y 'ok'Y� M 1` Y M ' f` 1 !` 'Y` M 1* A.
Y * "w" M 1v- -it- Y Y '1t"' M -,&--0- -01''++' Y �i�i" -r IV, 1f` `1` A. Y Y +'Ir 'Y ir'� �4A" i Ili` 1*1 1%1 a fti" 1
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE
NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH SYSTEM SERVICES 10/84 519.940.92 $19994092' -
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE Y; TOTAL $199940*92
GENERAL FUND $19,940.92
'1f`Y"Y MYrY�'Y�'i""Y'Y'v'YY1iM�MMrY'fY'Y�Y`YYYY�`+i�Y'V'MMY'1 1�"iPM'Y1#""►`4'YMM A.* 1% M�'t4`YM'Y"Y"ti`+hl`YMY4"YM1`�"�'
HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
BOWEN HARDWARE CO
SUPPLIES
$19 56
s19.56
JUNE Fo KERSTEIN
CAR ALLOWANCE FOR OCTOBER 84
$40 0{
TELEPHONE REIMBURSEMENT FOR OCTOBER 8
$4000
• 0
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY
PARTS
$30o6O
3 0
PETTY CASH — MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$103 ll
S94,,44
1°
55::
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
PHOTO TOWNE
SUPPLIES
65.75
S5o75
PHYSICIANS'' DESK REFERENCE
SUPPLIES
$21.95
$2*51
S21m95
X51
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
*--O"*TOTAL**
5357 92
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND $357 92
INVOICE AMOUNT
PAGE 9
TOTAL
Y'Y MM YY •L`YY ft, Yft" M'v--`"A "Y 'N� 'YYM YY1�Y1 IV, IV, YS IV, IV, IV, 'Y 1%, MYM IV, Y 116, Y'Y -rMti Y' 0, IV, le ft, I%6, IV- 0 Y�Y�Y"�M rfi'`Y'Y�M"'M M-4`t`M"V`-w ftM'MV""���tMYMt`M1�f"�MM YY'MY"4`�Y���
{ 'SAN SERVICES DIVISION
JANET ABERNETHY
CAR ALLOWANCE OCTOBER 84
!S40.00
$40.00
AMERICAN TAXI Coo INC.
SENIOR CAB RIDES
$213x00
SENIOR CAB RIDES
$367.50
$580.50
LEONARD W. BAZAN
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$18.00
$18.00
BIRKS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
SENIOR CAB RIDES
$4020O
SENIOR CAB RIDES
.367.50
SENIOR CAB RIDES
$268.50
SENIOR CAB RIDES
$268.50
SENIOR CAB RIDES
$318.00
SENIOR CAB RIDES
$190.50
Sls815.00
CAMILLE CHMELA
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$6,.00
56.00
COFFEE CUPBOARD CORPORATION
SUPPLIES
$57.50
$57.50
MICHAEL DDRDSH
HOM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$3.00
$3.00
MARY DUNCAN
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
56.00
$6.00
'EL FRICKE
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$12900
$12000
E MRS. BUD DOODLING
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$3*00
$3.00
ANNE KORTH
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
53.00
$3.00
JUAN KOTERBSKI
HOM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$9000
$9.00
CHARLES J. LA PLANTE
CAR ALLOWANCE FOR OCTOBER 84
$50*00
$50.00
STEVEN G. LEONARD
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
53.00
13.00
EARLE MATTSON
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$15 00
S15v00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$38*71
$3871
MR. & MRS* PETERSON
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$15.00
$15.00
MURI EL POORE
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$18.00
x18.00
ELOISE PURCELL
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$36 00
$36.00
ED REILLY
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$9.00
$9000
BILL ROSS
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$6.00
$6,00
SEVENTEEN SPECIALTIES INC.
SUPPLIES
$298 32
$298.32
STANLEY SHARP
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$6.00
$6.00
JEANNE SHERMAN
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
5600
%600
BERTHA STEIL
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$6.00
$6.00
VENDOR
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
V G PRINTERS INC;
MARIE WAGNER
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
GENERAL FUND
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
PRINTING
HDM DRIVERS REIMBURSEMENT
$39079 83
INVOICE AMOUNT
$16=80
$300
M�TOTAL�*
TOTAL
S1680
X3.00
$3 9 07`
M '7" 44 46 A.
YY46 f. '�*mo�lM�* *�YimoYYA.�`p"�Y"4Yteh* A. -e -�1"�tY�"4, A. I 4. -A.
Y YiiIV, dv, ml yJ" � - -A- -e Yw.i. Y k, r aY` iii"M M V -Y-w -a- -e -W le 1W. &I -Vft. -40- --A- -+` +1P�i It, IV- -%-
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BERKEY CAMERA SHOP
ILLINOIS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ASSN
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY SERVICES9 INC*
PADDEN C COMPANY9 INC sAGENT
REAL ESTATE INDIX GROUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL FUND
PHOTO PROCESSING
MEMBERSHIP
FICA PAYMENT 9/27/84
IMRF PAYMENT 9/84
EQUIPMENT
TRANSPORTATION CHARGES 8/84
HOUSING — JUNErJULY*AUG. & SEPT*
OCTOBER EQUIPMENT CHARGE
SERVICES RENDERED
5725
$25 00
510496
$152.66
$81324.00
S 1: Q43. 50
$39660*00
S98* 41
S86o00
'"TOTAL'"'
5725
$25*00
$257a62*
$89324 00
S4 r 7C 3
scl .1
S86*00
S13l501.78
$130 66 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GT $13.371.12
'N 11"�Y W' i"'I�i, M 4. Y 1 i M ft, ti` a -%� f Y Y Y Y T �Ai^ Y6 Y ' 1` Y 1� M 9�i` .06-46
M Y 'Y" A -01,
Y 'A.I" 'Y• Y'4t` M A" 46
�r` "�M` tib" M ' A. fit` 1e"A. �t` ' • M Y V' i .06 N' YtA.`46 +.1" M' '�It` M AY` Y 1�M '�Y` 1�" 1t` M 1�1` M Y Y Y ` Y
STREET DIVISION
ACTION BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORPORA SERVICES RENDERED $11155000
SERVICES RENDERED $19265.00 S2942000
PAGE 11
TOTAL
$34*28
$50000
$693*50
53$.40
$238w00
$446.74
$19595*00
$13.95
$2781
$14847
$6j42/0j0
S48 o 05
-$4057
$9945
$7800
$43793
$144*00
$9950
$2402
$196 63
$78 20
$2841
$107*00
Y
$8594
$20911
$573.13
$23.50
$171*34
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
STREET DIVISION
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
LOCKS & KEYS
$34.28
SANTOS BAUTISTA
SHOE ALLOWANCE
550*00
BERTHOLD NURSERY
SHRUBS
$693450
'LOS LAWN & POWER
PARTS
$3840
BOCKMAN COMPANY
SUPPLIES
$238x00
BUDGET CARPETS
EQUIPMENT
$446*70
CADE INDUSTRIES
SUPPLIES
$1959500
CENTURY SUPPLY COMPANY
SUPPLIES
$1395
CHICAGO CASTER AND EQUIPMENT CO.
PARTS
$27*81
CHICAGO TARO TURF—IRRIGATION* INC.
PARTS
$148*47
ARTHUR CLESEN9 INCo
SUPPLIES
$642.00
CITIZENS UTILITIES CO. OF ILLINOIS
WATER SERVICE
$48*05
ELAN ENTERPRISESvLTD
SERVICES RENDERED
$4057
FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION
EQUIPMENT
$99.45
FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS• INC
SUPPLIES
$52*Q0
SUPPLIES
$2600
J HARTMANN COMPANY
PARTS
$437 93
OOK#S NURSERY INC.
SHRUBS
$144000
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES COR
COPIER— RENTAL AND USAGE CHARGE
$9950
=RNATIONAL REFORESTATION SUPPLIE
SUPPLIES2402
AESA KILFOY
SERVICES RENDERED
$196 63
ETROCOM SERVICE
SUPPLIES
$7820
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS COo
GAS SERVICE
X2841
OVERHEAD DOOR CO OF CHICAGOLAND
PARTS
$107 00
PETTY CASH — PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
55.55
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$24.43
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$9.18
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$23o49
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
51.30
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$1*90
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$20.09
P ERMALAWN INC
SUPPLIES
$209* 11
READY—MENr INC*
SERVICES RENDERED
$408*33
SERVICES RENDERED
$16480
- RELIANCE SAFETY EQUIPMENT CCI.
SUPPLIES
$23e50
REPCO ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUPPLIES
$171 34
PAGE 11
TOTAL
$34*28
$50000
$693*50
53$.40
$238w00
$446.74
$19595*00
$13.95
$2781
$14847
$6j42/0j0
S48 o 05
-$4057
$9945
$7800
$43793
$144*00
$9950
$2402
$196 63
$78 20
$2841
$107*00
Y
$8594
$20911
$573.13
$23.50
$171*34
VENDOR
STREET DIVISION
RUNN ION EQUIPMENT CD.
SEAR S 9 ROEBUCK AND CO
JOHN SEXTON SAND GRAVEL
STEI NER CORPORATION
STANDARD PIPE C SUPPLY INC*
SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION
TECH SYN CORPORATION
TRI SERVICE COMPANY
JACK VENA LAWN MAINTENANCE INC
VERMEER—ILLINOIS
WASHINGTON RUBBER CO.
WAY --KEN CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO
HOWARD Lo WHITE C ASSOCIATES9 INC*
ZIP—PENNv INC
STREET DIVISION
GENERAL FUND
MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
CORPORATE PURPOSES 1973 CONST
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 12
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10110/84
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
S800000
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
$400.00
S1 T 200 000
MISC TOOLS
$345 75
$345.75
REFUSE DISPOSAL
$408 00
REFUSE DISPOSAL
5104x40
$51 0
SERVICES RENDERED
$189*13
$189.13
SUPPLIES
$27 61
$27.61
SERVICES RENDERED
$28046
$28.46
PARTS
$105 53
$105 53
SERVICES RENDERED
519527
$19527
SERVICES RENDERED
$820.00
$820.00
PARTS
.x176*40
$176.40
PARTS
$22028
$2228
PARTS
$177 79
$177.79
EQUIPMENT
$326e00
EQUIPMENT
$307.93
EQUIPMENT
5440000
S19073o93
SUPPLIES
59.87
5987
***TOTAL**
$13 f 6- ` 1
$8.381*38
REVENUE SHARING FUND
$29959*48
$19595 00
CAPITAL IMPRV E REPL. FUND
$99 45
$642.00
4646***46W6
'Y A. Y "A y� 1f"'I' 'N Y Y' Y'Y' �I` �i Y Y Y 1i" M I1` i` �/' �It,I` ft, w, w if` Y "M' 4` Id. A. � 1t . M "!"Y' A.
'%, v, -I- 'Y M i* -46 4V"Y` Y"�ii 1i1` Y Y Y '7r 1�P i�'Y' M +i~"' f1M Y
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
ARLINGTON AUTO PARTS PARTS $52*16 $52.16
ATET TELEPNflNE SERVICE 55
S1.
TELEPHONE SERVICE E 1 55
TELEPHONE SERVICE $3*05 56 15
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. MEMBERSHIP 5430.00 $430*00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 13
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10110/84
-VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
BADGER METER INC
SUPPLIES
$19777.39
$19777.39
BROC K TOOL CO
TOOLS
$222 60
$222.60
P a44CE MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT
SUPPLIES
$19603 50
$l v603 5O
'ET CARPETS
EQUIPMENT
$800000
$800.00
tL ,,40NWEALTH EDISON
ELECTRICAL SERVICE- WELL PUMPS
$699366.48
$699366.48'
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
ELECTRIC. SERVICE
$13.11
ELECTRIC SERVICE
$111.57
5124.68
COPPER AND BRASS SALES
SUPPLIES
$57.45
$57.45
FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION
EQUIPMENT
$9945
EQUIPMENT
$9946
$198.91
FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS* INC
SUPPLIES
$26.00
$26*00
JIM GRANDT
SHOE ALLOWANCE
$50.00
$50000
HERSEY PRODUCTS INC.
METERS
331102.88
$3910 2*88
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES COR
COPIER- RENTAL AND USAGE CHARGE
$99.50
$99x50
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$13.87
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$14*00
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$16001
TELEPHONE SERVICE
$396x12
144000
;TNOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
FICA PAYMENT 9,27/84
$19231*62
IMRF PAYMENT 9184
329101.34
$39332.96'
,._1ER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
PARTS
$43 05
$43.05
KOCH'S LUCKY ACRE
SOD
$76 OO
SOD
$110*20
$186.20
IRONHANDS INC*
TOOLS
$49.60
$49.60
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO.
GAS SERVICE
$44.11
GAS SERVICE
$13 31
GAS SERVICE
5110.60
$168.02
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC*
OFFICE SUPPLIES
35.08
$5 08
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS
LEGAL AU
$20.00
$20.00
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$2024
h
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$7000.06
_
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
5824
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$8.51
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$3o34
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
516.40
$108.73
PEDERSEN E HOUPT
SERVICES RENDERED
S2*975.83
$2.975083
VENDOR
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
POSTMASTER MT PROSPECT
RELIANCE SAFETY EQUIPMENT CD.
JOHN SEXTON SAND GRAVEL:.
STEI NER CORPORATION
STANDARD PIPE & SUPPLY INC.
SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION
VANITIES INC*
WALLACE C T I ERNAN
WEST SIDE TRACTOR SALES
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
MATER E SEWER FUND - OEM
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 14
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10110/'84
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
POSTAGE PERMIT- WATER BILLS
$292.49
$29249-
SUPPLIES
$13 49
$13.49
REFUSE DISPOSAL
$288 00
5288- ^fI
SERVICES RENDERED
$189*12
$18(
SUPPLIES
$71.19
$71._
SERVICES RENDERED
52847
$28.47
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5674.00
$674000
SUPPLIES
$127*20
$127*20
PARTS
$5.16
55.16
*"'-*TOTAL*- 586,93629
$869936 29
** %, YYI`1`ti�+` 4'YY'M YYMM f`�i ti "�r'Y� 1- M1�-Y YMti`-tl IN, 4, -a -MY 1fi` YY1�'i`Y M MY 1%,1%, A. IV, Ift'A. M YY Yew. -v. �Y I%-ft..-%IN,I%'�, w. 14, A.
Ift,i"+� � Y�f` A. 1V, ft, V"1"Mti Y�Mw`��lie It, t1�f"1tYM 1�f` 1ft *le
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN TRANS CO
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
READY --MEN, INC*
HOWARD L. !SHITE £ ASSOCIATEST INC.
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
AUGUST ADN SEPT* LAND LEASE
$2014*63
$2,31L. -3'
FICA PAYMENT 9/27/'84
515.99
�
IMRF PAYMENT 9/84
$25.45
$41.44'
SERVICES RENDERED
$408 32
SERVICES RENDERED
$164.80
$573 12
EQUIPMENT
;246 uu
EQUIPMENT
$300* 00
5546 O0
***TOTAL"*
$3.475 19
$3.475 19
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 15
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10110/84
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
ENGINEERING DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
ELECTRICAL SERVICE S CURVE
$176.65
517665
COOK COUNTY TREAS*ELECT& MECH*ITEM
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE— 7/84 TO 9
$19905.00
$19905#00
ti JOHNSON PAVING CO.
RESURFACING PROGRAM EST 102
$121915 00
RESURFACING PROGRAM EST 102
$571505.*35
v
RESURFACING CURS C GUTTER
$61 r 047.00
RESURFACING PROGRAM
$114#490*01
$2459957.36
M C A CEMENT WORK
SERVICES RENDERED
$19077*14
$19077#14
M&A CEMENT WORK# INCo
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
$291496*80
$299496*80
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC*
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$2032
$20o32
PETTY CASH -- MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TRAVEL C SUPPLIES
$7047
S747Y
PINNER ELECTRIC CO
SERVICES RENDERED
$690 27
$690.27
PORTLAND CEMENT Coo
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
$6000
$60o00M
SOIL C MATERIAL CONSULTANTS, INC*
SERVICES RENDERED
$29.50
$29*50
ENGINEERING DIVISION
"�YTOTAL*�
$279:420.51
GENERAL FUND
$3+0,838.38 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
$2481582 13
V .9-4.
Y -,P.* 'M 1► M
1 'w. M Y M 1 . w. 'f+` ti Y Y Y M "moi. Awb 1wb w.V. -W ft` �M 'mow. S� � M` � le 1!' 1+` � ft, N, M 'Y' M M � � Y�"M 'Y M Y M � Y Y i+` IV--146-14�+'Y` V. '1Y` � Y M Y Y� 46 M M Y 'Yz � M Y moi+ �Y ft, Y fir` Y Y '4 le v. , w. ft, 1` + , ft, IV-
DEBT
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
MOUNT PROSPECT STATE BANK
COMM. EQ. NOTE PRIN DUE 10/1/84
53.533 75
COMM* EQ. NOTE INT* DUE 10,%1184
$1.475.75
$5.009*50M
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
**6TOTAL�*
$5v009*50
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 8CI
$59009*50
�1. may, �y �t �y �y �. �y �y .�y �1. �i�. may. �y �{, ,�y .�q. �y
Ae. -0. 'Y' Y` 'Y 1` i'� M M ^fes Y 'Y` �F Y '1M"iF� M INk 41 M 'IV, 'Y
VENDOR
PENSION FUNDS
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
CHARLES W4 NICK
PENSION FUNDS
GENERAL FUND
ALL DEPARTMENTS TOTAL
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 1E►
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 10/10/84
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
FICA PAYMENT 9/27/84 $51721*61
IMRF PAYMENT 9/84 58t726m83 $149448.44*
PENSION FOR OCTOBER 84 $883*22 $883,.22
**TOTAL#rS33
i591
$883 22 ILLm MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND $14*448.44
$750071 53
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR CAROLYN M AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1984
SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
. . ..........
The Village has received an application from Golden Bear
Family Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Pizza Hut, for a Liquor
License at their facility, 401 East Euclid Avenue. Corporately,
Pizza Hut is owned by PEPSICO. Previously, the Pizza Hut
subsidiary bought 44 Golden Bear Restaurants of which 26
will be turned into Pizza Huts and the remaining sold as
Golden Bear Restaurants.
The original application was for a Class R License, restaurant -
consumption at dining tables only. After discussion with
Mr. Pat Siefert, Director of Operations, they agreed to
request a Class W License which provides for consumption of
beer and wine only. A similar license had existed previously
at this location issued to Golden Bear Restaurant, however,
that corporation declined to renew its license and, therefore,
an Ordinance amendment will be necessary.
Fees have been paid and the Corporation plans to make certain
internal remodeling changes. If the Board concurs with this
request, it will be necessary to amend our existing Municipal
Code to provide for an additional Class W Liquor License.
TERRANCE L. BURGHARD
TLB/rcw ,
attachment
STORE #405159
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COOK COUNTY# ILLINOIS
LOCAL LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR RETAIL LIQUOR DEALER'S LICENSE
RENEWAL
DATE_ Se �r 24, 1984
NEW x
Honorable Carolyn H. KrausepVillage President
and Local Liquor Control Conni 0
Issioner
Village of Mount Prospect) Illinois
Purs,uant to the prov*
Isions, Of the Municipal Code Of Mount Prospect of
r�
1957P known as Section 13.103$ passed by the Board, of -lrustees of
said, Village on the I 15th, deriy O�f January,, 1957, -is am
sale of alcoholic: 1- 3. e n d c d r C,g,u I a t 1", ng
I iquors in the V'" Ilage of' Tlount Prospect
Cook, State of I linolis; , County of
The undersigned GOLDEN BEAR FApffLy M,�TAUFtANTSJ INC. d/b/a PIZZA fM
hereby makes app'1--1-c�atj,6jj--f-0---1%
.Cas
0 r a iquor ea eri s 1r6-en-se--f-or%
the period ending April 3 19 85 an tenders the sum of $ 1 500.00
,,
the prescribed fee as set
fortF-1--n-the following:
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL FEES FOR THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF RETAIL
LIQUOR DEALERS' LICENSES (Section 13.106):
CLASS A: Retail package and consumption on premises
CLASS B: Consumption on premises only
CLASS C: Retail package only
CLASS D: Non-profit Private clubs; civic or fraternal
organizations; consumption on premises only
CLASS E: Caterer's license
CLASS G: Park District Golf Course; beer and wine,
consumption on premises only
CLASS M: Hotels, motels, motor inns, motor lodges;
retail package and consumption on premises
Annual-- Fe -e-
$ 21000.00
1,506.00
1,500.00
300000
1,500.00
300.00
2,500.011
CLASS P: Retail package - refrigerated and non -
refrigerated beer and wine only - no
consumption on premises
1o250.00
G S
R R ta �n
5ifll I : `X�jnpg"" 10,
cqxrs��, � �i.tico
oni
11500. 0
LASS S: Restaurant with a lounge
2.,000.00
Retail package - wine only
1,000.00
SS W Restaurant - consumption of beer or wine
only and at dining tables only
12000A0
SURETY BOND REQUIRED C---
19000.00
EACH LICENSE TERMINATES ON THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, NEXT FOLLOWING DATE.
Your petitioner, GOLDEN BEAR FAMLY RESTAURANTS , -INC.
doing business as
PIZZA HUT
respectfully requests permission to operate a retail liquor business at
401 East Euclid Avenue daunt Prospect , Illinois .
Description and %ame of Premises: PIZZA Ham" - one-story,freestanding restaurant
building constructed of red brick with slatted a l n Dining rom,
2 restroams & StOrB,= Mans-
,(Description
oams .
(Description must e comp ete as to ocar , frontage , etc .
Name of Owner of Premises: WHEELING TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, Trustee -1-13 4
Trust #?
Trust, Aeement . '
If owner of record is a land trustee, attach copy of Land Tr �
If not (h.Tner, does applicant have a lease? YES State date applicant's
lease expires : 2/4/93 3f not Owner, attach copy of lease hereto.0
Is applicant an individual, a co -partnership, or an
association? (C ircle one)
If an individual, state your name, date of birth, address, telephone
number and Social Security Number:
If co -partnership, state name, date of birth, address, telephone number
and Social Security Number of each person entitled to share in the profits
thereof • N/A -.
if a co -partnership, give the
date of the formation of the partnership:
N/A
to of incor orat ion : IijaNQIS - 8-20-65
If a corporation, give state and da P
It a corporation incorporated
date under
in a state other than the Mate `of Illinois,
Illinois Business Corporation Act to transact
indicate qualified
business in Illinois:
N/A •
if a corporation, give names,
•
addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers,
and directors. Also list the names
o
and social Numbers
addresses, dates of birth and
Officersers
Socia . Security Numbers of shareholders
owning in the aggregate more
than 57. of the stock of such corporation.
OFFICE and/or
NAMEE
i
PERCENT of STOCK HEI
AD ..�
D. J.
411 S. 'ebb Road., Wichita., Ks- Pres . , Tres . & Dir. Q
. 3/31/40
Date of Birth:
Social Security 1, 4-28�-3533 Phone 1 316-681
—
RAYMOND W. BAKER
234 N. Parkwood, Wichita.- Ks- V . P . , Sec . & Dir. 0
Date. of Birth.: 8/21/44
- 436-64-5752 Phone � , 7
Social Security # 316- 8.11
PI2?A K7 r -1C «
c= East Douglas, !-7ichita, 1�s .. 100% sale
-.r
PIZZA HUE, .
Date of Birth: N/A
Social security N/A Phone �16 � l�a
Date of Birth:
Social Security ,`� Phone
, 2 -
Operator of restaurant and sale of food
c
Objets for which organization is formed: s -tuffs, beer, soft drinks and the dealing i-
tradling, buying, selling in real PrOPerty and person_a7_p_r—bpe-ft-7y- o
If an individual, a co -partnership, a corporation or an association,, has
the applicant or any of the partners, incorporators, directors, officers
agents, or stockholders ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor?
'
NO If so, explain:
If applicant is an individual, state age -0 N/A Marital Status:
Is applicant a citizen of the United States? YES If a naturalized citizen,
state date and place of naturalization:
How long has applicant been a resident of Mount Prospect, continuously next
prior . to the filing of this application? N/A coRpoRATToN
Local Address: 'Telephone No.
State character or type of business of applicant heretofore:
RESTALTAW
State amount of goods, wares and merchandise on hand at this time:
Est. $45,000.
How long has applicant been in this business? 8-20-65
Is the applicant an elected public official? NO If so state the
particulars thereof:
Is any other person directly or indirectly in applicant's place of business
an elected public official? NO
In the case of an application for the renewal of a license, has the
applicant made any political contributions within the past 2 years? N/A
If so, state the particulars thereof:—
Does the applicant hold any law enforcement office? NO If so, designate
title:
Does the applicant possess a current Federal Wagering or Gambling Device
Stamp? NO If so, state the reasons therefor:
Has applicant ever been convicted of a gambling offense as presented by
any of subsections (a) (3) through (a) (10) of Section 28-1, or as
prescribed by Section 28-3 of the "Criminal Code of 1961" as heretofore
or hereaf ter amended? NO If so, list date (s) of said conviction (s)
Has applicant ever made similar application for a similar or other
license on premises other than described in this application? YES
If so, state disposition of such application.-
- 3
I� applicant qualified to receive state and federal license to operate an
alcoholic liquor business?- yES-Has applicant ever had a previous license
revoked by the federal government or by any state or subdivision thereof?
NO . If so, explain:
Is applicant disqualified to receive a license by reason of any matter or
thing construed by this ordinance, the laws of this state or other
ordinances of this Village?.-- NO . . ....... ............... —.—
Does applicant agree not to violate any of the laws of the State of Illinois,
the United States of America, or any of the ordinances of the Village of
Mount Prospect in the conduct of his place of business?" YES
Does applicant currently carry Dram Shop Insurance coverage?,—YES
If "Yes," attach copy.
If applicant is not the owner of the premises, does the owner thereof carry
Dram Shop Insurance coverage? YES (If the answer to either of the
foregoing questions is "No," no license shall issue.)
Does surety bond required by ordinance accompany this application at the
time of filing?_ YES
State name and address of each surety next below:
ST. PAUL FIRE & .MARINE INSURANCE CO. - St. Paul, Minnesota.
Give name, address., date of birth, telephone number and Social Security
Number of manager or agent in charge of premises for which this application
is made:
RICH 'AM �1)" C(->A),q,LJAq *r -L ... ...... .....
a -if in- ogs —I C hIc -0 li—
q
J.
GOLDEN BEAR FAMILY RESTAURANTS r INC.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
D. J., MC CLT. RE President
Corporate Seal
(If applicant is corporation)
Who, first being duly sworn, under oath deposes and says that he is/are
the applicant for the license requested in the foregoing application; that
he -is/are of good repute, character and standing, and that answers
to the questions asked in the foregoing application are true and correct
in every detail.
KANSAS
STATE OF XKROM
SEDGWICK S S
COUNTY OF XXXXK
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 24th day of Septenber--,A.D. , 1984 .
y GOMM
SWed Kzr=,$
MY A01k Em
Notary Mblic
Local Liquor Control Commissioner
,-, 4 -
Laks, Offices of
CHAPMAN AND CUTLER
a partnership including professional corporations
Theodore S. Chapman 111 West Mon Street, ChicagoIllinois 60603
Salt Lake
-roe
1877-1943 ,
City Office
Henry E. Cutler TWX 910-221-2103 Telex 206281
50 South Main Street
1879-1959 Telephone 312 845-3000
Salt Lake City, Utah 84144
Telephone 801 533-0066
*ctober 10, 1984
David C. Newman
Pedersen & Haupt P.C.
180 North LaSalle Street
Suite 3400
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
$2,000,000 Industrial Revenue Bonds,
Series 1984 (Toko,Atnerica Project)
Dear Mr. Newman:
Enclosed please find with respect to the above
described issue the Information Return for Private Activity
Bond Issues (Form 8038) which must be filed with the Internal
Revenue Service.
Please have this form executed on Page 2 by Ms.
Krause. Also, the Village of Mount Prospect's employer
identification number should be inserted in the appropriate
blank on Page 1 (Item 3 of the form).
The completed form should be returned to our offices
no later than October 20. Thank you very much for your
attention to this matter.
Very truly,
CHAPMAN AND CUTLER
By
Ruth E. Krug
REK/cme
Enclosure
Arm Uu�d
(January 1983)
09CAMnent of Ot Tritezury
Internal - Revenue Sarvics
I
imurnia-Lion e'
'Lurn
for Private Activity Bond Issues
Under Section 103(1)
(Section references are to the internal Revenue . Code.)
i
OMS No. 15454720
1-3145
.1 issuer's name Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, IL
3 Issuer's employer
identification number
2 Present address (including city, town or post office, State and ZIP code)
100 South Emerson
3 �00
street
Mount Prospect, Illinoiis 60156
4 Date Of issue
l�August 30, 1984
Type of Issue (Check box(es) that apply)
Private Activity Bonds Other than Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs):
SIC code,
Amount S
SIC code Amount $
5 Student loan bond . . . . . . . .
.. ....... ......
6 Private exempt entity bond
Industrial Development Bonds:
7 Industrial park bond
$1 million small issue IDB
b $10 million small issue 1DB*J
670
$1,,782,823
Exempt Activity Bond (check type'(s) below):
a Residential rental projects (section 103(b)(4)(A))
. . . . .
b C] Sports facilities (section 103(b)(4)(13)) . .
. . . .
. .
C C] Convention facilities (section 103(b)(4)(c))
d Q Airports, docks. etc.. (section 103(b)(4)(D)) .
. .. . . . .
0 Sewage or waste disposal facilities (section 103(b)(4)(E))
.
f Pollution control facilities (section 103(b)(4)(F)'),.
g Water furnishing facilities (section 103(b)(4)(G)) . . . . .
. . . . . .
h Hydroelectric generating facilities (section 103(b)(4)(H))
. . . .
i Mass commuting vehicles (section 103(b)(4)(1)). .. . . .
. . . . .
i C] Local district heating or cooling facilities (section 103(b)(4)(J))
k 0 Facilities for the local furnishing of electric energy or gas (section 103(b)(4)(E))
Description of Obligations (See instructions)
20
(A)
Maturity datoFace amount
(C) VD)
Stated intarust rate Term (in years)
Se Exhihl
e t A attach hereto and made a part hereot
%
10/c
. . .......
........ . .......... .
%
%
%
%
----------
%
Oro
%
%
aver -age rnaturitY of the issue On years) (,complete 0
MY for, ID13s)(:See instructions) 6.0444
0'r PaPerwOrk Reduction Act Natio, sear pigs I of th* lnztmctJons.
Form 8038 (1 a3)
Proc"ds of Issue
..... Pace 2
Tota,' purchase price (regs. section 1.103-13(d)(2))
Face amount of issue
�$2rOOOf000
Bond issuance costs
2r000f000
Amounts allocated to reasonably required reserve or replacement fund (r,egs. section I. 103-14(d)) .
Lendable proceeds of the issue (see instructions)
2T7,r E77
0
.
Description of Financed Property (Do
ir782i,823
not complete for Stu dent loan bonds)
a Cost of 3 -yr. ACRS property (or Portion thereof financed by issue)
b Cost of 5 -yr. ACRS property (or Portion thereof financed by issue) .
c Cost of 10 -yr. ACRS
J307i,95T
property (or Portion thereof financed by issue) .
d Cost Of 15 -yr. ACRSproperty (or
por�tion thereof financed by issue) .
e Cost of land (or Portion thereof financed
by issue)
f Cost of otherproperty financed by the issue
a Proceeds used to refund prior is -sue
597 385
b If issue is an advance refunding, enter the earliest call date .
Average weighted economic life of thee project (complete only for 1013s)
"XI
,
Description Of Initial Principal Users
3, 8 y�e a, rs.
(Do not COMplete for student loan bonds)
Initial Principal Users:
Name (C)
Address
Employer identification
Toko America, Inc. 5520 West Touhy Avenue
number
Skokie, Illinois' 60077
13-2533063
-:)MMOn Parents (if any) of initial principal users listed above:
w
Use
'M 2 C>ove) I
N/A
(0)
Employer identification
number
Approval Of Issue (Complete only for IDBs)
me of Governmental units approving issue )oo.,._Villaqe Of Mount Prospect,
COOX County,
mea and Pcsitions Of applicable elected rep'
-L�, —*Krause resentative-s or date of referenda approving issue
Caro line H. President
'Undir oqnsjtjn of per;ury, I doclarl that I hay,
awoct. A" c:pmplau -
Declaration of examined this return. including 3ccamcoarrying =�vdvlws And st1t*maA,t% and to the best of my kr)0wjwdz@ and witf
P"Paror (other than wzarw) is tas*d C4 all information, of which priparw has any knowledge.
Pgazturq Of 0 car
PrV p a re es ate I to
signature Date, check if
5 -- - saif-ern-
F--rm'z name (or 11 Ploy*d )p.
yours. if saff-trnp(cyod)
I and address ZIP C-od*,
Maturitv Date
11/1/86
2/1/87
5/1/87
8/1/87
11/1/87
2/1/88
5/1/88
8/1/88
11/1/88
2/1/89
5/1/89
8/1/89
11/1/89
2/l/90
5/l/90
8/1/90
11/1/90
2/l/91
5/l/91
8/1/91
11/1/91
2/l/92
5/1/92
8/1/92
11/1/92
2/1/93
5/1/93
8/1/93
11/1/93
2/1/94
5/1/94
8/1/94
10.1698
,Face Amount
Term (in ,e�ars)
$62,500
2.1694
62,500
2.4194
621,500
2.6694
62r500
2.9194
62r500
3.1694
62,500
3.4194
62,500
3.6694
62f500
3.9194
62,500
4.1694
62r500
4.4194
62f500
4.6694
62,500
4.9194
62f500
5.1694
62r500
5.4194
62,500
5.6694
62,500
5.9194
62r500
6.1694
62f500
6.4194
62r500
6.6694
62t500
6.9194
62f500
7.1694
62f500
7.4194
62r500
7.6694
62,500
7.9194
62,500
8.1694
62f500
8.4194
62,500
8.6694
62r500
8.9194
62f500
9.1694
62,500
9.4194
62r500
9.6694
62,500
9.9194
Stated Interest Rate
The Bond will bear interest at a rate equal to
sixty-five percent (65%) of the Prime Rate (the per annum,
rate of interest from time to time announced by Chemical
Bank as its prime rate at its principal office in New
York, New York) (the "Tax Exempt Rate"), which Tax Exempt
Rate shall change when and as the Prime Rate changes,
payable on November 1, 1984 and on the first day of each
February, May, August and November thereafter until the
Bond is fully paid. Interest shall be computed on the
basis of a calendar year consisting of 360 days and charged
on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed.
metal I Q11jal RevenueFun
General Fund
Revenue Sharing Fund
Motor Fuel T a g� Fd
Convnunity De -11- pment Block Grant Fund
Illinois Municipal Retirement and
toFunds:
# 92
a
Wre _: €` Sewerage Fund:
0-
perations & Maintenance
0. 1. & E.
Parking System Revenue Fund
Internal Service Fund':
Risk Management Fund
J s:
Cap" to - I-Provement, Reel - or ReDair !:und
Corporate P wposes ConstrUetion [_ - '973
Soeci& Service Area Constrtcti5
;ebt of to Fund
Corporate Purposes 97
Corporate Purposes £974
o cat. ons 'quipment 984
S pe c' a 1 Service Area 41
SpeciAl ServiceArea
special vice Area 43
Special Service Area
=Pedal ruse -2 .5
Special Service Area #5 Bond Resp
Trust & Av Fund
Trust Fund
Police Pension Fund
F 's Pension Fund
Special Assessments.*
SA Funds a Prior to 1940
SA Funds ® After 1940
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCIAL REPORT - SEPTEMBER 3, 1984
SUMMARY OF CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
Calsin &
Receipts
Disbursements
Cash &_ e
Balance
for
for
Balance
a
1,51851,191
$1,103,126780,666
3,903,651
58,580
794
33,950
25,394
908,740
91_204
142,959
056,905
346
44,368
41,275
3,439
107,627
44,618
29,935
122.310
1,468,80
409.771
-
1,628,596
62,513
8.782
1,722
N
69 573
154,166
81,658
WX7
211,327
413,288
20.757
17,122
416,923
390,043
3,977
-
394.920
1,497,319
2 ,35
_ 3
1,540,136
275,4¢2
27,996
--
303 8
592,478
53,2
-
CS1,686
39,243
523
5
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
ESTIMATED
E U EPORT
GE
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/3 l 4
1984-85
--€3
Y -T -D
CUR MO
UNREC # D
BUDGET
ETIsETAL.
ACTUAL
BALANCE
BALANCE
SAL
RAL FUND
1-000-00-4001
PRJ3P- T TAXES-1CORPOqATE
749,200
3129165
1 00 - 0-4C 2
1-000-
TAXES GENRL COR PREF
l,i18,70
4669125
10024• 32
3319589
7499200-
749, 2130-
10(3-
00-4004
ROOF T T 31E �-G A BA
507 9 7 0
21 1 s 5413
+# E,8-
949 669-
$-
000-00-4005
TAXES ARBAG-c- REV1U
61 , E
25 #5911
59913
l83#2�►
5(379700-
5{379700-
100-
1���
C6 SING CSAR TAS
4
1897513
SZf 312-
52#312-
100-4010
RRO FROG 109fl
49165
459000-
45# -
i#3Ei-
l 000-6fl 4611
TAXES ROAD E 8 ID E PREY
5_,
205
23
109000-
lot{300-
100-
1 00-0 4i
1 000-00-4014
RETAILERS0C1�UA`113� 1A�350,000
1x6459830 i0627,flb
3769822
47-
497-
5-
STATE INCOME TAS
FOREIGN EIRE
,150000
47901+65
54 90117
76,876603#53-
2#3229914-
#3229 14-
59-
000-
1N TAX
ERSON L PROP REPL TASx'9225
219000
89754
349260
450 413
219000-
6039953-
21,000-
53-
100-
1 0 00-4 5N
L PROP R L R 0
2,210
915
244
369285-
3b, 285-
44-
TOTAL TAX
Sv254#750
394399460 3,8O9v285
468,527
6-
1.956-
-
4,4459465-
494451465-
54-
FEE REVENUE
#a 0 1 1
3
81 1 L 1 C b
120, 000
513, 0013
1, 815
17,691
�
"_ E RMt
O.00313
8,3313
110425
2#177
58, 1£34-
589184-
-
_
I����'� � ��.'�%� ���,
12,000
5900
89025
19231
89 7 -
89575-
43-
PL A --XA i� Tg N PEES
109000
4 165
9
6.884
1,330
3, -
3975-
33-
��
STREET �I CE
7513
310
1513
3#117-
3,116-
3L-
)0-00-4117
00-00 4108
_
H1CLF LICENSE SES
48590003
2 2,fl 0
9251
4.411
600-
600-
80-
L-000-00-4109
�000�00-4109
DOG LICENSES
LIQUOR LICENSES
159000
60250
10244
90
415.749-
13.756-
4159749-
139756-
86-
BUSINESSLICENSES
105,1300
2
43975
2
1134,5013
500-
500-
9z-
1-000-00-4112
PUBLIC IMPR INSPECTIONS
vOOO
1,0013
692513
639811
69595
19121
1.811
1,511
3
1-000-00-4113
1-000-00-4114
RENTAL.E
39600
Ir500
I9500
300
89405-
2#100-
89405-
56-
-4115
FEES- EARL O APPEALS
CE TEL FRANCHISE FEES
97000
975(3
9472
765
3,528-
291 0-
3.525-
5
I-OUO-00-4116
BELL SYS FRANCHISE FEES
x.159 00
it 38voo?
6v 250
15983.6
9,706
15,071
59294-
5.294-
39-
35-
1-000-00-4119
ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS
79500
3.125
3#550
229929-
229929-
60-
1-000-00-41110
FALSE
495[fl
v
140CABLE
3950-
9950-
-
1 fl- 121
TV R
1207000
50,000
3 #172
8#{3l
2980 0-
00-
62-
�
1 0
�g
42.5O1
17,75
935
899828-
49828-
75-
3-
L N6L_ fl TE IT EE
T
17,081T
319553
129650-
129651-
3 0-
� E FE
E U
19125v850
469,080 41*,
2.275
38,097
99447-
99447-
23-
a
3#575-
`
1-00 -OC
aha E��-41�sGRANT-STATE
GRn T'=` L TRNG
.129500
59205
219422
21.422
0 nG
� 'ice®,- � �
FIRE i A TNG
NT-'�R.CIT�i TA
89500
3f5439540Sf
���!
9916
8#9'22
2*584-
59922
71
�`��� �� =�5
GRANT - SAY SAFETY
18.513
3#7013
7,7115
1954
,gfi3
19463
11,537-
x,584-
21#537-
{—
2-
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ESTIMATED REVENUE REPORT
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING 9/30/84
1984-85 Y- -
BUOET ESTIMATE ACTUAL ACTUAL
-iENERL FUND
TOTAL GRANT REVENUE 431-200 17v99036,0101
SERVICE CHARGE
REVENUE,
2
PEC'
1x452-
a
1-000-00-4178
FOREST RIVER RURAL FPO
12,1500
59205
39000
16-
TOTAL SERVICE
CHARGE REVENUE
12,0500
59205
3vO
76-
F TCR FUND TRANSFERS
64I 7-
-
58-
649167-
b4 7-
4 67-
58-
-253-
i-000-00-4220
W E S SERVICE CHARGE
110,000
459830
459833
99167
TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS1109000
760559
830
459833
9,v167
OTHER REVENUE
151466
15
0
973
973
1-000-00-4231
SALE OF CODE BOOKS
500
205
247
3
1-000-00-4232
FINES - LOCAL
225000
93,750
32*601
59128
1000-00-4233
FINES - CIRCUIT COURT
52012-
4-
7*559
159286
1-000-0C-4240
G.T4E. DEPOSIT RETURN
15v6OO
69500
149472-
14,472-
1-000-00-4242
PROSPECT AVE IMPROVEMENT
0
l5v466
-000-00-4243
SENIOR CENTER REVENUE
0
973
528
1-000-00-4244
SPECIAL. DETAIL REVENUE
19000-
100-
2080
169
1-000-00-4245
REI - VILLAGE PROPc_lRTY
129000
51000
6,PZ42
1-000-00-4246
REI - YOUTH COUNSELING
14v400
6000
3*040
5,379, 91-
1-000-00-4247
POLICE C FIRE REPORTS
12,000
5*000
41F638
668
_-000-00-84248
INTEREST INCOME
1109000
45x830
579088
11*170
1-00€-00-4249
MISCELLANECUS INCOME
261600
119080
l4vI64
551
'-000-00-4250
IRB FILING FEE
40x000
259000
i-000-00-4262
MAINTENANCE OF ST HWYS
239000
99580
89528
1--000-00-4270
TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUND
1-0 00-00-4271
TFR FROM CONTRCTR SURETY
1-000-00-4272
`IFR FROM S A - PUBLIC BEN
1-000-00-4273
POLICE VEST DONATIONS
1-000-00-4274
FIRE MECHANIC SERVTCES
11000
415
1-000-00-4275
RESIDENTS SHARE SIDEWALK
1-000-00-4278
SALE OF POLICE VEHICLES
11 000
49580
1-000-00-4280
SALE OF PROPERTY
TOTAL, OVER
REVENUE
4519100
1.8740
2619706
569536
TOTAL GENERAL
-----------------------------------------
FUND
9x9979400
491659505
496189309
1.1039128
REVENUE SHARING
FUND
GRANT REVENUE
21000-00-4156
FEDERAL ALLOTMENT
2749000
1.14x165
68x258
21-000-00-4248
INTEREST INCOME
29500
19040
? 0 8
794
TOTAL GRANT
REVENUE
26 500
1159205
69,306
794
TOTAL REVENUE
-------------------
SHARING FUND
276x500
115x205
699306
794
205x742-
PACE
2
PEC'
1x452-
a
BALANCE
OALANIE
BAL
69990-
v0-
16-
99500-
500-
76-
99500-
99500-
76-
649167- 7
64I 7-
-
58-
649167-
b4 7-
4 67-
58-
-253-
253-
253-
51-
. 2*319-
1929319-
a5-
769559
760559
0
15*600-
159600-
100-
151466
15
0
973
973
0
2*080
2*080
0
5758®
51758-
48-
119361-
11-9360-
79-
7,362-
732-
-
52012-
52012-
4-
12v43-
129436-
47-
40,,000
40,000
0
149472-
14,472-
63-
0
0
0
0
000-
19000-
100-
0
11,000--
11,000-
100-
0
1899395-
1899394-
42-
5*3799093-
5,379, 91-
4-
205x742-
2059742-
75-
19452-
1x452-
58-
207,194-
2079194-
75-
2079194-
2079194-
75-
VILLAGE OF
MOUPROSPECT
PAGE
ESTIMATED
REVENUE REPORTACCOUNTING
PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/30/84e
1984-5
Y—T—
Y—T—D
CLLR MO
U'D
E _
a
MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
BALANCE
BALANCE
BAL
TAX VU
90-00-4043- T ALLOCATION
8409000
3509000
351v026
809486
974
jAL TAX REVENUE
08 .._
418*974— -
v 974-
58-
I&WERFUND TRANSFERS
22_000—-4222 REIMBURSEMT ON PROJECTS
22-000-00-4242 REIMSURSEMT ON,PROJECTS
651000
279080
29967
100
64-9033-
c
22-000-00-4248 INTEREST INCOME
,1000
lOv4l5
239490
109668
19510—
1V51 6
TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS-
900000
37v495
269457
l0v718639543=
-39543=
71—
TOTAL TAX FUND9300000
387v495
377v483
911204
5520. —
5529517,
5 a
COMMUNITYEVVLOPME BLOCK �
z
AINT R F -'NUE
23-000-00-4155 GRANT
23-000-00-4240 —4240 ;REIMS F 78-80 FROG COST
35 57 4
3489155
127w000
708v574—
7089574—
85-
��j
000-00_4241 - i�T - S -REHAB -LOANS
4 368
8'P516
..
TOTAL GRANT REVENUE
8359574
3489i5s
135*.16
1 6 St
700x058—
8,@516
0
84—
"OTAL COMMUNTTYEVELO M NT BLOCK GT
835v57.
3
-
E7009058-5
- -
MUS PAL RETIREMENT FUND
TAX REVENUE
0, 0 00-40:55 TAXES. B ARE
y
00
�...
-^-��
_
�� �ERON R RETAX
310
_
-03 qi-
_
gym
a 461
L
00-424 - E95
6
5
00-
200_
100-
� a
TREVENUE
0
1
138x498
444618
5
X59
v
1-2 4002
TOTAL ILLo MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
2629500
l0q9365
138,P498
449618—
1—
LIBRARY FUND
TAX REVENUE
39-000-00-4-031 TAXES OPERATIONS CURB 1085vOOO
19-000-00-4032
45290
0 00 —
TAXES OPERATIONS PREY
5
_
99
523*767
-
5
o
, `-a.t0-4037 TAXES MR CURRENT
-
-000-00-4038 TAXES — I PREVIOUS
-
-
1 � - - .-_.
-.__ _ -1�� �
�
__
1 �
'9-000-00-4042 TAXES...
€4 1
1
46-1
�ggg
g}g
T v 90
_
—0-4065 PERSONAL -TAS
� 1
21
J-000-00-42-54OTHER INCOME
1 tDO
s
a
TOTAL TAS REVENUE192 99000
537907561790
12 0
_ 4
15
197v871
1 9-
-
6719917®
PAGE
BALANCE BAL
6719917— --
59033— 50-
0
11482x149— So -
959873—
33_e
#2142 - c. —
#62-5_ -0-
859402-
-8 2-
*889—
q8 -
31g 9— 51—
Te— 56-
3 5
1—
215
v- 6-
218- 63-
v" - -
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
ESTIMATED
REVENUE REPORT
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/30/84
1984-5
—T—
T-0
CUR Mo
UNREC'D
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
BALANCE
TOTAL LIBRARY FUND
------------
19289#000
5379075
617vO83
1 1
671991417-
WATER & SEWER FUND — OEM
FEE REE'=--
0 0,',-j'-00-4 i 17 WATER INSPE(L-T-1-ON FEES09000
4v165
4v9767
J -
41-030-00-4J19 SEWER TV INSPECTIONS
1-000—(3-420- WATER _�`
3 COL-
E
_
=
_ -
_ _
_
1-000— 00-42 Es
=
X27
v
-
-
$=sem
1 000-00=4203 WATER PEN ALTIES
_ 27
39912
1-000-00-4204 ME l w R REFI A1
C7--
- -2
-IJ0a 0-4205 WATER E SEWER TAPS
5,p 00g
'5
7
,>
625-
TAL FEE EEE
�ISv0
3-355
-01x715
324,334
v
117�
TES N T FES
u
��0-At � , FROM SSA 5
-
iP69600
_
L
_
198
_
_
5940:1-
g _ _
a
--`00an-4,48 INTER ES �
- _-3
_
4 €
}
4 1� 0'011 - ---_424 a l SC'E-`-a 0
�' 3em��
-
2
866
� -V819-
_ � ..-00-43,00 T RANSFE FROM R
}
-
TOTAL !NTERFUND TRANSFERS
1
436
{
7429 397-
WATER E _-a EFUND - BEI
OTH R E &.N E
44-000-00-4248 -4248 _SET INCOME
T T OTHER REVENUE
T l WATER E SEWER FUND BE!
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE ED
FEE REVENUE
46_000®-4113 RENTAL DEPOT
2x160
900
900
180
192608
TTL FEE REVENUE
29160
900
900
ISO
19260—
PARKI N� R E ENOF
46-0 _ _
00-00-421 �TE 011LECTION UN119'
_
_
5-
_0aP
-2 COLLECTI � IT
0e e RENT WILLE _
0
2x648
376
3x9 Z7-
_ INTEREST11 'L0 M E
3,500
.9455
1,282
194
_ 1
TQTAi PARKING
151
x55
T PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUNG
-----------------------------------------
1179260
*855
49,w442
8 v 7 8 21
679818= -
PAGE
BALANCE BAL
6719917— --
59033— 50-
0
11482x149— So -
959873—
33_e
#2142 - c. —
#62-5_ -0-
859402-
-8 2-
*889—
q8 -
31g 9— 51—
Te— 56-
3 5
1—
215
v- 6-
218- 63-
v" - -
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
ESTIMATED
REVENUE REPORT
PAGE
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING 9/30/84
1984-5
-T-
-T-
CUR
JUCO
RISK M �- NT UNC a
BUDGET
STMT
ACTUAL
BALANCE
BALANCE
BAL
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
00-00-4225 TRANSFER FROM FUND
6209300
25 94 55
2 12
2 3 O
-000-00-TRANSFER- FROM W��
1129205
1122
3729 _�
3'2-m -
60-
00-4227 TRANSFER FROM NG FU
21800
19165
1,p12
2
�-
320-
�-00--4241 EMS,
16075
21 083
3vO65
1-
1�=
�-
9_�-000-0 - 242 RETIREECONTRIBUTIONS
329900
13,705
13*
1 21
1 1 �
19x417-
It
9-000-00-424 �I��
34x800
149500
149499
1#960-
1t9-
58 -
-000-00-2 R1MBUrNT
129000
59000
1'5x661
31132
231
231®
5�
2 INVESTMENT
12�
X33
X13
9661
`V1�
31661
31
TOTAL INTERIFUND TSS
86795GO
361x450
3342
81,F653
791-
503*858-
5039858-
5 -
T 0T L RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
367v500
11619450
3
36 5 850-3
58 -
CAPITAL IPS. REPL. -UND
TAX RVU
-
51-000-00-4016 TAXES CI REE
6-97-50
is o 900
2
53 4!= 7
17-452
Go -
51--000--00-4164 A-. -OF P0
r
1-0-002- 0 -- 42 R
000
1-000-GO-z,-248INTER--,jINCOME
5_9-1
-v
_
- U*010
17-15 "
0
- 5� MAT
-
9000
-14-8-99-
---0 0 -0-4�a a SALE OF P - EQUIPMENT
�
�
-
� 00-
1 T 1R
900
3%000-
`,��1
TOTALTAX REVENUE
Zft79500
1135
313,99820�T
1
j
`DOTAL CAPITAL IM RV REPL. FUND
2429500
1019035
313x998
1
2
1
71-498
CORPORATE PURPOSES 1973 CONST
GRANT REVENUE
52-000®-4154 EPA GRANT
52-000-00-4248 INTEREST INCOME
8981,990
374,575
39863
3*863
7 -
_ 1�
'00-
TOTAL
3
2
2 5
3 TS
2
l
21*742-
12 �
2� a
� 4-2a
2-
12 121
39977
a�
X169869-
99-
TOTAL CORPORATE OS S 1973 CONST
928V990
387vO75
12 121
3 F
'9
11 6X69-
1 =-
SSA 2-5 CONST. LAKE MICH. WATER
TAX REVENUE
58-300-00-4019 TAXES - iCURREN1
-0ms2
2919700
1219540
.
TAXES - PREVIOUS
5 - 0 -$ � 24 I T PEEST INCOME
5T915
2�3-v 1
662 306
1199977
2919700=
15
2919700-
_
10-
TT T 1025v15
T�3�
2 10
181155
29373
515
,t'5-
1
1223
_1689-
344x669-
3--
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE
ESTIMATED
REVENUE REPORT
ACCOUNTING PERIOD
05 ENDING
9/30/64
1984
-T-D
Y -T -D
CUR
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
BALANCE
BALANCE
BAL
TOTAL SSA 215 CONST. LAKE MICH. WATER
19025v150
4279140
68Ov461
1229350
3449689-
CORPORATE PURPOSES 1973 BEI
TAX REVENUE
-000-00-4019 TAXES - CURRUMT
479750
199895
-
-
100-
60-000-00-4020 TAXES PREVIOUS
93v6OO
39v000
279753
,o-
7,8936
-000--4064 PERSONAL PROP REPO, TAX
59250
2-s185
5 ip2-
59250-
100-
60-000-00-4248 INTEREST INCOME
159000
69250
689
244
149311®
149311-95-
TOTALTAX REVENUE
1619600
67030
869396
279997
759204-
,,204-
O L RPO PURPOSES 1973 - 1
161x600
670530
869396
2
759204-
7 5 2
4
ORAE PURPOSES 1074
AX REVENUE
1-000--4022 TAXES - CURRENT
7691
Q
76175--
6-
100-
6 1 -0 0 0 - 0 0-4023 SAXES - PRFVTOU5
1989100
82x540
161,355
*724
e 6 v _745-
16.7451-
�
000 -40 PE-Q-SONAL CROP REPS TAX
101- 0
e
-5 -
§�
1 000- -4248 INTr T 13
000
e e
10801
484
-
439 _
-�
v TOTAL T A x R EYFE Nlul E
3 2 q v 6 25--
137933
-83.1-56
59ve-foa
1=
4 69-
44-
. _ R PURP101SES 14,914 $l
'Z30,625
137,3335
1 156
59V208
146v469-
'469 69-
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT BEI
TAX REVELNUE
709000-
709000-
100-
67-000-00-401-42c S PREVIOUS
6i-000-0-4248 IE5 !NCOME
19613
523
19613
110613
0
T TAX REN
70,000
299165
1x613
523
-
689387-
98-
TOTAL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT BEI
709000
29x165
1x613
523
689387-
689387-
POLICE PENSION FUND
TAX REVENUE
1-000- -4049 TAXES - RR N
135x 100
,9 290
1 ��
1 1
13 .-
1���
1 1 �
1
a-
71-000-00-4050 TAXES R �1 u5
71-0,00-00-4-064 NAL DROP REPO TAX
2 2VI
99800
849205
49080
184,992
59 902
918010-
o-
1-
I. -CE_ 19800
599080
1
819633-
500-
10-
1-(3-0-4244 B IYL E 5 A L
3,500
Iv455
$3 8
39500-
1G-
5061150-
7 1-43 0 0 -0 0 -4 2- 4 8 INTEREST INCOME
OTHER
750v000
31Z,500
-7 v
5
1-000-00-4249
TOTAL TAX REVENUE
lsZ42v300
5179610
489v009
83x682
1-
7539291-
i-
1-11-
16. 20800-
87j564-
5 08
I
5v2-1-
1119r'oo— lon—
a.---64
SO552_
i
1-
1-
V1--
MOUNT Sr
1
210
1
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 0
"0/84
1984- 8 55
-T-D
Y -T -D Y--D
CUR M
TOTAL
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
POL CE PENSION FUND
5179610
4899009
839682
EO PE!NSTON FUND
TAX REVENUE
--000---0
742 -0 C-0-00-40 553 TAX -S PREVIOUS
7-2-000-00-4064
3 L
X69450'00''
t PROP REPL TAS
I 2v 8 100
5,131
o 24-3 `� 6 S CONTRIBUTIONS
1-529250
3
64968-6
1
_ 0
0 3-=248 DEEB O
14
§7
Y0,TAL TAX REVENUE
1
5a=
909495
THF R REVENUE
,6-000-00-42483 ` F s iNC OM
---------------------------
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1-A8
REVENUE
84-000-00-4248 INVESTMENT iNCOME
T � USHER REVENUE
TOTAL SPECIAL ASSESPMENTSJ148
---------------------------
SS 0 --
TAX RKEWENUE
c!_TAXES
ge� 1 3
1
g=amH
-EINTEREiZT IN-OME1
0
31
TOTAL TAX REVENUE
19945
29491
21
�OTAII SSA C S E- 1 - S&
- 91
31
SSA C46 1-1 S -WILLS - BF-'
1-11-
16. 20800-
87j564-
5 08
I
5v2-1-
1119r'oo— lon—
a.---64
SO552_
i
1-
1-
1
210
1
SSA
TAXES-`C'URRE T
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
E
1189300-
ESTIMATED
REVENUE REPORT
1 -30j400
54 0
1
g
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING 9/30/84
L� T
__
� %J - -
TNT EST INCOME
19845
T
T CUR mo
UNRECID
_
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL ACTUAL
BALANCE
BALANCE
BAL
000-4019 TAXES CURRENT
*300
117
T T 1- T REQ
49300-
3
100-
89-000-00-4020 TAXES PIS
4,P700
1,#955
551 315
351
351
4lrHT-AN WATER BEI
89-000-00-4248 INTEREST INCOME
37
150
158 45
212-
212-
57 -
TOTAL TAX REVENUE
9.370
3,9895
5 ip 209 3*210
49161-
49161-
TOTAL SSA 2&4 SSE- I LE - BEI
----------------------------
9v370
39895
59209 39210
-
49-'6'-
- '-
44-
SSA 905 LAKE MICHIGAN WATER BEI
TAX REVENUE
9-2-000-00-4019
TAXES-`C'URRE T
g
��--o
1189300-
92-0 00-00-4,0Q1
TAXES PREVIOUS
1 -30j400
54 0
1
9
e
L� T
__
� %J - -
TNT EST INCOME
59000
29080
2 763
_
-000-0-44-49
TT INCOME BIR!4v-'39-
5-
- 6
_
T T 1- T REQ
�
2 t 5O
1 � 9
24
--
L�2-
-
-e
e
TO-'-A'L== SSA '25 LAKE
4lrHT-AN WATER BEI
2899450
1-20VI-595
2-
T-
1094439495
Zv40
090v776-
l -a
UNEXPENDED
U E CU
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
BALANCE
BAL
BUDGET EXPENSE REPORT
8,P750
5
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/30/84
S
1984-5
-T-0
Y -T-0
CUR MO
l6v279
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION DIVISION
13
513
14
10049
MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
8v659
B11658
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
15,000
69ZSO
69250
It
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
339150
139805
2932
39547
TOTAL COMMODITIES
Ilp 800
745
989
13
TOTAL MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
499950
Z,p 800
339671
49810
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
26x538
1069
19g0
TOTAL CONTRArTUAL -1r
1
7 5
5
209000
TOTAL COMMODITIES
150
6017
6 5,v 0 12-
84
TTL ADVISORY OARS AND CUISSI
17�
7,0851a
S
TOTAL PUBLIC REPRESENTATIQN 01 IS10
7
27 5
772
5 v 760
VILLAGE MANACERAS `AFFIL
ADM NLSTRATI_v
lahl AW"
PERSONAL SERVICE_
4 �
v 32
z-
_ 31
TOTAL �T TU L SE -VTC -FS,
-
=_ -
1,362
TOTAL L = y� S
g
S
2
10TAL CAPITAL EXPENOITURES
TOTAL INI%- `TIO AND SUPPORT
02
�
'v e
7�
3tNERAL COUNSEL
TOTAL N T A TUAL Lc '°
F
1=_
__
7'
TOTAL C; �� F �= S L
'04 0,0
z
C
_ m
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SEEV10ES
ZS
_
1
1 15
310'6
TOTAL POSES T
25s250
1 S 15
9254
39366
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT E T TINNG-
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVTC-=c-
-.0950-0
7
5
TOTAL C-GINTRACTUAL SERVICES
I _5 t 9 5- 0
69580
j,
T. A L C0 M M 0,DITA'ES
2010
80
253
9-7
TOTAL PERSONNEL MA G EENT -RAIN
2-6x55=0
1- a 30
13 �QO
A 21
TRAINING
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
TOTAL TRAINING
SALARY ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
10#000
491135
TOTAL SALARY ADMINISTRATION
109000
49165
CABLE T
TOTAL PERSONAL SER sIES
3Z 50{$
13x535
59962
Zv1 g
TO -FAL CONTRACTUAl SERV ICES199800
8vZ45
59 731
100
TOTAL COMMODITIES
5#000
ZIP
5-95
TOTAL rAPITAL E PE
T AI CABLE TV
779300
324v 190
129288
Z92
TOTAL VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
301050
12v735
94vOO7
209610
UNEXPENDED
U E CU
BALANCE ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BAL
#750
8,P750
5
6j718
6.v7I8Z
S
811
811
45
16,a279
l6v279
33
101936
10,9936
655:
1-3
13
513
14
10049
64
56 4 20
5
AVT 88
#_
X84
a
2x123
2123
S
6294- 5
61
f ?- Q
13,096
13*396
513
13x3
13*396
53
8v659
B11658
5 5 5
29
3a
53=
0
a
109000
109000
too
101000
109000 0
100
269538
26x538
1069
19g0
71
4x405
49405
88
209000
-09000-
100
65,01-7
6 5,v 0 12-
84
_�
207 S 04
PAGE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
UNEXPENDED
UNENCUM
BUDGET EXPENSE REPORT
BALANCE ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
ACCOUNTING
EZ
5 ENDING
9/30/84
19930
1984-85
Y—T—D
YT—I}
CUR MO
5
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
NCE DEPARTMENT
5
2,9641
2'9x641
52
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT
2,950
91
750
750
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
49:200
2Ov490
179470
39137
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
79680
39190
59750
792
TOTAL COMMODITIES
49500
1v T5
2f1II
132
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
2s 1,320
868
2
200
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT
619380
259555
259331
4v061
ACCOUNTING
0
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
571400
239915
27v54,P596
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SEICES
3x250
1x350
300
TOTAL COMMODITIES
5
31
5312
59312
TOTAL ACCOUNTING
619400
259575
289059
49596
P-AYROLL
B3
43364
439364
51
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
1 P 81
56
TOTAL PAYROLL
3729180
372,Y180
60
382x662
ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING
6
0
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
35OC
14x330
17382
39152
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1141600
608069312
242
TOTAL CITIES
*000
112
2
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
29000
830
TOTAL ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING
5692000
239405
259506
3 3 k
WATER BILLING
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
TOTAL COMMODITIES
TOTAL WATER BILLING
COLLECTIONS
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
TTL CMMITIES
TOTAL COLLECTIONS
TELEPHONE SERVICE
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
1I I60
49650
59348
1912EI
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
369000
151000
28v915
535
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
379500
15,P625
69533
39266
TOTAL TELEPHONE SERVICE
84,660
359275
41929£
100329
INSURANCE
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
i8v6215
7-#755
8v144
ITS19
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
-
T TAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
6209300
2589455
2489120
629030
TOTAL INSURANCE
63825
2669210
2569264
639549
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PAGE
c
UNEXPENDED
UNENCUM
BALANCE ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BAL
319731
319730
6
19930
19930
25
2:389
Zv369
5
0
36vO5O
369049
5
2,9641
2'9x641
52
29950
2,950
91
750
750
100
33x341
33341
5
189218
1921a
51
28
-288
5
2s 1,320
868
2
200
2,000
1100
-0,694 2
29x374
52
0
0
0
a
a
5312
59312
48
7*085
79085
20
309967
309967
B3
43364
439364
51
101482
1 P 81
56
0
3729180
372,Y180
60
382x662
3829661
6
0
0
VI_ ; A(_9 OF
MOUNr PROSPECT
BALANCE FENCUMB�RED
BALANCE
URGE
REPORT
239904
52
C UNITING
PERIOD 551 ENDIN
9/30/8_4
39150
1984-85
-T-0
Y -T-0
CUR
63
BUDGET
`IE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
10
a0
S
1I05
55
2
226
y 4t264P_9
6
'Al. PERSONAL IC S
45v650
199010
219746
v
TOTAICO1RArTL SERVICES
19
59000
850
200
o``
x.50
19305
TOTAL _
609800
259315
229596
39808
CAS} N&_-EET
3
51_
E F0 TAA ERSONJAIL - 3
19,875
8,21q_0
alqoo
19618
6x140
6v-'40
3
64x546
.#545
5
32
8990
a
SICK lt===r-!AV INCENTIVE REY-MBURSEMENT
SIT -48
77
7 1 It 8
6 5 -719 148
- y
a23
123
3x2
TOTAL SICK E,°_`� I �- I' F M
'
2 1 536
59582
TO I- �NANCE C I-
3,_
431.320
410,689
91 v 357
WMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT
49
'OTA 'ORACN' ',U' S-
E uc
-989-9 9
-070
ave
T 0 33
TS LTTAL E ,O_TU ._S
f 000
0a
TOTAL _ A{v IN 3 —R T ON N SUPPORT
89 -_
5
9494
LSF- S zP TN- T SERVICE
T A I_ E SO_� l SERVICES
61000
2v5 0
212?0
400
a
TOTA.f3- -T-�
I ;
3 `150
115
-3 4
A ;AFF -SET P I 1"1. 1 S- g_
m5
2
335
V n ;-AGE NEW -1 f: E
QTAIL CONTRACTUAlI E-
189600
7050
12,P460
662
OTA. ILLAG I_TR
10
7x750
129460
2
`c 411 1t_
1199285
499675
541740
10.930
T
RISK . _t�Nl
sMANC _ PR
CQNTRICTUAL
55,p501
356v45-0
19 a 352
21x659
TOTA I __K MAWA G MENT PROGRAM
855x500
35 6 9_5
1989352
2 *659
TOTAL RISK A NGE�e
s
g 5
5
355352
15
) 6C � DEPARTMENT
AD41NISTIRATION IND SUPPORT
, _
2a -40
L ONTR'_ T - EERVIC
581 @ 5
_
�5£8
_x955
TOTAL CM -_1
1
TOTAL !TA EXPENDITURES _
5
1 �
z
BALANCE FENCUMB�RED
BALANCE
BAL
3004
239904
52
119150
11,P150
93
39150
3v150
100
389204
389204
63
109975
105Kz
100
10
a0
S
1I05
55
2
226
y 4t264P_9
6
95
5 19320
339229
3 3 2 A
561
49746
4= 99 4lj
5
3
51_
5
8v665
519
69140
?140
6x140
6v-'40
3
64x546
.#545
5
65770148
657#148
77
5 1
SIT -48
77
7 1 It 8
6 5 -719 148
77
a23
123
3x2
43x742
7
5 582
59582
3
I'€
53T77,
e g
UNEXPENDED
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
BALANCE
ENCUMBERED
BUDGET EXPENSE
REPORT
07
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/30/84
19845
1984®5
-T-D
Y -T -D,
CUR MO
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
POLICE DEPARTMENT
5
509488
5#488
TL AND TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
,v2
4.862
7
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
135s5
681#260
669PO18
1249499
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
*000
830
156
40
TOTAL COMMODITIES
31300
139030
209494
201
TOTAL -PATROL AND TRAFFIC ENECEE1*668#385
216
6959120
689:668
124,740
CRIME PRE'Vat PUBLIC AND YOUTH SERV*
1665,156
5
329 767
TOTAL DERSONAL SERVICES
889649
3025
381161
79004
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
69600
29735
19738
334
TOTAL COMMODITIES
29250
930
19529
182
TOTAL CRIME PREV.t PUBLIC AND YOUT
97v499
40v5901v2
7*520
YNVE`TTGATTVE AND jUVEN.i E PROGRIM
749463
sl�v -0
3*497
L 3,
_ SE�ICES
73
1112
-121
215
- �m
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5 3
#20011
1.674.478
62
TA L = 1TIES
-- 250
1 3
;v034
`�34
ol�
_- OTAL INVESTIGATIVE E T IG T IVB- AN � ���E
T
2 9496
1179675-
1 *340
211410
CROSSING S
31
*899
69899
- - a.
TOTA=L PERSONALFER ICES
_1 2
3
® 45
g
4s
4,22,
TOTAL 1
500
1
79931
TOTAL CROSSINIG G BIRDS,
' *740
22195501
;
� UiPMENT MAINTENANCE C SPE— 10 N'
3
25x093
Z5vO9'2
13 T A L PERSONAL SER a-
40
'7
587
T L T �
e �
12 v EQ
9A
CMODIE
50
479630
_TOU3AL
6930.
m
TOTAL CAPITAL -EXPENDITURES
1139900
47x4150
'L
1 N EQ�I3 E T 1 T%E �`r PER
3 1 3
12 *610
5
5
L POLICE DEPARTMENT
2719
1*133#810
IvO429866
1891316
FIRE C EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
156V590
65x2310
63vc352
% C98
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
199130
7x55
69815
19795
TOTAL COMMODITIES
209850
89685
7990517
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
19x041
79925
129142
2w34
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND ST
215961.1
899795
909414
169356
FIRE SUPPRESSION
�'Al PERSONAI SCERVICESS
948*340
3959120
3969212
709429
`
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL BSERVICES
15
69450
79559
k �L
TAS_ COMMOD11-51-ES
IvsoO
625
405
TOTAL CAPITAL ITRES
2237
iO,930
19144
129
TOTAL FARE SUPPRESSION
9919567
4139125
4059320
773
CODE ENS Or-�ET
OT I PERSONAL SER E
3 L3 8 5
37
23
5 a4_ -
_ _
T TA C� g C L SERVICES
ES
2�
7
X53
T L CO �` IT --
7* �
3 5
2� 3
5 5
TIAL C-PITL_ EXPENDITURES
505
52
UNEXPENDED
1NEC
BALANCE
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BAL
07
9669067
5
19845
19844
92
109806
109806
35
9789718
978,717
5
509488
5#488
57
,v2
4.862
7
721
721
32
56,071
56x071
5
59
% m 2
44a 162
7
216
166 v 156
1665,156
5
329 767
32.767
64
380
380
7
33917
33x147
64
29x545
2q -t-45
71
_0
2 99
231
1
749463
sl�v -0
3*497
-0013
�5
% 7
� f 8
4,265
243020 2
T
I v 67897 5)
4,9265
1.674.478
62
739038
9 33 8
5
12x315
12,g35
64
12x945
6x577
6368
31
*899
69899
3
1.25x197
-#577
118,620
55
1
79931
IT 9 31
3
25x093
Z5vO9'2
96
X27
587
cq
7 s 5 a
484
4
4t63" "
PACE
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
ENCU
DET EXPENSE
REPORT
BAL
198v375
ACCOUNTING PERIOD
05 ENDING
9/30/84
6039042
1984-5
-T-
Y -
CUR MO
29720
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
EIRE C EMERGENCY PROTECTION EPTs
620,928
6201927
5
6 745
TOTAL CODE ENFORCEMENT
3389100
1409820
1399727
24v475
: ERCE CY MEDICAL SERVICES
2
30 9 7 23
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
1903991 77
432v980
4369135
80v970
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6v3ZO
2*630
4vI99
TOTAL COMMOOTTIES
3*077
19275
358
2
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
13
51435
320
TOTAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
190619619
442 320
440v692
90,q 998
COMMUNTCATIONS
1�6
no
19724v -r86
51,883 196729900
TOT L C T ACT AL SERVICES
139560
5*645
09815
A, -v394
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
79900
3190683
IST
3—
TTA, roMM
219460
Ota =5
69972
1x394
EQUIPMENT NT NANCE -E OPERATIONS
2€953
4053
65
1x055
TOTAL PEERSON-At- -'SERVICFES
51,876
Z6,v267
227
63
17vI06
1. 00
5975
ll7521
23011
T . Al- OIT
-=
4,76
W770
-19900
-
�
-oTAL ITALEXPENDI g
e�
TOTAL ��� — `TSE C OPER
66
9--0
6 '3,s
PMERr,-NCV PREPAREDNE'S-
T LP S ON A L R _
00
19040
1 *042
NT TUA S S E
X99_50
1,9220
121
1,
"TOTAL
T
TOTAL COMMODITIES
350
140
3
T0 TL CAPITAL EXP-JDT TURES
49400
19830
879
� LEMFRG-F-NCVE PREPAREDNESS
IG9200
4v230
4,v 001 7 2
372
IDT L FIR= _ E _ TOTECT N .
29875172
1890
5 3 9 7 67
CENTRAL SC SERVICE
COMggA TIONS
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
234vOOO
979500
9 tT 5
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
1659363
TOTAL COMMUNICATrONS
23 :I
7*500
2659068
TOTAL CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE
----------------------------------------
234tOOO
979500
2659068
HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
DMTNIST ATION AND SiPP RT
TOTAL PERSONAL SER IC,ECS
35,551
1 *800
139292
2x390
TOTAL- CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4v 540
1 880
1 5
4-94
TOTAL COMMODITIES
iv32
545
274
72
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SOT
41942-0
17x225
1591535
FLD0 L .? GENERAL HEALTH !NSPo
TTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
v
129895
13x0
2x160
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL S RSI ES
2v600
11080
299
TOTAL COMMODITIES
TnTAI - b — "reit
506
210
30
6
PACE
UNEXPENDED
ENCU
LANCE
ENCUMBERED BALANCE
BAL
198v375
1989373
59
6039042
6039042
59
212I
29121
34
29720
2v719
88
13,9045
139045
100
620,928
6201927
5
6 745
5
50
- 3
3
98
14-,488
2
30 9 7 23
9v 31 S 9
x39
On q
&x405
269405
: 2 3
6 12 8 1 1
-.
320
3 o
>' �
1,521
1 2
3-
-6.128
6. 128
1�6
no
19724v -r86
51,883 196729900
c
134,295
134x295
57
1659363-
165x363®
3190683
319068—
3—
3 1 v O i
3—
13-
-22025092
2 2 o 2 50 9
3
2€953
4053
65
1x055
1055
T
Z6,v267
227
63
17vI06
1-7v'.06
5 ;
29302
23011
aq
476
4,76
94
98
-341
L*987
Iia
Sv75-0
12x660
23x483
n43
69563
80
69663
3
SS - 575
:s =-
89446 62
204 d
1 1
R 17 50
12 513
2*483 74
v1 T
6,P582 63
so 100
6x662 64
0 X201 5
5380 73
29489 74
1
59ol-30- 58
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1
UNEXPENDED
BUDGET EXPENSE REPORT
BALANCE ENCUMBERED
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/30/84
465
1984—
—T—
—T
CUR MO
29376
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
19732
19731
8i
284
ANIMAL CONTROL
63
39192
39191
68
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
836
345
371
67
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2-1800
1*160
889
45
TOTAL ANIMAL CONTROL
39636
11505
Iv260
112
BLOOD DONOR PROGRAM
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
29084
865
908
179
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2 142
890
411
so
TOTAL COMMODITIES
450
185
166
1
TOTAL BLOOD DONOR PROGRAM
4,v676
1040
19485
272
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
39290
v-1
_ 617
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
191 Tv12'0
477,9655-
3589521
98%,683
TOTAL SOLID AST DISPOSAL
= 1559022
Q'eZr
01
-1�
TOTAL HEALTH S RVTC- DIVISION
_9238*826
@ 11
_
HUMAN SERVICES 1 T S f€
IzT == tat v G C 0UlS CELT
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES.
32 —Av0 5
1
2*017
3 Tc
�_ ��-4
2994
397
- _
TAT A 0" v��T-1LE5
T 301
1
TOTAL I T TONV REFERRA-Le1T�9
7 %
239219
4v182
CR ATI N AND A-`
�_ SERVICES
a
1qqlq
51
TT ri-IL Spy S
19200495
996
T -T'1-'z
100
4
TOTAL REEIA,EAT3ON 10
�4 ;_
14x851
69170
1 1
1 T
HOMEBOUND SERVICES
TOTAL PERSONAL SSS
ZI*952
99135
99292
19820
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
319630
139175
8,F147
Iq
TOTAL HOMEBOUND SERVICES
53x582
229310
179439
3,p 0 87
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
TOTAL PERSONAL SAILS
109379
49315
39797
816
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
so
30
TOTAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
10,P459
49345
39797
816
TOTAL HUMAN SERIES DIVISION
1229097
50095
509556
99442
CUUMMUN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AINISTTs AND A�JNING
;,
TOTAL PEPSONAL SERVICE -5
889825
.90038v6-4
6vOO5
T 01"A L SCT C -T AL SERVINCGSP
7x325
50
1 95
��
TOTAL �, ]D IES
3x350
193-95
�
1 T
TOTAL sT L r- � IT ES
29 325
965
6
1 5
TOTALINISTR-TION AND LIQ
11x2
429410
42x695
9961.0
98
-341
L*987
Iia
Sv75-0
12x660
23x483
n43
69563
80
69663
3
SS - 575
:s =-
89446 62
204 d
1 1
R 17 50
12 513
2*483 74
v1 T
6,P582 63
so 100
6x662 64
0 X201 5
5380 73
29489 74
1
59ol-30- 58
PAGE
1
UNEXPENDED
UNENCUM
BALANCE ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BAL
465,
465
56
19911
1*911
68
29376
29376
65
M76
1,176
S
19732
19731
8i
284
284
63
39192
39191
68
2 6
4*526
S
7 6 8 C5-188�C95
69
311
T1o21
69
844v840
8449838
68
98
-341
L*987
Iia
Sv75-0
12x660
23x483
n43
69563
80
69663
3
SS - 575
:s =-
89446 62
204 d
1 1
R 17 50
12 513
2*483 74
v1 T
6,P582 63
so 100
6x662 64
0 X201 5
5380 73
29489 74
1
59ol-30- 58
VILLAGE
OF
MOUNTPROSPECT
BUDGETEXPENSE
REPORT
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/30/8
1984-
Y - T-0
- -D
CUP, mo
UNEXPENDEC3
U
BUDGET
STI
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
BALANCE E C EE
BALANCE
BAS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
WEIG ADMINISTRATION
TONAL PERSONAL SERVICES
43v20Q
10990
10866
29057
29m334
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13024
5010
A402
3v5I5
6022
69322,
46
TOTAL COMMODITIES
WOO
415
489
82
51i511
51
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
106*500
44x355
;20v!23--
251000-
1269623
1269623
119
TOTAL. CE)BG ApzSti
164,424
689470
1 Y634
s_
1629790
1629790
99
CG REL REHABILITATION
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
9W000
-;750
3 9 Z�5
338
SY755
5v755
TOT,% CAPITAL EXPENOTTURES.
TOTAL CIRESIDENTIAL RENABILITAT
21YOG
91t,250
49,048
CDBG COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION
TOTAL EL SERVICES
WOO
e
TOTALCONTRACTUAL SERVICES
51000
v
51000
0
DOTAL CAPITAL EXPENOITURRES
81P55033,975
17,106
6,333
'64x444
649444
79
TOTAL CCDBG COMMERCIAL REHABILITATI
E391 C50
379095
269577
6v849
62,473
6ZP473
70
CDRG RECREATIONALAREA DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL PERSONAL SS
2000
830
TOTAL CCONTRACTUAL :SERVICES
15x000
63x250
190
14*810
0
9
TO ;Q CAPITAL P WES
669700-7v790
*500--_
691200
*200
104
ATE BRECREATIONAL . AREA D-F3�
� �' 700 _
_9.
3�� �
2 -
859027
859 27
102
CDBG MULTI -FAMILY E BILIT TI
TOTALESQ SV='�
39000
lt250191£
TOTAL COINTR . AE, BICE
5
#00
a .
10 all
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENOITURES30
- 08CO
TOTAL GMULTI-FAMILY REHABILITA
IM700
579370
11889
33
1359811
135£811
99
CDBG DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS
TOTALE S10N,A"L SERVICES
6 9CDC)
ZV500
3
284
-
- -
S0.
9719,0010
6
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENT�
12000
o
v1 _
244
�
5�
-
TOTALBG DOWNTOWN iMPROVEMENTS
141*700
5O459vO4O
77x83
*047
639871
63-870
45
TOTOK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPALRYMENT
937,399
3909505
'981146v,7
739,054
7 399 053
7
BEET DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
=O_
TOSAL C
116,800
40650
40505
U572
759295�
-
4
T
� =g
0
1934370i
6v357
357
83
TOTAL COMMODITIES
w
4*055
�
456
a
w
�v 8
66
TOTAL CAPITAL P��IS
900
29870
1,540
269
Sv360
5060
78
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND S U P PUR T
14 11 15 0
589775
kj . a a a
81998
93Y470
93,470
66
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLICBUILE)INCK
aTUTAL. =PERSONAL SERVICES
62x744
26vl3S
40430
Bv354
22v 314
22V314
36
TOTAL COON aRV rC S
38,880
l6vI95
l3v808251072
259072
64
TOTAL COMMOCITIES
689675
289600
30052
9x410
*923
*923
55
TOTAL. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
407013
189615
13x924-
1110000
TL. PNEC OF PUBLIC BUILD!
249
89x545
98,914
1
1Y5
UNEXPENDED
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
aALANCE
BUDGET EXPENS 1- REPORT
BALANCE
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING
9930/84
11989-1
1984-5
-T-D
Y -T-0
CUR M
DIVISIONSTREET
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
MAINTENANCE OF GROUNDS
59531
20
31#976
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
*600
23v990
409707
-TT
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7*000
-915
4040
870
TOTAL COMMODITIES
7050
,p0
65-8
39
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
279500
119451
219969
199731
TOTAL MAINTENANCE OF GROUNDS,7850_
519586
76
T
-
-77 17
STREET MAINTENANCE
9
irSf 0
56e5QO
TOTAL. PERSONAL SERVICES
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
57@141
2VP800
36v424
5#068
TOTAL COMMODITTES
1@000
339000
5030
21,611
400
TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE
1049141
10
439360
17,411
56v446
59007
1 94 75
SNOW REMOVAL
'v
_6
TTI- PERSONAL SERVICES
68x130
289380
39072
17
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5 "800
Zt410
7
*941
TOTAL COMMODITIES
*500
40-
v 69 5;
TOTAL CAPITAL -EXPENDITURES
499
20962
-v471
522-
TOTAL SNS REMOVAL
170 930740431
*202
1
LEAF REMOVAL
*596
21939
1
v1
TAT PERSONAL CE
4s.881
in
t.9210
12
1902q
CONTRACTUALSER VICES49000665
100
2489018
69x596
178*422
TOTAL O1T1`
TOTAL CAPITALIT
149356
- q
518931
URE
0 AL REMOVAL
1
1 -2x949
1-
1#924
7
70L)
8,P5628950#
21*840
TM StWER AND BASIN MAINTENANCE
30
41 1
x21
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
1'3226
591-10
1 9202
0
TOTAL COMMODITIES
-foo
3,r TO
1
I,Y1
TOTAL T SEWER AND BASIN IT
J-��
FORESTRY
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1339289
'56087
#216
TOTAL COMMODITIES
118*300
,PT
27965
6v957
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
99000
759000
740911
31925
1� 1
TOTAL FORESTRY
3359589
11399785
879571
16995-
TRAFF-C SIGN MAINTENANCE
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
34085
149195
l9v729
21165
TTCOMMITI�
169200
69740
39251
730
TOTAL TRAFFIC- SIGN MAINTENANCE
509235
2Ov935
229980
F"JBLIC GROUNDS BEAUTIFICATION
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
���ITIS
TAT20
218,19911
� 1 T
9 886
TC)T CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
1
1
882
TOTAL PUBLIC GROUNDS BEAUTI-FICATT-0
339299
139860
20x519
29886
MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
59000
210-75
4x184
218
10
620
340
LINN'C
aALANCE
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
1*893
11989-1
29
29460
2 46(i
79092
srig
51531
59531
20
31#976
1t
2
2097172-0
36
11089
114389
1
1#589151589
tf
479605
69-
46
1
519586
76
5460
C, 9 60
9
irSf 0
56e5QO
loo
�`
1
163- 3 6
1-6-v26
91
Cvp
p 24i�
42,t246
97
0
4, L U -
'v
_6
16
•7 21
39072
17
539044,
539043
7
3.
49946—
40-
v 69 5;
749
-v471
522-
7-
T
*202
58
v
*596
21939
1
v1
4s.881
54
75,0000
100
2489018
69x596
178*422
53
149356
149356
1,v
1 -2x949
60
27v7g3O5
54
8,P5628950#
30
41 1
x21
8
12,P780
1v
0
816
816
1
I,Y1
1*a
UNEXPENOED J U
BALANCE EINIC U� M 8 E R ECT BALANCE RAS-
10*2._ X1911 60
i9 O 124. 915
0 93428 1 Z I p �� 2 38
. _L 30-9173
X938 TVA
C oF'.063
` � z 1 5 "T
56
9. M: 4
0 335
ViLLALGE
MOUNTPROSPECT
BUDG T EXPENSE
REPORT
"�L
ETT
79z
FIT
E-
_
%, °.-
no
BUDGET
FST ®;SATE
�
�.°AL
TRELT T 'Y TS
T
� -5
5 57 6
AIHN L-NE F S' HIGHWAYS
,v 994
28994
- -TA COMMODTTIES1
-6 -
69860
-
699366
TOTAL APITAL EXPENDITURES
li-000
-1 80
49-
916
X 13
TQT AL MAINTENANCE-: S ATE HIGHWAY
149 0
- �
� 9
4
=JUIPM NTI MAINTENANLE C OPERATTONc=
TPERSONAL S RV%
-v X46
4 639
0 68
1!30
"LITAL =O ` - �-=US VIES
P
C MMC _ _ S
107,-00
441870
37s637
TOTAL CAP!
21-=00
89955
_ v 3'
TOTAL C T ME}{ I� �; ;SCE r _mss_
_ 7
-463
PUTO'L VE-,'CC_E CTA T TOS
TOTAL PSONAI 1 CS
46_ 4
9690
ij
TOTM POOL VHI MAIN . � � . SAT
2 -
--=
--
T
OT _ � -
_
5-530
6 v 4
1 v379
TOTAL CAPf L EXP�-AD'TURcSoooa
21080
TOT T SERVICE XPeNSF
2 a' 20 0
9295-75
DOTAL N I - T 6O AND PPCRT
_
MAINTENANCE
AIN £_N OF PUBLIC 3Cx T I _ _ 'S
T'OTAL COT R C COAL S I _
5� oc
c r
R
1 v0
TOTAL COMMODIS US
IT v 00
8
�A MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC BUILD!
31,236
3 C
�v
TN A -F GROUNDS
lZ0
T
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
850
-550
T IAL MAINTENANCE O GROUNDS
X09
'LX800
101 9 p 39
WELL MAINTENANCE AND RFPA-IR
TOTAL PERSONAL SCECC =CES
999547
41*470
4 19 39 4
7-99Z
T T I_ TRACT SERVICES
Z19 0C
� �
fi t_
TOTAL COM CTI = TK-
-0
09
-i-�10
- 6
_ _ 4
TOTAL W - MAINTENANCE NREPAID_
190 _ '
r_�vO
-� -
�7i�
TOTAL PERSONAL SEERV
-39082
51 9 280
29;p6-9
—volt
TO T A L C -O T CT E T aE S
3vn_j00
IV2506
0
�- COMMODITIES
v
O
T37
UNEXPENOED J U
BALANCE EINIC U� M 8 E R ECT BALANCE RAS-
10*2._ X1911 60
i9 O 124. 915
0 93428 1 Z I p �� 2 38
. _L 30-9173
X938 TVA
C oF'.063
` � z 1 5 "T
56
9. M: 4
0 335
121
6
79z
35
3 235
no
950
100
24 v 7 5 0
24
T
� -5
5 57 6
= 2
,v 994
28994
871966
87,066
7
732-769
699366
-7403
933403
76
X 13
- 38
38
2- v 2 Z 6
1a 49 17 i 0 3 09
4
PAGE 1
UNEXPENDEn
VILLAGE OF
NT -$
BALANCE
BUDGET EXPENSE REPORT
BALANCE
BAL
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 051 ENDING
9/30/84
too
1984685
Y -T-0
Y -T -D
CUR MO
319710
ET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL.
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
3*364
ITER DISTRIBUTION T* & REPRe
92
14v330
14 9 S �%
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
201000
8v330
6 9 f40
z
TOTAL WATER DISTRIBUTION MAINTe1709282
709940
439515
10,P315
WATER VALVE AND HYDRANT MAINTo
1 1 1�
99
3lip260
3 910_28,157
TOTAL PERSONAE SERVICES
369306
isvizo
49596
407
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500
205
497
245
TOTAL COMMODITIES
259500
1096ZO
Z913610051
0
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
29x165
5'5x670
551670
TOTAL WATER VALVE AND HYDRANT MAIN
1329306
5'5,VI10
629899
579373
'WATERMETER 1 ST E. EP . E �
28,336
56
TOTAL PERSONAL SE IC -ES
6493 0
_ 4�0
T
1
TOTtAL T a TUU SERVICES
1
� 3
64,000
0 0 0
-
232-
0TOTAL.IT-IES 180
147
AL HK
-T
1-B0
-,5909676
EQUEPMENT M TE N=_E L OPE 1 T_ N
1,590,676
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
-)=618
310954
59"02
TOTAL CONTRAiCTUAL SERVICES
3x1000
lv2SO
420
167
T T e m MMaf)T
9 162
_ T S359287
491
61
T T - 1T - - T S S
_
_ 11i5
994-1
150
TO 1 EQUIPMENT I TE A E G OPER
206v008
a_ 5
1-
12x6)3
SANITARY SEWER MAINT. REPAIR
zc-
TOTAL ESQ SE�IES1
If v 11I63
18 95
4f 2_7 a
39525
! T L CONTRA--TUAI. SERVICES
4, 0
1 a -6
672
Edc
TOTAL C OMOD 'TIES
7180-A
3,140E
440440
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
90 0 0
26*665
TOTAL S 1T Y SEWER A'Nr. E
1261414
$� -
-390
vl
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
T T E 1T- E T�
I
819063
TOTAL WATER SYSTEM 1M E TS
2*1419600
8929325
5329924
19063
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL E S Q SERVICES
105-0
®074
388
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
49209
19750
Iv774
388
TOTAL WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
4v542v7l7
19892v545193279812
241x501
PARK.NG SYSTEM DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION ANO SUPPORT
TQT V PERSONAl SERVICES
69790
�
2w6718457
T T S C - T TU L SERVICES
I T3
x_1565
1 *309
103
TOTAL rOMMODrTTES
160
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE E X 9E N S E
ZF8 0 0
19165
1 0 1
280
TATE A D N I S T RATION AND SUPPORT
619505
b 1
1'_T
840
T0TAES SEIES
696
T
*495
288
T
T T�gA SERVICES
--.
a 1 S
1
300
PAGE 1
UNEXPENDEn
UNENCUM
BALANCE
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BAL
209000
z0v000
too
17
1,1917
1249850
73
319710
31,710
3
3*364
21364
92
14v330
14 9 S �%
20
699407
6 9 f40
z
_19563
1 1 1�
99
3lip260
3 910_28,157
1
58
*994
1
5-1891
44
37-664
27166�'
1,4
5810
580
6 .r
0
3
38 x02'5
- =
2
1s7
28,336
56
393-81
39128
8
0
64,000
0 0 0
10
10 3 9 0
'03-0--4
31
-T
1-B0
-,5909676
1=T0110
1,590,676
29436
243558
3x2.49907
1-
39086-95
684
9 162
491
61
v
�v
150
iso
100
i 680
A6
zc-
If v 11I63
I
-9292-
46
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
PACE
19
BUDGET EXPENSE
REPORT
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD (35 ENDING
11/30/804
1984—
—T—
—T—I
El E to
UN N&JIM
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
BALANCE
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE
TOTAL COMMODITIES
4v000
19665
11FI15
293
21885
2085
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPEINDITURES
17,800
*415
17,800
17,800
Who
TOTAL PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE
319286
139030
5,vll2
881
26YI74
26v174
TOTAL. PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
2.789
359645
229169
L4721
709620
70620
3
-------------------------------
ENGINEERING SISADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PERSONAL SEFtVTCIZS
57,487
-
°
TOTAL �,O �`TU SERVICES
0
3
��_ �
�
� �
_
TTS COMMODITIES
A-
4
6 -`
1 - _ 2
'-
_ ,
2 ,- --
4 �C=��
�_�
j6a 68
TOTCAPITAL ES
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION N SUPPORT
31-000
97v!87
-.
- v2'5
739220
73-220
75
TOTAL. PERSONAL �C cS
409656 t,
1 6 9 Q39
1493592,283
2f 9 at -
- _
QT - P 1 C R V F T
1.-
3
s
26.301
P g 11APROVE"ENT iNSPECTIONS
A L PERSONAL
,-- L P U_
FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAfNAGE
0 co
E
TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL. ADRAINAGE
11 29654
526 ._
30
26Zv �`
_'�
100
'co
TRAFFIC: ENGINEERING 2: MAINTENANCE
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
189629
7.760
79398
19340
�.�
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SICE
154, 500
64070
4 v 5
� e
CAPITALX E O _ ; S
00900 0
58-330
10 £ $5
299885
,
T T F 'll ENGINEERING MAI?4T
-IL3029
1309460
649 266
99439
243 _6 _
39G:'B
lzqv88s
745v835
Q?
STREET LIGHTING
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
10046
4&1185
*740
680
6006
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SICFS
110T000
459830
Z 1v 182
880818
2 3
6x306
63
TOTAL COMMODITIES
61
29500
19551
iv551
4y440
v
8 115 5
7
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
49000
19665
689
146
39312
49449
T
TOTAL ST S` LIGHTING
1309046
549180
27061
2 3 7
1(21885
792-93
39312
05#592
83
74
SIDEWALK CST[TN AND E P A f
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
8e583
3,575
3, 7671
80
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPEU SS
I
30x000
12 000
S 5
29350
09651
37 00
iso 16
052
56
44
TOT SIDEWALK CO ST UC T ION389983
l e = 5
885
3vO3
43,467
� 7 9600
5868
1
MOTOR FUEL TAX CONSTRUCTION
PERSONA SERVICES
22W396
g33
�(_ 01-7
�
I
_ 3
TOTAL _ CES
4 vD Cl
169
2x343
_34
�
TOTAL. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
AT � �
79490 0
33 820
201v713
128?3�
���
z
�� �5 �;
�; -7 ��
77T
fit. MOTOR FUEL TAXCONSTRUCTION
85 v .�
356,815
211v760
3GY225
��
UNEXPENDED
VILLAGE
OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
ENCUMBERED BALANCE
BAL
BUDGET EXPENSE REPORT
64v779 29351tI395
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING
9130184
6
1m5
-T®0
Y -T-0
CUR MO
1 8 5*402
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
TOTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
297639993 191519595
348075
1539656
SSA 15 LAKE MICHIGAN WATER CONST
0 - _
5
LAKE MICHIGAN WATER PROJECT
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
195769600
6569915
491*198
799514
TOTAL LAKE MICHIGAN WATER PROJECT
19576,600
65615
4919199
79v514
TOTAL SSA Z5 LAKE MICHIGAN WATER CONST
195769600
6569915
491ilf.98
79,t514
COMMUNITY AND CLIC SERVICES
92399000
1
19-2899000-1
COMMUNITY GROUPS
TOTAL C TR C -Ti L SERVICES
� 1
TOTAL COMMUNITY GROUPS
8_200
v410
59150
� PERSONALSERVICES1---
000
v
v
TTC� T- CTS L SERVICES
Cl_0_
-
00OAL
O
TJ
- - - -
_ -
090
-
-
[[� u� gg
C4 -MAS EC OR T N
OTA PERSONAL SERVICES
f
116-
IOTA- CONTRAETUAL S R ICES
6,400
21665-
111900
1x900,
� O T t- UTO I T _
._'
TOTAL CHR=ST4AS DECOR TIONS
10=970
4v525
TOTAL COMMUNITY AND
-210
LIBRARY OPERATIONS
LL I R E
--
TOTAL :DEBT SERV Irp EXPENSE
V%3TV075
TOTAL RATTONS
_ A FLY 0P E TT0- _
�� � �s�Sa
C,a 0 $,dam
1928,71000
5 @ L.d7
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
EMPLOYEE PENSION FUNDS
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL S 'IC -ES
TOTAL EMPLOYEE PENSION FUNDS
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE E EN -SE
6'v - -
�
1 6
3
- -
g
Pr1E S--Vr- AREA BONDS
TOTAL DEBT SEPI IEP-NE:
36391831�i,115
94915.10
TO ffi L SPEC C
151,315
5 10
EMPLOY�E PENSIONS
TOTAL OjEESERVICE E P SE
UNEXPENDED
UNENCUM
-3-049 _
BALANCE
ENCUMBERED BALANCE
BAL
Zv4159917
64v779 29351tI395
190859402
190859402
6
190859402
19085v40Z
6
'9085#402
1 8 5*402
6
3x050
3--£_
3x05'0
-050
v
0 - _
5
` }
5�'
���
7 O
94570
_
1�9485
l l
X28899000
92399000
1
19-2899000-1
0 g
0,
4319349 78,
-3-049 _
�-T349
268,674
7-6-B167-1 74
760v674
7
2-68 9 1 4
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
A6�
BUDGET EXPENSE REPOT
f
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 05 ENDING
9/30/84
1984-
T -r)
-Ta
' R 140
UNEXPENDED
UNENCOM
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ENCUMBEREDSAI ANCE
SAL
TOTAL EMPLOYH PENSIONS
TOTAL. DEBT SERVICE FUNUS
----------------------------
9249408
3859140
218086
59009
706*023
706022
ENSION FUND
EMPLOYEE PENSIONS
TOTAL DEBTVEEXPENSE
273,100
113VT90
103t7li
3,04818
160 q 389160v389
TOTAL EMPLOYEE N
- ���
113*-*
�z
0
'
POLIC- PENSIONS
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
42, 30 0
5 t 7 X11-
* 13
.144v431-
92
-0 41 POLICE PENSIONS
42*300
1174620
91 t 8 6 '1
t t 3
-9-1449431
®EN PENSIONS
TOTAL ----L-BTI EXPENSE
_=98
TTS a�193179X10
£-._98
3
� 5
2
� -9-7
P
Z R A l`,,l I T
viff]"EIZEASIS! the c m
tlie fUn and. fes,t.._i.,vA.t:y, Eis).soc.i.at_ed with, the age- old (.i.istlom
o.f1-1,A]"ll''ALOW] #EN P"I"ric.-Ic or Treats" "�by a,c).ii ng frortdolor to dol
oir
1 ` J g ci.-�sp.layir,�g thei.C, (,,.�ustorils,,
Q'i r i d
11EER17.11AM'S', tl-)E� p(.)ssib:i.lit,,.,v o,E acc.idents i s
arld 'lTKDt(Dl-j..s;t,s should be &,ve.i,'i itio.-re alert; arild
W H E REA S
t would aDpiear
that gE,ne..rally
ci,vr 1) "r, t.
afteir-ricDon
dayl-i-glit hOu-Cs
f 027 "t-Eick. ci,., tlreat,"' c)ut-ings,
mm
since this
period jaer'�,,Ti,.JL-tis
grea-t-,-er vi,si,bi_l[i,ty, and
t,,lend,cs to
I i Tei i_ t p a. r t.
i. c i p at i or), L. C) y (D
u. rj[ g e i-_ cill'i j_ I d. r e ri f o r w YI C') ITI
t h e
obsel'1,7anCE,,-�
was c.-)rigJjnr9,l'P,7
NO'WJP ',PH EP, l -"IF" MR, El I C a,, r,c) 1 yn 1,,'raui.se, Mayo.,r of the
Vil,la,,ge of Mourit Pi,_0E3pc-lCt do he.reby proclailTl t'I'lal:
11AIL011EENaliso known, as TIRICK OR TREA1.1.7 DAY sh, a -),. 'L b e
j v
observied. on. Wednesdav, 0cl,.l.c)'[)(:,,r- 31, 1984. 1 do fi.,ir-thier"
bot -h. ch_il d ilFi carid t.hleir
li
C, 1 V, j ties to the iing thE� ti.me of "tricR. or
liour!--.; of' 2:00 P.,M. to di_isk.
also ask, that-, yc),(.inger C"'ll i " I I` Em be accmiq,,)a�riied ID �r jDarerits
o a. s s i, -i r., e tl'IE.� safet:y, of our,
c 3
Dated: October .1.6. .11984
WHEREAS, the Prospect T.-leigh"t, ' s,/MOj),j-j.t Pro:,;pec-t. Ur-,ldted Vh.-ly
Is conducting, iLs 1984/85 ftind rals.J...ria
caiT,,q ',)a.i,gn, for deser''vring
agenci,es serv]..ng the Village of Mount llros�,,?ect and si_n,:. rounding
areas; and
WHEREAS, niany char,itcible o,rganizat.J.-Or"Is W..J tliin the Village of-
Motlnt..ospect. dep�erid 11-POTI 1-_.lIE? fin� lncial
aid. �of t -he Un,.iA,.-,ed
Way ir-i order to cont.ii-nie theix., many f: n, e acti...-vi.t.ii.,es; and
-ied t(.-) conso."I idate as much as
WHER11"AS, th,is one dr.J..,,ze is desigi
possible the many ii-idividual appeals for, oc-)eratii.-Ig DLInds for
thiS COMITIg year'; and
WHER.E.,AS,, -the -residents, b'Lis,-,i.,i.,,i,ess and professiori,al com-munit,
a, s 'we 1 1. as tlie 'Vil,-11...age of Mount Pro,sr,".,)ect., ei-idorse IZ-he
Prospect Heights/MouTit Prospect Ui-Ated, V�Iay f und as, the most
f ea,sibl e �Imethod of raisi.i-i.g i..i.,nds to aid in the su,"oport of
th,e niany a(jencles bei-iefiting frOM the Un.ited Way.
NOW, THEREFORE,, I. Carolyn H. 'jK`r,au-.,_(-.,�l, Mayol.r of -the Village of
Mount Prospiect, do llereb-,,,j:)rOcai 'Ti tl'-Ie suTDport of the Village
Y
l.n the Prospect Ileights/Mota it P i, 'ospect Un -L -ted M"'iy fiInd drive
a Ti. d d o e T- , J
i
courage the resJ dents and btis.inesses withn the , Vi.-.1-I.age to siLrj,-.)port this �v�Torthwhile cause.
. .C.,a . . . . . . . . . .. ........ . ... . ... . .... . ............. .... . ... . . . . . ... .... . ....... . . ............................ . ....... . ....................... . ... ..................................... . �r o y,'n
la Y cl
MoijjyL_ P.17(_)spc�ct
Dated this 16th day of Oct.ol,)er, 1.984.
Village of Mount Pir ospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
IL5"
mile 5
INI E R OF Ir ICE MEMORANIMM
.. .. . . ... . . ...... .....
TO.- T11-11RRANC11:11" BURGHARD,, VILLAGE MANAG[.'_,R
FROM.- RONA!..,11) 14. PAVLOCK, CHIE11" OF PO"Ll'(14PE",
SUBJECT: BOAl"M REE"1`111W31 OC-[-OBEIR'11f,511984
0RIME PREVEN'TION DONA HON
DATE : 0CT011[3E1Z 99 11984
Per our recent discussion., this miemo is forinT", , ti nal piurposes
to inform the Mayor and Boa,rd of Trustees thrat Beverly
Account Executive for Complete Equity Markets, e,1111 be present at
the October '16, 1984 Board Meeting to present a check foi,'* $200.00
in thIe name of Trustee Wattenberg to t!he V"111acie o F'
Police Departnieii,,-it's "Crime Watch" prog,�",a;,,,, i�,,ustee 1,4a,,L,,tenN.N�t,,,q was
a 1��.p 1-
a 7j L)
recognized with this award at the "J"''n 0 f" S C i P I
Melt ing and suggested that -the chi lz�, 1:ie do'nated 'to the Vill"lage
niore specifical''III y, our, wIcrime Watch"
I have advised Village Clerk Carol Fields toplace, this matter or
the agenda, allowing for thepresentation "to take place at 'the
beginning of t1rie meeting.
/17
Rein W. Pavl, o ..k
Chief of Police
I
NHEREAS,i the Mount Pros, ect: Toast,�ri!tasters C_Itib V150() is
celebrating lts thirt-Leth anni versary as a rtember of the
Mount Prospect ci v'
I ic corrmiunity; and
IIERE1 1 AS the ab'l*t*
I' ies to speak effectively, listen carefully
"and think critically are among -the most vc,_a,luable
talents a
person can develop and, serve as the foundation of 'ef f icient
"land understanding leadershi'--p; and
I�MEREASY Toastmasters Internatlonal a non-profit
non-sectar' an
le ucational organization,, IS dedicated to encouraging these
and d.talentseveloping coimninity leaders; and
l
WEREAS in
it' add
0 ion to promoting the effectiveness of their
111ndividual members the more than, one hundred eleven Chica.goland
�Toastmasters Clubs make important c on.tr ibut ions to thepublic
ood through thei
I r participervi,
a. ion, in, coriununity sce and
I!charitable programs.
k
1 NOW', THEREFORE, I, Carolyn, H. Krause, Mayor of the Village
,0f Mount Prospect, do laereby acknowledge the accomplishments
11of the Mount Prospect Toastmasters Club #"1.,5010 for its dedication
land efforts to civic betterment.
177
H r a 1,j. s, e
May,o-,r,,
'ted this 16th day, of October, 1984.
I PRO CLAMAT' I 01�
liqHEOREAS tl-i,e j, -Y ovis,�Lon of 3(=nt ar"id cc -,ire of
Y
It"etarded 1-ia,s been ca spe(-J-a-1 pi," J r.- Zl-ssi,stance by tl-ie'
IIllinois State Council of' Ltle Knights of' Cc)'jjhjjs; and
1 2 M
A
ERE S. the Mount Prospect Cot.,in(.-il #64,81. 01' the M[.iighj--c, (,)f'
Columbus will participat e i -r -i the -Et,ee7,-1,th. %.3
il s,r.,,atewj-de
Hcampaign for funds to 'benefit- t1he n,ienta,11�retarded, citizens
of the St:.ate ar'l October26 an"d 27; and
ffEREAS, in addition to prO Vid-L-ng i-ie-:leded a'' r ad d-11 "t-ecti on
5 e ai
-for the mentally rE�tarded, t: h e 1. J 'J s S t a t, e C o ti n (--. J I o f 1:., la e
i no-
Rnights of Columbus of W
hich 1101-Ir"t P-r,-(,,-)spec.t Cou.ncil.
;is an active Member laas pi,ov.f.der.] fuxi�c'is and pe-rsona,l ass-J-staTlce
Ifor participation of" y uun CY S t E, I Is IT -i the S-pec:i- 1 Olympics
a
rams; and
I FIEREAS, the Illino�i.s sponsors,"thi".P Of,"'
the
1'.'his 1-ii:�,Tna-Tlita,' r, J. . an c cau s e
iiand generous publJ-c (��ry.L7i,,e hill r,%� s
I o'ri. ed ry
oLh ere
s tct cr,aJx, S
siniil.arci, inanciLs.1
-r0vi(g mi-ih
nee.! dLv'�:Ite
ass,istance to Hili
a -i- d e d
INOW) THEREFORE, I, Caroly-n I -T., Kt.,a,tj,ce
S
Mount )
Ma, (.,)i, o f t I
Y-
a-- cy e o f
Pros,p&(,-,t,, do he-T-eby- proclaiT, rt 0 c,
be Knighl-of Col'uT',ri'Ln-i
t ob e r 2 ("S a-ri �d 27
,
19 8 4
,to .-Is s Days fot:1-1p -tai-died a-nd
E�
uixgle all.
citizens to take cognizanc.(-.� of' f.:1 -ie S P e C i a 1, ft -in d 7--, a i sl
11arranged for this time.
rig
x e�''vents
. . ... . .....
n, Kr w. I S e
Mayor
3. t-
P R 0 C L A M A T 1 0 N
WHEREAS, the Mount. Prospect Ranger's Ls a soccer team
'withln t:he N(,..,)rth.west Subtirban Soccer League,.- and
'WHEREAS,, -the Mount Prospect Rangers provides excellent
experience in sports and sport smansh i p for many of' the
young men of --the Village of Mount Px.ospect; and
WHEREAS r -the it Prospect. Rangers Soccer 'Team,, under the
directi.o.n of Coach, Jeffrey A. Byrne, have successfully
completed another season; and
WHEREAS, hai7J...,ng COITIPeted i -T), 14 gal'TIE'S this season, the
Mount Prospect, Ran,gers Soccer Team has earned the distinction
I,L-.)f ea.ri.-iing the 2nd Place Award in tlie Northwest Suburban
Soccer I,eague.
NOW, THEREFOR.Er I,, Carolyn H. Krai.ise, Mayor of the Village
ur congratulati.ons to
of Mount Prospect, do hereby express o
the '.Prospect Rangers Soccer 'Team a.-nd, encourage i,riore
Iyoung adi.Ats to partic1pate ln t1iis sport.
1"Yll
Mayor
Vil I age (,.)f Mount Prospect
I Dated this 16-t1i day of October, 1,984.
1,
Village o ount Prospect
Mount prospect, Illinois n
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR CAROLYN H. KRAUSE AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1984
SUBJECT: STAGGER LEE'S LIQUOR LICENSE OWNERSHIP CHANGE
.,
M
Mr. Richard Hicks is a -graduate of the Culinary Institute of
America in New York. He has five years of managerial experience
in restaurants and country clubs within the Chicago area.
SCO Enterprises intends to initially .ease the premises
an ten exercise its Option pt n to purchase the building, and
ra e
the .� rty. hey expect the business to, continue largely
as its, presently, but plan to expand, to meet what they, see
as the market potential for the food side of the business.
At the writing of this memo, minor documents remain to be
supplied to the Village but I expect these prior to the
Board meeting of Tuesday, October 16. It is the village's
policy that whenever an o �ership change is proposed, that
it be discussed and disclosed publicly. There are no Ordinance
changes required.
TLB/rcw TERRANCE L. BURGHARD
attachment
V ILLA OF MOUNT -FRC ECT
0
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LOCAL LIqUOR CONTROLCOMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR RETAIL LLQUOR DEALER'S LICENSE
RENEWAL . DATE 10/08/84
NEW xx
t
Honorable Carolyn H. Krause, Village President
and Local Liquor Control Com milissloner
Village of Mount Prospect, IIIJInois
PursUant to the, provils "Ions of the Mui ic lipal Code of Mount Prospect of
1957', known, as Section 13.103, passed, by the Board 'of Tr'ustees of
said, VIllage on the 15th, day of January, 1957, as amended, regulating
sale of alcoholic liquors in, the 'Village of Mount Prospect, County of
Cook, State of Illinois:
The undersigned, RHSCO ENTERPRISES ,._.INC . "ROBE RT L HICKS - RICHARD W HICKS
hereby makes application or a Class B liquor dealer" I s N-1.cense or
the period ending April 30, 1985 antendersthe sum of $ 1500,00
the prescribed fee as set fortes the following:
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL FEES FOR THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF'RETAIL
LIQUOR DEALERS' LICENSES (Section 13.106):
. Annual Fee
CLASS A: Retail package and consumption on premises $ 29000.00
CLASS B: Consumption on premises onl 1v500.00
CLASS C: Retail package only 19500.00
CLASS D: Non-profit private clubs, civic or fraternal
organizations; consumption on premises only 300.00
CLASS E: Caterer's license 1a500.00
CLASS F:
Shopping Center Cafe/Bar; consumption on
premises only
29000.00
CLASS G:
Park District Golf Course; beer and wine,
consumption on premises only
300.00
CLASS M:
Hotels, motels, motor inns, motor lodges;
retail package and consumption on premises
.2v500.00
CLASS P:
Retail package - refrigerated and non -
refrigerated beer and wine only - no
consumption on pr6mises
11250.00
CLASS R:
Restaurant - consumption at dining tables
only
1a500.00
CLASS S:
Restaurant with a lounge
21000.00
CLASS V:
Retail package - wine only
18000.00
CLASS W:
Restaurant - consumption of beer or wine
only and at dining tables only
10000.00
SURETY BOND REQUIRED 12000.00
EACH LICENSE TERMINATES ON THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, NEXT FOLL014ING DATE.
Your petitioner, RHSCO R1TERPR,ISES tINS doing business as
STAGGER MR, IS GQQD,,,,,,T.IMS PLACE,
respectfully requests permission to operate a Wr4
P eta..l :zquor business at
303 E. KENSINGTON, MOUNT PROSPECT Mount Prospect, Illinois.
s.
on and, Name of Pre •
FEET OF THE 'WEST 14a' FEET CF THE
D e s c r i t �. m i s e s. EAST 200 FEET OF THAT PART
OF THE OR T 1/4 OF SECTION 34 , TOS` � � ST �1 4
G E �� 1 EAST � THE NORTH
MERIDIAN LYING NORTH :AST OF RAND ROAD IN COOK OFT THIRD F "INCIPAL
COCOum, ILLINOIS.
Descr .p, on must a complete as to or , ;ronta e etc
Name of owner of Premises :
If owner of record is a land trustee, attach copy of Land Frust Agreement.
If not owner, does applicant have a lease? yES State date a licant' s
lease expires:, 3 1 91 If not owner, attach copy of lease hereto.
p
Is applicant an individual, a co-artnersh a cor oration p i or an
association? {Circle one) p'
If an individual, stateyour name, date of birth, address, telephone"
number and Social Security Number: N/A
If co -partnership, state name, date of birth address
and Social S�7urity Number of each entitl d teleptelephone number
thereof: Person e to share in the profits
If a co -partnership, give the date -of the Formation of the partnership:
P
N/A
If a corporation 1
A.give state and date of incorporation :_ITwm_... ( � .
If a corporation incorporated in a state other than the State 'of Illinois,
indicate date qualified under Illinois Business Corporation Act to transact
business in Illinois:-- NIA
If acorporation, give names,, addresses, dates -of birth, telephone numbers
an�scar
oc gal. Security y umbers of officers and directors. Also list the names
addresses, dates of' birth and Socia Security Numbers of shareholders
owningin the aggregate more than 52 of the stock of such corporation.
NAME
ROBERT L HICKS
Date of Birth: 7/27/31
OFFICE and/or
PERCENT OF STOCK 41
1309 ELIZABETH LN GLENVIEW IL EO2TI I
Social Security J 354-24-8621 Phone I
CON SEGREZARY
Date of Birth: 3/04/32 Social Security # 325-26-9632 Phone
-634
Date of Birth: Social Security I
Date of Birth: Social Security I
Phone #
.
Phone
1
Obj ect s for whIch organ lizat -ion 'is f ormed SALE* OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE
If an individual, a co -partnership, a corporation or an association, has
the applicant or any of the partners, incorporators, directors, officers,
agents, or stockholders ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor?
If so, explain:
If applicant is an individual, state age: Marital Status:
Is applicant a cit lizen of the United States.? yES If a naturalized citizen,
state date and place of naturalization:
How long has applicant been a resident of Mount Prospect, continuously next
prior to the filing of this application? NA
Local Address: Telephone No.
State character or type of business of applicant heretofore:
FOOD BROKERAGE
State amount of goods, wares and merchandise on hand at this time:
How long has applicant been in this business? 28 YEARS
Is the applicant an elected public official? No If so, state the
particulars thereof: N/A
Is any other person directly or indirectly in applicant's place of busine's.r
an elected public official?
In the case of an application for the renewal of a license, has the
applicant made any political contributions within the past— years? NO
If so, state the particulars thereof:
Does the applicant hold 'any. law enforcement office? NO If so, designat(
title:
Does the applicant possess a current Federal Wagering or Gambling Device
Stamp? NO If so, state the reasons therefor:
Has applicant ever been convicted of a gambling offense as presented ' nted by
any of subsections (a) (3) through (a) (10) of Section 28-1, or as
prescribed by Section 28-3 of the "Criminal Code of 1961" as heretofore
or hereafter amended? NO If so, list date (s) of said conviction(s):
Has applicant ever made similar application for a similar or other
license on premises other than described in this application? NO
If so, state disposition of such application:
Pp qualified 've state and federal nse to operate an
Is applicant calif ied to i
alcoholic liquor business? Cas applicant euier hL previous license
revoked by the federal government or by any state or subdivision thereof?
NO If so, explain:
Isapplicant disqualified to receive a license by reason of any matter or
thing construed by this ordinance, the laws of this state or other
ordinances of this Village? NO
Does applicant agree not to violate any of the lAws of the State of Illinois,
the United States of America, or any of the ordinances of the village of
Mount Prospect in the conduct of his place of business?
Does applicant currently carry Dram Shop Insurance coverage?
if "Yes," attach copy' _.
If applicant is not the owner of the premises, does .the owner thereof carr
Dram Shop insurance coverage? S Y
g (If the answer to either of the
foregoing' questions is "No," no license,
shall issue.)
Does surety bond required by ordinance accompany this application at the
time of filing? YES
State name and address of each surety next below:
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE,MARYIAND
Give name, address, date of birth,` telephone number and Social Security
Number of manager or agent in charge of premises for which this application
is made: RICHARD W HICKS 3432SALEM WALK EAST NORTHBROOK IL 60o62
ph# 699-8273 BD 2� ii S9 SS# 322-58-1303
r
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
Corporate Seal
(If applicant is corporation)
Who, first being duly sworn, under oath deposes and says that he, is/are
the applicant for the license requested in the foregoing appli'i tion; that
he is/are of good repute, character and standing, and that answers
to the questions asked in the foregoing application are true and correct
in every detail.
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
SS.
COUNTY OF COOK )
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of ,A.D. , 19�
Notary Public
u ak 9
APPLICATION APPROVED : -
d a ww
� wre
w
L&c-a-1 Liquor Contro Commisszoner
w.
W., ,,,s,
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
t"o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: MAYOR CAROLYN H. KRAUSE
DATE: OCTOBER 111, 1984
RE: PLAN COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS
A. 1 1 submit the name o ' f Frank Boege to fill the
seat of Dee Corr through May 1, 1988. Frank
served as the Executive Director of the Illinois
Tollway Authority. He resides at 122 Wimbleton,
(394-5988).
2. To bring current the terms of the current members:
Hal Ross, Marie Caylor and Louie Velasco
May 1, 1987
Tom Borrelli,* Lynn Kloster, Larry Hagan
May 1, 1988.
B. The Plan Commission carries out powers of the State
Statutes, namely -in reviewing subdivision plats.
However, they also have been charged with responsibility
over the official Comprehensive Plan and in particular
to give attention to projects of improvements embraced
in the Plan.
There are two areas of study that.I believe the members
of the Plan Commission could examine in a detailed,
thoughtful manner:
I. Transportation
II. Study of Census Statistics
I. The study on transportation would not address
traffic problems; i.e., signals, widening of
roads, etc. Rather, it would address Mount
Prospect's future position in the revitaliza-
tion of the RTA, Suburban Bus Board and all
of the related suburban transit needs being
addressed on a regional basis.
Planning must include transportation. The
Comprehensive Plan only discusses transportation
from the point of view of traffic circulation,
traffic volumes, ', pact. on street s-yste "
However er, the Plan specifically says , " eca en_
dations have not been included for changes in
mass transportation service to and within the
co unit
y since a thorough analysis, of needs
as not been undertaken at this time." It is
this analysis of needs that should be addressed.
The Village, of course, has relied, on the
Chicago and North Western commuter line and
worked with RTA on several bus lines. Changes
are occurring and whether Mount Prospect
should be involved in the next few years in an
expanded role should be studied, and in particu-
lar, the Plan Co mission could exami���e:
1. Suburban Bus Division. 19$5 proposed
program applies to buy -service para
transit '
service improvements.
NWMC - Possible public-private sector
regional transportation study.
,3 . North Suburban. Mass Transit District
4. Chicago Area 'Transportation Study
5. Regional Transportation Study
A study of,participation in developing transportation
needs of our region would assist the Village in
being involved in the changes that are coming.
II. Another charge to the Plan Commission should be a
study on "Neighborhood Statistics."
Sometime ago, I "d.. Community • •
ment Department the U. S. Commerce
Census Bureau
• • ,• •i Stat i st 1 ics Program"
for the prof iles
of neighborhoods
• •
ct
Village
was broken,down into 13 different
neighborhoods.
-
re
studied, were: Racel age, family characteristics,
�y ents veteran status, �y�y educational
. •
eans of transportation to
Worko -m labor force :status, occupat-
ion
class of worker, income and poverty status,, housing
characteristiiics, structural characteristics, fuel
uses, heating and cooling of housing
units$ kitchen
facilities, vehicles,
Because developments in our, Village are increasingly
more limited, the Plan Corrmission could, if they
wanted, address and study these issues, which in
my opinion would be a valuable 'resource to the
Board.
I will turn over all the material I hqve to Community Develop-
ment and request the Plan Commission discuss their interest
in either or both of these studies.
CAROLYN H. KRAUSE
CHK/rcw
c: Village Manager Terrance L. Burghard
Plan Commission Chairman Hal Ross
Director of Community Development Kenneth Fritz
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Wdu lot 00*04 vk*4141"l
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: MAYOR CAROLYN H. KRAUSE
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1984
Cable Commission:
To fill the* vacancy caused by the resignation of John
Ruckstaletter, I submit the name of George Frazier, 113 South
Wa-Pella, home phone - 255-3443. George has worked for paid
television in various departments and now is in the satellite
television business for non -cable areas.
REAPPOINTMENTS
Zoning Board of Appeals:
Marilyn O'May - May 1, 1988
Board of Fire and -Police Commissioners:
Hank Friedrichs - May 1, 1987
Safety Commission:
Andrew Mitchell - May 1, 1986
Leroy Beening - May 1, 1985
CAROLYN H. KRAUSE
CHK/rcw
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE FINANCING BY
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS, OF A
PROJECT CONSISTING OF ACQUISITION OF REAL
ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF AN
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND RELATED PROPERTY IN
ORDER THAT ROSCOR CORPORATION, AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION, MAY BE PROVIDED WITH FACILITIES
TO RELIEVE CONDITIONS OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND
ENCOURAGE THE INCREASE OF COMMERCE: AUTHOR-
IZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE BY SAID
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS OF ITS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND (ROSCOR
CORPORATION PROJECT) WHICH WILL BE PAYABLE
SOLELY FROM THE RECEIPTS FROM A LOAN AGREEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT
PROSPECT, ILLINOIS AND ROSTON INVESTMENTS, AN
ILLINOIS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, PROVIDING FOR
THE FINANCING OF SAID PROJECT: AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN ASSIGNMENT
AND AGREEMENT AS SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF
SAID BOND: CONFIRMING SALE OF SAID BOND TO
THE PURCHASER THEREOF: AND RELATED MATTERS.
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect (the 1QIssuer") is
a home rule unit of local government and is authorized and empowered
by the provisions of Article VII, Section 6 of the 1970 Illinois
Constitution and Ordinance No. 2925 passed by the Beard of Trustees
of the Issuer on July 17, 1979 as from time to time supplemented
and amended ( the "Enabling Ordinance"), to finance in whole or in
part the cost of the acquisition, purchase, or extension of any
industrial project in order to encourage industrial development of
the municipality; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer is further authorized by the Enabling
Ordinance to issue economic development revenue bonds payable
solely .from, payments to be derived by the Issuer from the user of
such facilities and secured by a mortgage and a pledge of said
payments and the Enabling Ordinance provides that such bonds shall
be entitled to a mortgage and a pledge of such payments; and
WHEREAS, ac-- result of negotiations ween the
Issuer and Roston Investments, an Illinois general partnership of
which Phillip Roston, Mitchell Roston and Paul Roston, all of 616
West Oakton Street, Mortton Grove, Illinois are general partners
(the "Borrower"), contracts have been or will be entered into by
the Borrower for the acquisition of certain real property and the
construction and equipping of an industrial facility and an
office facility, thereon, wholly within the boundaries of the
Issuer, and which Project will be of the character and will
accomplish the purposes provided by the Enabling Ordinance, and
the Issuer is willing to issue its economic development revenue
bond to finance the Project upon terms which will be sufficient
to pay the cost of acquisition, construction and equipping of the
Project as evidenced by such economic development revenue bond,
all as set forth in the details and provisions of the Loan Agreement
hereinafter identified (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS,, the Project will be leased to Roscor Corporation,
an Illinois corporation (the "Company") under the terms of a
Lease Agreement dated as of October 1, 1984 by and between the
Borrower, as lessor, and the Company, as lessee (the "Lease") and
said Lease has been assigned by the Borrower to the Issuer for
further assigning to American National Bank and Trust Company of
Chicago (the "Bank") - and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the costs of the Project,
including costs relating to the preparation and issuance of the
industrial development revenue bond, will be not less than $2,000,000;
and
J
fir;
W
WHEREAS, t , roject will create em low _;nt opportunities
and enhance the tax base in the village of Mount Prospect, Illinois;
and
WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to sell the economic
development revenue bond hereinafter authorized and designated
"Economic Development Revenue Bond (Roscoricorporation Project)"
(the "Bond") upon a negotiated basis to the Bank; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer held a Public Hearing pursuant to
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended,
on , 1984 and hereby approves the issuance of the
revenue bond-
NOW,,
ond;NOW, THERE FORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRE S I DENT AND
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The following words and terms as used in
this Resolution shall have the following meanings unless the con-
text or use indicates another or different meaning or intent:
"Acquisition and Construction Fund" means the village of
Mount Prospect, Illinois .Acquisition and Construction Fund (Roscor
Corporation Project) created in Section 5 hereof.
"Agreement" means the. Loan Agreement dated as of October
11 1984 by and between the Issuer and the Borrower, as from time
to time amended and supplemented together with the Note of the
Borrower in the form appended thereto as Exhibit C.
-3-
"Assignment' -;means the Assignment and hgreement dated as
of October 1, 1984 by �nd between the Issuer and the Bank.
"Bank" means American National Bank and Trust Company of
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, and its successors and assigns.
"Bond" means the Bond authorized to be issued hereunder.
"Bond Fund" means the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois
Bond Fund (Roscor Corporation Project) created in Section 7 hereof.
"Bond Ordinance" means this Ordinance.
"Bond Purchase Agreement" means the Bond Purchase Agree-
ment dated as of October 1, 1984 between the Issuer and the Bank.
"Borrower means Roston Investments, an Illinois general
partnership and its successors and assigns.
"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended.
"Company" means Roscor Corporation, an Illinois corporation,
and its successors and assigns.
The term "Default" means those defaults, exclusive of
any period of grace, specified in and defined in Section 11 hereof.
"Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 2925 passed by
the Board of Trustees of the Issuer on July 17, 1979, as from time
to time supplemented and amended.
The term "Event of Default" means those events specified
in and defined in Section 11 hereof.
The words "hereof," "herein," "hereunder" and other
words of similar import refer to this Ordinance as a whole,
"Issuer" means the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois
and its successors and assigns.
ti
"Lease" mea' be Lease Agreement datE 13 of October 1,
1984 between the Borrower and the Company.
"Mortgage" or "Mortgage and Security Agreemdnt" means
the Mortgage and Security Agreement dated as of October 1, 1984 of
the Borrower.
"Person" means natural persons, partnerships, associa-
tions, corporations and public bodies.
"Prime Rate" means the interest rate per annum announced
as such from time to time by American National Bank and Trust
Company of Chicago at its principal office in Chicago, Illinois as
its prime rate.
"Project" means the Project Site, the Building and the
Equipment and the acquisition, renovation and installation thereof
to be financed with the proceeds of the Bond, as each is defined
and described in the Agreement.
AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROJECT
Section 2. That in order to promote the general welfare
of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois and its inhabitants by
relieving conditions of unemployment and encouraging the increase
of industry and economic development, the Project shall be and is
hereby authorized to be financed as described herein. It is
hereby found and declared that the financing of the Project and
the use thereof by the Borrower as hereinafter provided is necessary
to accomplish the public purposes described in the preamble hereto
and in the Enabling Ordinance.
!M
ON AND PREPAYMENT OF BC
AUTHORI
Section 3. That for the purpose of financing the cost
of said Project there shall be and there is hereby authorized to
be issued by the Issuer its Economic Development Revenue Bond
(Roscor corporation Project), in the principal sum of-$2,000,000.
dated the date of delivery thereof, payable to the order of the
L
Bank as registered holder with interest from the date thereof on
theunpaid principal amount at the rate per annum. (based on a year
of 360 days of actual days elapsed) of seventy-five percent (757.)
of the Prime Rate in effect as of the date thereof to be effective
until October 31, 1984 and to be established on October 31, 1984
and monthly thereafter on the last day of each month, said interest
being payable on October 31, 1984 and continuing on the last day
of each month thereafter to and including August 31, 1985, and
thereafter both principal and interest at the rate described above
shall be payable in one hundred -seventy-nine ( 179 ) consecutive
monthly installments of $25,000 each that become due on September
30, 1985 and on the last day of each month thereafter to and
including September 30, 2000, with a final installment of all
unpaid principal on September 30, 2000. The Bond shall bear
interest on any overdue principal and interest at the rate of two
percent (2%) per annum, over the Prime Rate until paid. Both
principal and interest on the Bond shall be payable in immediately
available funds at the principal office of the holder thereof.
If a Determination of Taxability, as defined in Section
6.5 of the Agreement, occurs, the Bond shall bear interest at the
rate which is equal to the Prime Rate which is in effect from time
to time plus one and three-quarters percent (1-3/4%) adjusted
IM
retroactively from ti ffective Date of Taxabi as de!;:i nied ii' -i.
Section 6.5 of the Agreement. In addition, there shall be paid to
the holder thereof, all penalties and interest thereon, which the
holder thereof has incurred or estimates it will incur by reason
of such Determination of Taxability with respect to its current
and Past tax years. L
The principal of the Bond is subject to optional prepay-
ment on any installment payment date in whole or in part in the
inverse order of their maturity upon written notice given by the
Borrower on behalf of the issuer, at least five business days
prior to the installment payment date the Borrower shall designate
as the prepayment date at a price equal to 100% of the principal
amount thereof to be prepaid, plus accrued and unpaid interest
thereon to the date fixed for prepayment; provided however that,
in addition the Borrower and the Company shall have paid or
prepaid in full all other indebtedness of the Company and of the
Borrower to the Bank.
If other funds in an amount in excess of $1,000 shall
become available in the Bond Fund, and are not otherwise required
to be applied to the payment of the Bond, the Bank shall, without
notice from the Borrower or the Issuer, promptly, but in any event
within fifteen business days from the date in which such funds
become available, apply such funds to the prepayment of the Bond
at the prepayment price set forth above, and shall give notice to
the Borrower and the -Issuer of such prepayment. All principal
installments of the Bond or portion thereof designated for prepay-
ment will cease to bear interest on the specified prepayment date,
provided funds for their prepayment are on deposit at the place of
payment at that time.
1 „fir
A The principal ,
nd interest on the Bon' ~~ ll be
payable to the order of the
Bank or its assigns in Idwful money of
� the United States of Merica in immediately available funds at the
' e of I the Bank as shown. on the registration books of
principal office
shall -note on the Payment Record attached as
the Issuer. The Bank
Schedule A to the
Bond the date and amount of payment of -principal
and interest then being paid and of .interest theretofore paid and
not yet noted thereon and upon request of the Borrower or the
Issuer,
the Bond shall be made available for inspection.by the
Borrower or the
Issuer at the offices of the Bank.. The Band is
transferable only upon presentation to the Bank, as Registrar, of
a written
transfer duly acknowledged by the registered holder or
his attorney and
such transfer shall not be effective until it is
noted upon the
Bond and upon the books of the Issuer kept for that
purpose by the Bank that such transfer is in compliance with all
provisions of Section 103(j) of the Cade and the regulations
promulgated thereunder or proposed regulations published in the
Federal Register. The Bank is hereby appointed as Registrar for
purposes of bond registration. The Band shall be signed by the
President and a�'
ttested b the village Clerk of the Issuer and the
corporate seal of the Issuer shall be affixed thereto.
The Band, together with interest thereon, shall be a
limited obligation of the Issuer secured by the Mortgage and
payable solely
frau the receipts derived from the Agreement and.
the Lease (except to the extent paid out of moneys attributable to
the Bond proceeds or the income from the temporary investment
thereof) and
shall be a valid claim of the owner thereof only
against the Bond Fund and other moneys held by the Bank pursuant
,0g
to, and the receipts der.1''ved from, the Agreement ",ad the Lease,
which receipts shall be used for no other purpose than to pay the
principal of and interest on the Bond, except as may be otherwise
expressly authorized in this Bond Ordinance. The Bond and the
obligation to pay interest thereon does not now and shall never
constitute an indebtedness or a loan of crbdit of the Issuer, the
State of Illinois or any political subdivision thereof, or a
charge against their general taxing powers, within the meaning of
any constitutional or statutory provisions of the State of Illinois,
but shall be secured by the Mortgage and payable solely from the
receipts received pursuant to the Agreement and the Lease.
BOND FORM
Section 4. That the Bond and Payment Record - Schedule
"All shall be in substantially the following form-,
UNIThi STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF ILLINOIS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAYABLE BY THE ISSUER SOLELY AND ONLY FROM RECEIPTS
DERIVED FROM T LOAN AGREEMENT HEREIN DEFINED
Economic Development Revenue Bond
(Roscor Corporation Project)
$2r000,000
The Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, a municipality
of the State of Illinois, created and existing under the laws of
the State of Illinois (the "Issuer"), for value received promises
topay solely and only from the source and as hereinafter provided,
to the order of American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois (the "Bank") as the Registered Holder hereof as
hereinafter provided, or its assigns, the principal sum of:
TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) with interest from the
date hereof on the unpaid principal amount at the rate per annum
(based on a year of 360 days of actual days elapsed) of seventy_
fivepercent (75%) of the interest rate per annum, announced as
such from time to time by American National Bank and Trust Company
of Chicago at its principal office in Chicago, Illinois as its
P
rime rate (the "Prime Rate") in effect as of the date hereof to
be effective until October 31, 1984 and to be established on
October 31, 1984 and monthly thereafter on the last day of each
month, said interest being payable on October 31, 1984 and continuing
on the last day of each month thereafter to and including August
31, 1985, and thereafter both principal and interest at the rate
described above shall be payable in one hundred seventy-nine (179)
1"I
consecutive monthly in::,�allments of $25,,000 each -Liat become due
on September 30, 1985 and on the last day of each month thereafter
to and including September 30, 2000, with a final installment of
all unpaid principal on September 30, 2000. This Bond shall bear
interest on any overdue principal and interest at the rate of two
percent (2%) per annum over the Prime Rate until paid.
If a Determination of Taxability, as defined in the
Agreement, occurs, this Bond shall bear interest at the rate which
is equal to the Prime Rate which is in effect from time to time
plus one and three-quarters percent (1-3/47.) effective retroactively
from the Effective Date of Taxability; as defined in the Agreement.
In addition, there shall be paid to the holder thereof, all penalties
and interest thereon, which the holder thereof has incurred or
estimates it will incur by reason of such Determination of Taxability
with respect to its current and past tax years.
Both principal hereof and interest hereon are payable in
immediately available funds at the address of the Bank as shown on
the registration books of the Issuer.
Payments of principal and interest, including prepay-
ments of principal installments, shall be noted on the Payment
Record - Schedule "A", made a part of this Bond as provided in the
Bond Ordinance hereinafter identified, pursuant to which the Bond
is issued.
This Bond is issued in the principal sum of $2,000,000
pursuant to Ordinance No. 2925 passed by the Board of Trustees of
the Issuer on July 17, 1979, as from time to time amended and
supplemented (the "Enabling Ordinance") and to an Ordinance (the
"Bond Ordinance") duly adopted by the Board of Trustees of the
-11-
m W
ai, a
I
Issuer on October 984 for the purposd of )idingfunds to
finance the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping an
industrial facility and office facility (hereinafter called the
"Project") and paying expenses incidental thereto, to the end that
r
the Issuer may be able to relieve conditions of unemployment an1d
encourage the increase of industry and economic development within
the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois. The proceeds of this
Bond will be used by the Issuer to pay or reimburse Roston Investments,
an Illinois general partnership, ( the "Borrower") for the costes of
acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, under the
terms of a Loan Agreement dated as of October 1, 1984 (which
agreement, as from time to time supplemented and amended, is
hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") and the Project will
be leased by the Borrower to Roscor Corporation, an Illinois
corporation (the "Company") under the terms of a Lease Agreement
dated as of October 1, 1984 by and between the Borrower, as lessor
and the Company, as lessee (the "Lease") .
This Bond is secured by a pledge and assignment of
receipts derived by the Issuer pursuant to the Agreement and from
a mortgage on the Project pursuant to an Assignment and Agreement
dated as of October 1, 1984 (the "Assignment") from the Issuer to
the Bank, as more fully described in the Bond ordinance. Reference
is made to the Bond ordinance for a description of the provisions,
among others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security,
the rights, duties and obligations of the Issuer, the rights of
the owners of this Bond, and of the terms on which this Bond is or
may be issued. The owner hereof by the acceptance of this Bond
assents to all the provisions of the Bond ordinance.
-12-
written. notice diver '-�the Borrower
upon five days� .6r wri n
01 this Bond
Issuethe principal installments
on behalf of the ent in whole 1 or in part in the inverse order
are
sub to prepaym
of par plus accrued interest
maturity at a prepayment price
of their m , -4 in addition,
to the prepayment date; provided Always however that,
mpany shall have paid o I r prepaid in full
the Borrower and the Co
all other indebtedness of the company and the Borrower to the
Bank. All principal installments of this Bond or portion thereof
I
designated for prepa ent will cease �o bear interest on . the
specified prepayment date, provided fu�nds for such prepayment are
on deposit at the place of payment at that time.
This Bond shall be fully registered as to both principal
and interest in the name of the Bank as registered holder in
accordance with the Bond Resolution. it shall be transferable
ion to the Bank., as Registrars of a written
only upon presentat
transfer duly acknowledged by the registered holder or his attorney,
and such transfer shall not be effective until it is noted upon
this Bond and upon the books of the issuer kept for that purpose
by the Bank that such transfer is in compliance with all provisions
of Section 103(j) Of the In Revenue Code of 1954, as amended
and the regulations promulgated thereunder or proposed regulations
6 ter. The Bank has been appointed as
published in the Federal Regis -
Registrar for purposes of bond registration.
This Bond is issued pursuant to and in full COliance
Imp
with the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois and the
wi - a ticularly the Act. This Bond and the
ordinances of the issuer, par obligations of the
obligation to pay interest hereon are limited
issuer, secured by a mortgage and assignment and payable solely
out of the receipts &.Lived by the Issuer pursuaiit- to the Agreement
and the Lease and as otherwise provided in the Bond Ordinance and
the Agreement. This Bond and the obligation to pay interest ,
hereon shall not be deemed to constitute an indebtedness or a loan
of credit of the Issuer, the State of Illinois or any political
subdivision thereof, or a charge against theirgeneraltaxing
powers, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory
provision of the State of Illinois, but shall be secured by the
Mortgage and payable solely from the receipts derived by the
Issuer pursuant to the Agreement and the Lease. Pursuant to the
provisions of the Agreement, payments sufficient for the prompt
payment when due of the principal of and interest on this Bond are
to be paid by the Borrower to the Bank for the account of the
Issuer and deposited in a special account created by the Issuer
and designated "Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois Bond Fund
(Roscor Corporation Project)," and all receipts under the Agreement
and the Lease have been duly pledged and assigned to the Bank
pursuant to the Assignment for that purpose, under the Bond
Ordinance to secure payment of such principal and interest.
Under certain circumstances, on the conditions, in the
manner and with the effect set forth in the Bond Ordinance, the
principal of this Bond together with interest accrued thereon may
become or may be declared due and payable before the stated maturity
thereof.
Modifications, alterations or amendments of the provisionG
of the Bond Ordinance may be made only to the extent and in the
circumstances permitted by the Bond Ordinance.
59112!
IT IS BEREB' AIRTIFIED, RECITED AND DE ZED that all
acts', conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws
of --Illinois and the Act to happen, exist and be performed precedent
to and in the issuance of this Bond I have happened, exist and have
J
been performed in due time, form and manner as required by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,, the Village 9f Mount Prospect, Illinois,
by its governing body, has caused this Bond to be signed on'lits
behalf by its President and attested by its Village Clerk and the
corporate seal of said Issuer to be affixed hereto, all as of
October 01 1984.
By
Press d dent
(SEAL)
Attest:
.age Clerk E
RESIST TION
z
r
The Bond shall be registered on the books ol. the Village
that purpose b American National Bank
of Mount Prospect kept for
Chicago, Illinois, as Bond R`egistra"-
..
and Trust Company` of Chicago,
nt
" erest on this Bond shall be payable only to
The principal and �.
or upon the order
of the registered holder or his legal repre-
sentative
REfi I STRAT I ON
Sig -nature of
Date of, Name of
Re istratran.
R.e istered owner
American National Bank and
Trust company of Chicago
33 North, LaSalle Street
"
chi, : a o , Illinois
1 606,90
Attention : co . erc a,l
Loan Department
C13-STODY �ITION—,,ASIcATION OF PROCEE13S
AND CONSTRUCTION FUND
rlkA AWP �',OF BOND: ACO
created and established with
Section 5. There is hereby c
...... hereby constituted and appointed as depository
the Bank, which is her Is
for the Issuerr, a specsuer to be
ial fund in the name of the
design .
ated ,Village of Mount ProsPecti Illinois L Acquisition and
Construction - Fund" and identified with the name of the Borrower
as received by the Issuer upon the sale of the Bond
The proceed- ion Fund which
ed in the Acquisition and Constra-
uct
shall be deposit -tory- Moneys
-2 v Bank as deposl
shall be held in a separate account b.& d shall be expended in
in the Acquisition and Construction Fun ement, and particularly
accordant
e with the provisions of the Agre
Section 3.6 thereof. 6 ntain adequate
The Bank, as depository, shall keep and maintain
and Construction Fund and
Jul -
records pertaining to the Acc d after the Project has been completed
all disbursements therefromr an filed as provided in
and a certificate of Payment of all costs
0 ch records to the
this Section, the Bank shall deliver copies of su
Issuer and the Borrower. yment of all costs
The completion of the Project and pa_ J by the filing
and exile
uses incident thereto shall be evidenced I M
with the issuer and the Bank Of certificates of the Authorized
esentative as required by Section 3.7 of the Agreement.
Borrower Repr sition and construction
Any moneys thereafter remaining ree--
in the Acclul
e with Section 3-6 of e Ag
'Fund shall be applied in accordanc th
Caen t.
-170-
„la f -sl
fi
ME -R TIHEI �GREEME11NT
NT OF AM01”
Issuer
Of %
It declared intention
Sec,ti,o�n, 6- I I
of the proceed, of the Bond in order
the disbursement
to authorize 0 ing of the
tion and equIPP
renova
to finance the acquisit- - f ally the form which
Agreement in substanti
I
project Pursuant to the Agr appy I ved by the governing body
and is hereby S of
has been presented to ov on file ir, the, of�iciai record
of the Issuer and which is n
the Issuer. d to execute and acknOw
The President is hereby authorize Issuer, and the
ledge said Agreement for and on behalf Of the
K ed to attest same and to affix
Village Clerk is hereby authoriz-
-.A- of the Issuer•
thereto the corporate seal i eol. E including all
Said Agreement and the receipts ther o be sufficient
--ionst are t
and condIT-1
under its terms authorized
vs received
mone.L- -.&- on the Bond hereby
to pay the principal of and intereSL into the Bond Fund. The
pledged and ordered paid %
and are hereby e Borrower shall remit the required
Agreement provides that 0 the Bank for the account of the
under directly t- V
payments there 'd Bond Fund and such P"rov's'On is hereby
Issuer for deposit in said
expressly approved-
ts required of the
Section *7_ The Bond a -ad all Paymen s of the Issuer but are
eral obligation
Issuer hereunder are not gen d by the Mortgage and payable
special and limited obligations secure ceipts derived Pursuant
by the Issuer solely and only out of the re- I
t,0 the Agreement and the Lease as Provided herein-
-184%
s '^VIIII „Jlri r
„w« �: ~�3 e red.
There is
h.erebT`� eat.ed by the Issuer and -.. �
established with the Bank, as dep
c�sitor a special ��.�d to be
E
Pros ect, Illinois Bond Fund (Roscor
designated 'village of Mount �'
Corp -oration Project)” )" (th e 'Band Fund" ) , which shall be used to
pay the principal al o f and the interest on the Bond.
deposited into the Band Fund, as and
There shall be p I.
e a encs specified in Article Iv of
when received, �. a �} all pr P Ym
the Agreement; (b) all payments giants and other amounts paid by the
Agreement and. by. the
3.3 of the Ag
Borrower pursuant to Section
- and (c) all ether moneys received
Company pursuant to the Lease,
pursuant to any of the provisions of the
by the Bank under and p
Agreement and the Lease. TheBank is authorized and directed to
ilable
therefor in the Bond Fund to the payment
apply amounts ava
when due of the principal al of and interest on the Bund.
The Issuer covenants and agrees that should there be an
Evens. of Default or an event that with the passing of time or
Event
of Default under the Agreement, the
otherwise may become an
Issuer shall fully cooperate with the Bank at no cast to the
Issuer and with the owners of the Bond to the end that the rights
• owners maybe fully protected. nothing
and. security of such. o
•
herein shall be construed as requiring the Issuer to use any
funds or revenues from any source other than funds and revenues
derived from the Agreement and the Lease.
remaining in the Band �"und, after payment
Any amounts rem �3
in full of the principal of and x
merest on the Bond (or provision
' de d in this Bond Resolution) and. the
for payment thereof as prove
reasonable charges and expenses of
the Bank, shall be paid to the
` sooner termination. of the term of
Borrower upon the expiration or
the Agreement..
-lg�
Notwithstai%, g anything herein to the �'trary, reference
to payments into the Bond Fund shall not preclude direct payment
of funds to the Bank for direct application for the purposes for
which payments are made.
ASSIGNMENt
Section 8. As security for the due and punctual payment
of the principal of and interest on the Bond hereby authorized,
the Issuer hereby and pursuant to the Assignment assigns and
pledges to the Bank all receipts derived by the Issuer pursuant
to the Agreement (except any payment made pursuant to Section 6.4
and 7.5 of the Agreement relating to indemnification of the
Issuer by the Borrower), and the Lease and all rights and remedies
of the Issuer under the Agreement, the Note and the Mortgage to
enforce payment thereof, including a mortgage on the Project. In
evidence of such assignment and pledge and in consideration of
the agreement of the Bank to accept its responsibilities with
respect to the Bond Fund created pursuant to Section 7 hereof,
the President is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf
of the Issuer, the Assignment and the Village Clerk is hereby
authorized to attest the same and to affix thereto the corporate
seal of the Issuer, and the President and Village Clerk are
authorized and directed to cause the Assignment to be submitted
to the Bank with the Assignment in substantially the form in
which it has been presented to and is hereby approved by the
governing body of the Issuer, and which is now on file in the
official records of the Issuer.
:STM= S - ARBITRAGE
Section 9. Any moneys held as part of the Acquisition
and Construction Fund created pursuant to Section 5 hereof or as
part of Bond Fund created pursuant to Section 7 hereof, may be
invested or reinvested on the direction ofthe Borrower, in accord-
ance with the provisions of Section -3-10 of the Agreement. Any
such investment shall be held by or under control of the Bank and
shall be deemed at all times a part of the fund from which such
investment was made and the interest accruing thereon and any
profit realized from such investments shall be credited to such
fund, and any loss resulting from such investments shall be charged
to such fund, which loss shall be an obligation of the Borrower as
As and when any amount invested pursuant to this Section
may be needed for disbursement, the Bank may cause a sufficient
amount of the investments to be sold and reduced to cash to the
credit of such funds regardless of the loss on such liquidation.
The Issuer hereby covenants with the Bank and the
owners of the Bond that so long as any principal of the Bond
remains unpaid, the governing body of the Issuer will not take or
authorize the taking of any action which will cause the Bond to be
classified as an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of Section
103(c) of the Code and any regulations promulgated thereunder,
including section 1.103-13 and Section 1.103-14 of the Income Tax
Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) as the same presently exist. For
purposes of certifying as to matters of arbitrage, the President
is hereby designated an officer responsible for issuing the Bond.
M -M
GENERAL COVENANTS
Section 10. The Issuer covenants that it will promptly
cause to be paid, solely and only from the source mentioned in the
Bond, the principal of and interest on the Bond hereby authorized
at the place, on the dates and in the manner provided herein and
in the Bond, according to the true intent and meaning thereof.
The Bond and the obligation to pay interest thereon are limited
obligations of the Issuer, secured by the Mortgage and pursuant to
the Assignment are payable solely out of the receipts derived by
the Issuer pursuant to the Agreement and the Lease and otherwise
as provided herein and in the Agreement. The Bond and the obligation
to pay interest thereon shall not be deemed to constitute an
indebtedness or a loan of credit of the Issuer, the State of
Illinois or any political subdivision thereof, or a charge against
their general taxing powers, within the meaning of any constitutional
or statutory provision of the State of Illinois.
The Issuer covenants that it will faithfully perform at
all times any and all covenants, undertakings, stipulations and
provisions contained in the Bond Ordinance, in the Bond and in
all proceedings of its governing body pertaining thereto. The
Issuer covenants that it is duly authorized under the Constitution
and laws of the State of Illinois, including particularly and
without limitation the Act, to issue the Bond authorized hereby,
and to pledge and assign the receipts hereby pledged and assigned
in the manner and to the extent herein set forth; that all action
on its part for the issuance of the Bond has been duly and effec-
tively taken and that the Bond is and will be a valid and
true
forceable limited obllga ,
of e Issuer according . `�r .
meaning thereof -
intent
and � will execute, acknowledge
Issuer covenants that �-� ,� f
The the owners
is and, other
documents as
and deliver such instru en the better assuring
a reasonably require far
the Band or e Bank may
k the interest of the .
granting,
pledging
and assigning unto the Ban.
g
. �,� the Issuer in and
en.t as well as the rights ghts
Issuer in e Agreement assigned a-nd
Assignment and hereby
receipts puxsuant to the � on theto thy' of and interest
a eat of the principal pledged to '� payment ,� except as herein and
covenants and agrees cher f
Band, The Issuer �, sell, convey, mortgage,
provided, it nc
in the Agreement of the receipts derived.
otherwise disperse of any part Agreement.
encumber or othe reem
of its rights under` the Ag
e Agreement or the Lease or and docu-
f rom. g
and agree=s �.ha�. all b�c►c�ks
The Issuer covenants a ed from the
possession relating to the receipts derived
meats in its P en to
�. all reasonable times be ap
Agreement or the Lease shall a is or other
Agree such accountants
the owners of the Bond or
inspection b ate-
.
from om time to
time design.
agencies as such. owners may � -� shall through
g agrees that �.
The Issuer covenants and o f
• is and all of the obligations
the Bank
enforce all of its rights miners of
e Borrower under the Agreement for i�h.e bene f �t �' f �' °
of the Bank hereunder
shall protect the r.�.gh
„�
the Bond. The Issuer f the receipts coming
• respect to the assignment and pledge a
w�.
due under
the Agreement and the Lease.
ENrNT S EFAULT AND REMEDIES
Section 11. Any Event of Default under Section 7.1 of
the Agreement is hereby defined as and declared to be and to
constitute an "Event of Default".
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and so -long
I
inuing, the Bank by notice in writing delivered
as such Event is cont
to the issuer and tn-
In -.L-*L-e Borrower, may declare the principal of the
then
accrued thereon immediately due and pvable,
Bond and
and such principal and interest shall thereupon become and be
immediately due and payable. upon any such declaration all
Agreement from the Borrower immediately shall
payments under the
n payable as provided in section 7.2 of the Agreement
become due and
While any principal of or interest on the Bond is
unpaid, the issuer shall not exercise any of the remedies on
default specified in Section 7.3 of the Agreement without prior
written consent of the Bank.
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the Bank May
pursue any available remedy at law or in equity by suit, action,
n.
mandamus or other proceeding to enforce the payment of the principal
of and interest on the Bond and to enforce and compel the performance
e issuer as herein set forth.
of the duties and obligations of th
erred upon or reserved to the Bank by the
No remedy conf
ance is intended to be exclusive of any
terms of the Bond ordin
ch remedy shall be cumulative
other remedy, but each and every su
and shall be in addition to any other remedy given hereunder
.0024-
to the Bank or to th,ner or to 'an other ren now or hereafter
�.
existing at law or in equity or by statute.
No delay or omission to,iexercise any right, power or
remedy accruing upon any event ofidefault shall impair any such
right, power,or remedy or shall be construed to be a waiver of
any such event of default or to be acquies6ence therein; and
every such right, power or remedy may be exercised from time to
time as often as may be deemed expedient.
All moneys received pursuant to any right given or
action taken under the provisions of this Section or under the
provisions of Article VII of the Agreement (after payments of the
costs and expenses of the proceedings resulting in the collection
of such moneys and of the expenses, liabilities and advances
incurred or made by the Issuer, the Bank or the owners of the
Bond) and all such moneys in the Bond Fund shall be applied to
the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond then due
and unpaid to the person entitled thereto.
Whenever moneys are to be applied pursuant to the
provisions of this Section, such moneys shall be applied at such
times, and from time to time, as the Bank shall determine, but in
any event within fifteen business days after deposit of such
moneys in the Bond Fund. The Bank shall give such notice as it
may deem appropriate of the deposit with it of any such moneys
and of the fixing of any such date, and shall not be required to
make payment to the owner of the Bond until such Bond shall be
presented to the Bank for appropriate endorsement or for cancel-
lation if fully paid.
-25-
Whenever all P' dpal of and interest or Bond have
been paid under the provisions of this Section and a -LI reasonable
expenses of the Bank and the Issuer have 'been paid, any balance
remaining in the Bond Fund shall be paid.'to the Borrower. -
with regard to any Default concerning which notice is
given to the Borrower under the provisions OfLthe Bond Ordinance,
the Issuer hereby grants the Borrower full authority for the
account of the Issuer to perform or observe any covenant or obligation
alleged in said notice not to have been performed or observed, in
the name and stead of the Issuer with full power to do any and all
things and acts to the same extent that the Issuer could do in
order to remedy such default.
Section 12. The sale of the Bond hereby authorized to
the Bank at a price of $21000,000,and payment pursuant to the
Bond Purchase Agreement in substantially the form which has been
presented to it is hereby approved by the governing body of the
Issuer and which Bond Purchase Agreement is now on file in the
--h . 41 s hereby in all respects authorized,
otticial records of the Issuer, i
approved and confirmed.
The Fre
sidentis hereby authorized and directed to
execute said Bond Purchase Agreement for and on behalf of the
Issuer, and the village Clerk is hereby authorized to attest the
same and to affix thereto the corporate seal of -the issuer.
11 I J1I 1r1. ��
cx
FORMANCE PROVISION!�
Section 13. The President and Village Clerk, for and
on behalf of the Issuer be, and each of them hereby is, authorized
and directed to do any and all thiiq I gs necessary to effect the
performance of all obligations of the Issuer under and pursuant
L
to the Bond Ordinance,'the execution and delivery of the Bond and
the performance of all other acts of whatever nature necessary to
effect and carry out the authority conferred by the Bond Ordinance,
including without limitation execution and delivery of a Depositary
Agreement dated as of October 1, 1984 with the Bank, in substantial-
ly the form now before this meeting. The President and Village
Clerk be, and they are hereby, further authorized and directed
for and on behalf of the Issuer, to execute all papers, documents,
certificates and other instruments, including IRS Form 8038, that
may be required for the carrying out of the authority conferred
by this Bond Ordinance or to evidence said authority and to
exercise and otherwise take all action necessary to the full
realization of the rights, accomplishments and purposes of the
Issuer under the Agreement, the Assignment and the Bond Purchase
Agreement and to discharge all of the obligations of the Issuer
thereunder.
Selction 14. Approval is hereby granted of the issuance
of the Bond pursuant to Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended. Ths Issuer elects to make the provisions
of Section 103(b)(6)(D) applicable to the Bond.
IPAM
NOTICES
Section 15. it shall be sufficient service of any
notice or other paper on the Issuer if the same shall be duly
mailed to the Issuer by registered or certified mail, postage pre-
ceipt requested, addressed to the Issuer at Village
paid, return re
of Mount Prospect, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect,
Illinois 60056, Attention*- village Manager, or to such other
address as the Issuer may from time to time file with the Bank
and the Borrower. It shall be sufficient service of any notice
or other paper on the Borrower if the same shall be duly mailed
to the Borrower by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, addressed to
Attention: or to such other address as the
Borrower may from time to time file with the Issuer and the Bank.
it shall be sufficient service of any notice or other paper on
the Bank if the same shall be duly mailed to the Bank by registered
or certified mail, postage prepaid,.return receipt requested,
addressed to the Bank at 33 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois
60690, Attention: Commercial Loan Department or to such other
address as the Bank may from time to time file with the Issuer
and the Borrower.
BOND ORDINANCE A CONTRACT*# PROVISIONS FOR
MODIFICATIONS,, ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENT'S
Section 16. The provisions of this Bond ordinance shall
constitute a contract between the Issuer and the owner or owners
of the Bond hereby authorized; and after the issuance of the Bond
-28-
no modification, alteration, or amendment or supplement to the
provisions of this Bond Ordinance shall be made in any manner
except with the written consent of the owner or owners of the Bond
until such time as all principal of and interest on the Bond shall
have been paid in full.
SATISFACTION AND DISCHARGE
Section 17. All rights and obligations of the Issuer
and the Borrower under the Agreement, the Assignment, the Bond,
the Note, the Mortgage, the Lease, the Bond Purchase Agreement and
the Bond Ordinance shall terminate and such instruments shall
cease to be of further effect, and the Bank shall cancel the Bond,
deliver it to the Issuer, and deliver a copy of the cancelled Bond
to the Borrower, and shall assign and deliver to the Borrower any
moneys in the Bond Fund required to be paid to the Borrower under
Section 7 hereof (except moneys held by the Bank for the payment
of principal of o►r interest on the Bond) when:
(a) all expenses of the Issuer and the Bank shall have
been paid;
(b) the Issuer and the Borrower shall have performed
all of their covenants and promises in the Agreement, the
Assignment, the Bond, the Note, the Mortgage, the Lease, the
Bond Purchase Agreement and in the Bond Resolution; and
(c) all principal of and interest on the Bond have been
paid.
_29-
APPROVAL
Section 18. Approval is hereby granted of the issuance
of the Bond pursuant to Section 103(k) of the Code.
NO BRIBERY
Section 19. As required by Section 103(n) of the Code,
the President and the Board of Trustees of the Issuer-., as the
public officials responsible for the private activity bond allocation,
hereby certify that such allocation was not made in consideration
of any bribe, gift, gatuity, or direct or indirect contribution to
any political campaign.
SEVERABILITY
Section 20. If any section, paragraph, clause or pro-
vision of this Ordinance shall be ruled by any court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, the invalidity of such section, para-
graph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining
provisions hereof.
R�zm
Section 21 The captions or headings of the Bond
Ordinance are for convenience only and in no way define,, limit or
describe the scope or intent of any provision of the Bond Ordinance.
U911012
Al lldV"" i A,
60
PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT REPEALED
i
Section 22. All ordinances,- reslutions, and orders, or
parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions of this Bond
Ordinance, are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed,
and this Bond Ordinance shall be in full f6rce and effect upon its
approval.
Presented at a regular meeting of the governing body of
the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois held on the day of
October, 1984.
This Bond Ordinance passed and approved on roll call
vote this day of October, 1984.
Village Clerk
(SEAL)
Ayes•
Nays,•
President
Inc
Village of Mount Prospect
Moujit hlvspect, Ifli''nolis
R kl']L, I.J ''I" ,G E R,
TO A.C'E"I
FROM K IE'INN I 11,1 H F I Y v I lEt"11111
SUBJECT -0 ZBA-40-V-84, 'ROPPOLO BROS .- 1703-17`759 A], G""ONQUIN ROAI,D
CRYS'irAl, COURT SHOPPI11IG CEN1,rER
DATE: 0 C T 0 B ]HI"OR 9 $ 19 8 4
T'11 e c a s e b ei Tig cunsimit the conistri.Lctioi,,) of a,
t
ctiain link -fence along the rear property 1i i"i e Ttie peti ioner
I
was requlred as a con of an ag]-E!ement witli the Crystal
Towers Ilomeio�meil�-s Associ.atilon to petit-iol,11 fol-:, an eigh,t foot,
chain&������ link fence.
Th e Z o n i n g B lo a r d o f A p p e a, I s a r o 1v e c14
t h e 1 r IS e p t I mb e r 2 7 19 8 e4, P Llb 'I J11 lk-_" 11 t-"": .Ir".. F�. d "� ,.y cn,., .��.., � d.. 'E? f ,;lu s F) e f
I E�
fences above six feet in J11" 0 1)
petltia-ner is 'req"i.iesting of tl.�e
J!"""o a Is e
P
hain-link fence., This J[`&�,,,iice . . . . . . .. �y,c,f 1,
c
o,: e t i. JL All
_1 t"', E111
the South property line.
Village of Mount 7A�3rospect
Mount llnnpect, Illinois
UNTEIII OFFICE ME(l00RAIl' ql)LJM
Ot
N
TO 1-0 ilrERRANCE L. BURG11ARD, VILLAGE M�ANAGER
,
FROM KENNETH 11. FRITZ, COMMUNITY DEVELl0,,lP.lmM_.,,tq',r DIRECTOR,
1040,
SUBJECT: ZBA-142-V-1184, CHARI,ES DIM' "I'll, N U CO
4.06 N(','I,)R'lr'H, FAIRVIEW
DATE*- OCTOBER 9, 19184
0
The request before the Board ils for a varlati,on from Section
14.102.B.2. Tlie pet liti i olll'y,ielr had recei'VE!d a permit for a detached
gariage and had beguxi, chi istructlorl. U'pil o n p �i 1: t ia I complet'i.on, it
was not ed that the permit was approved with, a, sEll!tl)ack of oril 'y twi,c)
feet rath,er, than t1lIE! required, five f eet,. "'If Whe request is, tfiiere
fox7ell, 11111-o recogtill".ze .Airesetback olf t7f
ollm eet from the si.de lot line
x1l"ather tha,iii tlie requixed, f ivie f et. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended 5-0 1,ri favior of the peti,ti,oner at 0"ie3i.r Sieptemll-)er 27,
1984 pu,blic hearing.1
HEW1,
y
V il I a 8 s p e
Motint Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFF110E MEMORANDUM
TO rERRANGE I., BURG'Ililk''R'11D, VI1,,1,,,iiAiGE MANAGER
FROM me KENNETH Hu, FRITZ
COM111 JNITY DEVEL(',')']P.1ME'N,r DIRECTOR
,SUBJECT.- ZBA-4,3—V-84, LIG11T110'US]E'1 PRODUCTIONS, INC.
210,20 GAMP MCDONXILD ROAD
DATE.- OCTOBElit 9. 1984
T
f " V
7111 he applicant Ims requieste,,d e' S
Or d inari c e s 0 `rb, e b u� 1k of tlie z-i'rnza
e x J. S'-
ericroactiment s imto y�iirids and the
.. . .. ..
proplex"ty has beeri annexed after
Co It Count -y- The reqii jest:'s a.l.
yis.rd, rear yard, and ired,luction of iuiber' of p a r k J".. n Ig spaices ar"id
tri i,ck oa,,d1i,ng space, Ad di tional. ii,raxiat-Aoris are requesteld
allow, a fence along thie interior s de property "11ne to scr,/r.!,�',�,',,n H -1,e
adjaicent service station an,d of a, wood deck patio 11'.n
the requirt yard
t Z
The staf-f has worked with tli,e
,able s3liii,te iearlid landscape plan. The
ea
CO'n,Slidered 1�1-iiwhe (1,1���ase at thei,x',, 27P
Dubl',11-11,
17 2
an,d recommende(i , 5-0 'in favor of t!,,, -:e
K
` J
0
MINUTES OF THE NTPROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
LighthouseZBA Case No. 43-V-84 Hearing Date.- September 27, 1984
2020 East Camp Mc Donald
Subject Property-. 2020 East Camp Mc Donalda
Publication Date*- September 10, 1984
Request,: Variations, from Section 21.701.A*l
to permit a fence 'in the front
l
requiredstanding sign to be located less than
-the required 50 feet from side lot line
and 5 feet from front property line,,*
Section 14.2002.A which requires a
30 foot front yard; Section 14.2002.0
to permit less than the
rear yard-, Section 14.2005.A to reduce
eliminatethe number of parking spaces from 18
to 15; Section 14.2005.B to
the truck loading dock.
ZBA Members Presents. Gilbert"Basnik,. Chairman
Robert Brettrag,er
Lois Brothers
,John Green
Len Petrucelli
ZBA Members Absent: Marilyn
Ron Cassidy
None
Mr. Chuck Moore presented the case noting that Lighthouse
Productions, Inc. n_s et
of making various the property.,
Mr. Moore stated that a fence located between the subject
property and the service sat.on to the east would enhance the
area since the service station creates an unsightly e
fence would be locate t.he pethio front yard.
The �t 1
' t nee i requesteda v �`w ai ppermit free-standing
sign that would be 48 feet from the side lot line 'Instead of the
i
required 50 feet and 4 feet,from e ri t a ea the
i
required 5 feet
Since the building was constructed when th,is area was under the
3urlsdict,ion of Cook County, parkings permitted the ` front'
yard.petitioners now required to acknowledgethe conflict
ith the Village Code by seeking variation for an existing
condition,t a variation construction
of a patio 'in a ortpreviously,
Page 1 f
„wo .fi «NyM Mb „w„
.., ...,
MI n ... ,, ,,, ,, ,,,,,r,. ,i r„r ... rri„r,r ,,,,, ,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ”. rr r„ , ,,, ,, ,,,,,, r.r, yr 1�m W+rm ar. rvmn.. .r,a„✓, ,,.,,rr„
,,,, „a � ,.,. �n ✓ ..ate✓
V �
, fl
Q
.NOR
w M I� WII
x � m
M
u m
n y,
yr
IN
µ
m
A �
f � M
� a u. n .i, dIV �• xyP'n "AyN' a
M YM a r�TM u ! �rw `I,ywaa ,W �p
b �
e w
�w w .
A n x
WTA I NCP
JR
let
M�
R
a e..
w w '
m w °
wx a o
p n 1
* u 7
rr
F n D
M
. , a ., ,p � a u W ✓, ,, 'MIM
1
w x Y
M
�ry
n
y
a
x
a ✓ w
p � A
o i. n m. i �i n w x 4,., ♦.mxyw M
m. M A e NA w M x w n
.. M ✓ ,. ma ,x
e
lop,W a
v � k
'� �, o- r, iA w ��w A^ ���d Pp�, «n n Adm � � .. e x �,��. ✓A� i(b M x � � a an
,p
na F
u m �v
awxa o
^ �o
o a
b
' n iii A
MN N �6 n
a
a
A eV
Y � 4WDM
m
✓� R M �
P , 4 � „'” n�,,✓" � ��� a �"
a b•
o ,
w �, � •M" Wr, s .0 A � A m�kµwY' P� 1 A
a M n w r M w i
a m a e"Wrxx
r W
A"a It
a,
ell
e
F
' m r
m �
� m a
4" n
�yy/y A
00
I
XA.�
n,
.
,mow r Y�
� � « � � " � � �"�'�� � 1 ,� ,� ,� (�"IFw �""N' N M F" � ✓�-,r,� w� n� � �r, ^ �„ � � n , " M
wc�r- H
rw,'
- w p .�
n « 4 M Nr� a
a u
0
� � � �� x�uW,
a
77
e w � ro T a
a�
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount. Prospect, 111'1�iois
, ft
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
4
TO TERRAIiCE 11,1bW BURGHARD, VI1,,LAG_E MANAGER
FROM d KENNETH If. FRITZ Wt111110117 DEVELOP14ENT R E C" ' ' ,t »„,
OR
SUBJECT.- ARC DISPOSAL COMPANY
ZONING CASE, SUBDIVISION AND AN]TJEX,&NJ,
DATE: 0 C"TO BER 9 p 19 8 4
The Board will be considering ilat thei.r Oct i("I)ber 16 meetJ;,,ng and!
st ibsequer"it illeetings the annexationzoning, and subdivisloi I of
the Arc Disposa,l property at Kenneth ai.id Btisse. Ttte zoi-iing case
is reported oi.rt at thAlLs meetingso t-IriaL ordinan�,'Iles ca,,r�
prepared for t subsequent antiii iexation at tl,N e r e 9 -
r
The reqUests Involve a,, text ainendment to for al,
statli,on ais a I -,-'I special us et rezoning -of t1rie property upion
annexati-1 Industrial, a Special, Use f"or a
I J. �j ions
trai���isfer stadi.on at: tl,���ie subjecL loication, at"id several
heygtit of ml trt,ictures and area of lol,� 1: &
'The P et..itltl,y prepari"i-ig a rwpm vise,,,J si, e plan an;,J,
la,rWscape 'plan to priovide for *,.-fie recoiiimei-idatiloiis made �)y staff
and those suggested by the Zoi,iir'ig 13aar,'d of Appea.LS. Th0%
1 '11- Z 0 n I rig
cases were considered by the Z0113.k:ig Board at,,_', thei"I”, Aiui.gust 23
9
411 %.. ecoir_,,,,men-0
public hearing. At that ti'me tllIey 1- 0 r
approval of tkie t,.ext amendment; ai Id 5-O to rec.iom��7,,,end apjprova]., of
the rezon3*,,rig, special tise, and variationsii,i,
I T
The sut)dii'visi,or"i lwa,s approved ��,by tl�e Plail, Commission at their
Octo'beir 3 meetir�jg. At t1lat tiraile,the Pl,L�n sion ee.gym W.1' a
m e n, d e d a, 1 o n g, w lt h t h, e st a f f a g a ltl, rZ3% t- a- P roi.r a 1 0 IC Ii e 10 P M "ni t
Code modifications requested. 10111iis S'Ub- e dj7,�7jSj.<
2,
requests will 1�)e briought before M. e B
tf-,,oa",,--c!
meet in,g .,
Finally, the Bloard will also be rieicei'Villg an t
_Z Iww 4m,
P1,
r d
the n,ext meeting. The staff is sclthedl,iling a1,1 t1je
matters so that action can be t1ak"EMI., 'D�:r Boa,.rdy` ir(' C_Lr�e to Set
'I -
ie property annexed into the VJL11,ige cf=
calendar year.
KHF.- hg
,tta yona,
y
MINUTES OF 'THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE"
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA Case No., 36-A-84 Hearing', „,
August 23, 1984
38 -SU -84
39—V-84
Petitioner,.,,,, ,Alvl W. DeJo g, epresent i��
ARC l'Company
5859 North R . "er boa
t, Illinois 60018
Rosemon
rive
Subject Property: ::outh Busse Road and Kenneth D
Publication Date: Agus , 1984
Request: Text Amendment,to allow a transfer,,,
-1 D,'strj-ct by special use
it. To, re -zone subject propert
from R- X(if + a nexatI n is gran ted , t
I-1.- for a, specs l , use 'n;operate a transfer station
,',`" ,.
�m
instead of 30 loaf exterior si` de „yard on
north,the and a zero foot rather than a 30
foot side,yard on the south. arl
permit rear yard from o . Variation from14.2203;
lcoverage to , for parcels
,
tQ Section 14,,2204,
building
feetlln
5height,,rathprthan
itted 30 feet. Variation from
perml
yard and screening along the par. g'are
to permit 0 feet'. Variation to n56parking ,
x* " � �;
ZBA Members Present: Gilbert Bassi , Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Lois Brothers
Ron Cassidy
Marilyn O' May
ZBA Members Absent: John Green
Mr. DeJon , representing the owner of the subject p= oiler : and,""''
business presented his'case. It was noted 'that th& transferw
station is an existing operationr along with all the buildings.
Previously located in
f
,. the business was forced .;, ,
relocate when Rosemont condemned he land for a shopping center.
transferARC Disposal buliltthe station, presently located in
N
V111P9e of rViOunt Prospect.
41
Mount Prospect, Illinois 0
'ZA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Village -Manager
FROM:
Village Engineer
DATE:
October 12, 1984
SUBJECT:
Meier Road - FAUS Project
On April 3, 1984, the Village Board approved the selection of
McDonough Associates, Inc., to be the consulting engineers for
our Meier Road-FAUS Project. The proposal approved was for Phase
I and Phase II engineering at a total cost of $19,480.00
IDOT procedures requires that separate agreements be signed for
Phase I and Phase II engineering.. On May 4, 1984, the IDOT Agree-
ment For Consultant Services for Phase I was signed. Phase I
engineering has been completed and is being reviewed by IDOT. IDOT
has requested we proceed with the request.for Phase II engineering
therefore, on October 5, the Mayor signed the amendment to the
Agreement for Consultant Services which covers -.Phase II engineering.
On June 19, 1984, the Village signed an IDOT Local Agency Agreement
For Federal Participation in which, .IDOT estimated the preliminary
Phase I and Phase II engineering to cast $44,000.. Although this is
over twice the cost of our contract with McDonough we only pay the
actual contract cost. This Local Agency Agreement requires us to
pass a resolution appropriating funds for our cost of the engineering.
Therefore, the attached resolution satisfies this requirement.
Chuck Bencic
CB/m, -
C: Director, Public Works
fille grAlr� CSF 131AUN033 ��. Construction
ian
m
0MCMUT10i*4 FOR IMPROVVAENT, BY MMMICIPAUTY
MY
UtMER THE
m
e
e
JLLINOIS
Mayor Board
BE IT RBS0ltVBD, by �lhoc
.. and � z .� -Trustees,',,
U
VZliage
Baud ct T the
• � Mount Prospect Dlinu �
oia
at
., • � � '� .s.
haat the f6llowM9 uv beimproved under the lois 'Highway Code- _ u,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Northwest Municipal Conference unanimously
endorsed the Solid Waste Management Plan at a meeting on
-0 a
June 13, 1984 1 and, I
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect likewise endorses
the Solid Waste Management Plan and desires to participate
in the implementation of the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS:
SECTION ON'E,0 That the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect shall participate in the
'Implemen,tation of the recommendations of the Northwest
Municipal Conference Solid Waste, Management Plan.
SECTION TWO: That Trustee Ralph Arthur and Pat-Leuhring
are hereby appointed as representatives of the Village of
Village of Mount Prospect to the Conference Solid Waste
Implemention Team.
SECTION THREE: That the financial contribution of the
Village Of Mount Prospect to the program shall be
determined by, the participants in the program.
SECTION FOUR-. That particlipation in the implementation
of the Solid, Waste Management Plan of the Village of
Mount Prospect does not commit or bind the Village to
membership in the Solid Waste Management Agency to be
created or to participation in any other element of the
Solid Waste Management Plan.
SECTION FIVE: That a copy of this Resolution shall be
forwarded to the Office of the Northwest Municipal
Conference.
SECTION SIX: That this Resolution shall be In full force
and effect from and after its passage and approval in
the manner provided by law.
AYES,-'
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1984.
ATTEST: Mayor
Village Clem
D /
BMW
ri ml
N'
NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE
10 S EMERSON STREET
MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
60056 A REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS
(312) 253-6323
MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS
REPRESENTING A POPULATION OF OVER 850,000
FOUNDED IN 1958
MEMBER COMMUNITIES
Arlington Heights
Barrington
Buffalo Grove
TO: Cable Council
Des Plaines
Elk Grove Village
r
FROM.- �.�
Evanston
Glencoe
�4on
r c nde, able oor� i nator
Glenview
Hanover Park
Highland Parr
SUBJECT: Cable Council Recommendation: Franchise Amendments
Hoffman Estates
Lake Forest
DATE: September 21, 1984
Mount Prospect
Niles
Northbrook
Northfield
At the regular meeting of the Northwest Municipal Cable
Palatine
Park Ridge
Council on September 19, 1984, Cabl enet presented its
Prospect Heights
case for requesting the following relief:
Rolling Meadows
Schaumburg
Streamwood
1) An increase i n basic service rates from $5.95 to
Wheeling
$7.95, and of additional outlet rates from $2.00
Wilmette
to $3.95 per month, concurrent with the addition
YYinnetka
of Cabl extra service to basic.
Elk Grave Twp.
Hanover Twp.
2) Deactivation of 50 channels of system capacity. -
Maine Twp.
New Trier Twp.
Northfield Twp.
8) Use of a non -addressable converter for bask -only
Schaumburg Twp.
subscribers (contingent on Item #2)
Wheeling Twp.
.
-
4) Deferral of two-way service requirements on a
OFFICERS
market feasibility basis.
President
Gwendolyn H. Trindl
Summary
Winnetka
Vice -President
William D. Ahrens
The Council recommends elimination of the current basic and
Rolling Meadows
converter fee rate freezes, leading to non -regulatory over -
Secretary -Treasurer
sight as expected after August 1985. The Council also recommends
William R. Balling
that Cabl enet not be permitted to deactivate the EO channels
Buffalo Grove
as proposed.
Executive Director
William G. Grams
Rationale
The following recommendations were made by the Council:
1 With regard to the ba,si c rate increase, the Council
recolmnends that; members end the current basic rate
freeze, reserving the right to control rra,te increases
"at future dates if necessay.
Il
Cable Council Recommendation: Franchise Amendments
Page 2
September 21, 1984
On roll call, the vote to support this action was:
Arlington Heights - No Park Ridge Yes
Des Plaines - Yes Prospect Heights - Yes
Hanover Park - Yes Schaumburg - Yes
Mount Prospect - Yes Wheeling - No
The action would allow Cablenet to set rates at will, subject to
municipal veto. Such a situation would normally have occurred
on August 1, 1985.
On the separate question of raising the "additional converter" rate
from $2.00 to $3.95, the Council recommended the same form of de-
regulation. On roll call:
Arlington Heights - No Park Ridge - Yes
Des Plaines - Yes Prospect Heights - No
Hanover Park - Yes Schaumburg - Yes
Mount Prospect - Yes Wheeling - Yes
2) The Council recommended that Cablenet not be permitted to reduce the
number of channels. The rationale was—.*a) that some residents
have commented on the value of the backup channels during single -
cable outages, b) the dual-trunkis an integral part of the physical
system as proposed, agreed upon, and built, and c) no suitable
guarantee of_reach vat? on at reasonable cost was offered.
On roll call: (to allow reduction)
Arlington Heights - Yes Park Ridge - No
Des Plaines - No Prospect Heights - No
Hanover Park - No Schaumburg - Yes
Mount Prospect - Yes* Wheeling - No
Northbrook - Abstain
*Trustee Farley of Mount Prospect voted "Yes" to the reduction con-
ditionally on resolution of institutional, access and reactivation
concerns.
3) Because the channel reduction was rejected, the use of the non -
addressable converter is moot.
4) Cablenet has asked to make two-way requirements "contingent upon market
reality." Cablenet feels it should determine market reality. Since
it is not clear that the Agreements require specific services in any
event, this issue was deferred.
nor
Cable Council Recorn"Pen'dation: Franchise Amendments
page 3
September 21, 1984
2�V
Under Ordinance, neither of these issues may be fin-alized without
a public hearing. . The Council will hold such a hearing on
Thursday, October 11, 1984, at 7:30P.M. at the Arlington Heights
Municipal Building. Although this hearing will satisfy your
requirement under Ia*w, you may hold additionAl individual hearings,
if you so desire, prior to your vote.. Thereafter, the final decision
rests solely with the i',ndivi-dual muni cipal i ties.
cc.- Brian Quirk,-Cablenet
Will Manolson , Cablenet
I"
NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE
10 S. EMERSON STREET
MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 6D056
(312) 253-6323
MEMBER COMMUNITIES
Arlington Heights
Barrington
Buffalo Grove
Des Plaines
Elk Grove Village
Evanston
Glencoe
Glenview
Hanover Park
Highland Park
Hoffman Estates
Lake Forest
Mount Prospect
Niles
Northbrook
Northfield
Palatine
Park Ridge
Prospect Heights
Rolling Meadows
Schaumburg
Streamwood
Wheeling
Wilmette
Winnetka,
Elk Grove Twp.
Hanover Twp.
Maine Twp.
New Trier Twp.
Northfield Twp.
Schaumburg Twp.
Wheeling Twp.
OFFICERS
President
Gwendolyn H. Trindl
Winnetka
Vice -President
William D. Ahrens
Rolling Meadows
Secretary -Treasurer
William R. Balling
Buffalo Grove
Executive Director
William G. Grams
A REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS
MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS
REPRESENTING A POPULATION OF OVER 850,000
FOUNDED IN 1958
TCS Cable Council
t
FROM:
'E—ric Anderson., Cable Coordinator
SUBJECT.- Cable Rate Regulation -- Current Status
DATE: September 25, 1984
The discussion of Cablenet's rate increase request, with
reference to a recent Supreme Court ruling, at our September
19 meeting, has generated some confusion over both the legal
status of rate control and the recommendation of the Cable
Council to remove the current rate freeze. The following
should clarify these issues, but I strongly advise that you
ask your municipal attorney to review the attached rulings
before your final response on the rate relief request.
Current Municipal Ordinance
Under current Ordinance, Cablenet is prohibited from seeking
any change in Basic or other non -premium rates until August 1985
in Arlington Heights,, Des Plaines., Mount Prospect, SC'haumburg
and Wheeling, November 1985 in Hanover Park, Bartlett, and
Prospect Heights, and February 1986 in Park Ridge'. This freeze
does not apply to "premium" channels such as HBO. As of the
dates stated above, the current Agreements actually eliminate
basic rate regu'latian, while reserving the right of the
municipalities to re-establish control should market forces
fail to create a reasonable price. During franchising, this
was - done in the belief that as a luxury good, cable rates would
normally best be 'set in the market, although future developments
might convert cable to a necessity requiring rate c(ontrol.
Cable CouncilRecommendation
The Council has not recommended a specific increase in basic
rates of $2.00. It has recommended that, in light of Cablenet's
current situation, the rate ceiling on basic service and additional
convertors be eliminated early.
page 2
September 25 14
That is, Cablenet would be permitted to set any level of rate
it chooses, provided first that it give you 30 days notice of
any increase and second that you may reinstate controls if
new circumstances lead you to believe they are warranted.
The Council felt that this is responsive to Cablenet's request
for relief, while staying as, close as possible to the original
policies set forth in the Ordinances and Agreements.
Federal Rul i n2s
The Supreme Court has not directly addressed municipal rate control,
contrary to impressions given in discussion at Cablenet's public
presentation on September 19. However, in C o Cities vs. Crisp
l t1
it ruled that the FCC may pre-empt state and municipal authority
over cab -le wherever it (the FCC) chooses to rule. (Crisp is attached.)
We must therefore refer to FCC rules on rate control. The FCC's
most 'relevant rulings, "Community Cable TV," (commonly called the
"Nevada" decision), is also attached., In that ruling, and in
subsequent correspondence from the FCC to our congressmen
(investigating the issue at NWMC request), the FCC has insisted
that municipalities do have the right to regulate basic cable rates.
However, the FCC has also ruled that we cannot control the content
of the basic tier except to require regular broadcast and Access
channels.
The Nevada decision has raised the question of whether Cablenet's
"Basic" is a basic tier by FCC definition. In any event, "Nevada"
allows Cablenet to realign Basic such that it might very nearly
achieve the proposed fee schedule without actually changing the
"BasW" rate. For marketing reasons, they appear reluctant to
pursue this option.
Ms.
enc.
cc: James Ryan, President, Village of Arlington Heights
John E. Seitz, Mayor, City of Des Plaines
✓Carolyn H. Krause, President, Village of Mount Prospect
Herbert I. Aigner, President, Village of Schaumburg
Sheila H.- Schultz, President, Village of Wheeling.
Louis F. Barone, President, Village of Hanover Park
Glen Koehler, President, Village of Bartlett
Jack Gilligan, Mayor, City of Prospect Heights
Martin J. Butler, Mayor, City of Park Ridge
/� J 11 �" -Y t tt c am►-� ,.. #-- ..- ;'
ti
Ae S4r—v d,/
r�
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 1te 83-525
Washington, D. C. 20564 13950
in res
LX MUNITY CABLE TVs INC. } CSR-it;tbii
Petition for Special Reliet }
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted s November 8, 19831 Rel eeead r HoVember 15, 1489
Py tits commissioni 00mnmiseiener AiverA sbeents
introduction
1. Un February 3, 1353, Community Cable TV, Inc. (here-
inatter "CCTV"), operator of a cable television system serving Lae
Vegas, Nevada, and neighboring communities, tiled a "Petition tot
Special Reliet Requesting Declaratory Ruling" concerning the extent of
tederal preemption of cable television system rate regulation.
Specitically, CCTV seeks a ruling that such preemption
I
extends not only to pay or subscription cable
services (i.e., programming for which a per-
cnannel or per -program charge is made) but also
to specialized or auxiliary cable services --
primarily aatellite-delivered programming --
ot the kind commonly provided in tiers of
services ottered to subscribers at a single
package rate distinct Irom the rate charged
tot regular subscriber services.
Comments on CCTV's petition have been tiled by the tollowing parties
Mr. Henry Geller and Ms. Donna Lampert, aointlyr the Nevada Public
Services Commission (hereinatter "PSC")j A -R Telecommunications
(hereinafter "ART"), operator of several cable television systems in
the eastern United Staters Group W Cable, Inc. (hereinatter "Group
W"), operator of several cable television systema across the country,
including Reno and Washoe County, Nevadai the City of Dallas, Texas
(hereinatter "Dallas")t Nevada Pay Television, Inc. (hereinatter
"NPTV"), a distributor of pay television progrkemming in the Lae Vegas,
Nevada metropolitan area through multipoint distribution service (NDS)
and master antenna (NATV) systems; the Cable Television Information
Center (hereinafter "CTIC"), "a non-protit organization whose
membership includes over 200 city governments ..."I Capitil Cities
Cable, Inc. (hereinatter `CCC"), operator of over 40 cable systems in
- d -
state$) the city of Richmond, lnlbnb* the Town dl Prot Roysi,
Vie intai and the LatflsonDutg Electric Commission of Hbrfieonoutg, _
Virginia, 30intly hereinbttef "the itles")i and Time inc. (here-
tnstte -Timo"!# # Corpration which, inter glia, s developing
teltet# and whose subsidiaries inclu s he tiple system operator
Ametican Televislon ano Communications Corporation (hersinatter
"ATC"}, Home Box Ottice Inc. (hereinatter `1100'*) Cinemax, and the
USA Network (hersinattsf `USA"). 1 CCTV has replied to these
comments, ss nag the National Cable Television Association, Inc..
(hereinafter "NCTA"}. 1/
4. CCTV $togs its rt-questea rt-questrujing an a res"It Ot the
decision in in re Pry sed General Order No. eU, Docket No. 8-e
(Ntvt PUD. S tv. L'om ' , ov my I . I U PSC pro-,
poled to Adopt 00W41 Oto t Kok 0 In order to o44lt and delins toe
terms and provisions of Nevada's cable television eyatem laws. Nov.
Rev. Stat. it t st_. Gonersl Order No 0 contemplates rate regu-
lation Dy PSC for all subscriber service# a term detined in flection
2.0 of General Odet NO. eU as "all cable television service provided
other than pay channel servtces,.' Section 2.t detinea pay channel
service as "# channel whi ff 1a individually charges to customers.- A
public bearing on the psc proposal was naid in Carson City, Neta.-. on
September , 1902, in which CCTV and other parties participates '4
a result of this hearing, PSC tuna, contrary to the Position u y
CCTV and other Cable television companies tate in re Prosed G4
tirder No. 40, slip op. at 4-5), that "(t1he scope of federal pre-
em tion over CATV service is necessarily limited to specializcrd
programming tot which a per -program or per -channel charge is macre
. �
Ia. at U. Subsequently, CCTV tiled the instant petition.
bummary at CCTV's Petition
. in support of Its petition, CCTV argues that Censral
Order No. 40 would countenance state regulation of rates to a manner
whicn hat been preempted by the Commiasion. CCTV notes particularly
that its "expanaeo tier " which is distinct Irom Its -Dagic
tier" 3y -- includes satellite-oalivared services such as Statlna
WGN-TV-(Ind., Charnel y(, Chicago, 1111riolofWOR-TV (Ino., Channel V)*
Secaucus, New Jersey, and BS (Ind., Channel ills Atlanta, Georgial
the Zntertainmont end Sport* Program Network (hereinatter ESPN"ii
1/ I By r e , Riimec� i r�. t _ire taus_ March 4, lqui) , a Motion for
Extension of Time" tiled February 25, 1983, by CTIC was granted,'by the
C:hiet of the Video Services Division at the Mass Media Bureau,
extending the time tot tiling oppositions and comments until March 1B,
JV83, and tot tiling CCTV's reply until April 1, 1983.
'tj NCTA's reply is cont#mplatfd neither by Sectfan 1.45(b) or
vection
lb. I(a) of the Commission,a Rules, because NCTA Is not
petitioner. However, we believe the public,interest would tie
served by the Coaumission's tull consideration of all the facts
arguments set forth rn*rein. Accordingly, NCTA's reply will be con-
: sidered.
,Sf CCTV states that its "basic tier" consists primarily of signals
entitled to mandatory carriage pursuant to the Commission's signal
carriage rules, as well as some satellite -delivered programming.
ZFr.
cable News Network (
Comments in yup rt of CCTV squ*sit*d Huhn
6$ CCTV*a Petition is Supported by the following parties)
Mr. Geller and ids. Lam rt, ART, Croup W, CCC, and Time. Each or
to*sash parties contends, as the basis tot their anslyses, that the
COAmission has broadly pre*mpted the tield of rate regulation of non -
basic subscriber service#, rendering PSC's action ultra vires.
Fronents generally argue that both the CTEO, au ra, and h
Clsirificatlon, siu ra, reveal the Commissaio sr in en _ to preempt rate
regu shun of non-besic subscriber services broadly, in order to avoid
chilling the development of new, innovative programming and servicesi
i.e.. advertising, pay sarvlcas4 digital Serv,iess, alarm services.,
two way experiments, atc.- Id. at 200. Accordingly, it is clear tnat
the Commission intendso its fi,somption to extend beyond pay ssrvicog
to the specialized cable programming provided by C_ V. It indeed this
programming is not speciticaily encompassed by the CTRO and
:lariricstlon, the proponents urge that the Co issi sn ahould clarity
that its preemption doe* extend to this programming. Mr. Geller and
Mai. Lampert further argue that pay cable services have benatited from
the C isaiow s ' d_etermination to allow the new cable services to
develop billy in the matketplace, unnindered by premature and in all
iikellh unnecessary economic regulation." Other proponents a*sort
that the preemption of pay Cable rate regulation was meant to foste=r
program diversity, which they contend would he hempered by local rats
reguiatioh a These proponents note that many programming servicss
delivered by�*At*llit*s and otlsred in tier* would not be viable were
they to be mad* available only for a par -channel charge, end that
thane,aervices include independent television bro_ east stations such
as o -TV and WOR- . 7
roup__ n e n par cular cite their experience in marketing
such ssrvices to support the general theme of the proponents that
local r*gulatlon would Inhibit development of these services, Group W
also states that both CATC and an Ohio court have found, contrary to
PSC,a Interpretation, that tiered services are beyond local regulatory
utl iction.
1/ ART also notes that cable systems must pay copyright lees for the
carriage of distant television broadcast signals, as does Croup W, who
also points to the demise of services such as CBS Cable and the
Entertainment Channel, slit examples of the continued risks to which
Program suppliers and cable operators are subjected. CCC argues that
optional prograamirfg services are still evolving, and that moor* than
half of this country's cable systems provide i'1'channels or less of
service," (footnote omitted), necessitating the freedom to develop and
*xPfVl1Mtnt with optional services which local regulation would
Inhibit. CCC also assert, that a rulemaking proceeding is not
nacesissasy to resolve the issues herein, citing, inter alfa, SC v.
Chanory Corp., JJ2 U.S. 194 (1947). _
-b- .
comments on sing CCTV's Requested Ruling
t. CCTV's petition is opposed by the following parties;
PSC, Dalla`s3, MPTV, OTIC, and the Cities. Each opponent contends,
essentially, that the Commission's preemption of local rate regulation
does not extend specifically to tiers of programming services. PSC
itselt notes that it miss charged by the Nevada legislature to supervirir
and regulate the operation of public utilites within the State of
Nevada," wnich includes, pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. SS1U4.020(l)(f)
and 111.0#u, cable television systems. This regulatory autnority over
cable television services, argues PSC, has been upheld by the United
States Supreme Court, citing TV Pix, Inc. v. Taylor, !U4 F. Supp. 159
(D. Nev. 196b), att'd percuriami jVb U&Ss 0). FSC notes tnaL
it does not requ aei AATV Systema, citing Nev. Rev. Stat. $111.U40( 2)(
nor does it regulate "cable television programming tot which a per -
program or per -channel charge is made," citing Brookhaven Cable TV,
Inc, v. Kelly, au ra. however. PSC maintains, as it did in In re
Prosed General mer No. 40, su ta, that it may regulate tier
package otterings. FSC argues that its tier package rate regulation if:
intended "to protect subscribers from the noncompetitive advantages
that a certificated Cagle television company en]oys,` HJ and that,suct}
regulation will not inhibit "the Commission's goal of promoting new
and innovative television services," 9/
d. Other opponents, in addition to supporting PSC'es Ar -
mp nts, raise further concerns. Dallas argues that grant of CC
requested ruling would deprive the city of its "contractual r. o
regulate the rates of local cable system operator Warner Amex`. -nc)
and third tiers. Dallas also asserts that to limit local rate regu-
lation to those services which cable systems are required to carry
"remove(al from the local tranchiSor the authority to regulate rates
for the ma)ority of cable programming services provided to all sub-
scribers," contrary to the Commission's dual tederal-local regulatory
policy. NPTV and OTIC urge that the iseuse raised herein are more
properly the subject for rulemaking because, an OTIC claim*, the
declaratory ruling sought by CCTV "would ... drastically change the
way cable television rates are regulated in thousands of lurisdictiona
around the country, taking significant and established authority away
from stats and local governments.' NPTV argues that preemption of
local rate regulation is no longer necessary, stating that the pay
cable industry has matured, and noting that such services "yielded
revenues of $515 million in 198U and accounted for more than 25% of
the total cable industry revenues." (footnote omitted), An a
distributor of programming through MDS, NPTV states that it 'can otter
only a single channel of services,' compared with cable's multiplicity
,
n
bJ
notes, of exam p a, --at0 fers one tier of primarily
iocal broadcast Signals for $1.99 per month, and a second tier of
primarily satellite -delivered programming for an additional $6.95 per
month. However, asserts PSC, "virtually all of the first tier
stations can be received oft air in Las Vegas." Accordingly,
claims, an individual mush pay CCTV at least $14.9U per month
receive new services via cable television from CCTV, which on,,- �
monopoly on cable services in Las Vegas and which, absent loca---r_te
regulation, Could charge any price It chooses for its service.
9f Opponents contend than the Commission years ago recognized the
tecnnical reality of satellite transmission to cable television
systems, citing the Claritication at 116.
of channels. Unregulated cable systems Could undercut mL)S and other
competitors, Nk1rV contends, whereas local pay cable rate tegulation
"Would ensure a competitive marketplace....-, QT4C asserts that
preemption will isao to nigher rates tor satellite -delivered basic
services$ for which there are rarely alternative suppliers, ano
tntrator* with tower viewe'rar oAbvuuraye the growth or advertiser -
supported programming. c-ric notes the continued introauccion or
advertiser -supported services, sucn as bpanian InLernationai Network,
blacK zntertainment -reievision, cable satellite eUD41C Attairs
Network, 1n* Health, channel, and Irne Weather Channel, despite the
prevailing view of local authority concerning tneir legitimate
capacity for rate regulation, 1'nO Cities contend that Wniie regu-
lation of PAY services may 09 JuBtitlfO as attempting to avoid
regulation of the programmer nimseir, tiered servicas -nave no
relation to the operators rates. 'rne programmer is unattecttd by
what the operator charges the cable viewer.,, me LItlea cnarac-
tGrIze the testimony Or the WAbiEc employee cited by LCTV tree
paragraph J, 12prA) as unce4iaoie ano groundless, and argue tnat
caoie operators viii not allow their program services to be lost.
Citing EAp.UC lit su2r , tne Lities maintain that 'Itnere is no nexus
oetween the goal or tne.cornmission and the preemption of state and
local rate reguiation....-
1 Comments
9. CCTV tiled its reply comments on April t, lyd-it L:Cllv
argues that, as a wnoies the comments riiea in this proceeding sub-
stantially support (:C,i,v,e position. in aciairion, IX'I'V contends that
CTIC's opposing comments are at odds with the position or cne
National League or cities (nereinarter "Nik-), -an organization
representing I#UUU cities." LCTv also asserts tnar, Nei -v -competes
directly with CCTV in the Las Vegas area through inter all*, MATV
systems* which, Pbu 'does not regulate'" (tootnotes omitted),
and, accordingly, cnaract*rizeS NeTV'S position as an attempt to
hamper CCTV in IES competitive cnalien-ge to NYTV. t:c1tv reiterates
its contention that issuance or the aeciaratory ruling which it
requests will not expand the LOMMISSion-a preemption or local rate
regulation, and argues that PSC has misunaerst000 the scope or this
preemption. moreover, noting ucc-s citation or pocket too. ivovi# �/
YCC Id at JIU, CCTV argues that regular suoscriner service -encompassee
only those signals whose carriage is required by the Commission's.
Rules (and any associated required access servicea, as well as
installation, reconnection ano similar charges). CCTV denies that
tiers or services are rurnioneo' or 'proviaeo, to all* subscribers
because they are not -required to be carried- by Commission regu-
lations.... instead, ouch tiers are 'orterea-,as an option to all
subscribers...,- and are plainly includes in the commission's
preemption. While recognizing at tne time or the Ciaritication,
!2p_ra, the technical reality or satellite oelivery_,tneLommiaxion
some two years later sti,il viewed the practical reality of such
satellite use as a ruture development not yet capaole or precise
anticipation. U-ne moue or pacxaging or this satellite -delivered
programming -- whether in a tiered or a per-Channal manner -- is not
relevant, CCTV asserts, else one form of optional service will be
subject to local regulation, while others.will not Do subject to
#ucn regulation. cc-ry turtner argues that it has been the lack of
-0-
regulation which has led to "exactly the type of dramatic increame
in optional specialized and Auxiliary programming which the Com-
mission intended." CCTV contends that opponents have produced Ono
ev,atnc# that rate regulation to required to protect viewers'
1nt*r*st#.- ttootnote omitted). In view of the lack of evidence of
bar% to Cable viewers and given the benefit& already gained, pursuant
to the coemission,n preemption policy, CCTV urgos lssuanct of Its**
t*queot*O declArstory ruling.
M NCTA filed reply comments on April /, 1963. 10/ NCTA
argues that allowing rate regulation to depend upon the manner in
which service& are MArK#ttd Will only 'hamper the development of
innovative C*0io #*rvices-" NCTA challenges the assertions of OTIC
and Dallas that satellite-doliverod programming servic*a are not new
and innovative, and states that "(flinding the right way to market
these new services is central to ensuring their survival in an I
increasingly competitive marketplace.* NCTA notes that cable tel* -
vision faces competition from conventional broadcast stations,
subscription television evision ($TV), MDS, SMATV, videocassette recorders
and vidootop* players, and, potentially, direct broadcast sates_"''-,*"!
(DSS} and low power television (LPTV), and characterises oppof
fears of cable monopoly practices as unrealistic. NCTA partici
challenges NPTVI* contention that, absont local rate regulatxot,.
cable op*rotoro will price their strvic*a at predatorily low rates
so an attempt to pr*atrv* NPTV from competition, and antithetical to
Suprom* Court antitrust doctrine, NCTA contend* that *Itlho public
would be b*at s#rvod it cable, MDS and other competitors were sub-
ioct to regulatory parity," And argues that just because cable is
able to proved* its customers many channels of progra"ing at st
lower price (due to its inherent *tticioncy) than competing RDS can
is no reason to ptnaiias it with unn*c*xoary regulation to increase
its cost *ttiticially. Therefore, NCTA urg6a grant of CCTV1x
rvquoat*d declaratory ruling.
IP" -Sai n6—to-2. supra.
-9-
4iscbssl-on
11. The issues presented in this case are best
analysed by reducing them to,two quentionst
-(3008 the mi8sion's preemption extend to
all channels not offered as pert of the
basic service package, regardless of their
typo (Oto-, nonbroadcast premium nnnbresQ-
sst a ertisrsupportsds or distant
broadcast signals)?
-Does the Commission's preemption of rate
regulation extend only to channels or
programs priced individually,rather than in
tiers or groups?
To answer these questions it is necessary to reexamine past Commission
etataments on -the part played by cable television in contributing to
the availability of a diverse array of programming to consumers in the
ov*rall context of a constantly - changing marketplace for video
services.
12. Treem
tion of nonbroadcast channel*. lh* C fission
rec nixed fifteen-
years ago at ca e a ev * on a multi -channel
capacity made it uniquely capable of augmenting the, public'* choice of
pro rano and types of services, without the use of valuable spectrum.
111 Referring generically to these new typos of nonbroadcast
Programming as program orlginations,* the Commission no that the
cable television induatry.wae placing *incrsaxsd emphasis on pr r____
origination. service nature and of
both of a local and public - -
the
entertainment type, and on th* provisions of other servicas to the
public.* 12 Consistent with its recognition of the
0 potential value
of these, ortgin*tions' on serving the unmet, specialized programming
needs of the public, the Co__i*cion adopted rules requiring cable
system* to provide at leash one channel of local program
originations. The C is*ion specified that the federal• interest in
pr ram originations was not confined to locally -produced pr r i__
odlym -
[The Notica) did not propose to restrict
1cable a *vision[ to local originations or
to bar originations of the entertainment
type or to preclude (cable television)
network operations.on an interponnected
basis. . . . While we regard augmented
opportunities for community self-expression
- h
MOUS lnc., 0 rX 478, 505--6 (1968).
,12/i of - �l ki �ti of 1 i in t �. 18397. 15 KM
33 tl , , - caittodf -
-10-
as extremely important, the Commission has
also sought to pr-ta now national and
regional television networks generally and
intends actively to explore this possibility
for [cable t*levision) . . . 12
The Commission explained the need for exclusive federal jurisdiction
to brig} about these developisentsi
our experience in the broadcast field (both
c rcial as well as noncommercial), as well
&s ccements filed in this proceading, leads us
to believe that the successful inauguration of
any new network is not an easy mutter, to a
significant extent because of the high cost
and other difficulties in producing or
otherwise procuring programming in sufficient
quantity and duality for network operations, .
. [T[he public interest would beet be
served for the present by encouraging [cable
television) to experiment and develop its
originations free from restriction as to
interconnection or limitations as to types of
pr r inyt in the expectation that the end
result will be significant added.diversity for
tho public . i .
. . . The Commission would feel compelled to
oppose on behalf of the public, any proposal
which would preclude, (cable television[
systems . . . from interconnecting on a
regional or national basis for any purpose,
including the distribution of *ntsrtainaent-
type programming. 14
13. The, C moisaian took further steps to &sours that these
new services could respond to xarketplace donands, undistorted by4:'
nonfederal rate regulation. The Commission ap*cifi*d that extra
char *a could b* levied by the system op*r&tor for nommandatory
ori9mations: *While we boli*v* that the subscribing public should
�_
t t igi
to a &ignifi�t went ld also i t fi Y others,
Oindle te_. i*i ) - - �. ld. at �1. i ifl_ ly,v_ at
thisinitial s rel lath ion t� liken _ t
*(cable television) -1 ity mto* be utillW as, a
distribution of satellite icatiam.' I_d, at 208,
.at 203, 2451 207.
not bo required to pay extra tea* in order to obtain accicaless to local
Public service programming or presentation* b
y poli
the (cable system,gi origination channel, we o no resent candidates on
cCharont late _t rohibition a ainat hi her month_ eas or r r ra
ar ea or char nog tntecxta rc- a n
or ra o
c _
pis, rs or - ev -ng a u t i a ex * Qve r11
pr c r'4 non roadca_ services, the commission specifically
declared that non-federal regulatory policies inconsistent with the
fed*
ra�l objective of unregulated availability and pricing of
nonbroadcaat services were preempted.
14. In ado tin
97 the C p g c prehensive rules for cable television in
fission established an overall regulatory scheme of
'd*literately-structured dualism,'" dividing r* ulato
r*sponsibilittes between itself and nonfederal -
matters Ware reserved for exclusive tsdera ortie#.*rtain
l �troi thars vor# given
cyef to esglgs ve nbnfedarai controij and stili other# Ware doomed to
he ar#as of shared Jurisdiction wherein nonfsdera
regulated _1 authorities
g pursuant to Commission -set .standards. 140twithetanding this
dualism we maintained ourroom t.ive
origination channels. p p Jurisdiction over no Aman story
al Jurisdiction Would and
impracticable, and desired experimentation might he fust di ed if
nonfad*raj authorities Were to specify more restrictive regulationa
than those preacribed by the Commission.
In
In the context of clarifying aspects of it vera1174thto
e Commission,
proposi
pr rsi took notic* of the fact that many nonfederal authoritieproposing to regulate rates charged for nonbroadcast
Once Again the misslon declarede pr ramming,
r
It is premature to regulate along these lines.
Such regulation might destroy any chance for this
smargino communications service by stifling
c tition't a*tting incorrect ratan, and
establishing an atmosphere that deters
*xperialtntationt innovation, or speculation. We
have premptad this area to avoid those pitfalls.
.W let 216, ftrhasis added,
�.atat 2 3 r ti of CATV ulati� 20 2d 74-1 1969) In
at t attar a g `"
cat r car Y j t, as ruled thatJ
local authoritlel
ter zed
cable televlai� origi
re pre-4ftVtod
fro» interfering with federal utntion
advertising, iniJlON
YP the Ca misaion has
prelithe field y television
cable cablecasting so that local franchise torwo to-aro i _ ti
.
I
1e 'ilevfsl
_ - _ - r, 36 FOC 2d 143, 193, 197 (1972).
1- Ar�itl.catlof t ale Talovialon Wi as arxi -ioa of _
l_
i
M
'This preemption, enunci+at*d repeatedly by the Cbmaissiont j9j was
upheld by the Court in Brookhaven v. *11 !! raw
1, pr#es tion of distant sign*! carria *. In addition to
broedly pro-- mp to e c krge or non roe gas pr r service, we
have pre opted rates charged for distant broadcast algnals not
offered as -art of the sic subscriber package. a Commission
recognized n 11i75 distant signals could be part of than mix of progrtm-
serviceo.available by satellite to cable systems. 'moi* recognition
ca in tits context of repealing the soall*d 'leapfr ging rules.
which generally required cable operator* to select non -network
affiliated broadcast stations for oarria* on their systows, pursuant
to a proscribed formolat The rules war* inconsistent With the public
interest by trustratng subscribers! programming prefersncea. the
Commisetan specifically noted that transmission of broadcast signals
to cable syttome nationwide via domestic satellite could s___ boal
reallatic possibility,"but, nevartheloott found that the
prof feration of 'euperotationag of this type was not likely to III,
local broadcasting.
16. At about the some time, the Commission issued a Mc._ 14
of Pro Deed Hulea�ki dealing with the regulation of rates fog ae c
au cr or eery se. i The Commission once again delimited those
esrvices in which it ad preempted jurisdiction over rate
regulation. Having ust ...,..ended its rules to permit cable system
operators at their discretion to carry InI distant independent
broadcast signals to fill their ,signal c plan _nts, 12J the CnamlsoLon
defined •rsgular subscriber service rat*#" to be
charge*
charge* imposed for receipt of broadcast e_i nal*-
euired to crri our ru t s
no appT__
y aur any Hary cis nuc as pay cable
advertising, leased channels, *to. No continua to
believe that it is premature for any rat*
regulation to be imposed on these other servicea.
hove pre tad ouch ra ulation with the express
Ween* of—allowin th+e mar t ace to unct,on
17, us, the Commission has deliberately preempted state
rogulation oU non-batic program offerings, both non broadcast programs
and broadcast programs d*livor*d to distant arketa by satellite.
While this nature of that non -basic offering Was (end still
davaloin, the preemptive intent, and the reasons for that
preemption, are clear and discorniblo. Todayj the degree of diversity
In satallite delivered program aervicae rofltcta the wisdom of freeing
cable systems from burdensome state and ioc*l regulation in this
area. So-callol "premium' offerings such as noo, Showtima, and *
Movie Channel, along with narrowcoat chennols auch ae Christian
broadcasting Network# Nickelodoon, and black Martatnaient Television
manifest the rich variety available to cable subteetbarre under a
policy of nonbasic preemption.
18. Second, it is alto clear that our preemptive
jurisdiction logically extends to nonbasic services whether they art
priced individually by channel or by program or as a group in one or
more tiers of service.
19. 'Tiering" of nonbasic subscriber sarvices is a dsvolop
ent of the late 10`s, 24 Tiering cam feasible through the
expataion of domestic note aervica, the espanded channel capacity
on now or upgraded cable t*lavieion system a# and tho emergonce of
cable in tho major tro litan areas. - a development of tiored
services does not, however, connote that the market for cablecast
video services is now mature, and that the promise for federal
preemption has diaappaared. plainly, the market for cablecest video
services i* #till volatile and rapidly changing in response not only
to the specialised programming needa of cable subacribers but also to
ne c ptitiva uhallangers in the overall video services motto*.
25- -td the video field has grown since preemption was isnunciattd,
routating our preemption of regulatioA of nonba*io subscriber
servicoa in 1975 we cited as th*ir compotitie alternativao free
talavision, motion picturea,, live sports, and other ontortainmAnt
events. Today the rams of competitive alternatives have sw*llod to
Include video cassetto, video diec, video gamas, home c putero, low
p l
power t ovis n, multi -channel HUE, SmATV, end DUB# cost of h1(;h
enjoy groat pricing flextbility.
t . ul w�a at 37t. i ie
231 i of l _ In m-
21/ la - tergyration. 87 FCC 2d 540, 561 n.69 (1961) .
25 'aw nioe Cablo, nterLainmsnt Channel,end T%lee`rance end tete
otarger of tellite is in Cable tows t+io oorlc in the last year r*fl*ct
tha _vel ntal d-Ar&ctgc of cable progrm services.
MM
20. Those vigorous and growing competitors in the vi4*0
services okarket mat a new challenge to nonbroodcost progrovaiN
antreprenuers and cable syst oparatdrs. is challenger is not# as
A t formerly? was# simply to find new services that tub*cribort would
find attractive, but rather to p,-.-- 04 r combine services to m*aialse
attractiveness to consumart in different markets and in anticipation
of the penetration of those local markets by other, new s*rvicas. In
this a*ns* it is fair to say that the devolopoont of different
individual channels of nonbasic subscriber srvices represents but one
photo �- the first phase -- in the evolution of the market for cable
video, a neat phase -w the one which has just recently begun �- is
p*cka Ina servtoost at appropriate prices, to -at consumer demand in
a yr?ad of to alitiss featuring different combinations of competiti a
video alternatives* The current situation requires that system:
operators sod nonbroadcast programming entrepreneurs retain maxitua
flexibility to the *rkst€piss* to *xparimont with types of program
offerings and pisthods to pay for such pr roast 1.o t advertisers,
subscriber fees, n*tw rk. coapon4&tiont or a b_natlon. 261.
Continued federel preemption is needed to preclude a tiff i and
unnecessary skewing of the market that nonfederal regulation of entry
And price could produce. 27
21. To suggest, as do FSC and the others, that nQnfedera.L
rate regulation should depend upon the manner in which a particul`
service is tsarkotsd or deliv*red# contradicts the very basis of t
Uomission's preemption policy. Indeed, allowing preemption to d
upon ouch a distinction would, as CRTC has recognised (s** paragraph
5, su ra), 'creat* disjunctive practices in the marketpac,"
* Ing is directed primarily to issues Involving bring state or local
tt cmtrolu, we -- in with r types ulati t may iMpud6
now e isorvicod and burdon interstate omemicati0m. State ountrols omr
advertising on cable channals distributed satellite v*y both undercut the
ooxmic rvi r their operation on an intim tats basis a
tiimpossibility. n t eta t l fr l isii
or lotions that prohibit -tial n a mairinor conalstont with our rules art
ruder*1 pril9pticn of CAW leti ,store note 16# 7tw types of
lation � ata * - � _n a To tore Assn v.
690 F.30 ilk Cir. 1ii83}, tition_f bort. _ s
t leInc V. Cri
No. 8 -px*" Un1no no
-- art-Icuiated by the Mission in thin and earlier camas.
27J An tavragulated marketplace facilitates; the davelopoont ot tiered service*in
savoral ways. rm example, it way be efficient for prospectivesubscribers to be
abs to le a le i i s single t _tion.. i-_ i
--
tioring wAy simplify &M reduce the cWA Of billing oub-&-cribers. it tier prices.
,aro rogulAtod, row prograormino 1' _ d by the foar that regulation would
prevent its marketingat a _ price. FrWrammars may be moved_ to at,
tiering of those channels that a otfe , wrificitr i _
.afficie�its, erg le _ _raLo would trite n -the warkating F'
can Loa to bring services to the attention tri .
inl < r IJ
f;
. .. ..... ,
y
�w
�d„ AMM
1 r,
„
r
Nva w
N1"
t
o
MIN
�w �w
r 4
� � r
i,.
r�
William ,T. Tricaricp
Secretary
m t.
lex i i III it further buttmissed, t>
note 7 P, Su �most, of the na 1, y the fact that as
Zra,, tionts cable, system are �s f�tf lea stfLl
1
n. .. ✓�'', ,... � rmn. : w� � . , ,. �. � ,.. ,,,:. r ,_ ,,,, „�.., ..,. r..„ w" r � „ � ,.. �, ..:� �:. � ,,,,. �^ � ✓e ,.�,... ,,,N x ,io "r '�«uw� � ';.. .
,«�.,-,��:;. .,� ���� ,, ��,,,.,. �,,..�.. ,:,,; .w ,y,. ,,, ,.. ,,,:.. ", uo ,�,,, o„ ice^-",- .. „' ��r...�,,:�...�»�m.. ,,�. � -�✓ ,;.�:�,,. ,�.,. ����,,, ��� ,�,�,
z,
✓N' ."W",
���;, �, ., �, hn � .. �,.,� ;� �;-;.. � ,eau -:,W •�" �, ,,. mwn � , wni, �.. �:.. amu. i , �, ,.._� ,.,
^�,. w roe. '"�., ",,., hof ..,. w,�:�.,✓a .,�;.. y c � r N N w... ,,, « a; ,,. �, '"'"P�,. :,, ",�� »s,.�w.,, ns,..,.. ate. - �; ��.�,.
kdr" w✓ �
(Slip 4pir . on)
bei
, n mo i , vl Ql
c �
Q
NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE
10 S. EMERSON STREET
MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056 A REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS
(312) 253-6323 MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS
REPRESENTING A POPULATION OF OVER 850,000
FOUNDED IN 1958
MEMBER COMMUNITIES
Arlingtoii
n Heights
Barrington
Buffalo Grove
i
Des Plaines
Elk Grove Village
TO# Mount Prospect Development Committee
Evanston
Glencoe
Glenview
FROM:
Hanover Park
Highland Park
Hoffman Estates
Lake Forest
SUBJECT: Cablenet Rate Deregulation
Mount Prospect
Niles
DATE: October 12, 1984
Northbrook
Northfield
Palatine
Park Ridge
Prospect Heights
Rolling Meadows
Rate Deregulation
Schaumburg
Streamwood
Wheeling
The Northwest Municipal Cable Consortium has recommended
Wilmette
that Cablenet's rates for basic service and second out-
Winnetka
lets be decontrolled, pursuant to the current 'terms of
Elk Grove Twp.
the Agreement to take effect in August 1985. Under this
Hanover Twp.
recommendation, Cablenet would still be required to provide
Maine Twp.
90 days notice of any increase and the Board could re -
New Trier Twp.
establish control - during the life of the franchise. (This
Northfield Twp.
Schaumburg Twp.
last power may be eliminated by pending legislation, in
1
Wheeling Twp.
any event, beyond the next two years.)
OFFICERS As proposed, the responsibility for setting a specific
President rate would shift to Cablenet, subject to market forces.
Gwendolyn H. Trindl Particularly since cable is a non -necessity good and since
Winnetka this is already scheduled to occur in August, the Council
Vice -President felt that accelerated decontrol is more appropriate than
William D. Ahrens
Rolling Meadows the award of a specific rate change by the municipalities.
Secretary -Treasurer
William R. Balling The reason for -relief itself is that our review indicates
Buffalo Grove that Cablenet may not be able to provide 'Service in the
Executive Director absence of some reliefS coupled with additional investment.
William G. Grams The alternative of a total sale under duress would be highly
disadvantageous to current and future subscribers.
kk
tt CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC, v. CRISP
briefed and argued the question pursuant to this Court's order. Pp.
2. Application of Oklahoma's alcolrolle beverages advertising ban to
out-of-state signnin e rri d by cable operatora in Oklahoma Is pre-
enpted by federal law. Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive
effect than fele--al statutes, and Dere tile power delegated to tlle Federal
Communications Com iasio (FCC) under the Communications Act of
1934 plainly includes authority to regulate cable television systems in
order. to ensure achleveuent of the FCC's statutory responsibilities.
Pp. 6--19.
(a) The FCC has for the past 20 years unambiguously expressed its
intent to pre-empt state or local regulation of any type of signal carried
by cable television systems. Although Oklahoma may, ender current
HCC rules, regulate such local aspect's of cable systems as franchisee se-
lection and construction oversight, nevertheless, by requiring cable tele-
vision operators to delete commercial advertising contained in signals
carried pursuant; to federal authority, the State has clearly exceeded its
limited jurisdiction and has interfered with a regulatory area that the
FCC has explicitly pre-empted. Pp. 7-12.
(b) Oklahoma's advertising ban also conflicts with specific FCC
regulations requiring that certain cable television operators, such as pe-
titioners, carry signals front broadcast stations located nearby in other
States, and that such signals be carried in full, including any commercial
advertisements. Similarly, Oklahoma's ban conflicts with FCC rulings
permitting and encouraging; cable television systems to import more dis-
tant out -or -state broadcast signals, which under FCC regulations must; �
-lIso be carried in full. Enforcement of Oklahoma's ban also would affect
nonbroadcast cable services, a source of cable programming; over which
the FCC has explicitly asserted exclusive jurisdiction. Moreover, it
kvould be a prohibitively burdensome tTu k for a cable operator to monitor
each signal it receives and delete every wine commercial, and thus en-
forcement of Oklahoma's ban might deprive the public of rite vv-itle vari-
ety of programming options that cable Systeme hale possible. Such a
result is wholly at odds with the FCC' -a regulatory goal of making avail»
able the benefits of cable communications on a nationwide basis. Pp.
l 2�1G.
W Congress ---through the Copyright Revision .pct of 1976 --has
also acted to facilitate the cable industry's ability to distribute broadcast
programming on n national bnald, � e Act establishes a program of
compulsory copyright 11conAilng that permits a cable operator to retrans-
init diattint broadcast alpaca upon paymeat of royalty fees to a centra
hind, but requires that the operator refrain from deleting connnercial ad-
vertlaing from the signals, r Oklhiima deletion requirement forces can
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC, v. CRISP �ttt
Syllabus
ble operators to lose the protections of compulsory licensing, or to abnn-
don their importation of broadcast signals covered by the Act. Such a
loss of viewing options would thwart the policy identified by both Con-
gress and the FCC of facilitating and encouraging the importation of dis-
tant broadcast signals. Pp. 16-16.
3. The Twenty-first Amendment does not save Oklahoma's advertis-
ing ban from pre-emption. The Stades enjoy broad power under § 2 of
that Amendment to regulate the importation and use of intoxicating liq-
uor within their borders, but when a State does not attempt direr" - to
regulate the sale or use of liquor, a conflicting exercise of federal i
ity may prevail. In such a case, the central question is whether t, g
terests implicated by a state regulation are so closely related to the pow-
ers reserved by the Amendment that the regulation may prevail, even
though its requirements directly conflict with express federal policies.
Resolution of this question requires a pragmatic effort to harmonize
state and federal powers within the context of the issues and interests at
stare. Mere, Oklahoma's interest in discouraging consumptiotr of in-
toxicating liquor is limited, since the State's loan is directed only at occa-
sional wine commercials appearing on out--of-state signals carried by ca-
ble operators, while the State permits advertisements for all alcoholic
beverages carried in newspaper's and other publications printed outside
Oklahoma but sold in the State. The State's interest is not of the same
stature as the FCC's interest in ensuring widespread availability of di-
verse cable services throughout the -United States. Pp. 19--23. �#
699 F. 2d 460, reversed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinio or a unanimous Court.
rt t
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
ity, Oklahoma has prohibited television broadcasting stations
in the State from broadcasting alcoholic beverage commer-
cials as part of their locally produced programming and has
re(lifired tile ' se stations to block out all such advertising car-
ried oil national network programming. See Oktahonta Al-
coholic Beveraqe Control Board v. Heublebt Mites, Intl, 566
P. 2d 11589 1160 (Okla. 1977).1 At the same time, the Okla-
homa Attorney General has ruled—principally because of the
practical difficulties of enforcemcht—that the ban does not
apply to alcoholic beverage advertisements appearing in
newspapers, magazines, and other publications printed out-
side Oklahoma but sold and distributed in the state. Conse-
quently, out-of-state publications may be delivered to Okla-
homa subscribers and sold at retail outlets within the State,
even though they contain advertisements for alcoholic bever-
ages. Until 1980, Oklahoma applied a similar policy to cable
television operators who were permitted to retransmit out-
of-state signals containing alcoholic beverage commercials to
their subscribers.- In March of that year, however, the
Oklahoma Attorney General issued an opinion in which he
concluded that the retransmission of out-of-state alcoholic
beverage commercials by cable television systems operating
in the State would be considered violation of the advertising
ban. Op. Okla. Att'y Gen. No. 79-334 (Mar. 19, 1980). Re-
spondent Crisp, director of the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board, thereafter warned Oklahoma cable operators,
including petitioners, that they would be criminally prose-
cuted if they continued to carry such out-of-state advertise -
premises signs which must conform to specified size limitations, Okla.
Stat., Tit. 37, §616.
'In upholding this requirement, the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifl-
cally noted that It was technically feasible for local television stations to
delete alcoholic beverage commercials from the national network program-
ming that they broadcast, because the networks provide sufficient advance
notice of such commercials to their Oklahoma afflliates and thereby enable
those affiliates to block out those commercials. Id., at 1162,
f) ,
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP I
ments over their systems. App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a; App,
Petitioners, operators of several cable television systems
in Oklahoma, filed this suit in March 1981 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma,
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They alleged that.
the Oklahoma policy violated the Commerce and Stipremac-�
Clauses, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the
Equal Protection Clause of'the Fourteenth Amendment.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted
petitioners a preliminary injunction and subsequeDf',, en-
tered summary judgment and a permanent 111junctic, �e-
cember 1981. In granting that relief, the District, amour',
found that petitioners regularly carried out-of-state signal
containing wine advertiseniejAs, that they were prohibited
by federal law from altering or modifying these signals, and
that "no feasible way" existed for petitioners to delete the
wine advertisements. App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a -41a. Ad-
dressing petitioners' First Amendment claim, the District-.
Court applied the test set forth in Central lli.idsoit as &
Electric Corp. v. Public Service Conuitission, 447 U. S. 557
(1980), and concluded that Oklahoma's advertising ban was
an unconstitutional restriction on the cable operators' right to
engage in protected commercial speech. App. to Pbt. for
Cert. 47a -60a. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that, while the wil"10. .,er-
cials at issue were protected by the First Amendine. r '-thc
state ban was a valid restriction on commercial speech. 699
'Although the 01dahonia statute clunes "alcoholic beverage" as 'alco-
hol, spirits, beet-, and wine," Okla, Stat, Tit. 37? § 506(2), tile definition of
"beet," Includes only beverages contnInfng more than 3.2% n1coliol by
weight, § 506(3). Because beer sometit-nes contains less than 3.2% alcohol, I
Oklahoma has determined that beer commercials need not be deleted. At
the time this case was brought, hard liquor generally was not advertised on
television. Accordingly, enforcement of the advertising ban in this case
was limited to requiring that wine commercials be deleted,
CAPITAL CITIES OABLE,'INC. v. CRISP
10. 2d 490 (1983).' Although the Court of Appeals noted that
"Federal Communications Commission regulations and fed-
eral copyright law prohibit cable operators from altering or
nio(lifying the television signals, *Including advertisements,
Hicy relay to subscribers," the court did not discuss the ques-
tion whether application of tile Oklahoma law to these cable
operators was pre-empted by tile federal regulations. Id.,
at 492.
While petitioners' petition for certiorari* was pending, the
Solicitor General, Appearing as anticus curiae on behalf of
the Federal Communications Commission, intervened and ar-
gued that the Oklahoma ban on Lite retransmission of out-of-
state signals by cable operators significantly interfered with
the existing federal regulatory framework established to pro-
mote cable broadcasting. In granting certiorari, therefore,
we ordered the parties, in addition to the questions pre-
sented by tile petitioners concerning 'commercial speech, to
brief and argue the question whether the state's regulation of
liquor advertising, as applied to out-of-state broadcast sig-
nals, is valid in light of existing federal regulation of cable
bioadc,astitig. — U. S. — (1983).
Although we do not ordinarily consider questions not spe-
cifically passed upon by the lower court, see California v.
Taylor, 353 I.J. S. 553, 557 n. 2 (1957), this rule is not inflex-
ible, particularly in cases coming, as this one does, from the
federal courts. See, e. g., Youakint v. Miller, 425 U. S.
2311 234 (1976) (per curia 7n); Blonder -Tongue Laboratories,
lite. v. University of 111i7wis Fou7idation, 402 U. S. 3137 320
n."6'(1971). Here, the conflict between Oklahoma and fed-
eral law was plainly raised in petitioners' complaint, it was
'I'lie docislon of the Court of Appeals similarly disposed of First
Amendment claims asserted by local television broadcqstosinac set) t
r- a ]a
was consolidated for purposes of appeal with petitioners' case. Oklahoma
Telecasters Assn. v. Crisp, No, Civ. 81-439 (WD Okla. 1981), rev'd, 699 F.
2d 4,00. These television broadcasters, however, did not petition for
cei-tiorarl.
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP - 6
acknowledged by both the District Court and the Court of
Appeals, the District Court made findings oil all factual *Is-
sues necessary to resolve this question, and the pat -ties have
briefed and argued the question pursuant to our order.
Under these circumstances, we see ll0reason to refrain from
addressing the question whether the Oklahoma bail as ap-
plied here so conflicts With the federal regulatory framework
that it is pre-empted.
II
Petitioners and the FCC contend that the federal regula-
tory scheme for cable television systems administered b,
Commission is intended to pre-empt any state regulaL. "I
the signals carried by cable system operators. Respondent
apparently concedes that enforcement of the Oklahoma stat-
ute in this case conflicts with federal law, but argues that be-
cause the State's advertising ban was adopted pursuant to
the broad powers to regulate the transportation and importa-
tion of intoxicating liquor reserved to the States by the
Twenty-first Amendment, the statute should prevail not-
withstanding the conflict with federal law.' As in Califor-
iva Retail Liquor Dealers Assit. v. Alidcal Alum.inu?n, 1?tc. 1
445 U. S. 97 (1980), where we held that a California wine
pricing prog ani violated the Sherman Act notwithstan(ling
the State's reliance upon the Twenty-first Amend file lit in
establishing that system, we turn first before assesslin)7 '-lie
impact of the Twenty-first Amendment to consider wl�
the Oklahoma statute does in fact conflict with federal frmw'.
See id., at 106-114.
Our consideration of that question is guided by familiar and
well-established principles. Under the Supremacy Clause,
I 'The second section of the Twenty-first Amendment provides., "The
transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of
the United States for delivery or use. therein of intoxicating liquors, in vi-
olation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." U. S. Const., Amdt, 21,
§ 2#
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, the enforcement of a state regu-
lation may be pre-empted by federal law in several circum-
stances: first, when Congress, in enacting a federal statute,
has expressed a clear intent to pre -erupt state law, Jones v.
Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 625 (1977); second, when it
is clear, despite the absence of explicit pre-emptive language,
that Congress has intended, by legislating comprehensively,
to occupy an entire field of'regulation and has thereby "lef t no
room for the States to supplement" federal law, Ri6e v. Sante
Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947); and, finally,
when compliance with both state and federal law is impossi-
ble, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373
U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or when the state law "stands as
an n obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress." 1111nes v. Davidowitz,
312 U. S. 62, 67 (1941). See also Michigan 6aiin.ers &
Freezers Assn. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining
Board, — U. S. —t — (1984).
And, as we made clear in Fidelity Federal Savings and
Loan Assn. v. De La Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141 (1982):
"Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect
thall federal statutes., Where Congress has directed an
administrator to exercise his discretion, his judgments
are subject to judicial review only to determine whether
he has exceeded his statutory authority or acted arbi-
trarily. When the administrator promulgates reg -Lila' -
tions intended to pre-empt state law, the court's inquiry
is similarly limited,-, 'If [hlis choice represents a reason-
able accommodation of conflicting policies that were com-
mitted to the agency's care by the statute, we should not
disturb it unless it appears from the statute or its legisla-
tive history that the accommodation is not one that Con-
gress would have sanctioned. "' Id., at 153--154, quoting
United States v, Shiiner, 367 U. S. 374, 383 (1961).
The power delegated to the FCC plainly comprises authority
to regulate the signals carried by cable television systems.
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP 7
In United St.tes v. Soitthwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157
(1968), the Court found that the Commission had been given
"broad responsibilities" to regulate all aspects of interstate
communication by wire or radio by virtue of § 2(a) of the
Commuiiications Act of 1934, 47 U. S. C. §152(a), and that
this conipreliensive authority included power to regulate ca-
ble communications systerns. 392 U. S., at 177-178. We
have since' explained that Ole Commission's authority ex-
tends to all regulatory actions "necessary to ensure the
achievement of the Commission's statutory responsibilities."
FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U. S. 689, 706 (1979). Ac-
cord United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U. 1 '49,
665-667 (1972) (plurality opinion); id., at 675 MiEi,:_ r.
JUSTICE, concurring in the result). Therefore, if the r cc
has resolved to pre-empt an area of cable television reg-rula-
tion,'and if this determination "represents a reasonable ac-
commodation of conflicting policies" that are within the agen-
cy's domain, United States v. Shimer, STI.Pra, at 383, we must
conclude that all conflicting state regulations have been
precluded.' A
In contrast to commercial television broadcasters, which
transmit video signals to their audience free of charge and de-
rive their income principally frorn advertising revenue, ca-
ble television systems generally operate on the basis"of a
wholly different entrepreneurial principle. In retur,- for
service fees paid by subscribers, cable of 'le
their customers with a variety of broadcast and nonbro...'..":1101,
'Relying upon the Court's decision in FCC Y. Midwest Video Corp., 440
U, S. 689 (1979), respondent contends that the FCC rules and regulatimis
reflecting the agency's Intont to pre-empt all state regulation of cable Big -
nal ent-ringe violate the F Irst Amendment rights of cable operators by de-
priving them of editorial control over the signals they carry, and therefore
may not be invoked as a basis for pre-emption. We need not consider the
merits of this clah-n, however, since respondent plainly lacks standing to
ralse a claini concerning his aciverg4ries' constitutional rights In a cage In
which those adversaries have never advanced Such a claim.
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
signals obtained from several sources. Typically, these
ig
sources include over -the -air broadcast signals picked up by a
master antenna from local and nearby television broadcasting
stations broadcast signals from distant television stations
imported by means of communications satellites, and non-.
broadcast signals that are not originated by television broad-
casting stations, but are instead transmitted specifically for
cable systems by satellite or microwave relay. Over the
past twenty years, pursuant to its delegated authority under
the Coi
nulunications Act the FCC has unambiguously ex-
pressed its intent to pre-empt any state or local regulation of
television
this entire array of signals carried by cable t
systems.
Te Commission began its regulation of cable communica-
tion in the 19.60's. At that time, it was chiefly concerned
that unlimited importation of distant broadcast signals into
the service areas of local television broadcasting stations
might, through competition, "destroy or seriously degrade
the service offered by a television broadcaster," and thereby
cause a significant reduction in service to households not
served by cable systems. First Report and Order, 38
F. C. C. 6831 700 (1965). In order to contain this potential
effect, the Commission promulgated rules requiring cable
SySt ' 01,137 to carry the signals of all local stations in their
arells, to avoid duplication of the programs of local televisio�i
stations carried on the system during the same day that such
programs were broadcast by the local stations, and to limit
I In its early efforts to regulate the cable industry, the Commission gen-
erally referred to CATV, or "community antenna television," which de-
scribed systems that receive television broadcast signals, amplify them, re-
transmit them by cable or microwave, and clistribute thein by wire to
subscribers. But," [b]ecause of the broader functlons to be served by such
facilities in the future," the FCC subsequently adopted tho "more inclusive
term cable television systems." Cable. Televiaio?z Report and Order, 36
F. C. C. 2d 143, 144 n. 9 (1972). Congress has also adopted this broader
terminology, See Copyright Law Revision, 11. It Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th
Cong., 2d Sess., 88 (1976).
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
their importation of distant broadcast signals into the service
areas of the local television broadcasting stations. Second
Report and Order, 2 F. C. C. 2d 725, 745-746, 781-782
(1966). It was with respect to that initial assertion of juris-
diction over cable signal carriage that we confirmed the
FCC's general authority under the Communications Act to
regulate cable television systems. United States v. South-
westeiib Cable Co., ;supra, at 172-178.
The Commission further refined and modified these rules
governing the carriage of broadcast signals by cable systems
in 1972. Cable Television Report and Order, 36 F. C. C. 2d
143, on reconsideration, 36 F. C. C. 2d 326 (1972), aff'd F
nom., American Civit Liberties Union v. FCC, 523 F*_
1344 (CA9 1975). In marking the boundaries of its jurisdic-
tion, the FCC determined that, in contrast to its regulatory
scheme for television broadcasting stations, it would not
adopt a system of direct federal licensing for cable systems.
Instead, the Commission announced a program of "deliber-
ately structured dualism" in which state and local authorities
were given responsibility for granting franchises to cable op-
erators within their communities and for overseeing such
local incidents of cable operations as delineating franchise
areas, regulating the construction of cable facilities, and
maintaining rights of way. Cable Television Report and
Order, 36 F. C. C. 2d, at 207. At the same time, the Com-
mission retained exclusive jurisdiction over all operational
pests of cable communication, including signal carriage
technical standards. See id., at 170-176. As the FCC e -x----'
plained in a subsequent order clarifying the scope of its 1.972
cable television rules:
"Tho fact that this Commission has pre-emptod Juris(Ife.
tion of any and all signal carriage regulation is unques-
tioned. Nonetheless, occasionally we receive applica-
tions for certificates of compliance which enclose
franchises that attempt to delineate the signals to be car-
ried by the franchisee cable operator. Franchising au-
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
I
thorities do not have any) . urisdiction or authority relat-
i??g to signal carriage. While the franchisor might want
-
to include a provision requiring the operator to carry all
signals allowable under our rules that is as far as the
franchisor can or should go." Clarification of the Cable
Television Rules
46 F. C. C. 2d 1751 1-78 (1974) (empha-
sis added).1
he Commission has also made clear that its exclusive juris-
liction to cable systems' carriage of specialized, non-
1)roadcast signals --a service commonly described as "pay ca -
1 le." See Clarification of the Cable Television Rules 46
C. C.' 2d, at 199-200, aff 'd sub. nom.,
Brook/taven Cable
Iitc. v. Kelly, 573 F. 2d MY 768 (CA2 1978), cert. de-
nied, 441 U. S. 904 (1979).9
'The Commission has explicitly defined the contours of both its own Ju-
risdictional authority and that of state and local government:
"We have consistently taken the position that to the degree we deem
lecessary, we will preempt areas of cable regulation in order to assure the
orderly development of this new technology into the national coininunica-
lons structure. . - . The subject areas this agency has preempted in-
�111de, of course, signal carriage, pay cable, leased channel regulations,
Rchnical standards, access, and several areas of franchisee responsibility.
.. Non-federal officials have responsibility for the non -operational as-
lects of cable franchising including bonding agreements, maintenance of
lghts-of-way, franchisee selection and conditions of occupancy and con-
t ruction." I?cport and Order in Docket No. 202721 64 F. C. C. 2d 855,
4.1 (1975).
"'I'lic Commission explained Its Initial decision to pre-empt this jll,oa as
1) Ows:
"Af ter considerable study or the emerging cable Industry and its pros-
�vcts for introducing new and innovative communications services, we
ave concluded that, at this time, there should be no regulation of rates for
tach services at fill by any governmental level. Attempting to Impose rato
cgulation on specialized services that have not yet developed would not
tily be premature but would In all likelihood have a chilling effect oil the
ilticipateddevelopinent." ClarVicationof the Cable Televi3io7tl?ulcs, 46
C. C. 2(1, at 199-200.
Afore recently, the Commission has noted that It "has deliberately pre-
111JACd state regulation of non -basic program offerings, both non -broad -
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP 11
Although the FCC has recently relaxed its regulation of
importation of distant broadcast signals to permit greater ac --
cess to this source of programming for cable subscribers, it
has by no means forsaken its regulatory power in this area.
See Cable Television Syndicated Program Exclusivity
Rules' 79 F. C. C. 2d 663 (1980), aff'd sub nom., Malrite
7. V. v. FCC, 652 F. 2d. 1140 (CA2 1981), cert. denied, 454
U. S. 1143 (1982). Indeed, the Commission's decision to
allow unfettered importation of distant broadcast signals
rested on its conclusion that "the benefits to existing and po-
tential cable households from permitting the carriage of addi-
tional signals are substantial. Millions of households may br
afforded not only increased viewing options, but also aceek
to a diversity of services from cable television that presently
is unavailable in their communities." 79 F. C. C. 2d, at 746.
See also Besen & Crandall, The Deregulation of Cable Televi-
sion, 44 Law & Contemp. Prob. 77 (1981). As the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit observed in upholding this de -
vision,
"[by] shif ting its policy toward a more favorable regu-
latory climate for the cable industry, the FCC has chosen a
balance of television services that should increase program
diversity. . 6 " Malrite T. V. v. FCC, 652 F. 2d, at 1151.
Clearly, the full accomplishment of such objectives would be
jeopardized if state and local authorities were now Permitted
to restrict substantially the ability of cable operators to pro-
vide these diverse services to their subscr i b ers.
Accordingly, to the extent it has boon involied to contri
the d1stat broadcast and nonbroadcast sigiials imported b ---
operators the Oklahoma advertising ban plainly
cost programs and broadcast programs delivered to distant inarkets by sat-
ellite. While the nature of that non -basic offering was (and still is)
developing, the preemptive intent, and the reasons for that preemption,
are clear and discernible. Today, thc.(Iegreeof(liverinityititiatellitc-(Icllv-
cred pro rain serv*ces refieetg the "8(10111 of frechig cable systems from
I W!
bur(lensome state and local regulation of this area." Community Cabte
IV, lite, No. 83-625P at 13 (FCC Nov. 15, 1983).
I
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. u. CRISP 13
:geaches beyond the regulatory authority reserved to local au-
signals that cable operators are required to cariy must be
' lioriti£s by the Cominission's rules, and trespasses into the
carried "in full, without deletion or alteration of any portion.
xclusive domain of the FCC. To be sure, Oklahoma may,
...�' 47 CFR §76.55(b). .Because, in the Commission's
°lildet' Current -Commission rules, regulate such local aspects
view, enforcement of these non -deletion rules serves to "pre -
cable systems asl'ailChisee Selection and construction pf
vent a less of revenues to local broadcasters sufficient to re-
versight, see, e. g., Report and Order, 54 F. C. C. 2d 855,
sult in reduced service to the public," they have been applied
863 (1975), but, by requiring cable television operators to de-
to commercial advertisements as well as to regular program-
'iete corninercial advertising contained in signals carried pur-
ming. Qarland B. Pugh, 68, F. C. C. 2d 997, 999 (1978);
€ uant to federal authority, the State has clearly exceeded '�
WAPA--PV Broadcasting Corp., 59 F. C. C. 2d 263, 272
flat limited jurisdiction and interfered with a regulatory area
(1976); Notice of Proposed Ruternacking and Notice of .In-
diat the Commission has explicitly pre-empted.'°
quinj in Docket No. 18397, 15 F. C. C. 2d 417, 444 (1.968);
Second Report and Order, 2 F. C. C. 2d, at 753, 756. C� ---
sequently, those Oklahoma cable operators required by i
Quite apart froin this generalized federal pre-£ITlptio11 of
eral law to carry out -of --state broadcast signals in full, incluu-
tate regulation of cable signal carriage, the Oklahoma ad-
ing any wine commercials, are subject to criminal prosecution
vertising bail plainly conflicts with 'specific federal regula-
under Oklahoma law as a result of their compliance with fed-
,iot�s. These conflicts arise in three principal ways. First,
oral regulations.
a le FCC's so -Caped "must -carry" rules require Certain Cable
Second, current FCC rulings permit, and indeed encour-
Aevision operators to transmit the broadcast Signals of any
age, cable television operators to import out -01 -state televl-
ocal televisioti broadcasting station that is located within a
sign broadcast signals and retransmit those signals to their
Il ecified 35 -mile Zone of the cable operator or that is "slgnifl-
subscribers. See Fable Television -Syndicated Prograin Ex-
p -aptly viewed" in the community served by the operator. 47
clusi ity Lutes, 79 F. C. C. 2d, at 745-746. For Oklahoma
W11 § 76.59(a)(1), and (6). These "must -carry„ rules re-
. :
cable open ators, this source of cable programming Includes
-iuir•e many Oklahoma cable operators including petitioners,
. .
signals from television broadcasting stations located zn Kan -
.o
.o carry signals from broadcast stations located in nearby'
sas, Missouri and Texas, as well as the signals from so-called
Mates such as Missouri and Kansas` See App. 22, 35. In
"superstations" in Atlanta and Chicago. App. 21, 35-36. z
r ldition, under Commission regulations, the local broadcast
is undisputed that many of these distant broadcast signals.
'"For that reason otir decision in Ileal v New Mexico B 'q*
( /� W �i lJ�f�tVf 4jWS.+lf6�•fG-
transmitted by petitioners contain wine commercials that a�' ",,=2
,.
�rs iit Optometry, 374 U. SAN (1963), is not controlling here. In that
lawful under federal law and in Lt�llr A7t�VC.+i.7 w��l�rL% th�i j*Lt-
�
�wse, we concluded that a state's authority to ban price -related broadcast
gramming originates. Nor is it disputed that cable oper-
3�Ivertising for eyeglasfies was net pre-empted by the Communications
ators Who Carry such signals are barred by Commission regu_
ct, principally because [nlo specific federal regulations even remotely in
lations from deleting or altering any portion of those signals,
flirt with the New Mexico law have been called to our attention. The
including commercial advertising. 47 CFI §76.55(b),
l mmniission Itself has apparently viewed state regulation of advertsing as
��lnl�lcmcntilag its regulatory function, rather than in any way conflicting �=�
Under Oklahoma's advertishi bhowever these cable o -
gan , , p
dth it." Its., at 432 (footnote omitted), here, by contrast, the FCC's
craters must either delete the wane commercials or face criin-
rc-emptive intent could not be more explicit or unambiguous,
anal prosecution. Since the Oklahoma law, by requiring de-
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v, CRISP
I
Iletion of a portion of these out-of-state signals, compels
1conduct tliat federal law forbids, the State ban clearly-
Iff t
s
. - inds as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution
,
of the full purposes and objectives" of the federal regulatory
;.s
hone. Hi7tes v. Davidowitz 312 U. S., at 67; Farmers
c
Vv.ion. v. 1,11DAY, 111C., 360 U. S. 525, 535 (1959).
Finally, enforcement of the state advertising ban against
101dahonia cable operators will affect a third source of cable
iprogramming over which the Commission has asserted exclu-
Isive jurisdiction. television broad-
iction. Aside from relaying local t I
.casting in accordance with the "must -carry" rules, and dis-
1-ant broadcast signals, cable operators also transmit
I
pecialized nonbro
adcast cable services to their subscribers.
This source of programming, often referred to as "pay cable,"
Mchides mach advertiser -supported national cable prograin-
ining as the Cable News Network {CON) and the Entertain-
iiientincl Sports Programming Network (ESPN). Although
tlie Commission's "must -carry" and non -deletion rules do not
ttplfly to such nonbroadcast cable services, the FCC, as noted
arlier, see supra, at —, has explicitly stated that state
1-egulation of these services is completely precluded by fed-
-n -al law."
Petitioners generally receive such signals by antenna, mi-
,rowcave receiver, or satellite dish and restransmit them by
Vire to their subscribers. But, unlike local television broad-
g:tsting stations that transmit only one signal and receive no-
.ification from their networks concerning advertisements, ca -
)le, operators simultaneously receive and channel to their
.ubscribers a variety of signals from many sources without
tny advance notice about the timing or content of commercial
idvertisements carried on those signals. Cf. n. 2, supra.
See C-071tin-unity Cable TV, lite., No. 83-626, at 11-14 (FCC Nov. 161
.983); Report and, Order i?u Docket No. 20-272, 64 F. C. C. 2d, at 861-863;
'lari ficaf''on of Cable Television RuW, 46 F. C. C. 2d, at 199-200,Titne-
,ffe Broadca,.it, lite., 31 F. C. C. 2d 747 (1971); Clarification of CATV
'irst Report as to Scope of Federal Preemption, 20 F. C. C. 2d 741 (1969).
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP 16
As the record of this case indicates, developing the capacity
to monitor each signal and delete every wine commercial be-
fore it is retransmitted would be a prohibitively burdensome
task. App. 25-26, 36-38. Indeed, the District Court spe-
cifically found that, in view of these considerations, "[t]here
exists no feasible way for [cable operators] to block out the
[wine] advertisements." App. at 41a.11 Accordingly, if the
state advertising ban is enforced, Oklahoma cable operators
will be compelled either to abandon altogether their carriage
of both distant broadcast signals and specialized non -broad-
cast cable services or run the risk of criminal prosecution.
As a consequence, the public may well be deprived of the
wide variety of programming o - I
ptions that cable sys'
make possible.
Such a result is wholly at odds with the regulatory goals
contemplated by the FCC. Consistent with its congression-
ally defined charter to "make available, so far as possible, to
all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-
wide and world-wide wire and radio communication service.,
a &)" 47 U. S. C. § 151, the FCC has sought to ensure that
"the benefits of cable communications become a reality on a
nationwide basis." Report and Order, 54 F. C. C. 2d, at
865. With that end in mind, the Commission has determined
that only federal pre-emption of state and local 'regulation can
assure cable systems the breathing space necessary to ex-
pand vigorously and provide a diverse range of program of-
ferings to potential cable subscribers in all parts of the cr
try. While that Judgment may not enjoy universal sups
it plainly represents a reasonable accommodation of the c6-1
petting policies committed to the FCC's care and we see no
reason to disturb the agency's judgment. And, as we have
repeatedly explained, when federal officials determine, as the
"At one time, the FCC itself considered a proposal to permit cable sys-
tems to substitute commercial advertisements on distant signals, but con-
cluded that each a plan was not feasible. Cable Television Report and
Order in Docket No. 18397, 36 F. C. C. 2d, at 165,
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v, CRISP
ITC leas here, that restrictive regulation of a particular area
is not in the public ]interest, "States are not permitted to use
Clicir police power to enact such a regulation." Ray v. At-
lantic Ricltfield Co., 435 U. S. 151 178 (1978); Bethlelte?,n
Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relatioits Board, 330
U. & 767, 774 (1947). Cf. Fidelity Federat Savii?gs & Loan
As8n, v. De La Otesta, 458 Us S., at 155 (Federal 11onle
Loan Bank Board explicity pre-empted state due -on -sale
clauses in order to afford flexibility and discretion to federal
savings and loan institutions).
C
Altliough the FCC has taken the lead in formulating com-
inui, iications, policy with respect to cable television, Congress
I]as considered the impact of this nevi technology, and has,
through the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2541, 17
U. S. C. § 101 et seq., acted to facilitate the cable industry's
ability to distribute broadcast programming on a national
basis. Prior to the 1.976 revision, the Court had determined
that the retransmission of distant broadcast signals by cable
systems did not subject cable operators to copyright infringe -
Ment liability because such retransmissions were not "per-
formcances" within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Act.
Telep rompler Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, In'C. ,
415 Us S. 394 (1974); Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artist Telc-
vision, Inc. 1 392 Us S, 390 (1968). In revising the Copyright
Act, however, Congress concluded that cable operators
should be required to pay royalties to the owners of copy-
riglited programs retransmitted by their systems on pain of
liability for copyright infringement. At the same time, Con-
gress recognized that "it would be impractical and unduly
burdensome to require every cable system to negotiate [ap-
propriate royalty payments] with every copyright owner" in
order to secure consent for such retransmissions. Copyright
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP 17
Law Revision, 11. R. Rep. No. 94-14761 at 89 (1976)." -See-
tion Ill of the 1976 Act codifies the solution devised by Con-
gross. It establishes a program of compulsory copyright li-
censing that permits cable systems to retransmit distant
broadcast signals Without securing permission from the copy-
right owner and, in turn, requires each system to pay royalty
fees to a central royalty fund based oil a percentage of its
gross revenues." To take advantage of this compulsory li-
censing scheme, a cable operat6r must satisfy certain report-
ing requirements, § 111(d)(1) and (2)(A), pay specified royalty
fees to a central fund administered by the Register of Copy-
rights, § 111(d)(2}(13} -{D), and (3), and refrain from c) -'-4J, ng
or altering; commercial advertising oil the broadcasts it
transmits, § 111(c)(3). Failure to comply with these uondi-
tions results in forfeiture of the protections of the compulsory
licensing system.
In devising this system, Congress has clearly sought to
further the important public purposes framed in the Copy -
11 In developing, this approach, Congress was aware that cable operators
would face virtually insurmountable technical' and logistical problems if
they were required to block out all programs ,is to which they had not di-
rectly obtained copyright permission from the owner. See, c. g., Copy-
right Law Revisions, Hearings on 111. R. 2223 Before the SOcoininitlee on
Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice (Zf the House
Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., Ist Sess., Pt. 1, at 758 (1976);
Copyright Law Revisions.- Hearings on S. 1361 Before the Subcar"mu'llee
ort Patents, Trod-einarks, and Copt trlghf�i of the Sena-te Commit th a
AWd*ary, PM Cong., Ist Sess., 291-292, 400-401 (1973).
"The koystone of this systocn, § 111(c)(1), Iii-ovidoB;
"Subject to the pt�ovlskjris of clauses (2), (3), and (4) of this silbsectioti,
secondary transmissions to the public by a cable system of a primary trans-
inlAsion made by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Commujilca.
tions Commission ... and embodying a performance or display or a work
shall be subject to compulsory licensing upon compliance Nvith the require-
ments of subsection (d) where the carriage of the signals comprising the
secondary transmission Is permissible under the rules, regulations, or au-
thorizations, of the Federal C-oinmunications Commission." 47 Us S. C.
§ 111(c)(1).
18 CAYWAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
I
right Clause
U. S. Const., Art. 1, § 81 of rewarding the cre-
c
11to's of copyriI
ghted Works and of "promoting broad public
availability of literature, music, and the ocher arts." Twen-
Cen-t�urllo. Music C07 -p, v. Aiken, 422 U. S. 151, 156
(1975) (footnote omitted); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Stu-
(1-i0s, Inc. U S. (1984).
Compulsory licens-
Ing not only protects
the commercial value of copyrighted
works but also enhances the- ability of cable syst
enis to
re-
tiansmit such pi-ogrr
ms carried on distant broadcast; sjls,therebyallowing
the public to benefit by the wider dissenil-
I , t -iion of works carried on television broadcast signals.'6 By
requiring cable operators to delete commercial advertise--
111ciiU3 for wine, however the Oklahoma ban forces these op-
crators to lose tile protections of compulsory licer sing. or
course, it is possible for cable sYstclils to comply with tile
01dahoma ban by simply heir iabandoning -
11119 tI
portatiorr of the
distant broadcast signals covered by the Copyright Act.
But such a loss of viewilig optIO118, would plialitily thwart the
"As the 1101.1.9c Committee Report Pnilained-
"In general, the Committee believes that cable. systems are commercial
enterprises whose baste retrant is
itnimcdon operations are based on the car-
r ing e of copyriglitea prograin material and that copit rowes should
yrig
Heil by cable oj)er.,i program - to the creators of s -)ya
tich prom-ims. The Conin,iff-
tee recog-nizes, however-, that it would be impractical and nduly burden-
some to require every cable system to negotinte - with every copyrjight,
owner whose work wits retransinitted by a Ca
tile Committee has tic�tcj -nilp cal SyRtem. Accordingly,
)I,
n .
1II to establish i compulsory Copyright Meese -
for the retraiismission or
those over theair broadcast signals that a cable system it; authorized to
i
carry pursuant to the rules and regulationa of the FCC." HR_* Rep. No.
.94-1476, at 89 (1976). &_e� also 11. R. Conf, Rep. No. 9,1_ *
1733, at 7646
(1-976)1122 Cong. Rec. 31979 (197-6) (remarks of Rej)4 Kan *d., t
tenmajer)- i
31984 (remarks of Rep. Rallsback). id-., at 32009 marks -of I , at
31984t re Rep. Daniel-
, _n); Af icrotvave- lite. v. Doubledall Spot-ts, 111C. 391 F. 2 25
132-133 (CA2 19821 (d- C _d I -f
iscussing CoCongress' decision to establish "a compul,*
nory licensing prograjo I
I to insure that [cable systemaj could continue bring-
ing a diversity of broadcasted alipalp
to their subscribers"),
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP 191*
policy lidend fie- d by both Congress and the FCC of facifiLating,
and encouraging the importation of distant broadcast signals.
91
Respondent contends that even if the Oklahoma advertis-
I ing ban is invalid under normal pre�cmption analysis, the tact
that the ban was radopted pursuant to the Twenty-first
.
Amendnient,- rescues the statute frorn pre-emption. A silill-
lar claim was advanced in Catifornia Retait Liqour Deaters
Assn. v, Midcal Aluirtinunt, Inc, 445 U. S. 97 (1980). In
that case, after finding that a California wine prjcin� pro-
gram violated the Sherman Act, we considered whet) of
the Twenty-first Amendment, which reserves to thk- -Cites
certain power to regulate traffic in liquor, "permits California'
to counterman the cong-ress'
jonal policy—adopted under the
commerce power—in favor of conipetition." 445 U. S., at
106. Here, we, must likewise consider whether §2 permits'
Oklahoma to override the federal policy, as expressed 'in FCC
rclings anal regulations, in favor of promoting the widespread
development of cable conimunicatio-11.
The States enjoy broad power under § 2 of the Twenty-first
Amendment to regulate the importation and use of intoxicat-
ing liquor within their bordem. NTH7-t, Inc. v. ReevcA, 308
U. S. 132 (1939). At the .9anie time, -our prior cases have
made clear that the Amendment does not license the st'r-Ates
to ignore their obligations under other provisions of t' "qn-
S.
stitution. See, e. g., Barkin v. Grendcl'8 Den I
j
5 (1982); California v. LaRue, 409 U. 9:109,
115 (1973); Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 4333 436
(19,71); Department of Revenue v. James B. Beain Distilling
Co., 377 U. S. 341, 345-346 (1964). Indeed, ItIhis Court's
decisions . . . have eonflrmed that the Amendment primarily
created an exception to the normal operation of the Com-
merce Clause." Craig v, Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 206 (1976).
Thus, as the Court explained in Hostetter v. Idleufild Bon
Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324 (1964)t §2 reserves to
20 CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
the States power to ,impose burdens on interstate commerce
in intoxicating liquor that, absent the Amendment, would
clearly be invalid under the Commerce Clause. Id., at 330;
State Board q Equalization, v. Young's Market Co., 299
U. S. 59 62-63 (1936). We have cautioned however, that
"[t]o draw a conclusion that the Twenty-first Amend-
ment has somehow operated to 'repeal' the Commerce Clause
wherever regulation of intoxicating liquors is concerned
would ... be ,in absurd oversimplification." 110 -stetter,
sitpra, at 331-332. Notwithstanding the Amendment's
broad grant of power to the States, therefore, the Federal
Government plainly retains authority under the Commerce
Clause to regulate even interstate commerce in liquor. Ibid.
See also .California Retail Liquor Dealers Asm. v. Midcat
Alu7nin,um,, Iitc-, sitpra, at 109-110, Nippert v. Richmond,
327 U. S. 416 425 n. 15 (1946), United States v. Frankfort
D11stilleries, Inx., 324 U, S. 293 (1946).
In rejecting the claim that the Twenty-first Amendment
ousted the Federal Government of all jurisdiction over inter-
state traffic in liquor, we have held that when a State has not
attempted directly to regulate the sale or use of liquor within
its borders—the core §2 power --a conflicting exercise of fed-
eral authority may prevail. In Hostetter, for example, the
Court found that in-state sales of intoxicating liquor intended
to be used only an foreign countries could be made under the
supervision of the federal Bureau of Customs, despite con-
trary state law, because the state regulation was not aimed
at -preventing unlawful use of alcoholic beverages within tile
,state, but rather was designed "totally to prevent transac-
tions carried on under the aegis of a law passed by Congress
in the exercise of its explicit power under the Constitution to
regulate commerce with foreign nations." 377 U. S., at
333-334. Similarly, in Mideal Aluminui-it, supra, we found
that "the Twenty-first Amendment provides no shelter for
tile, violation of the Sherman Act caused by the State's wine
pricing program," because the State's interest in promoting
CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
temperance through the program was not substantial
was therefore clearly outweighed by the important, fede:
objectives of the Sherman Act. 445 U. S., at 113-114.
Of course, our decisions in Hostetter and Midcal Aluln
?tuin were concerned only with conflicting state and fele,,
efforts to regulate transactions involving liquor. In ti
case, by contrast, we must resolve a clash between an (
press federal decision to pre -erupt all state regulation of cat
signal carriage and a state effort to apply its ban on alcoho
beverage advertisements to Wine commercials contained
out-of-state signals carried by cable systems. Nonethele,
the central question presented in those cases is essentia
the same as the one before us here.- whether the inf�,-Zsts ii;
plicated by a state regulation are, so closely rel 'to t
powers reserved by the Twenty-first Amendmenu uilat t
regulation may prevail, notwithstanding that its requii
ments directly conflict with express federal policies, As
Hostetter and Midcal Aluminum., resolution of this questi
requires a "pragmatic effort to harmonize state and fedel'
powerstf within the context of the issues and interests
stake in each case. 445 U. S., at 109.
There can be little doubt that the comprehensive regu'
tions developed over the past twenty years by the FCC
govern signal carriage by cable television systems reflect
important and substantial federal interest. In crafting tl
regulatory scheme, the Commission has attempted to strik(
balance between protecting non -cable households from loss
regular television broadcasting service due to I �4--titi
from cable systems and ensuring that the sub_stallfinet
provided by cable of increased and diversified programmij
are secured for the maximum number of viewers, See e,
Cable Televisioit Syndicated Prograin Exclusivity Rules,
F. C. C. 2dt at 744-746. To accomplish this regulatory got!
the Commission has deemed it necessary to assert exclusi-
jurisdiction over signal carriage by cable systems. In U11
Commission's view, uniformnational communications poli' _-_
with respect to cable systems would be undermined if sta-
22 CAPITAL CITIES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP
and local governinents were permitted to regulate in piece-
mc<ll fashion the signals carried by cable operators pursuant
to federal authority. See C'omin7t7 ity Cable 77 Co., supi-a,
-it 12-13, Clc rifica tiofit of Me Cable Televisio?i .Mules, 46
F. C. C. 2c11 at 178.
On the other hand, application of Oklahoma's advertising
lagan to out-of-state signals carried by cable operators in that
Mate is designed principally to further the State's 'interest in
discouraging consumption of intoxicating liquor. See Op.
Okla. Att'y Gen. No. 79-334, supra. Although the District
Court. found that "consumption of alcoholic beverages in
Oklahoma has increased substantially in the last 20 years de-
slit:e the ban oil advertising of such beverages," App. to Pet.
for Cert.' 42a, we may nevertheless accept Oklahoma's judg-
nient that restrictions on liquor advertising represent at least
a reasonable, albeit limited, means of furthering the goal of
promoting temperance in the State. The modest nature of
Oklahoma's interests may be further illustrated by noting
that Ol(lahoma has chosen not to press its campaign against
alcoholic beverage tadvertising on all fronts. For example,
the State permits both print and broadcast commercials for
beer, as well as advertisements for all alcoholic beverages
contained in newspapers, magazines and other publications
printed outside of the State. The ban at issue in this case is
directed only at wine commercials that occasionally appear on
out-of-state signals carried by cable operators. -By their*own
terms, therefore, the State's regulatory aims in this area are
narrow. Although a state regulatory scheme obviously need
not amount to a comprehensive attack on the problems of al-
cohol consumption in order to constitute a valid exercise of
stage bower under the Twenty-first Amendment, the selec-
tive approach Olflahoma has taker toward liquor advertising
suggests limits on the substantiality of the interests it asserts
here. In contrast to stage regulations governing the condi-
tions under which liquor may be imported or sold within the
stage, therefore, the application of Oklahoma's advertising
CAPITAL CI`T'IES CABLE, INC. v. CRISP 23
ban to the importation of distant signals by cable television
operators engages only directly the central power reserved
by § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment ---that of exercising
"control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor
and how to structure the liquor distribution system," ffid-
ca,l Aluntiitu?rt, 445 U. S,, at 110.
When this limited interest is measured against .the signili-
cant interference witli the federal objective of ensuring wide-
spread availability of diverse cable services throughout the
United States --an objective that will unquestionably be frus-
trated by strict enforcement of the Oklahoma statute—it is
clear that the state's interest is not of the salve stature as the
goals identified in the FCC's rulings and regulations '-s in
dcat ,Aluviiiium, therefore, we hold that whei , a� , a
stage regulation squarely conflicts with the accomplishment
and execution of the full purposes of federal law, and the
state's central power under the Twenty-first Amendment of
regulating the times, places, and manner under which liquor
may be imported and sold is not directly implicated, the Nal-
ance betwee=n state and federal power tips decisively in favor
of the federal law, and enforcement of the state statute is
barred by the Supremacy Clause."
G ,i•
We conclude that the application of Oklahoma's alcoholic
beverage advertising ban to out-of-state signals carried by
cable operators in that State is pre-empted by fele--1 law
ail that the Twenty-first
Amendment does not . tl�e
rem /alio from lire -e nl tion. Tile judgment of the G - t �t of
Appeals is
CReversed.
Because we have resolved the pre-emption and Twenty-
ment issues in petitioners' favor, we need not consider the additional ques-
tion whether Oklahoma's advertising ban constitutes an invalid restriction
on protected commercial speech, and we therefore express no view on that ` - —
Issue$
"I
STEVEN SARGENT
Executive Director
L�
141cr
Yo
MUNICIPAL
Member: National League of Cities
P.O. BOX 3387
1220 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62708
TELEPHONE AREA CODE 217-525-1220
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: All Mayors, Managers and Attorneys
FROM Illinois municipal League
DATE: October 5, 1984
RE: Investigation by Illinois Commerce Commission of proper treatment
of municipal franchises, free municipal rates and services and
reduced rates for municipalities. I.C.C. Docket No. 84-0436.
In a, Commonwealth Edison rate cAse (I.C.C, No. 83-0538) decided on
July 12, 1984, a staff member of the Commission proposed to charge any
franchise fee of the municipality 'to the customers taking the service in that
municlipality and to, eliminate free service and reduced rates for
Alun i c i pal 1"ti es, q
While the Commission did not adopt this recommendation in the
Commonwealth Edison case, they indicated that such recommendations would be
adopted.
Under date of September 12, 1984, the Commission issued a Citation
Order bearing I,C.C. No. 84-0436 in which the staff proposals set forth above
are to be investigated and finpl,eniented. The Commission has set a, pre -hearing
conference in this I'natter 'for a determinatlion of the issues to be tried, Which
conference is set for 10-00 a,.m., October 19, 1984 at the office of the
Commil ssion in Sprinqf lei d and, with the f i rst evidentiary hearing set for
Novein,ber 16, 1984, again at 10:00, a,.m,., in Springf ield. All Illinoispublic
Utilities, and al'] municif pall 11 ties have received notice of these hearings.
The decision of the Commission will probably have a direct effect on
all Illinois municipalities having any type of franchise with public utilities
which would include all gas, electric, telephone, water and sewer utilities.
Unless municipalities and municipalities through the Illinois Municipal
League, vigorously defend this Citation, the Illinois Commerce Commission may
October 5, 1984
Page 2
order elimination of all free service, elimination of any preferential or
lower rates for munici.palities and order that any franchise fee payable in
dollars is to be billed to the customers in the municipalities.
If this case is to be defended by municipal ities, it should probably be
done on two grounds,, namely, (a) legally, for the Commission does not have any
jurisdiction over municipal franchises, and (b) on the merits, for
municipalities should be compensated for the time, trouble and expense to
which they are put due to the use of their streets and other public properties
by utilities. The municipalities and their citizens own the streets, alleys,
parkways and other public property and the areas over and below the surface.
If this property is to be used by a utility, compensation should be paid for
this privilege.
The fact that a franchise is a contract between the public utility and
the municipality and that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the
franchise leads us to the conclusion that legally we may be able to maintain
existing franchises during their remaining lives,
The Supreme Court of Illinois, in a case which has not been overruled,
after discussing the powers that Illinois municipalities have over their
streets stated, " 0 0 . These several powers have been held to authorize
cities and villages to restrict and control the use of their streets and this
included the right to grant to or to withhold that use from utilities."
The Commission appears to feel that a franchise is only a form of tax,
for the staff person who put this entire idea in motion refers to it in this
mannor. Municipalities should attempt to disabuse the Commission of this
erroneous opinion and establish that it is a fee for the use of municipal
property and compensation should be paid therefor.
The Board of Directors of the Illinois Municipal League,, at its meeting
on September 29, 1984, ordered intervention on behalf of the League. The
Board had the following specific recommendations:
(a) That the League Attorneys and the Municipal Attorneys should
attempt to convince the Commission that their legal position is
incorrect and that they cannot change or vitiate a franchise;
(b) Attempt to disabuse the Commission of the idea that a franchise
fee is a tax, but rather it is a fee for the necessary use of
municipal property;
(c) Testimony should be offered concerning the services performed for,
and the municipal property used by, utilities;
October 5, 1984
Page 3"
(d) Value of the services received by utilities;
(e) Municipalities should communicate with the Commerce Commission
expressing their opposition and also communicate with the Governor
and other elected state officials, together with all members of
the General Assembly. The address of the Commission is: Illinois
Commerce Commission, 527 East Capitol, Springfield, Illinois
6 27 06;
(f) Loss to each municipality if the present idea of the Commission
prevails; and
(g) Individual municipalities should notify the League office of their
position in this matter and copies of all correspondence should be
sent to the League office.
It will not be necessary for municipal officials to be present and
testify at the hearing on October 19, 1984, for this is only a conference for
the purpose of outlining the areas of the investigation and setting of dates
for hearings. We must, however, have officials from each interested
municipality at a later hearing. We will attempt to obtain a separate date
,for this testimony.
We wi 11 advi se of the results of the hea'ri ng on October 19, 1984 and
provide additional information and suggestions for action*
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
By
Steven 0. Sargent, xecutive llirector
S OS: tmj
r
-d
A RESOLUTION TO OBJECT TO THE ABOLITION OF
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES AND THE VARIOUS
UTILITY COMPANIES FOR. FREE MUNICIPAL RATES,
SERVICES AND REDUCED RATES FOR MUNICIPALITIES
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the Illinois
Commerce Co fission, In Re Commonwealth Edison Rate Case, in
which, it was proposed to charge any fVanchise fee of the
municipality to ,the customers taking service in that munici-
pality and to eliminate free service and reduced rates for
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect and its citizens
own the streets, alleys, parkways and other public property
and the areas over and below the surface; and,.
.EAS , the privilege of using these various public
�.. e e
right -of -ways has great value to the utility company, and if
th. s property p p E is to be used by a utility, compensation
should be paid for this privilege; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the Franchise Agreements entered
into between the Village of Mount Prospect and the various
utilities establishes the appropriate fee for the necessary
use of municipal property:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROPSECT, COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
-
SECTION ONE. The Mayor and Board of Trustees do hereby
find that, the abolition of such Franchise Agreements would
cause serious hardships for both the Village of Mount Prospect
and its citizens.
SECT'IO'N TWO Additionally, the Mayorand Board of
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect are of thee opinion
that the.. abolition of such Franchise
Agreements would irreparably
inure the relationships established between local governments
and utilities , and would result 'in substantial hardship to,
utility companies.
SECTION THREE: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
Villae a .Mount Prospect do hereby object to the, issuing of
g
any Illinois Commerce Commission Order abolishing the Franchise
Agreements now in effect between the various miniicipalitiLes
and Commonwealth Edison or other utility companies.
SECTIO FOUR-. _A copy of this Resolution shall be
forwarde too the I llinois Commerce Commission with a request
that the Resolution be filed in the,official records of the
Citation Order issued September 12, 1984, bearing Illinois
Commerce. Commission #84-0436.
SECTION FIVE: This Resolution shall be in full force
and effect upon its passage and approval in accordance with
law.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 1984.
AYE S :
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
VILLAGE CLERK
Q