Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2309_001Village Clerk COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A G E N D A Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Board Room, 2nd Floor Tuesday, August 23, 1983 112 East Northwest Highway 7:30 p.m. Oki In 1978, the Central Difsptach System, which includes the Police and Fire Departments of Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village and Mount Prospect, applied for a Federal Grant for the installation of a Computer -Aided Dispatch System. The amount of this Grant totaled $2.5 million and was based upon the design of the consultant then employed by Central Dispatch. The Grant did not receive approval by the Federal Government because of shrinking resources and Central Dispatch faced the problem of how to acquire such a System with local funds. Since that time, it has become a project of Central Dispatch to review Systems on the market and to assess our local abilities to provide such a system. Through the efforts of all the staff persons of the respective operating Departments, our needs have been refined substantially and new technology, with subsequent lower prices, now presents the opportunity to implement the objective. Earlier this year, the Central Dispatch Executive Committee, made up of the Fire and Police Chiefs of the respective agencies, began working in earnest on preparing the operational specifications of a Computer -Aided Dispatch System. Various systems across the country have been examined and sites have been visited when Chiefs were in the area either at conventions or on.vacations. In March, specific program outlines were presented to the Board of Directors of Central Dispatch made up of the Managers of the four respective communities and those earlier presentations were refined during June and ,July. The Executive Committee and the Board of Directors are now prepared to make specific recommendations to the elected officials of"the four participating communities. The cost for the Central Dispatch core equipment and program is approximately $452,000. The share to the Village of Mount Prospect based upon the participation and user formula is $132,000 (roughly 29%). Additional expenses to the Village of Mount Prospect for its improvements to its own vehicle communication equipment is roughly $100,000. The cost to all communities for the entire project is estimated to be in the vicinity of $1,000,000. We expect, at this point in the analysis, that these expenses would not impact the current municipal budgets, but would be accounted for in the 1984- 1985 Budget. Each *community is free to arrange its own financing mechanisms and the supplier, Motorola, has offered lease --purchase financing to the Dispatch Center as well as the individual municipalities. Enclosed with the Agenda are some basic documents that show the process involved with dispatching and record keeping in the Fire and Police Department. Chief Pairitz , Chairman of the Central Dispatch Executive Committee, and Chief Pavlock will have a presentation before the Committee of the Whole to explain in detail the concept of Computer -Aided Dispatch and its benefits to our operations. The respective municipalities in Central Dispatch are targeted to make final determinations by September 30 of this year., That 'time frame will allow us to place the equipment orders and have the system fully operational by late 1984. V. RAUENHOR.ST DEVELOPMENT CODE VARIATIONS At the last Village Board meeting, a question was raised regarding the Variations being considered for Phase IV as they relate to, storm sewer sizing and retention basin erosion protection. When. the Village was in the process of considering the Annexation of Rauenhors t properties in 1979--1980 ,, we hired an independent consulting firm to assess various aspects of the Annexation including certain Zoning and Engineering questions. The consultant sub -contracted the engineering work and the questions of storm sewer design and retention basin were specifically addressed. Copies of appropriate pages of the Engineering Report are attached. The consultant indicated that the five --year design for storm sewers in conjunction with the retention basin proposed was sufficient. While the Village Code basically required storm sewer design of ten years, the five-year design was approved as adequate in conjunction with the retention basins. The consultant also indicated that rip -rap, broken concrete, is not a desirable shoreline protection and suggested shore- line vegetation in its place. The first few retention basins were built with vegetation protections but have subsequently been replaced by rip -rap because the continued wave action was creating maintenance problems. Village Engineer Charles Bencic will be available at the meeting to discuss this in greater detail and we have invited representatives of Opus to also attend the meeting. VI. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DEFERRED LIST The Deferred List of the Committee of the Whole Agenda is carried in order of the items having been placed on the Agenda.. The Beard may want to consider taking these items two at a time to discuss their status and current applicability. Enclosed is a memo and outline covering the wok to date on the Development Code. Representatives of the staff will be in attendance to answer any questions you might have. The question regarding the Library deaf with whether or not the Library ought to farm its own District and gain complete autonomy from the Mayor and Board of Trustees. VII. MANAGER' .S REPORT 1., Water Agency. 2., Local water System. 3. Mt. Prospect Plaza Plans. 4. Huntington Square Apartment Trailers. VIII.ANY OTHER.. BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT DEFERRED ITEMS Sidewalk Lawsuits/Notice Economic Development Commission Citizens Utilities Acquisition Operational Review of Commissions 1 w MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 9, 1983. I. ROLL CALL :Mayor Krause called the meeting to order at 7:30 D.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Carolyn Krause, Trustees Ralph Arthur, herald Farley, Leo Floros , Norma I urausk.ie , George Vag. Leen and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present from the staff" were Village Manager Terrance Burghard, Assistant Village Manager ,day Hedges, Director cif Management Services ! .John Hedstrom, Auditor Pat Byrne, Finance Commission member Richard Buchhuber, Chief of Police Ronald Pavlock, Deputy Chief of Police ,Joseph Bopp and two residentsin the audience. II. MINUTE The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole ` meeting of Julv 26, 1983 were reviewed and filed. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There being no citizens present at the meeting desiring to make any presentation before the Committee of the Whole, the Mayor moved on to the next item, of business. IV*' 1983-19,83 ,AUDIT REPORTS Magor Krause asked the Co a ttee of the Whole if they had questions regarding the Village Audit which had been distributed previously. John Hedstrom. introduced Pat Byrne, ,a partner in Karri son & Byrne, who was available for questions. Trustee George Van Deem asked to be provided with. a'' copy of the detailed Village Audit which had not been distributed to Board' members. Several Trustees indicated that they did not need a copy of this, however, copies would be provided for those who did. .John Hedstrom" ,anal. Pat Byrne reviewed the Tillage ,audit and made ,general statements to the :fact that the Village General Fund and Water Fund are in very goad 'condition.. Several questions .. were asked and responses provided by Mr. Byrne and John Hedstrom. Trustee Fl.oro s asked that the Finance Commission review the Village ,Audit at their next meeting. Trustee Wattenberg asked if f staff had disagreed with any of the Auditor's comments and 11r. Hedstrom indicated that he did: not have any substantive objections to the points raised. Magor Krause indicated that she was very pleased with the report, several Trustees agreed and -Mr. Bur hard asked the Committee of the Whole to officially acknowledge receipt of the Audit at next Tuesday's Village Board meeting. VII. TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT - WHEEL LOCKS Trustee Arthur began the discussion by stating that he had raised this point initially because of a particular violator which had been brought to his attention on numerous occasions. He felt that the evidence in the memorandum provided by Chief Pavlock SUPD ' orted the concept of the boot by stating that Ilt would 'improve compliance with local parking regulations. When asked by Trustee Arthur how he f elt about the use of the boot, Chief Pavlock asked that the Village Board hold off on this matter for approximately 90 days until such time as the Village computer system can be'updated and reprogrammed to provide addit ional information. At this point in time., we do not know who the continuous repeat violators are and, therefore, do not know the extent of r After additional discussion by other members of the Committee of the Whole, it was agreed that Chief Pavlock should report back to the Board in 90 days. I VIII.MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Burghard reported to the Committee of the Whole that the WATER AGENCY Mount Prospect project is proceeding on schedule and that the crews are approximately two blocks apart in the residential area at this time. Upon completion of that segment of the line, they will move to the Venture store and proceed south to the Tollway. There are, approximately 32-36 workers on this project per day,. WATER SHORTAGE. The Village Manager reported that the recent heatwave has increased water usage dramatically during the past several weeks. The Village's overall capacity has been affected by approximately 15% reduction. In order to improve the situation, the Police Department - will be stepping up its efforts to warn and ticket violators of the Village sprinkling ban and appropriate media representatives have been informed and are cooperative. The Village Manager reported that the next Board of Directors meeting for the JOINT ACTION WATER AGENCY will be Thursday, August 11 and all Trustees are again invited to attend. Trustee Floros then pointed out that while Mr. Burghard had indicated that the project was Droceeding on schedule, he had referred back to several previous,work schedules and found that the project was in fact three to nine months behind schedule.., Mayor, ;Krause indicated that the delays were a result of negotiating to reduce the,costs of the pipeline and in fact had been successful and, therefore, I the delays were warranted. NORTH14EST CENTRAL DISPATCH. Mr. Burghard reported to the Committee of the -,Whole that the Northwest Central Dispatch was considering purchasing a computer-aided dispatch system. The total cost of this project will be approximately $1,000,000 for the entire Agency and -3- oil 0 6 0 0 a 4 Hill 0 11 0 0 1 1 MMI, 40P 0 loll a lop • OP id Mf 4 10 IX1. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Van Geem asked if he could be filled in on the nature of the Deferred Items appearing on the Committee of the Whole agendas and asked that his request for an operational review of the Village Commissions be added to that list. Mr. Burghard reviewed each item briefly and brought the Conmittee of the Whole up to date. Trustee Wattenberg asked for an itemized list of bills from prosecutors~ which would indicate the nature of the case and the fee paid. He also suggested that a request be made of Judge Geocarl's to viedeotape the openingo, ' f Traffic Court for possible broadcast on local Cable TV.. "Kt. Burghard will be looking into these matters. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Krause adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, TERRANCE L. BU HARD Village Manager TLB/rcw -4- i COW NARRATIVE FOR FLOW CHART OF DISPATCH GALLS CALL RECEIVED - By phone from citizen (Police or 'Fire Line) On View by Officer Police Department Direct line from Desk Fire Department Direct Line Alarm Board (Fire and Police) Radio (i.e., Ispern, state Network, Chicago P.D. ......... ROUTED TO Police calls received by Fire Dispatcher who takes basic complaint information and gives to Police Dispatcher for radio dispatching. Fire Calls received by Fire ,Dispatcher, who handles call and does not pass to Police Dispatcher. In --Progress Calls are handled by the dispatcher who receives the call. a.,° ,. %. ,p�, mw a .. a' .s ,^ N .. Rh .. "uia Y/.. ~• ry..`! CENTRAL DISPATCH CARD Dispatch card contains complainant information, is AND NUMBER hand-written by dispatcher who receives call. Dispatch Card is numbered sequentially (each department has individual card and number). The Dispatch Card Number is Master Control for all subsequent reports filed reference the call as well as being used for management information purposes. .. Central Dispatch Card is time stamped as to: a. Time Call Received, Time Call Dispatched, Time It Officer arrived on scene, Time Officer Completed Call. ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS Dispatcher responds to requests for additional information reference call. Dispatcher provides additional information reference call Dispatcher handles other radio traffic, i.e., requests for Vehicle or suspect Information from other units. Dispatcher must to some extent maintain mental picture of units, as to in-service, assinged, out of service, etc., although there are mechanical back-ups for this. However, these mechanical back-ups require a human function (putting card in appropriate slot etc.) CALL COMPLETED Provides to officer on street Time of Call and Case number. low Obtains correct response code from officer as to status of Call, i.e., Arrest Made, Field Case Report Filed, No Police Action, etc. (There are (8) Response codes in use) DISPATCH CARD TO Dispatch card forwarded to appropriate department for DEPARTMENT internal processing. 0000"' COMMUNICATIONS TO FIDE VEHICLE DISPATCH CARD TO DEPM DISPATCH CALL ADDITIONAL COMMUNICA-- TIONS j D .. EPAR l-�R�� 111kill m NARRATIVE FOR MOUNT PROSPECT RECORDS FLOW CHART CDs (CENTRAL DISPATCH Cards reviewed by desk officer and seperated by CARDS) Response Code (i.e., those that require Arrest, Field Case or Teleserve Reports) CDS CARD ONLY Held for log preperation REPORTS MATCHED TO Calls which required a report have CDs card attached, CDs CARDS number verified on report against CDs card, PAPER LOG All CDs cards are logged. (log is made from CDs Cards). Log, reports and CDs cards reviewed by Supervisor to assure complete and all calls accounted for at end of tour of duty,, RECEIVED BY RECORDS All CDs cards are received by records, and cards verified against log that all are received. Response codes checked to verify that all reports have been submitted as indicated by Response Code on CDs Card, ZEROXING Reports are copies and distributed to appropriate units of the department, ARREST REPORTS These reports require immediate entry into PIMS due STOLEN VEHICLES to nature of offense and necessity that this information MISSING PERSONS be available to officers. CODING OF REPORTS ALL REPORTS AND ALL CDs cards are coded and entered CDS CARD into the PIMS System. This requires all data includ- ing the time stamp information. CODING APPLIES TO ALL BLOCKS FROM DISTRIBUTION ON DOWN IN FLOW CHART. COURT JACKET MADE Jacket made-up for officers use in court. DOCUMENTS TO FILE Paper files maintained on all documents and CDs Cards Im and destroyed per Records Purging Schedules, 40 40 low, 40 ADVANTAGES OF CAD REFERENCE ABOVE 1. No need for review, since call is registered into computer. Paper log from CAD printer used for review by supervisor as to reports which should have been filed. 2. Direct input of CDs card into PIMS permits supervisor to recall all incidents within past 24 hours and for past (7) days. 3. CAD generates paper log for review by supervisor, 4. No matching of CARDS since information is already in PIMS and may only need updating, 5. No paper log required, reducing human error factor due to multiple handling of CDS .Card. 6. Paper log generated by CAD computer can pinpoint which records, cards, reports need updating. ... . ....... MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS FLOW CDs CARD IQ ILA) Ik ONLY I PAPER LOG P BY DESK MADE ALL CDS CARDS RTS, nmrm BY iRECORDS* LOG VERIFIED WITH REPORTS COPIES DISTRIBUTE r TO OTHER 7UNITS ARREST REPORTS REZ-4:RTS C STOLEN VEHICLESC MISSING VERSONS ims EEM�Roy . .. . .... . . erosion rate of 75 tons of soil per acre per year. This is equivalent to the loss of two -three inches of soil from the surface under construction. The water quality of storm water retention basins is also related to the concentration of biostimulants attached to soil particles. 1,.,, Heavy algae blooms are symptoms of the major eutrophication problems that prevail in storm water retention ponds. Cariplexed to soil particles are nitrogen and phosphorus compounds which attain a soluble form, after soil settles in surface water areas. Thus, erosion, that occurs upstream causes sediment and nutrient problems downstream. The plant nutrient concentration of soil varies from one parcel of land to another. However, for purposes of illustration, the average elemental nitrogen content of the topsoil in this region of Illinois is estimated to be 0.24 percent, and the average elemental phosphorus content is estimated to be 0.14 percent .1 Therefore, the amount of plant nutrients expected to be found in soil eroded frau one acre ' of land under construction for a year is 370 pounds of nitrogen and 220 pounds of phosphorus. The Kensigton Center Drainage Plan The drainage plan f or Kensington Center is designed to accomplish two goals: to meet the requirements of the Village for flood control, and to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment, with ponds as the visual focus for many of the building sites. The drainage plan is -shown on the exhibit "Storm Sewer and Detention," dated February 20, 1980. The major elements of the plan area are as follows: 1. Runoff from roofs, narking, lots,, streets, and landscaped berms is collected in catch basins which, diischarPia through storm sewers, into, seven pmds. The storm sewers ;ve a capacity to accomodate runoff from a storm with a five-year frequency. Runoff exceecing that amount may result in temporary standing U'SEPA "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology An Assessment." National Enviramental Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S., EPA,, Cincinnati, Ohio (EPA 67012- 74-040) (December 1974). CI 'Th water in t'he viclinlues ohe f tcatch 'basins. is design frequency is.acceptable where storm sewers are used; there is J 'he ewigher little benefit from desI iin storm sers with a h t pacify. 2. The ponds are designed to store runoff f rom a storm with a 100-y1ear requ DIU'S an a dd 7 and to have -MQ— — " - - I t.1 &go= C=zj I a releasti—rate 01 1 tri" that ---of a- tbree-year storm from undeveloped property. This pond design meets the detention requirements of the Village, 3* Aal ponds have side slopes of 6*01, With a filve-foot safety ]edge about two f cet below normal water level. The depth of each pond is 'between four feet and the, normal water level, plus a, three-foot allowance, for water level fluctuatilont, 41. No change is proposed for the, Feehanville Dl*t,ch,. Vegetation along the Ditch and the chann,el configuration will not be disturbed by construction, S. The exhibit shows a 12 -acre area of floodplain outside.of the Ditch channel, but below an elevation of 648 feet. Th,is, appears to be consistent with the extent, of flooding shown on the "Hydrologic Atlas" and, "Fl oodHazard Boundary Wps,*" Slince the developer plans to fill these areas, 'except at retention ponds, for use as developnent, sites, an, estimated 40 acre-feet of compensatory floodplain storage will have to be provided elsewhere on, the property to meet the Village requirements There is no indication as to how this compensatory storage will be provided,, It is suggested that the developer provide this information in accordance with the following part of Section Eleven, F, of Ordinance No. 2748: Proposed plans must clearly show: the area and volume of flood plain 'to be relocated and the same for the new location; any chanos es to slopes,, existing and prop: grades; and sediment and erosion control, measures and shall meet with the approval of the Village Engineer of the Village of Mount Prospect, Storm Water Appropriate storm water management methods will mitigate the adverse ijmpacts of urban runoff on the storm water retention ponds on the , Kensington Center development site,`, The storm water management methods is contained in Section Five, A.S, related to landscape screening, of the Draft Annexation Agreement of the Village. Rip -rap is not a desirable shoreline protection measure because it is difficult to maintain and is usually unsightly* Preferable measures are a variety of shoreline vegetation, plus structural measures, such as attractive retaining walls or porous pavement when slopes of greater than 4:1 are required, Drainage from roofs should be required to be released onto grassed areas, as is presently done. in Phase 19 However, roof top detention should be required on the buildings in order to 'minimize erosion at the release point and to avoid overloading of the drainage system. A device that has been successfully used foi this purpose is shown in Figure 5. Release is limited until the water reaches a specified depth on the roof, whereupon the release is sufficient to maintain the specified depth. The design of the drainage system should provide for filtration through the soil of runoff from a five-year storm. Runoff exceeding that V rate would then be permitted to enter the ponds through grassed smnales. Maintenance of the Feehanville Ditch is critical to the successful development of Kensington Center, The 1972 "Feehanville Drainage Ditch Study" by the Village describes major impediments to flow on the Kensington Center site that resulted from blockages of the channel. Periodic maintenance of the channel within the Kensington Center and Northern Illinois Gas Canpany properties must be assured; this could be provided for in the Annexation Agreement,,,, Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TERRANCE L. BURGHARDr VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE STATUS DATE: AUGUST 191 1983 The staff has begun revision to the existing Development Code under the direction of the Community Development Department, The staff has been meeting on a bi-weekly basis to discuss issues and review draft text. The draft outline for the Development Code is attached for your consideration. This identifies issues and sections which are being addressed by this revision process.., To date, of the eight articles defined in the outline, six have been completed in draft form and two have been reviewed by staff, In addition, the Engineering Division has prepared one subsection Of an additional article. The staff included in this revision process include Community Development, Public works, Engineering, Code Enforcement, Village Clerk, and Assistant Village Manager, Some are more active than others as the demand on their time varies. Our target date for completion of the staff review of the revised Development Code is the first week of November, f II NeF Ir 7/8/83 7/15/83 DEVELOPMENT CODE Article Io Pur 20ser Scoj2,e and Enforcement Section 16*1019 Title Section 16.102. Purpose Section 16o1O34, Interpretation, Conflict Section 4o Enforcement, Penalties for Violation Section 16,105. Prohibition of Development Section 16o1067 Prohibition of Subdivision Section 16,107* Prohibition of Sale Section 1601080 Permits Section 16ol0* Recording Section 11.110. Variations Article II. Definitions Article III. Procedures Section 16,301, Applicant Action Section 16.302. Pre -application Conference Section 16*303, Development Plan A. Preliminary Development Plan le Content a. General Information b.,Existing Conditions ce Proposed Improvements do Supporting Data 2., Standards for Review 3* Review and Approval a# Planning Commission Review be Effect of Board Approval c, Statement of Agreements and Conditions Be Final Development Plan 11 Content 2* Standards for Review 30 Review and Approval Section .16,304, Preliminary Plat of Subdivision: A. Content 110 General Information 2* Existing Conditions 3,o Proposed Improvements 40 Supporting Data Be Standards for Review CIO Review and Approval le Planning Commission Review 2 Board Review Ak 3. Effect of Board Approval 4. Statement of Agreement and Conditions I I r o ��. �.�, " I"....... Section Ao.305. Final Plat of Subdivision _ , A Content B. Standards for Review C. Review and Approval D. Recording Section 16.306. Condominium Plat Procedure Section f6.3070- Appeals Section 16.308. Fees Article IV Constructions Desi2n and Installation Standards for Im roveme nts Section 16.401, Improvements Summary Section 16.402,m Grading, Eros ion, Sedimentation and Dust Control Section 16.403. Right -of -Way and Subdivision Standards A. Public Right -of -Way 1. General Street Layout 2. Right -of -Way Widths 3. Minor Streets 4o Offsets 5. Cul -de --sacs 6. Street Names 7. Frontage Roadways 8. State or County Approvals 9. Easements 10. Improvement Specifications ll. Street Intersections 12. Sight Distances 13. Sidewalks 14. Bike Paths 8, Private Improvements 1. Parking Lets 2. Driveways 3. Private Streets n 4. Easements 5. Sidewalks 6. Bike Paths Co Subdivision Standards 1. Blocks 2o Lots 3. Setback Lines Section 16.404. Sanitary Sewer Systems A. General (includes connections to Village systems when on well and septic) B. Design (including appurtenances) Co Materials Permitted D. Construction Standards E. Testing and Inspection F. Sewer Services Section 16.405. Storm Sewer and Drainage Systems A. General 2 Section 16,406, Section 16,407, Section 16,408, Section 16,409 Section 16.410, 0 S f ' Be Design (including Storm er to,, Co Calculation of Sto m a Do Materials Permitted E* Construction Standards F. Testing and Inspection (including televising) - Water Distribution System A. Water Supply (includes connections to Village system when on well and septic) Be Design 1* Minimum Size 2o Method of Calculation: gop0m, (reference ISO Guide) 3* Gridiron or Looping. of Mains 4s Fire Hydrants 510 iia lwlPs 6. Booster Pumps (Reference BOCA Plumbing Code) 7. Appurtenances 80 Fire Protection System (including fire flow) C. Materials Permitted Do Construction Standards Eo Water Pressure F. Sterilization Go EPA Requirements Lighting A. Design Be Material and Equipment Specifications Co Installation Standards Do Location Eo Spacing Fe Testing Landscaping As Public is Requirements for Parkway Trees as Location be Permitted Species C* Planting 2. Inspection Be Private 10 Protection of Existing Trees 2. Existing Shrubbery 3. Required Maintenance. 4* Inspection Bench Marks and Markers Land Donation A. General 310 Dedication Criteria ill Park 2. School co Contribution in Lieu of Site . .. . . . . . .... ... D. Dedication and Fee Cri E. Density Formula Fe Site Preparation Section .16,411e Repair and Replacement of improvements Upon Resubdivision Section 16.412. Upgrading of Existing Off -Site Improvements Section 16.4130 Maintenance of Required Improvements Section 16.414. ON" Public Dedication of Improvements Article V. Improvement IA22roval and Acceptance Procedures Section .16.501. Approval of Design Improvements A. Required Drawings and Documentation B. Pre -construction Meeting Section 16*502, Inspection Procedures Section 1-6,503, Certification by Village Engineer Section 16e504* As -Built Plans Section 16,v 505 0 Acceptance of Improvements by Village Section 16,0506, Maintenance Guarantee Article VI* Permit Fees, Subdivision Improvement Security, Escrow Monies, Guarantees and Land Devel02ment, Permits 4 Section Land Development Permit Fee (covers plan 116.6010 review and inspection costs) Section 16,602, Curb Cut Permit Fee Section 16.603. Street Opening Permit Fee (by reference to Building Code) Section 16o604, Public Improvement Guarantees Section l6. X605 Private Improvement Guarantees Section 16.606. Refund of Permit Fees Article VII. Subdivisions Located Outside Village Limits Article VIII, 'Equalization Contribution for Connection to Pre - Existing NuniciDalIm2rovements NOTE.* Proposed Supplementation: 1. Procedural Guidelines 2. Fee Schedules 4