Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3192_001Village of R, snt Prospect MOUnt Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Well #17 DATE: November 6, 1981 ;N Attached is a letter from Baxter & Woodman relative to history of Well #17. In conjunction with this recommendation, I am attaching a purchase order in the amount of $8,200.00 which should be adequate funds to remove the well from the hole for inspectional and evaluation purposes. This cost will still leave us below the original $75,000 that the Village Board authorized. Pletcher Engineering has been requested to review our Well #17 file and the impact that this well. will have on our di-strubtion system. Ii rbert L. Weeks HW:lf Attachment WALMAR S. SUNDIN FRANK R. FAHBRI 0 V, C RGE F HECK WALTER H. JOLLIE OTTO L. LARSEN JEROLD A.BUCKI * ES DONALD R. SCHWEOEL FRANK L. WEL LVV En75 HOWARD E. RIECK BAXTER & WOODMAN, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 0678 RIDGEFIELD ROAD 0 CRYSTAL (AKF , ILLINOV, 60014 0 8154'591260 Mr. Herbert L. Weeks Director of Public works Village of Mount Prospect 11 South Pine Street Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056 November. 4, 1981 Subject: Mount Prospect - Well No. 17 Rehabilitation Recap and Recommendations Dear Mr. Weeks: As requested, this is a letter report on the progress of the rehabilitation of Well No. 17 as well. as recommendations for fur- ther action. In accordance with recommendations in our June 25th Water 5nrpl�y Well No. 17 Report, the existing Peerless lineshaft pump was re- moved from the well; the most potential productive area of the well's Galesville formation was "shot" with nitrogel in order to increase production; the lower Mt. Simon high chloride producing formation was successfully sealed;.the existing pump was remodeled, rebuilt, and reinstalled; and the rehabilitated installation was put into operation for test purposes and also for pumping to waste in order to lower the high chloride levels in the Galesville formation. During the latter operation, the rebuilt pump was operated for approximately 90 continuous hours with a starting rate of approx- imately 1,100 gallons per minute (qpm) and dwindling at the end to almost zero, at which time the pump was turned off. The water produced was considered to still. be,"too salty" for drinking pur- poses and from water level readings, it was determined that the well now had a capacity of producing between 800-1,000 GPM. The rea- son for the decreasing pump output was the deteriorati.on or malfunction of the pumping equipment. A conference was held between all parties on Friday, October .30, 1981, and it was decided that the pump -impellers would be reset. to 15/8 - inch clearance and then be run on Monday. -2 Mr. Herbert L. Week., -2- November 4, 1981 On Monday, November. 2, 1981, the impeller clearance was set by the Contractor to 9/16 -inch clearance and the well pump was started at 9:15 A.M. The pump initially produced approximately 750 GPM. At 12:30 P.M. the pump was producing approximately 630 GPM. A water sample was taken at that time. The pump was run until approximately 4:30 P.M. and then shut down. The following morning the pump Was turned on and a sample was taken after ten minutes of running time and then the pump was turned off because of apparent mechanical noise and erratic electric current readings. The first water sample had a chloride reading 1275 mg/l. and the second sample, 350-375 mg/l. The conclusions drawn from the work on the well and the pumping opera- tion to date are as follows: 1. The high chloride Mt. Simon derived water has been successfully sealed off and is no longer surcharging the Galesville sand- stone aquifer. 2. The static non -pumping water level has dropped from approximately 639 feet to 765 feet, a difference of 126 feet. This again in- dicates that the higher hydrostatic Mt. Simon aquifer is sealed from the well. 3. The original chloride content was 2900-3400 mg11 and now after approximately 98 hours of pumping it decreased to 350-375 mg/l., so it is expected that with a relatively short time of additional pumping to waste, the well's chloride content will be below the recommended maximum of 250 mg/1 limitations. 4. The development of the Galesville aquifer resulted in a well specific capacity of approximately Il gallons per minute per foot of drawdown. 5. The well did produce quite a bit of sand when pumping at a rate of 900-1000 GPM which would cause rapid wear on the pumping equip- ment. However, this condition was relatively cleared after the initial pumping test. 6. The above translates into a. 800-1000 GPM new usable well for the Village. Our recommendations are to instruct J. P. Miller to remove and in- spect the pumping equipment at an approximate cost of $8,000. This would enable you and your forces and Baxter & Woodman, Inc. to ascer- tain the damages to the pump equipment and what further actions are required. The depth of the well hole should also be nioasured at this time to determine the depth of sand fill.. Mr. Herbert L. Weeks -3-- November 4, 1981 If you have any questions, please call.. Very truly yours, BAXTER & WOODMAN, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 34a.J- X. F. R. Pabbri, FRF: j 1 81.222 cc: Mr. Weeks (3) 27-7 450 LEE STREET DES PuwmEm'ILL/mom6001a FLE7��������� ENGINEERING COMPANY o12'u*o-ssno November 6, 1981 Mr. Herbert L. Weeks Director of Public Works Village of mt. Prospect ll South Pine Street Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 RE: Well No. 17 Review of Status Our Project No. 40184 Dear Herb: Attached you will find a brief report concerning well #17 status and our cenommeodatioos. Briefly the conclusions of this ceEmzt are as follows: l. Procedures and methods used to develop this well are standard practices and procedures used to develop under- ground sources of water. ` 2. The pump bowls and impellers should be upgraded to stainless steel and the column pipe protected against coccosioo. We are aware that there is some concern over the total coot of the well but we feel the aJ- ditioual cost is warranted due to the high moot of pulling and rebuilding a damaged Pump. Also this is a critical well in terms of location and quantity of water vbiob it could provide to the water works over the next four years until cake Michigan water becomes the princi- pal source of water. 3- Based upon a uueage of twelve hours a day for the next four years the depreciation cost would be about seven (7) cents per 1000 gallons pumped, which is a very economical source of water. � / 27-8 4. Some blending of water from the well may be required with water from the distribution in the adjacent water storage tank until the well is flushed out. This should bring the chloride content below the maximum permitted by the State. Please let me know if you need any additional information or if we may be of further service. Yours truly, FLETCHER ENGINEERING COMPANY (—�James J. MuldowZy President z7-3 uSVIon AND COm0aNzS ON WELL NUme2B 17 VILLAGE Or MOUNT PROSPECT November 5, 1981, Fletcher Engineering Company 450 Lee Street Des Plaines, Illinois 68Ol6 Z98 -6531O Jame: J. mvIdonnc� pce:i(3 eo� Z7-4 NNEWWR Review information concerning Well timber 17 and recommend action to be taken by the Village of Mount Prospect. INTRODUCTION: Well Number 17 is located on the west aide of Elmhurst Road (State Rt. 83) just anuth of Comp McDonald Road The site also has a booster pumping ata�ino whic� pon�a ^a�cc fro,-, a^ � million gallon ground storage tuox into the Village distri- bution aYetem. This tank has been in use by filling from - the distribution system during off-peak hours and cepumped tbcu the booster pumping station into the distribution system during peak water uoeage. Therefore there are two independent segmeuto of the water- works on this site 1) The storage and booster Pumping station and 3) The well. The storage tank and booster Pumping station will be in use for a minimum of fifty (50) yeoca, The well is expected to be in continuing operation for at least four years and an a standby emergency basis for several yearn after Lake Michigan water is in use as the principal source of eater for the Village. we oudccnLaod the cost of the well, pumps, motor etc. has been as follows: J.P. Miller 1977 ` $ 288,449,96 J.P. Miller 6/2/91 7,591,50 J.P. Miller current repairs 48,198.44 Sub -Total Well $ 344,239.90 Baxter a Woodman, Inc. Est. 6.500-00 $ 350,739.90 We understand that currently problems bove been encountered during test pumping due to nood damagiog tbe bowls and im pelleca on the line abe[t pump during test pumping, - This sand is a common problem when u well has heeo blasted or directionally shot to increase yields and Ml be present for some time in the futuce, It is expected that a new be aftrz tbe Pump is pulled and inspected and that additional cost will be incurred. The new pump should have tbe ability to resist the effects of sand and chloride in Ube :ell water. Z7-5 Stainless steel bowls We would estimate that with a stainless steel $45,000. and impellers would be recommended. the cont of pulling the pomp, replacing Bump and re -installation would be Problems have been encountered in the efforts to bring this well on line. These problems have nothing to do with methods of construction or installation but rather with geological formations and the hazards of underground exploration for nater. Our review of the facts nucronoding the drilling and efforts to place into operation a producing well indicate that they were proper, based ogou our experience with deep wells. The options at this phase of the pcoopaa are as follows: l. Abandon the well and write off $350,739,90 2. Expend an additional estimated $45,000.00 to place this well on line. The first alternate is not practical because the additional expenditure of approximately lO% of the cost incurred to date should add a well to the system which will be needed during the next four years. The second alternative should be chosen and the coot written off over the oput four years. Bases upon a uweage of twelve hours a day, seven days a week for four years the number of hours of operation would be: 12x7x4x365 = 122,640 nca. At eight hundred (G,2,M,) the well discharge would be 800 G/M x 60 Min/Hr. x l22,640 Hr. or 5,886,720,000 GolInuu of water. The cost incurred to date of $350,739.90 and an estimated *45,008,00 to complete the well is a total of approximately $396,000.00. The coot per 1000 gallons would be $396,000/5,886,720 or $0.067/1000 gallons for depreciation during the next four years. We would also recommend that stainless oLepI bowls and im- pellers be rbooeo for the pump and the column pipe protected against corrosion due to the nature of the uutec and the sand problem. � 27-6 Some blending of the water from this well, in the adjacent water tank, with water from the diobibutioo system may be required for awhile to bring the chloride content below the maximum level established by the State until the well is flushed out. t0 Village of M- -int Prospect Mount P, t, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Herbert L. Weeks DATE: January 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Well #17 Attached is copy of Baxter & Woodman letter of December 28, 1981, to the J.P.Miller Artesian Well Compaiiy, which briefly goes into some history and the problems th,1L we are currently encountering trying to resolve them. This tatter was sent certified mail with reply being requested bolo re the end -of the first full week of January 1982. HLW: JM BAXTER 8, WOODAIAPq, Jh4C. j ( ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS Qz, T" it 1 " WAAMAR I SUNMN FRANK R FASBAJ GEORGE F. HECK WALTER H. JOLLIF OTTO L LARSEN JEROLD A BUCKLES DONALD R SCHVYEGEL FRANK L. VYELLYVERTS HOWARD E. R"K December 28, l9gi Mr. William A. McEllhiney, jr., Pre.W nQnt J. P. Miller Artesian Well Company P.O. Box 359 Brookfield, Illinois 60513 Subject: Mount Prospect - Well No. 17 Pumping Equipment Dear Mr. McEllhiney-, This letter is a summary of the conditions relating to the inoper- ative Well No. 17 pumping equipment at the Village Of Mt. Prospect. A Peerless lineshaft pump, 9 -stage, Size 14LD, Impeller Nos. 26341704, was furnished and installed by your firm in mt. Prospect well No 17 for the Village of Mt. Prospect. The pump was set at approxi- mately 1,000 feet and was rated at approximately 1,000 gallons per minute at 900 feet of total discharge head per furnished Peerless pung curve. The lateral setting was computer derived from Peerless Pump Company's printed readout sheets. The pump was operated for approximately 98 total hours before being completely shut down by Village forces on November 2nd because of apparent mechanical failure and erratic electric current readings. From the above, it was concluded that the pump had to be removed, disassembled at the site, and then inspected to ascertain damages and what further actions would be required. Upon directions from the Village, you proceeded to remove the pump and on November 23rd, we all met at the well site to witness the disassembly of the pump. Present, in addition to your forces, were Richard Allen representing Peerless Pump, Herbert Weeks and his staff from the Village Water Department, and myself. The disassembly revealed that eight of the impellers had had their shrouds worn almost completely away and the correspon6in,- _, surfaces on the bowls were rubbed down to such a degree that the sand 11-19s w -,-re worn off and the impellers had worn into the bowls proper. The other impeller had a loose taper lock bushing so it had been "runninc-, loose" and the outside edge was beaten inward. The pump shaft at the loose impeller was severely worn to where there had been a reduction of at least one-third diameter. The clearances between the impeller Mr. William A. McEllhiney, jr. - 2 - December 28, 1981, skirts and bowl rings "Acnced wear and the bot tam oft he impeller skirts were slightJy turned inwax.d. The bowl bearings, However, were com:Dletely worn. After the above inspection, it was obvious and subsequently agreed by all parties that the pump assembly would require complete replace- ment. You and Richard Allen then went over the computer readout sheets that were used for the pump lateral settings. it was then con- cluded between you and Mr. Allen that he would contact his main Mice and report back to you, You then stated to us, the Village and myself, that you would get back to us as to what actions you would be taking to replace the Ptnping equipment at this facility. It was stated to you that the Village would be- needing the well by early this coming year so prompt action on this matter was needed. Since this November 23rd meeting, you have not as yet produced a proposal of action to be taken in this matter. Numerous telephone conversations between all parties seem to have been of no conse- quence. Because of the latter, a meeting was called for December 21st at 10:00 A.M. at which time you and Richard Allen (if you thought necessary for him to be present) were to meet with the Village and myself for discussion and resolution. Your non -presence was unfortunate and resulted in the issuance of this letter. The above matter was discussed with the Village Manager, Mr. Burghard, and it was decided that this letter be written and that you be informed that the matter requires to be completely resolved not later than the first full week in january, 1982. Please confirm Your concurrence with the above by letter to Mr. Weeks and a copy to me with definite time and date. Very truly yours, BAXI'ER & WOODMAN, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 004.017 017 ;1*14, - J.'rank R. Fabbri FRF: ch CC: Mr. T. L. Burghard, Vil.].age !'c',nager Mr. Herb Weeks Peerless P,riip Company Mr. Richard :L. Allen Villa9- of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Director of Public Works ROM: Village Engineer SUBJE'CT: Northwest Highway -Lighting DA'TE: January 8, 1981 This reT--)ort is to trace the history of the lighting project on North- west Highway from Waterman Avenue easterly to Mt. Prospect Road from its inception to the present time and to discuss the implications of changing and increasingly more stringent criteria. The. costs associat- ed with these chances are tabulated at the end of the discussion. 2. At the initiation of this project, a determination was made by the Village's elected officials that high-pressure`` sodium lamps would be used to illuminate Northwest Highway as well as other commercial or industrial areas. A presentation by staff was made to the Legislative/ JUdiciaryCommittee discussing the project generally and how it was to be segregated into 3 contracts. The Northwest Highway lighting con- tracts dealt with (1) the westerly segment extending from Waterman Avenue (Station 587+70 to Central Road (Station 629450) , (2) the CeTitral ext.ending from Central Road (Station 629+50) to Emerson Street (Station 653i-70) and (3) the easterly seginent extending from Emerson Street (Station 653+70) to Mt.. Prospect Road (Station 698+50). The shoe box -type fixture was displayed and the construction features were highlighted. With the concurrence of the Legislative/ Judiciary Committee and the Village Board, the pr6j-ect proceeded. 3. The first formal submittal to the 1­11inois Dopartinent of Transportation (IDOT) for plans and specifications based on a 160 --foot s�aacing �,.fas made on August 4, 1.981 with the review on the submittal being received October 19, 1981. The review found thie plans unaccc,eptable, and another submittal would be required. A basic review comment was that the lighting level should be increased from 1.5 foot candles to 2.0 foot candles because Northwest Highway is not a Major Intermediate Roadway but rather a Major Commercial Roadway. To avoid a reoccurrence of using an incorrect lighting level in the Basis of Design, revised lighting pattern analyses at 130 --feet were obtained from a lighting manufacturer for this particular project and were submitted to !.DDT for review and comment November 12,198l. A telephone discussion followed with Mr. William Burt of the Electrical.. Section, IDOT indicating that no variation of the 111A.-iminating 'naineering Society (IES) criteria would be permitted, which in turn gas f011-OWE?d by a Meeting in Schaumburg on December 1., 1981. At this SUBJECT: �»n»rthwest HigY -Lighting (Coo,t) page / 2 meeting, it was noted that the parking lanes and deceleration must be included in the determination of overage lighting level. The results of this meeting are contained in a letter doted December 8, I981 from Mc' Stack, Electrical Engineer. Additional lighting pattern analyses were requested to determine the feasibility of modifying the mount- ing heights to 45 -feet and 50 -feet razhez than 40-±eet as contained in the original design. While both modifications would have satisfied !ES criteria, there is a practical and economical constraint that limits the mounting height to 40-feet. Additional lighting pattern analyses were requested evaluating ex- tending the Iumioaice farther over the road with the aid of a oast arm. Submittal of these latest revisions were made to zoOr on uaooary a 5, 1982 and have been approved t lOO-funt spacings. As the spacing was decreased, the number of poles and luminaires increases significantly, and aV,tbe number of luminaires increases, there is a proportional increase on energy costs. The accompanying Table A lists the length of each segment, the number of fixtures required the construction costo and the energy costs for various spacing for each of the three contract segments, specifically Waterman Avenue to Central Road, Central Road to Emerson Street, and Emerson Street to Mt- Prospect Road. By decreasing the spacing between poles from 168 -feet to I00-fcet, the original construction project estimated _tocost S266,000 has now increased co more than $400,000. Additionally, energy costs based on the present 40/KW-HR have escalated from $5,250 annually to $8,300 auoually, Maintenance costs for these street lights can be considered an-coximately equal to the energy costs at this Lime. ) 4 " � � �r -�'4 ;� _1�7 �h Z'� � L ". At, � � ? Dennis W. Valentine Dn;If CONTRACT NORISWEST HIGHWAY - LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION AND MrRG, COSTS TABLE A 160 -Feet Contract No, 1 4180 Feet Kazerman/Central 28 Fixtures 587+70 629+50 $98,000 Electrical Energy $1940/year Contract No.2 2420 Feet Central/Emerson 17 Fixtures 629+0 VD70 $59,500 FlEctrica! Energ17 $1170/year Emerson/Mt.prospect 4480 Feet 653+70 698+50 31 Fixtures $108,500 Electrical 1--.)E?rgy $2140/year TOTAT, 11,080 Feet 76 Fixtures $266,000 Electrical Engrgy $5250/year -S-PACING 4180 Feet 35 Fixtures $122,500 S2420/year 2420 Feet 20 Fixtures $70,000 $1380/year 4480 Feet 37 Fixtures $129,500 $2560/year 11,080 Feet 92 Fixtures $322,000 06360/year January 7, 1982 100 --Feet 4180 Feet 46 Fixtures $161,000 $3180/year 2420 Feet 26 Fixtures $91,000 $1800/year 4480 Feet 48 Fixtures $168,000 $3320/year 11,080 Feet 120 Fixtures 5420,000 S8300/year Village of ru as Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois RT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM : TERRANCE L. BURGHARD DATE : July 3D, 1930 SUBJECT HARRIS TRUST SUIT Enclosed are summonses served on the Village, the Mayor and Board, and various other officials.. Harris Trust, commonly known as Fanslow & Huntington, is alleging that we have conspired to violate their civil rights through protracted inspection and engineering objections. You may -recall that we have been entangled in a number of cases with Fanslow related directly and indirectly to their de-,,elopment. While previous cases.have been handled by Ross, Hardies, this civil rights violation is being * referred to IRMA because of our insurance coveragefor just these kinds of matters. You may also recall a recent opinion prepared by Ross, Hardies explaining a recent Supreme Court decision that concluded that a Municipality could be susceptible for damages for civil rights violations, commonly referred to as Sec. 1983. This is the first case to my knowledge that has been brought against a Municipality in our area subsequent to the Supreme Court ruling. Nevertheless, I assure you that we do have IRMA coverage in this -area and subsequent to the Ross, Hardies opinion, I had asked the attorneys to assure us of that coverage'in writing and they have done so. Martha Peppler, our liaison to IRMA, has already contacted the appropriate personnel and Our interests will be represented. TERRA_NCE L. BURGHARD TLB/cdf Attachments. cc: Ed Geick Martha Peppler Carol Fields- Village of nt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: R. J. Done , Police Chief FROM: Martha Fi-"eg>pler, Director of Management Services DATE: January 14, 1981 Re: Fanslow Civil Rights suit update Pursuant to Trustee Wattenberg's request far information on the Federal Civil Rights Suit filed in September by Fanslow, I contacted, the attorney handling the caseon behalf of I.R.M.A. Mr. Marvin Glink of Ancel, Glink, Diamond and Murphy, stated that they have filed a motion to dismiss the case and a support- ing brief; we are currently waiting for the Court to rule on that motion. At This time there is no plan for filing a counter -suit against Fanslow; Mr. Glink does not feel that there are legal grounds for doing so. I discussed with Mr. Glink the question of whether or not the claimant's attorney should have contacted the Village before filing the suit in consideration of legal ethics. Mr. Glink indicated that there were no legal or professional requirements to do so. The law says that we must either have been served with an intention to file suit, or the suit must be filed within one year of the alleged injury. Mr. Glink knows of no way to compel anyone to notify the Village in ad- vance of filing a suit against us. FEC -5 1981 LAW OFF, ANCEL, Gx_iNx, DiAmorD 8c '�IuRpi-iy, P. C. LoutsANCtL MARv, N J. CLINK RONALD M CLINK STE—ART H. M—moNo JOSEPH A. MURPHY RONALD S. C=PE ROBERT F. GRuNoN SAMUEL J. SXERMAN PETER M. RCSENTHAI. JOHN B. M J R P m Ey SANFORD M. STEIN PETER 1). COBLFNTZ MARY DENISE CAHILL GEORGE G. DAviosoN ADRIENNE LEVATINO-DONOGHUE KATHERINE S. IJANEGA Mr. Robert W. Swain Galagher Bassett Insurance Service Post Office Box 579 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Re: VS. Dear Bob: 160 Nowrl-i LASALLE- STREET CHicAr.o, ILLINOIS 60601 312/782 -7606 February 2, 1981 Harris Mt. Prospect Case No. 80 C 3865 Enclosed is a copy of Judge Grady's opinion dismissing this federal civil rights action. I will let you know whether plaintiffs file any post -judgment motions or decide to take an appeal from this dismissal. If you have.any questions or comments concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. JBM: a Enclosure IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, et al., Plaintiffs, V. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs have filed in this court a three -count complaint against the Village of Mount Prospect ("the Village") and various of its - agents under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Illinois Constitution. This suit follows closely on the heels of a similar suit plaintiffs have pending in state court. Before us is defendants' motion to dismiss. For reasons of comity and federalism, we grant the motion -1/ Plaintiffs are the legal owners of a development under construction in the Village of Mount Prospect. The complaint states that in August 1979 the Village issued a "punch list" of 42 items needing attention in order to bring the development into compliance with the building code. (Complaint, 1 17). Plain- tiffs maintain that it is the Village's usual practice to issue occupancy permits pending completion of such a punch list and that, contrary to this practice, defendants refused to issue occupancy permits for plaintiffs' development (Com- -page 2 - plaint, 1 18). In response to I the Village's refusal to issue the permits, plaintiffs sued the Village for declaratory and other relief in the Circuit Court of Cook County. (Defendants' Memorandum, Exhibit A). The suit alleged violations of the Due Process Clause of the Illinois Constitution Fourteenth Amendment, the (Art. -J, 5 2) and the local building code. The following day, the parties entered into a settlement agreement . and the case was dismissed "with prejudice." :nc7 the However, the Circuit Court'ref'tfd jurisdiction "for the purpose of enforcing Li tj�,T!�It,fgreemenl." (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A). terms of the.1 few weeks The settlement agreement did not end the controversy. A I later, the parties began arguing over the interpretation and scope of the settlement agreement and over the issuance of additional "punch lists." (COm- plaint, 1 21). In response to these further disputes, plaintiffs filed the instant suit, alleging that the Village's refusal to issue occupancy permits subsequent to the settlement agreement was the result of "a malicious conspiracy and scheme to harass and persecute plaintiffs . . . out of some improper ulterior motive unrelated to the condition of [the development] .. .." (Complaint, 1 29). As in its state court complaint, plaintiffs claim that this conduct violates the Four- teenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Illinois Constitution. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case before us on a variety of grounds Because we dismiss for reasons of comity and federalism, we do not reach the other grounds for dismissal urged by defendants. Although afederal court has the power to stay state court. proceedings under 5 1983, 'Mitchum _ m V. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972), "'principles of equity, comity and federalism, dictate restraint in the responsible exercise of that power." Cousin a, 463 F.2d 603, 606 (7th Cir. 1972). The principles -page 3 - counseling federal restraint are strongest in criminal and "quasi -criminal" pro- ceedings, Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1976), but they are not without application in purely civil matters. Juidice y. Vail, supra Trainor v' Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434 (1976). This is particularly true of "civil enforcement actions brought by the state in its sovereign capacity." Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. at 444. Although the proceeding initiated by the plaintiff in state court is a declaratory judgment action brought by a private party rather than an enforce- ment action by the state, it nonetheless involves a municipality's power to enforce its building code. In defending the case in state court, the Village seeks to vindicate important local interests in public health and safety embodied by its building code. Accordingly, the principles which counselled restraint in Trainor v. Hernandez are fully applicable here. As important as the Village's interests are in the present case, the "more vital consideration" in deciding whether to abstain is not the nature of the action but the notion of "comity," that is, a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971). In the present case, we believe that proper respect for state functions requires us to stay our hand. Plaintiffs submitted their basic claim to the state court and that court entered a final judgment, reserving jurisdiction to enforce that judgment. Interference with the state court's efforts to enforce its own order would "reflect negatively upon the state court's ability to enforce coristitu- -page 4- Huffman V. Purs,,��- 420 U.S. 59!21 604 (1975). Moreover, tional principles. over the matter, plaintiff has an since the state court has retained jurisdiction 401 U.S. at 43; jjufIEan Harris, T�Jra, adequate remedy in that court. X2uNerg,' r v* _118-- 516, 519 (N.D. -601; Hernandez V. FiLll, 471 F. Supp- V.- pursue. Ltd-, supra, at 600, Further, we can r 431 U.S. 434 (1977)- remand, Trainor v Hernandez 111. 1978), 2n Ke -v discern no "irreparable harm," both "great and immediate" which will befall abstention. supra, at 46. Plaintiffs our abs plaintiffs upon x2un . —1, —1 — originally entrusted similar constitutional claims to the state court and that court e in the adjudication of those claimS, has shown no lack of diligenc I at abstention is our proper course, and For these reasons, we believe th that course requires dismissal of the case. "Where a district court abstains from a pending state proceeding 50 as not to interfere with state sovereignty, the proper hrensfeld V. tephens' 528 F.2d 193, 200 disposition Of the matter is dismissal-' (7th Cir. 1975). is granted. Accordingly, defendantsT motion to dismiss DATED: ENTER:let u e raided states dated September 10) 1980, plaintiffs were 13y order of this court this motion to dismiss. They have not October 20, 1980, to respond to without the benefit of plaintiffs' given until We therefore rule on the motion w done so. thoughts. ANcEi., GiaNx, DIAMOND & MURPHY, P. C. LOUIS ANCEL MARVIN tL GLINK RONALD M GLINK STEWART H 1) L, -_M 0 ND Oosz)-H A. MURPHY RONALD S. COPE RoarnT E. r-RUNDIN SAMUEL 11. SHERMAN PrTrFt M. ROSENTHAL JOHN B. MuRPHEY SAD rORD N. STEIN PETER D. Cna,-E:Nr-z MARY DENISE CAHILL GEORGE G. DAVIDSON ADRIENNE LEvA-riNc-DONDGHUE KATHERINE S. IJANEGA Ed Hansen I RMA 4900 Main Street P.O. BOx 579 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Dear Ed: 160 Nowni LASALLE: STRZF_-r CHICAGO, ILLIN0113 60501 312/ 782-7606 February 10, 1981 Re: Harris Trust Savings Bank v. Mount Prospect I am pleased to report to you that the captioned case has been disposed of. On January 31, 1981, we received,a memo- randum opinion from Judge John Grady, in the federal court, wherein he dismissed the pending civil rights case for the reasons set forth in his opinion. Subsequently, we reviewed the matter with the plaintiff's attorney and through the cooperation of the Village of Mount Prospect, specifically Martha Peppler, the certificates of occupancy for the property in question were released by Mount Prospect. We also entered into a stipulation dismissing the federal case, notwithstanding Judge Grady's order, with prejudice and without costs or attorney's fees. This protects the municipality against any Section 1988 claim in the future. I am enclosing a copy of that stipulation also for your records. We are at this time closing the captioned file. Very truly yours, Very 4,N J. CLINK MJG/cd enclosures CC: Bob Swain Martha Peppler LAw DFP, ANzcEL, GLINR, DIAMOIN'D & MURPHY, P. C. IBO NoR-rfi LASALLE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 606D1 312/7a2-7506 3/30/81 Gallagher Bassett Insurance Service 4900 Main Street, P.O. Box 579' N2 5976 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Attn: Bob Swain Mount Prospect advs. Harris Trust 80 C 3865 2/ 2/81 Intra -office conference 2/ 3/81 Phone conference with plaintiff's attorney and Martha Peppler 2/ 4/81 Phone conference Peppler, review Judge Grady's decision, call to plaintiff's attorney 2/ 5/81 Phone conference plaintiff's attorney 2/ 6/81 Review stipulation, phone conference with plaintiff's attorney, to Martha Peppler, dictation, intra -office conference 2/ 9/81 Dictation 2/18/81 Phone conference with Lieberman 2/23/81 Intra -office conference 2/25/81 Appearance before Judge Grady 3-3/4 Ho ' urs at $65.00 per hour - $243.75 3 Hours at $75.00 perohour - 225.00 FEE: 6-3/4 Hours as broken down above. . . . . . . . . . .$468.75 -Y 4 CY A� ANC1--1_ Gy.axir, DIAMOND & .111URPHY, R C. Gallagher Bassett Insurance Service 4900 Main Street, P.O. Box 579 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 100 NoFui-H L.A SALL.E. STRZET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601 32/702 -751,36 February 23, 1981 N° 5810 Mount Prospect advs. Harris Trust 80 03865 -7 1/ 2/81 Phone conferences with attorneys for plaintiff and Village Attorney 1/31/81 Receipt and review of Judge Grady's memorandum opinion, dictation FEE: 1 Hour at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . $65.00 sa Gallagher Bassett January 26, 1981 invoice No. 5712 Page 6 Lombard advs. Joseph Mandarino 79 MR 315 12/18/80 Review of Appellate Court decision, dictation FEE: 1-1/4 Hours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 81.2 Lombard advs. Nelson LO 014 G 790279 12/31/80 Review of trial file in preparation for hearinu FEE: 1/2 Hour at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 Lombard advs. James Tracy LO/014 G 800260 —i� I f7'2-f/F6 evie ind opening of file, dictation .......... ­­ 1 1- 12/24/80 Review of file, initial facts investigation FEE: 1-1/2 Hours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.5 Mount Prospect advs. Barth MR 014 G 800478 127-2780 Phone conferehhe with Pc. 12/ 4/80 Travel, review files on itktersection improvements, Conference with Burghard, Peppier, trelvel v' 12/12/80 Phone conference with Keck 12/19/80 Phone conference with Attorn e, General's office FEE: 5-3/4 Hours at $65.00 per hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . 373.7 Mount Prospect advs. Harris Trust BO C 3865 ThoiT�j? with In e 66 n'f c ie�-- - - Poppler, attor,ey Mark Lieberman 12/31/80 Phone conference with plaintiff's attorney, village attorney FEE: I Hour at $65.00 per hour. . . . . . . Mount Pr— — Prospect adMatha Keel C - A, -tu-14l MP/014G 790577 > Y-�37/ 51'g -d R�j�jj '6-7-a. and - '6`p' e-H-In"g- 'file, dictation 12/9/80 Calls to plaintiff's attorney, preparation o dictation 12110180 Call to plaintiff's attorney 12/11/80 Prepare stip for filing 12/16/80 Call to Dottie Reed, intra -office conference 12/17/80 Dictation, research 12/22/80 Dictation, phone conferences, review file 12/29/80 Review answer of Chicago Title 12/30/80 Phone conference with Reed ) PY-Y( stipulation, 65. L< C/ FEE: 6-1/2 Hours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.!� Gallagher Bassett November 24, 1980 Invoice No. 5608 Page 7 mt. Prospect v. Clayton mP 014 P 8000007 YO-/. f--f-1-fe, demand letter to insurance agent FEE: 1/2 Hour at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.50 Mt, Prospect advs. Ginot 6,j c�* mp 010 W 800943 10/2%80. .... ......Receipt ­- -­'"....... . . ... o"T'copy of Buckingham's report, phone conference with Moeller 10/7/80 Conference in office with Peppler, Swain and Moeller 10/8/80 Research 10/9/80 Receipt of correspondence 10/31/80 Phone conference with Swain, FEE: 4-3/4 Hours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308.75 Mt. Prospect v. Groeninger MP 01 P 790408 P TO 1.0/8/80 -6-1ke-d- on"status of case FEE: 1/4 Hour at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.25 Mt. Prospect advs. Harris Trust 80 C 3865 10-/ rice with Peppler, intra -office conference i4.) - FEE: 1/4 Hour 1 at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.25 Mt. Prospect advs. McDermott q�& U4V MP 014 W 800562 10/7/80 . .. .. ......Conference" - --"— in office with Peppler, Moeller and Swain FEE: 1-1/4 Hour. at $65-00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.25 mt. Prospect v. Walters MP 010 D 800421 10/9/80 Review and opening file, dictation . . . . . . . . . . . FE: 1 Hour at $65.00 per hour. 65.00 advs. Boyce NI 011 G 800411 1U/27j80 , Call to Kohlerman's office re sidewalk, preparation of affidavit and correspondence PEI": 1 Hour at $65.00 per hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.00 Gallagher Bassett October 22, 1980 Invoice No. 5540 Page 14 West Chicago advs. Muldoon WC 013 G 790612 qT"S79,6- R�6-c e-iof motion to vacate order 9/17/80 Court hearing on motion to dismiss West Chicago from case, City dismissed 1/4 Hour at $65.00 per hour - $16.25 2 Hours at $75.00 per hour - 150.00 FEE: 2-1/4 Hours as broken down above. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 166.25 West Chicago advs. Tannenbaum IAC 010 W 800560 9/ 8/80 Receipt of correspondence and medical inztion 9/15/80 Attending Wheaton call, travel 9/16/80 Receipt of correspondence 9/26/80 Phone conference withY Nt rne�(13olo70 n re medical, dictation 2-1/2 Hours at $6 0 ur $162.50 3/4 Hour at $7 :00 ��ho u� - 56.25 FEE: 3-1/4 Hours as broken down abo,e . . . . . . . . . . . . 218.75 Wheeling vs. Newman W11/004 BD 800045 7 9/"-5 30 Phone -- ----- ----- conference with insu ance company 9/ 8/80 Call and dictation to BiIj 1� Black FEE: 3/4 Hour at $65.00per Zour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.75 TOTAL LEGAL FEES . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13,396.25 COSTS Buffalo Grove v.jj_c Re, yi2o,lds--- 9f29%£0 Xerox - 50 pp. (10 D 790249 Downers Grove advs. Ostrick-DG 016 W 790565 '--""-W—es7t"Sij-S`urb-an-- $,-40.90 Good Samar. 48.05 88.95 Lombard advs. Knicely-LO/010 W 790902 10/ 6/80 Mi -Te Records - Dr. Kirshan Nagal $31.00 . 11 0. Thaddeus Pierce 31.00 62.00 Lombard advs. Nelson-LO/014G790279 j%30%$0 Witness Eee- Audrey Ryan $22.40 David Dubig 22.40 44.80 Mount Prospect advs. Harris Trust-8OC3865 /0� P 9 p-,. 7 Po 6 19.35, //�/ Gallagher Bassett October 22, 1930 Invoice No. 5540 Page 8 Mount Prospect advs. Gniot 114010 W 800943 9/267§b ---- Phone -conference with Moeller, review of file, research, dictation FEE: 2 Hours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130.00 Mount Prospect v. Qroeninger MP/01 P 790408 9/ 3/'80' Phone —conference -with defendant 9/ 8/80 Call to Bob Swain re defendant's offer to settle i6<ne conference with Groeninger 9/80 Phone conferences with defendant and Gallagher Al Bassett 9/10/80 Obtaining copies of Gallagher Bassett's insta Yment agreement 9/16/80 Call to Bob Swain and Dottie Reed, dictatio 'to defendant 9/19/80 Dictation to Gallagher Bassett FEE: 4 Hours at $65.00 per hour. . . . . . . / . . . . . . . 260.00 Mount Prospect advs. Harris 80 C 386.5 ......... __7 �,S QW - §7-- Review of motion to dismiss, dictation,intra-office conference q/ 9/80 Phone conference with Attorney Barbara Baran re status 9/10/80 Phone conference with Judge Gra /' on our motion to dismiss, phon Icos office re briefing schedule nference with plaintiff's atty. 9/16/80 Research, begin preparation of7memo in support of motion to dismiss 9/18/80 Continued research, work on AM 9/24/80 Phone conference with defe7ant Van Greem re status FEE: 9 Hours at $65.00 per houl . . . . . . . . . . 585.00 Niles advs. Anzelmo N1/014 G 800241 /7 97-W7W —101165-1-p on statement from paramedic q/ 8/80 Receipt and review of Gallagher Bassett's investigation 9/16/80 Review of informatioln from Gallagher Bassett, preparation of answers to interroqlatories FEE: 2-1/4 Hours at $Q8.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146.25 Niles advs. Boyce NI/011 G 800411 9 Qjj--- of fill-/ ew and complaint, dictation, opening file 9/24/00 Preliminary vay.iew of file 9/25/80 Review file,/research 3rd party issue, call to Village, dictation of answer 9/26/80 Review and/finalization of answer FEE: 4 Hours Ik $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260.00 Gallagher Bassett September 22, 1980 Invoice No. 5459 Page 12 West Chicago advs. Tannenbaum wC/010 W 800560 --7'------- - —0"" -f-----.e- _F- ---i V 179bReceiptiettr,review, dictation of response to Solomon 8/11/80 Receipt and review of Dr. Buckingham's report 8/18/80 Receipt of wage statement 8/19/80 Review of file, intra -office conference FEE: 2-1/2 Hours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 162.50 Wheeling v. Desai WIJIO10 D 800064 67 i7ff-d 1 to Gallagher Bassett '--- 8/14/80 Calls to defendant re settlement 8/21/80 Call from defendant, will send in check FEE: 1 Hour at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $12,438.7 COSTS Barripqton advs. Roy Watson-BA/010 W 800617 e Recordv Service $ 14.80"' Downers Grove advs. Bulut-DG/014 G 790620 -5,i--p-p- - --------- -- - 7.65 Xerox Downers Grove advs. Wayne Prysny-800703 '7j�QjQO Ma -Te Record Service Glen Ellyn advs. '17-li-79 E/001 G 49 3 DeVr s -G, 0 ke—c�oi-(f Copy e r v i 7/30/80 DuPage Reporting 11 -%;,� Lep of pltf. 79 63 Glen Ell advs. Newell -GE OD _jyn 7%11%80 Record Copy ervic 7/14/80 Sontag Reporting/d- of Atwood Lombard advs. Nelson-LO/1014G790279 - '771- cord Copy Service 17-9b--- -- -- Lombard advs. Kuehna-LO/010 W 790942 ..-Rec - o rul. s -.1.1-1-- Mount Prospect advs. Harris Trust -8.003865 Northfield advs. Mercurio-NO/011 B/D_._80005_l . --, Xerox -,,--,3 West Chicago advs. Flores -80 L 509 Clerk, 12/ti Circuit, W1. County App Z�pp�/drance & Jury Demand 31,00 107.65 134.00 281.90 86.40 184.25 5.00 U A/ 39.30 4.50 67.00 Gallagher Bassett September 22, 1980 Invoice No. 5459 Page 6 Lombard advs. Kniceley LO/010 W 790902 8%'1-8'7'90"'--Review"--,"O-"-f,--subpoenaed records of Dr. Nagal and Dr. Pierce FEE: 1-1/1 Hours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 81.25 Lombard advs. Kuehne LO/010 W 790942 8/13i"0 Phone conference Moeller, Swain, Moller, Lebowitz, dictation 8/18/80 Receipt and review of wage statement,'dictation, report 8/19/",80 Preparation of settlement contracts, dictation to Lebowitz 8/28/So Dictation, for -warding check FEE: 4-1/4 Hours at $65.00 per hou'r . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lombard advs. Mandarino 79 M:< 315 O -Y3 7 vie, c.efendant's brief FEE: 1/2 Hour at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mount Prospect v. Clayton MP / 0 1, 4 P 944a4.0.0q 7 Receipt and review of file FEE: 1/4 Hour at $65.00 per hour. Yount Prospect advs. Gniot I-IP/01-0 W 600943 8/13/80 Picone-conferences with Moeller 8/14/'80 Receipt and review of records 8/19/so Review of file, opening file, dictation 276.25 32.50 16.25 FEE: 1-112 flours at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.50 Mount Prospect v. Groeninger MP/01- P 790408 0 Preparation o. s u rrnons 8 3/ 6/S0 Updated file FEE. 1/2 Hour at $65.00 per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.50 Mount Prospect. advs. Harris 80C 386�z) 0 ti 8- 4 7 --1 ...... Revie,,.,, opening file, dictation 8/ 7/' ""0 Review B/ 81/o Research, review file and state court file Phone conference Baran and Village, research re abstenic)n issue 8/14,:0 Phone conference Baran, research re motion to dismiss 8/11^" ,,, 0 Re,';earch, draft motion to dismiss 8/,19), 0 Work On T110ti011, to dismiss, receipt and review pleadings 8/20,,',',) Review and revise motion to dismiss 8/21" 0 Attendin3 court hearing, conference Vill'age attorney, f:i1e motion -11- /4 flours, at, $65. 00 ple'r, hour - 'x.163. 75 N r R G I DVF k N M E N 1 AL k-k'ISK a i,�,NA1JEMEN1 i�,LaLNL;Y 131 URE D' payment for s97Aces reridered cn 10-7-80 invoice 566)8 .... . . . ......... ... ....... .... PAY S=I-EN AIM F 'Amm M-2& TO 180 N LA SJ LE ST THE C21CAM IL 60401 ORDER OF 2.3 PAYABLE: THROUGH N 8— T 710 das E:a * 5032 cz- 13ALLAGHER BASSETT INSURANCE SERVICE CLAIM PAYMFZNTACCOLINT0. 17 NOT NEGOTIAEYLE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY 173 IUN Ic EZWN-U N ]' ER —E 0 - fJ i VENT /011 H........790625....._...._..Harris Trust/lAt. Prospeq�'. yment for services rendered Five hundred eighty-five dollars and 00%100«--------_-- ANGEL 01100-------- ANCEL CLINK DIIJ40HO & MURPHY 180 11 LASALLE STREET CHICAGO IL 050601 PAYABLE THROUGH 2-3 710 jd (3 --585.PD- 4601 5Y'E PAYMENT GALLAGHER BASSETT INSURANCE SERVICE CLAIM PAYMENT ACCOU NX NO. 17 NO N t 3LE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY 131 OCAIION COV. CLAIM NUM&ER ME OF INSU RED vp Paynent for services rendered '-Y hundred seventy-one and 60/100___,-,_,___,__- A CEL 0/100-----------ANCEL G-K-VIX DIA1103D S KORPHY 10 180 17 LAII-Ar.r.^ Si Zc?EZ THE �R[)Ep CHICPGO IL 60601 Of PAYABLE THROUGH 2-.31 C-1—TIL ILL—t, NA-r—IL T,11T r -11 —Y IP 0111-1 710 djd 4096 DATE 13ALLAGHFR BASSETT INSURANCE SERVICE CLAIM PAYMENT ACCOUNT NO. 17 N 0 T NE -1 A .. ......... ,OC Ay U -I N111C OF IWIIIIRKD IMNI, D"'We OF tw'qv TC' ilitll.t�o�4nt,,"i�roE,Yecc . ....... . ..... Payment for services rendered.' Invoice 4 5976. IRS 36-2763103 4 p....... PAY POUR aWORET) SIXTY L1IG-HT A1,W 75/ 70 THE A13CEL, GUNK, DIAMOND & FURPHY ORDER OF PAYABLE THROUGH NA,,..., S.- A- T-1- C -A.1 .1 Cl-... .75* GALLAGHER CA554rr INrARAr4C.E SERVICE CLAIM PAYMENT ACCOUNT NO. 17 2-3 NOT NE/1,30TIABLE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY 131 73 6048 �OCA7161` �NA.F. 0F NSUND 01.1 E j/qk:� III_ 790625 Aflaxris.Trust/Pit . Prospect fOR "?I PAY" ENT IRS 0 36-2763103 v Payment for services rendered for loss in July of 1979. Invoice 5810 PAY SIX3.'f FIVE AND NO/I 65.00* TO AY CEL, GLI -117K, DMMM4D & MURPHY THE r GALLAGHER BASSET "'T' INSURANCE SERVICE ORDER 0 F A I PAYMFNT ACCOUNT NO. 17 BLE. HROUGH 2-3 NA, -A, CA.. A- T -T C.. -Y .1 C.I.A.. 7-10. - 10 )'�,,IOZ NEGOTIABLE ak INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY i3i 790.625 HARPIS 0e Pagment for serivces rendered 3AY carrY—S--IYV AUD 50, -ANCEL GLINK D=40ND & MMPHY Ta 180 N 1ASADLE WE CHICAGO IL 60601 )RDER OF PAYABLE THROUGH ILL -111 N—o ... B.— — T.... C—A— 11 C. jW1 a .50* TWJ,PAYMf GALLAGHER BASsEL-r INSURANCE SERVICE.' CLAIM PAYME--NT ACCOUNT NO. 17 2-3N 7 OT N1 - T1 4\ D LE 710 131 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY L'I 6 0 0 cov, w". IDENT UAI� Op rx I 79�0625 i Harris Irtist/tIt. Prosp�ect E-2 10 i}0 Pay,-.-,ent for services rendered )Ay Hinetten dollars and 35/700_---.-------------.___-_,-_ _-_ .19.35-. .. AIJCEL 5/100----------------------------- AiNCEL CLINK DIAMOND & MURPHY io 1,80 11 LASALLE STREET ;THF CHICAGO IL 60601 'nfp OF PAYABLE THROUGH did GALLAGHER SA55ETT INSURANCE -13E.RVIr, 2-3 CLAIM PAY,1ENTACCDUNI;;,VD. 17 710 NOT NIF(-,Q L E 717 Ch 1" e1V�ly" _._ "011i0194 tP�nk tta10i8 rnroliad LItU02019a7P0sk �� ,`).a � i ' t for and . 46 F �r7 extended or estimated to be eytaudod upon rho levy of the 79 1 IN icT to provide procedures public notice 2 preceding year, exclusive of election costa, the corpneate 80 2 Dearing on tar and levy increases. • f 3 authority shall give public notice of and hold m public (]) -{ 4 hearing on its intent to adopt a levy in an amount which is 82 3 i+gel_tnnci�h�th�regC.12°L._tD:_State of 111-t 2SSy- 51 5 more than 105E of the oxtonsiana, exclusive of election r 83 ♦ �prr.'.rn ed in�?�e teneLn3 Aasembl z,;, - . , _ 6 costs# for the preceding year. The notice shall be published 84 7 in a newspaper of general circulation published in, each 5 Section L This Act shall be known and may be cited at 53 • 8 -county in which any part of such district Is located. The 05 6 "The Truth in Taxation Act'.' 9 notice shall appear no cote than to daps nor loss than 7 daps 86 7 section 2. As used is this Act, "taxing district" means 55 10 prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice shall be 87 8 any unit of local government, school district, or community 56 it no less than oue-eighth page in size, and the smallest type ea 9 college div. tr let, including hose tale units, authorized io 57 12 used sD all be eleven point and shall be enclosed in a black 89 10 levy ad valorem taxes. t 13 border no less than 1/4 inch vide. The notice shall not be 11 Section 3. The purpose of this Act is to require taxing 59 14 placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notice i90 1 2 districts to disclose by publi'eation and to hold a public 60 ' 15 and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall state 41 13 hearing on their intention 'to adopt an aggregate levy in ._61 16 in plait apd simple language: (t) the amount of property t 92 14 amounts sore than i05S of 'the amount of property fazes 62 17 taxes, exclusive of election costs, extended or estimated to 93 15 extended or estimated to be extended upon the larp of the 18 be extended on behalf of the taxing district for the 16 preceding year. 19 preceding year; (2) the amount of the proposed levy, 44 17 Not less than 20 days prior to the ado tioa Section 4. 7 P P 64 . 20 exclusive of election costs, for the current year. (3) the 95 70 of its aggregate levy, hereafter referred to as -levy-, the 65 21 percentage increase; and (4) the date, time and place of 46 19 corporate authority of each taxing district shall determine 66 4 22 the public hearing concerning the proposed budget and the '. 20 the amounts of son ey,xclunive of any portion of that levy 67 I 1 23 proposed levy increase. Such hearing sap coincide with the 47 21 attributable to the cost of conducting an election required. f , li 24 hearing on the proposed budget of the taxing district. 48 22 by the general election lav, hereafter referred to as 68 25 All hearings shall be open to the public. The corpora ':10 23 "election costs", estimated to be necessary to be raised by 69 {( � 26 authority of the taxing district shall explain the reason:, - 10 2n taxation for that year upon the taxable property is its 70 - 27 for the proposed increase and shall permit persons desiring 10 25 Sis[riet. € 28 to be heard an opportunity to present te,tiwony within such 10 26 section 5. until it has complied with the notice and 72 24 reasonable time limits as it chap -dote: dao. 27 hearing provisions of this Act, no taxing district shall levy 73 section T. if the final tax lest' resolution or ordinance 10 28 an amount of ad valorem tax which is sora than 105E of the 74 i .30 31 adapted is more than 105E of the amount, exclusive of 10 29 amount, exclusive of election cents, which has beet extended 75 32 election cost:., which van extended or is estiaatod to be 10 30 or is estimated will Da extended upon the lavp of tDe = 73 extended open the levy of the preceding year and is in exceso 10 31 preceding pear. ' 34 of the amount of the proposed levy stated in the notice 32 section 6. If the estimate of the corporate authority 77 j 35 published onset Section 6, or is note than 145& of Snth 10 33 sada as prodded in Section 4 Is novo than 105E of the aaonnt 70 I amount mod no notice was required under section 6, the 110 'a c 2 corporate authority shall give public notice of such action 111 3 within 15 days of the adoption of the levy in the nano aanvor 4 and fora and containing the same infocaation as provided is 112 S clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Section 6. 113 6 section S. The tax levy resolution or ordinance approved 115 7 in the mannor provided for in this lct shall be filed with 116 8 the eoenty clock in the manner and at the time otherwise 117 9 provided by lay. Is amount more than 1055 of the amount, 118 10 exclusive of election costs, which has been extended or is 11 estimated to be extended on the levy of the preceding year 119 12 shall be extended unless the tax levy ordinance or resolution 120 13 is accompanied by a certification by the presiding officer of 121 ` the corporate authority certifying compliance with the 122 'provisions of Sections 4 through 7 of this let. 15 Section 9. xothing contained in this let shall serve to 124 17 extend or authorize any tax rate in excess of the mazinu■ 125 18 permitted by law nor prevent the reduction of any tax rate. 126 19 Section 10. This ict takes effect upon its beeoiing a 120 20 law. j V_­ lifinoisDepartment otrevenue J. rHOMAS JOHNSON, Direcio, 1500 Soutin Ninth Street Springfield, Illinois 62703 MEMORANDUM TO: All Taxing Districts FROM: J.'Bornas Johnson I DATE. July 30, 1981 RE: Public Act 82-102; Truth -in -Taxation 'The Governor has signed into law Public Act 82-102 known as the Truth -in -Taxation Act. A copy of the Act is attached for your reference, This Act will first impact 1981 levies adopted after July 29, 1981, the date upon which this new law became effective. T lie provisions of the. Act affect all units of local government, school districts, and corrurninity colleges, including horne rule units, who are authorized to levy property taxes. The basic requirements of the law are as follows: *Arly district proposing to increase its levy more than 105% of its prior year's extension, exclu- sive of election costs, must publish a notice of at least one-ei.-Ilth page in size in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice cannot be placed in the classified section. *Tile notice shall contain the following information: 1) the aggregate amount of property taxes, exclusive of election costs, extended in the previous year, 2) the a.—regate amount of the proposed levy, exclusive of election costs, for the current year, 3) the percentage increase, 4) the date, time and place of a public hearing concerning the proposed levy increase. a The hearing must be no more than 14 days nor less than 7 days after the publication. If' the final levy ordinance adopted is greater than 105% of the prior year's extension, exclusive of election costs, and is in excess of the amount shown in the publication, then a notice of the adoption action must be made in the form and manner provided in section 7 of the Act, Within 15 days. No hearing need be held after this publication, *The levy is to be filed with the County Clerk under current provisions in the law. The Clerk rnay riot extend any amount greater than 105%, of the prior yeir's extension unless the levy ordinance is accompanied by a certification by the presiding officer of the corporate authority statina that the provisiops of the Trtith-in-Taxation Act have been rnet. Please refer to the specific sections of the Act for details on each of the above icquirenients. It is the Department's opinion that any district which had not passed its levy ordinance For 1981 prior to July 29, 1981, is subject to the provisions of the Act. Specific questions regarding the Act may be directed to the Departrnent of Commerce and Commun- ity Affairs, Office of Local Management Services at (217) 782-5884, W/attachment