Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3272_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 23, 1982 I. ROLL CALL Mayor Krause called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Public Safety Building, 112 East Northwest Highway. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Krause, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, Leo Floros, Edward Miller, Norma Murauskis and Theodore Wattenberg. Also, present at the meeting were: Fire Chief Pairitz, Police Chief Pavlock, Deputy Police Chief Daley, Police Commander Bopp, Deputy Fire Chief Hilliger, Fire Administration Aide Watkins and Director of Management Services Hedstrom. There were approximately seven persons in the audience. Village Manager Burghard arrived at. 7:54 p.m. II. MINUTES The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of March 9, 1982 were accepted and filed. III. 1982-198°3 BUDGET Pages 37 thru 48 of the tentative Budget were reviewed. These pages covered the Fire Department's data. Chief Pairitz.pointed out that Clothing Allowance, shown on page 37, is an item that is bid each year and that successful bidder is held to true bids throughout the year. It was also pointed out that Incentive Pay, shown on page 37, is for paramedic certification. It was pointed out that data shown on page 38 reflects funding of Administration and Support Capital using Federal Revenue Sharing Funds rather than General,Fund monies as in past years. Discussion shifted to decrease in fireman for 1982-1983 on page 39 (Fire Suppression). The explanation was that there was no change in the number of personnel but that these firemen had been shifted to page 43 (Emergency Medical Services) to show more accurately where the Department's efforts are concentrated insofar as these two functions are concerned. Page 41 (Code Enforcement) of the tentative Budget indicates that the Secretary I position in the 1981- 1982 Budget covers 50% of the slot and that the 1982- 1983 Budget will be adjusted to $7,000 to be comparable.' The question arose as to whether or not Police and Fire could use the same photo service in order to achieve better prices and it was agreed that this would be investigated. Provision for overtime on page 43 was discussed and that it represented proper staffing at all times including time for personnel being absent due to vacation, holidays and illness. Analysis indicates that overtime method is more economical; than additional staffing to compensate for last time and that records substantiating this are available for 'review. Information on page 45 (Communications) represents back up for the Communications system. The difference between a senior mechanic and mechanic as itemized on page 46 (Equipment Maintenance <and 'Operation) was defined as being basically seniority but that the senior mechanic did give some direction to;,the 'mechanic. Attention was then directed to Police Department., activities activities covered on pages 28 thru 36 of the tentative Budget. Chief Pavlock explained the goals as being changes :in the organization basically through retirements and that the tentative 1982-1983 Budget was developed by holding the line on personnel as well as total dollars Increase in animal impounding on page 28 (Administration and Support) is due"to'the fact that the daily fee has increased by $1:00 and.: that animals are kept for additional periods of time as a result of the Ordinance hangg., Biscus,sion of the Clo l ing Allowance on page 2 (Administrative and Support) and throughout the Department's, Budget was explained as remaltning at $350, but that this was one of two items o which uniot ne,g9tiation, could take place this year. Photo supplies covered on page 31 (Patrol and Traffic Enforcement) are bid and, if possible, will be 'coordinated with the Fire Department photo supplies`.; Bike,'Safety ety fide previously budgeted, in Crime Prevention* Public and "youth Services, page, 32, has been transferred to Patrol and Traffic Enforcement,page 30,' as a Police Assistant since all Police Assistants participate in this ;program. It was explained that the majority of Assistants' time and effort are devoted to traffic enforcement. -2- ��,: Discussion took place regarding School Counselors on page 33, Investigative and Juvenile. Program, concerning the job functions of the counselors and the fact that the School District reimburses for one-half the salary plus fringe benefits during the school year. Page 34, Crossing Guards, points out that this program will be funded through Federal Revenue Sharing Funds during fiscal 1982-1983. Page 35 covers Police Equipment, Maintenance, and Operation and it was mentioned that mechanics are primarily Public Works, Staff is analyzing unit price of gasoline as a result of gasoline prices trending downward, Chief Pavlock pointed out that the Budget reads that six vehicles will be purchased but that only five will be acquired as indicated by dollars planned for this item, The Chief also emphasized that the Department's five year plan schedules ten vehicles for fiscal 1983-1984. It was also pointed out that the PIMS Unit is shown on page 35 as "Computer Program ILEC . " Discussion of thePoliceDepartment's Budget was concluded by Village Manager Burghard explaining that Central Dispatch, page 49; will be reduced from $215,000 to $205,000 as a result of more recent Budget information from the Service. It was explained thatfiscalyear 1981-1982 will reflect thirteen monthly payments„ one of which is a prepayment thereby converting the Service to a prepaid basis. IV. LAKE MICHIGAN WATER Village Manager Burghard reported that John Nuveen ,and Company had submitted a preliminary report and that he had requested that the report be revised to make it clearer and easier to understand. He stated that the report covered the funding of Mount Prospect's participation in the systems either through Real Estate Taxes or a user's charge. The revised report is expected to be ready either by the March 30, 1982 Committee of the Whole' meeting or for the first Committee of the Whole meeting in April, 1982. Village Manager Burghard's'Water System Cash Flow Analysis memo was included with material distributed to the Mayor and Board of Trustees at this meeting, John Nuveen and Company's Analysis on this topic was attached to this memo. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT 1, WELL #17. Village Manager Burghard reported that the Village was still within budget, but that a cave- in had been experienced at ,1280 feet. The pump is .,, expected to be installed next week. 2. WELLER CREEK. Discussion took place regarding trees that were to remain as originally planned and that additional trees could also be planted in the future. Further discussion covered the status and definition of,a full-time resident engineer'. Engineers have given the opinion that paving block as planned substitutive will equal the performance of the earlier planned block. Completion of this project depends on the; weather; The Village Manager did state,that bids for Northwest Highway lighting will be let April S, 1982 and that possibly results of these can be submitted to the Mayor and Board of Trustees on April 6, 1982 at the first reading of the Budget Ordinance. 3. SIGN ORDINANCE. The draft of the Ordinance is planned to be ready at the end of April;, 1982. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at $:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, TERRANCE L. BURGHARD Village Manager TLB/rcw -4- MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MAY 25, 1982 I. ROLL CALL Mayor Krause called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Public Safety Building, 112 East Northwest Highway. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Krause, Trustees, Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, Leo Floros, Edward Miller, Norma Murauskis and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present at the meeting were: Assistant Village Manager Jay Hedges, Director of Community Development Kenneth Fritz, Village Planner Steve Park, Assistant Planner Teresa Zogby and Administrative Intern John Bowman and approximately eight persons in the audience. II. MINUTES The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of May 11, 1982 were reviewed and filed, III'. MULTI -FAMILY REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM GUIDELINES Mayor Krause briefly indicated that the staff had been researching possible multi -family rehabilitation loan program guidelines and indicated that a proposed program had been distributed with the Trustees' packets. It was indicated that staff was available to answer any questions that the Trustees might have on this Program. General discussion followed, initiated by Trustee Farley, regarding the conditions of the agreement listed as item 6 under the proposed Program. These conditions included, in particular, that in each structure to be rehabilitated approximately 20% of the units be reserved for low and moderate income tenants as defined by the HUD income limits in effect at the time. Teresa Zogby, Assistant Planner, stated that a provision of this type was required in order that the Program would benefit low and moderate income individuals as required of programs funded by Community Development Block Grants. It was then pointed out that the plan does provide that if any current tenants in eachunitmeet these financial guide- lines that they would satisfy this requirement. However, if less than 20% of current tenants qualify as low or moderate income, then the landlord would be required to submit a plan which would include reserving specific units for low and moderate income individuals as vacancies occur. Landlords would not be encouraged or permitted to force current tenants out in order to make room for low or moderate income individuals and specific safeguards to this effect are provided. Teresa;Zogby and Steve Park then explained thatlow and moderate incomewas defined as '80% of the median income in the Chicago metropolitan area. For a family of one, this would be an annual income not to exceed $15,250 per year; or for a family of four, not to exceed $21,750 per year. Landlords would have the option of using the Northwest Opportunities Center or other agencies to determine tenant financial eligibility for the; program. The Village of Mount Prospect, as required by HUD guidelines, contracts with the Northwest Opportunities' Center for this service. The contract for fiscal 1982-1983 beginning July 1, which is funded through Community Development Block Grant Funds, is in the amount of $8,500. Mr. Park then reviewed the provisions of the program that would require that the rent level for any year during the term of the rehabilita- tion loan may not exceed 90% of the fair market rent level established by HUD which is in effect at the time. The current fair market level for a one -bedroom apartment is approximately $345 per month. After general discussion, the consensus -of the Board was that staff should continue to review the program, and in particular, review pro -visions requiring reserved units for low and moderate income individuals. IV. BUSINESS REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM Mayor Krause introduced the program and indicated that staff had revised the Loan Program guidelines as a result of a lack of interest in the current Program. General` discussion followed and it was pointed out that the current program which has a,maximum subsidy of 6% for loans of five years or less and ;7% for loans up to ten years has not been sufficient to stimulate interest ;in the program. The current proposal, which was prepared by staff and distributed to ;Board members previous to the Committee of the Whole meeting, was developed after meeting, with representatives from financial institutions and the business community. This proposal provides a maximum loan up to $25,000 and the Village would`' subsidize' one-half of the interest. The Village has available $125,0010 through its Community Development Block Grant Funds for this Program. Loans would be available to owners or tenants of buildings and all rehabilitation projects would be required first to correct any existing, health and safety code violations. Beyond this, the loan could be used for any repair, remodeling or rehabilita- tion to an existing business structure, exterior and/or interior. New construction, or construction of additions to existing structures, would not be permitted. The improvement would be limited to the structure itself and could include such elements as roofs, ceilings, floors, facade, electrical/pluming,, heating and central cooling, painting and structural' work. It was pointed out that -2- defaults on loans would be the responsibility of the bank involved and would in no way become a liability to the Village of Mount Prospect. In determining interest in the program, approximately 100 surveys were sent out to tenants and owners with a 30% response rate. The consensus of the Board was to concur with the staff recommendations and staff was directed to work with the Village attorney to amend our current code to provide for this assistance. V. SIGN ORDINANCE Director of Community Development Kenneth Fritz was asked to review, in general, the proposed Sign Ordinance. Mr. Fritz 'indicated that this recommendation was a result of many sessions of the Sign Subcommittee, which represented the Village Planning .Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Downtown Business District Development and Redevelopment Committee and the Chamber of Commerce. This ordinance proposes that land use categories be established based on common sign needs. These categories would include residential, office/institutional, industrial, commercial and,undeveloped. Thus, sign standards are specified for eachland use category rather than by zoning districts. An incentive approach to sign regulation is proposed and would provide bonuses for certain design elements. For example, the area of a sign may be increased by 15% for free-standing signs which include landscaping at the base of the sign, and signs which are limited to two colors would receive bonuses as well. Mr. Fritz went on to explain that billboards would be permitted only in undeveloped areas and that the current permitted size of 300 square feet has been reduced to 150 square feet. It is believed that total prohibition of billboards within the community might be challenged in court. An amortization schedule is provided within the proposed ordinance, and would allow for up to five years for the depreciation of existing signs and then a one-year grace period. Additionally, if there is evidence of a longer depreciation period, exceptions will be considered. An inventory of non -conforming and illegal signs is in progress, and will assist in projecting the impact this ordinance will have on existing signs. While the inventory will be ongoing some observations should be available prior to final Board action on this ordinance. Following discussion, the consensus of the Village Board was to direct that a special public hearing be held on the proposed Sign' Ordinance and that representatives of the business community be notified and invited to participate. -3- VI. MANAGER'S REPORT - The Assistant Village Manager indicated that the WELLER CREEK PROJECT was progressingas planned. All necessary fill has been brought into the site, and it is believed that no further cost overrun's will occur. The program is anticipated to be completed in approximately 30 days. Mr. Hedges also indicated that a staff Task Force has been developed to begin research on a proposed LANDLORD/ TENANT ORDINANCE and that staff will be visiting: other communities in the near future to observe existing programs. A status report will be made back to the Board in approximately 60 days. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS There were no -citizens which wished to be heard at this time. VIII . ADJOURNMENT The Committee -of the Whsle meeting adjourned at approximately 9`:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JAY R. HEDGES Assistant Village Manager JRH/rcw'' -4- Village of Mount Prospect �w Mount Prospect, Illinois`= INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TERRANCE L. BURGHARD, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: RONALD W. PAVLOCK, CHIEF OF POLICE LAWRENCE A. PAIRITZ, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: EXEMPT RANK ORDINANCES DATE: JUNE 3, 1982 During the past several months the police department has been going through several organizational changes directed at placing the management responsibilities of the department in exempt rank positions. The purpose of this reorganization is to move more sworn personnel out in the field and working where citizens receive the greatest benefit. These proposed ordinances changing the exempt rank structure of the department are merely a coupling of past ordinances recently authorized by the Mayor and Board of Trustees relative to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners Rules and Regulations. :The BOFPC ordinances provide greater authority for the Fire and Police Chiefs in working with the Commission as it pertains to demotion, promotion, hiring and termination. The proposed ordinances as attached will further enhance the management staff of the Fire and Police Departments by allowing the Chiefs, with the advice and consent of the Village Manager, to replace vacancies with competent personnel from either inside or outside the departments. POLICE DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION As you know, recently the Police Chief's office, in agreement with your office, held an Assessment Center attempting to fill four vacant Commander positions in the department. These vacancies were created through the retirement of several command personnel. However, the examination process provided only one individual that showed the competencies to handle the Commander position. The Commander position is a position created to eventually eliminate the civil service Lieutenant position. This transitional reorganization will allow for one remaining Lieutenant as that person has not retired or resigned at this time. Based upon this Commander Assessment Center we are proposing we restructure the police department utilizing the proposed exempt ranks ordinances for future career development within the department, as well as recruiting a competent Deputy Chief from outside the department. Personnel from within the department will be allowed to compete, but the results of the Commander testing are indicative of the need to also recruit from outside the present personnel. This process can be completed within the present budgetary and personnel authorizations. June 4, 1982 Page -2- This approach would enhance the police organization by providing for a Deputy Chief of Support Services (Records, Property and Research and Development), and a second Deputy Chief in charge of Field Services (Patrol, Investigation and Crime Prevention). It is the Police Chief's intention to develop people from within the organization to eventually assume the four Commander positions, three of which are presently vacant, and eventually eliminate the Lieutenant's position and all Watch Commander positions. This would move approximately six supervisory personnel out into the field where they can be more effective. The ordinances will allow for a transitory organization that will eventually conclude into a solid and professional police organization that allows for positive management, as well as effective street supervision at optimal cost effectiveness. As mentioned earlier, this new proposed ordinance if acceptable, coupled with changes authorized by the Mayor and Board of Trustees relative to the BOFPC, will create more efficient Fire and Police Departments, authorizing outside expertise personnel, as well as develop tremendous potential within current staff. Thank you for your consideration. Ronald W. Pavlock Chief of Police RWP: j h Attch. 2 Lawrence A. Pairitz Fire Chief 'VVillage of, ount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER TERRANCE L. BURGHARD FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JUNE 4, 1982 SUBJECT: SELF-FUNDED HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONVENTIONAL LIFE INSURANCE RECOMMENDATION At the direction of the Village Board, the staff has solicited final quotes for self -funding health insurance and conventional life insurance. We recommend contracting with Fort Dearborn Employee Benefit Administrators, the low bidder. Their fixed costs are $39,037 and guaranteed for two years. Annual expected net cost to the Village is $253,646 and maximum net costs are $321,788., This proposal includes the new benefits previously discussed. Compared to anticipated costs of $363,000 for fiscal 1982-1983, if we were to remain with Connecticut General and our current benefit level, we anticipate first year savings with Fort Dearborn to be between $42,000 and $110,000. Quotes were received on Monday, May 24, from six companies which quoted through three different brokers. These proposals have been analyzed and the finalists visited personally to review their operations. References have been checked as well as the ratings of the carriers. The Finance Commission received all of the above information at their meeting of June 3 and will report to the Board prior to the Committee of the'Whole meeting on June 8. Their consensus, however, was in support of both the concept of self -funding and accepting the low bidder, if qualified. The final decision came down to Fort Dearborn and Gallagher Bassett. Fixed costs are only $500 more with Gallagher Bassett, however, the Village would assume an additional $15,000 of potential liability with Gallagher Bassett because their attachment point is higher for aggregate stop loss coverage. Fort Dearborn has also guaranteed their administrative charges ($9,687) for three years, and life insurance stop loss premiums for two years. Gallagher Bassett's proposal is guaranteed for only one year. Because we have had no previous experience with Fort Dearborn, we have reviewed their operation extensively and find no indication of future or past problems. Mr. Duncan, who acted as our broker, and representatives of Fort Dearborn will be available on June 8 to respond to questions from the Village Board. JAY R. HEDGES JRH/rcw C: Director of Management Services John Hedstrom "zj MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE �9§111tom I. ROLL CALL Mayor Krause called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Public Safety Building, 112 East Northwest Highway. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Krause, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, Leo Floros and Theodore Wattenberg. Absent from the meeting were Trustees Edward Miller and Norma Murauskis. Also present at the meeting were Village Manager Terrance Burghard, Assistant Village Manager Jay Hedges, Director of Management Services John Hedstrom, Director of Health Services Patrick Luehring and approximately five persons in the audience. II. MINUTES The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of April 27, 1982 were reviewed and filed. III. REVIEW OF HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE PROPOSALS The Village Manager briefly reviewed the work that had been performed by Assistant Village Manager Hedges and Director of Management Services Hedstrom, Mr. Hedges reviewed for the Committee of the Whole that subsequent to the Village receiving a notice from Connecticut General of a 19% rate increase, the Village approached its broker, Arthur J. Gallagher, Inc., and instructed them to seek price quotes from the market for conven- tional insurance. Additionally, the staff concluded that it was time again to look at self-insurance proposals and this work was initiated. Because Arthur J. Gallagher is our current broker and since they also offer self-insurance programs, the Village staff contacted another broker, Michael Duncan,, so that there would be competitive price quotes for self -funding proposals other than those submitted by Arthur J. Gallagher. The total cost to the Village for conventional and self -funding insurance systems is included in the table below: CONVENTIONAL EXPECTE] COST MAXIMUM COST ING SELF -FUNDING ITS, NEW BENEFITS, )l $329,033 36 $332,711 Q $346,272 36 $315,628 it insurance, new Mr. Hedges pointed out that in preparing to solicit the price quotes, the Village also determined that there was a need to review our existing benefit levels and the Village Manager instituted an Employee Insurance Review Committee made up of employees from each Department who reviewed our current benefit levels and the estimated costs for benefit changes. The Employee Committee then recommended certain benefit level changes and these benefit level changes are reflected only in the self - funding price quotes. The conclusion, at this point-, is that the lowest bid from the conventional insurance market is from Kemper in the amount of $316,000 and the lowest maximum quote for self -funding is from Fort Dearborn in the amount of $315,000. It is important: to note that the price quote from Fort Dearborn at $315,000 includes the improved benefit level and is the maximum, exposure that would be placed upon the Village. At the expected loss level, the Fort Dearborn price quote is $247, ' 000. The maximum level is that point after which traditional stop -loss insurance coverage would protect the Village for any expense beyond that figure. Mr. Hedges then reviewed the changes in benefit levels including improvement of the deductible and the inclusion of a stop -loss of $500 per family, the institution,of a $2,000 surgical schedule, the inclusion of maternity costs usual and customary as is required by Federal law, placing the limit on diagnostic and x-ray and lab costs at $200 per incident, improving the hpspital/doctor visits from current level of $5.00 per visit to a maximum of $20.00 per visit, the inclusion of doctor/office visits at $10.00 or 50%, the inclusion of out-patient psychological care at 50%, and permitted radiation therapy at unlimited visits. -2- CURRENT SELF -FU] BENEFITS NEW BEN] Kemper $316,569 Blue Cross $332,236 $260,� Connecticut General* $363,373 Occidental $363,819 Equitable $453,800 Gallagher $281,, Reed Stanhouse $273,_ Fort Dearborn $247,1 "Connecticut General's quote for conventioi benefit level is $471,857. COST MAXIMUM COST ING SELF -FUNDING ITS, NEW BENEFITS, )l $329,033 36 $332,711 Q $346,272 36 $315,628 it insurance, new Mr. Hedges pointed out that in preparing to solicit the price quotes, the Village also determined that there was a need to review our existing benefit levels and the Village Manager instituted an Employee Insurance Review Committee made up of employees from each Department who reviewed our current benefit levels and the estimated costs for benefit changes. The Employee Committee then recommended certain benefit level changes and these benefit level changes are reflected only in the self - funding price quotes. The conclusion, at this point-, is that the lowest bid from the conventional insurance market is from Kemper in the amount of $316,000 and the lowest maximum quote for self -funding is from Fort Dearborn in the amount of $315,000. It is important: to note that the price quote from Fort Dearborn at $315,000 includes the improved benefit level and is the maximum, exposure that would be placed upon the Village. At the expected loss level, the Fort Dearborn price quote is $247, ' 000. The maximum level is that point after which traditional stop -loss insurance coverage would protect the Village for any expense beyond that figure. Mr. Hedges then reviewed the changes in benefit levels including improvement of the deductible and the inclusion of a stop -loss of $500 per family, the institution,of a $2,000 surgical schedule, the inclusion of maternity costs usual and customary as is required by Federal law, placing the limit on diagnostic and x-ray and lab costs at $200 per incident, improving the hpspital/doctor visits from current level of $5.00 per visit to a maximum of $20.00 per visit, the inclusion of doctor/office visits at $10.00 or 50%, the inclusion of out-patient psychological care at 50%, and permitted radiation therapy at unlimited visits. -2- After some general discussion on the part of the Committee of the Whole, the administration was directed to pursue the self-funded concept, to work closely with the suppliers of self-insurance, to include the new benefit levels and to review the matter with the Finance Commission. The administration should work with dispatch so that the new program can take effect on July I of this year. Trustee Wattenberg requested that the Village staff contact our auditors, London Witte, to see if they can include some claim audits on IRMA in their proposal for this year's audit. IV. LANDLORD/TENANT ORDINANCI Mayor. Krause introduced the subject stating that she has had numerous contacts from tenants in the community indicating there is a need for the Village to do more inspections of apartment units and to institute some policy toward the mediation of disputes between landlords and tenants. On the first matter, the Mayor pointed out that there are slightly in excess of 5,000 multi -family dwelling units in the community which represents a good 20% of our population. The current Ordinances do not permit, except by invitation, the inspection of individual apartment units and the Village has witnessed over the years some deterioration in buildings externally and we can presume that similar deterioration is occurring on the inside of these units. The staff's report submitted with the Agenda pointed out that current staff efforts are intended to inspect the common areas and the building exteriors and if the Village were to institute a program of inspecting the interior, of the units, then some staff addition would be necessary. This staff addition could be funded through a licensing procedure whereby the apartment owner would pay a fixed fee per year per apart- ment unit. In this way, this program would be funded essentially by the clientele being served by the program. The Committee of the Whole agreed that more work needs to be done in the area of maintenance of apartment buildings and units and that the staff is to prepare the necessary research and program outline together with the necessary Ordinance changes to accomplish this level of inspection. It was reported by,the Village Manager that at least one additional inspector would be needed because of the volume of work anticipated. The second part of the proposal being considered by the Committee of the Whole was that, in relationshipto the mediation of landlord/tenant disputes. Mayor Krause reviewed the Evanston Ordinance that had been distributed to the Committee of the Whole pointing out the requirements of the Ordinance including tenant responsibilities, landlord responsibilities and the right of the municipality to file a civil action, against either party for failure to comply with the Ordinance. The `Village Manager' pointed out that currently; when tthese disputes between landlords and tenants arise," the Village has no legal authority to intervene in the matter and the administration is left with the option of ignoring the situation or instructing either party to go to court. If the Village became involved with the .landlord/tenant' Ordinance, there would again be the need for some staff, at least 'part-time in the beginning and depending upon the workload perhaps full-time. Trustee Floros inquired as to the degree of landlord protection that would be included in the Ordinance to assure the tenants fulfill their obligations. Mayor Krause responded the if a tenant is not paying the rent that the landlord can usually get a court date within five to ten days to facilitate eviction notices and proceedings. After some further general discussion, it was the general' consensus on the Committee of the Whole that the staff proceed on research of the landlord/ tenant Ordinance;, contact communities with similar Ordinances to study their procedures, the frequency of civil actions ;and the costs for administering the program. The Committee of the Whole also reiterated that this program should be self -funding and payable through license fees placed against the apartment ownercollected from the apartment tenants. Village Manager indicated that he would notify the real estate and landlord insterest groups and hold some administrative meetings with them so that they would be well aware of the intentions of the Mayor and the Board. Mr. Gobill, of the Alpine Apartments, was in the audience and indicated his support of the direction being taken by the Board;. V. MANAGER'S REPORT The Village Manager indicated that he had received information earlier in the day indicating that there would be some cost overruns for the WELLER. CREED IMPROVE- MENT PROJECT. While the administration has no final recommendation to make before the Committee of the Whole, it ,is anticipated that the matter will be on the -4-, Agenda for May 18. Apparently what occurred is that since the preparation of the plans that really date back to 1978, there has been sufficient erosion beyond what was expected to require additional clay soil to be brought in to stablize the banks. It appears that the contract addition will be in the neighborhood of 12%, or $37,000. While there are sufficient funds in the project account to cover this expense, the Village Manager requested more time to study the proposal of the contractor and to have our consulting engineer verify quantities and figures. VI, ANY OTHER BUSINESS Mrs. Irene Steffen, 253-2284, presented additional petitions to the Mayor and the Board opposing the inclusion of water costs on the property, tax. The Committee of the Whole assured Mrs. Steffen that when the matter is further considered by the Mayor and the Board, that she would receive a telephone call from the Village Manager's office so that she can personally be invited to any subsequent meeting. VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION Trustee Wattenberg moved and it was seconded by Trustee Arthur to go into an Executive Session to discuss land acquisition and labor negotiations. Voting in favor of the motion were Trustee Arthur, Trustee Farley, Trustee Floros, Trustee Wattenberg and Mayor Krause. The Executive Session began at 9:07p.m. VIII.ADJOURNMENT The Executive Session concluded at 9:39 p.m., and the Committee of the Whole immediately adjourned. TLB/rcw Respectfully submitted, TE'1,'J,,ANG'E- L, BURGHARD Village Manager -5- M PROPOSED GUIDEIII..:JES MOUNT PROSPECT MULTI -FAMILY REHAB I LITATION LOA!'l "_'[OGRAPI 1. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE: Direct loan to the property owner(s) from Village Community Development Block Grant funds, administered by a local bank. Loan payments are to be made at monthly intervals. The loan will be secured by a second mortgage (junior lien) on the property. The loan amount will be placed in an account at the administering bank and transferred directly to the contractor upon completion of the rehabilitation project. 2. AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE: Maximum loan amounts are: for a structure of 2-5 units, $20,000; for a structure of 6-8 units, $30,000; for a structure of 9 or more units, $40,000. Total funds available in 1982: $120,000. An owner may apply for loans for rehabilitation of more than one structure. If demand for loans exceeds the available funding the Village will determine priority. 3. TERMS OF LOAN: Interest rate - 70. Length of loan - maximum from 5 to 10 years at the discretion of the Village upon consul- tation with the administering bank. An administration fee charged by the bank, which will include a credit report, title search, mortgage recording, and clerical time will be paid by the borrower at the time of loan closing. In the event the loan is not closed. the borrower is responsible for all administrative c'o'sts incurred by the bank up until that point. No additional loan origination fee will be charged by the bank. 4. ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS: All health and safety code violations must be corrected. Eligible improvements to the structure or unit include such things as new flooring, roof, plumbing, wiring, structural repairs, windows, insulation, awnings, painting, plas- tering, exterior cleaning, heating systems, enlargement of the size of units, and smoke detectors. Up to 5% of the maximum loan amount for the structure size may be used for grading, landscaping, paving, or other approved improve- ments which are not part of the structure itself. The Village will work with the owner to determine what improvements are required by code and what others are acceptable. A detailed list and/or design plan for all improvements must be submitted to the Village for approval with the loan application. Ineligible improvements include barbeque pits, freestanding kitchen appliances, outdoor fireplaces, swimming pools, and television antennae. 5. CONTRACT AGREEMENT: The borrower must sign an agreement with the Village setting forth certain conditions which will be in effect for five years. If the loan is repaid within the five year period, the conditions still remain in effect until the end of that period® The borrower may not convert the units to condo- minium ownership during the five year period.. If the structure is sold. during that period, the new owner must agree to abide by all terms of the agreement for the remainder of the period. After the five year period, the loan must be paid. in --full at the time of sale of the structure. 6. CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT: During the five year period, the borrower must: __ In each structure rehabilitated, the following number of units are to be reserved for low- and moderate -income tenants as defined by the HUD income limits in effect at that time. Structure size Reserved units 1-5 units l 6-10 units 2 11-15 units 3 16-20 units 4 - Existing tenants whose income falls within. these limits may be used to fulfill this requirement. Income figures for existing tenants shall be provided by the owner with the loa.n. application to the satisfaction of the Village. - If a sufficient number of units are not already occupied by low -moderate income persons at the time of the loa.n., and. as vacancies occur, the owner is responsible for obtaining income - eligible tenants. The owner may contact the Northwest Opportunity Center to obtain the names of income -eligible potential tenants. The owner is not required. to accept an applicant from this list. If the tenant is not from this list, however, the owner must submit to the Village income verification for the tenant. - If a. sufficient number of units are not already occupied by low -moderate income persons, and. as vacancies occur, the particular unit(s) to be reserved will be determined by the owner and approved. by the Village. - The rent level on the reserved. unit(s) must remain at the current level for the first year and not increase by more than 3% in any one year for the five year period., for a total increase of not more than 12%. If the unit is vacant, the initial rent level must be the same as or below the level for a comparable occupied. unit in the structure. Tri no case may the rent level. for any year exceed 90% of the fair market rent level established by HUD which is in effect at that time. If the rent level for the unit is already at 900 of the fair market rent, it will be frozen at this level -2- until such time as the fair market level is revised. If the rent level is above 900 of the fair market level, it will be dropped to this level. If fair market level is no longer established by HUD, the Village will determine what the fair market rent level shall be. - The rent level on the remaining units in the structure must remain at the current level for the first year and not increase by more than 5% in any one year from the current level for the five year period, for a total increase of not more than 200. - The owner must be willing to consider potential tenants who hold Section 8 certificates for any unit in the structure. Section 8 certificate holders will be referred to the owner from time to time by local housing agencies. owners will not be required to maintain any fixed number of Section 8 tenants at any time; however, periodic reviews will be conducted to ensure that certificate holders are being considered for vacancies. - Existing tenants must be guaranteed the right to renew their leases for the five year period unless there is an eviction under the State laws of Illinois. - The Northwest Opportunity Center will act as arbiter/mediator in case of dispute between the owner and tenants under provisions of this agreement, unless this is provided by the Village under a local ordinance. - The owner must maintain the property and the improvements added under the loan in good condition for the five year period, to the satisfaction of the Village. 7. For all rehabilitation loans under this program, federal wage provisions and labor standards apply. Prevailing wage rates must be paid to all workers. The Village will work with the owner and contractor to ensure that these provisions are followed. An informal bidding procedure will be followed in selecting con- tractors for work on the rehabilitation project. The Village reserves the right to approve the selection of contractor. 8. Contractors will be paid directly from the bank following final inspection and approval by the Village and upon presentation of waivers of lien. Progress payments will be permitted only on jobs of $7500 or more. -3- 1. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION with potential applicant; explanation of program; indication of applicant interest in program. 2. PRELIMINARY INSPECTION of property; discussion of what im- provements would be required and what owner desires. 3. WRITE-UP of description of work, .pon agreement between Village and owner. 4. FILING OF APPLICATION with Village. Application includes tenant income, rent levels, proof of ownership, plat of survey, insurance coverage, completed bank loan application with financial information, detailed description of improvements, and at least 2 cost estimates from contractors. 5. LOAN APPROVAL - first by Village for eligibility, then by bank for financial approval. Negotiation of length, terms of loan. Written letter of commitment from Village and bank to borrower. 6. CHOOSING A CONTRACTOR: Write-up of detailed specifications for the work; preparation of bid packet, including federal wage rates; advertisement of bid and sending packet to interested contractors; bids accepted up to a designated date; bids opened and decision made by owner with Village approval of lowest qualified bidder. 7. LOAN CLOSING to take place before signing contract with con- tractor, but loan is not recorded until after work is completed in case of change order. Payment of loan administration fee by borrower to bank. 8. CONTRACT SIGNED with owner and contractor. 9. PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE with Village, owner, and contractor. Issuance of notice to proceed. 10. COMPLETION OF WORK. Periodic inspections during work. Partial payments permitted on jobs of over $7500. 11. FINAL INSPECTION upon completion. Final payment to contractor after approval of work by Village and owner, and upon presentation of waivers of lien. 12. FOLLOW-UP. Periodic monitoring will be conducted by the Village during the five-year period to determine that contract conditions are being met and the property is being maintained in satisfactory condition. Financial administration will be handled by the bank until the loan is repaid in full. Village of Mou..IIirospect Motint Prodpect:, HHrios INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TERRANCE L. BUR(311ARD, VIL,LAGE MAN L AGE R FROM: TERESA ZOGBY, ASSIST'ANT PL,ANNER L SUBJECT: STATUS OF' RESIDF-.,NT1 Al., PROGRAM DATE. MAY 20, 1982 The attached is an update on the status of the Residential Rehabilitation Program which the Village initiated last Summer. Five homeowners have received rehabilitation loans to date, four of which were female heads of household; and one other is now in progress. An article in the April. Newsletter drew considerable interest in the Program. 16 inquiries have been received and 5 applications have been submitted (and are now being reviewed for eligibility) since the Newsletter was published. I would anticipate more inquires this Summer as awareness of the Program spreads throughout the community. It is estimated that 8-10 more houses will. be rehabilitated during this Spring and Summer. CC: Kenneth 11. Fritz ProJect Status Type of C11-ent information Contract Amount Completed 12/81 Roof & Gutter and Young couple $4,634.25 miscellaneous items Two children 1980 income $18,180 Completed 121/81 Furnace, water heater Female head of household $2,522600 & other items Three children 1980 income $18,834 Completed 4/82 Structural, furnace, Female head of household $14,992.50 electrical & exterior Three children rehabilitation 1980 income $9,060 Completed 4/82 Roof & gutter and Female head of household $4,853.00 exterior painting One child 22 198income$11.24 Completed 5/82 Electrical, structural Female head of household $9,475.00 & miscellaneous repair Five children 1980 income $12,877 In Progress Electrical, exterior Female head of household $8,850.00 & miscellaneous repair Three children (Not yet obligated) 1980 income $14,321 TOTAL EXPENDED TO DATE: $37,746.75 (Includes administration fees) AVERAGE LOAN AMOUNT: $7,550.00 Village f MountProspect�, Mount Prospect, Illinoisi INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TERRANCE L. B(.J1),( HARD, VILIAGE MANAGER \�*A2 FROM: KENNETH H. FRITZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 11, 1982 Background Over the last couple of months, Teresa Zogby and I have been meeting with representatives of the Mount Prospect State Bank, the First National Bank of Mount Prospect, and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss revising the Business Rehabilitation Loan Program to make it more attractive to area businessmen. It was recognized that the program had drawn few applicants because interest rates were too high even with our interest subsidy. This ad hoc committee decided to conduct a survey of downtown businessmen and property owners to find out what terms would be attractive to them. Although the response rate to the survey was low, the majority of property owners surveyed indicated a willingness to finance improvements to their property at an interest rate of up to 100. Pro osal With this information, and from our discussions, the committee proposes that the program be revised so that the Village pays one-half of the interest on an approved business rehabilitation loan. The maximum principal loan amount would remain at $25,000 Currently the Ordinance reads that the Village shall pay one-half the interest cost of Business Rehabilitation Loans "up to a maximum of six percent of the interest cost for loans of five years or less, or up to a maximum of seven percent for loans of six to ten years in duration". By eliminating this clause, the amount of Village subsidy would not be limited to any fixed percentage. However, it is unlikely that the amount of subsidy would ever be more than ten percent, since few property owners or businessmen would be interested in borrowing money with rates that high. No formal guideline for the type of improvements permitted as a Business Rehabilitation Project were ever adopted. I would therefore propose to include in the revised guidelines a pro- vision which states that a Business Rehabilitation Loan must Terrance L. Burghard - Page Three May 11, 1982 16-17 loans could be subsidized with the $125,000 currently allocated to the program. Financial Information The banks have agreed not to add a loan origination fee ("points") to the interest amount on these loans, but instead to charge the borrower for out-of-pocket expenses (title search, credit report, etc.) at the time of application. This provision could Le included in the agreements with each bank. The banks also indicated that they could give us a 90 -day rate guarantee so the applicant could be informed in advance of what the maximum interest rate for loans originated during- that period would be. Action Regy ;_tel I would like to review this concept with you and would plan to discuss the proposed revisions with the Village Board at their May 25th Committe of the Whole Meeting. W�MNUE Vilryry� / R agt= of Miant Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TERRANCE L. BURGHARD, FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VILLAGE MANAG �;R S TAFF � SUBJECT: PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE: DATE: MAY 20, 1982 During meetings which began on March 1 of this year, members of the Sign Subcommittee have been exposed to a variety of approaches and perspectives regarding sign control; ranging from sign industry model codes to the design oriented "street graphics" concept: The result of these discussions is a proposal for sign regulation which is based on the best aspects of three general approaches: A land use (zoning) approach, a right-of-way approach, and an incentive approach. Traditionally, signs have been regulated on the basis of zoning districts. Zoning districs, however, do not always make appropriate "sign districts', since the signage needs of individual establish- ments are not considered. We propose a more direct approach in which categories of land use are established based on common sign needs. These land use categories include residential, office/institutional, industrial, commercial, and undeveloped. Individual establishments are classified according to standard land use codes to avoid subjective interpretations. Thus, sign standards are specified for each land use category rather than by zoning districts. However, to ensure that the character of residential areas is protected „we also propose that signs located within 100 feet of residential zoning districts should be regulated under a more restrictive set of standards. Right-of-WayApproach The right-of-way approach relates all signs to the intensity of the adjacent roadway. This approach ensures that the size and location of a given sign is appropriate for passing motorists and promotes Terrance L. Burghard - Page Two May 20, 1982 traffic safety by ensuring that a sign will be legible in the context in which it is seen. In our proposal, Village streets are classified on the basis of traffic speed and the number of lanes of traffic. Based on observed traffic patterns in the Village, three classes of streets were established using the functional classification system of roadways set forth in the Comprehensive Plan: Local or collector streets, secondary arterial streets, and major arterial streets. This system suggests a hierarchy of streets such that signs located on major arterials would be allowed the most area and height, with progressively smaller signs on secondary arterial and local or collector streets. Incentive Approach An incentive approach to sign regulation provides "bonuses" to permitted areas for signs which meet certain design standards. This approach encourages more attractive signs and provides administrative flexibility. We propose that several bonus provisions should be included in the form of percentage increases in the specified maximum area. For example, a 15% bonus will be granted for freestanding signs which include landscaping at the base of the sign. Such bonuses would be added cumulatively to encourage the use of several design elements. Table of Si n Requirements Land use categories and street classification will serve as the fundamental criteria on which sign standards are based. These criterion are set forth in matrix form in the "Table of Sign Requirements" (attached). The Table of Sign Requirements specifies standards for the various types of signs, including freestanding, wall, projecting, roof, canopy, and window. Freestanding Si ns The Table of Sign Requirements includes standards for freestanding signs; including maximum area and maximum height. These standards vary depending on the type of street to which a sign is directed and the use of the land on which a sign is located. For example, freestanding signs for commercial uses on major arterials are allowed to be a maximum of 75 square feet in area and 18 feet in height, provided the sign is not located within 100 feet of a residential zoning district. Advertising signs, which are permitted on undeveloped land only, may not be located within 100 feet of a residential zoning district and may not exceed 150 square feet in area. Additional standards for freestanding signs are included in the Terrance L. Burghard - Page Three May 20, 1982 general provisions. Some of these include: 1. A minimum setback from the street right-of-way of five feet. 2. A minimum distance from interior property lines to ensure adequate spacing between signs (replaces current frontage requirements). 3. A minimum distnace of ten feet from a building to provide the necessary "yard" around the sign (replaces the current building setback requirement). 4. Additional standards to ensure a clear sight triangle at intersections. These locational requirements for freestanding signs are illustrated on Page 4. Wall Signs Because wall signs become a part of the architecture of a building,' the facade on which a wall sign is mounted should be considered. The Table of Sign Requirements specifies a maximum percentage of a building surface is expressed asthe by a wall sign. This bu.�.�di�a aces wt�a ma �� �� the "signable wall area", which �z sur � c: � a �.. occupied can be determined by measuring the area of a selected rectangle which encompasses a continuous surface unbroken by doors, windows, or major architectural features (see illustration, Page 5). Summary This memo has presented an overview of the draft proposal developed by staff and reviewed and critiqued by the Sign Subcommittee. The complete proposal_, which will, be available at the meeting of May 25, is a result of a collaborative effort on the part of staff members and representatives frorn several advisory bodies, with Input from design, professionals and sign industry representatives. With the single exception of a provision regarding the display of banners and pennants, the Community Development Staff concurs with the Sign Subcommittee in recommending that the proposal be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for public hearing. JB: hg Attach. LOCATION OF FREESTANDING SIGNS Public R.O.W. Roadway Sign not permitted x - Distance from public right-of-way (5 feet) y - Distance from building (15 feet) z _ Distance from interior property line (varies by street classification and the size cf sign) Page 4 Sui.1ding :0 v1: Sign p Permitted I ,� 01: . I -W - x... -,_m_.- x Public R.O.W. Roadway Sign not permitted x - Distance from public right-of-way (5 feet) y - Distance from building (15 feet) z _ Distance from interior property line (varies by street classification and the size cf sign) Page 4 0 WALL SIGNS ..v�.�.�........ ......._.. 2 5 SIGNABLE WALL AREA = 125 Square Feet 40% OF SIGNABLE WALL AREA = 50 Square Feet Page 5 TABLE OF SIGN REOUIREMENTS Table 1. Signs Located Within 100 Feet of a Residential zoning District ROOF CANOPY FREESTANDING WINDOW NP LAND USE STREET CLASSIFICATION Areal He1aht2 3 PROJECTING Residential Local or Collector 25 a 1-0 NP NP Secondary Arterial 30 10 10 NP P Mai or �Arterial 35 — ­ a "I 12 - I—, . 10 ­ 1-1 1., ­ __N P� Inst./Office Local or Collector 30 10 20 P P Secondary Arterial 40 12 20 P P P 45 14 20 NP Industrial Local or Collector30 P 10 20 NP NP Secondary Arterial 40 12 20 NP Secondary Arterial for Arterial 45 14 20 NP Com— ercial Local or Collector 40 12 30 P 16 Secondary Arterial 45 14 30 P . . .......... rterial Local or Collector i's 30 Nn ROOF CANOPY AWNING WINDOW NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P P P NP P P P NP P P NP NP P P P NP P P P NP P P NP P P P P 1, P P P P P P Table 2. Signs Not Located within 100 Feet of a Residential Zoning District P: Permitted NP: Not Permitted 1 Maximum permitted area in square feet 2 Maximum height from finished grade in feet 3 Maximum percentage of signable wall area FREESTANDING LAND USE STREET CLASSIFICATION 3 2WALL P ROJECTING ROOF CANOPY AWNING WINDOW Inst./Office Local or Collector 35 10 30 P NP NP P P Secondary Arterial 45 12 30 P P NP P P r,Arterial 50 ........... . 14 30 NP P NP P P Industrial Local or Collector 40 12 30 NP NP NP P P Secondary Arterial 50 1.4 30 NP P NP P P ...... .Map�: ,Arterial _J 55 16 30 NP . . ......... . . P NP P P Commercial Local or Collector 50 14 40 P NP P P P Secondary Arterial 65 16 40 P P P P P Maior Arterial 75 18 40 NP P P P . . . P . ....... _ — Undeveloped Local or Collector NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Secondary Arterial 150 is NP NP NP NP NP NP Major Arterial ISO 18 NP NP NP NP NP NP P: Permitted NP: Not Permitted 1 Maximum permitted area in square feet 2 Maximum height from finished grade in feet 3 Maximum percentage of signable wall area