HomeMy WebLinkAbout4717_001Mo VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
Next Ordinance No. AA -8-'T
Next Resolution No. 33-92
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
0 R D E R 0 F B U S I N E S S
REGULAR MEETING
Meeting Location:
Meeting Room, lst Floor
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday
December 1, 1992
7:30 P. M.
Mayor Gerald *Skip, Farley
Trustee Mark Busse Trustee Leo FloroS
Trustee George Clowes Trustee Paul Hoefert
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Irvana Wilks
III. INVOCATION - Mayor Farley
IV. APPROVE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, November 17, 1992
V. APPROVAL OF BILLS
VI. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
VII. MAYOR'S REPORT
A. PRESENTATION: MOUNT PROSPECT HISTORICAL SOCIETY
B. PROCLAMATION: Acknowledge Dr. Stanley Zydlo and the
20th Anniversary of the mount Prospect
Paramedic Program
C. Appointments
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. ZBA 69 -SU -92, 1811 Sitka Lane
2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL
USE FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1811 SITKA LANE
This Ordinance grants a Special Use to allow a
commercial vehicle, with a licensed weight of more
than the permitted 8,000 lbs., to be housed in a garage.
The zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this
request by a vote of 6-0. (Exhibit A)
B. The following ordinances amend the Village Code
in order to establish regulations governing
Sight Obstructions:
1. 2nd reading Of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE X
ENTITLED "SAFETY COMMISSION" OF CHAPTER 5 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT (Exhibit B)
2. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I
OF CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS"
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT (Exhibit C)
ALL
3. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III
ENTITLED "BERMS" OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT
(Exhibit D)
4. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE V
ENTITLED "TREES" OF CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
(Exhibit E)
5. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I
ENTITLED "PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS" OF CHAPTER 11
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
(Exhibit F)
6. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15
(LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
(Exhibit G)
5. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16
ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT
(Exhibit H)
C. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XVII
ENTITLED "ALARM SYSTEMS" OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance requires an annual license fee of $10.00
for an alarm system, rather than the one time
registration fee, and increases the fines for false
alarms involving the Police Department.
(Exhibit J)
Ix. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZBA 72 -SU -92, 1714 North Aspen Drive
The Petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit
to allow the installation of a ground -mounted
satellite antenna. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended granting this request by a vote of 5-0.
B. ZBA 73-V-92, 811 South Edward Street
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to allow
a sideyard setback of 4.51, rather than the
required 7.2' in order to build a second story
addition. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting this request by a vote of 6-0.
C. ZBA 74-V-92, 1901 Cholo Lane
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to allow
a sideyard setback of 5.751, rather than the
required 8.61, in order to construct a garage and
room addition to this residence. The Zoning Board
of Appeals recommended granting a 5.7' foot sideyard
setback by a vote of 6-0.
D_ ZBA 75-V-92, 10 East Sunset
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to allow
a 7' service walk to encroach into the sideyard
setback, rather than the maximum permitted of 36".
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting
this request by a vote of 6-0.
E. ZBA 76-V-92, 201 South Edward Street
The Petitioner is requesting variations to allow
a rear yard setback of 1.571, rather than the
required 5' for an accessory structure, and a
variation to allow an exterior sideyard setback
of 17.31, instead of the required 201, in order
to construct a 2 -car garage. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting these requests by
a vote of 6-0.
F. Dunn's Plat of Subdivision, 15 North Marcella Road
This plat subdivision creates two lots from one
large lot. The Plan Commission recommended
approving this subdivision by a vote of 7-1.
Request for modifications from the Development
Code, 15 North Marcella Road
The Petitioner is requesting the following
modifications from the requirements of the
Development Code: Right-of-way; lot depth;
cul de sac requirements; sidewalk; street
lighting; and pavement width. The Plan
Commission recommended granting these
modifications by a vote of 7-1.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
This Public Hearing, called pursuant to proper legal
notice having been published in the Mount Prospect
Herald on November 18, 1992 and November 25, 1992,
is for the purpose of considering Amendment #2 to
the Downtown Redevelopment Project and Plan.
X. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
A. lst reading of AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF
THE TAXES LEVIED FOR CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL
PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT,
ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992
AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993 (Exhibit K)
B. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF
UNLIMITED TAX BONDS OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA
NUMBER 1, SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER 2, SPECIAL
SERVICE AREA NUMBER 5, AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA
NUMBER 6 OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT,
ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992
AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993 (Exhibit L)
C. lst reading of AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR CORPORATE AND
MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND
ENDING APRIL 30, 1993 (Exhibit M)
D. lst reading of AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF
SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER ONE, SPECIAL SERVICE
AREA NUMBER TWO, SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER FIVE,
AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993 (Exhibit N)
E. Status Report
XI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Litigation
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
CALL TO ORDER CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present upon roll call: Mayor Gerald Farley
Trustee Mark Busse
Trustee George Clowes
Trustee Timothy Corcoran
Trustee Paul Hoefert
Trustee Irvana Wilks
Absent:
Trustee Leo Floros
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Trustee Clowes.
INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Clowes,
APPROVE
moved to approve the
minutes of the regular
MINUTES
meeting of the Mayor
and Board of Trustees
held November 4, 1992.
Upon roll call: Ayes:
Busse, Clowes, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays:
None
Pass:
Corcoran
Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Busse,
APPROVE
moved to approve the
following list of bills:
BILLS
General Fund
Refusal Disposal Fund
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
Water & Sewer Fund
Parking System Revenue Fund
Risk Management Fund
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
Capital Improvement, Repl. or Rep.
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund
'Police & Fire Building Const.
Flood Control Revenue Fund
Corporate Purpose Improvement 1990
Debt Service Funds
Flexcomp Trust Fund
Escrow Deposit Fund
Police Pension Fund
Firemen's Pension Fund
Benefit Trust Fund
753,050
7,989
8,506
2,086
102,801
330,550
4,902
85,130
874
35,785
285,821
607,0133
23,115
8,191
98,776
2,167
$2,356,776
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
FINANCIAL REPORT
Trustee Busse
accept the f.'
second
subject to audit.
Uponroll call.' Ayes:
Nays:
Motion carried. ;
800 IRONWOOD Mr. Bracher,
allow the ex
spring, base
TAX WATCH
NO SMOKING
PRESENTATION:
SEAT BELT SAFETY
this pad was
an oversized
a variation
the Village
Mr. Bracher'
variation in
Mrs. Gear, 7
her property
allow the concre
the year provided
hearing before "1
variation for "a
application for -%
year, that porn+
permitted 120 ;sq
will be issued is
Upon roll call A,
1
Motion carried.''
Frank Vlazny,
about the va
taxing bodies
Richard Hendi
the Board pr
Trustee-Corcc
village from
the fact the -
governing thi
MAYOR118 ;REPOS
Representati%
Transportatic
and the State
Farley for qu
Award. it
Police Depart
number of emp
It was also n
State have T
Page 2 -
ed by Trustee Clowes, moved to
report dated October 31, 1992,
Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
None
1D PETITIONS, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
Ironwood, requested the Board to
ig concrete pad to remain until the
the fact that the heavy equipment
:move the concrete would have a
.t on the grass. It was 'noted that
finally intended as a foundation for
, however, Mr. Bracher's request for
low the oversized shed was denied by
stated that he may reapply for the
ckberry, expressed her 'concern about
ding as a result of the concrete pad.
seconded by Trustee Busse, moved to
:e pad to remain until the first of
Mr. Bracher files an application for
:he Zoning Board of Appeals for a
a oversized shed and that if no
ariation is made by the first of the
on of the concrete pad exceeding the
ft. must be removed or Mr. 'Bracher
citation of violation."
,as: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran, Hoefert
'ays Wilks
3 Jody Court, expressed his concerns
s taxing entities, asking that all
luce the tax burden on residents.
3, 1537 E: Emmerson Lane, requested
it smoking in any public building.
stated that State law prohibits the
ing any law regarding smoking, due to
e State has established" regulations
;tivity.
s of the U. S. Department of
,,Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
of Illinois presented plaques to Mayor
. fying for the 70% Plus safety Belt Use
Ns noted that representatives of the
ant had conducted'a visual survey of the
)gees wearing seat belts, which was 83%.
.ad that only 7 other communities in the
lified for this award.
ember 17, 1992
The new owners of Jay's Liquors, 1728 West Dempster
JAY'S LIQUORS
Street, have requested that they be allowed to
1728 DEMPSTER
continue operation under the existing Class IICII
OWNERSHIP
liquor license.
CHANGE
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved
to authorize the new owners of Jay's Liquors to
continue operation under the existing Class IICII
liquor license.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
An ordinance was presented for second reading that
AMEND CH. 18
would amend the Traffic Code (Chapter 18) by
prohibiting parking on the north side of Prospect
Avenue between Maple Street and a point 335 feet
east of Emerson Street.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved
ORD.NO. 4487
for passage of Ordinance No. 4487
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC CODE)
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Corcoran, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Pass: Busse
Motion carried.
ZBA 69 -SU -92, 1811 Sitka Lane ZBA 69 -SU -92
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would 1811 SITKA IN
grant a Special Use to allow a commercial vehicle, with
a licensed weight in excess of the 8,000 lb. limit, to
be housed in the garage on his single family lot. The
Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this
request by a vote of 6-0.
This Ordinance will be presented December 1st for
second reading.
ZBA 70-V-92, 214 South Hi LUsi
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
would allow a 2 foot setback along the interior
side property line, instead of the required 51,
in order to replace a one car detached garage
with a new two car garage. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting this request by a
vote of 6-0.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved
to waive the rule requiring two readings of an
ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 3 - November 17, 1992
ZBA 70-V-92
214 HI LUSI
ORD.NO. 4488
ZBA 71-V-92
204 SEE GWUN
ORD.NO. 4489
SIGHT OBSTRUCTION
Trus
Upon
ZBA 7
An Oz
would
sidey
in or,
Motion
Truste
for va
ii
Busse, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved for
of ordinance No. 4488
ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR
OPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 214 SOUTH HI LUSI
11 call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
carried. ,
V-92, 204 South See Gwun
Lnance was presented for first reading that
[rant a variation to allow a minimum interior
d setback of 51, instead of the required 7.51,
r to allow construction of a 2 -car garage.
Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved
ve the rule requiring two readings of an
ce.
11 call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
carried.
Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved
sage of Ordinance No. 4489
ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR
OPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 204 S. SEE GWUN
llµcall:i Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion ca
implement
first tea
W
the Vill
An Ordin
the Vill
An Ordin
Code
An Ordin
Code
Donna Johnson
Obstruction C
Page 4 - N
I
s and Sandra Clark, Foreman of the
rtment, presented a summary of the
Lousiy suggested by the Village Board
stablishing regulations governing sight
The following Ordinances, necessary to
se new regulations, were presented for
s:
ante amending Article X of Chapter 5 of
age Code
AInce amending Article I of Chapter 9 of
age Code
:ince amending Article III of Chapter 9 of
age Code
ance amending Article V of Chapter 9 of
age Code
ance amending Article I of Chapter 11 of
age Code
ante'amending Chapter 15 of the Village
ance amending Chapter 16 of the Village
and Peter Houchar, members of the Sight
ommittee, expressed their opinions on
ovember 17, 1992
the proposed amendments.
These ordinances will be presented December 1st
for second readings..
NEW BUSINESS
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that AMEND CH. 23:
would amend Article XVII entitled "Alarm System" of ALARM SYSTEM
Chapter 23 to establish an annual license fee of $10.00,
due January I each year, and increase the fines for false
alarms for emergencies requiring the Police Department
to respond.
There was discussion on the alarm process, including
the number of false alarms throughout the year. This
Ordinance will be amended prior to the second reading
to provide for a penalty for late payment as well as
increasing the fines for false alarms.
This Ordinance will be presented December 1st for
second reading.
Mayor Farley called a brief recess at 10:00 P.M. RECESS
Mayor Farley reconvened the meeting at 10:15 P.M.
Present upon roll call: Mayor Farley
Trustee Busse
Trustee Clowes
Trustee Corcoran
Trustee Hoefert
Trustee Wilks
A request was presented to accept the improvements PUBLIC
installed in conjunction with the River West Apartments IMPROVEMENTS
generally located on River Road north of Camp
Mac Donald Road.
Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
accept the improvements installed in conjunction with
the River West Apartment development on River Road.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Michael E. Janonis presented the BID:
following bid received for the sprinkling system SPRINKLING
for fire suppression in the basement of the Senior SYSTEM:
Citizen Center as well as the basement of that SR. CENTER
building. It was noted that 3 invitations to
bid were sent out only but one bid was received.
Bidder Amount
Viking Fire System Protection $8,850.00
Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved VIKING
to concur with the recommendation of the FIRE SYSTEM
administration and accept the bid received from
Viking Fire System Protection in the amount of
Page 5 - November 17, 1992
PICK UP TRUCKS
TOM TODD CHEV.
KENSINGTON CENTER
INLET/OUTLET
$8,850.00 for the sprinkling system in the new
addition to the Senior Citizen Center and the basement
of +-),.+ 1%"4 1 A 4
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
The following bids were received for the purchase of
five (5) pick up trucks for the Public Works
Department:
Bidder Total g9st
Tom Todd Chevrolet $66,490.20
Hoskins Chevrolet 72,117.95
Lattof'Chevrolet 77,657.75
Biggers Chevr6le ' t 79,,150.00
Joe Mitchell GMC 79,873.55
Southside For(
Spring Hill F;
Freeway Ford �
Trustee Hoefei
proposed purcl
up trucks k
expenditures:
Village Mana4
established s
deferring the
that schedule
may want to re
some time in I
that schedule
and authorize
Tom Todd Ch
$66,490.20.
Upon roll .cal
Motion carri
The followir
structure r4
within the P
Bidder
Mancini Cons
Martam Const
Page 6 -
Truck Gtr. 82,245.00
Corp. 83,020.00
Truck sales 83,070.00
.-d 83,170.00
,-uck sales 83,465.00
. expressed his concern relative to the
Lse, suggesting the number of new pick
reduced which would reduce the
or this fiscal year budget.
�r Janonis stated that the is an
hedule for vehicle replacements and
urchase of certain vehicles would alter
Mr. Janonis suggested that the Board
iew the vehicle replacement schedule at
rc
.e near future in order to determine if
;hould rbe changed.
seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved to
recommendation of the administration
he purchase of five pick up trucks from
xolet in an amount not to exceed
Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Wilks,
Farley
Nays: Clowes, Hoefert
t asked that the vehicle replacement
►sented for review at a future date.
>ids were received for inlet/outlet
ir of the stormwater retention basins
;ington Center for Business:
Amount
iction $11,400
.tion 18,800
vember 17, 1992
It was the recommendation of the administration to
reject these bids, based on the fact that they
exceeded the budgeted amount and the fact that more
bid would probably be received if this was re' -bid
in the spring.
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to
reject the bids received for the inlet/outlet repairs
in the Kensington Center for Business.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
A Resolution was presented setting forth the tax
1992 TAX
levy for 1992, as well as providing for the
LEVY
publication of the levy amount, in the manner
provided by law.
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved
RES -NO. 32-92
for passage of Resolution No. 32-92
A RESOLUTION TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNTS OF
MONEY ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO BE RAISED
BY TAXATION By THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
UPON THE TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE VILLAGE
FOR THE YEAR COMMENCING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING
APRIL 30, 1993
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
A request was presented to waive the bidding procedure
ENGINE
and authorize the purchase of an Allen Smart Company
ANALYZER
Engine Analyzer at a cost not to exceed $21,405. It
was noted that this piece of equipment is available
only from the Smart Company.
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to
waive.the bidding procedure in order to purchase an
engine analyzer for the Public Works Department.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved ALLEN
to authorize the purchase of an engine analyzer from SMART
the Allen Smart company at a cost not to exceed COMPANY
$21,405.00.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 7 - November 17, 1992
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
PROSPECT MANOR
Village Manager Janonis stated that staff will meet
AREA - FLOODING
with residents of the Prospect Manor area to discuss
flooding and; actions taken by the Village to
eliminate the problem.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
EXECUTIVE
Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
SESSION
go into ExeicutiveSession for the purpose of
discussing Personnel.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
The Board went into Executive Session at 11:35 P.M.
RECONVENE
Mayor Farley reconvened the meeting at 11:54 P.M.
Present upon roll call: Mayor Farley ,
Trustee Busse`
Trustee Clowes
Trustee Corcoran
Trustee Hoefert
Trustee Wilks
ADJOURN
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Village Board, Mayor Farley adjourned the
meeting at 11;55 P.M.
;Carol A. Fields
Tillage Clerk
Page - November 17, 1991
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
CASH POSITION
November 24, 1992
Cash & Invest
Receipts
Disbursements
Cash & Invest
Balance
11/12/92 through
Per Attached
Journal Balance
11/12/92
11/24/92
List of Bills
Entry 11/244/92
General & Special Revenue Funds
General Fund
$ 2,706,292
$ 162,369
$ 572,444
$ 2,296,217
Refuse Disposal Fund
630,223
13,848
222,180
421,891
Motor Fuel Tax
271,619
103,342
13,089
361,872
Community Development Block Grant Fund
4,768
-
2,655
2,113
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
110,255
19,835
11,700
118,390
Enrise Funds
Water & Sewer Fund
3,495,908
195,652
50,106
3,641,454
Parking System Revenue Fund
214,347
5,259
1,091
218,515
Internal Service Funds
Risk Management Fund
1,294,714
247,332
97,251
1,444,795
Vehicle Replacement Fund
795,173
3,875
1,468
797,580
Qaital Projects
Capital Improvement Fund
1,541,086
48,857
9,525
1,580,418
Downtown Redev Const Funds
560,491
-
1,687
555,804
Police & Fire Building Construction
3,278,944
44,562
3,260
3,320,246
Flood Control Construction Fund
2,556,018
-
17,105
2,538,913
Debt Service Funds
1,660,160
23,115
-
1,683,275
Trust & Agency Funds
Flexcomp Trust Fund
9,288
-
-
9,288
Escrow Deposit Fund
1,196,950
50,982
21,502
1,226,430
Police Pension Fund
17,974,912
56,431
41,512
17,989,831
Firemen's Pension Fund
20,107,702
57,211
47,060
20,117,853
Benefit Trust Funds
240.664
_
240,664
5 8...514
$1,032,
11.1 Q '
- 0- 4
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 1
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
AABY BUILDERS
C11670 AABY BLDRS
$500.00
$500.00
ABC PLUMBING
C11136 ABC PLBG
$75.00
$75.00
ACCURATE PLUMBING
C12041 ACCURATE PLBG
$100.00
$100.00
ADVERTISING PRODUCTS
1637 ADVERTISING PRODUCTS
$100.00
$100.00
WILLIAM ANNEN
C11782 WM ANNEN
$45.00
$45.00
ARTFIELD-RIVER WEST DEV. CORP.
C9747 ARTFIELD
$100.00
C9748 ARTFIELD
$100.00
C9749 ARTFIELD
$100.00
C9750 ARTFIELD
$100.00
C9751 ARTFIELD
$100.00
C9752 ARTFIELD
$225.00
C9753 ARTFIELD
$250.00
C9754 ARTFIELD
$250.00
C9755 ARTFIELD
$250.00
C9756 ARTFIELD
$250.00
$1,725.00
AWNINGS PLUS
1633 AQNINGS PLUS
$100.00
$100.00
BARBA & BARBA CONSTRUCTION INC
C11442 BARBA & BARBA
$100.00
$100.00
BLUE JAY CORP.
REFUND OVERPMT FINAL BILL
$2.50
REFUND OVERPMT FINAL BILL
$.25
$2.75
JOHN CAGLE SEWER
C11978 JOHN CAGLE SEWER
$100.00
$100.00
STEVE CASEY
C10804 CASEY
$25.00
$25.00
V.J. CENTRACCHIO & SON INC.
C12036 VJ CENTRACCHIO
$100.00
$100.00
LOUIS CHABALOWSKI
C12034 CHABALOWSKI
$75.00
$75.00
RUEY CHIU
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$27.50
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$2.75
$30.25
JETTE CHRISTENSEN
REFUND STICKER OVERPMT
$8.00
$8.00
CITIBANK, N.A.
PMT INSURANCE CLAIMS GAB
$20,568.63
PMT INSURANCE
$3,280.48
$23,849.11*
CIVIL CONST. ENG.
C11477 CIVIL CONST
$50.00
$50.00
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
921126A PMT P/R 11/26/92
$224.25
$224.25
DANLEY LUMBER
C11204 DANLEY LUMBER
$10.00
C11204 DANLEY LUMBER
$75.00
$85.00
DIMUCCI CONSTRUCTION CO.
C11445 DIMUCCI CONST
$65.00
$65.00
DISBURSEMENT ACCT
P/R ENDING 11/19/92
$4,090.52
P/R ENDING 11/26/92
$454,407.24
P/R ENDING 11/26/92
$1,166.65
im 3z IZe7S
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
DO IT RIGHT ROOTER
DUNGAN'S HEATING & AIR
EVERDRY
STEVEN P. FERMO
FLUSH SEWER
DAVID FRUMET
WILLIAM GASTINEAU
GORDON AND PIKARSKI
ELLEN RANSON
HARDCASTLE CONSTRUCTION
HOMES BY HEMPHILL, INC.
IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENT
FRANK J. JACHIMIAK
LENNARD W. JENDAL
ANDREA JUSZCZYK
JACK KAPLAN
MICHAEL KAUTZ CARPETS
LA ROSITA GROCERIES
LAKE -COOK FARM SUPPLY COMPANY
LANDMARK SIGNS
LETTERMAN SIGNAGE INC.
RONALD LOEFFLER
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 2
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24792
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
P/R ENDING 11/26792
$758.70
P/R ENDING 11726792
$30,728.73
P&ENDING 11/26792
$1,713.04
$492,864.88*
C112080
DO IT RIGHT ROOTER
$100.00
$100.00
C11925
DUNGANS HEATING
$75.00
$75.00
C9731
EVERDRY WATERPROOF
$75.00
$75.00
REFUND
DUPLICATE STICKER
$40.00
$40.00
C11087
FLUSH SEWER
$75.00
$75.00
C7738
DAVID FRUMET
$100.00
$100.00
C4713
GASTINEAU WM
$100.00
$100.00
REFUND
DUPL TR TAX STAMP
$840.00
$840.00
C11344
ELLEN HANSON
$100.00
C11344
ELLEN HANSON
$10.00
$110.00
C11952
HARDCASTLE CONST
$500.00
$500.00
0912
HOME BY HEMPHILL
$50.00
0912
HOME BY HEMPHILL
$250.00
0914
HOME BY HEMPHILL
$50.00
0914
HOME BY HEMPHILL
$250.00
$600.00
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$75.00
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$7.50
$82.50
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$10.00
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$1.00
$11.00
C11010
LENNARD JENDAL
$100.00
$100.00
921126B PMT P/R 11/26/92
$254.00
$254.00
890308
MOFFETT MANAGEMENT
$750.00
$750.00
C8635
MIKE KAUTZ
$100.00
$100.00
C11654
LAROSITA
$50.00
$50.00
NO LEAD GASOLINE
$8,281.27
$8,281.27
0935
LANDMARK
$25.00
0936
LANDMARK
$25.00
0955
LANDMARK SIGNS
$75.00
1017
LANDMARK SIGNS
$75.00
1018
LANDMARK SIGNS
$75.00
1019
LANDMARK SIGNS
$75.00
$350.00
0892
LETTERMAN SIGNAGE
$225.00
$225.00
C10421
LOEFFLER
$75.00
$75.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
M -K SIGNS, INC.
0888 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0889 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0890 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0898 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0899 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0905 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0916 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0939 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0953 MK SIGNS
$75.00
0976 MK SIGNS
$75.00
1109 MK SIGNS
$75.00
$825.00
JAMES MAC MAHON
-REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$15.00
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$1.50
$16.50
MCKONE BUILDERS
C1679 MCKONE BLDRS
$425.00
$425.00
MEDOFF CONSTRUCTION
C4882 MEDOFF CONST
$100.00
$100.00
NBD BANK MOUNT PROSPECT, N.A.
DUE TO FED DEP P1R 11112
$1,662.05
DUE TO FED DEP P1R 11112
$122.09
DUE TO FED DEP P1R 11112
$79.98
DUE TO FED DEP P1R 11112
$11,699.64
DUE TO FED DEP P1R 11112
$2,404.04
DUE TO FED DEP P1R 11112
$57.62
DUE TO FED DEP 11119
$30.54
$16,055.96*
NEON ART
ARTPIR
$100.00
$100.00
NORTH SHORE SIGN
1060 NORTH SHORE SIGN
$50.00
$50.00
OLYMPIC SIGNS, INC.
1460 OLYMPIC SIGNS
$100.00
$100.00
OPUS
0908 OPUS NO CORP
$50.00
0909 OPUS NO CORP
$50.00
0977 OPUS NO
$100.00
0977 OPUS NO
$250.00
0978 OPUS NO CORP
$250.00
0978 OPUS NO CORP
$75.00
0979 OPUS NO
$25.00
0979 OPUS NO
$250.00
1094 OPUS NO CORP
$75.00
$1,125.00
ORIENTAL CATERING
C11438 ORIENTAL CATERING
$81.00
$81.00
GREG ORSINGER
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$2.50
VENDOR
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
PENSION DISBURSEMENTS
PEPPER CONSTRUCTION
PREMIER PROPERTY
ROBERT PYZYNA
R 0 R SUPERIOR
TIM RASSI
JAMES RICORDATI
ROYAL FUEL LIQUID ENERGIES,INC
RYCHLIK BUILDERS
SABOCO BUILDERS INC.
TSUYOSHI SATOI
REV. HARRY SCHMIDT
KATHREN SCHRECK
DONNA SHALLO
SHIRES CONSTRUCTION CO.
SINGLES ROOFING CO.
SPACE HOME IMPROVEMENT
SURE LIGHT SIGNS
EDWARD TEED
THIRD DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT
U. S. ELEVATOR
U.S. MARSHALL SERVICE
VITO VERNACE
VIAN CONSTRUCTION
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 4
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$.25
$2.75
NOV POLICE PENSION DISB
$41,511.80
NOV FIRE PENSION DISB
$47,060.28
$88,572.08*
C11661
PEPPER CONST
$475.00
$475.00
C12032
PREMIER PROPERTY
$105.00
$105.00
C9184
P PYZNA
$75.00
$75.00
C12096
ROR SUPERIOR
$100.00
$100.00
REFUND
FINAL BILL OVERPMT
$70.00
REFUND
FINAL BILL OVERPMT
$7.00
REFUND
FINAL BILL OVERPMT
$7.15
$84.15
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$15.00
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL.50
g
FUEL
$5,876.04
$5,876.04
REFUND
LICENSE OVERPMT
$17.50
$17.50
C11523
SABOCO BLDRS
$75.00
$75.00
REFUND
FINAL BILL OVERPMT
$37.50
REFUND
FINAL BILL OVERPMT
$3.75
$41.25
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$7.50
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$8.25
C11969
SCHRECK
slo0.00oa
$loa.aa
REFUND
PARKING LEASE
$180.00
$180.00
C10740
SHIRES CONST CO
$2,500.00
C10740
SHIRES CONST CO
$425.00
$2,925.00
C11985
SINGLES RFG CO
$35.00
$35.00
C11050
SPACE HOME
$50.00
$50.00
1482
SURE LIGHT SIGN
$100.00
1484
SURE LIGHT SIGNS
$100.00
$200.00
REFUND
HLTH INS CONTR
$17.33
$17.33
NOV3
BOND MONEY
$825.00
NOV4
BOND MONEY
$3,575.00
$4,400.00*
C12089
U S ELEVATOR
$50.00
$50.00
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$42.50
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$4.25
$46.75
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$20.00
REFUND
FINAL WATER BILL
$2.00
$22.00
C10736
VIAN CONSTR
$100.00
$100.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11124192
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT C10421 LOEFFLER
$25.00
C10740 SHIRES CONSTR
$75.00
C10804 CASEY
$75.00
C11050 SPACE HOME
$50.00
C11087 FLUSH SEWER
$25.00
C11136 ABC PLBG
$25.00
C11204 DANLEY LUMBER
$25.00
C11333 HANSON
$35.00
C11438 YUN WOOK YI
$50.00
C11477 CIVIL CONSTR ENG
$50.00
C11523 SABOCO BLDRS
$25.00
C1164 M WATER CO
$35.00
C11661 PEPPER CONSTR
$25.00
C11782 WM ANNEN
$55.00
C1679 MCKONE BLDRS
$75.00
09184 PYZNA
$25.00
C9731 EVERDRY WATERPROOF
$25.00
C9747 ARTFIELD
$150.00
C9748 ARTFIELD
$150.00
C9749 ARTFIELD
$150.00
C9750 ARTFIELD
$150.00
C9751 ARTFIELD
$150.00
C9752 ARTFIELD
$25.00
0888 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0889 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0890 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0892 LETTERMAN
$25.00
0898 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0899 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0905 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0908 OPUS NORTH
$50.00
0909 OPUS NORTH
$50.00
0912 HOMES BY HEMPHILL
$50.00
0914 HOMES BY HEMPHILL
$50.00
0916 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0935 LANDMARK SIGNS
$?5.00
PAGE
TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $475,255.66 REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND $1,835.13
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $1,246.63 ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND $11,699.64
WATER & SEWER FUND $33,518.25 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $996.32
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $23,866.44 POLICE PENSION FUND $41,511.80
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND $47,060.28 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND $21,501.75
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 6
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
0936 LANDMARK SIGNS
$75.00
0939 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0953 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0955 LANDMARK SIGN
$25.00
0976 MK SIGNS
$25.00
0977 OPUS NORTH
$50.00
0978 OPUS NORTH
$25.00
0979 OPUS NORTH
$75.00
1017 LANDMARK
$25.00
1018 LANDMARK
$25.00
1019 LANDMARK SIGN
$25.00
1060 NORSHORE SIGN
$50.00
1094 OPUS NORTH
$25.00
1109 MK SIGNS
$25.00
1993 BUSINESS LICENSE PREPAY
$75.00
$2,525.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
C11584 IMPERIAL CONSTR
$25.00
C11616 ADAM'S SERV CO
$25.00
C11924 ROSS MIDWEST
$25.00
C11974 MEDCON SPECIALISTS
$25.00
C11997 NEW FRONT CONSTR
$25.00
C12087 JOHN CAGLE SEWER
$25.00
1528
$25.00
$175.00
VINCENT SIGN SERVICE
1620 VINCENTDSIGN CO
$1oo.aa
1632 VINCENT SIGN
$100.00
$200.00
WAYNE WOLF
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$18.94
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$1.89
$20.83
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
***TOTAL**
$658,491.90
GENERAL FUND $475,255.66 REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND $1,835.13
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $1,246.63 ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND $11,699.64
WATER & SEWER FUND $33,518.25 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $996.32
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $23,866.44 POLICE PENSION FUND $41,511.80
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND $47,060.28 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND $21,501.75
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 7
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24192
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CENTRAL CONTINENTAL BAKERY
CHICAGO SUBURBAN TIMES NEWSPAP
CRYSTAL CATERING, INC.
MOUNT PROSPECT CHAMBER OF COMM
MOUNT PROSPECT SENIOR ADVISORY
NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
GENERAL FUND
SWEET ROLLS 75TH ANN COMM
AD FOR VETERANS DAY
FRUIT PLATTER & PUNCH
DIRECTORY AD
SR CHRISTMAS PARTY 2 HOEFERT
3 NWMC LEGISLATIVE DINNER
MISC EXPENSES
MISC EXPENSES
$594.89
5.40
$5.40
$ 7.00
$37.00
$126.96
$126.96
$205.00
$205.00
$24.00
$24.00
$75.00
$75.00
$5.05
$1,350.81
$116.48
$121.53*
***TOTAL** $594.89
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
KATTEN MUCHIN & ZAVIS
MIGHTY MITES AWARDS & SONS
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
ROTARY CLUB OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SOURCE AND REFERENCE
OCTOBER LEGAL SERVICES
ENGRAVING CHGS
OCT LEGAL SERVICES
OCT LEGAL SERVICES
OCT LEGAL SERVICES
OCT LEGAL SERVICES
OCT LEGAL SERVICES
MISC EXPENSES
ROTARY DUES -MORGAN
FORMS
$1,609.00
$1,609.00
$4.00
$4.00
$202.50
$42.50
$42.50
$21.25
$1,042.06
$1,350.81
$13.20
$13.20*
$187.50
$187.50
$70.00
$70.00
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE ***TOTAL** $3,234.51
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 8
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24192
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $3,234.51
********************************************************************************************************
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
AA SWIFT PRINT, INC.
MP NEWSLETTER CHARGES
$352.75
$352.75
COMP USA
SUPPLIES
$29.95
$29.95
CORTEZ DIXON
COMM ASST COW MTG
$25.00
$25.00
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
IL MUNICIPAL DIRECTORY
$25.00
$25.00
MARISHA JASON
COMM ASST ZNG BD MTG
$25.00
$25.00
PHYLLIS MOLIERE
COMM ASST BD MTG
$25.00
$25.00
SUSAN MUELLER
COMM ASST COW MTG
$25.00
$25.00
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$14.06
MISC EXPENSES
$40.93
$54.99*
WALTER SOSIN
COMM ASST BD MTG
$25.00
$25.00
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
***TOTAL**
$587.69
GENERAL FUND
$587.69
********************************************************************************************************
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
I.B.M. CORPORATION - BC5
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC
XL/DATACOMP INC.
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
NOV MTCE COMPUTER/PRINTER
NOV MTCE COMPUTERIPRINTER
MISC EXPENSES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
NOVEMBER MTCE SERVICE
$194.00
$21.00
$215.00
$16.27
$16.27*
$21.95
$110.15
$132.10
$13.04
$13.04
***TOTAL**
$376.41
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 9
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $376.41
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
AA SWIFT PRINT, INC.
MP NEWSLETTER CHARGES
$4,297.50
$4,297.50
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE FOR NEWSLETTER
$2,828.07
$2,828.07*
RYDIN SIGN AND DECAL
DECALS (NO SOLICITORS)
$758.50
$758.50
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
***TOTAL**
$7,884.07
GENERAL FUND
$7,884.07
********************************************************************************************************
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION
DUES-FLOREY
$279.68
$279.68
BROOKFIELD
ADMINISTRATION FEES
$4 .
DUP PMT NOVDECMAR SVC FEES
$227474 .2200
SEPT 92 PPO SVC FEE
$755.85
MED CLAIMS THRU 11/23/92
$44,823.26
$50,260.38*
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATES
SERVICES RENDERED
$1,687.50
$1,687.50
FORT DEARBORN LIFE INSURANCE
DEC 92 LIFE INSURANCE
$2,121.93
$2,121.93
HINSHAW, CULBERTSON, MOELMANN,
LEGAL FEES FEINGOLD/KAPLAN
$850.68
$850.68*
HMO ILLINOIS
DECEMBER HEALTH INSURANCE
$9,194.83
$9,194.83
KNIGHT,HOPPE,FANNING&KNIGHT,LT
LIABILITY INSURANCE
$1,960.01
LIABILITY INSURANCE
$2,579.70
LEGAL_LITY FEES
$1,004.00
$2,634.52
$8,178.23
RISK RESOURCES
RISK MGMT SERVICESE
$500.00
$500.00
SCIENTIFIC SUPPLY CO.
1 BOX SYRINGE/NDL
$17.75
$17.75
SPORT
SVCS WERNER P02241W
$294.00
$294.00
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
***TOTAL**
$73,384.98
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 10
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11%2492
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $73,384.98
********************************************************************************************************
INSPECTION SERVICES
CHARLES BENCIC
MEMPERSHIP RENEWAL REIMB
$40.00
$40.00
COUNCIL OF AMER. BLDG. OFFCLS.
APPL RENEWAL-JAKES
$30.00
$30.00
LES HANNEMAN
REGISTRATION
$65.00
$65.00
ILLINOIS PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC'
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
$40.00
$40.00
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$16.26
$472.00
TED GORSKI
MISC EXPENSES
$26.00
$27.40
HANSEN ASSOCIATES
MISC EXPENSES
$10.80
X553.06*
PIONEER STANDARD ELECTRONIC
EXPANSION CARD
$801.52
$801.52
THOMPSON ELEVATOR INSPECTION S
ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS
$864.00
PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION
$77.00
INSPECTIONS
$243.00
ELEVATOR INSPECTION
$50.00
$1,234.00
XLfDATACOMP INC.
NOVEMBER MICE SERVICE
$13.04
$13.04
INSPECTION SERVICES
***TOTAL**
$2,276.62
GENERAL FUND
$2,276.62
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALLEN TESTPRODUCTS
ANALYZER WARRANTY
$612.00
$612.00
BEARING DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
MTCE SUPPLIES
$17.20
$17.20
BIOSAFETY SYSTEMS, INC.
SUPPLIES
$304.72
SUPPLIES
$64.00
$368.72
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
OCT 92 CAR WASHES
$472.00
$472.00
TED GORSKI
EXPENSES
$27.40
$27.40
HANSEN ASSOCIATES
SERVICE & COPIES
$118.66
VENDOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT
HEWLETT PACKARD
IDENTI-KIT COMPANY, INC.
LEE AUTO PARTS
LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & OFFIC
HARRY MOSER
MOTOROLA, INC.
NORTH EAST MULTI REGIONAL TRAI
PROSPECT BOARDING KENNEL
SAVE -A -PET
RODNEY SMITH
SUBURBAN TRIM & GLASS CO.
TRW CREDIT DATA DIVISION
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBA
VALVOLINE, INC.
WINKELMANS RADIATOR CO.
JOSEPH ZIOLKOWSKI
POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL FUND
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 11
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
SERVICE & COPIES
$119.37
SERVICE & COPIES
$163.77
$401.80
SUPPORT AGREEMENT
$663.00
SUPPORT AGREEMENT
$90.00
$753.00
2 IDENTIKIT ANNUAL RENTAL
$768.00
$768.00
MISC CLEANING SUPPLIES
$130.59
MISC CLEANING SUPPLIES
$24.15
CREDIT
$80.29-
$74.45
SUPPLIES
$61.16
$61.16
EXPENSES
$128.30
$128.30
3 MT1000 RADIOS
$1,836.00
$1,836.00
TEXTBOOKS
$24.00
SEPT 92 STRAYS
$658.00
224.00
$ 58.00
SEPT 92 STRAYS
$525.00
$525.00
EXPENSES
$27.40
$27.40
REPAD 2 SEATS
$161.00
$161.00
SERVICES RENDERED
$29.00
$29.00
TUITION - WOODSIDE
$540.00
$540.00
OIL
$1,050.00
$1,050.00
REPAIR RADIATOR
$110.00
$110.00
TRAINING EXPENSES
$93.50
$93.50
***TOTAL**
$8,737.93
$6,901.93 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND
$1,836.00
ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO. SUPPLIES $37.56 $37.56
ARATEX AND MEANS SERVICES, INC LINEN SERVICE $108.93
LINEN SERVICE $151.11
VENDOR
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
BIOSAFETY SYSTEMS, INC.
CHICAGO COMM. SERVICE, INC.
DOUGLAS TRUCK PARTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY GROUP
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
FULTON CONTRACTING CO.
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
HANSEN ASSOCIATES
ILLINOIS FIRE CHIEFS FOUNDATIO
INTERNATIONAL TRNG. INST., INC
KAR PRODUCTS INC
LIQUID AIR CORPORATION
MAC TOOLS
MAC'S FIRE AND SAFETY, INC.
MEDICAL PRODUCTS
MORTON GROVE AUTOMOTIVE WEST
NAPA -HEIGHTS AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
LINEN SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
CREDIT
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
SUPPLIES
OCT 92 CAR WASHES
SEMI-ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
TIRES
TIRES
TIRES
SERVICE & COPIES
SERVICE & COPIES
SERVICE & COPIES
1993 DUES-CAVELLO
1993 DUES-ULREICH
1993 DUES -JACKSON
SUPPLIES
MTCE SUPPLIES
CYLINDER OXYGEN
TOOLS
TURN OUT GEAR
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
PARTS
PARTS
CREDIT
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
INVOICE AMOUNT
$75.56
$512.20
$22.80
$91.70
$105.00
$33.66-
$14.50
$22.62
$39.50
24.18
$ 67.69
$1,320.00
33.00
$266.59
$285. OB
$38.00
$118.66
$119.37
$163.77
$70.00
$35:00
$35.00
$108.00
$164.15
$20.00
$130.00
$5,005.00
$167.50
$145.00
$35.00
$178.30-
$198.70
$26.85
$20.97
$12.30
$94.62
PAGE 12
TOTAL
$335.60
$512.20
$219.50
$67.14
$267.69
S20.00
$1,333.00
$589.67
$401.80
$140.00
$108.00
$164.15
$20.00
$130.00
$5,005.00
$167.50
$180.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11124192
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSI
NORTHWEST FORD TRUCK CENTER
NUTRITION ACTION
SAVANT WELDING SUPPLY, INC.
SCHWAB REHABILITAION CENTER
SCHWAAB, INC.
SYMANTEC CORPORATION
TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBA
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
GENERAL FUND
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
HEALTH EVALUATIONS
MICE SUPPLIES
MICE SUPPLIES
SUBSCRIPTION
OXYGEN CYLINDER
IND INJ CLINIC-REINLEIN
PRE INKED STAMP
INK PADS/RUBBER STAMPS
SOFTWARE
SUPPLIES
CLASS 93-155 WISNIEWSKI
CLASS 93-060 WILSON
INVOICE AMOUNT
$4.42
$137.90
$16.26
$2,680.00
$140.06
$69.12
$10.00
$26.98
$85.00
$26.76
$40.91
$32.00
$23.68
$35.00
$35.00
***TOTAL**
PAGE 13
TOTAL
$333.72
$2,680.00
$209.18
$10.00
$26.98
$85.00
$67.67
$32.00
$23.68
$70.00
$13,237.04
$8,102.04 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND $5,135.00
********************************************************************************************************
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICES
NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH SYS DEC 92 MEMBER ASSESSMENT $29,484.50 $29,484.50
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICES ***TOTAL** $29,484.50
GENERAL FUND $29,484.50
********************************************************************************************************
VENDOR
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
AMERICAN TAXI CO.,INC.
CENTRAL CONTINENTAL BAKERY
COMMUNITY CAB CO.
PARKE-DAVIS
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
SHAW-BARTON
SPRINGHOUSE DIRECT
SUN OFFICE EQUIPMENT CO., INC.
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
GENERAL FUND
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 14
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24192
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
SENIOR TAXI RIDES
$718.55
$718.55
VOLUNTEER REFRESHMENTS
$147.78
$147.78
SENIOR TAXI RIDES
$374.25
$374.25
110 FLUOGEN SYRINGES
$3,600.00
110 FLUOGEN SYRINGES
$22.30
$3,622.30
MISC EXPENSES
$6.04
MISC EXPENSES
$72.15
$78.19*
VOLUNTEER GIFTS
$691.93
$691.93
PUBLICATION
$27.70
$27.70
3 ARM CHAIRS
$300.00
$300.00
***TOTAL**
$5,960.70
$5,960.70
********************************************************************************************************
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ALPHAGRAPHICS 10 COLOR PRINTS OF MAPS $100.00 $100.00
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT. MISC EXPENSES $10.00 $10.00*
REI TITLE SERVICES SERVICES RENDEREDg75.00 X575.00
SUBURBAN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE C MEDICAL SERVICES $1,333.33 $1,333.33
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ***TOTAL** $1,518.33
GENERAL FUND $110.00 COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $1,408.33
********************************************************************************************************
VENDOR
STREET DIVISION
ADAMS INTERIORS LTD
ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO.
ALLEN TESTPRODUCTS
ALLIED ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS FORD
ARVEY PAPER & SUPPLIES
BERTHOLD NURSERY
THE BRAKE ALIGN COMPANY
BRUCE MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT INC
CITRON CHEMICAL, INC.
ARTHUR CLESEN, INC.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
CONRAD AND SON
COURTESY HOME CENTER
DESIGN-SCAPE CONTRACTOR, INC.
DEVOE & RAYNOLDS CO.
DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.
DUPAGE TOPSOIL INC.
E AND E HAULING INC.
THE FILE MART
FRIES AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 15
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/242
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
VERTICAL BLINDS
$1,550.00
$1,550.00*
SUPPLIES
$24.16
SUPPLIES
$15.12
SUPPLIES
$12.53 -
SUPPLIES
$5.36
SUPPLIES
$42.93
SUPPLIES
$23.56
SUPPLIES
$32.62
SUPPLIES
$134.83
$266.05
ANALYZER WARRANTY
$612.00
ANALYZER WARRANTY
$204.00
$816.00
MATERIALS
$300.90
MATERIALS
$358.35
MATERIALS
$528.00
$1,187.25
KEYS
$11.10
$11.10
PARTS
$4.39
PARTS
$7.26
PARTS
$37.89
$49.54
P TOUCH LABELING SUPPLIES
$89.12
$89.12
TREES
$196.50
$196.50
2 BRAKE CHAMBERS
$130.00
$130.00
MTCE SUPPLIES
$55.90
SUPPLIES
$791.94
$847.84
CLEANING SUPPLIES
$579.05
$579.05
FERTILIZER
$225.00
$225.00
BJ80-JT-23212
$156.37
$156.37
MTCE SUPPLIES
$7.60
$7.60
MASONRY BITS
$16.65
$16.65
BRICK WORK REPAIR
$375.00
$375.00
SUPPLIES
X524.21
REPAIR OVERHEAD DOOR
$358.82
X524.21
$358.82
TOPSOIL
$700.00
$700.00
REFUSE DISPOSAL
$266.00
$266.00
SUPPLIES
$56.75
$56.75
TOW#4501
$95.00
$95.00
OCT 92 CAR WASHES
$16.00
$16.00
VENDOR
STREET DIVISION
G & K SERVICES
GATEWAY SUPPLY CO.
H & H ELECTRIC CO.
HOSKINS CHEVROLET, INC.
ILLINOIS TURFGRASS FOUNDATION
INDUSTRIAL LADDER & SUPPLY CO.
NELS J. JOHNSON
KAR PRODUCTS INC
LAND AND LAKES CO
LEWIS EQUIPMENT CO.
J.C. LICHT COMPANY
ROGER MEYER
MIDWEST WATERPROOFING SERV.INC
MORAN EQUIPMENT CORP.
NATIONAL HEAT AND POWER CORPOR
NORTH AMERICAN SALT CO.
NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11124192
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
UNIFORM SERVICE
UNIFORM SERVICE
PLUMBING SUPPLIES
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MICE
PARTS
REGISTRATION FEES
REGISTRATION FEES
EXTENSION LADDER
PKWY TREE TRIMMING
SUPPLIES
DEBRIS DUMPING
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
DISPOSAL FEES
DISPOSAL FEES
FOUNDATION REPAIR WORK
MTCE SUPPLIES
SERVICE EQUIPMENT
SUPPLIES
ROAD SALT
ROAD SALT
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
INVOICE AMOUNT
$151.70
$151.69
$28.87
$1,232.00
$3.45
$130.00
$85.00
$187.95
$5,905.50
$85.74
$1,191.00
53.37
$ 25.25
$160.32
$234.43
$3.59
$14.35
$1,359.00
$2,622.50
$195.00
$44.17
$713.00
$461.25
$9,667.72
$2,189.07
$405.44
$93.63
$93.06
$161.04
$364.55
$214.86
$832.96
$119.61
$1,030.28
$488.66
$13.38
PAGE 16
TOTAL
$303.39
$28.87
$1,232.00
$3.45
$215.00-
$187.95
$5,905.50
$85.74
$1,191.00
$873.37
$17.94
$3,981.50
$195.00
$44.17
$1,174.25
$11,856.79
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 17
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
STREET DIVISION
NORTHWEST FORD TRUCK CENTER
SUPPLIES
VALVE ASSEMBLY
$80.90
$133.52
$3,898.37
$133.52
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$10.72
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$13.53
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$4.50
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$48.95
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$5.80
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$45.00
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$36.31
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$54.01
PINNER ELECTRIC
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
ELECTRICAL WORK
$47.63
$2,700.00
$266.45*
$2,700.00
PLANT•CLINIC
PAUL POLINSKI
FUNGUS DIAGNOSIS
S/C SIDEWALK
$5.00
$5.00
POLLARD MOTOR COMPANY
PARTS
$112.00
$41.13
$112.00
PARTS
$7.95
SHEPP PEST CONTROL
PARTS
NOV 92 PEST CONTROL
$56.97
$40.00
$106.05
NOV 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
NOV 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
NOV 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
NOV 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY
NOV 92 PEST CONTROL
CYLINDERS
$40.00
$240.00
RICHARD UGOLINI
REIMB SAFETY SHOES
$121.57
$50.00
$121.57
$50.00
VALIQUET INC.
VALVOLINE, INC.
SHARPEN CHIPPER BLADES
OIL
$34.00
$34.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
101 S MAPLE
$700.00
$352.00
$700.00
$352.00
WAY -KEN CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO.
1-42" BAR
$88.95
$88.95
HOWARD L. WHITE & ASSOCIATES,
WASTE CONTAINERIASHTRAY
$442.51
$442.51
STREET DIVISION
***TOTAL**
$44,566.19
GENERAL FUND
$31,477.40 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
$13,088.79
VENDOR
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11%24%92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
E4ufl3IilmilNcall)k,Y%
PAGE 18
TOTAL
ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO.
SUPPLIES
$22.09
SUPPLIES
$11.72
SUPPLIES
$13.05
SUPPLIES
$94.04
SUPPLIES
$94.35
SUPPLIES
$21.47
$256.72
ALLEN TESTPRODUCTS
ANALYZER WARRANTY
$612.00
$612.00
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS FORD
PARTS
$96.93
CREDIT
$96.93 -
PARTS
$20.54
$20.54
ARLINGTON HTS CAMERA
26 ALBUM PAGES
$15.34
$15.34
BUSSE'S FLOWERS & GIFTS
FLOWERS-BOLIN
$53.00
$53.00
CELLULAR ONE - CHICAGO
OCT 92 SERVICE
$126.50
$126.50
COMARK, INC.
COMARK MTCE ATREEMENT
$120.00
$120.00
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
BJ80-JT-23598
$2,976.74
$2,976.74
COMP USA
CREDIT
$69.00 -
SUPPLIES
$59.97
CREDIT
$147.99 -
SUPPLIES
8.98
SUPPLIES
$ 9.99
SUPPLIES
$117.96
$9.91
R. L. CORTY & COMPANY
HOSE
$110.00
$110.00
DREISILKER ELECTRIC MOTORS, IN
MOTOR
$34.76
TOOLS
$26.52
$61.28
EATON FINANCIAL CORP
OCTZNOV COPIER LEASE PMT
$506.23
OCT%NOV COPIER LEASE PMT
$506.23
$1,012.46*
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
5 PRIORITY LETTERS
$77.50
$77.50
FREDRIKSEN & SONS
EXTINGUISHER SERVICE
$20.00
$20.00
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
OCT 92 CAR WASHES
$17.00
$17.00
G & K SERVICES
UNIFORM SERVICE
$151.69
UNIFORM SERVICE
$151.70
$303.39
VENDOR
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
MARIO GAMBINO LANDSCAPING INC
H -B -K WATER METER SERVICE
HOSKINS CHEVROLET, INC.
I.B.M. CORPORATION - BC5
JULIE, INC.
LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & OFFIC
MASTER HITCH, INC.
MCMASTER-CARR
METRON TECHNOLOGY
MEYER MATERIAL CO.
ROGER MEYER
MORAN EQUIPMENT CORP.
MORTON GROVE AUTOMOTIVE WEST
NET MIDWEST, INC.
NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
NUMERIDEX
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
POLLARD MOTOR COMPANY
POSTMASTER
RADIO SHACK
RAINBOW 1 HR PHOTO EXP.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 19
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APP OVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
PARKWAY SOD
$375.00
$375.00
WATER METER LABOR
$107.06
WATER METER LABOR
$237.90
WATER METER LABOR
$392.54
$737.50
PARTS
$33.00
PARTS
NOV MICE COMPUTER/PRINTER
$1.18
$194.00
$34.18
NOV MICE COMPUTERjPRINTER
$21.00
$215.00
OCT92.SERVICE
$172.69
OCT92 SERVICE
$14.58
$187.27
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$73.91
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$8.25
$82.16
MICE SUPPLIES
$68.00
MICE SUPPLIES
$63.00
$131.00
WATER HOSE REEL
$267.26
$267.26
WATER METER
$765.98
$765.98
MATERIALS
$243.67
MATERIALS
$600.43
$844.10
MATERIAL HAULING CHARGES
$3,254.50
$3,254.50
MICE SUPPLIES
$44.17
$44.17
REPAIRED STARTER
$125.00
$125.00
OCT 92 WATER SAMPLES
$272.50
$272.50
SUPPLIES
CREDIT
$62.88
$62.88
4 PLOTTER PENS
$25.00-
$72.96
$47.96
LEGAL NOTICE
$21.10
$21.10
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$29.00
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$67.10
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$18.00
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$6.21
$120.31*
PARTS
$41.13
PARTS
$7.96
PARTS
POSTAGE FOR WATER BILLS
$56.96
$569.05
$106.05
$569.05*
2 LINE TESTERS
$10.98
$10.98
FILM & PROCESSING
$7.15
VENDOR
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 20
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11/24/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
WATER & SEWER FUND
$16,587.84
***TOTAL** $16,587.84
********************************************************************************************************
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SUPPLIES $86.91 $86.91
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 19 E NORTHWEST HWY $8.25 $8.25
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION ***TOTAL** $95.16
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $95.16
FILM & PROCESSING
$75.49
$82.64
RED WING SHOE STORE
SAFETY SHOES -MURPHY
$50.00
$50.00
SEMINETTA PLUMBING COMPANY
B -BOX REPAIRS
$258.75
$258.75
SOUND INCORPORATED
SERVICE SECURITY CAMERA
$324.42
$324.42
SRECO FLEXIBLE
MICE SUPPLIES
$178.97
$178.97
LARRY STANLEY
REIMB SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
STATE OF ILLINOIS
BOILER INSPECTION
$15.00
$15.00
TECH SYN CORPORATION
INDUSTRIAL HOSE ASSEMBLY
$425.60
$425.60
TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY
MTCE SUPPLIES
$16.75
MICE SUPPLIES
$48.39
$65.14
THE TEXWIPE COMPANY
SUPPLIES
$60.04
$60.04
V & G PRINTERS INC.
REQUISITION FORMS
$165.00
$165.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$93.02
$93.02
HOWARD L. WHITE & ASSOCIATES,
WASTE CONTAINER/ASHTRAY
$72.78
$72.78
ZIEBELL WATER SERVICE PRODUCTS
MTCE SUPPLIES
$194.45
CLAMPS
$485.70
$680.15
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
WATER & SEWER FUND
$16,587.84
***TOTAL** $16,587.84
********************************************************************************************************
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SUPPLIES $86.91 $86.91
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 19 E NORTHWEST HWY $8.25 $8.25
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION ***TOTAL** $95.16
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $95.16
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 21
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11124192
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
REFUSE DISPOSAL DIVISION
ARC DISPOSAL COMPANY OCTOBER REFUSE COLLECTION
$
OCTOBER REFUSE COLLECTION ,670.72
$49
OCTOBER REFUSE COLLECTION $49,112.80
$27,397.71
OCTOBER REFUSE COLLECTION *
$299,,163163.66 $220,344.89
REFUSE DISPOSAL DIVISION ***TOTAL**
$220,344.89
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND $220,344.89
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ACTON MOBILE INDUSTRIES, INC.
FIELD OFFICE TRAILER
$230.00
FIELD OFFICE TRAILER
$230.00
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
FIELD OFFICE TRAILER
KEYS
$200.00
$660.00
ARCHIPLAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.
SERVICES RENDERED
$18.37
$2,553.50
$18.37
$2,553.50
CUES, INC.
LIGHTHEAD
$850.00
$850.00
THE FIRST CHICAGO BANK OF M.P.
DECEMBER RENT
$2,600.00
$2,600.00
KAR PRODUCTS INC
SUPPLIES
$65.01
THOMAS OFF
SUPPLIES
FLOOD PREVENTION REBATE
$65.01
$517.00
130.02
517.00
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
OCT LEGAL SERVICES
$1,062.29
$1,062.29
POLLARD MOTOR COMPANY
MICE SUPPLIES
$165.00
SEC DONOHUE INC.
MTCE SUPPLIES
SERVICES RENDERED
$165.00
$16,588.06
$330.00
$16,588.06
WOLF AND COMPANY
TIF COMPLIANCE REPORT
$625.00
$625.00
ZZEBART
RUSTPROOF FORD CAB
$140.00
$140.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
***TOTAL**
$26,074.24
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 22
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 11124%92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $1,468.39 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND $2,553.50
POLICE & FIRE BOND PROCEEDS $3,260.00 DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1991 $1,687.29
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991 $17,105.06
********************************************************************************************************
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
BOY SCOUT TROOP 117
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
GENERAL FUND
ALL DEPARTMENTS TOTAL
9 CHRISTMAS WREATHS
$198.00
$198.00
***TOTAL**
$198.00
$198.00
$1,113,635.89
DATE RUN 11124192
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 23
TIME RUN 12.00.17
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL
LISTING ID-APPBAR
SUMMARY BY FUND 11124192
NO.
FUND NAME
AMOUNT
1
GENERAL FUND
$572,444.42
21
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
$222,180.02
22
MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
$13,088.79
23
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
$2,654.96
24
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
$11,699.64
41
WATER & SEWER FUND
$50,106.09
46
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
$1,091.48
48
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
$1,468.39
49
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$97,251.42
51
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
$9,524.50
53
POLICE & FIRE BOND PROCEEDS
$3,260.00
56
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1991
$1,687.29
58
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991
$17,105.06
71
POLICE -PENSION FUND
$41,511.80
72
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
$47,060.28
74
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND
$21,501.75
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $1,113,635.89
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, in1S72.Dr 3�d�.of�orthvve�t Hospital, saw �
/! ' ' ^ .
. �m��|c��m��to provide both life-saving medical services and
WHEREAS, Or. Zvdlo pioneered the concept of providing Emergency Medical
�
the support and cooperation of community leaders, Or. ZydIo was successful in
establishing the Emergency Medial Services program; and
./
WHEREAS, under the direction ofOr. BtaneyZvd|o the Emergency Medical
�
Services program provided extensive training for nnsnnbems of |000| Fire
|� Oepartments, which training would provide the best on -the -scene medical
/
assistance necessary on a drne|y booio, which is crucial in life-threatening
!
situations; and
i|
||
WHEREAS, the Village ofMount Prospect became a member of the first multi
||
community group toprovide Emergency Medical Service inthe entire nation; and
/
||
���|������ the of vveaone ofthe first oon�n�unhjesin
|/ ^ '�a= ''""p=°"
� the State of Illinois to initiate e Penarnodio program: and
!
v
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has been the recipient of many
awards and is widely acknowledged as o leader in the field of the Emergency
Medical Services; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, through its excellent Paramedic
.Program and dedicated employees. is proud ofthe life-saving Paramedic Service
provided over the past 20years; and
||
NOW, THEREFORE, |. Gerald L Farley, Mayor of the Village of Mount
Prospect, onbehalf ofthe Board ofTrustees and the residents ofthe ViUege.do
�|express appreciationto Dr. Stanley Zyd|o.the Mount Prospect Paramedics,
hospital personnel and everyone involved in the Paramedic Program for their
dedication in providing this life-saving emergency medical service.
�
�| | do further congratulate everyone involved on the occasion of the 20dh
Anniversary of the Northwest Suburban Paramedic Program.
|
!
�.
iCarol A. Fields
Village Clerk
x
Dated this 1 st day of December, 1992
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
4083J9 PUP 90aO3 TTnJ UT aq TTeqs 0OUeUTPJO STqj :2MOa NOILYa—S
-A4iadoad
qoaEqns aq4 o4 se 4oajje PUP aoaoj TTnj UT UTPm9l TTPI[s suOT4PTnb9a
PUP S90UPUTPIO 4oadsoad 4unoW go q&e-E,
TTA 9TqPOTTddp aaq4o
TTP 'UT9a9q P94UPab 9Sfl JVToadS aqq joj 4daoxa -4-aaUHJ, NOIlDaS
o4OTa4STP TeTWOPTS91 e UT ObPleb e UT paXied
aq o4 spunod 0001S UVq4 9aOM aO 4qbTOM P9SU90TT e 144Tm 9TOT149A
TeTO19MMOO e mOTTe 04 esfl VeToadS e 4ueab Aqaaeq 4oadsoad 4unoW
JO 9beTTTA 914:4 JO sa94srul JO PaeO9 Pup 4u9PTs9ad 9ql :OML NOIlDaS
*4oadsoad 4unoW go BbeTTTA 9q4 JO
seaqsnal go papoq PUP WOPTsald a94 Aq 40PJ 90 SbUTPUTJ Se UT919XI
pa4eaodaoOUT OaP 9AoqeUT919q q4aO3 49s sTe4TO92 9ql :RNO Noll -0-19
:SIONIUqI 'AINnOD NOOD '10adSOUd INflOW dO aDVIUIA alll dO saawaul
ao auvoa Qmv maaIsaud alll As aaNIVaHO II as 'a*doaa*daHL 'MON
-qsenbea PTEs bUT4Ueab
Aq patxas aq PTnom 4oedsoad 4unOW JO 9bvTTTA 9q4 JO s4SO294ui qsaq
9q4 4eq4 PBUTUU949P OAeq PUP Z6 -IIS -69 VqZ go 4oalctns 9XI4 bUT;q PUP
9sn TeToeds 9144 04 UOT4ea9PTSUO0 aaq4anj U9ATb 9A*eq 9beTTTA*9q4 90
saa4snaj go Pavou Pule 4u9PTsB-Td alq4 PUP 4oadsOad 4unoW go 9bUTTTA
9144 JO s994srL-IL JO PaeO9 PUP -4u9PTs9ld 9tJ4 0-4 SUOT-4ePU9mmO09j
PUP SbUTPUTJ s -4T P944Tmqns seq sTeaddV go PaeO9 6UTUOZ
;9q4 'SVadaHM
PUP !Z66T laaqo400 go Aep q49 qq4 uo PTel9H I 40aago-za 4unoR 9q4 UT
P9qsTTqnd 90919q4 9OT40U a9doad pue anp oq 4uensand 'Z66T laaqo4o0'
go Xlep Puzz ;aT44 uo' :Zoadsoacl -4unow go 96lpTTTA 9q4 90 sTeaddv
JO P-TeOq bUTUOZ 914q 9-io;aq 'Z6 -IIS -69 *ON 9se0 V9Z
go 4oalqns
9q4 bUTaq Osfl TvToads 9xT4 uO PT9q SeM bUTle9q OTTqnd e Isv '
aaaHM
PUP !4OTaqSTP TPTqU9PTS9a
P uT aftleb e uT peNjed aq oq spunod 4*4 Om ,
00018 U72q 9-1 JO qqbT9M
PBSUBOTT P 44TA 6TOT49A TeT0a9UlMO0 R MOITP 04 '8o0*T0TT'VT uOT4oqs
UT P9PTAO-id se '-4Tuuad 9sn TeToadS Q sXa9s a9uOT-4T49d 'SVa'UaHM
Pule
STOUTTTI IA4unoo 3[000 'UVTPT29N TvdTOUTad
PaTT41 914-4 JO 4SVS 'TT a-6UPH '144 -ION zt, dTqsumo' 'SZ
UOr409S go 294aPnO 4samq4joN aq4 go 4avd go UOTSTATpqns
P bUT9q 't 4TUn UOT4TPPY PuZ aOuRN uvuDfOT29 uT
Ttlz 407
:sP p9qTl3s9P ATTPb9T I(A4aadoad
4oalqns Sle 0'4 P9aa938.T l9-4jRUT;9.Tatj) OulerI V314TS TT8T sle umOux
ATUOmmOD Aqa9doad aoj 9sn TVToadS P aoj U014PDTTdde up P9TT3 Seq
(a9UOT4T49d SP 04 P9-l.X939-T .1
94JPUT9a9q) URMJJOH "d S9MPf 'SVSF'daHM
Mll VNITS TTST SV NMONA ArINOWHOD
Axuadoud wa asri rivioads V f)NiLNvdo aoxvNiciuo my
'OK aDNVNIGHO
Z6/SZ/OT
JVZ)
ZBA 69 -SU -92
Page 2 of 2
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TW crry use
TO: Mayor Gerald L. Farley zo. f�Tz;)
Board of Trustees
Village Manager
FROM: Forestry/Grounds Superintendent
DATE: November 23, 1992
SUBJ: Proposed Sight Obstruction Ordinances
In your packet for the 12/1/92 Board Meeting you will find pro-
posed revisions to Chapters Five, Nine, Eleven, Fifteen and
Sixteen in regards to the sight obstruction issue. These revi-
sions incorporate the comments made at the 11/17/92 Board meet-
ing, and all "housekeeping" changes needed for consistency
throughout the Village Code. The Director of Planning and Zon-
ing has reviewed these revisions and has no objections.
Also, attached herewith please find a newly updated outline of
sight obstruction situations that may occur. The only changes
in this outline (dated 12/1/92) as compared to the last one you
received, are in Section 11 B2. This section was revised be-
cause of the Board's consensus that berms on private property
within new developments should be restricted by sight triangle
guidelines. I
-Sandy Clark
SC/eh
PROPORD2/FILES/FORESTRY
VARIOUS SITUATIONS COVERED BY
PROPOSED SIGHT OBSTRUCTION ORDINANCE CHANGES
12/l/92
I. Properties not subject to Development Code
A. Request to install new plantings on R.O.W.
1. Deciduous trees - PW approvesidisapproves permit
(9.501)
2. Shrubs/evergreens - not allowed (9.501) If Pub-
lic Works sees new plantings on right-of-way they
will require removal.
B. Requests to install berms
1. On R.O.W. - not allowed (9.302)
2. On private property - Director of Inspection Ser-
vices approves/disapproves (Chapter 21, Article IV)
C. Existing berms on R.O.W.
P.W. Director, Dir. of Inspection Services or Engineer-
ing Division may require removal if deemed necessary.
Note that this is true even if berm is not in a sight
triangle (9.302).
& berms) on R.O.W.
If hazard exists and complaint received, Engineering
contacts owner to request removal/modification/
pruning. If no compliance, Eng. asks PW to correct
problem at property owner's expense. Appeals may be
made to Safety Commission (9.117 & 9.303)
E. Existinq sight obstructions on private proper�l,
If hazard exists and complaint received, Engineering
contacts owner to request removal/modification/
pruning. if homeowner chooses not to cooperate no
further action is taken.
F. Other Violations of Chapter 9
P.W. enforces
0 * - ..__3MM7*M
A. New plantings (treeslshrubs/evergEeens)
1. On R.O.W. -
a. New deciduous trees required, developer
pays, P.W. plants. (16.408A)
b. No new shrubs/evergreens allowed. (9.501)
2. on private property - landscaping required as per
Chapter 15. Plantings are restricted by sight
triangle guidelines. (15.417) Planning & Zoning
approves/disapproves.
B. New berms
1. On R.O.W. - Not allowed (9.302)
2. on private property - Subject to grading require-
ments of Chapter 21, Article IV and sight trian-
gle restrictions in 15.417. Director of I.S.
approves/disapproves. (15.409 encourages berms
but refers to 15.417 and to Chap. 21)
C. Existin2 glantings
1. On R.O.W. -
a. Trees - PW determines whether trees will be
removed or saved (16.408B)
b. Shrubs/evergreens - PW requires developer to
prune or remove all evergreen/shrub plant-
ings on right-of-way as if they were within
a sight triangle. (16.4088)
2. on private property - Planning & Zoning requires
developer to bring plantings into compliance with
sight triangle guidelines (15.417)
D. Existina berms
1. On R.O.W. - P.W. Director, Dir. of Inspection
Services or Engineering Division may require
removal if deemed necessary. Note that this is
true even if berm is not in a sight triangle
(9.302).
2. On private property - Planning and Zoning will
identify problems and bring to attention of Engi-
neering. (15.409 and Chapter 21, Article IV)
OBSTORD.2/FILES/FORESTRY
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTSq,(&RECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1992
SUBJECT: SIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS - BERMS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
As a follow-up to the November 17 Village Board meeting, I have reviewed the matter of
berms as a sight obstruction on private property,
The draft ordinance for Chapter 15 - Landscape, states "earthen berms... shall... be
incorporated into the landscape treatment of a site," This is subject to requirements of
Section 15.417. Sight obstructions are regulated in 15.417, in that "nothing shall be planted,
RLIZd or permitted to remain within a sight triangle on either pubic or RLilate property."
The draft ordinance for Chapter 16 - Development Code, includes a section about
landscaping. This section makes reference to Chapter 15 for landscaping, including berms
on private property. Chapter 16 primarily pertains to landscaping on public property.
Further, these ordinances are appropriately "tied -back" to Chapter 9 - Trees and Shrubs.
oaf - 8/18/92
vwl - 8/26/92
oaf - 9/10/92
SC/caf - 11-19-92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE x ENTITLED 11SAFETY COMMISSION"
OF 9HARTAR 5 OF THE VILLA9Z CODEO MOM PROSPECT
WHEREAS, in order to provide a greater degree of safety for
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in Mount Prospect the
President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
have considered amendments to the Village Code to regulate I'Sight
Obstructions"; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the
Village would be served by adopting the following amendment to the
Village Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 5.1004 of Article B entitled "Duties of
Commission$' of Chapter 5 of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby
further amended in its entirety; so that hereinafter said Section
5.1004 shall be and read as follows:
Sec. 5.1004. Duties. of Commission. The Commission will
perform and exercise the following functions:
A. Cooperate with the Village President and Board of
Trustees in carrying out a program of safety in the
Village.
B. Recommend such actions to the Board of Trustees as it
may deem appropriate to serve the cause of safety.
C. Hear appeals from the decisions of the Engineering
Division with respect to sight obstructions, as set forth
in Section 9.117 of the village Code.
D. Invite and encourage the cooperation of community
organisations; such as religious, schools, home owners or
civic groups in carrying on its work.
E. The Commission shall have the authority to inspect and
examine any and all records, and any reports from any
department within the Village government relating to its
work to serve the cause of safety, except village
personnel records, juvenile records and other records
protected by law. Reports from the Police Department
will be furnished upon a showing of good cause. Any
village department or agency shall furnish information
concerning its work, records or reports when such
information is requested by the Safety Commission.
F. Submit, not less than semi-annually, a report to the
President and Board of Trustees on all activities of the
Safety Commission, together with such recommendations as
the Commission shall wish to transmit. of
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
Chapter 5
Page 2 of
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 1992.
Gerald L. Parley
President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
SC/caf - 11/19/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED
"STREETS AND SIDEWALKS" OF
THE VI-..LAGE VI-..LACODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, in order to
provide a greater degree of safety for
pedestrians, cyclists,
and motorists in Mount Prospect the
President and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
have considered amendments to the Village Code to regulate "Bight
Obstructions#$; and
WHEREAS, the President
and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect have determined
that the best interests of the
Village would be served
by adopting the following amendment to the
Village Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 9.105 entitled "Obstructions and
Encroachments Regulated'i of Article I of Chapter 9 of the Village
Code of Mount Prospect
is hereby amended by adding thereto in
proper alphabetical sequence the following definitions; so that
hereinafter said Section 9.105 shall include the following:
of LOT OF RECORD
A designated parcel of land
identifiable as a single separate
tract which is part of a
subdivision, the plat of which has
been recorded or registered with the
appropriate County office, or the
deed to which has been recorded or
registered with the appropriate
County office pursuant to Chapter
109 (Plats Act) Section 1.(b) of the
Illinois Revised Statutes, and which
is intended to be used, developed or
built upon as a unit.
LOT LINE:
A recorded property boundary line of
any single lot which divides one lot
from another lot or from a right-of-
way.
OBSTRUCTION:
Any portion of any planting of any
kind or nature or any portion of any
object, including, but not limited
to rocks, boulders, poles or fences;
except as otherwise specified in
this Article.
PARKWAY: That part of the public street
right-of-way not occupied by the
street pavement and located between
the back of the curb, or edge of
pavement on streets with no curbs,
and the right-of-way line, as well
as the raised dividing strip of a
roadway. Where a sidewalk exists,
the right-of-way line is often, but
not always, one foot (11) behind the
sidewalk. The exact location of the
right -of -Way line shall be as
indicated on a plat of survey.
Chapter 9, Article I
Page 2 of 4
RIGHT-OF-WAY A strip of land acquired by or
dedicated to the public and occupied
or intended to be occupied by a
street, walkway, railroad, utility
or other similar use.
SIGHT TRIANGLE: A triangle area at the intersection
of two (2) streets or a street and a
driveway, the hypotenuse of which
establishes the minimum safe line of
sight for a motorist, cyclist or
pedestrian. At the intersection of
two (2) streets, the legs of the
triangle shall be measured along the
curbs or edges of pavement on
streets with no curbs. The leg of a
sight triangle along a street having
a legal speed limit of less than 30
MPH shall be fifty-five feet (551).
The leg of a sight triangle along a
street having a legal speed limit of
30 MPH or more shall be seventy-five
feet (751). At the intersection of
a street and a driveway, the legs of
the triangle shall be ten feet (101)
along the edge of the driveway and
twenty-five feet (25') along the
curb, or on a street with no curbs
along the edge of the pavement. For
regulatory purposes, a sight
triangle shall not include private
property.
STREET: An area which provides for vehicular
and pedestrian access to abutting
land or other streets. A $'street"
includes the entire right-of-way and
any improvements which may be
located within the right-of-way. "
SECTION TWO: That Article I entitled "'Streets and Sidewalks" of
Chapter 9 of the village Code of the village of Mount Prospect, as
amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto Section 9.116
and Section 9.117; so that hereinafter said Article I shall include
the following:
of Sec. 9.116. assumption of Risk. Any berming or any planting
or keeping of evergreen trees or shrubs, or objects on public
property, a right-of-way or easement is done at the risk of
the person so doing. The village shall not be responsible for
the replacement or any planting or berm or repair of any
object of any kind or nature maintained by any person or
private property owner within a public right-of-way or
easement. Additionally, by the act of berming, planting or
keeping of evergreen trees or shrubs or placement of any
object on public property the person so doing covenants and
impliedly consents to defend and hold the village harmless
against any claims by any party for damages or injury that
allegedly resulted from the evergreen trees, shrubs, berms or
objects.
Chapter 9, Article I
Page 3 of 4
Sec. 9.117. Existing Obstructions within Sight Triangles;
Violations; Hearings.
All future berming, planting of evergreens or shrubs or
placement of any objects on public property along a street is
prohibited, except as authorised elsewhere in the Village
Code. It is recognized, however, that certain existing
plantings and berms may be retained on public property. The
following regulations shall apply to those existing
obstructions which remain:
Within a sight triangle, the area from three feet (31) to
six feet (61) above the top of the curb, or edge of the
pavement on a street with no curbs, shall be kept free
and clear of any obstruction. A single stemmed tree
Shall be considered to be an obstruction only if its
trunk, as measured six inches (611) above the ground
exceeds three inches (311) in diameter and the lowest
growth from its branches is lower than six feet (61)
above the top of the curb or edge of the pavement.
An obstruction within a sight triangle that is identified by
Village staff or a resident as being unsafe shall be inspected
by the Engineering Division according to the standards in the
preceding paragraph of this Section 9.117. If the Engineering
Division determines that the planting or berm constitutes a
sight obstruction, a written Order to Prune or Remove the
obstruction shall be served on the property owner by regular
mail. If the obstruction is not eliminated or an appeal filed
within thirty (30) days of such notice, the Village reserves
the right to cause such obstruction to be pruned, modified or
removed and to bill the owner for the cost of the work.
A property owner may appeal the order to Prune or Remove by
filing with the Engineering Division a written request for
review by the Village Safety Commission. The request for
review must be filed within thirty (30) days of mailing of the
order. The decision of the Safety Commission shall be binding
unless appealed to the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village by filing a written notice of appeal with the Village
Manager within fourteen (14) days of the Safety Commissions
decision.
In any hearing before the Safety Commission or review by the
President and Board of Trustees, it shall be the burden of the
person desiring to keep the planting, berm or object to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that such does not constitute
a sight obstruction.
The inquiry of the Safety Commission and/or the President and
Board of Trustees shall be limited to (1) whether the
plantings or berms violate a regulation of Chapter 9, Article
V; or (2) whether the plantings, objects or berms actually
limit the view of motorists, cyclists or pedestrians. I'
SECTION THREE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
Chapter 9, Article
Page 4 of 4
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in
pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES;
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of r 1992
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
SC/caf - 11/19/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING ARTICLE III ENTITLED "BERMS#$
OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, in order to provide a greater degree of safety for
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in Mount Prospect the
President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
have considered amendments to the Village Code to regulate OlSight
Obstructions'+; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the village of
Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the
Village would be served by adopting the following amendment to the
Village Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Article III of Chapter 9 of the village Code of
Mount Prospect is hereby created; so that hereinafter said Article
III of Chapter 9 shall be and read as follows:
01 ARTICLE III
BERMS
SECTION:
9.301. Definitions
9.302. Berms on Right -of -Way and Drainage
and Utility Easements
9.303. Enforcement
Sec. 9.301. Definitions.
BERM: A man-made slope raised generally above the
surrounding finish grade.
Sec. 9.302. Berms on Right -of -Way and Drainage and utility
Easements. Berms shall not be created or
maintained on village owned or other publicly -owned right-of-way or
on drainage and utility easements. Where berms currently exist in
these areas, the village reserves the right to require their
removal if, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works,
Director of Inspection Services or Engineering Division, the berms
may interfere with drainage or utilities maintenance or may
constitute a sight obstruction. The assumption of risk provisions
of Section 9.116 shall be applicable to berms.
Sec. 9.303. Enforcement. This Article shall be enforced as set
forth in Section 9.117.
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
Chapter 9 - Berms
Page 2 of 2
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in the
manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
caf - 8/18/92
vwl - 8/26/92
caf - 9/17/92
SC/caf - 11/19/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE V ENTITLED ""TREES""
OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, in order to provide a greater degree of safety for
Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in Mount Prospect the President
and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have
considered amendments to the village Code to regulate "+Sight
Obstructions""; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the village of Mount
Prospect have determined that the best interests Of the village
would be served by adopting the following amendment to the village
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Article V entitled "Trees" Of Chapter 9 of the
Village Code of the Village Of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby
further amended by changeing the name of Article v from "Trees"" to
"Trees and Shrubs" and replacing Section 9.501, Section 9.502, and
Section 9.503; so that hereinafter said Article V of Chapter 9 shall
be entitled "Trees and Shrubs" and Sections 9.501, 9.502 and 9.503
shall be and read as follows:
to ARTICLE V
TREES AND SHRUBS
SECTION:
9.501
Planting on Public Property
9.502
Removal of Trees
9.503
Dangerous Trees and Shrubs
9.504
Dutch Elm Disease Control
9.505
Obstructions to Trees
9.506
Excavations and Construction
9.507
Injury to Trees
9.508
Penalty
sec. 9.501. Planting on Public Property.
A. Shrubs and Evergreen Trees: No shrubs or evergreen trees shall
hereafter be planted on any right-of-way or easement along a
street or any parkway after , 1992. For the
Purposes of this Article, a shrub i6 a woody plant that is
usually not tree -like in growth or habit and produces multiple
trunks, branches or shoots from or near the base.
B. Deciduous Trees:
1. Permit Required: No tree of any kind shall be planted on
public property, including, but not limited to, public
streets and parkways, without a permit. An application
for such a permit, which shall be free of charge, shall be
filed with the Director of Public Works and shall contain
at least the following:
A. Name and address Of applicant
Chapter 9, Article V
Page 2 of 4
B. Address of property where the tree is proposed to be
located;
C. A plan drawn to scale showing:
a. The proposed location of each tree to be
planted.
b. The diameter of each tree.
c. The species of each tree.
2. Issuance or Denial of Permit: Within fourteen (14)
working days after receipt of a completed application for
a tree planting permit, the Director of Public Works shall
review the application for compliance with applicable
Village of Mount Prospect regulations. If the proposed
planting does not so comply, said Director shall notify
the applicant in writing of the reasons for non-
compliance.
3. 'Regulations Governing Tree Planting. All trees to be
planted on public property shall be planted in accordance
with the following provisions:
in a
in the
a. northern halshao of the be grstate Wanda llocated
All licensed the
State.
b. Trees selected for planting in the Village shall be
healthy, free of insects and diseases, bark bruises,
and scrapes on the trunk or limbs before and after
planting. Selected trees shall have a straight
trunk with limbs not lower than six feet (61) above
the ground.
C. Tree holes may be machine dug, but if the existing
lawn is damaged, it shall be the responsibility of
the applicant to restore the lawn to its original
condition. The applicant shall also secure all
necessary underground utility locations prior to
planting.
d. The planting season shall be approximately October
15 to December 1, and March 15 to May I.
e. Trees shall have a minimum trunk diameter, measured
six inches (611) above the ball, of two and one-half
specificinches (2-1/219) unless
granted otherwise by the Dir ctorof permission
Works.
f. Trees to be planted in the parkway shall be no
closer than six feet (6') from driveways and twenty
feet (201) from intersections. No trees are to be
planted within six feet (6,) on either side of a
fire hydrant or buffalo box.
q• Trees shall be planted on the center line of the
parkways. No trees shall be planted on parkways
less than four feet (41) in width unless, in the
opinion of the Director of Public Works, the
planting and the species of the tree approved Will
not endanger sidewalk, curb and gutters, sewer,
water lines or other physical property.
Chapter 9, Article V
Page 3 of 4
h. The planting hole shall be twelve inches (1211)
larger in diameter than the diameter of the ball.
i. The tree shall be planted the depth at which it was
growing in the nursery.
j. In most instances, the backfill around the ball
shall be the same soil as that which was removed
from the hole; however, in cases where rocks,
stones, etc. are encountered, top soil shall be
used.
k. Any excess soil, debris or trimming shall be removed
from the planting site immediately upon completion
of planting.
1. Where necessary, trees shall be staked to insure
that they remain straight.
M. All tags, wires and plastic ties shall be removed
from each tree.
n. Planting locations of trees shall be subject to the
following regulations:
1. Replacement Trees. Replacement trees may be
planted any distance from existing parkway
trees, as long as such planting is in
compliance with all other provisions in this
Article. "Replacement trees" shall be defined
as only trees being planted to replace trees
removed within the year previous to the date
the application for a planting permit is made.
2. New Trees. New trees shall be planted no
closer than forty feet (401) from any other
parkway tree. "New trees" shall include all
trees not covered by the term "replacement
trees" as defined above.
4. Species of Tree Allowed. Only the following species of
trees shall be planted unless specific permission is
granted otherwise,by the Director of Public Works:
Norway Maple
Red Maple
Sugar Maple
Hackberry
White Ash
Green Ash
Blue Ash
Tulip Tree
White Oak
Burr Oak
Little -leaf Linden
Shingle Oak
Schwedler's Purple Maple
crimson Ring Maple
Horse Chestnut
American Beech
Purple -leaf Beech
European Beech
Maidenhair Tree or Ginkgo (Male)
Honeylocust (thornless varieties)
Northern Red Oak
Scarlet Oak
Swamp White Oak
Ratsura Tree
Sec. 9.502. Removal of Trees. It shall be unlawful to remove
or cut down any tree in any street, parkway or other
public place without having first secured a permit therefor.
Applications for such permits shall be made to the Director of
Public Works for approval before permission shall be granted.
Chapter 9, Article V
Page 4 of 4
Sec. 9.503. Dangerous Trees and Shrubs.
A. Any tree or shrub growing on private property which overhangs
any sidewalk, street or other public place in the Village in
such a way as to impede or interfere with traffic or travel on
such public place shall be trimmed by the owner of the premises
on which such tree or shrub grows so that the obstruction shall
be eliminated.
Shrubs shall be kept entirely clear of sidewalks. Tree limbs
shall not project over the sidewalk at a height of less than
eight feet (80) above the sidewalk or fourteen feet (140) above
the street pavement. Owners of vegetation not maintained in
the above manner shall be required to correct the violation
within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notification from
the Director of Public Works. If the violation is not
corrected within thirty (30) days, the Village reserves the
right to cause the vegetation to be pruned and to bili the
owner for the cost of such work.
B. Any limb of a tree growing on private property which has become
likely to fall on or across any public way or place shall be
removed by the owner of the premises on which such tree grows
or stands. 00
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
caf - 8/18/92
vwl - 8/26/92
caf - 9/17/92
SC/caf - 11/19/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I ENTITLED "PURPOSE
AND DEFINITIONS" OF CHAPTER 11 (MERCHANTS, BUSINESSES,
OCCUPATIONS AND AMUSEMENTS) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, in order to provide a greater degree of safety for
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in Mount Prospect the President
and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have
considered amendments to the Village Code to regulate $'Sight
Obstructions"; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect have determined that the best interests of the Village
would be served by adopting the following amendment to the Village
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 11.102.E entitled ##Rules and Definitions's
of Chapter 11 of the village code, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding thereto in proper alphabetical sequence the
definitions of ItRight-Of-Way"; so that hereinafter said Section
11.102.B shall include the following:
RIGHT OF WAY: A strip of land acquired by or dedicated
to the public and occupied or intended to
be occupied by a street, walkway,
railroad, utility or other similar use.
SECTION TWO: That Section 11.102.B entitled "Rules and Definitions"
of Chapter 11 of the village Code, as amended, is hereby further
amended by deleting therefrom the definition of 10Street, Alley or
Public Way" and substituting therefor the definition "Street"; so
that hereinafter said Section 11.102.E shall include the following:
Is STREET: An area which provides for vehicular and
pedestrian access to abutting land or to
other streets. A "street" includes the
entire right-of-way and any improvements
which may be located within the right of
way. Of
SECTION THREE: That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in
pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this _ day of
FVWFT9W
Carol A. Fields, Village Clerk
1992.
Gerald L. Parley, village President
PTUS a94;vUT9xoq 4vqq os !A49lT4u9 64T UT 60t'ST UOT4009 BUTOUTdoa
Aq popusav z9q4.zn; Aqe2oq ST 'POPU9NV Bw 'OPOD Of)VTTTA 944 ;0 ST
x9ttduqo go aabuTmlslai, POM4UO 60V5T UOT4099 4vql :HHUHI NOI&LDHS
of 'STOT41V
sTq4 UT PGT;T.00ds esTAzeq4o 9v 4deoxe issous;
10 BOTod 46JOPTUOq '8X00J 04 PO4TMTT 4OU 4nq
'BUTPnTOUT 0400�qo due go uoT4zod duo zo ean4vu
-10 PUTX 4uv ;0 BUT'4uvTd dust go UOT'4.xod 4uv :Xoiloaalsao
'EVA ;0 4qbTz Oq4 UTq4TA P94VOOT
eq Luz ROTqA s-4u9m9AoidwT AUN pus EVA ;0
4qbTl 62TWO Oq4 B*PnT*Ulc ii490-1:113ai V -8400248
JOq40 04 x0 PuvT buT44nqv oq 66900v UvTz4soped
pus JvTn*TRGA 20; GOPTAoad qoTqA weaw ay URSHIS
*4Tun v ow uodn 4TTnq jo pedoTeAep
,'peon eq o-4 popuettuT oT q*TqA pus lo9:tnqv,48
POSTAO'd STOUTTTI OR4 go (q)•T uorqoeS (qoy
8,4vu) GOT Zeqdvqo oq :tumnsand oo-r;;o A4unoo
9qvi;zdo,xddw sq -4 q:j-FA peze-4oTbea zo pepzooex
uoeq svq qoTqA o4 peep eq4 zo lo*T;;o A4unoo
9-4v-rzdoaddv sq -4 q4TA PO-19-49'rbsx 10 POP2009-1
useq svq ROTqA go 4vTd ;q4 'UOTBTATPqns
• go gaud oT qoTqA 4ovz4 94vavdes 9TbuTO
• 8v GTqVT;T4u9PT PUVT go Tooavd P94VUBTSOP V :CrdODEM alO IOl is
:BUXAOTTO; OR4 SPnT*UT TTvqs TOZ-5T UOX4009 xO4;vuT9x9q 4vq4
os ljjuoF,4onx:toq0gg pus 11:199,149g, ll&pxooqd go qotlas go ouoT,4iuT;qp eqq
ODUOnbOs TVOT49qvqdTv jadoad uT o4exoq4 BuTppu Aq p9pu9mv j9q4xn;
Aqejeq oT 'POPUOMV OV '400d$Old 4unOX go OPOD OBUTITA Gq4 ;0 ST
29:ldl?IqD ;0 ii8u0T4TUT;9Q*s POT4T'4u* TOZ-ST UOT409S 4vqx :omz moiloas
1#uvTzqseped
10 49TIOI-0 '4STJO40m 9 20J 40TS go OUTT OJVS
IMUTUTU Oqtt 86q8TTqv-48O qDTqA go Q8nUO-40(Ulq
9q-4 'AVADAT-IP V pus 409-1:48 v 10 8490-146 M
OA4 JO UOT4098204UT Gq4 4w VOXV ZwTnbUVTx4 V :RaDKVIHX IHVIS
:SAOTTOI SW P992
Puv Oct TTvq8 aa*TBUVT.IL 40TOla ;0 UOT4TUT;DP PTV6 ZO4;VUT9Z9q 4vq4
06 !j,qTbuvTaL qqbTell go UOT4TUTIOP Oq4 BUTPUGMV Aq pepualm asq4an;
Aqexeq sT 1pepue= sv l400dsoad qunox go opoo obulITA eq4 go ST
as-4dvqa go atGUOMUNDats POT4T4u9 TOZ-9T UOT4009 49ql :HMO KOlX3a9
:9iommaz lxmnoo x000 lioadsoud maox ao 39Vq7IA alll IO SHZISnHl
ao auvoit mm xxzaisaud aN.L xe azmivcrao ii as laxoa2vanx 'sox
* apoo
BVTTTA eq4 oq 4UOWPUGMV BUTAOTTOJ eq4 buT4dopu Aq peAjes eq PTnOA
bVTTTA Oq4 10 8489204UT qseq eq4 4vq4 p'suTvue4op eAvq 400dsOld
WnON JO ObVTTTA oq4 go see4oraI go pavoa pus WOPT802d eq -4 loyaHaRs
PUV i #m8u0T4DtLT4$qO
4qbT8,, 94vinbox o4 opoo obvTTTA eq4 o4 s4uourpusim pozopTsuoo
oAuq 400dsoaci -4unox go ObvTTTA eq -4 go see-4orajL go pavoa puv
wepTsead eq -4 408dSOld -4unoX u -c s49-rao,4om pus '814sTTOA0 'sug-EX466POd
q4oq zoj A49;V8 ;0 O9ZbOP 294VSab V OPTAOXd 04 XOP10 UT 'SYRURELM
lazasoaa maox So Saw ROV77IA SRI aO
(samaxauinbau aavosawt7) sT uaiavHo exiamum ac)KvKiauo my
* 09 SOMYRICDIO
Z6/6T/TT - ;so/3s
Z6/LT/6 - IVO
Z6/9Z/9 - TAA
Z6/qT/q - ;so
Chapter 15
Page 2 of
Section 15.409 shall be and read as follows:
11 Sec. 15.409. Berming. Earthen berms and existing topography
shall, wherever practical, be
incorporated into the landscape treatment of a site. Such
berms must meet the requirements specified in Section 15.417
and in Article Iv entitled "Grade Regulations" of Chapter 21 of
this village Code. 11
SECTION FOUR: That Article Iv entitled 11Design Criteria1l of Chapter
15 of the village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by
adding thereto Section 15.417 entitled 10Sight obstructions"; so that
hereinafter said Article Iv shall include the following:
11 Sec,. 15.417. Sight obstructions. Not withstanding any other
provisions of this Chapter, nothing shall be
planted, placed or permitted to remain within a sight triangle
on either public or private property if the planting, growth or
berm limits the ability of motorists, cyclists or pedestrians
to view another street or other motorists, cyclists or
pedestrians. At the intersection of two streets, the legs of
the triangle shall be measured along the curbs, or edges of
pavement on streets with no curbs. The leg of a sight triangle
along a street having a legal speed limit of less than 30 MPH
shall be fifty-five feet (551). The leg of a sight triangle
along a street having a legal speed limit of 30 MPH or more
shall be seventy-five feet (751).
At the intersection of a street and a driveway, the legs of the
triangle shall be ten feet (101) along the edge of the driveway
and twenty-five feet (251) along the curb, or on a street with
no curbs along the edge of the pavement.
Within these triangles, the area from three feet (31) to six
feet (61) above the top of curb, or edge of pavement on a
street with no curbs, shall be kept free' and clear of any
obstructions. Single stemmed trees shall be considered to be
obstructions only if their trunks as measured six inches (611)
above ground exceed three inches (311) in diameter and the
lowest growth from their branches are lower than six feet (61)
above the top of the curb or edge of pavement. For purposes of
Chapter 15 and Chapter 16 only, the definition of a sight
triangle shall include private property. 11
SECTION FIVE: That Section 15.502 entitled '$Street Trees" of
Article V of Chapter 15 of the village Code of Mount Prospect, as
amended, is hereby further amended in its entirety by deleting
Section 15.502 in its entirety and substituting therefor the
following; so that hereinafter said Section 15.502 shall be and read
as follows:
n Sec. 15.502. Street Trees. Trees shall be planted in all
parkways and shall be placed subject to the
direction and approval of the Village. The Village shall be
responsible for the purchasing and planting of all trees within
and upon the public right of way, as set forth in Chapter 16,
Article IV. 1/
SECTION SIX' That Section 15.902 entitled ''Protection of Existing
Treesl$ of Chapter 15 of the village Code of Mount Prospect, as
amended, is hereby further amended by substituting the first two
sentences in Section 15.902 with the following; so that hereinafter
the first paragraph in Section 15.902 shall be and read as follows:
Sec. 15.902. Protection of Existing Trees. This Section
provides standards for protection of trees on
Chapter i5
Page 3 of 3
private property. Chapter 9, Article V provides standards for
protection of public property trees. The following materials
are required for all development activity requiring site plan
review. of
SECTION SEVEN: That Section 15.902.F of Chapter 15 of the Village
Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the
following species 1113. Maidenhair Tree$#, 1114. Moraine Honey
Locust" and "15. Christine Buisman Elmo$ and renumbering said
Section 15.902.F accordingly.
SECTION EIGHT: That Section 15.902.F.4 of Chapter 15 of the Village
Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the word
#'male" behind the species "Ginkgo"; so that hereinafter said Section
15.902.F.4 shall read as follows:
it 4. Ginkgo (male) #t
EC ON NE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in
pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
caf - 8/20/92
vwl - 8/26/92
SC/caf - 11-19-92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16
ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT CODERN OF
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, in order to provide a greater degree of safety for
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in Mount Prospect the President
and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have
considered amendments to the village Code to regulate "Sight
Obstructions"; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the village of Mount
Prospect have determined that the best interests of the Village
would be served by adopting the following amendment to the Village
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 16.403.B Of Article IV of Chapter 16 of
the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby'further
amended by deleting therefrom 16.403.B.7 entitled $'Sight Triangle"
in its entirety.
SECTION TWO: That Section 16.408 entitled "Landscaping$# of Chapter
16 of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by
deleting said Section 16.408 in its entirety and substituting
therefor the following; so that hereinafter said Section 16.408 of
Chapter 16 shall be and read as follows:
Sec. 16.408. Landscaping. Any development or subdivision
subject to the requirements of this Chapter shall
provide landscaping on public rights of way adjacent to or
within such development, as specified below. Landscaping
required by this Chapter shall be a condition to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for any improvements built on the
subject property.
Landscaping on private property shall be subject to the
requirements of Chapter 15 (Landscaping Requirements).
A. Requirements for Parkway Trees: Trees shall be planted in
all parkways and shall be placed subject to the direction
and approval of the Village. The Village shall be
responsible for the purchasing and planting Of all trees
within and upon the public right of way.
1. Parkway trees shall be planted forty feet (401)
apart whenever possible, and shall have a minimum
trunk diameter of two and one-half inches (2-1/211)
measured at six inches (611) above ground level.
2. Planting Requirements: All trees planted within a
public right of way shall comply with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 9, Article V
(Trees and Shrubs) of the Municipal Code.
3. Tree Planting by Village: The applicant shall,
prior to final plat or development plan approval,
post with the Director of Finance a cash deposit or
treasurerls or cashier's check payable to the
Village in an amount equal to the number of trees
required to be planted in the public parkway
pursuant to this Section multiplied by the amount
H
Chapter 16
Page 2 of
charged by the village to cover the cost of such
trees, and any and all work connected with the
guaranteed planting of such trees as such amount is
established from time to time by the village
Manager. The village shall use such funds to plant
trees in the parkway.
4. If deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works,
this requirement may be satisfied if an equivalent
number of trees of the same size or larger are
planted in the front yards of all adjoining lots.
S. Should completion of the development extend beyond a
one year period; the applicant shall be required to
post additional funds to cover any increase in cost
to plant the 'remaining trees.
B. Existing Public Property Landscaping:
1. The Director of Public Works shall determine if
existing trees in the public right-of-way shall be
preserved or removed. Trees to be preserved shall
be protected from injury as specified in Chapter 9,
Article v (Trees and Shrubs). It shall be the
responsibility of the applicant to remove the trees
designated for removal, along with their stumps.
2. Where shrubbery or evergreen trees exist in the
public right-of-way, the applicant shall be required
to prune or remove the plantings as if they were
within a sight triangle as regulated and specified
in Chapter 9, Article I (General Provisions).
C. Areas to be Graded and Sodded:
1. All unpaved areas within the dedicated right of way
shall be graded and sodded in an approved manner.
Restoration work shall be performed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. All parkways shall be graded smooth and topped with
at least four inches (411) of black dirt after
compacting and removal of stumps, trees that cannot
be saved, boulders and such. Such areas shall be
sodded.
3. Upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works,
the President and Board of Trustees of the village
may require additional sodding of a lot to prevent
soil erosion and blockage of drainage system.
SECTION THREE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
Chapter 16
Page 3 of 3
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in
pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
CAF/
11/12/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XVII ENTITLED
"ALARM SYSTEMS" OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE
VILLAGE CO OF MOUNT PRO
. SPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Article XVII entitled "Alarm Systems" of Chapter
23 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby
further amended in its entirety; so that hereinafter said Article
XVII shall be and read as follows:
" ARTICLE XVII
ALARM SYSTEMS
oyocomf
23.1701.
Definitions
23.1702.
License Required
23.1703.
Application for License
23.1704.
License Fee
23.1705.
Issuance of Alarm System License and Inspection
23.1706.
Display Alarm System License
23.1707.
Duration of Alarm System License
23.1708.
Updating Alarm System Application
23.1709.
Transfer of Alarm System License Prohibited
23.1710.
Alarm System Posting Requirements
23.1711.
Alarm System Deactivation Requirements
23.1712.
Automatic Telephone Alarm Prohibited
23.1713.
False Alarms Prohibited
23.1714.
Charges for Response to False Alarms and Reports
23.1715.
Suspension or Revocation of Alarm System License
23.1716.
Appeal Procedure
23.1717.
Grace Period for False Alarms
23.1718.
Penalties
23.1719.
Severability Clause
Sec. 23.1701.
Definitions. For the purpose of this Article, the
following words and terms shall have the following
meanings:
ALARM SYSTEM:
Any security device installed for the purpose
of alerting others to an unauthorized entry on
the premises, the commission of an unlawful
act or a -fire emergency.
AUTOMATIC
A telephone device or telephone attachment
TELEPHONE ALARM: which automatically relays a prerecorded
message to report a robbery, burglary or fire
emergency by means of a telephone line which
terminates upon a central switchboard.
FALSE ALARM:
An alarm system activated by any one or more
of the following causes:
A. Mechanical failure;
B. Malfunction of the alarm system;
C. Improper installation or maintenance of
the alarm system;
D. Wilful or negligent act of a person under
the control or direction of the licensee
of an alarm system;
T
Alarm Systems
Page 2 of 5
E. Any other cause not related to an actual
or attempted unauthorized entry on the
premises, the commission of an unlawful
act or a fire emergency; provided,
however, that any alarm activated by
natural causes including, but not limited
to, tornadoes and severe windstorms, or
by malicious acts of persons not under
the direction or control of the licensee
of an alarm system or any other cause
clearly beyond the control of the
licensee shall not be considered a false
alarm.
LICENSEE Any person, firm or corporation who has
obtained an Alarm System License pursuant to
the provisions of this Article XVII. if
See. 23.1702. License Required. It shall be unlawful for any
person, firm or corporation to install or maintain
an alarm system designed or intended to be used to signal an
unauthorized entry on the premises, the commission of an unlawful
act or any other emergency at the premises when such alarm system
is located without first having obtained a license therefor from
the Police Department of the Village of Mount Prospect.
See. 23.1703. Application for License.
A. The application for license, as required herein, or renewal
thereof shall be filed with the Chief of Police of the Village
and shall be accompanied by the license fee, as set forth in
Section 23.1704 below.
B. The application for license and/renewal of license shall be
made on forms provided by the Police Department and shall
contain the following information:
1. Name and address of the applicant.
2. Name and address of the premises where the alarm system
is located.
3. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least
three (3) persons responsible for the premises where the
alarm system is located and who should be contacted to
deactivate the alarm system.
4. The name, address and telephone number of the person,
firm or corporation authorized to deactivate the alarm
system when no person listed in paragraph c herein can be
reached.
5. The name, address and telephone number of the person,
firm or corporation which installed the alarm system and
of the person, firm or corporation responsible for the
maintenance and repair of the alarm system.
Sec. 23.1704. License Fee. The annual license fee for an Alarm
System shall be Ten Dollars ($10.00). If the annual
license fee for an existing alarm system is received after February
1st of the year for which the license is required, the license fee
shall be Twenty Dollars ($20.00).
Alarm Systems
Page 3 of 5
Sec. 23.1705. Issuance of Alarm System License and inspection.
The Chief of Police of the Village shall issue a
license for an alarm system, except for an unauthorized automatic
telephone alarm, within fifteen (15) days after a completed
application for license, accompanied by the annual license fee, is
filed. Prior to the issuance of such alarm system license, the
Chief of Police may inspect or cause to be inspected the alarm
system for which a license has been requested.
See. 23.1706. Display Alarm System License. The person, firm or
corporation having obtained an Alarm System License,
as provided herein, shall be required to display said license in an
area visible from the outside of the premises.
Sec. 23.1707. Duration of Alarm System License. An alarm system
license issued pursuant to the provisions of this
Article shall remain in full force and effect for the calendar year
issued or until suspended or revoked or until the alarm system is
removed from the premises for which the license has been issued or
such alarm system is no longer being used or an alarm system
licensee ceases to maintain the alarm system for which the license
was issued.
Sec. 23.1708. Updating Alarm System Application. It shall be
unlawful for any alarm system licensee to fail or
refuse to amend its alarm system license application with ten (10)
days after any of the information required and contained in the
application is or becomes outdated and inaccurate.
Sec. 23.1709. Transfer of Alarm System License Prohibited. No
alarm system license shall be transferred or
assigned to another person, firm or corporation.
See. 23.1710. Alarm System Posting Requirements. The person, firm
or corporation having an Alarm System License shall
be required to post or cause to be posted, at or near the location
where such alarm system can be deactivated, a notice containing the
name, address and telephone number of the person, firm or
corporation responsible for the maintenance and repair of such
alarm system.
Sec. 23.1711. Alarm System Deactivation Requirements. It shall be
unlawful for any licensee to cause or permit an
alarm system for which a license has been issued pursuant to this
Article to permit or cause such alarm system to sound in excess of
our hour.
Sec. 23.1712. Automatic Telephone Alarm Prohibited. No person,
firm or corporation shall install or cause to be
installed, or maintain any automatic alarm in the Village of Mount
Prospect. Such automatic telephone alarms shall be considered a
nuisance and are prohibited. Nothing in this Section shall apply
to automatic telephone alarms for handicapped persons authorized by
the Chief of Police of the Village of Mount Prospect.
See. 23.1713. Palo* Alarms Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for
any person to knowingly activate an alarm system for
the purpose of summoning the Police except if such person knows or
suspects that there is an actual or attempted unauthorized entry on
the premises, commission of an unlawful act or a fire emergency.
Alarm Systems
Page 4 of 5
See. 23.1714. Cbarges for Response to False Alarms and Reports.
A. If the Village Police Department responds to more than two (2)
false alarms in a calendar year at the same premises, the
licensee of such alarm system shall pay the Village the
following amounts within thirty (30) days after the response
for which the charge is made:
3rd
response
$10.00
4th
response
$20.00
5th
response
$50.00
6th
response
$60.00
7th
response
$75.00
8th
response
$75.00
9th
response
$75.00
10 or more responses
$100.00 per response
B. Within five (5) days after the Village Police Department
responds to an alarm, the Police Department shall mail a
report to the alarm system licensee which shall specify the
cause of the alarm and state whether the alarm will be
considered a false alarm.
C: Within fifteen (15) days after notification that an alarm has
been considered a false alarm, the alarm system licensee may
file a written request with the Chief of Police, on a form
available from the Police Department, requesting
reconsideration whether such alarm was false. Such request
shall state the licensee's opinion with respect to the cause
of the alarm and shall indicate the facts upon which the
licensee bases its opinion.
D. Within five (5) days after the Chief of Police receives a
request for reconsideration from the licensee, the Chief of
Police shall determine whether the alarm was false or not and
shall notify the licensee of his decision in writing by
personal delivery or by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
Sec. 23.1715. Suspension or Revocation of Alarm System License.
A. If the Police Department responds to more than ten (10) false
alarms at the same premises in a calendar year, the Chief of
Police may initiate alarm system I license suspension or
revocation, proceedings by forwarding a written request for
such a proceeding, along with any and all reports of false
alarms at such premises, to the Village Manager of the Village
of Mount Prospect to consider such action.
B. Upon receipt of such a request from the chief of Police, the
Village Manager shall set a date for a hearing to consider
whether a licensee's alarm system license should be suspended
or revoked. The Village Manager shall cause a written notice
to be mailed to the licensee by certified mail, return receipt
requested, informing the licensee of such hearing. Said
notice shall be mailed at least fifteen (15) days prior to the
date of such hearing.
C. The Village Manager shall preside at hearings held for the
purpose of considering the suspension or revocation of an
alarm system license. The Chief of Police and the licensee
shall be permitted to present evidence. The Village Manager
shall determine whether to suspend or revoke a licensee's
Alarm Systems
Page 5 of 5
alarm system license within fourteen (14) days after the close
of such hearing and shall notify the licensee of his decision
in writing by personal delivery or by certified mail, return
receipt requested. If it is the determination of the village
Manager that said alarm system license be suspended or
revoked, said notice shall contain the basis for the decision
of the Village Manager.
D. In determining whether to suspend or revoke an alarm system
license, the Village Manager shall consider the following:
1. The number of false alarms at the premises.
2. Whether the alarm system licensee has responded to
deactivate false alarms within one hour, as required in
Section 23.1711 of this Article.
3. The efforts made, if any, by licensee to control, direct
and instruct employees with regard to the proper use of
the alarm system.
4. The efforts made, if any, by licensee to repair and
maintain the alarm system in proper working order.
5. Any other matter the Village Manager deems relevant.
Sec. 23.1716, Appeal Procedure. Any licensee aggrieved by the
action of the Village to suspend or revoke any alarm
system license shall have the right appeal to the President and
Board of Trustees.
A. Such appeal shall be made to the Village Board, or designated
person, within seven (7) days after the notice of said
decision of the Village Manager has been received by licensee.
The appeals shall contain a written statement setting forth
the grounds for appeal. No licensee may appeal to the Village
Board unless a timely request for a hearing before the Village
Manager, as set forth in Section 23.1715, has been made by
said licensee.
B. The President and Board of Trustees of the Village shall set
a time and place for a hearing on such appeal and notice of
such hearing shall be given to the appellant in the manner
provided herein.
C. The appellant shall have the right to be represented at such
hearing by legal counsel.
D. The decision and order of the President and Board of Trustees
of the Village following such appeal shall be final and
conclusive.
E. No alarm system license shall be revoked or suspended:
1. During the pendency of an appeals before the President
and Board of Trustees of the Village, nor
2. While litigation is pending in any court challenging the
decision of the President and Board of Trustees, nor
3. While any appeal is pending for any court's action
overriding or reversing the Board's action, nor
4. During the time within which such appeals from a court's
action can lawfully be taken.
Alarm System
Page 6 of 6
See. 23.1717. Grace Period for Paloo, Alarms. The licensee shall
be given a grace period of thirty (30) days
following the installation of an alarm system before an alarm shall
be considered a false alarm.
See. 23.1718. Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation
convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of this Article
shall be fined not less than Fifty Dollars ($50.00) nor more than
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each offense. Each day such
violation continues shall be considered a separate offense.
Sec. 23.1719. Severability Clause. If any provision or part of
this Article XVII is declared invalid and of no further force and
effect, the other provisions of this Article shall remain in full
force and effect. 11
SECTION TWO: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this - day of , 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
village Clerk
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
-64. �4
TO: MICHAEL E. ,JANONiS, VILLAGE MANAGER rZ f ! 1 Z
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMEN�IRECTOP. OF PLANNING
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1992
SUBJECT: ZBA-72-SU-92, DEAN LEFTAKES
LOCATION: 1714 NORTH ASPEN DRIVE
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Dean and Cleo Leftakes. The applicants are seeking a
Special Use Permit to allow the installation of a ground -mounted satellite antenna.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of November 12,
1992. At the meeting, Dean Leftakes explained that he is a hockey player and wanted to
install the dish to be able to watch more sports events.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, summarized the staff report. He indicated that all the standards had
been met by the petitioners.
Mr. Terry McKillup, 1801 Aralia Drive, indicated that he and many neighbors were opposed
to the request. He submitted a petition signed by 43 persons and asked that the request be
denied. He feels satellite antennas are unsightly and will detract from the neighborhood.
The Zoning Board discussed the request. The members felt that all the standards had been
met by the petitioners and indicated that the dish would not be seen by homeowners other
than those directly abutting the property. The members felt that by working with staff to
find a location and landscaping which would screen the dish, would be acceptable. By a
vote of 5-0, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval of the request to allow a
satellite antenna to be installed on the site subject to the following conditions:
1. The dish be of mesh type
2. A landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved by staff
3. The location is subject to staff approval
r
72. -Su -`/L
1yU
K: �nfl
J
°a n
i
n�
r, F
h,
w p
*✓,i ,mss
I
� r
� rt,
k
o. ✓[RPTG
w�
O.P/ VE
72. -Su -`/L
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 72 -SU -92
Hearing Date: November 12, 1992
PETITIONER:
Dean and Cleo Leftakes
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1716 North Aspen
PUBLICATION DATE:
October 27, 1992
REQUEST:
The petitioners are requesting a Special Use
Permit as required in Section 14.1101.C.6 to
allow the installation of a ground -mounted
satellite antenna.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Ronald Cassidy
Robert Brettrager
Peter Lannon,
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT:
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
10 Persons
Chairman Basnik then introduced ZBA-72-SU-92 as a request for a Special Use Permit to
allow the installation of a ground -mounted satellite antenna at 1716 North Aspen.
Mr. Dean Leftakes introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals and indicated that
he would like to install a ground -mounted satellite dish in his rear yard for a television
reception, and for the purpose of obtaining better sports programming than is currently
available on Cable or Network TV. He indicated that the location for the satellite dish
was screened by an existing fence and some mature landscaping, and that therefore there
would be no adverse impact on surrounding properties.
Mr. Ray Forsythe then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr.
Forsythe indicated that a Special Use Permit is necessary in a single-family zoning district
for any satellite antenna in excess of 40 inches in diameter. Mr. Forsythe stated that the
location of this antenna is to be 18 feet from the principal structure, 45 feet from the rear
property line and 7 feet from the side property line. Mr. Forsythe stated that the proposed
satellite dish meets all the Special Use standards of the Zoning Ordinance as to height,
diameter and location, and that no variations in any of these standards had been requested.
Mr. Basnik asked if the satellite dish was for television reception only, and Mr. Leftakes
indicated that the installation was only for television and not for transmitting. Mr. Basnik
asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor or in opposition to the request.
ZBA-72-SU-92
Page 2
Mr. Terrance McKillup, 1801 Ariala, indicated that he believed the satellite dish would
detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. He stated that all utilities are under-
ground in this subdivision, and that the above -ground dish would be a move -away from
under -ground utilities. He stated that five abutting property owners object to the satellite
dish installation, and that he has a petition with thirty additional names opposing the
request. He stated that the lots in this area slope away from the petitioner's home and that
the antenna would be very visible from his rear yard because of this grade change.
Mr. Pratt asked the petitioner if the antenna would be of solid construction or mesh, and
Mr. L.eftakes stated that the antenna would be a solid white receiving dish, and that he
would plant landscaping to help supplement the mature plantings in the area, along with the
fence to provide proper screening.
Mr. Basnik asked if the antenna could be moved more to the center of the lot to reduce it's
visible impact, and Mr. L,eftakes stated that the corner location was better in terms of sight
lines to any property.
Mr. Basnik pointed out that the request met all
the Special Use standards in terms of height
and location and diameter, and that the Zoning Board has typically approved Special Uses
for satellite antennas when all such standards had been met. Mr. Basnik read the heading
of the petition with 30 names opposing the request. Mr. Basnik asked the petitioner again
why the satellite antenna was necessary, and Mr. L.eftakes stated- that he wanted to see
more sports programming like hockey, and much more would be available with a satellite
antenna.
Mr. Brettrager pointed out that there is a satellite receiving dish in his neighborhood, and
that after its installation he hardly ever notices the presence of the dish.
Mr. Basnik asked Mr. Clements why a satellite antenna requires 'a Special Use, and Mr.
Clements responded that, when satellite dish technology became available to the general
public in the late 1970's, many municipalities adopted a Special Use requirement for such
dishes, and cities and villages believed this was the best way to regulate these types of things
in residential areas on a case-by-case basis. However, Mr. Clements' pointed out that there
are fewer requests for satellite dishes in residential districts as most residents take advantage
of Cable. Mr. Clements also reminded the Zoning Board that, in the new revised Zoning
Ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals had determined that satellite dishes` should be
permitted accessory uses.
Mr. Fred DeGraf, 1715 Aralia, spoke in opposition to the request and believed that the
petitioner should use Cable, and that there's no need for a satellite dish above -ground in
this area.
Mr. Clements suggested that perhaps the petitioner could use a mesh receiving dish rather
than solid, and that this would help minimize the visible impact. The petitioner indicated
that mesh would be a reasonable alternative.
ZBA-72-SU-92
Page 3
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the request. Mr. Lannon indicated that
the FCC regulates such satellite receiving dishes, and the Village really can't prohibit the
installation of them. He indicated that the Village could only adopt reasonable standards
for residents to meet. Mr. Lannon stated that the mesh construction and the screening
proposed by the petitioner should help minimize the impact of the dish and that accessory
structures such as sheds or garages would have a much greater visible presence in the rear
yard than the satellite dish. Mr. Brettrager agreed and stated that the installation near his
home is well screened.
Mr. Cassidy acknowledged that the request meets all the standards of the Ordinance and
that the petitioner had agreed to provide a mesh receiving dish.
Mr. Basnik urged the petitioner to work with staff on final placement to make the antenna
as un -obtrusive as possible to his neighbors, and Mr. Leftakes stated he would do that.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Basnik asked for a motion. Mr. Brettrager
moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval of a Special Use for a
satellite antenna, subject to the antenna being of mesh construction and the petitioner
working with staff on placement of the installation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pratt.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Lannon, Pratt, Cassidy and Basnik
NAYS: None
PASS: Dennis Saviano (Mr. Saviano passed as he was not present for the
entire hearing.)
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration.
David M. Clements,
Director of Planning
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM:
GIL BASNI11,r CHAIRMAN
RAY P. FORSYTHE, PLANNER��
DATE:
OCTOBER 30, 1992
CASE NO—
ZBA-72-SU-92
APPLICANT:
DEAN AND CLEO LEFTAKES
ADDRESS:
1716 NORTH ASPEN DRIVE
LOCATION MAP:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
LOT SIZE: 9,090 sq. ft.
% COVERAGE: N/A
F.A.R.: N/A
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
REOUE
The petitioners are seeking a Special Use Permit as required in Section 14.1101.C.6 to allow
the installation of a ground -mounted satellite antenna.
J!LANNING AND ONING CQMMENTS AND CONCERNS
Summary of application: The application indicated the petitioners desire to place a 10 foot
diameter satellite antenna in the rear of their property. The site plan indicates the antenna
is to be located to the rear of the home approximately 18 ft from the principal structure,
45 ft. from the rear property line and 7 ft. from the side property line. The applicants have
indicated that they will place bushes around the antenna.
Impact on Surrounding Properties: The Zoning Ordinance has several standards which
must be met in order for a Special Use to be considered. Following is a summary of these
standards:
1. The maximum diameter of a dish shall not exceed 11 feet. The proposed dish is 10
feet in diameter.
2. The dish shall be located entirely behind the rear building line and shall not be
located within any required side or rear yard. The location indicated on the site plan
meets this criteria.
3. Any dish exceeding 40 inches in diameter shall be mounted on the ground. The
proposed dish is ground -mounted.
4. No more than one satellite antenna shall be installed on a lot. The proposal is for
one antenna only.
5. No dish shall be located closer than 10 feet from a principal building or structure.
The location indicated on the site plan is 18 feet from the principal structure.
6. Any ground -mounted dish shall not exceed 15 feet in height above grade. The
proposed height is 10 feet. Height and diameter were confirmed by installer.
7. All ground -mounted satellite antennas shall be installed and landscaped so as to be
compatible with surrounding properties. The petitioner has indicated that bushes will
be planted so as to screen the antenna. There is also a 5 1/2 foot fence surrounding
the rear yard and a great deal of mature landscaping on the surrounding properties.
MER DERARINENTAL COMMENTS
There were no negative comments from other departments on this request.
513EAMXJREQQMMENDATI!2N_
A Special Use permit for a satellite antenna is a common request in Mount Prospect. The
petitioners have met the standards for a Special Use Permit. Therefore, staff would
recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request subject to a landscape plan being
submitted for approval with the building permit.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS,VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID X CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: NOVEMBER 1b, 1.992
SUBJECT: ZBA-73-V-92, RICHARD E. URBAN
LOCATION: 811 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Richard Urban. The applicant is requesting a variance to
Section 14.1102.13.1 to allow a reduction in the required interior sideyard setback from 7.2
feet to 4.5 feet to allow a 4' x 9' addition to the second story.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of November 12,
1992. At the meeting, Richard Urban explained that they would like to add an addition to
the upstairs master bathroom and this is the only logical spot. He also indicated that the
adjacent neighbor's garage was on this side of the property and they supported the request.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, summarized the staff report. He indicated that the addition was to
the second floor only, and should cause no negative impact to the neighboring properties.
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the request. By a vote of 6-0, the Zoning
Board of Appeals recommends approval of the request to allow a 4.5 ft. interior sideyard
setback which would allow the second story addition,
DMC:hg
CURD
CONCRLTE
pl°RON '
"
WALK------------
"
REC .275.91
72.00'
z
M
N
� O
4
K b
I rl U
b
%
375
.. �,vr, py -,GING LINE _.....
____•�..
...-
"._,- --'w ... 065X3.6.
..€"*•26.17 \ U CRICK WALL
COVERED CONC. POI'CN 8..68
rz
4 _� FRS ME
BRICK AND METS 7/Dc
N
m .z
auiL 2,ING # 811
a
w.
o�
;n
' to ., 2.Ol1.. 1347 . \ 15:
8.69,
�
<Cv
.y . - 4 a..
. ry
v0 0
�
r x
00
G •.j5 FRAME ENCLOSED O .,p�
K,
i
i
PORCH
7
v
Q 22.34
J
C Ott,
x
F
x (�
y
w o <-
O
y
5 FT. EASEMENT FOR PUBIC UTILITI95 "
s
CMA/N LINK FENCE
PENC 72.00.
CHAIN LOW
°O
h� i3 -✓_'z
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 73-V-92 Hearing Date: November 12, 1992
PETTIIONER: Richard Urban
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
811 South Edward Street
PUBLICATION DATE:
October 27, 1992
REQUEST:
The petitioners are seeking a variation to
Section 14.1102.B.1 to allow a reduction in the
required interior sideyard setback from 7.2 ft.
to 4.5 ft. to allow a 4' x 9' room addition to
the second story.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Ronald Cassidy
Robert Brettrager
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT:
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTTES:
None
Chairman Basnik then introduced ZBA-73-V-92 being a request by Mr. Richard Urban for
a variation to reduce the 7.2 foot required. sideyard to 4.5 feet to allow a second. floor room
addition.
Mr. Urban introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated he would like to
enlarge a master bath on the second floor of his home. He stated that the bath addition
would consist of an overhang on the second floor that reduces the sideyard to 4.5 feet. He
indicated this would only be on the second floor and that the nearest structure adjoining this
side of his home is the neighbor's garage. With this Mr. Urban demonstrated that the
second floor expansion would have no impact on adjoining properties. Mr. Urban stated
that the reason for the addition is to upgrade the bathroom in his home, and to provide
more space for his family.
Mr. Ray Forsythe then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of Appeals and
indicated that the proposal is for an addition to an existing bathroom and that the overall
dimensions of the encroachment are 4' x 9'. He stated that this reduces the sideyard to 4.5
feet, and that the nearest structure to this side of the petitioner's home is over 8 feet away,
providing an adequate amount of open space between the structures.
ZBA-73-V-92
Page 2
Messrs. Cassidy and Pratt made reference to two letters submitted to the Zoning Board
which indicated support for the request, and Mr. Basnik read the letters into the record.
The Zoning Board generally discussed the application and it was determimed that this minor
addition is a good upgrade to the home and would have no adverse impact on the adjoining
Property.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Cassidy moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals
recommend approval of the variation to allow a 4.5 foot sideyard at 811 South Edward
Street. The motion was seconded byi Mr. Brettrager.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Lannon, Saviano, Pratt, Cassidy and Basnik
NAYS: None
The motion carried by a vote of 6-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration.
David M. Clements,
Director of Planning
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMYNr
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM:
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
RAY
P. FORSYTHE, PLANNER
DATE:
OCTOBER 29, 1992
CASE NO.:
ZBA-73-V-92
APPLICANT.
RICHARD E. URBAN
ADDRESS:
811 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
LOCATION MAP:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
LOT SIZE: 9,216 sq. ft.
% COVERAGE: 36%
F -A -R.: .41
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.1102.B.1 to allow a reduction in the
required interior sideyard setback from 7.2 feet to 4.5 feet to allow a 4' x 9' addition to the
second story.
Summary of application: The petitioners have indicated their desire to add a 4' x 9'
addition to the second story of their home. The addition is to the existing bathroom. The
addition will be 8 ft. above grade so that access to the rear of the property will not be
affected.
Impact on Surrounding Properties: The Zoning Ordinance requires a 7.2 ft. setback on the
interior sideyards for this property. The proposal is to reduce this setback to 4.5 ft. on the
second story only. The remaining structure has a current setback of 8.5 feet. The property
to the south, which would be most effected maintains a 8.13 ft. setback and there is a garage
on this side of the property.
There were no negative comments for this request.
The petitioners are requesting a 4' x 9' addition to the second story of their home. The
addition is in such a location that it abuts the neighbor's garage, and in staffs opinion
causes no negative impact on surrounding properties. Staff has no objection to the request
and would recommend approval.
RPF:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
bD. WR
17-11 /q 2 -
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1992
SUBJECT.- ZBA-74-V.92, FRANK J. STANASZEK
LOCATION. I"I CHOLO LANE
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Frank Stanaszek. The applicant is requesting a variance to
Section 14.1102.B.1 to allow a reduction to the required interior sideyard setback from 8.6
feet to 5.75 feet to, allow an addition to the existing dwelling.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of November 12,
1992. At the meeting, Katy Stanaszek explained that they wanted to add a garage and
addition to the property. She indicated that they currently have no garage.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, summarized the staff report. He indicated that in this area of Mount
Prospect a 5.7 foot sideyard setback is not uncommon. He also stated that the area of the
addition was adjacent to the rear of the abutting neighbor's home and should cause no
negative impact.
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the request. By a vote of 6-0, the Zoning
Board of Appeals recommends approval of the request to allow a 5.7 foot interior sideyard
setback which would enable the petitioner to construct an attached garage and room
addition.
DMC:hg
BURNING, BUSH LN
.o �
04 yy '
ti� t
it
O
-� Aw
pn f -
" N
ti 0
� � S
XE
AN
S rr
. r
•.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR NG OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 74-V-92
PETITIONER:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
PUBLICATION DATE:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Hearing Date: November 12, 1992
Frank and Kathryn Stanaszek
1901 Cholo Lane
October 27, 1992
Wr,-
w ww-�� =t -r,
to 5.75 ft. to allow an addition to the existing
dwelling.
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Ronald Cassidy
Robert Brettrager
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: None
w. u.w :. w w -w w• •w -• w w- w- -• - • .•, - w- : w ••
ZBA-74-V-92
Page 2
The Zoning Board of Appel generally discussed the request, and Mt. Basnik commented
that thepetitioner's elevation drawing l lied like a nice addition to the home, and that the
two -car garage ties in nicely with the chatacter of the existing h6me. The honing Board:
indicated that they had seen si ar requests fog variations for garage expansions, and that
this would appear 'reasonable, coonsiderang the width of the lot and the location of the
neighbor's home.
Mr. Basnik confirmed the dimensions to the neighbor's home, and Mr. Forsythe stated that
the adjoining setback' is 14.5 feet.
"here"being .no ftalber, discussion, Mr.:Brettra er mored, seconded by Mr. Lannon, that
the Zoning Board of Appeals reco mond ' a'pproval of a request to reduce an 8.6 foot
si eyard to 5.75 feet to allow a room addition at 1901 Cholo fane.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager,Lannon, Saviano, Pratt, Cassidy and Basnik
NAYS: None
The motion carried by a vote of 6-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration.
A /N C&Mhzi—,
-
David M. Clements
Director of Planning
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
LOCATION MAP:
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
RAY P.FO E, PLANMIEEPeA
OCTOBER -30, 1992
ZBA-74-V-92
FRANK J. STANASZEK
1901 CHOLO LANE
�011r--T"'Ern
1225
1223
1221
1219
O
p
f)
0010
0l00
1 104
o a a o "0
—0 �
a
,qtr UA LA ' too
,Soo ,,
�����mmm�o�"���o,�c1w 3i
a& ' LN p
00.6
� qp ry
�~ �+,� ' ,' � 1002 c�+o�o w
a �
IRTEWIMU WFn 0
905.
914 t1a
p ^` 903 gra
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
% COVERAGE:
F.A.R.:
R-1 Single Family Residential
12,793 sq. ft.
38%
.38
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.110.B.1 to allow a reduction to the
required interior sideyard setback from 8.6 feet to 5.75 feet to allow an addition to the
existing dwelling.
Summary of application: The petitioners wish to add a two -car garage and room addition
to the existing structure. There is currently no garage on the property and the petitioners
are seeking to add a two -car garage and second floor room addition.
Surrounding Properties and Potential Impact: This area of Mount Prospect contains
various sized lots with frontages ranging from 57 ft. to 100 feet. This gives a sideyard
setback range from 5.7 feet to 10 feet. The proposed minimum 5.75 ft. setback is an
acceptable setback for an R-1 District. The neighboring property maintains a 10'-5" setback
and the bulk of the proposed addition is located behind the neighbor's home. There is
proposed a total lot coverage of 38% which is below the maximum allowed.
Engineering: 1.) Any new downspouts shall be directed to the front yard (toward
Cholo).
2.) Do not add fill in sideyard.
3.) Garage footing shall not extend into the easement.
Inspection Services: 1.) Building plans shall be submitted and approved prior to
construction.
The petitioners are seeking to add a two -car garage and addition as well as a partial second
story to the existing home. The lot is on a corner and is oriented towards the narrower
portion. A 5.75 ft. setback is not uncommon for an R-1 Single Family lot and staff believes
will not have any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and would support the
petitioner's request. Driveway width should be limited to 21 feet.
RPF:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER'
Wt- 14,X,2
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AgI
DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1992
SUBJECT: ZBA-75-V-92, GIA CO GIOVAGNOLI
10 EAST SUNSET ROAD
The ;Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Gianfranco Giovapoli. The applicant is seeking a variation
to Section 14.1102.D.4 to allow a 7 foot service -walk to encroach into the sideyard setback
instead of the maximum allowed 36 inches.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of November 12,
1992. At the meeting Gianfranco Giovagnoli explained that this side of the yard gets very
little sun and landscaping does not ;grow; and that they have a problem with moss on the
steps. He indicated that the pavement would be from the sidewalk to the house and no
interruption to existing drainage should occur.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, summarized the staff report. He indicated that total lot coverage
is well below the maximum allowed and that the Engineering Department feels this project
can be designed to control the storm water.
The Zoning Board generally discussed the request. By a vote of 6-0, the Zoning Board of
Appeals recommends approval of the request to allow a 7 foot wide service -walk to
encroach into the interior sideyard.
DMC:hg
M�
Ileolf-I /a/.;1�f —
�A
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 75-V-92
PETTTIONER:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
PUBLICATION DATE:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
ABSENT:
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
Hearing Date: November 12, 1992
Gianfranco Giovagnoli
10 East Sunset Road
October 27, 1992
The petitioner is seeking a variation to Section
14.1102.D.4 to allow a 7 ft. service walk to
encroach into the sideyard setback instead of
the maximum allowed 36 inches.
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Ronald Cassidy
Robert Brettrager
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
Michaele Skowron
Michael Langley, 80 E. Sunset
Chairman Basnik then introduced ZBA-75-V-92 being a request by Gianfranco Giovagnoli
at 10 East Sunset to increase the 36 inch service -walk in a sideyard to 7 feet.
Mr. Giovagnoli stated that he would like to expand an existing service -walk in a sideyard
to 7 feet. He pointed out that the widening of the walk would be towards the home, and
not towards a neighbor's property, and therefore the increased paving in the sideyard would
not contribute to sheet -flow of water onto a neighbor's home. The petitioner explained that
this is a north elevation of his lot, and that this area gets no sun, and that he cannot
maintain plant life in this area. He would like to pave the area just to help the appearance
and to reduce maintenance problems.
Mr. Ray Forsythe then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr.
Forsythe stated that the Zoning Ordinance permits a 36" service -walk in the sideyard, and
that the petitioner would like to increase an existing walk to 7 feet. Mr. Forsythe stated that
the staff had inspected the property and concurred that this is an un -maintained area of the
petitioner's home, and that this might be attributed to the north elevation and that plants
might not grow in this shady area. He stated that the additional pavement would have little
impact on the total lot coverage and should not impact the neighboring property, provided
that the design is such that storm water drains away from the adjoining structure.
ZBA-75-V-92
Page 2
Chairman Basnik then asked for comments from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Mr.
Basnik indicated that there are shade tolerant plants that could grow in north elevations,
and he 'believed that the ,petitioner might look into different types of plant life for this
problem area.
Michael Langley, 80 East Sunset, stated he is the adjoining property owner, and that he had
no real objections to the expansion of the paving in the sideyard, but he just wanted to
make sure that his property would not experience increased storm water run-off from this
paved area. Mr. Forsythe stated that the Engineering Department had identified this as a
critical item, and that Engineering would work with the petitioner through the permit
process to make sure that proper drainage is provided.
Mr. Basnik encouraged the petitioner to work with staff in order to satisfy the concerns of
Mr. Langley so that there would not be any increased storm water on his property.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Basnik asked for a motion on the request. Mr.
Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. Pratt, that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend
approval of a variation to increase the 36 inch service -walk in a sideyard to 7 feet at 10 East
Sunset Road.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Lannon, Saviano, Pratt, Cassidy and Basnik
NAYS: None
The motion carried by a vote of 6-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration.
,u
/y' N_X'h�
David M. Clements,
Director of Planning
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
FROM: RAY P. FORSYTHE, PLANNERJJ*�
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1992
CASE NO.: ZBA-75-V-92
APPLICANT: GIANFRANCO GIOVAGNOLI
ADDRESS: 10 EAST SUNSET BLVD.
LOCATION MAP:
800
803
804
a
ILV
807
808
809
800 801
909
N
802
803,
a.8 gt7
802 803
E --
913
915
805
804
804 805
806 807
808 809
810 all
8t2 813
N
N
807
306
d08
809
8i1
8t0
808
812
813
E OW RO
815
877
........
u�+wrcyrt
H
814
815
801
800
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
907
909
910
12
903
907
19
7jf
909
900
9019129039t1
9149t3
916
915
902905
904
905
906
908
907
909
910
911
a.8 gt7
9� W
ftft
912
913
915
914''
920 919
916
917
o _
0 921
r
918
920
919.
921
E OW RO
..
........
u�+wrcyrt
,................... .
gagip"11+.Mi%M�ii' ...111
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
% COVERAGE:
F.A.R.:
R-1 Single Family Residential
9,986 sq. ft.
Current: 23%, Proposed: 24%
N/A
9'6
913
920
922
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
The petitioner is seeking a variation to Section 14.1102.D.4 to allow a 7 foot servi;cewalk to
encroach into the sideyard setback instead of the maximum allowed 36 inches.
Summary of application: The applicants have indicated that the area in question does not
get sun so that no landscaping material can grow. The additional sidewalk width is
requested so that this area in the sideyard will look better.
Surrounding Properties and Potential Impact: The additional pavement has little impact
on the total lot coverage and should not impact the neighboring property provided the
design is such that the stormwater is controlled so as not to increase water runoff onto the
neighboring property.
T
nspection Services and Engineering indicate that the proposed 7 foot walk should be lower
than the foundation and strongly suggest that the 2 foot dimension to the lot line be used
for a Swale directed towards Sunset.
The petitioners are seeking to pave a 7' x 39' area next to their home. The pavement is
requested because landscaping does not grow in the shady area. Staff does encourage green
space in residential areas, however, understands that grass cannot always grow. Because the
petitioner is requesting to improve the situation, staff can support the request with a
condition that design of the sidewalk and swale be subject to approval by the Engineering
Division.
RPF:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONS,LLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEME S, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1992
SUBJECT: ZBA-76-V-92, JOHN P. FLICKINGER
LOCATION: 201 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by John Flickinger. The petitioner is seeking the following in
order to construct a detached two -car garage:
1. A variation to Section 14.102.13.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 1.57 ft. instead of
the minimum required 5 ft. for an accessory structure.
2. A variation to Section 14.1102.B.2 to allow an exterior sideyard setback of 17.3 ft.
instead of the minimum required 20 feet.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of November 12,
1992. At the meeting, John Flickinger explained that they wished to remove the existing
garage and replace it with a larger one in the same location.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, summarized the staff report. He indicated that in this area of Mount
Prospect most of the lots are 50 feet in. width. There are many detached garages with
reduced setbacks, so this request should have no adverse impact on the area.
The Zoning Board generally discussed the request. By a votes of 6-0, the Zoning Board of
Appeals recommends the approval of the request to allow a 1.57 ft. rear yard setback and
a 17.3 ft. exterior sideyard setback in order to construct a two -car garage.
DMC:hg
tVtRGREEN
ASPHALT PAVED-
_ �
1
1
CL
J
s
V)
t
AE3O. 100. 201 N ' ` •
' OONCRITE BLOCK PATIO
-23.5 53.0
O m m.. i
In •, a 1. €1 CONCRETE '.
2 0 i l CONC WALK
160.00
•am NOTCH FOUND low
�O`�1`1;
ow
10 T 23Aw
*'
'''
1
N CONCRETE PAVED APP
CROSS NOTCH F
-
, . •
5 OFT Etc WALK - .' .. LINE NOTCH FOUND--.
..
33 00 - -•
«.-
` . �
15�
•
��
h004METE PAVED DRIVE
�-
H
�-?6 4
49 A '. T* 10 5 LQI 21
\
W
`
.. 3, Two ST i FRAME `
ETE 11LOICK• .,
CL
J
s
V)
t
AE3O. 100. 201 N ' ` •
' OONCRITE BLOCK PATIO
-23.5 53.0
O m m.. i
In •, a 1. €1 CONCRETE '.
2 0 i l CONC WALK
160.00
•am NOTCH FOUND low
�O`�1`1;
ow
10 T 23Aw
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 76-V-92 Hearing Date: November 12, 1992
PETTITONER: John P. Flickinger
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 201 South Edward Street
PUBLICATION DATE: October 27, 1992
REQUEST: The petitioners are seeking the following
variations in order to construct a detached two -
car garage: 1.) A variation to Section 14.102.B.1
to allow a rear yard setback of 1.57 ft. instead
of the minimum required 5 ft. for an accessory
structure. 2.) A variation to Section 14.1102.B.2
to allow an exterior sideyard setback of 17.3 ft.
instead of the minimum required 20 ft.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Ronald Cassidy
Robert Brettrager
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT: Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: None
Chairman Basnik then introduced ZBA-76-V-92 being a request to consider a variation to
reduce the 5 foot required sideyard to 1.57 feet and the 20 foot required exterior sideyard
to 17 feet, to allow the construction of a detached garage at 201 South Edward.
Mr. John Flickinger introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and stated that he
is hoping to remove an existing two -car garage that has deteriorated at his home, and
construct a larger two -car garage at the same location. Mr. Flickinger explained that he has
recently replaced the driveway for the older garage, and that it is important that the new
garage be built at the same location so he could utilize the new concrete driveway.
Mr. Ray Forsythe summarizedthe staff report for the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated
that this is a comer ;lot, and that the garage is proposed to be constructed in a rear yard
with access off of the side street. Mr. Forsythe stated that the petitioner hopes to construct
the garage in, the same location as the existing older garage, and in doing so, this would
maintain as much open space as possible in the rear yard. Mr. Forsythe stated that Mount
Prospect has a number of lots that are 50 feet in width, and that it is not unusual to see
ZBA-76-V-92
Page 2
requests for sideyard variations for detached garages on narrow lots as property owners try
to maxim1ze usable space in rear yards.
Mr. Cassidy agreed with the comments in the staff report and stated that this is a fairly
routine request for a detached structure.
Mr. Basnik indicated that the property owner would be upgrading his property by tearing
down an existing garage and constructing a new structure, and this is a good improvement
to the property.
Mr. Brettrager questioned the comment in the staff report about downspouts being directed
to Edward Street, and Mr. Forsythe stated that this is a recommendation so run-off from
the garage does not discharge directly on to an abutting property.
Mr. Lannon observed that this recommendation may also be to allow the petitioner's lot to
absorb as much run-off as possible, as storm water from the garage gutters flows overland
towards Edward Street.
Mr. Saviano asked the petitioner if the driveway had required any variations, and Mr.
Flickinger stated that he had recently put in the driveway and that no variations were
necessary.
The Zoning Board generally discussed the request and it was acknowledged that this was
a small lot and that 50 foot lots, particularly on corner locations, caused difficulties in terms
of meeting all the required setbacks, and that this is the best location for the new garage.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Basnik asked for a motion on the request. Mr.
16ttrager moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval of variations of
a 1.57 foot sideyard and 17 foot exterior sideyard, to allow the construction of a new two -
car garage at 201 South Edward Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lannon.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Lannon, Saviano, Pratt, Cassidy and Basnik
NAYS: None
The motion carried by a vote of 6-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration'.
David' M. Clements,
Director of Planning
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
FROM: RAY P. FORSYTHE, PLANNER
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1992
CASE NO.: ZBA-76-V-92
APPLICANT: JOHN P. FLICKINGER
ADDRESS: 201 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
LOCATION MAP!
.106 107 106
108 109--1oa
JIQ 111 1t0
.112 113
it4 11j tta
117 t,6
tt t,9 tt
N 120
t2t t22
200 t
202 203
a 05 Oa
206 207 2C6
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
% COVERAGE:
F.A.R. :
R-1 Single Family Residential
8,000 sq. ft.
Current: 33%, Proposed: 38%
.30
«
Q
7
N
t
„
«
cx
E
S
7
«
N
2
'
a
6
d
7 a
10
9 10
„ ,
7 a
10
, 12
17
1 1a
21 16
141
14
a
t5 10
,2
21 to
22
E DUSSE AV
1
16 16
i9
17 .e
20
19 20
21 2
.106 107 106
108 109--1oa
JIQ 111 1t0
.112 113
it4 11j tta
117 t,6
tt t,9 tt
N 120
t2t t22
200 t
202 203
a 05 Oa
206 207 2C6
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
% COVERAGE:
F.A.R. :
R-1 Single Family Residential
8,000 sq. ft.
Current: 33%, Proposed: 38%
.30
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
REQUEff
The petitioner is seeking the following variations in order to construct a detached two -car
garage:
1. A variation to Section 14.102.B.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 1.57 ft. instead of
the minimum required 5 ft. for an accessory structure.
2. A variation to Section 14.1102.B.2 to allow an exterior sideyard setback of 17.3 ft.
instead of the minimum required 20 feet.
I) ZONT
NING COMMEnSCONCERNS
Summary of application: The petitioners have indicated their desire to remove the existing
18.7' x 20.5' garage and replace it with a garage which is approximately 600 square feet (22'
x 27'), and maintain the existing rear yard setback. The petitioners wish to maintain as
much open space as possible and would like the larger garage so that they do not have to
build a separate shed. Also indicated is that a new driveway has been recently installed and
they wish to keep this in use and not have to remove and replace the newer driveway.
Impact on Surrounding Properties: This area of Mount Prospect is almost entirely
comprised of lots which are 50 ft. in width or less. This particular lot is a corner lot so that
increased sideyard setbacks are required. The current Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
would allow the petitioner to add additions to the existing garage without seeking a
variation. Because the petitioner is seeking to remove the existing garage and replace it
with a new one, increased setbacks are required. The lots to the east and south have
attached garages and the proposed garage will not negatively impact their property. The
home to the east maintains an exterior sideyard setback significantly less than the required
20 feet and the proposed 17.3 feet. In staff's opinion, the request to maintain the same
exterior sideyard setback as the existing dwelling is acceptable.
oftmignAVU
Engineering Division commented that no fill shall be placed outside the limits of
construction. Any new downspout should be directed toward Edward Street.
The petitioner is seeking to remove the existing garage and replace it with a larger two -
car garage and maintain the same rear yard setback and match the exterior sideyard setback
of the existing dwelling. The proposed location, in staffs opinion, will cause no negative
impact on the neighboring properties and staff would support the request.
RPF:hg
MEMO
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
To: David Clements, Planning DirectorE'`
IZ�I'�z
From: Michael Sims, Planner
Date: November 20 1992 A99
Subject: Dunn's Subdivision, 15 N. Marcella Road
ALSO Development Code Modifications for road right-of-way dedication, lot
depth, cul-de-sac bulb and length, sidewalk, street trees, street
lighting, full street pavement width and curb and gutter.
The property owner is seeking to subdivide his single lot into two lots for single
family residential use. Lot 1 has a house currently under construction, which is permitted
under the exception criteria of Section 16.106.A. The owner is asking for nine
Development Code Modifications. The first three listed are being sought because of the
unusual lot configuration of the existing lot, with 200' of frontage and 100' of depth. See
attachments.
The owner's Development Code Modification requests are:
1. to dedicate 12' for road right-of-way on the owner's side of Marcella Road,
where the Code, under Section 16.403.A.2., requires 33' on each side of the street; lot
sizes after the 12' dedication are 88'x100' = 8,800 square feet. This meets the lot size
requirements of the R-1 zoning district.
2. to have a lot depth of 88', as compared with the Code requirement of 120' in
Section 16.403.C.2.e.:
3. to provide a cul-de-sac length of 611' with no cul-de-sac bulb, where Section
16.403.A.5.a. of the Code identifies a maximum length of 500' per cul-de-sac and requires
a bulb.
4. to install a 4' wide sidewalk at a later date when requested to do so by the
Village. The owner is willing to sign a restrictive covenant to guarantee it's installation.
A 5' wide walk is mandatory under Section 16.403.A.9.a. of the Development Code.
5. to plant five parkway street trees at a later date when asked to do so by the
Village. Again, the owner has stated he will sign a restrictive covenant to guarantee they
are planted. The planting of parkway trees is covered under Section 16.408.A.1.
6. to have properly constructed, per Section 16.405.A., the required storm sewer
for the project when so requested by the Village. Engineering believes the flow will
probably be to the north where there are currently two vacant lots with no easements.
The owner will sign a restrictive covenant to insure they are built.
7. to provide street lighting, as required under Section 16.407.A., at a later date
when asked for by the Village, which staff expects to occur when the lot south of the site
is developed. The owner's restrictive covenant would also cover this item.
8. to construct a full street pavement width at a later time, again when the lot just
south of the site is developed. The restrictive covenant would also cover this item and
would be built when asked for by the Village. Street pavement is covered in Section
16.403.A.2.
9. to install curb and gutter, as per Section 403.A.8.g. at a later date so he can
have them built when the property just south of this site is developed. The owner is willing
to sign a restrictive covenant guaranteeing its installation.
The Plan Commission met in regular session on November 18, 1992 and voted 7-
1 in favor of recommending approval of the subdivision plat and all Development Code
Modifications, noting that the walk, trees, storm sewer, lighting, street pavement and curb
and gutter will be covered by a restrictive covenant. Staff had no objections to the
subdivision plat or the applicant's requested Development Code Modifications.
NORTH LINE OF LOT 3
�
I1
0
qD
�88.0
gs
c
' LOT 2
I
o�
}
W
r
I
W
U 3
2
9
C
W
D
0 w
88.0
n
Lu
ul
w
M
r
w
Wp
.�
��•
J
�
I
d
I•
J i
c
LOT /
w
M)
ICH
88.0
I SOUTH UNE OF LOT 3
�
NORTH LINE OF CENTRAL RD.
loo. O
N
6
" -- ` i KY THE PRESIDENT' AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE
F MOUNT PROSPECT COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS AT A REGULAR MEETING
El D 'IHiS DAY OF .1992
NOV U 3 'a
DUNN'S
SUBDIVISION
9 BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTHEAST QUART LR
OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11,
EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN CCOK
CCUNTY, ILLINOIS.
e
O
NOTE.
v IRON PIPES ARE AT ALL
�J LOT CORNERS UNLESS
w OTHERWISE NOTED.
zz
0
ou
ou
J SCALE I INCH 30 FEL:
Lx
w�
�Q
ua �
u -
N
uj
o &N EASEMENT FOR SERVING THE _SUBDIVISION - AND CfflkEk PRUPEKi'Y W.
a - -N _ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS-SWIGE-IS HEREBY RESEkVED ruk
In w
r GRANTED TQ =
COMIDNWEALTII EDISON CONPANY,NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY,(:AI
TELEVISION AND ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COKPANY,GRANTEFS,
THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, JOINTLY AND SEVI::','
INSTALL, OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND REMOVE,FROM TIME TY) TIML•,i'A,
USED IN CONNECTION WITH OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND TRAM: -.11:
AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY AND SQUNDS ANO
IN, OVER, UNDER. ACROSS. ALONG AND UPON THE SURFACE OF THL VkI (,i
SHOWN WITHIN THE DOTTED LINES ON THE PLAT AND
!6T". AND THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED ON THE PI AT FOR iI .
f AND ALLEYS. LER WITH THE RIGHT TO INS"TALL ROUIREU 6,
CONNECTIONS OVER OR UNDER THE SURFACE OF EACH LI)T" R) Jln.r.
IMPROVEMENTS THEREON,THE RIGHTT TO OVERHANG ALL LOTS WITH .�Ak.
SERVICE WIRES TO SERVE ADJACENT IOTS,THE RIGHT TO Cl1T','i'I;I^I
REMOVE TREES,BUSHES AND ROOTS AS MAY BE REASONABLY ki'(,"ill.
-� INCIDENT TO THE RIGHTS HEREIN GIVEN,AND THE RIGHT TO ENTEN Ui
THE SUBDIVISION PROPERTY FOR ALL SUCH PURPOSES.OBS'IRII(A i
SHALL NOT BE PLACED OVER GRANTEES' FACILITIES OR 1N,Ul'i,N
OVER THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE DOTTED LINES MARKED "EASk-ALr
WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF GRANTEES.AFI'Ek INSTAI,I Al
OF ANY SUCH FACILITIES,THE GRADE OF THE SUBDIVIDED Pk()ll"u
SHALL NOT BE ALTERED IN A MANNER SO AS TO INTERFERE Willi
2001-011
JUDY -'--'LJNN
T
N
Marcella Road Rights—of—Way Detail
for Dunn's Subdivision
a
Parkway
31'
Pavement with
curb and gutter
A
Parkway
NOTE: Total dedicated rights —of —way width is 45'.
El
Walk
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER M6t,
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
�
DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1992
SUBJECT: DECEMBER 1 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT #2 TO
DOWNTOWN #1 TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND PLAN
As you know, a public hearing has been scheduled for December 1, 1992 at the Village
Board meeting, to consider a proposed Amendment #2 to our Downtown Tax Increment
Redevelopment Project and Plan.
This public hearing is pursuant to notice published in the Daily Herald on November 18 and
November 25, 1992. Also, notice to all taxpayers was sent by certified mail on November
19, 1992. Notice to all taxing districts by certified mail was completed on October 15, 1992.
Theses notices and dates comply with all applicable Statutory requirements. Also, a meeting
of the Joint Review Board was convened as required by Statutes to review project eligibility.
For use by the Village Board at the public hearing, attached please find the following items:
1. Downtown #1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project and Plan, as amended.
2. Project Eligibility Report
3. Recommendation and minutes from the Joint Review Board
4. Copy of the public notice
5. Draft Ordinance Approving Amendment #2 to the TIF Plan
6. Draft Ordinance Designating Amendment #2
7. Draft Ordinance Extending and Adopting TIF for Amendment #2.
DMC:hg
The attached is the original Tax Increment Finance District #1 Redevelopment Project
and Plan.
Sections pertaining to Amendment #1 are shown with a , n . n
Sections pertaining toAmendment #2 are shown with #04 text.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER WIL-
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNNN G
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1992
SUBJECT: TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT
AMENDMENT #2
Attached please find the amended Tax Increment Finance District #1, as amended, to
include the balance of the Triangle area between Northwest Highway and Central Road.
This is Amendment #2 to the TIF District, Amendment #1 being in 1988 for the
Main/Wille block. Please note that both amendments have been incorporated into the
original text. Amendment #1 language is shown with a double re jrl' . Amendment #2
is represented by the � teat. This is done to provide ease of review.
The public hearing is scheduled for December 1 at the regular Village Board meeting. A
Joint Review Board of all taxing districts will be convened as required by State Statutes.
This meeting will be October 29, 1992. Also, the Business District Development and
Redevelopment Commission will review the amendment at their October 28 meeting.
Thanks to Dave Jepson for pulling together the financing, the hard part of the amendment.
DMC:hg
Attachment
'SNI 3NAvd -v N3'I'Iv `AA32iOIJs3d `v I�IN.L
QNd
J03dSO'dd J,NaOW AO 30V'PIIA
`J.N3MLHVd3Q ONllNNYId M Q3HVd9Hd
5861 'FIIXJV
'JNIdVaH CNV J.NaWWOO
32I
U31" (IMIA39 XVW QMH iN3b woD OZ l3afu f1S SI NH'Id SIH.L
SIONI'I'II `JD3dSOIld J,NaOW 30 3!)YI'IIA
NH'Id QNB' LMf011d J.N3WdOrI3A3Q3H JX3W3?IONI Xds i 'ON O OQ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
Introduction................................................... 1
Redevelopment Project Area Goals and Objectives ...................... 4
GeneralGoals ............................................. 4
Affirmative Action Plan ...................................... 4
Redevelopment Objectives .................................... 5
LandUse ............. i................................... 5
DevelopmentCharacter ...................................... 6
Design Guidelines .......................................... 6
Parking.................................................. 6
Pedestrian Movement ........................................ 6
Conservation Area Conditions Existing
In The Redevelopment Project Area ................................ 7
Downtown No. 1 Redevelopment Project ............................ 8
Redevelopment Plan and Project Objectives ....................... 8
Redevelopment Activities ..................................... 8
General Land -Use Plan ....................................... 9
Other Area -Specific Objectives .................................. 10
Estimated Redevelopment Project Costs .......................... 11
Sources of Funds To Pay Redevelopment Project Costs ............... 14
Issuance of Obligations ....................................... 14
Most Recent Equalized Assessed Valuation of
Properties In The Redevelopment Project Area .................... 14
Anticipated Assessed Valuation ................................ 15
Phasing and Scheduling of Redevelopment Project ...................... 18
Provision For Amending the Redevelopment Plan and Project .......... . .. 20
LIST OF TABLES AND EXHIBITS
PAGE NO,
M
BIM
Table 1, Redevelopment Project - Estimated
Redevelopment Project Cost Schedule .................... 13
Table 2, Block Summary Of Equalized Assessed
Valuations........................................16
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1, Boundary Map ..................................... 21
Exhibit 2, Development Program ............................... 22
Exhibit 3, Land -Use Plan ......................... . ........... 23
Exhibit 4, Redevelopment Target Areas . ......................... 24
Exhibit 5, Legal Description - TIF District #1 ......... „ ............ 25
Exhibit 6, Legal Description - Amendment #1 ..................... 27
Exhibit 7, Legal Description - Amendment #2 ..................... 29
WOW
M � • 1 iwN Y l_�_ ►I
The Downtown of Mount Prospect, located in a triangular area generally between
the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad, Northwest Highway and Central Road was the
original commercial and civic center of the Village. The importance of this area to the
economic well-being of the community and as a symbol of the quality of the Village has long
been recognized by elected officials, business persons and residents.
Declining physical and economic conditions evident during the 1960's and 1970's led
to the establishment in 1974 of Business District Development and Redevelopment
Commission (BDDRC). This action was followed by the preparation of a Downtown
Development Plan in 1976. This plan contained two primary components: a planning
framework which established basic standards and requirements for key parts of the downtown
environment, including land -use, movement systems, parking areas, and pedestrian and open
space facilities; and a listing of planning projects which should be undertaken to revitalize
the downtown area,. In 1951, the Village completed and adopted an updated Comprehensive
Plan for the growth and development of the community as a whole. This plan incorporated
the basic planning framework recommendation of the 1976 Downtown Plan with only minor
refinement and modification.
During the period since completion of the 1976 Downtown Plan, the Village has
continued to work with representatives of the business community to identify and implement
projects designed to arrest declining physical and economic conditions, and to improve the
appearance and image of the Downtown. The Busse -Wille Area improvement project
together with financial incentives for the rehabilitation of existing commercial buildings have
resulted in only limited new private investment, almost all of which has occurred outside of
the boundaries of the Downtown No. 1 Redevelopment Project Area.
The portion of the downtown area east of Main Street and north of Northwest
Highway have not been subject
to growth and develootnent M' d , P U lav nriv t� t-nt�rnric !
AnanalYS of conditions within this area indicated that it would
be appropriate for designation as a redevelopment project, utilizing the State of Illinois tax
increment financing legislation..
w . • wr.� �. wr •► � • � - N N
a�l I 1 1 1 plll 11 11,
01110.1 1!
of of to
It was concluded that development through investment by private enterprise cannot
be anticipated to occur without the investment of public funds in accordance with a Village
redevelopment plan.
- 1 -
The Act, which became effective in 1978, provides the Village with a tool making it
possible to raise public funds to utilize in its redevelopment efforts. It provides a means for
municipalities, after the approval of a 'Redevelopment Plan and Project," to improve and
redevelop conservation areas by tax revenues derived from the increase in equalized assessed
values of redeveloped properties in the Redevelopment Project Area. This method of raising
funds is called tax increment financing.
After a conservation area is designated as a Redevelopment Project Area, and the
tax increment financing mechanism is adopted, all taxing districts continue to levy taxes
against valuations to the Equalized Assessed Valuation that existed in the area prior to
redevelopment. The increase in tax revenue generated by the application of tax rates to the
area after redevelopment is described as tax increment revenue. As soon as more tax
increment revenue is received than is necessary to pay for redevelopment project costs and
principal and interest on obligations issued to pay for such costs, the excess revenue may be
distributed to taxing districts which have real property in the redevelopment project area.
Thus, all taxing districts are the beneficiaries of the redevelopment.
The Downtown No. 1 Tax Increment Area Redevelopment Project and Plan
(hereinformulatetd in accordance wither referred to as the 'thed provisions o ment Phe A � have been
p It is a guide to allAproposed public
and private actions in the Redevelopment Project Area.
In addition to describing the objectives of redevelopment, the Redevelopment Plan
sets forth the overall program to be undertaken to accomplish these objectives. This
program is the "Redevelopment Project".
This Redevelopment Plan also specifically describes the Downtown No. 1 Tax
Increment Redevelopment Project Area (hereinafter referred to as the 'Redevelopment
Project Area"). This area meets the eligibility requirements of the Ace. The Redevelopment
Project Area boundaries are shown on the . noAfter approval
of the Redevelopment Plan, the Village Board then formally designates the Redevelopment
Project Area.
The purpose of this Redevelopment Plan is to ensure that new development occurs:
On a coordinated rather than a piecemeal basis to ensure that the land -use,
pedestrian access, vehicular circulation, parking, service and urban design
systems will functionally come together, meeting modern-day principles and
standards.
2. On a reasonable, comprehensive and integrated basis to ensure that blighting
factors are eliminated.
3. Within a reasonable and defined time period so that the area may contribute
productively to the economic vitality of the Village.
Revitalization of the Redevelopment Project Area is a large and complex undertaking,
and it presents challenges and opportunities commensurable to its scale. The success of this
effort will depend to a large extent on the cooperation between the private sector and agencies
-2-
of local government. Planning and development efforts to date have not been capable of
stimulating this comprehensive and coordinated public and private effort. In addition, the
Redevelopment Project Area as a whole has not been subject to growth and development
by private enterprise. The adoption of this Redevelopment Plan will make possible the
implementation of a logical program to stimulate redevelopment in the Redevelopment Project
Area --an area which is not anticipated to develop without the adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan. Through public investment, the area will become a stable environment to attract
properly scaled new private investment to set the stage for the rebuilding of the area with
private capital.
1991E
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Managed growth in the form of investment in new development and facilities is
essential in the Redevelopment Project Area, as it is in the entire Village. Redevelopment
efforts in the Redevelopment Project Area will strengthen the entire Village through
environmental improvements, increased tax base and additional employment opportunities.
The Act encourages the public and private sectors to work together to address and
solve the problems of urban growth and development. The joint effort between the Village
and the private sector to redevelop parts of the Redevelopment Project Area will receive
significant support from the financing methods made available by the Act.
This section of the Redevelopment Plan identifies the goals and objectives of the
Redevelopment Project Area. A latter section of this Redevelopment Plan identifies the
more specific programs (the Redevelopment Project) which the Village plans to undertake
in achieving the redevelopment goals and objectives which have been identified.
ENERAL GOALS
-Improve the quality of life in Mount Prospect by eliminating the influences as well as
the manifestations of, physical and economic deterioration and obsolescence within
the Redevelopment Project Area.
-Provide sound economic development in the Redevelopment Project Area .
-Revitalize the Redevelopment Project Area to make it an important activity center
contributing to the regional focus of the Mount Prospect area.
-Create an environment within the Redevelopment Project Area which will contribute
to the health, safety, and general welfare of the Village, and preserve or enhance the
value of properties to reinforce a commitment to fair employment practices and an
affirmative action plan adjacent to the Area.
-4-
-Reduce or eliminate those conditions which qualify the Redevelopment Project Area
as a conservation area. v
are described on Page 7.
-Strengthen the economic well-being of the Redevelopment Project Area and the Village
by increasing business activity, taxable values, and job opportunities.
-To create an environment which stimulates private investment in new construction,
expansion, and rehabilitation.
-To encourage the assembly of land into parcels functionally adaptable with respect to
shape and size for redevelopment in accordance with contemporary development
needs and standards..
-Achieve development which is integrated both functionally and aesthetically with nearby
existing development.
-Emphasize features which can help distinguish the Redevelopment Project Area
from other areas and other villages.
-Provide sites for needed public improvements or facilities in proper relationship to the
projected demand for such facilities and in accordance with accepted design criteria
for such facilities.
r�J
-5-
w, "
4;4 iefled no �h
; Ind
n a ^; r r J 1 ., ✓r"P 4°j bo4.F. d 4%
^ '� �; 41I M, s • ar �,. ��,. w ! VIS N �"
CONSERVATION AREA CONDITIONS EXISTING
IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Based upon surveys, inspections and analyses of the area, the Redevelopment Project
Area qualifies as a conservation area" as defined by the Act. The area meets the "age"
criteria and is also characterized by the presence of a combination of three or more of the
conservation factors as listed in the Act, rendering the area detrimental to the public safety,
health and welfare of the citizens of the Village. Specifically:
-More than 50 percent of the buildings in the area are over 35 years of age.
-Of the fourteen other factors set forth in the Act, 8 are present in the area.
-The factors present are reasonably distributed throughout the area.
-All blocks within the study area show the presence of conservation factors.
The following factors are found to be present: age, obsolescence, deterioration,
dilapidation, structures below minimum code, excessive vacancies, inadequate utilities,
deleterious land -use or lay -out, depreciation of physical maintenance, and lack of community
planning.
-7-
DOWNTOWN NO. 1 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The Village proposes to achieve its redevelopment goals and objectives through
public financing techniques, including but not limited to tax increment financing, and by
undertaking some or all of the following actions:
1. Assembling sites for redevelopment through appropriate land assemblage
techniques, including: (a) acquiring and removing deteriorated and/or obsolete
buildings and buildings to situated as to interfere with replatting of the land
into parcels suitable for redevelopment in accordance with this Redevelopment
Plan; and (b) vacating, where necessary, existing public rights-of-way and making
them a part of one or more development sites.
2. Providing for the conservation and preservation of basically sound buildings.
3. Providing public improvements and facilities which may include: (a) parking
facilities, (b) new utilities and utility adjustments, (c) surface right-of-way
improvements, and (d) pedestrian walkways.
4. Entering into redevelopment agreements for the rehabilitation or construction
of private improvements in accordance with this Redevelopment Plan.
To achieve the renewal of the Redevelopment Project Area, property identified
to #*# Exhibit v 1 nt Pruram, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, may be acquired by the Village of Mount Prospect and cleared of all
improvements and either (a) sold or leased for private redevelopment, or (b)
sold, leased or dedicated for construction of public improvements or facilities.
The Village may determine that to meet the objectives of this Redevelopment
Plan, properties in the Redevelopment Project Area not scheduled for acquisition
may be acquired, and properties shown as scheduled for acquisition may he
exempted from acquisition, without amendment to this plan.
Conservation and preservation are important concepts to be considered in
downtown redevelopment. Plans should strive to combine the best of the pa_,t
with compatible new structures to create a sense of vitality and continuity
The Redevelopment Plan presently contemplates the preservation of existing
buildings that are basically sound and are located so as not to impede overall
economic development.
Adequate public improvements and facilities will be provided to service the
entire Redevelopment Project Area. Public improvements and facilities may
include, but are not limited to:
a. Adjustments and modifications to sewer and water lines as may be
necessary to facilitate and serve redevelopment in accordance with the
objectives and provisions of the Redevelopment Plan.
b. The vacation, removal, resurfacing, widening, reconstruction and other
improvements of streets, and other public rights-of-way.
C. Construction of pedestrian walkway improvements and beautification
improvements.
In the event the Village determines that construction of certain improvements
is not financially feasible, the Village may reduce the scope of the proposed
improvements.
Land assemblage shall be conducted for (a) sale, lease or conveyance to
private developers, or (b) sale, lease, conveyance or dedication for the
construction of public improvements or facilities. Terms of conveyance shall
be incorporated in appropriate disposition agreements which may contain
more specific controls than those stated in this Redevelopment Plan.
This Redevelopment Plan and�� ,r(" ;:the proposed projects
described herein conform to the Comprehensive Plan for the municipality as a whole.
The f" L°nd-Ue RIgn. Exhibit 3, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
identifies land -uses and public rights-of-way to be in effect upon adoption of this Plan. The
major land -use categories included within the Redevelopment Project Area are office -
/governmental, mixed-use t"" and residential, commercial service, and low-density
residential.
All major thoroughfares and street rights-of-way are shown on the Land -115g RigIt
map. Their locations are subject to minor modification.
The following land -use provisions are established for the Redevelopment Project
Area as designated in Exhibit 3, ' : nde PI ,
The office/governmental area is intended to provide for high-quality office and
related development within the heart of downtown. Permitted uses include business
and professional offices, governmental offices, financial institutions, parking and
business services. Under certain conditions, multi -family residential may be permitted
in selected subareas, as is indicated below. Other compatible and special uses as
approved by the Village may also be permitted.
secondary commercial uses. Other compatible and special uses as approved by the
Village .
w • M_ 1 �� � � plw i ! �'
. M NY • - � � .. - � • " II" 1
In addition to the objectives which apply to the overall Project Area,
several other design and development , objectives which apply to specific land -use areas are
listed below:
a. Any new office development on the east side of Emerson Street should be low-
rise, one or two-story construction.
b. New office buildings on the east side of Emerson Street should be sited in a
well -landscaped setting, perhaps clustered around a common parking area.
Vehicular access to this area should only be from Emerson Street.
C. A well -landscaped buffer should be provided along the eastern edge, to screen
new office development from the existing single-family neighborhood.
d. New construction along Northwest Highway should be mid -rise, with a maximum
building height of four 4 stories.
-10-
e. Vehicular access to the area along Northwest Highway could be provided from
Northwest Highway and from Emerson Street; however, if this area includes
both office and multi -family development, separate access systems should be
provided for the two land -uses.
L High-quality design and construction is important because of this high -visibility
location along Northwest Highway, near Main Street.
g. The Northwest Highway edge should be attractively and generously landscaped.
JUNIAMMt► .
Redevelopment project costs mean and include the sum total of all reasonable or
necessary costs incurred or estimated to be incurred, and any such costs incidental to this
Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project. Such costs may include, without limitation,
the following:
1. Costs of studies and surveys, plans and specifications, and professional service
costs including but not limited to architectural, engineering, legal, marketing,
financial, planning and special services;
2. Property assembly costs, including but not limited to acquisition of land and
other property, real or personal, or rights or interests therein, demolition of
buildings, and the clearing and grading of land;
3. Relocation costs to the extent that the Village determines that relocation costs
shall be paid or that the Village is required to make payment of relocation
costs by Federal or State law;
- 11 -
4. Costs of rehabilitation, construction, repair or remodeling of existing buildings
and fixtures.
5. Costs of the construction of public works or improvements:
6. Financing costs, including but not limited to all necessary and incidental
expenses related to the issuance of obligations and which may include payment
of interest on any obligation issued under the Act accruing during the estimated
period of construction of any redevelopment project for which such obligations
are issued and for not exceeding 18 months thereafter and including reasonable
reserves related thereto; and
7. All or a portion of a taxing district's capital costs resulting from the Redevelop-
ment Project necessarily incurred or to be incurred in furtherance of the
Redevelopment Plan and Project, to the extent the municipality, by written
agreement, accepts and approves such costs.
Estimated costs are shown in` ended Table 1. To the extent that municipal
obligations have'been issued or costs incurred to pay for such redevelopment project costs
included prior to, but in anticipation of, the adoption of tax increment financing, the Village
shall be reimbursed for such redevelopment project costs.
-12-
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ESTIMATED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COST SCHEDULE
Property Acquisition
$3,585,000
to
$4,660,000
Demolition
243,000
to
390,000
Public Improvements
576,000
to
705,000
Planning, legal, studies, fee, etc.
266,000
to
345,000
Contingencies
232,00
to
305.WQ
Gross Project Costs
$4,903,000
to
$6,405,000
Land Sale Proceeds
-1.660, _
to
-2,485.
Net Project Costs
13.2-43.a
to
" i
US=
AMEMMENT AREA #1 - IM
Property Acquisition
$ 862,5.00
to
$1,078,000
Demolition
65,000
to
81,000
Public Improvements
108,000
to
135,000
Planning, legal, studies, fee, etc.
43,000
to
54,000
Contingencies
86.000
to
Gross Project Costs
$1,164,500
to
$1,456,000
Land Sale Proceeds
431
to
-539,000
Net Project Costs
I 233MQto
1 e
Property Acquisition
$1,337,500
to
$1,672,000
Demolition
415,000
to
518,750
Public Improvements
960,000
to
1,200,000
Planning, legal, studies, fee, etc.
67,000
to
83,750
Contingencies
�4,QQQ
to
167.500
Gross Project Costs
$2,913,500
to
$3,642,000
Land Sale Proceeds
-668,7,550
to
---.M.50
Net Project Costs$2.24-4.75
to
S2.8,04.5
13
SQURCES OE FUNDS IQ PAY REDEYELQPMENT EROJE OST
Funds necessary to pay for redevelopment project costs and municipal obligations
which have been issued to pay for such costs are to be derived principally from tax increment
revenues and proceeds from municipal obligations which have as their revenue source tax
increment revenue. To secure the issuance of these obligations, the Village may permit the
utilization of guarantees, deposits and other forms of security made available by private sector
developers.
The tax increment revenue which will be used to fund tax increment obligations and
redevelopment project costs shall be the incremental taxes attributable to the increase in
the current equalized assessed value of each taxable lot, block, tract or parcel of real
property in the Redevelopment Project Area over and above the initial equalized assessed
value of each such property in the Redevelopment Project Area. Other sources of funds
which may be used to pay for redevelopment costs and obligations issued, the proceeds of
which are used to pay for such costs, are land disposition proceeds, state and federal grants,
investment income, and such other sources of funds and revenues as the municipality may
from time to time deem appropriate.
ISSJJAN!QE OF l
The Village may issue obligations secured by the tax increment special tax allocation
fund pursuant to Section 11-74.4-7 of the Act.
All obligations issued by the Village pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan and the
Act shall be retired within twenty-three (23) years from the adoption of the ordinance
approving the Redevelopment Project Area, such ultimate retirement date occurring in the
year 2008. Also, the final maturity date of any such obligations which are issued may not
be later than twenty (20) years from their respective dates of issue. One or more series
of obligations may be sold at one or more times in order to implement this Redevelopment
Plan. The amounts payable in any year as principal of and interest on all obligations issued
by the Village pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and the Act shall not exceed the
amounts available, or projected to be available, from tax increment revenues and from such
bond sinking other sources of funds as may be provided by ordinance.
Revenues shall be used for the scheduled and/or early retirement of obligations, and
for reserves, sinking funds and redevelopment project costs, and, to the extent not used for
such purposes, may be declared surplus and shall then become available for distribution
annually to taxing districts in the Redevelopment Project Area in the manner provided by
the Act.
'M AM IIM. • M YIY ,DIYMMA M
Table 2 lists the
-14-
The total
By the year;,,,�'p, when it is estimated that all the anticipated private development
will be completed and fully assessed, the equalized assessed valuation of real property within.
the Redevelopment Project Area is estimated at $",,�, By the year 2005, the equalized
assessed value of real property within the Redevelopment Project Area is estimated at
-15-
TABLE 2
BLOCK SUMMARY OF EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATIONS
AND PROPERTY TAX REVENUES
EQUALIZED
BLOCK NO. ASSESSED VALUE REAL ESTATE
(1983) TAXES
103
$ 140,315
$ 11,877.69
104
242,182
20,500.71
108
508,728
43,063.82
109
263,910
22,339.98
110
602,458
50,998.07
115
250,463
21,201.69
116
435,853
36,894.96
214
411,687
34,849.30
TOTAL: $2,855,5961 $241,726.20
Initial equalized assessed valuation for Tax Increment Finance District #1 was
estimated at $2,855,596. The final equalized assessed valuation for Tax Increment
Finance District #1 is $2,763,428, certified by the County Clerk of Cook County,
Illinois on December 5, 1986.
AMENDMENT AREA #1
EQUALIZED
BLOCK NO. ASSESSED VALUE REAL ESTATE
(1987) TAXES
102 (partial) $ 716,1392 $ 63,020.23
Initial equalized assessed valuation for Tax Increment Finance District #1, Amendment
Area #1 was estimated at $716,139. The final amount is $707,138, certified by the
County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois on December 20, 1988.
-16-
TABLE 2 (Continued)
AMENDMENT AREA #2
EQUALIZED
BLOCK NO. ASSESSED VALUE REAL ESTATE
(lll) TAXES
100
$1,222,895
$116,664.18
101
1,220,012
116,389.14
102 (partial)
687,874
65,623.18
107
498,913
47,596.30
204
441,348
42,104.60
TOTAL: $4,071,0423 $388,377.40
These figures are subject to final verification. Initial equalized assessed valuation is
estimated to be $4,071,042. After verification, the correct figures shall be certified
by the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois. The 1991 tax rate is $9.540 per $100
equalized assessed valuation.
Certified EAV Real Estate Taxes
District #1 $2,763,428 District # 1 $241,726.20
Certified EAV
Real Estate Taxes
Amendment #1
707,138 Amendment #1 $ 63,020.23
Estimated EAV
Estimated Taxes
Amendment #2
$4,071,042 Amendment #2 $388,377.40
TOTALS
$7,541,608 $693,123.83
-17-
PHASING AND SCHEDULING OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
A phased implementation strategy will be utilized to achieve a timely and orderly
redevelopment of the project area. This plan of action is described below. See also ibis
4, W Rcdevelop=nt. Scheduled projects and redevelopment actions
may be shifted as deemed appropriate or necessary.
It is anticipated that redevelopment of designated target areas within the Redevelop-
ment Project will be carefully staged to coincide with the securing of firm commitments from
private developers who demonstrate their willingness and ability to complete the proposed
development in accordance with the Village's Plan and guidelines. Staging of the proposed
project in this manner will serve to achieve several important objectives, including:
1. The Village will not be required to incur cost until a private developer is
selected and committed to complete the development.
2. Existing property will remain on the tax rolls until the new development is
committed to start.
3. Any increase in real estate tax revenue that may be realized from increases
in the equalized assessed value of existing property will be available to the
Village to be used toward financing of the project.
4. Property will be taken off the tax rolls for the shortest period possible.
Target Area la of the Redevelopment Project was the first phase of construction.
Private development in this area resulted in the construction of fifty-one (5 1) townhome units.
Target Area la expenditures, exclusive of financing costs, are estimated at $2,089,000
to $2,400,000. Proceeds from the sale of the land was $800,000, leaving a net project cost
of $1,289,000 to $1,600,000.
Area lb of the Redevelopment Proiect will include 1' f ruction of
Target Area lb expenditures, exclusive of financing cost, are estimated at $450,000
.. Proceeds from the sale of land for development are estimated at25,000 to
� ! leaving a net project cost for this target area of
Target Area lc of the Redevelopment Project will include initiation of redevelopment
activity within Block 104. Private development within this block will provide for between
10,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet of office and off-street parking.
Target Area lc expenditures exclusive of financing cost, are estimated at $1,182,000
Proceeds from the sale of land for development are estimated at $484,000, leaving a net
project cost for this target area of $698,000.
s
Target Area ld of the Redevelopment Project will include initiation of redevelopment
activity within Block 108. Private development within this area will provide for between 15
and 40 dwelling units and between 10,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet of office.
Target Area ld expenditures exclusive of financing cost, are estimated at $752,000.
Proceeds from the sale of land for development are estimated at $382,000, leaving a net
project cost for this target area of $370,000.
Target Area le of the Redevelopment Project included land assembly and parking
lot construction in Block 103. The lot is used for parking for nearby stores, and overflow
parking from the nearby Senior Center.
Target Area le expenditures, exclusive of financing costs, is estimated at $441,675.
-19-
PROVISION FOR AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROJECT
This Downtown No. 1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project and Plan may be
amended pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
-20-
AREA OF AMENDMENT
AREA OF AMENDMENT
INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT -
I NCRENIENT FINANCE DISTRICT
AS AME14DED
BOUNDARY HAP
(WITH BLOCK NUMBERS)
EXHIBIT 1
(( F
----j4j
CENTRAL RD
ftE vi
a
s
®m em -J
- E F
®� x
=:::41 �ma
'f
KEY
NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH mID � _ __J ❑ � _ �� --
` OR WITHOUT ACOUI3TION _'Ta-
NO ACOUISTION �- �m� --I E Ll y
=_m
PROJECT BOUNDARY
_ I
mile 1
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT #1 '
r
AS AMENDED -
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT 2
N
W
F
Ilk El
--
L t Z
€ a eR �. -
CENTRAL RD
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT
AMENDED
GENERALIZED LAND USES
EXHIBIT 3
F
ul
z
0
F
�_s F
-_--,j
J
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT
AMENDED
REDEVELOPMENT TARGET AREAS
EXHIBIT 4
;NTRAL RD
ORIGINAL DISTRICT NUMBER 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Area are shown on the 4#0*4 Bounda
aI2, bit 1,. The legal description of the Redevelopment Project Area is as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Main Street,
State of Illinois Route 83, with the centerline of Central Road,
extended; thence Easterly along said centerline of Central Road,
a distance of approximately 570.32 feet to the Northeast corner
of Lot 22 of Block 5 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount
Prospect; thence Southerly along the Eastern property line of
Lots 12, 13, 20, 21, and 22 of said Block 5 in Busse and Wille's
Resubdivision in Mount Prospect, and the Eastern property line of
Lot 1 of Mount Prospect State Bank Resubdivision No. 3, a
distance of approximately 608.74 feet, to the centerline of Busse
Avenue; thence Westerly along the centerline of Busse Avenue, a
distance of approximately 157.11 feet, to the point of inter-
section of the centerline of Busse Avenue with the Eastern
right-of-way of Emerson Street; thence Southerly along said
Eastern right-of-way of Emerson Street, a distance of approxi-
mately 277.00 feet, to a point at the Northwest corner of Lot 18
in Block 12 of Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect;
thence Easterly along the Northern property line of said Lot 18,
a distance of approximately 157.09 feet, to the Northeast corner
of said Lot 18; thence Southerly, a distance of approximately
50.00 feet, along the Eastern property line of said Lot 18, to a
point at the Northwest corner of Lot A of Corporate Subdivision
Number 1, Village of Mount Prospect; thence Easterly along the
Northern property line of said Lot A, a distance of approximately
157.10 feet, to a point of intersection of said Lot A with the
Western right-of-way of Maple Street; thence Northerly along the
Western right-of-way of Maple Street, a distance of approximately
321.88 feet, to a point at the intersection of the Western
right-of-way of Maple Street and the Southern right-of-way of
Busse Avenue; thence Easterly along the Southern right-of-way of
Busse Avenue, a distance of approximately 223.12 feet, to a point
of intersection with the Eastern property line of Lot 1 in Block
11 of Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect; thence
Southerly along the Eastern property lines of Lots 1 through 8 of
Block 11 of Busse and Wille s Resubdivision in Mount Prospect, a
distance of approximately 401.36 feet, to a point at the inter-
section of the Southeast corner of said Lot 8 with the Northwest
corner of Lot 16 of Busse's Subdivision of Lot A of Block 11 in
Busse and Wille's Resubdivision; thence Easterly along the
Northern property line of said Lot 16, a distance of approxi-
mately 190.10 feet, to a point on the centerline of Elm Street;
thence Southerly along said centerline of Elm Street, a distance
of approximately 190.00 feet, to the point of intersection of the
centerline of Elm Street, extended, with the Northern right -of-
way of Evergreen Avenue; thence Easterly along the Northern
right-of-way of Evergreen Avenue, a distance of approximately
567.20 feet, to a point of intersection with the Southwest corner
of Lot 5 of the Subdivision of Block 8 of Buse's Eastern
Addition to Mount Prospect, recorded February 11, 1922; thence
Southerly, a distance of approximately 591.00 feet, along the
Western property lines of Lots 1 through 21 of Block 20 of Mount
Prospect Subdivision in Section 12-41-11, Recorded September 2,
1874, to a point at the intersection of the Southwestern corner
of said Lot 21 with the Northern property line of Lot 1 of
Bruce's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect; thence Easterly along
The Northern property line of said Lot 1, a distance of approxi-
mately 171.00 feet, to the centerline of Owen Street; thence
Southerly along said centerline of Owen Street, a distance of
approximately 255.48 feet, to.the point of the intersection of
the centerline of Northwest Highway, State of Illinois Route 14,
with the centerline of Owen Street, extended; thence North-
westerly along said centerline of Northwest Highway a distance of
approximately 2,250 feet to the point of intersection of the
centerline of Northwest Highway with the centerline of Main
Street, State of Illinois Route 83, extended; thence Northerly
along the centerline of Main Street a distance of approximately
940 feet to the point of beginning, at the intersection of the
centerlines of Main Street and Central Road, extended; all
located in the Northwest Quarter (1/4), and the Northeast Quarter
(1/4) of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the
Third Principal Meridian, located in the Village of Mount
Prospect, Elk Grove Township, County of Cook, in the State of
Illinois.
- 96
EXHIBIT 6
AMMUT #1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of the West Half of the Northwest fractional Quarter of
Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, described as follows: The East 44 feet of the
West 64 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and all of Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 in
Block 7 in "Mount Prospect", a subdivision in part of the West Half
of said Section 12, per plat thereof. recorded September 2, 1874,
as Document 188460 in Book 8 of Plats, page 90; also
Lots E and F in Laudermilk's Subdivision of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
in Block 7 in the aforesaid "Mount Prospect" subdivision, per plat
thereof filed for record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles
June 6, 1927, as L.R. 357250 together with the 16 foot wide public
alley lying South of and adjoining said Lot F, said alley being the
North 16 feet of Lot G in said Laudermilk's Subdivision, and also
the 20 foot wide public alley lying West of and adjoining Lots A,
B, C, D, E, F and the North 16 feet of Lot G in said subdivision,
except the North 50 feet of said 20 foot wide alley now vacated;
also
The North 100 feet of Lot 2 in Block 3 in Busse and Wille Is
Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in part of said Northwest
fractional Quarter of Section 12, per plat thereof recorded March
31, 1906, as Document 3839591; also
Lots 1 and 2 in Mount Prospect Central District Resubdivision in
part of the West Half of said Section 12, per plat thereof filed
for record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, December 23,
1949, as L.R. 1275902; also
Lot 1, except the West 20 feet thereof, in Raymond R. Chmelik's
Subdivision, a resubdivision of part of aforesaid Laudermilk's
Subdivision, per plat thereof also filed for record in the Office
of the Registrar of Titles, February 25, 1969, as L.R. 2437155;
also
Lot 1 in Huecker's Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2 (except the West
64 feet thereof) in aforesaid Block 7 in "Mount Prospect", per plat
thereof recorded September 9, 1969, as Document 20953597; also
Lots 1 and 2 in the McLean Resubdivision in Mount Prospect, being
a resubdivision in part of the West Half of said Section 12 also
filed for record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, October
20, 1975, as L.R. 2835833; also
That part of Wille Street in said West Half of Section 12 lying
North of an extension West of the South line of the North 100 feet
- 27 -
of Lot 2 in Block 3 in the aforesaid Busse and Wille's
Resubdivision, and lying South of the South line of Central Road;
also
That part of Main. Street in said West Half of Section 12 lying
North of an extension East of the most South line of Lot 2 in the
aforesaid Mount Prospect Central District Resubdivision, and lying
South of the South line of Central Road; also
That part of Central Road in said West Half of Section 12 and in
part of the South Half of Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11,
East of the Third Principal Meridian, lying East of an extension
North of the West line of the aforesaid Wille Street, and lying
West of an extension North of the ;East line of the aforesaid Main
Street, all of the above in Cook County, Illinois.
- 28 -
EXHIBIT 7
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 11 and that part of the West
half of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, all in Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the
Third Principal Meridian, taken as a tract of land, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the center line of Central Road with the center line of
Northwest Highway; thence East on the center line of Central Road to center line of Wille
Street; thence South on center line of Wille Street to West extension of the South line of
the North 100 feet of Lot 2 in Block 3 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount
Prospect in the Northwest quarter of Section 12 aforesaid; thence East on the West
extension of the South line of. the North 100 feet of Lot 2 and on said South line of the
North 100 feet of Lot 2 aforesaid, to the East line of said Lot 2 aforesaid; thence North on
the East line of Lot 2 aforesaid to the most Westerly Southwest corner of Lot 2 in Mount
Prospect Central District Resubdivision in part of the West half of Section 12 aforesaid;
thence East, South and East on the South line of Lot 2 aforesaid and on said South line
extended East to the center line of Main Street; thence South on center line of Main Street
to center line of Northwest Highway; thence Northwesterly on center line of Northwest
Highway to the center line of Central Road and the place of beginning, all in Cook County,
Illinois.
(Containing 14.4 acres, more or less)
- 29 -
TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ELIGIBILITY REPORT
MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
Prepared by:
Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne
December, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
1
1 - Eligibility of a Conservation Area
5
2 - The Study Area
6
3 - Eligibility Survey and Analysis Findings
7
o Age
11
o Dilapidation
13
o Obsolescence
17
o Deterioration
18
o Structures Below Minimum Code
22
o Excessive Vacancies
22
o Excessive Land Coverage
25
o Deleterious Land -Use or Layout
25
o Depreciation of Physical Maintenance
28
o Lack of Community Planning
28
4 - Determination of Study Area Eligibility
30
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
page
1. Project Boundary
2
2. Existing Land -Use
g
3. Block and Parcel Number Map
9
4. Exterior Survey Form
10
5. Age
12
6. Dilapidation
16
7. Obsolescence
19
8. Deterioration
21
9. Structures Below Minimum Code
23
10. Excessive Vacancies
24
11. Excessive Land Coverage
26
12. Deleterious Land -Use or Layout
27
13. Depreciation of Physical Maintenance
29
Tables
Table 1, Summary of Building Deterioration
20
Table 2, Conservation Factors by Block
31
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The consulting firm of Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne, Inc. was retained by the Village of
Mount Prospect to conduct surveys and analyses of existing land -use and conditions within
the area located west of Main Street in Downtown Mount Prospect.
The findings presented in this report are based on surveys and analyses undertaken for an
area of approximately 15.1 acres, consisting of four full and one partial block, including
street and alley rights-of-way. The area is generally bounded by Central Road and the rear
and north property line of the properties fronting Busse Avenue on the north; a portion of
Main Street on the east; Northwest Highway on the south; and the intersection of Central
Road and Northwest Highway on the west. See Figure 1, Project Boundary Map.
For survey, analysis, and documentation purposes, the consultant has followed methodolo-
gies and criteria as utilized in determining whether all or any part of the area would
qualify for designation as a "conservation area" within the definitions set forth in the Tax
Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (The "Act"). The Act is found in Illinois Revised
Statutes, Chapter 24, Section 11-74. 4-1 et. seq. (1979)
As set forth in the "Act," "conservation area" means any improved area within the bound-
aries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the
municipality in which 50% or more of the structures in the area have an age of 35 years or
more. Such an area is not yet a blighted area but because of a combination of 3 or more of
the following factors: dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of individual
structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; abandonment; excessive
vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; lack of ventilation, light
or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; excessive land coverage; deleterious land use or
Iayout; depreciation of physical maintenance; or lack of community planning, is detrimen-
tal to the public safety, health, morals or welfare and such an area may become a blighted
area.
While it may be concluded that the mere presence of three or more of the stated factors
may be sufficient to make a finding as a conservation area, this evaluation was made on
the basis that the conservation factors must be present to an extent which would lead
reasonable persons to conclude that public intervention is appropriate or necessary.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle, Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 1
I" A -4F
FR`5 CU -T ?OutJ06�
aussE AVENU
SEc.Ticrt #
t
00
011)
Mount
Prospect, Illinois
too
} -
Planning and Zoning
SCALE IN FEES
z
W
On the basis of this approach, all or any part of the study area is found to be eligible
within the definition set forth in the legislation. Of the total 23 buildings in the area, 17,
or 73.9 percent, are 35 years or older. In addition, of the fourteen other factors set forth
in the law, nine are found to be present in the area. Specifically:
o The conservation factors which are present are reasonably distributed
throughout the study area.
o All blocks within the area show the presence of conservation factors.
o The area includes only those contiguous parcels of real property and im-
provements thereon substantially benefited by the proposed redevelopment
project improvements.
The following factors are present:
Area Factors
Age
Age as a factor is present to a major extent throughout the area. Of the 23 total build-
ings, 17 (73.9 percent) are 35 years of age or older.
In addition to age, nine other factors are present within the area. These include:
1. Dilapidation
Dilapidation as a factor is present to a limited extent in two of the five full and par-
tial blocks.
2. Obsolescence
Obsolescence as a factor is present to a major extent in two of the five full and partial
blocks and to a limited extent in three blocks. Conditions contributing to this factor
includes obsolete buildings, and obsolete platting.
3. Deterioration
Deterioration as a factor is present to a major extent in all of the five full and partial
blocks. Conditions contributing to this factor include deteriorating structures,
deteriorating off-street parking and storage areas and deteriorating sections of
sidewalk. Of the total 23 structures, 18, or 78 percent of the structures are charac-
terized by deterioration.
4. Existence of Structures Below Minimum Code
Existence of structures below minimum code standards is present to a major extent in
one block and to a limited extent in two of the five full and partial blocks. Structures
below minimum code include structures exhibiting advanced deterioration and defects
which are below the Village's code standards for existing buildings and property main-
tenance.
5. Excessive Vacancies
Excessive vacancies as a factor is present to a major extent in one block and to a
limited extent in three blocks. Excessive vacancies includes vacant buildings, vacant
parcels and vacant floor areas within buildings.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 3
6. Excessive Land Coverage
Excessive land coverage is present to a major extent in two blocks and to a limited ex-
tent in three blocks. Properties impacted by this factor include parcels where either
one or more buildings cover a lot to the extent that provisions for off-street parking,
loading and service are severely limited.
7. Deleterious Land -Use or Layout
Deleterious land -use or layout is present to a major extent in two blocks and to a
limited extent in two of the. five full and partial blocks. Conditions contributing to
this factor include parcels of limited narrow size or irregular shape, land -locked par-
cels and incompatible uses.
& Depreciation of Physical Maintenance
Depreciation of physical maintenance is present to a major extent in four blocks and to
a limited extent in one block. Conditions contributing to this factor include deferred
maintenance and lack of maintenance of buildings, parking and storage areas, and site
improvements including sidewalks.
9. Lack of Community Planning
Lack of community planning is present to a major extent throughout the area. Condi-
tions contributing to this factor include parcels of inadequate size or irregular shape
and depth for contemporary development in accordance with current day needs and
standards, the existence of incompatible land -uses and the lack of reasonable develop-
ment controls for building setbacks and off-street parking. Additionally, the study
area developed before the Village of Mount Prospect prepared and adopted any com-
prehensive plans for the downtown area.
The conclusion of the consultant team engaged by the Village of Mount Prospect is that the
number, degree and distribution of conservation factors as documented in this report, war-
rant designation of all or parts of the study area as a "conservation area".
The conclusions presented in this report are those of the consulting team engaged by the
Village of Mount Prospect to examine whether conditions indicating the presence of con-
servation factors exist. The local governing body should review this report and, if
satisfied with the findings contained herein, may adopt an ordinance designating the
study area as a "conservation area."
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 4
1. ELIGIBILITY OF A CONSERVATION AREA
As defined in the "Act", "conservation" areas are those areas which are rapidly deteriorat-
ing and declining and may soon become blighted areas if their decline is not checked. Such
areas are not yet blighted areas.
To qualify as a conservation area, it must be shown that 50 percent or more of the struc-
tures in the area have an age of 35 years or more and that there is a presence of a combina-
tion of three or more of the following fourteen factors:
o Dilapidation,
o Obsolescence,
o Deterioration,
o Illegal use of individual structures,
o Presence of structures below minimum code standards,
o Abandonment,
o Excessive vacancies,
o Overcrowding of structures and community facilities,
o Lack of ventilation, light, or sanitary facilities,
o Inadequate utilities,
o Excessive land coverage,
o Deleterious land -use or lay -out,
o Depreciation of physical maintenance,
o Lack of community planning.
While the Act defines a conservation area, it does not define the various factors, nor does it
describe what constitutes the presence or the extent of presence necessary to make a find-
ing that a factor exists. Therefore, reasonable and defensible criteria should be developed
to support each local finding that an area qualifies as a conservation area. The following
basic rules have been followed:
1. The minimum number of factors must be present and the presence of each must be
documented;
2. Each factor to be claimed should be present to a meaningful extent so that a local
governing body may reasonably find that the factor is clearly present within the intent
of the Act; and
3. The effect of the factors should be reasonably distributed throughout the redevelop-
ment project area.
It is also important to note that the test of eligibility is based on the conditions of the area
as a whole; it is not required that eligibility must be established for each and ever%
property in the project area.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 5
2. THE STUDY AREA
The study area consists of approximately 15.1 acres, encompassing four full and one par-
tial block„ including street and alley rights -of -way. The area is generally bordered by
Central Road on the north, a portion of Wille Street and Main Street, on the east,
Northwest Highway on the south and the intersection of Central Road and Northwest
Highway, at Ridge Street, on the west. The area contains the western portion of the Central
Business District, north of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad.
The area contains a wide variety of land uses, including retail trade, commercial services,
office uses, public and utility uses, vacant parcels and buildings, and residential uses in
the form of apartments above commercial uses.
The area contains a significant number of older buildings. Most of the older commercial
buildings are located in the blocks fronting Busse Avenue, between 'Main Street and Wille
Street, and are characterized by functional and economic obsolescence. This sub area is
part of the historic center of development in the Village. Blocks west of Wille Street con-
tain several larger structures, including the former Public Works Garage and the former
Aldi's Super .Market. The area as a whole contains a mix of unrelated uses, irregularly
shaped blocks and obsolete platting, including small and narrow parcels. A number of
buildings are either vacant or contain vacant stores and vacant upper floor space. All in-
dications are that the area as a whole has not benefited from major new private invest-
ment.
Principal access to and from the area is provided by Main Street (Rt. g), which bisects the
downtown area in a north -south direction, and Northwest Highway (U.S. Highway 14),
which runs diagonally in a northwest and southeast direction and boarders the study area on
the south.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 6
3. ELIGIBILITY SURVEY AND ANALYSIS FINDINGS
An analysis was made of each of the conservation factors listed in the Act to determine
whether each or any are present in the study area, and if so, to what extent and in what
locations. Surveys and analyses included:
1. Exterior survey of the condition and use of each building;
2. Field survey of environmental conditions covering streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters,
lighting, traffic, parking facilities, landscaping, fences and walls, and general property
maintenance;
3. Analysis of existing uses and their relationships;
4. Analysis of original and current platting and building size and layout;
5. Analysis of vacant sites and vacant buildings;
6. Analysis of building floor area and site coverage; and
7. Review of previously prepared data, maps and reports of the area.
The following statement of findings is presented for each conservation factor listed in the
"Act." The conditions that exist and the relative extent to which each factor is present are
described.
A factor noted as not present indicates either that no information was available or that no
evidence could be documented as part of the various surveys and analyses. A factor noted
as present to a limited extent indicates that conditions exist which document that the fac-
tor is present, but the distribution or impact of the blighting condition is limited. Finally,
a factor noted as present to a major extent indicates that conditions exist which document
that the factor is present throughout major portions of the block, and that the presence of
such conditions have a major adverse impact or influence on adjacent and nearby develop-
ment.
Figure 2 identifies existing land -uses in the study area, Figure 3 identifies block numbers
used for analysis purposes, and Figure 4 is a copy of the form used to record building con-
ditions.
What follows is the summary evaluation of the respective factors.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 7
LAND -USE
W
z
I
FAM +N•W,mw 17Iz6')c(_T
poutivApy Ems
A E:NU
&SEC -1 ICN iG
- eus5e
� r
BLOCK t
e0 (3UG �fCM1�P�[31,►c
K.tvi4At-
Im MUNtctpaL Cat[�e
tcjuTtu�Y
C5 • srA.l
til
.
OUIL.01ex /FLOOR.,
Mount Prospect, Illinois
onl
Planning ng
AI_
1 FUEL
V
\and"
,
i
BLOCK AND PARCEL MAP
PKo tic-,c.T PouNOAPY
-w--f1cm
MOCK t
761
m
,rprp..
-Oo -004
-015
Om I
Mount Prospect, Illinoism zoo
�C;QI_F IN FEET Planning �.� �... Zoning
an
BUILDING CONDITION SURVEY FORM
PROJECT NM1E BLocic rnnceL nLDc. NEIO];T CONST ECADF B OWNER/OCCUPANT:
ADDRESS: — DATE:
1C I STRUCTURAL DEFECTS — DEGREE AND LOCATION
'� � -r ¢ � � •y � -y 7 � � � i. � y � .� ,� � .� �. ,� � �� o� �� r�= -€� 4r °�� � •r�, r� `� e� y �, ��>
� � O� ?� O� �, s3� � O •I` 9� 4' <a� 7� -O•� g O� •f� f% O � O� ;` O� G=f O.}, ^ �2. -4 O� =z O.� �ry �� �.7* O'b �R,, �`1- O'�
STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS '
PRIMARY COMPONENTS
FOUNDATION _.. �eg.•� �.,�e: �.._�,.�..-_ —..®�
WALL STEL Di:TU]iE
ROOF STRUCTURE
FLOOR STRUCTURE
SECONDARY COMPONENTS
INTERIOR STAIRS
CIIIMNEYS
GUTTERS AND
DOWNSPOUTS
NAMF,OF
ESTADI,ISII�IEN'r/
uccurnN`rs
U I SURVEYOR:
v•.•rn.nn r..n .rr I� c..... ...,.
Ito
E
LIGIIT AND VENT,
ELECTRICAL
PLU/.IRINO
-----� IIEATING
SY ST t,Ai
FIELD EVALUATION:
ENTRY CODES
HEIGIIT
-. 1, one Gorr
Ol. Onc end one -halt sty
2. Two giggles
02, Two and one-half ME,
1 J Three stories
1_4, Four stories
b. Flve glories, etc.
conSTRUCTION
I. Ai -t
2. C®merals
+h S. wood
4, Metal
'7 Combinallnnof the ab -
`l r ■lerlals shall be listed 1
file following mar m.O
12. Masonry and enncrN
14. Wood and meusl
b, Rslt rsreetrd
f., Shinglm covered
7. Slalr eoresed
17. Alauusty and wood.
--d
0. Stacey covered
_ I.a., 00. Wood, stucco r
DECADE
j 0, Before 1900 4.103(
t 1.1000.1910 5, 104:
2, 1910.1920 I, 195
_3_#g20R.j030 7. 19G,
5.1070-1080
9. Afler 1550
DEGREE
0. Sound
1, To a minor deorcc
#� 2, To • major deuce
J„ To a critical degree
4. Not ri,lblc
LOCATION
F. Front D. nn
0. Deck 1. Fit
L. Le112S
,r•
F1 MECIIANICAL SYSTEMS DEFECTS — DEGREE AND LOCATION RF.Right front 4. Fo
LF, Left front U. Ui
- d 1- C O # d < •* C O r f `yi C Rlt. Center right T TI
O T O d1 O O .+. O -'f= 4 4 O =n O O °f' O I, L. C ler tell C. Ce
? �@ �'i `-4 7 i 1 �*7 4 � �'# ,� O`#' rL R Y �A t`F. 1'r ,si €€Hitt ni_, A=
PLUh101NG
ELF.CTIIICAL
13FAT1NG
ELEVATORS
H FINAL BUILDING RATING
TABULATION OF DEFECTS
PRIMARY COMPONENTS
- R. Resldenllai
C. CnmmereW
1. InduslrW
r. Publle
5, Seml•pubUe
T. Tnndent
FLOOR
1 -. 2 3 uI LL= Enid— buDdinp
1 O. Uuemenl
F 1. Fit. floor `
!€ 2. Second firm,. etc.
�v t(-t'P —, ./ , r- [ ( '
U. Upper floors
RATING
0. Sound
1. Minor repair
2. Major repair
2. Cdllcal
DEFICIENT—MINOR REPAIR
SECONDARY COMPONENTS
INCOMPLETE SVRVEY, EXPLAIN:
DEFICIENT — MAJOR REPAIR
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD
TOTAL
�v t(-t'P —, ./ , r- [ ( '
U. Upper floors
RATING
0. Sound
1. Minor repair
2. Major repair
2. Cdllcal
AGE
Age is a primary and prerequisite factor in determining an area's qualification for desig-
nation as a "conservation area". Age presumes the existance of problems or limiting condi-
tions resulting from normal and continuous use of structures over a period of years. Since
building deterioration and related structural problems are a function of time, temperature
and moisture, structures which are 35 years or older typically exhibit more problems than
more recently constructed buildings.
Buildings meeting the age factor are reasonably distributed throughout all of the blocks
comprising the study area. Of the 23 buildings, 17, or 73.9 percent are 35 years of age or
older.
Conclusion
Age as a factor is present to a major extent in three blocks and to a limited extent in two
of the total five full and partial blocks of the study area. See Figure 5. Age.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 11
R9t+P�
F
0c) -004
OIS
- 110
� J l
14—LU)
g�
.w AINW ..r 17Izo.1CGr AVENU
-,LOCK
, t2
z
1
Mount Prospect, Illinois
zoo
;iz_— - Planning and Zoning
SC;AI_E IN.. FEET
DILAPIDATION
Dilapidation refers to an advanced state of disrepair of buildings and improvements. This
is reflected in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, which defines "dilapidate," and
"dilapidation" as follows:
o Dilapidate. "... to become or cause to become partially ruined and in need
for repairs, as through neglect."
o Dilar)idated. "... falling to pieces or into disrepair; broken down; shabby
and neglected."
o Dilapidation. "... dilapidating or becoming dilapidated; a dilapidated
condition.
This section summarizes the process used for assessing building conditions in the study
area, the standards and criteria used for evaluation, and the findings as to the existence of
dilapidation or deterioration of structures.
The building condition analysis is based on exterior inspection of all buildings in the study
area during November, 1991. Noted during the inspection were structural deficiencies in
individual buildings and related environmental deficiencies in the study area. The Build-
ing Condition Survey Form is shown in Figure 4. A complete description of the survey
form and detailed survey methodology and criteria is contained in Appendix 1.
Fount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 13
Building Components Evaluated.
During the field survey, each component of a subject building was examined to determine
whether it was in sound condition or had minor, major, or critical defects. Building com-
ponents examined were of two types:
-- Primary Structural.
These include the basic elements of any building: foundation walls, load bearing walls
and columns, roof and roof structure.
Secondary
-- Secondary Components.
These are components generally added to the primary structural components and are
necessary parts of the building, including porches and steps, windows and window
units, doors and door units, chimneys, and gutters and downspouts.
Critgria for Classifying i neat .
Each primary and secondary component was evaluated separately as a basis for deter-
mining the overall condition of individual buildings. This evaluation considered the
relative importance of specific components within a building and the effect that
deficiencies in components will have on the remainder of the building.
Building Component Classifications.
The four categories used in classifying building components and systems and the criteria
used in evaluating structural deficiencies are described below.
-- Sound.
Building components which contain no defects, are adequately maintained, and require
no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance.
Deficient - Reguirine Minor Renair»
Building components which contain defects (loose or missing material or holes and
cracks over a limited area) which often may be corrected through the course of normal
maintenance. Minor defects have no real effect on either primary or secondary com-
ponents and the correction of such defects may be accomplished by the owner or oc-
cupants, such as pointing masonry joints over a limited area or replacement of less
complicated components. Minor defects are not considered in rating a building as
structurally substandard.
._ cnt.r"
Building components which contain major defects over a widespread area and would
be difficult to correct through normal maintenance. Buildings in the major deficicni
category would require replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in
the building trades.
-- Critical.
Building components which contain major defects (bowing, sagging, or settling to an>
or all exterior component causing the structure to be out -of -plumb, or broken, loose or
missing material and deterioration over a widespread area) so extensive that the cost of
repair would be excessive.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 14
Final Building Rating
After completion of the exterior building condition survey, each individual building was
placed in one of four categories based on the combination of defects found in various
primary and secondary building components. Each final rating is described below.
--Sound.
Sound buildings can be kept in a standard condition with normal maintenance. Build-
ings so classified have less than one minor defect.
-- Deficient.
Deficient buildings contain defects which collectively are not easily correctable and
cannot be accomplished in the course of normal maintenance. The classification of
major or minor reflects the degree or extent of defects found during the survey of the
building.
--
Minor
Buildings classified as deficient - requiring minor repairs - have more than one minor
defects, but less than one major defect.
_- Ma ior.
Buildings classified as deficient - requiring major repairs - have at least one major
defect in one of the primary components or in the combined secondary components,
but less than one critical defect.
-- Substandard.
Structurally substandard buildings contain defects which are so serious and so exten-
sive that the building must be removed. Buildings classified as structurally substandard
have two or more major defects.
Manor deficient and major deficient buildings are considered to be the same as deteriorat-
ing buildings as referenced in the Act; substandard buildings are the same as dilapidated
buildings. The words building and structure are presumed to be interchangeable.
Exterior Survey
The condition of all buildings within the study area was determined based on findings of
an exterior survey of each building. Of the total of 23 buildings:
-- 5 buildings were classified as structurally sound;
-- 13 buildings were classified as minor deficient (deteriorating);
-- 3 building was classified as major deficient (deteriorating);
-- 2 buildings were classified as structurally substandard (dilapidated).
Conclusion
Dilapidation exists to a limited extent in two of the five blocks. See Figure 6, Dilapidariopr
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 15
OBSOLESCENCE
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "obsolescence" as "being out of use; obsolete."
"Obsolete" is further defined as "no longer in use; disused" or "of a type or fashion no
longer current." These definitions are helpful in describing the general obsolescence of
buildings or site improvements in a proposed redevelopment project area. In making find-
ings with respect to buildings, it is important to distinguish between functional ob QJgL_
cence, which relates to the physical utility of a structure, andego
i l n ,which
relates to a property's ability to compete in the market place.
l Obsolescence
Structures historically have been built for specific uses or purposes. The design, loca-
tion, height and space arrangement are intended for a specific occupancy at a given
time. Buildings become obsolescent when they contain characteristics or deficiencies
which limit the use and marketability of such buildings after the original use ceases.
The characteristics may include loss in value to a property resulting from an inherent
deficiency existing from poor design or layout, the improper orientation of the build-
ing on its site, etc., which detracts from the overall usefulness or desirability of a
property.
0 Egon
Economic obsolescence is normally a result of adverse conditions which cause some de-
gree of market rejection and, hence, depreciation in market values. Typically, build-
ings classified as dilapidated and buildings which contain vacant space are charac-
terized by problem conditions which may not be economically curable, resulting in net
rental losses and/or depreciation in market value.
Site improvements, including sewer and water lines, public utility lines (gas, electric and
telephone), roadways, parking areas, parking structures, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, light-
ing, etc., may also evidence obsolescence in terms of their relationship to contemporary
development standards for such improvements. Factors of obsolescence may include inadc-
quate utility capacities, outdated designs, etc.
Obsolescence, as a factor, should be based upon the documented presence and reasonah1c
distribution of buildings and site improvements evidencing such obsolescence.
Obsolete Building Types
Obsolete buildings contain characteristics or deficiencies which limit their long-term sound
use or reuse. Obsolescence in such buildings is typically difficult and expensive to corrcct
Obsolete building types have an adverse affect on nearby and surrounding developmcnt
and detract from the physical, functional and economic vitality of the area.
Obsolescence is present in a number of the structures in the area. Obsolete buildings in-
clude one single-family residential structure which has been altered to accommodate of-
fices; small and narrow buildings which are of limited size for existing uses or long-tcrm
activity; and the building containing the vacant space, formerly occupied by Aldi's Super -
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 17
market, which will be difficult to reuse because of its limited size, poor visibility and inef-
ficient arrangement of off-street parking. These types of structures detract from the proper
development of the area and adversely impact adjacent properties.
Obsolete Platting
All blocks within the area are characterised by an inconsistant pattern of platting with
parcels of varying sizes and configuration. Two blocks contain narrow parcels with
limited width and depth. Two blocks contain parcels of irregular shape. These parcels are
platted in such a manner as to limit the proper development of the area as a whole.
Conclusion
The analysis indicates that obsolescence is present to a major extent in two blocks and to a
limited extent in three blocks. See Figure 7, Obsolescence
DETERIORATION
Deterioration refers to any physical deficiencies or disrepair in buildings or site improve-
ments requiring treatment or repair.
o Deterioration may be evident in basically sound buildings containing minor defects,
such as lack of painting, loose or missing materials, or holes and cracks over limited
areas. This deterioration can be corrected through normal maintenance.
o Deterioration which is not easily correctable and cannot be accomplished in the course
of normal maintenance may also be evident in buildings. Such buildings may be clas-
sified as minor deficient or major deficient buildings, depending upon the degree or
extent of defects. This would include buildings with defects in the secondary building
components (e.g., doors, windows, porches, gutters and downspouts, fascia materials,
etc.), and defects in primary building components (e.g., foundations, frames, roofs,
etc.), respectively.
o All buildings and site improvements classified as dilapidated are also deteriorated.
Deterioration of Buildings
The analysis of building deterioration is based on the survey methodology and criteria
described in the preceding section on "Dilapidation", and detailed in Appendix 1. A total
of 18 buildings, or 79.3 percent of the buildings within the study area, are classified as
deteriorating. As noted in the following table, building deterioration exists in all parts of
the study area.
Mount Prospect, Illinois Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 1S
DILAPIDATION
=LEI
-017 -007
-01z -008 W
Eiz. -01
2-
td — 019
dow Aw PrD,3ec r OU0p gy
SEG11Cm *
-BLOCK 49Z
Z
W
W
0
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Planning a Zoning
.9CAI-E IN FEET . �<n�`.
t? of
¥ {F
.--.,. i �..- �' � -., r•g.+ '�� ��p ��# # ,j�' ill vt� _ ttr '-�- e, t9 `
OBSOLESCENCE
Uj �007'
—Olz =008 W
l -0115
7..C- �-0114E
A In R409m, RNIP
~ dw FeNELT PutJOAPY
SECIICN *
—BLOCK 6
eussr- '--_ ^"
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Planning and Zoning
c;C I: IN F E E T
y } C ¥t € t -
Table 1
Summary of Building Deterioration
Block Total No. Minor Major Substand.
No. Buildin¢s Sound Deficient Deficient Mil
100 3 1 2
101 3 1 - 2
102 6 1 3 1 1
107 8 1 6 - 1
204 3 1 2 -
Total 23 5 12 3 2
Percent 100.0 21.7 56.5 13.0 8.7
Deterioration of Parking and Surface Areas
Field surveys were conducted to identify the condition of parking and surface storage
areas. Deteriorating surface parking areas include gravel lots in poor condition at the rear
of three properties fronting Busse Avenue, one hard surface area with irregular and
cracked asphalt and one sand and gravel lot overgrown with weeds. These lots contain
depressions, allowing 'water ponding, with weeds and debris. Deteriorating parking and
surface areas exist within, five sites in two block.
Deterioration of Sidewalks
Deterioration of these site improvements include irregular, poorly maintained, pitted and
pock -marked sunken sections of sidewalk along Central Road, Northwest Highway, and
Pine Street. Three of the five blocks are affected by these conditions
Conclusion
Deterioration is present to a major extent in all of the five full and partial blocks within
the major portion of the study area. See Figure 8, Deterioration
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 20
DETERIORATION
OW mw ffNE .T PdutJ04fZji c � eussE wvr-Nu
5FC.TICnI #
-BLOCK <OZ -021
t
T o
I
f
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Planning and Zoning
SCsat-E IN FEES_
PRESENCE OF STRUCTURES BELOW MINIMUM CODE STANDARDS
Structures below minimum code standards include all structures which do not meet the
standards of zoning, subdivision, building, housing, property maintenance, fire, or other
governmental codes applicable to the property. The principal purposes of such codes are to
require buildings to be constructed in such a way as to sustain safety of loads expected
from the type of occupancy, to be safe for occupancy against fire and similar hazards,
and/or to establish minimum standards essential for safe and sanitary habitation. Struc-
tures below minimum code are characterized by defects or deficiencies and also include the
presence of poorly constructed additions and alternations, much of which completed
without code compliance in previous years, which threaten health and safety.
Conclusion
Structures below code include five buildings with structural defects and other evidence of
deterioration and classified as major deficient or substandard. These structures are below
the Village's property maintenance and other codes for existing buildings. This factor ex-
ists to a major extent in one block and to a limited extent in two blocks. See Figure 9,
Structures Below Minimum Code.
EXCESSIVE VACANCIES
Excessive vacancies refers to the presence of buildings or sites which are unoccupied or
unutilized and which represent an adverse influence on the area because of the frequency
of vacancies, or the duration of vacancies. Excessive vacancies include properties which
evidence no apparent effort directed toward their occupancy or utilization.
Within the study area excessive vacancies include vacant buildings, including partially
vacant buildings and vacant /underutilized parcels.
Vagant. Bmildings,
Six buildings are vacant or contain vacant storefront or unused upper floor space, in-
cluding the major portion of the former Aldi Supermarket building.
o Vacgnt Parcels
Two blocks contain vacant parcels.
Conclusion
Excessive vacancies exist to a major extent in one block and to a limited extent in three
blocks. See Figure 10, Excessive Vacancies.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 22
BELOW CODE
Aw Ar PIZa+G(T goUNpAVy
sEciic" #
RBIOCK *�
Al
Ell
Mount Prospect, Illinois
_C,AI_E IN�FEE
-001 -00'q
_O15L'--�] 1 0
Planning and Zoning
t4 t # t psi .� „+! - -' F i - ♦'i _
EXCESSIVE VACANCIES
IN]
— M
P
�'F —w
t24rP�
-ooq
"0 15O
p)ZN C -(T OUOtg4, zy
AVEMU
SCLTICN
=MOCK
-02 —021
OU
-0101
Mount Prospect, Illinois
200
Planning and Zoning
C 8 1 c=
IN r U. f T �. �:
EXCESSIVE LAND COVERAGE
Excessive land coverage refers to the over -intensive use of property and the crowding of
buildings and accessory facilities onto a site. Problem conditions include buildings either
improperly situated on the parcel or located on parcels of inadequate size and shape in
relation to present-day standards of development for health and safety. The resulting in-
adequate conditions include such factors as insufficient provision for light and air, in-
creased threat of spread of fires due to close proximity to nearby buildings, lack of ade-
quate or proper access to a public right-of-way, lack of required off-street parking, and in-
adequate provision for loading and service. Excessive land coverage conditions have an
adverse or blighting effect on nearby development.
Conclusion
Ten building sites exhibit excessive land coverage where buildings cover from 65 to 100
percent of the parcels on which they are located. This factor is present to a major extent in
two blocks and to a limited extent in three blocks. See Figure 11, Excessive Land Coverage.
DELETERIOUS LAND -USE OR LAYOUT
Deleterious land -uses include all instances of incompatible land -use relationships, buildings
occupied by inappropriate mixed uses, or uses which may be considered noxious, offensive
or environmentally unsuitable.
Deleterious layout also includes evidence of improper or obsolete platting of the land, in-
adequate street layout, and parcels of inadequate size or shape to meet contemporary
development standards. It also includes evidence of improper layout of buildings on par-
cels and in relation to other buildings.
Parcels of Inadequate Size and /or Irregular Shape
Within the area, deleterious land -use or layout includes 14 parcels with limited depth and
width or irregular small size, including three land -locked parcels. These parcels arc
characterized by inadequate provision for building placement and provision for light and
air, off-street parking loading and service.
Incompatible Uses
Within the area, one block contain residential uses, in the form of apartments above com-
mercial buildings in an area dominated by commercial development. These residential uses
are incompatible with the commercial character of the areas in which they are located.
Conclusion
Deleterious land -use or layout exists to a major extent in two blocks and to a limited extent
in two blocks. See Figure 12, Deleterious Land -use or Layout.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 25
EXCESSIVE LOT COVERAGE
ow 4ow Aw PFoacc.T PouNPAPY
SCC.IICN *
\,�-e.Locv. R
�srp;
_oo -004
_O15 U
.O�
Mount Prospect, Illinois I
Ao
Planning and Zoning
C,AI_ Ir1 FEFT
-olz -008
I z -oI
ao
-oto
ow 4ow Aw PFoacc.T PouNPAPY
SCC.IICN *
\,�-e.Locv. R
�srp;
_oo -004
_O15 U
.O�
Mount Prospect, Illinois I
Ao
Planning and Zoning
C,AI_ Ir1 FEFT
DELETERIOUS LAND-USE/LAYOUT
G
plZ6,jC- �o�No�Izy
SEGIICN #
®1k
Poo rooMount Prospect, Illinois
�C;AI_E IN FEET
a s ks.
Ar
F-
W
W
-018
,v.
Planning and Zoning
x
:s r
DEPRECIATION OF PHYSICAL MAINTENANCE
Depreciation of physical maintenance refers to the effects of deferred maintenance and
the lack of maintenance of the buildings, parking areas and public improvements, includ-
ing streets.
The presence of this factor within the study area includes:
o Buildings. Eighteen properties within the area evidence deterioration and related
deferred maintenance of windows, doors, downspouts and gutters, exterior walls,
roofs, fascias, rear porches and premises, which contain weeds, exposed storage and
debris.
o Sidl-w-11ki Deteriorated, irregular and sunken sections of sidewalk exist along
major sections of Central Road, Northwest Highway and Pine Street.
Conclusion
The results of the surveys and analyses of depreciation of physical maintenance within the
study area indicates that this factor exists to a major extent in four blocks and to a
limited extent in one block. See Figure 13, Depreciation of Physical Maintenance.
LACK OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
The study area as a whole was developed without the benefit or guidance of community
planning. Most of the properties within the study area were originally platted and
developed on a parcel -by -parcel and building -by -building basis with little evidence of coor-
dination and planning among buildings and activities. The lacy of community planning at
the time of the original development has contributed to the problem conditions previously
cited which characterize the entire study area.
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Page 28
DEPRECIATION OF PHYSICAL MAINTENANCE
FOP
—013
.W amw W'ME-4 W004PY
aSEC-1ICN *
BLOCK t
BUSSE AV
Mount
Prospect, Illinois
KoO 00
Planning
and Zoning
I v I N f E_ E_ i
4. DETERMINATION OF STUDY AREA ELIGIBILITY
The study area meets the requirements of the Act for designation as a "conservation area."
Fifty percent or more of the structures in the area have an age of 35 years or older.
Specifically, 18 of the 23 buildings, or 73.9 percent are 35 years or older. There is a
reasonable presence and distribution of nine of the other fourteen factors listed in the
Act. These include:
Area Factors
I. Dilapidation
2. Obsolescence
3. Deterioration
4. Structures below minimum code standards
5. Excessive vacancies
6. Excessive land coverage
7. Deleterious land -use or layout
8. Depreciation of physical maintenance
9. Lack of community planning
The distribution of conservation factors is shown in Table 2. All blocks in the area
evidence the presence of three or more conservation factors. The eligibility findings indi-
cate that the area is in need of revitalization and guided growth to ensure that it will con-
tribute to the long-term physical, economic, and social well-being of the Village. All fac-
tors indicate that the area has not been subject to sound growth and development through
investment by private enterprise, and isnot likely to be developed without public action.
g
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report Pae 30
Table 2
DISTRIBUTION OF CONSERVATION FACTORS
BLOCK NUMBERS
100
101
102
107
204
Age o
0
•
•
o
Other factors
Dilapidation
o
0
Obsolescence o
0
e
,
0
Deterioration •
0
0
•
Illegal use of
individual structures
Structure below
•
0
0
minimum code
Abandonment
Excessive vacancies o
0
o
0
Overcrowding of
structures and
community facilities
Lack of ventilation,
light and sanitary
facilities
Inadequate utilities
Excessive land 0
0
0
b
0
coverage
Deleterious land -use 0
,
0
0
or layout
Depreciation of •
•
0
physical maintenance
Lack of community a
s
•
a
planning
Not present
o Present to a limited extent
o Present to a major extent
Mount Prospect, Illinois: Triangle Redevelopment Project Eligibility Report
Page 31
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MAYOR AND VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: EARL SUTTER, JOINT REVIEW BOARD CHAIRMAN
DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1992
SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT JOINT REVIEW BOARD
REVIEW OF AMENDMENT #2
The Joint Review Board transmits for consideration by the Village Board, their
recommendation on the eligibility of the area of the proposed Amendment #2 to Downtown
No. 1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project and Plan.
The Joint Review Board is a requirement of Section 11-74.4-5b of State Statutes, and its
membership consists of individuals representing certain taxing districts that have authority
to directly levy taxes in the area of Amendment #2. Statutory members of the Mount
Prospect Joint Review Board are:
1. Chairman Earl Sutter - Public Member
2. Dave Jepson - Village of Mount Prospect
3. Betty Launer - School District #57
4. Jack Swanson - School District #214
5. Joan Young - Harper College
The jurisdiction of the Joint Review Board is to submit an advisory, non-binding
recommendation to the municipality specifying "its decision to approve or deny the proposal
on the basis of the area satisfying the eligibility criteria.....", Section 11-74.4-5b of State
Statutes.
The Joint Review Board met on October 29 and November 26, 1992. At those meetings,
the Board reviewed the eligibility report for the area of Amendment #2 prepared by
Consultant Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne. The Board questioned the consultant and
Village staff on specifics of the eligibility report, and how certain eligibility factors were
present in the area, and distributed throughout Amendment #2. Using an eligibility
checklist, the Joint Review Board determined that the area of Amendment #2 meets the
eligibility requirements of State Statutes. The Board found that over 50% of structures in
the area were over 35 years of age, and that the eligibility factors of 1.) lack of community
planning, 2.) depreciation of physical maintenance, and 3.) deterioration, were present.
The Joint Review Board noted a higher concentration of eligibility factors in Blocks 102 and
107, and that the presence of factors is not as prominent in Blocks 100, 101 and 204. While
the Board determined that the area meets the eligibility requirements of Statutes, they felt
the distribution of factors throughout the area could be stronger.
Mayor and Village Board of Trustees
Page 2
November 23, 1992
The Joint Review Board also felt it was appropriate for them to offer an opinion to the
Village Board for their finding that the "redevelopment project area on the whole has not
been subject to growth and development through investment by private enterprise and would
not reasonably be anticipated to be developed without the adoption of the redevelopment
plan."
After discussion with Village staff on development issues such as land assembly, demolition,
and public improvements, the Joint Review Board determined that the area of Amendment
#2 could not reasonably be anticipated to develop the standards expected by the Village,
without the use of Tax Increment Financing.
Respectfully submitted,
Earl Sutter, Chairman,
Joint Review Board
DMC:hg
MOUNT PROSPECT TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT #1
JOINT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Thursday, October 29, 1992
Village Manager Michael Janonis called the meeting of the Joint Review Board to order
at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Jannis introduced himself to those present and stated that he would like
to serve as an interim; chairperson until the Joint Review Board appoints a chairperson as
noted later on the suggested agenda.
Members of the Joint Review Board in attendance were as follows: Joan Young from
Harper College; Betty Launer, School District #57 Board; Jack Swanson representing
District #214; .David , Jepson representing,the Village of Mount Prospect; Bill Blaine
representing the Mount Prospect Public U,brary. Other persons in attendance were David
Clements, Director of P "ng; Kenneth, Fritz, Economic Development Coordinator; Earl
Sutter, Mount Prospect resident; John. Pettigrew, Planning for the Village of
Mount Prospect; Tom Many, Superintendent District #57 and Barry S ringer,' ttorney for
the Village.
. Janonis, ed everyone for attending and provided an overview of the Joint Review
Board in Mount Prospect's Tax Increment Finance District. He stated that the purpose of
the Joint Review Board was to review, the eligibility for Amendment #2 to the Tax
Increment Finance District. Mr. Janonis toren noted that Mr. Blaine was present
representing the Mount Prospect Public Ilibrary, He explained that State Statutes provide
Joint Review Boarrd membership for any jurisdiction that levies taxes in a Tax Increment
Finance I` istrict. Mr. Janonis stated that the library levy is included in the Village budget.
The Joint Review Board discussed library membership on the Board, and Ms. Launer stated
that since statutes specifically speak to a jurisdiction directly levying taxes, that the library
,should not be included with the Joint Review Board. There was consensus from the Board
on this matter, and Mr. Blaine stated that he understood.
Mr. Janonis asked Mr. Clements to provide a summary of the statutory requirements of the
Joint Review Board.
. Clements explained that the Joint Review Board became effective with State Statutes
in 1959, and, that the original Tax Increment Finance District was adopted in 1985 with
Amendment #I.occurring in 1988. Accordingly, there had been no need to convene a
Joint Review Board for th two earlier actions. Mr. Clements stated that this would be
the municipality's first session with the Joint Review Board since the statutes were amended
in 1989.
He stated that the statutes provide that a representative of each taxing district shall sit as
a member of the Joint Review Board and their rade is to review the pubic record, the
planning documents and the proposed ordinances to determine if the area of Amendment
42 satisfies the eligibility requirements of the statutes" Mr. Cements noted that the Joint
Review Board shall select from ;
public member from the comm
Review Board shall issue a writtt
eligibility requirements of statute
as a conservation area. Mr. Cle
of the initial Joint Review Boar
advisory non. -binding, recommen(
is adopted by the Village Board
taxing districts on the annual cha
Board is required to meet in on
to review the status of the overa
Mr. Jannis then provided an o
Review Board then appoint a pu
Board appoint Earl Sutter as the
The motion was unanimously apt
the public member.
Mr. Jannis then stated that 1
consider selecting their own ch
appoint, Earl Sutter as chairper
was approved unanimously.
Mr. Janonis then offered that i
recording secretary to assist wit
by the Village. The Joint Revi
was determined that Village s
appointed David Clements, Di:
Mr. Sutter then asked membei
with the suggested agenda as pr
be the best way to proceed wit
The Joint Review Board then a
District and Amendment #i, a
the original district was create
conservation area. Mr. Cles
Amendment #2 were identified
that the Village chose to se
manageable and that at this tim
#2 is being proposed to be br(
Mr. Clements pointed out that
A which consists of 51 towr
structures in an area consisti
station, and an agingtwo story
the conservation factors that
p a chairpersc
by the Board.
ting why the pi
tt the area of )
t this report n
iat this report
lents noted if
ard; must prov
al revenues, as
+o years, and e
t project.
iblic member. The motion wa
Dved Mr. Sutter then joined t
the full ;membership, the Jo:
erson. Ms Launer moved tha
The motion was seconded by
ie Joint Re`iiew Board could sel
, their minutes'% or'if appropriate,'
w Board ,discussed the matter of
aff could fulfill this role. The
ector of Planning, as recording s
of the Joint,%Review Board if t
;pared by Village staff. There wa
i the initial meeting -
1 of the origi
ing, David C
;rmining tha
tendment #
iect to make
nent has been
that those to
cu �a,�. �.auavuov.
stated that the
Tareet Area A
J that there shall be a
stated that the Joint
area fails to meet the
dment #2 does qualify
)e filed within 30 days
ie Village Board is an
rea of Amendment #2
n annual report to all
-ther, the Joint Review
three yearsthereafter
ggested that the Joint
that the Joint Review
conded by Mr. Jepson.
f oint Review Board as
Review Board should
to Joint Review Board
Jepson. The motion
m its membership a
is could be provided
ling secretary and it
Review Board then
,..
Y.
would like .to proceed
nsensus that this would
ax Increment Finance
nts, summarized' that
area was eligible as
I the area proposed
qualified as such, but
-edevelopment more
I area of Amendment
leted in Target Area
mes replaced aging
tall independent gas
)wnhomes remedied
also noted that the
0
Page 3
Village had constructed a pair " g lot as the plan provides for 'in Target Area E, and that
this provides for shoppers parking d overflow parldng for the Senior Center, fulfilling a
public purpose d meeting the intent of the statutes.
Mr. Clements then described Amendment #1 which was adopted in 1988 as the Main Wine
block or Target Area F. He stated that this area was set up to help accommodate the
expansion of Northwest Electric, a large re olessale lighting and supply company, d.
that at . time the company is still attempting to identify their expansion plans, and the
Village is wilting to work with thein: at the appropriate time.
. Sutter asked if their were any questions concerning the background provided by
Clements. Mr. Swanson asked if copies of the financial statement for the Tax increment
Finance District were available and Mr. Jepson stated that audited statements could be
made available. Mr. Sutter asked if natural'assessment growth of the district ispart of
project increment, and Mr. Jepson responded that all increases in Equalized, Assessed
Valuation ( V) within the district go into the tax allocation fund, t includes
natural assessment growth. Mr. Sutter asked if this is the ease if bands could be paid off
sooner, and Mr. Jepson stated bonds could be paid off sooner if tax increment funds were
available and this decision was made by the Village Board.
. Launer asked if, within an existing 'Tact Increment Finance District, buildings are
demolished if this loss of assessment is reduced from the base level received by all taxing
districts. Mr. Jepson responded that the Mount Prospect Tax ement Finance District
has never had equalized assessed valuations fall, below the base year.
Mr. Jack Pettigrew introduced himself to the Joint Review Board as a Planning
Redevelopment Consultant for the Village. He statedthat he has worked on over 50 Tat
Increment Finance Districts in Illinois and Cook County, and he assured the Joint Review
Board that EAV for a district is aggregated as a chole and not viewed on a parcel by parcel
basin He stated t in Cook County will
V not fall below base year levels as
established ;in a Tax Increment Finance Distrim
Chairman Sutter asked if members of. the Joint Review Board would like to discuss the
eligibility report for Amendment #2, and Mr. Swanson indicated that he hopes to study this
information but a presentation by the Village would be helpful at this point, and that
perhaps the Joint R d should withhold discussion until their next meeting.
Mr. Pettigrew stated that downtown Mount Prospect is typical of other suburban downtowns
who are on commuter lines, and that these older central business districts have developed
on a parcel by parcel basis before contemporary planning standards could be applied. He
stated that these central business districts consist of obsolete platting and varying types and
sizes of building architecture, and that State Statutes recognize that this type of obsolete
development can he remedied with TIF financin Mr. Pettigrew provided an overview of
the statutes, d discussed the eligi ` qty criteria for a tion. area. He made
reference to the executive summary of the eligibility report and Painted out that Page 2
provides a very good map of the area of Amendment #2.
Mr. Pettigrew continued and 1
over 50% of the structures in
indicated that 78% are over ti
Statutes. Mr. Pettigrew then s
factors have to be presentto q
deterioration, obsolescence, im
of current Building Code re(
necessary that these factors t
throughout the area in a unifot
and not concentrated in one a
sound buildings could be inclu
Mr. Swanson asked if the entiz
area must qualify with a comb
Mr. Sutter asked who makes
determination is an element of
is done by a survey and analysis
on experience and a precedent
TIF Districts.
Ms. Iauner asked if Mr. Pettig
Pettigrew stated that Trkla, Pe
consists of a staff of 15. He
redevelopment and have work
Districts.
The Joint Review Board then
distribution of factors identifi
blocks in the area of Amendmi
Pettigrew noted that age must
done on a block by block basis
prevalent throughout the area
eligibility as: a conservation di
Ms. Launer made reference t(
this is the base year EAV by b:
Plan to the taxing districts.
Mr. Sutter stated that, while t
eligibility and not necessarily
Mr. Sutter made reference to
is difficult to read, and Mr. C
these exhibits to members pri
vey work by his company indicates that
lment #2 are over 35 years of age. He
ereby meeting the requirements of State
t conservation area, three or more of 14
w summarized some of the 14 factors as
,cessive vacancies, overcrowding, and lack
ettigrew stated, that he feels that ; it is
in the district, but they be ,spread out
d that in so doing,; eligibility is area wide
ated that by doing so certain structurally
ct.
and Mr. Pettigrew stated that the entire
three or more of the required statutes.
on the factors: of eligibility and if :this
ttigrew stated that a review of the factors
.dual, building, and that this is done based
.gibility that his firm has done in over 50
a overview of his firm's expertise, and Mr.
me is a Planning and Consulting firm that
Jo .city planning design, economics and
ects across the country,including 50 TIF
discussion of the eligibility study and the
g firm, and Mr. Sutter stated that some
tr to be qualified with the age -factor. Mr.
area and does not necessarily have to be
determined that 9 of the 14 factors were
n exceeds the statutory requirements for
edevelopment Plan and pointed out that
d this was the most important part of the
Joint Review Board must look towards
r as EAV.
i the eligibility report and stated that this
t he°would ;provide color photocopies of
ing.
121
Page 5
Mr. Swanson asked when the EAV in Amendment #2 would be frozen, and Mr. Jepson
stated that statutes provide that it be the most recent EAV, in this case probably 1991.
Ms. Launer asked about Village acquiring property in the area of Amendment #2 before
the Tax Increment Finance District -was expanded, and if this would be exempt properties
when the base year was frozen. Messrs. Jepson and Pettigrew stated t this would depend
on when the exemption was filed, but all indications are that the EAV of Amendment #2
would be frozen in 1991 and that the Village had acquired the former Aldi's building in
1991, and that in all likelihood the EAV for the Aldi's building would be frozen before the
exemption was in effect.
Ms. Launer noted that it's possible that the Village and other taxing districts might have
different motives for when the base year of EAV was established in District #2, and Mr.
Sutter again pointed out that the Joint Review Board is limited to reviewing eligibility and
should not be discussing details such as EAV. Mr. Sutter pointed out that taxing districts
can make other appropriate comments at the public hearing, but that these should not be
part of the Joint Review Board report. Chairman Sutter continued discussion of the exhibits
and maps to get an overview of the spread of the eligibility factors throughout the area of
Amendment #2.
Ms. Launer indicated a concern about the standard of deterioration. She noted there have
been discussions about the TIF expansion in the Village for some time, and she wondered
ifthis long-term discussion had led to increasing deterioration of properties. She made
reference to the Facade Program and asked if the Facade Program had been implemented
in the area of Amendment #2. Mr. Clements pointed out that the Facade Program had
been used with the Aldi's building at 100 Northwest Highway, the Little America Restaurant
and Jake's Pizza, and that in his opinion the Facade Program had been implemented in the
area of Amendment #2, in reasonable amounts as compared to the balance of the central
business district.
Mr. Swanson asked if information could be provided on parcels owned by the Village and
Mr. Clements stated he would provide a copy of a map indicating Village -owned properties.
Mr. Swanson asked if evaluating these buildings for eligibility mut be done compared to
current Code requirements, and Mr. Pettigrew stated that current Code roust be used when
determining eligibility. Mr. Swanson noted that impact of taxing districts be determined
individually.
Mr. Janonis provided a copy of State Statutes to each member of the Joint Review Board
so they would have this for their review.
. Jepson asked how many properties have to meet the criteria to be considered eligible
for a conservation district, and 'Mr. Pettigrew responded that there is no requirement for
each and every property to exhibit any of the factors. Mr. Jepson asked what is a
reasonable distribution of factors for conservation, and Mr. Pettigrew responded that he
believed there should be two or more factors in all blocks.
Page b
Mr. Sutter : stated that the Joint Review Board is limited ° to review of eligibility but he
questioned how much latitudethey have m ;evaluating the factors.
Ms. Launer pointed out that the consultant might have some bias in determining eligibility
in his report and that she is not questiomn ;the professional judgement involved, but just
that there may be a different approach in',6fermining eligibility that the Village may have
as opposed to the taxing districts. Mr Swanson pointed out that School District 214had
supported other TIF Districts within their boundaries but they opposed the Prospect Heights
District because they believed eligibility was'not property defined in that area, and they
thought this area would develop without "ATF Finan . g, He stated that District,, 214 had
compromised with Prospect Heights on reducing the area of the TIF District and the
number of years of the district and in shariti %sales tax from the development of a shopping
center. Mr. Jepson commented on evaluati the eligibility, and stated he is not qualified
to do a detailed analysis of building eligibil11 ity, other than appearance, and he believed a
professional should be used for this and that the Joint Review Board should rely on
professionals' opinions. ; Mr. Swanson suggested that perhaps at the next meeting, the Joint
Review Board could walk the, area together for an overview.
Mr. Swanson noted that the Joint Review Board is limited to a discussion of eligibility, but
that the taxing districts could go individuall" o the public hearing to talk about impact from
the. frozen EAV °levels:
;
Chairman Sutter asked show members of ihe;Jbint Review Board would care to proceed at
this time. The -Joint Review Board 46Ased the matter of the eligibility report and
redevelopment :plan and it was determined that they would read these documents and
reconvene in approximately three weeks tore`iew their findings and perhaps walk the area.
Mr. Clements confirmed that he would prawide color photocopies of the exhibits, financial
statements, and a map of Village -owned, property.
Chairman Sutter stated that he would be outbf the country for the next several weeks and
the Joint Review Board determined that they%would meet again on November 19 at 2:30
p.m. in the afternoon.
Respectfully submitted,
YAl,
David M Clements,
Recording Secretary
JointReview Board
MOUNT PROSPECT TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DI CT #1
JOINT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Thursday, November 19, 1992
Chairman Sutter called the Joint Review Board meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
Members present were: Jack Swanson, of District #214; Joan Young of Harper College;
Betty L auner of School District 57; David Jepson, Village of Mount Prospect; and David
Clements, Recording Secretary.
Other persons in attendance were: Thomas Many, Superintendent of School District #57;
Michael Janonis, Village Manager; Kenneth Fritz, Economic elopmentrdin�ator;
Barry Springer, Village Attorney ; d flick Trkla., Village Consultant, arrived at 3;010 p.rn.
Chairman Sutter asked for approval of the minutes of October 29. Mrs. Launer moved that
the minutes be approved, with three corrections. Mr. Clements made note of the
corrections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jepson and carried by a voice vote.
Chairman Sutter had a question about Statutory requirements for future meetings of the
Joint Review Board, and their ,role in future meetings. gs. Attorrrey Springer stated that the
Statutes are silent as to future duties of the Joint Review Board., Members of the Joint
Review Board determined that they thought they would review plan implementation and
increment projections.
Mr. Swanson stated that after his further review, he believed the Joint Review Board should
review eligibility, and the question of whether or not the proposed Tax Increment Finance
area would be subject to growth and development without establishing a Tax Increment
Finance District. He stated that this is the 1but for" argument of redevelopment, and that
District 214 looked at this very closely with the Prospect Heights Tax Increment Finance
District.
The Joint Review Board discussed whether they could address the "but for" argument.
Members agreed that their jurisdiction was limited to eligibility, but that it would not be
inappropriate to comment on this matter for the information of the Village Board.
Chairman Sutter then asked for a discussion of the age standard.
Mr. Clements stated that 50% of structures in the area must be at least 35 years of age or
older.
Chairman Sutter noted that many smaller buildings qualify by age, but that 50% of the area
is not covered by age -qualified structures.
Mrs. Launer stated that a block -by -block review finds several blocks where 50% of
structures in each block do not meet the age standard.
Mr. Swanson read an excerpt from the l
Finance Compliance Report that the age f
to a meaningful extent.
Mr. Trkla noted that the distribution of a
not address distribution, only that the fact
best if factors were distributed throughou
Chairman Sutter stated that there was a b
Busse block, but that the Village has no a
Mrs. Launer stated that the age distnbuti
of the triangle.
The Joint Review Board discussed the E
boundaries as proposed, the age standard
Chairman Sutter asked for consensus on
Mrs. Launer stated that the distribution is
is met.
Mr. Swanson also noted the age;distnbut
Mr. Jepson stated that the report funds
standard, and that the area qualifies.
Chairman Sutter stated that the age stanc
The Chairman then asked for a review of
The Joint Review Board discussed lack o:
Mr. Jepson asked for examples of this sta
includes such items as inadequate lot size
or landscaping and open space.
The Joint Review Board noted that this „ f,
there is not much distinction in certain fa
Mrs. Uuner acknowledged that there" w
originally developed, and the Joint Revie`
Chairman Sutter then asked for discussio
Chairman Sutter and Mrs. Launer ques
considered as having excessive land covera
with other Village-owned parcelsto the n
of Revenue Tax Increment
int, and it should be present
r is important, but that State Statutes do
be present. However, he believed it was
ict.
entration of age, and other factors, in the
pment plans for this area.
it strong as you look at the western part
ir, and it was determined that with the
standard.
)ng, but agrees with reservation that age
agreed that the area qualifies.
the structures in the area meet the age
been met.
community planning.
mity planning.
Mr. Clements responded that this factor
rasions, lack of parking, building setbacks
;ms to encompass other factors and that
immunity planning when this area was
determined that this factor was present.
;ssive land coverage.
vhy the old Public Works Garage was
y believed if this building were combined
vould not meet this factor.
Page 3
After discussion of this issue, it was determined that evaluation of the excessive land
coverage factor would be held until other factors are evaluated.
Mr. Swanson suggested the Joint Review Board focus on factors that seem more readily
apparent.
Chairman Sutter then began a discussion of depreciation of physical maintenance. Mr.
Trkla stated that physical deprecation was found to a major extent in three of the four
blocks.
Mrs. Launer questions how the Commonwealth Edison substation was included since this
was not a building. Mr. Trkla stated that the factor applies to buildings or facilities, and
that a utility can exhibit primary and, secondary examples of lack of physical depreciation
of maintenance.
Mrs. Launer and Mr. Swanson questioned who maintains sidewalks as the report exhibit
includes a number of sidewalks to address this standard. Mr. Jepson stated that the Village
has a shared -cost replacement program but that most maintenance is done by property
owners. He continued by stating this factor is present in every block and throughout the
area.
Villagefactor. She stated that the said the factor was present in other blocks.
Chairman Sutter was concerned about minor items being considered in this factor, and how
a continuing pattern of depreciation easily qualifies.
Mrs. Launer stated that distribution of this factor is really skewed, but the factor is present.
Mr. Swanson said the factor is present, but that it relies too much on public improvements
like sidewalks.
Chairman Sutter stated that there was consensus on the factor of depreciation of physical
maintenance.
The Chairman then asked for discussion on the factor of deterioration.
Mrs. Launer asked for an overview of the deterioration factor, and Mr. Trkla summarized
the standard.
Chairman Sutter asked for information on deterioration at Mount Prospect Auto and Tri-
State Electric. Mr. Clements summarized the deterioration listed in the building surveys,
and Mrs. Launer provided photographs of these two buildings.
Mr. Jepson stated that deterioration is evident throughout the area.
7
Mr. Swanson stated that 17 buildings in the report indicate a dei
Mr. Clements stated that minor deterioration°can be included a.4
before it becomes major deterioration.
Mr. Trkla stated that major deterioration le'ea` to dilapidation
buildings exhibit deterioration.
"
The Joint Review Board discussed deteriorition,and there was con . .... . .
evident in the area.
Chairman Sutter noted that age, plus threeors were presen
eligible for use with Tax Increment Financing
Mr. Swanson suggested the Joint Review ,"Board consider their
argument. Mr. Swanson read from the Del)/,4rim,,
ent of Revenue
Compliance Manual that Tax Increment Fin"66 should be the 12
attempts at redevelopment fail. Mr. Trkla sitat /that Statutes do 1
Mr. Clements summarized Village efforts 41/redevelopment of th
# 1 was adopted in 1988. He stated that the Vilage
had lengthy
four other developers about opportunities in flus area, but that al
.16
proceed without participation by the Vfflagel ch is only availa
Finance District,
Mr. Clements discussed more recent inf6rm"Aiion from Broad
indicated that the Village needs, to provide?assistance with items
parking lots and landscaping, and that this tiId help Broad;
demonstrating local commitment to the dev I elo,
)men
Messrs. Springer and Trkla stated that theJointReview Board cc
to the Village Board on the "but, for" issu6.", I
Mr. Swanson stated that other districts have4, stake in Tax Increrr
this makes the 'but for" argument importint:%',,/'/Ae stated that 23
school district to wait to receive increased," rea,istate taxes.
Mrs. Launer stated that District #57 could 1 '41 million over a
stated that she accepts the premise that greater equalized assessi
with a Tax Increment Finance District, butquestions if it is worth
She stated that school districts have been inpcted by other so
continued and stated that the amendment were alreai
would have been better if Statutes allowed/4" hi., Joint Review R
earlier time, such as setting up boundaries'i/4"
Mr. Springer emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Village
on the "but for" argument.
g5,
condition.
Id be remedied
le noted that 70% of
that this factor was
ierefore the area was
inion of the "but for"
3x Increment Finance
esort if all other local
require such a finding.
rea since Amendment
cussions with three or
heated they could not
with a Tax Increment
Development. He
demolition, utilities,
obtain financing by
provide their opinion
Finance Districts and
s -is a long time for a
fe of the district. She
aluation is generated
� loss of revenue now.
-s also. Mrs. Uuner
stablished, but that it
I to participate at an
and to make a finding
Page 5
Mr. Swanson and Mrs. Launer advocated the Joint Review Board include an advisory
opinion to the Village Board on this issue.
Mr. Jepson agreed that the Joint Review Board could offer an advisory opinion on this
matter.
Mrs. Young asked if there was any other way to present this information. Mr. Swanson
and Mrs. launer believed the Joint Review Board should comment, but that statements on
tax impact should be left for the public hearing.
The Joint Review Board continued their discussion of the 'but for" issue, and Messrs.
Clements, Jepson and Janonis further explained the difficulties of land assembly, demolition
d such items that private developers require of a municipality in order to make
downtown project financially feasible.
Mr. Trkla concurred that this had been his experience in a number of other downtown
redevelopment projects. ,
Mr. Swanson expressed concern that the payback to school districts was too long.
Mr. Jepson stated that the Village is aware of the impact on school districts. He believed
if there was a certain level of surplus before the end of the district, it could be turned back
over to the other districts.
Mrs. Launer stated that development to standards expected by the Village would not likely
occur without a Tax Increment Finance District. - = -_
Mr. Swanson noted that if the area hasn't developed in the last ten years, it probably
wouldn't without a Tax Increment Finance District.
There was continued discussion by the Joint Review Board, and consensus that the area
could not reasonably be expected to develop without a Tax Increment Firmce District.
It was determined that Mr. Clements would draft the Joint Review Board report and
transmit it to the Village Board, after a review by those members available.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David M. Clements,
Recording Secretary
Joint Review Board
Notice of Hearing
Notice is Hamby Given that can tfecernber a, 1992, at f,20 PM
the Mount Prospact r Center at so South Emerson $�tr
'Ount Prospect, l linois, a public Hearing shall be held on the p�rrr
seed Arrran nt #2 to the Pax Increment Redewolopment Plan
vd Radavalnpmant' prolaot for G rrr ct No. 1 (4uaraznafter referred to
s Atte mendment""). Phe kiourtdltrles of t' proposed Amarad
merit A2 to ttta dpveiop Oman pro Anna by legal dasc
riptiM
ra set frartta ae fotkawa:
Mavarifk bxroarpaast Tolt Inramaant IFtnanarrr t?tatxfot
alas arti:� lrofb hA to e r 2
?hat pari of the East haat of the Northeast quarter of $action 11
nd that gaart of Chia West half of thO Noritrwest quarter of 'Section
2, alt in P'ownsfrip ei'1 lap 11 Bast of the Third f'rbto4f l
a tridIan, taken as a tract of txrunded and described as i
a*w aSeqjnnhV at the Intersection of tote center One of Central Road
with the center fine of Northwest Higthway thence East on the COO -
or lineof Centrw laded to center One of La%'Nlle Street, thanoer Sou
th
M Center One of Wilk, Street to West extension of the South Ona of
he North t fio feet of Lot 2 in Block S in Busse and White's Resubdt-
ris'ion in Mount Pros'pec't in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12
aforesaid"; thence East on the West extension of the .South this of
tete North loo feet of Lot 2 and on said South lone of the North 100
'eat of Lot 2 aforesaid, to me East tYne of said Lot 2 aforesaid;
thence North on the east line of Lot 2 aforesaid to the most Woutt-
IWSOuthwast corner of Lot 2 fin Mount prospect Central District
utadivtslon in prart of he "+"Mrest heat of tion 12 aforesaid:
Overate East, Soutar and East on ttra South line of Lot 2 aforesaid
�f on said south Oran extended East to the center One of Main
Strea't» thence South on center One of Mains Street to centstr One o
Northwest HVmay'; 'ttranoe Northwesterly on renter fins of North
wrist Highieay to C center lig of Central Road and the p o
inning„ eat in Cook County„ tltk'rols (containing 144 acres, MCKA
or The description being added to the Tax Inorenrant Rada
vatoprrrent Plan and Recievalopnent Protect for District No, 1, '
save s located gonexaft betweenCarets
amendedC
Reed Willa Std and Nornwest Hiway, a the P le
o� geradr'eftlyy rwrartft and south of ase Avenue, east of tf
Slleat wast ref Main Strain and nortlw of Northwest ighw wddo
a were in ftv o or amendreentt 1 t
"Pax lncrament Redevelopinant Project Area for District No.
Mount Prospect, O'Oncris, Arnendment is on fifer at the VtO
The c to o
Clerk's a of a llage of M t Prospect, located at teat
lage Hatt, too South Emerson $treat, Mount, prospect, Illinois, an
lis evaat ;Ia for static inspection at ra lar buisness hours.
any inferes�d person, aha 110no'ts DePW
At. a , nur atv Affairs or affected taxing ds
iit¢alra are 100_ to s f cornmame to the Via oa Mo'unA, rw-
sac°t c the suboc't matter of the hearing and the Amend
hent prior to date of the ho ftma Viltagta of Mount Prospect
shall fear and determine all pro and objections at the two,"
3nd the hearing may be adjourned to another date writhout'
'Coco, other then a motion to be entered upon the
to mintheutes
Iia time place of the subsequent hearingg. prim
of an ordinance a�apro,orrg an amended redeye t or
redwelopment Protect 0 qrl sang an emended redevelopment
pip t area Chang" may be made ki the amended redevelopment
or roaoi or area, wrhioh chs s do not altar the exterior
�damiaws. 'or do not sutashortiafty a sot
the 'general land uses as
as hod irm tfra feted raadavalo nt plan or substantially
cage Cha nature of aha amorfaled r vatopanasnt project, without
trig or notice, provided that notices of such change ds gglvara by
mail to aacaf affected taxing district and lay pallid ,anon do a nawv�"
Par
or newspapers of rat circutattiorr within the taxing dist uta
rag less detest ten (ltlj prior [o the adoprfon of flea changes try
ordinance. anwndod
After the adoption of an ordinance � roving an
redevelopment pian Or pro¢arci or de rratng an amended nada
valoornant pro Oct area, no erdinance�all be adopted aiter6rog the
exterior
two the r s'ndedter reatat lthe opme al pl c nd uses asestablished
want
na-
of the a'mend'ed redevekappment proyeot without complying
with
the Procedures provided in IOmois avised Statutes, Chapter24,
section 11-74, 4-1 at pertair' for initial proval of the
radavaio�naant plan» pr�oact, area. abeam as pursuant to 104,
nois Revised d Statues» Chapter 2 i, Secaons 1 t •7 1!im siva 41. Prbe
E. The Amendment it, at is tha,sutsyact ofthe heaurYa�g on i7treoam4te
1, 1992 (a) the the oxtanor tAraUP ries of tate Pax Nnoaem'en1
Redevelopment to alfa Redavalo�amant Protect arod R v
maul Pro act Area for District No. as amended by Amandman
No. 1 to the 'Pax Increment Radavaloprntnt Plarr and Red'ays*op
mart Profa'ct and Redevefoprnent prefect Area for District No 1
adopted troy, the Village of Mount pros t on Augarst 2'Q» 19SS ane
December 2l1, 1 respectiv adding in fxOPerbOs locate(
generally betweenCentral Road, &ale Sbset tdcarthwest Hi,
way, and fora pro onies located general north and $otath of
Avesta, east of Wille Streets, west of Main Street hand north of North
t Hthway, for tfre foOo v,rng general raadavalopmant ptam
rb possitite acquisition of land for' t'fva purpose of p
ropert
Sj %iiyy, dentobbon of buddirfgs.
'a instaftaitorr, repair and retoration of streets and publi
uffIffiea. 4
CiThe general land Was of 'mixed use retail residential R
Block 101, and commercial service fon Blocks 1f „ 1Ci7 and 2fNd"
q Change the ffeneral tend use as sect fortis in the "Pax lamcrr
mint Redevefiopment Plan and Redevelopment Pro(aet and Redi
valopmani Proa'ct Area for Clistrrct Noo
. 1 as amended for thea elg(
kola looateri on lima east s of Maple Street, south of Busse A.
° of oro(aaot ra alreasgfidmeant art mr ansrty aasddaniLtt,
CAROL,A. fl LffS
Village CknX
village of Mo Int prospect
Published in Mt. Prospect itira kl November Is and 25, 1992.
Nwirc of Hearhig
Notice is Hamby Given that on member 1, t 710 p.rn_
in the M proe Canter at 50 Sir Emerson Street,
Mount t., s„ a ff tens halt on timepprro-
posedAn arot aW2 to Tax I t y Plarm
andrH pr t for Dlsfrict fo. f ainaf'tec ref to
as the"Arew� f"�
moat At2 to ttae rrnnt profoot Annalegal description
are set rqa Xoifow;
mount Prraapaaot fear traoaaaaraeaat l=tasaraea ffaalartot
nafararat Mt a
0attaflalR art
That of �7�hrr
0ofn 11
and that pert oX it.err tree tVortka t r arrten oT e a tion
12, aft it X d1 'forth„ 11 fast of the TtkWrd 8 rirmrNcc�W
raisers gas a haat of 1 orad de bud as fry
lows:
Beginning at the 10tion of the center Gre of Central Road
With the center Ime of tt e East on the can-
ter f Central to center lire o loo mat, the ice South
on center ins o1 Wtua Sheet to West extension of the .mouth tine of
the North 100 feet of trot 2 in Block 3 in Busse and Wi leps' i-
vmsion in Mount prospect in the Northwest quarter of bion 12
aforesaid; fJwwe East on the West extension of the South fere of
the eta 100 feet of Lot 2 and on said South fine of the North '100
feet of Lot 2 aforesaid, to the East of said 1.ot 2 aforesaid;
thence North on the East line of Lot 2 aforesaid to the most Waster,
Mly ��Southwest comer of tot 2 in Mount Prospect C antral District
ubdry in of the W hall of section 12 afore
them East, and East on #no of l of 2 aforesaid
rand on said srxr,h lima aattandad Eget to the center One of Main
StroaoE tivonce South care centra flea of
in Street to center line of
fortfmwast ifigh way„ tlweraoe htlortlrwestaarty on center firie of forth -
west '6th to f o lig central Need and the pia of
- rig. �in Conk County, lltlimols dcontaining 14.4 acres, more
Tf s descriphon taeir added to the Tax Increment lfede-
yolopment and ltedav nt pr t for District No. 1„ as
sena era limo pr locatod ganora8 between Central
Road, Wille Street arrd wrest 1iir mway, a of the, Properties lo•
cated generally north and south of arsso Avenue. east of Wale
Street, went of Main Street and north of Northwest Mir3h , which
gprrope ties ware Trot inoludnd in Ohe orfglnaW or amaradnatint�fo 1 to
the at it,* Vill
Tax tncrarrmrant Rodoyalopmarmt proyaot Area for District No. '1,
re
Eirs"sair
Mount Proapect,111inofs.
Clerk s arg-
mer of t�ro�la�ge o oaant afol ,Mince 1hq
is y14a8 is for alalic arspecf3an alt,a� teaProspect,s 11 and
At t1Ye pubic f emarlar eery irderastad person, Gro tlGimos iarapart-
marat oX Con oo and Cnmmun ky Affairs or affected taxing dis-
trt with ttw loll Clerk
of time 4lla of
Mount pr t
Sman
wrltkan uta tioaas to an may ba rd ora lly in na t tea arry
lage
issues inti in Mals Notloa and in the t,endinent. AA taxing
districts and thea tlintafs DeFunecat of mraroe and munfty
Affairs aro irryitarit s ft entre WWI oX Moufrt prize•
pec, cant a Awa ilea t man. i � rM a an finis
notice, rather than a motion" to be entered upon time minutes fixing
lime time and place of the subsequent hearing. Prior to the seximicn
of an
ordi a a an amended redevelopment plan or
redeye, t pr t, or esign an arae d eve rat
k
e eroded redevelopnment
dO net eafter tare exterior
the genmaral land ease as
in the ad radav rbt plan or subsataantia&ly
the nature of lime : rmdad r lopment pr' without
hear
irmg or no'tica, proytdad thaf notice of Such crena s is given by
marl to h affacfad taxing ediso lct by is it a are
per or renew ra oX nal clroaafation within time taxing dW by
not ten (1Cij ys tea the ad of the changes
ordinance.
After the adoption of an Ordinance aappproving an ed
radar t plan or pro mak or dasiarmaOng an amended rede.va f pro" of area„ moo ordlrmanca aMaait be adopted of the
apxuCariar fess, affacting ga2neral 1prmd uses as established
t�ar a a1 dao v ppro a-
t Withmoun or ct cam yi winth
time ocedures proyidad lnr l inois Raymsait Statutes, Chapter 24,
Sedan 11 7A, f•1 al seq pertai� kO kha indiaal approval of time
ruderal t peen, pro ct„ sena. rr fmaeafaa�pp is Pursuant to uIW-
nols Revised Stataawssn Cfaaptar 24„ Sraotloras 1 f •74,4-5 and 11.74.4-
6. Then dment t1 oak is the sublaot of the hearinat on December
ment Pro act Area for District No, 1, as amended by Amendment
No. 1 to ire Tax increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelop-
ment Pro" and Redevelopment Project Area for District No. '1,
adopted yMhe Village of Mount Prospect on August 20, IM and
Docerriber 20„ 1988„ respect el ,by adding the pr las located
generaNy between CentraW R= Wt
oo Street and Northwest high-
way, and the pro leis located enerauy north and south of Busse
Av t of'W p0 Street, week of Main Street and north of North-
west N hwaa+y, for the following general redevelopment plan,
AjPossible acqulsitGon of hand forthe purpose of property
assemband demolition of buildings.
11 installation, repair and relocation of streets and public
utftfties.
Cb Tera moral
us"
of mixed-use retau residential for
Blrmok 101, and coramrtmorclaW sor�aica for Blocks 100, 107 and 204.
Cfmarrg� flea genoral lend use as scat forth in the Tax Incre-
nnrant ordavalopmermk pian and 'ltaade nt Project and Rede-
aeloprrmcest PrejaOt Area for tlrstreict fo, l sail arrrmend for the eight
lots catscl on the egat
side of Maple Strset, south of Busse Ave -
re
sid dial to Wow -density residential,
incur project redevalgpirient cosh.
Published in Mt. Prospect Harald November f8 and 25, 1992. C
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, has
heretofore in Ordinances Nos.3554 and 4011 approved the Tax
Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project for District
No. 1 and Amendment No. 1 thereto (hereinafter, collectively, "the
Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, in furtherance of its
desire to consider boundary and land use changes in the Plan, has
complied with the procedures set forth in the Tax Increment
Allocation Redevelopment Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.Ch.24 Sec.11-74.4-1 et
seq., as amended (hereinafter "the Act"), pertaining to the
consideration of such changes which requires compliance with the
requirements for the initial approval of a redevelopment plan and
project, and designation of a redevelopment project area; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect does hereby determine that
it is in the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect and
its citizens to amend the Plan by altering the boundaries and land
use of the Plan as shown on the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the
Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project for
District No. 1 (hereinafter "the Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois,
desires to implement and extend tax increment allocation financing
pursuant to the Act, for the Amendment within the municipal
boundaries of the Village of Mount Prospect and within the proposed
Amendment No. 2 to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area for
District No. 1, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
made a part hereof (hereinafter, the "Amended Area"), which Amended
Area constitutes in the aggregate more than 1.5 acres; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, a Joint Review Board was convened on
October 29, 1992, to consider the proposed Amendment and the
proposal to designate the proposed Amended Area, and the Joint
Review Board has filed with the Village Clerk its advisory
recommendation with respect to the proposed Amendment and the
eligibility of the proposed Amended Area, for designation under
the Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sec. 11-74.4-5 of the Act, the President of
the Board of Trustees of said Village caused a public hearing to
be held relative to the proposed Amendment and a designation of the
Amended Area on December 1, 1992 at the Mount Prospect Senior
Center in the Village of Mount Prospect; and
WHEREAS, due notice in respect to such hearing was given pursuant
to Sec. 11-74.4-5 and 6 of the Act, said notice being given to
taxing districts within the proposed Amended Area by Certified Mail
on October 15, 1992,.by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation within the taxing districts on ,
1992 and , 1992, and by Certified
Mail tothe taxpayers within the proposed Amended. Area on
, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Amendment sets forth the factors constituting a
conservation area in the proposed Amended Area, and the President
and Board of Trustees of said Village have considered the testimony
concerning a conservation area presented at the public hearing and
have reviewed other studies and are informed of the conditions of
a conservation area in the proposed Amended Area as said term
"conservation area" is used in the Act; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of said Village have
reviewed the conditions pertaining to lack of private investment
in the proposed Amended Area to determine whether private
development would take place in the proposed Amended Area as a
whole without the adoption of the Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of said Village have
reviewed the conditions pertaining to real property in the proposed
Amended Area to determine whether contiguous parcels of real
property and improvements thereon in the proposed Amended Area
would be substantially benefitted by the Amendment's improvements;
and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of said Village have
reviewed the Amendment and the comprehensive plan for development
of the municipality as a whole to determine whether the Amendment
conforms to the comprehensive plan of the Village;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
as follows:
Section 1:
The Village of Mount Prospect hereby makes the following findinqs:
a) The area constituting the proposed Amended Area in the
Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, is
legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof. The street and general description of the
boundaries of the proposed Amended Area is set forth :n
Exhibit B, and shown on the boundary map, Exhibit c,
which are attached hereto and made a part of this
Ordinance by reference.
b) There exist conditions which cause the area proposed to
be designated as the Amended Area to be classified as a
"conservation area" as the finding in Section 11-74.4-3
of the Act.
C) The proposed Amended Area on the whole has not been
subject to growth and development through investment by
private enterprise and would not reasonably be
anticipated to be developed without the adoption of the
proposed Amendment.
d) The proposed Amendment conforms to the comprehensive plan
for the development of the municipality as a whole.
e) The parcels of real property in the proposed Amended Area
are contiguous and only those contiguous parcels of real
property and improvements thereon which would be
substantially benefitted by the proposed Amendment
improvements are included in the proposed Amended Area.
f) The estimated date for final completion of the Amendment
is August 20, 2008.
g) The estimated date for retirement of obligations incurred
to finance redevelopment project costs is not later than
August 20, 2008.
The Amendment, which was the subject matter of the hearing on
December 1, 1992, is hereby adopted and approved, a copy of which
is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance as Exhibit D.
D�
The Village Clerk shall publish this Ordinance in pamphlet form and
shall file this Ordinance with the Cook County Clerk, pursuant to
the Act.
3
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and approval as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE THIS DAY OF
, 199_.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSENT FROM COMMENT AND VOTE:
APPROVED this day of
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
4
, 199_.
Village President
degInning ac cne incecsection of the centeriane of Main Street,
State of Illinois Route 83, with the centerline of Central Road,
extended; thence Easterly along said centerline of Central Road,
a distance of approximately 570,32 feet to the Northeast corner
of Lot 22 of Block 5 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision In Mount
Prospect; thence Southerly along the Eastern'
property lime of
Lots 12, 13, 20, 21, and 22 of said Block 5 in Busse and Wille's
Resubdivision in Mount Prospect, and the Eastern property line of
Lot 1 of Mount Prospect State Bank Resubdivision No. 3, a
distance of approximately 608.74 feet, to the centerline of Busse
Avenue; thence Westerly along the centerline of Busse Avenue, a
distance of approximately 157,11 feet, to the point of inter-
section of the centerline of Busse Avenue with the Eastern
right-of-way of Emerson Street; thence Southerly along said
Eastern right-of-way of Emerson Street, a distance of approxi-
mately 277.00 feet, to a point at the Northwest corner of Lot 18
in Block 12 of Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect;
thence Easterly along the Northern property line of said Lot 18,
a distance of approximately 157.09 feet, to the Northeast corner
of said Lot 18; thence Southerly, a distance of approximately
50.00 feet, along the Eastern property line of said Lot 18, to a
point at the Northwest corner of Lot A of Corporate Subdivision
Number 1, Village of Mount Prospect; thence Easterly along the
Northern. property line of said Lot A, a distance of approximately
157.10 feet, to a point of intersection of said Lot A with the
Western right-of-way of Maple Street; thence Northerly along the
Western right-of-way of Maple Street, a distance of approximately
321,88 feet, to a point at the intersection of the Western
right-of-way of Maple Street and the Southern right-of-way of
Busse Avenue; thence Easterly along the Southern right-of-way of
Busse Avenue, a distance of approximately 223.12 feet, to a point
of intersection with the Eastern property line of Lot 1 in Block
11 of Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect; thence
Southerly along the Eastern property lines of Lots 1 through 8 of
Block 11 of Busse and Wille s Resubdivision in Mount Prospect, a
distance of approximately 401.36 feet, to a point at the inter-
section of the Southeast corner of said Lot 8 with the Northwest
corner of Lot 16 of Busse's Subdivision of Lot A of Block 11 in
Busse and Wille's Resubdivision; thence Easterly along the
Northern property line of said Lot 16, a distance of approxi-
mately 190»10 feet, to a point on the centerline of Elan Street;
thence Southerly along said centerline of Elsa Street, a distance
of approximately 190.00 feet, to the point of intersection of the
centerline of Elm Street, extended, with the Northern right-of-
way of Evergreen Avenue; thence Easterly along the Northern
right-of-way of Evergreen Avenue, a distance of approximately
567,20 feet, to a point of intersection with the Southwest corner
Of Lot 5 of the Subdivision of Block 8 of Busse's Eastern
Addition to Mount Prospect, recorded February 11, 1922; thence
Southerly, a distance of approximately 591.00 feet, along the
Western property lines of Lots i. through 21 of Block 20 of Mount
Prospect Subdivision in Section 13.41-11, Recorded September 2,
1874, to a point' at the intersection of the Southwestern corner
of said Lot 21 with the Northern property line of Lot 1 of
Bruce's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect; thence Easterly along
The Northern property line of said Lot 1, a distance of approxi-
mately 171,00 feet, to the centerline of Owen Street, thence
Southerly along said centerline of Ogen Street, a distance of
approximately 255.48 feet, to the point of the intersection of
the centerline of Northwest Highway, State of Illinois Route 14,
with the centerline of Ogen Street, extended; thence North-
westerly along said centerline of 'northwest Highway a distance of
approximately 2,250 feet to the point of Intersection of the
centerline of Northwest Highway with the centerline of Main
Street, State of Il'li'nois Route 83, extended; thence Northerly
along the centerline of Main Street a distance of approximately
940 feet to the point of beginning, at the intersection of the
centerlines of Main ,Street and Central Road, extended, all
located in the Northwest Quarter (1/4), and the Northeast Quarter
(1/4) of Section 12, 'township 41 North, Range 11 East of the
Third Principal Meridian, located in the Village of Mount
Prospect, Elk O'wtove Township, County of Cook, in the State of
Illinois.
ALSO: EXHIBIT A
That part of the West Half of the Northwest fractional Quarter of
Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, described as follows: The East 44 feet of the
West 64 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and all of Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 in
Block 7 in "Mount Prospect", a subdivision in part of the West Half
of said Section -12, per plat thereof recorded September 2, 1874,
as Document 188460 in Book 8 of Plats, page 90; also
Lots E and F in Laudermilk's Subdivision of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
in Block 7 in the aforesaid "Mount Prospect" subdivision, per plat
thereof filed for record in ,the Office of the Registrar of Titles
Zune 6, 1927, as L.R. 357250 together with, the 16 foot wide public
alley lying South of and adjoining said Lot F, said alley being the
North 16 feet of Lot G in said Laudermilk's Subdivision, and also
the 20 foot wide public alley lying West of and adjoining Lots A,
B, C, D, E, F and the North 6 feet of Lot G in said subdivision,
except the North 50 feet of said 20 foot wide alley now vacated;
also
The North 100 feet of Lot 2 in Block 3 in Busse and Wille's
Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in part of said Northwest
fractional Quarter of Section 12, per plat thereof recorded March
31, 1906, as Document 3839591; also
Lots I and 2 in Mount Prosmect Central District Resubdivision in
part of the West Half of said Section 12, per plat thereof filed
for record in the Office of the Registrar of .Titles, December 23,
1949, as L.R. 1275902; also
Lot 1, except the West 20 feet thereof, in Raymond R. Chmelik's
Subdivision, a resubdiv_sion of part of aforesaid Laudermilk's
Subdivision, per plat thereof also filed for record in the Office
of the Registrar of Titles, February 25, 1969, as L.R. 2437155;
also
Lot 1 in Huecker's Resubdivision of Lots 1 and.2 (except the West
64 feet thereof) in aforesaid Block 7 in "Mount Prospect", per plat
thereof recorded September 9, 1969, as Document 20953597; also
Lots -1 and 2 in the McLean Resubdivision in Mount Prospect, being
a resubdivision in part of the West Half of said Section 12 also
filed for record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, October
20, 1975, as L.R. 2835833; also
That part of Wille Street in said West Half of Section 12 lying
North of an extension West of the South line of the North 100 feet
of Lot 2 in Block 3 in the aforesaid Busse and Wille's
Resubdivision, and lying Soutt of the South line of Central Road;
also
That part of Main Street in said West: Half of Section 12 lying
North of an extension East of the most South line of Lot 2 in the
aforesaid Mount Prospect Central District Resubdivision, and lying
South of the South lane of Central Road; also
That part of Central Road in said West Half of Section 12 and in
part of the South Half of Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11,
East of the Third Principal Meridian, lying East of an extension
North of the West line of the aforesaid Wille Street, and lying
West of an extension North of the East line of the aforesaid Main
Street, all of the above in Cook County, Illinois.
ALSO:
That part of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 11 and that part of the West
half of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, all in Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the
Third Principal Meridian, taken as a tract of land, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the center line of Central Road with the center line of
Northwest Highway; thence East on the center line of Central Road to center line of Wille
Street; thence South on center line of Wille Street to West extension of the South line of
the North 100 feet of Lot 2 in Block 3 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount
Prospect in the Northwest quarter of Section 12 aforesaid; thence East on the West
extension of the South line of the North 100 feet of Lot 2 and on said South line of the
North 100 feet of Lot 2 aforesaid, to the East line of said Lot 2 aforesaid; thence North on
the East line of Lot 2 aforesaid to the most Westerly Southwest corner of Lot 2 in Mount
Prospect Central District Resubdivision in part of the West half of Section 12 aforesaid;
thence East, South and East on the South line of Lot 2 aforesaid and on said South line
extended East to the center line of Main Street; thence South on center line of Main Street
to center line of Northwest Highway; thence Northwesterly on center line of Northwest
Highway to the center line of Central Road and the place of beginning, all in Cook County,
Illinois.
CENTRAL ROAD, ON THE NORTH; PARTS OF OWEN, ELM, MAPLE AND
EMERSON STREETS, ON THE EAST; AND NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, ON THE SOUTH.
EXHIBIT B
AREA OF AMENDMENT 172
n
a
AREA OF NIENDNENT iil
71 t
B`--
� 10!
} I
i
AVE t oussr AVE. 7
Lai 0
_
+.1 m
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE O I STR I CT 1t1 N
AS AIIIEI4DED
BOUNDARY HAP
(WITH BLOCK NUMBERS)
EXHIBIT 1
w
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FOR DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect,
Cook County, Illinois, has heretofore in Ordinances Nos.3555 and
4012 designated an area of real property located in the Village as
the Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area for District No. 1,
as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect has
heretofore determined that it is in the best interests of the
Village to amend said area and pursuant thereto, the Village has
caused compliance with the procedures set forth in the Tax
Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.Ch.24 Sec.11-
74.4-1 et seq., (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pertaining
to the initial designation of a redevelopment project area; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect,
Cook County, Illinois, has heretofore in Ordinance No.
adopted and approved the Amendment No. 2 to the Tax Increment
Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project for District No. 1
with respect to which a public hearing was held and it is now
necessary and desirable to designate the area referred to in said
Plan as the Amendment No. 2 to the Tax Increment Redevelopment
Project Area for District No. 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
as follows:
The area legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof is hereby designated as Amendment No. 2 to the Tax
Increment Redevelopment Project Area for District No. 1 pursuant
to Sec.11-74.4-4 of the Act. The street and general description
of the boundaries of the Amendment No. 2 to the Tax Increment
Redevelopment Project Area for District No. 1 is set forth in
Exhibit B and shown on the boundary map, Exhibit C, both of which
are attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance by reference.
The tax increment allocation financing that was adopted by the
Village of Mount Prospect by Ordinances Nos. 3556 and 4013 and that
relates to the real property taxes only, is hereby confirmed and
extended to the Amendment No. 2 to the Tax Increment Redevelopment
Project Area for District No. 1 and the Amendment No. 2 to the Tax
Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project for District
No. 1.
Section n � :
The Village Clerk shall publish this Ordinance in pamphlet form and
shall file this Ordinance with the Cook County Clerk, pursuant to
the Act.
Section 4:
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and approval as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE THIS DAY OF
, 199_.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSENT FROM COMMENT AND VOTE:
APPROVED this day of
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
E
, 199_.
Village President
. w
•w„.
w w
w M w w
w
• M • M M w � .: M
A�
y� w M MM ^ M ry. w. ., w • M.
Y# 1 • w M TM M. w !
w M. .: • M w YW 1'. w M : • •
1 1 WY M YA •. wm, • ♦ ly
n -N w • M M w », » ,:
/ w 6 • w M # Ah
^� M ♦ ' M. , ,• .µ M. � ";. • • w. Wpm.
w w. • w M w.
w
• i M
#♦ M M ♦ w. YW M. w. w
• M w • Yw, , 1 M ► •.
• M/ • - • M w' MW µMF
M w• ♦ w '
µ a4
NA •
w. '! w Y. WW »� w: 1 1 /. w M • •.. w w w '
M Y# w ^
M _
♦ w w
• • w w
M M • M
w M
M
•. w. M • w ...• �, M W4 w „
'• w M w •
M w ♦ w M M
w • w w M »• w •♦
4W 1
w M
w M •
• •
µ M • M �
M •M M
• M
M M
M
M , M * •
•
• M M.
M • 1
M w •
M
« w' M •
” • w M
M
ALSO: 77PTPTT 4
That part of the West Half of the Northwest fractional Quarter of
Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, described as follows: The East 44 feet of the
West 64 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and all of Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 in
Block 7' in "Mount Prospect", a subdivision in part of the West Half
of said Section•12, per plat thereof recorded September 2, 1874,
as Document 185460 in Book 8 of Plats, page 90; also
Lots E and F in Laudermilk's Subdivision of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
in Block 7 in the aforesaid "Mount Prospect" subdivision, per plat
thereof filed for record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles
June 6, 1927, as L.R. 357250 together with the 16 foot wide public
alley lying South of and adjoining said Lot F, said alley being the
North 16 feet of Lot G in said udermilk's Subdivision, and also
the 20 foot wide public alley lying Wast of and adjoining Lots X,
B, C, D, E, F and the North 16 feet of Lot G in said subdivision,
except the North 50 feet of said 20 foot wide alley now vacated;
also
The North 100 feet of .Lot 2 in Block 3 in Busse and Wille's
Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in part of said Northwest
fractional Quarter of Section 12, per plat thereof recorded March
31, 1906, as Document 3839591; also
Lots 1 and 2 in Mount Prospect Central District Resubdivision in
part of the West Half of said Section 12, per plat thereof filed
for record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, December 23,
1949, as L.R. 1275902; also
Lot 1, except the West 20 feet thereof, in Raymond R. C elik's
Subdivision, a resubdivision of part of aforesaid Lauderm lk's
Subdivision, per plat thereof also filed for record in the Office
of the Registrar of Titles, February 25, 1969, as L.R. 2437155;
also
Lot 1 in Huecker's Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2 (except the West
64 feet thereof) in aforesaid Block 7 in "Mount Prospect"', per plat
thereof recorded September 9, 1969, as Document 20953597; also
Lots 1 and 2 in the McLean Resubdivision in Mount Prospect, being
a resubdivision in part of the West Half of said ,Section 12 also
filed for record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, October
20, 1975, as L.R. 2835833; also
That part of Wille Street in said West Half of Section 12 lying
North of an extension West of the South line of the North 100 feet
of Lot 2 in Block 3 in the aforesaid Busse and Wille's
Resubdivision, and lying South of the South line of Central Road;
also
Resubdivision,That part of Main Street in said West Half of Section 12 -lying
North of an extension East Of the most South line of Lot 2 in the
aforesaid Mount Prospect Central District
South .,
lying
That part Of Central Road in said West Half of Section 12 and in
part Of the South Half of Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11,
East Of Principal
extensionNorth Of the West line of the aforesaid Wille Street, and lying
West of an
Street, all of ..
"9Y619
That part of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 11 and that part of the "Fest
half of the Northwest quarter of Section IZ all. in Township 41. North, Range 11 East of the
Third Principal Meridian, en as a tract of land, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the center line of Central Road with the center line of
Northwest Highway; thence East on the center line of Central Road to center line of Wille
Street; thence South on center line of Wille Street to West extension of the South line of
the North 100 feet of Lot 2 in Block 3 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount
Prospect in the Northwest quarter of Section 12 aforesaid; thence East on the West
extension of the South line of the North 100 feet of Lot 2 and on said South line of the
North 100 feet of Lot 2 aforesaid, to the East line of said Lot 2 aforesaid; thence North on
the East line of Lot 2 aforesaid to the most Westerly Southwest corner of Lot 2 in Mount
Prospect Central District Resubdivision in part of the West half of Section 12 aforesaid;
thence East, South and East on the South line of Lot 2 aforesaid and on said South line
extended East to the center line of Main Street; thence South on center line of Main Street
to center line of Northwest Highway; thence Northwesterly on center line of Northwest
Highway to the center line of Central Road and the place of beginning, all in Cook County,
Illinois.
13
CENTRAL ROAD, ON THE NORTH; PARTS OF OWEN, ELM, MAPLE AND
EMERSON STREETS, ON THE EAST; AND NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, ON THE SOUTH.
EXHIBIT B
� ��t� r"•..-. a =r. sa ... a -o/ / '. - ei� ia� � •• #�$' "�3.3'm`. r� �
� - s � / -w }d "e t .... V � "" • "" � I - as -.+/ n .a .
� ..s
. ,
A.
- ..
A ..• / -I/.�. - • of
1t A
w ~ /•
s l u �' g N' N/ ..• ,..� ..
�i rte{ ../-.'a.t.R A-•/. -� f
AV.
�., —_ .# i-<-
V • ++tea
a
.r.
v
AREA OF AMENDMENT ir2 `� ,� � I� �� � ; ' �' " �' ' � � ' I ''#
AVIC
I Irl
S + s _ . • ..t .. -.a.
�
- a-Lot
'N
s
A.
ms's -
. AREA OF AMENDMENT ill � � }, �, � � , �. -� _ � �
It
4J#
'i
A. -e
�a at
TAX INCREMENT F WARCE DISTRICT #1 N..
H
AS AMENDED .,
BOUNDARY FLAP
(WITH BLOCK NUMBERS)
EXHIBIT 1
3o anTeA passasS9 pazTTgnba TeT4TUT aqq 04 8Tge4nqTa44e
ST goTgM A4aadoad Teaa 3o Teoaed ao 4oea4 'XOOTq
'40T aTgexe-4 gosa uodn paTAaT S9xe4 JO UOTgaod -4egl (T
:sMOTTO3 se papTATp aq TTegS
'pled useq aneq ogaaagq 4oedsaa UT penssT SUOT426TTgo pug 94soo
goaCoad 4u9mdOT8n8p8g ag-4 TT-4un 80ueuTP20 sTq-4 UT 94ep SAT40933a
agq a943e aeeA goea qoy eq -4 3o (q)6-v'jL-11 'OaS UT papTAoad
aauuem 9q4 UT POUTma948p sages aqq pug S40TJ49Tp BUTxe4 Aq esay
9q4 UT A4aadoad Teaa uodn SOTAOT 8q4 moa3 bUTSTae 'Aug ;T 'saxe4
maaoTeA pe aqq 'eaaY eq4 UT A4aadoad Teaa sTgexeq TTe ;o enTeA
passasse pazTTenba TeTgTUT Te404 agq spaaOxa 801V agq UT A4aedoad
Teaa 9Tgexe-4 3o UOT:4enTgA passasse pazTTenba TegO-4 DIM aaq;y
• (13e9aYu ago
Se 04 p91aa3aa a943euT6284) 661 ' UO pagSTTgnd
Pug panoadde 'passed goedsoad 4unOH 3O abeTTTA ago JO
ON aOUEUTpaO 04 pag0e44e y 4TQTgxa uT pagTaOsap pug T • ON 4OT24STU
ao3 eaay go9[oad 4u9mdoT6n8p8g 4u8m9a0ul xsl agq oq Z -ON gU9Mpu9W
aq4 oq goedsaa g4TM pug '(UUvTdA6 8114 se 04 p92a83aa a9g3euT8a8q)
661 pegsTTgnd pug panoadde 'passed 4oadsoad 4unoyl
3o abeTTTA OtM -4O -ON aousuTpao o4 4uensand pe4dope pug
panoadde 'T -ON 4OT24STG aO3 4oeload 4uamdOT8A8p8g pug ugTd Guam
-dOTanapag 4uamaaOUI xel ago 04 Z 'ON quampuemy eq4 o4 4oedsea g4TM
pa4dope pug pepue4xe 'PSMaTJUOO Agaaaq ST buTOUPUT3 gU8M8a0UT x111
:sMOTTOJ se
' S IONTTII 'AMMO, x000 ' I0HdSOHd JMOH 30 59TMA RHI 30 S331SMI
30 Q2IY09 aHl 30 lNa4ISa2Id alis AH aaNIYa2IO lI as ' a2I03aaaHl 'mom
:4Oy eg-4 Aq paaTnbaa quapaoaad SUOT4TpuOO aag40 TTe g4TM
paTTdmoo asTMaaggo seq pug '40y ago 3O SUOTSTAOad eq4 o4 4uensand
T 'ON 43Ta4STQ aoj easy 4oeload quamdoTanapag 4Uam920UI xes aqq
04 Z ON 4uampuamy ago p84eubisap pug 'T *ON 4OT24STU aO3 4OaCoad
4u9mdOT9n8pag pug ueld quamdOTanapag 4uamasaul xes 944 04 Z -OR
4uampuemy sq4 pa4dope seq goedsoad 4unoN ;o abeTTTA ago 'SYaHaHM
pue :(1640yq 9144 Se 04 pealejea a943euT9a9g) -bas 48 T-V'VL-T1'08S
VZ'g0'ge4S'A8g•TTI 'papueme se 'qOy 4u9mdoT8n8p8g UOTgeooTTY
quameaoul xes agq o4 4ugnsand buTOueuT3 quamasOUT xe4 4dope pug
pu94x8 'maTJUOO oq saaTSap 4oedsoad 4unoyl ;O abejtTA agq 'SY32iaHM
SIONITII '10adS02Id AMOK aO 3JY'I'IIA alll NI
1 *ON 10IHISIa HOa Ya2IY 10arOUd lNaNdO'IaAa(IHH lHaKaHONI
XYl HHl Ol Z 'ON lNaHGKaKV aHl HOa JNIONYNI3 MaMHOKI
XYZ 9NIsdOaV CW 9NIQNalXa ' 9NINHI3N00 a,NYNIQ2I0 NY
ON aONYNIa2IO
l0adS02Id RMON 30 a0vrmIA
each such taxable lot, block, tract or parcel of real
property in the Area shall be allocated to and when
corrected shall be paid by the County Collector to the
respective affected taxing districts in' the manner
required by law in the absence of the adoption of tax
increment allocation financing.
2) That portion, if any, of such taxes which is attributable
to the increase in the current equalized assessed
valuation of each lot, block, tract or parcel of real
property in the Area over and above the initial equalized
assessed value of each lot, block, tract or parcel of
real property in the Area shall be allocated to and when
collected shall be paid to the Village Treasurer who
shall deposit said funds in a Special Tax Allocation Fund
for the Area, for the purposes set forth in the Plan.
Section 3: The Village Clerk shall publish this Ordinance in
pamphlet form and shall file this Ordinance with the Cook County
Clerk pursuant to the Act.
Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon
its passage and approval as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE THIS DAY OF
199_.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSENT FROM COMMENT AND VOTE:
APPROVED this day of , 199
Village President
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
PUBLISHED IN PAMPHLET FORM BY THE VILLAGE CLERK OF THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT, THIS DAY OF , 199
2
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT �
FINANCE DEPARTMENT'"
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: November 25, 1992
SUBJECT: 1992 Tax Levy and 1992 Tax Levy Abatement Ordinances
Attached are two 1992 Tax Levy Ordinances and two 1992 Tax Levy Abatement Ordinances.
One of the tax levy ordinances is for Corporate and Municipal Purposes for the Village and the
Library and the other tax levy ordinance is for the Village's special service areas. Articles I and
II of the tax levy ordinance which cover the Village's General Fund and Refuse Disposal Fund
have not been completed, but they will be filled in prior to the second reading of the ordinance
on December 15, 1992. The tax levy ordinance for the Special Service Areas has been
completed as well as the two abatement ordinances.
The, abatement ordinances cover principal and interest payments for Village Bonds and Special
Service Area Bonds that are being paid from sources other than property taxes. For example,
the bonds issued for Water and Sewer Projects and the Flood Control Projects will be paid from
the Water Fund and the 1/4C sales tax. Additionally, debt service amounts may be abated
because of available funds on hand or other sources that may be available. These amounts are
included in the abatement ordinances.
The reason abatement ordinances for debt service are required is because the Bond Ordinance
authorizing the sale of a bond issue also establishes all future tax levy requirements for the
scheduled principal and interest payments. The Bond Ordinance is filed with the County Clerk
and the future tax levy amounts will be automatically extended by the County Clerk unless an
abatement ordinance is filed. The total amount of the two abatement ordinances is
$2,258,272.08.
DCJ/sm
Enc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES
LEVIED FOR CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING
APRIL 30, 1993
PASSED AND APPROVED BY
THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
the 15th day of Q 'wgber, 1992
Published in pamphlet form by
authority of the corporate authorities
of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
the 15th day of DeceMbe , 1992.
s
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES
LEVIED FOR CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING
APRIL 30, 1993
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
Section One: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect find as follows:
A. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 2478 adopted December 4, 1973 and authorizing
the issuance of general obligation bonds for acquiring and constructing sewer improvements
there was levied for the year 1992 the sum of $163,500.00 for bond principal and interest
payments.
B. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 2541 adopted November 19, 1974 and authorizing
the issuance of general obligation bonds for Library and Village Hall improvements there
was levied for the year 1992 the sum of $232,600.00 for bond principal and interest
payments.
C. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3788 adopted June 2, 1987 and authorizing the
issuance of general obligation bonds for the construction of a new public works facility,
purchase of certain equipment, and acquisition of land and constructing improvements in
the Village's Tax Incremental Financing District No. 1, there was levied for the year 1992
the sum of $654,135.00 for bond principal and interest payments.
D. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3839 adopted September 15, 1987 and authorizing
the issuance of general obligation bonds for the purpose of refunding $1,570,000.00
outstanding principal amount of General Obligation Bonds, Series 1985, there was levied
for the year 1992 the sum of $128,872.50 for bond principal and interest payments.
E. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3951 adopted June 21, 1988 and authorizing the
issuance of general obligation bonds for 1988 sewer system improvement purposes there
was levied for the year 1992 the sum of $132,625.00 for bond principal and interest
payments.
F. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4307 adopted May 7, 1991 and authorizing the
issuance of general obligation bonds for the construction of a new Police and Fire Building,
the construction of storm water improvements, and the acquisition of land and constructing
improvements in the Village's District No. 1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project there
was levied for the year 1992 the sum of $798,310.00 for bond principal and interest
payments.
G. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4397 adopted February 4, 1992 and authorizing
issuance of general obligation bonds for financing flood control improvements, capital
improvements and the acquisition of land within the Village's District No. 1 Tax Increment
Redevelopment Project Area there was levied for the year 1992 the sum of $1,058,764.58
for bond principal and interest payments.
H. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article XVII - General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $163,500.00 for
application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village
Ordinance No. 2478 adopted December 4, 1973.
I. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article XVII - General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $57,600.00 for
application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village
Ordinance No. 2541 adopted November 19, 1974.
J. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article XVII - General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $304,135.00 for
application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village
Ordinance No. 3788 adopted June 2, 1987.
K. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article XVII - General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $128,872.50 for
application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village
Ordinance No. 3839 adopted September 15, 1987.
L. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article XVII - General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $132,625.00 for
application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village
Ordinance No. 3951 adopted June 21, 1988.
M. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article XVII - General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $388,310.00 for
application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village
Ordinance No. 4307 adopted May 7, 1991.
N. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article XVII - General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $1,058,764.58 for
application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village
Ordinance No. 4397 adopted February 4, 1992.
Sectigp TM: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $163,500.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for
acquiring and constructing sewer improvements pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 2478 be and the same
is hereby abated in the amount of $163,500.00 being the entire amount levied for such bond and interest
payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 1992 and ending April 30, 1993.
2
n l :It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $232,600.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for 1974
Library and Village Hall improvement purposes pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 2541 be and the same
is hereby abated in the amount of $57,600.00 leaving a balance of $175,000.00 as that amount levied for
such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 1992 and ending
April 30, 1993.
11. Fgg : It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $654,135 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for
construction of a public works facility, purchase of equipment, and acquisition of land and constructing
improvements in the Village's Tax Incremental Financing District No. 1, pursuant to Village Ordinance
No. 3788 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of $304,135.00 leaving a balance of
$350,000.00 as that amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year
commencing May 1, 1992 and ending April 30, 1993.
'ittl.Ei : It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $128,872.50 levied for G. O. Bond and Interest payments for the
purpose of refunding the principal amount of General Obligation Bonds, Series 1985 purposes pursuant
to Village Ordinance No. 3839 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of $128,872.50 being the
entire amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing May 1,
1992 and ending April 30, 1993.
Six: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect the amount of $132,625.00 levied for G. O. Bond and Interest payments for the
purpose of 1988 Sewer System Improvement Purposes pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3951 be and the
same is hereby abated in the amount of $132,625.00 being the entire amount levied for such bond and
interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 1992 and ending April 30, 1993.
Sectio Seve : It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $798,310.00 levied for G. O. Bond and Interest payments for
construction of a new Police and Fire Building, construction of storm sewer improvements, and acquisition
of land and constructing improvements in the Village's District No. 1 Tax Incremental Redevelopment
Project, pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4307 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of
$388,310.00 leaving a balance of $410,000.00 as that amount levied for such bond and interest payment
purposes for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 1992 and ending April 30, 1993.
:It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $1,058,764.58 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for the
purpose of financing flood control improvements, capital improvements and the acquisition of land within
the Village's District No. 1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to Village Ordinance No.
4397 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of $1,058,764.58 being the entire amount levied for
such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 1992 and ending
April 30, 1993.
3
. i n Ni Village Ordinance Nos. 2478, 2541, 3788, 3839, 3951, 4307, and 4397, are and each
is hereby amended with respect to the tax abatements declared herein and set forth in Sections Two
through Eight of this Ordinance.
The Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby authorized and directed to
file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois within the time
specified by law:
m: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and
publication in pamphlet form and filing as provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of Ekr&mber. 1222.
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields, Village Clerk
4
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR
UNLIMITED TAX BONDS OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER ONE,
SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER TWO, AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA
NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993
PASSED AND APPROVED BY
THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
the 15th day of 12eggmbgr, 1992
Published in pamphlet form by
authority of the corporate authorities
of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
the 15th day of December, 1992
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR
UNLIMITED TAX BONDS OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER ONE,
SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER TWO, AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA
NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
StrAion : The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect find as follows:
A. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 2954 adopted November 6, 1979 authorizing the
issuance of Unlimited Tax Bonds of Special Service Area Number 1 of the Village of Mount
Prospect there was levied for the year 1992 the sum of $22,490.00 for principal and interest
payments.
B. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3009 adopted June 3, 1980 and as further amended
by Ordinance 3013 adopted June 17, 1980 and authorizing the issuance of Unlimited Tax
Bonds of Special Service Area Number 2 of the Village of Mount Prospect there was levied
for the year 1992 the sum of $28,987.50 principal and interest payments.
C. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3950 adopted June 21, 1988 and authorizing the
issuance of Unlimited Tax Bonds of Special Service Area Number 6 of the Village of Mount
Prospect there was levied for the year 1992 the sum of $37,987.50 for principal and interest
payments.
D. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article I - Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $7,490.00 for application to
bond and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance 2954 adopted
November 6, 1979.
E. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article II - Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $13,987.50 for application to
bond and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance 3009 adopted
June 3, 1980 and as further amended by Ordinance 3013 adopted June 17, 1980.
F. That as of December 1, 1992 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the
Article IV - Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $2,987.50 for application to
bond and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance 3950 adopted
June 21, 1988.
Section Two: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of this Village
that the amount of $22,490.00 levied for Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest payments of Special Service Area
Number 1 of this Village, pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 2954 adopted on November 6, 1979 be and
the same is hereby abated in the amount of $7,490.00 leaving a balance of $15,000.00 as that amount levied
for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 1992 and ending
April 30, 1993.
Sectign 1rg:It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $28,987.50 levied for Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest payments for
Special Service Area Number 2 pursuant to Ordinance No. 3009 adopted June 3, 1980 and as further
amended by Ordinance 3013 adopted June 17, 1980 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of
$13,987.50 leaving a balance of $15,000.00 as that amount levied for such bond and interest payment
purposes for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 1992 and ending April 30, 1993.
n AF : It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that the amount of $37,987.50 levied for Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest payments for
Special Service Area Number 6 pursuant to Ordinance No. 3950 adopted on June 21, 1988 be and the same
is hereby abated in the amount of $2,987.50, leaving a balance of $35,000.00 as that amount levied for such
bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 1992 and ending April 30, 1993.
i - v..g: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect that Village Ordinance 2954 is hereby amended with respect to the tax abatement declared
herein and set forth in Section Two of this Ordinance.
n i : It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect that Village Ordinance 3013 is hereby further amended with respect to the tax abatement
declared herein and set forth in Section Three of this Ordinance.
Serio Seven: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect that Village Ordinance 3950 is hereby amended with respect to the tax abatement declared
herein and set forth in Section Four of this Ordinance.
Seclign Eight: The Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby authorized and directed to file
a certified copy of this Ordinance with the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois within the time specified
by law.
2
Swim : This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication
in pamphlet form and filing as provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of December.��.
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields, Village Clerk
3
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR THE CORPORATE AND
MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT
PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1,
1992 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993
PASSED AND APPROVED BY
THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
the 15th day of Decem , 1992
Published in pamphlet form by
authority of the corporate authorities
of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
the 15th day of , 1992
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR THE CORPORATE AND
MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT
PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1,
1992 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993
NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr ORDAINED BY THE President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois.
Section 1: That the sum of dollars
($ the same being the total amount to be levied of budget appropriations
heretofore made for the corporate and municipal purposes for the fiscal year beginning May 1,
1992, and ending April 30, 1993 as approved by the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied on all taxable property within the
Village of Mount Prospect according to the valuation of said property as is, or shall be assessed
or equalized by State and County purposes for the current year 1992. The budgetary
appropriations theretofore having been made heretofore by the President and Board of Trustees
of the Village of Mount Prospect were.passed and approved by Ordinance No. 4427 at a meeting
hereof regularly convened and held in said Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, on the 21st day
of April, 1992, and thereafter duly published according to law, the various objects and purposes
for said budgetary appropriations were heretofore made are set forth under the column entitled
"Amount Appropriated," and the specific amount herein levied for each object and purpose is
set forth under the column entitled "Amount Levied," in Articles I through XIX.
Amount Amount
AppEQVriated v'
911 NbJ if, Rgymgpigign v'
aion
O1 Mayor and Board of Trustees
Personal Services $ 19,000$
Contractual Services 44,500
Commodities
Total Mayor and Board of Trustees 70.
02 Advisory Boards and Commissions
Contractual Services $ 1,500 $
Commodities 750
Total Advisory Boards and Commissions 2 $
Total Public Representation Division S 72.25 $-
021 i
O1 Village Administration
Personal Services $ 169,. $ -
Contractual Services 25,250 -
Commodities ' 2, -
Capital Expenditures 750
Total Village Administration 2 $
02 Legal Services
Contractual Services $ 160.000 $-
Total Legal Services $ 160.000 $
05 Personnel Management & Training
Personal Services $ 48,990 $
Contractual Services 60,510
Commodities , 1,599
Total Personnel Management & Training 111
Total Village Manager's Office L 40M$ -
922 CQMMRi0Ii!2M DiviliQ
O1 Cable TV Operations
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Capital Expenditures
Total Cable TV Operations
02 Village Telephone System
Contractual Services
Total Village Telephone System
Total Communications Division
011 in
O1 Finance Administration
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Capital Expenditures
Total Finance Administration
02 Accounting
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Total Accounting
03 Purchasing
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Total Purchasing
2
Amount Amount
v'
$ 121,685 $ -
31,265 -
13,
1 $
$ 46,500 $ -
-
241.5 -
$ 76,230 $
86,300
6,250
$ 171.280 $
$ 95,490 $ -
3, -
7�-0
$ 24,050 $
1,1.00
1,900
2.05 $
04 Data Processing
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Capital Expenditures
Total Data Processing
06 Duplicating Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Total Duplicating Services
08 Insurance
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Total Insurance
11 Customer Services
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Total Customer Services
12 Cash Management
Personal Services
Total Cash Management
Total Finance Department
3
Amount Amount
Appropriate
v''
$ 52,950 $ -
19,750 -
6,
329
$ 27,500 $
$ 33,215 $
$ 252.715 $
$ 127,750 $
36,000
7,900
7 .09 $
$ 896.315 $_
Amount Amount
r '
rLevied.
032 Village Qgk'j!M0
O1 Village Clerk's Office
Personal Services $ 66,944 $
Contractual Services 37,250
Commodities 6,000
Total Village Clerk's Office 1,10.1 $ —
07 Village Newsletter
Contractual Services $ 36,500 $
Commodities 3,750
Total Village Newsletter S 40.2
Total Village Clerk's Office $ 150.444 $ -
7
02 Building Code Services
Personal Services $ 256,290 $
Contractual Services 52,4.50
Commodities 7,250
Capital Expenditures 50
Total Building Code Services 37§,42 $
04 Environmental Health Services
Personal Services $ 112,120 $
Contractual Services 24,850
Commodities 7
Total Environmental Health Services M $
4
Amount Amount
Appr9priatO Lev'
06 Engineering Services
Personal Services $ 321,210 $ -
Contractual Services 71,,
Commodities 6,500
Capital Expenditures 5,000
Total Engineering Services ! 4 & 1 $ —
Total Inspection Services Department $ 919.820 $-
01 Police Administration
Personal Services $ 647,240 $
Contractual Services 284,250
Commodities 10,500
Capital Expenditures ��
Total Police Administration 94 4 $
02 Patrol and Traffic Enforcement
Personal Services $ 2,847,150 $
Contractual Services 366,440
Commodities 32j
Total Patrol and Traffic Enforcement $ 3.246.290 $
03 Crime Prevention & Public Services
Personal Services $ 1.18,070 $
Contractual Services 18,400
Commodities �4
Total Crime Prevention & Public Services 1 10.47
04 Investigative and Juvenile Program
Personal Services $ 570,515 $ -
Contractual Services 65, -
Commodities
Total Investigative and Juvenile Program .01 $-
5
Amount Amount
A r ri v'
05 Crossing Guards
Personal Services $ 50, $
Commodities 250
Total Crossing Guards S 50.25 $
06 Equipment Maintenance & Operations
Personal Services
$ 57,435 $ -
Contractual Services
67,100 -
Commodities
136,500 -
Capital Expenditures
5.600
Total Equipment Maintenance & Operations
$ 266.635 $-
Total Police Department
$ 5.286.150 $
01 Fire Administration
Personal Services
$ 330,110 $ -
Contractual Services
206„355 -
Commodities
32, -
Capital Expenditures_
Total Fire Administration
$X570,315 $
02 Fire Department Operations
Personal Services
$ 3,155,420 $
Contractual Services
335,„800
Commodities
14,930
Capital Expenditures
4
Total Fire Department Operations
$3,91,615 $
03 Fire Training Academy
Personal Services $ 17, $
Commodities 7,290
Capital Expenditures 2500
Total Fire Training Academy $ 26,7 $
6
Amount Amount
AWropriated v'
04 Fire Prevention
Personal Services $ 256,405 $
Contractual Services 44,505
Commodities 5,550 -
Capital Expenditures
Total Fire Prevention 291� $-
05 Fire Communications
Contractual Services $ 38.455 $_
Total Fire Communications $ 38.455 $_
06 Equipment Maintenance & Operations
Personal Services $ 68,050 $
Contractual Services 24,800
Commodities
Total Equipment Maintenance & Operations .2s $
07 Emergency Preparedness
Personal Services $ 3, $ -
Contractual Services 6,245 -
Commodities 2,895 -
Capital Expenditures 21.20
Total Emergency Preparedness ,1 4 $-
Total Fire & Emergency Protection Dept. $
O1 Police & Fire Dispatch Services
Contractual Services $ 353.000 $
Total Police & Fire Dispatch Services $ 353.000 $
Total Central Dispatch Service $ 353.000 $
7
ARTICLE I - GENERAL FUND
Amount Amount
A r ri v'
952 HUMAD N=iggDivision
01 Information, Referral, & Counseling
Personal Services $ 106,075 $ -
Contractual Services 44,400
Commodities $,250
Capital Expenditures
Total Information, Referral, & Counseling $ 162,575
02 Recreation and Education
Personal Services $ 16,565 $
Contractual Services 2,950
Total Recreation and Education 19,815 $
03 Homebound Services
Personal Services $ 73,780 $ -
Contractual ServicesX67
Total Homebound Services $ 90.530 $
04 Community Activities
Personal Services $ 55,130 $ -
Contractual Services 2,100
Total Community Activities 1 57.23 $
05 Blood Donor Program
Personal Services $ 2,805 $ -
Commodities 1,50
Total Blood Donor Program L__4. 2 $
06 Social Agencies
Contractual Services $ 8.250 $-
Total Social Agencies $ 8.250 $-
Total Human Services Division $ 342.655 $ -
8
Amount Amount
A,Vprgpri&tgdv'
01 Planning, Zoning & Administration
Personal Services $ 135,215 $
Contractual Services 34,250
Commodities 4
Total Planning, Zoning & Administration 173.61 $
02 Economic Development
Personal Services $ 51,540 $
Contractual Services 10,350
Capital Expenditures 15.90
Total Economic Development 71
03 Downtown Redevelopment
Personal Services $ 21,985 $
Contractual Services 5Q.000
Total Downtown Redevelopment $ 71,985 $
Total Planning DepartmentZ,,4 f" $
71 Street Divi;
01 Administration and Support
Personal Services $ 235,815 $
Contractual Services 234,700
Commodities 20,500
Capital Expenditures 4
Total Administration and Support 4
02 Maintenance of Public Buildings
Personal Services $ 212,895 $
Contractual Services 81,000
Commodities 9
Total Maintenance of Public Buildings S 375.895 $
9
Amount Amount
Apawriated Leyigd
03 Maintenance of Grounds
Personal Services $ 142, $
Contractual Services $ 30,500 $ -
Commodities 6, -
Capital Expenditures 2,700 �-
Total Maintenance of Grounds 2 $-
04 Street Maintenance
Personal Services $ 101,505 $
Contractual Services 58,000
Commodities 36,600
Capital Expenditures _63,000
Total Street Maintenance 259,195 $
05 Snow Removal
Personal Services $ 98,090 $
Contractual Services 7,500
Commodities 1
Total Snow Removal 115.5 $
06 Leaf Removal
Personal Services $ 81,050 $
Commodities _ _15.509
Total Leaf Removal $ 96.550 $
07 Storm Sewer and Basin Maintenance
Personal Services $ 39,465 $
Contractual Services 84,000
Commodities 14.90
Total Storm Sewer and Basin Maintenance 1 7„465 $
10
Amount Amount
Approprigtgd L§—yj@d
08 Forestry
Personal Services $ 206,030 $
Contractual Services 175,000
Commodities 2,600
Total Forestry S 3N.6 $
09 Traffic Sign Maintenance
Personal Services $ 50,930 $
Commodities 26,299
Total Traffic Sign Maintenance 7 U $
10 Public Grounds Beautification
Personal Services $ .31,475 $
Commodities 6,350
Capital Expenditures _,;
Total Public Grounds Beautification $ 42,825$
11 Maintenance of State Highways
Personal Services $ 11,470 $
Contractual Services 13,500
Commodities 21.5�
Total Maintenance of State Highways _ M. $
12 Equipment Maintenance
Personal Services $ 111,080 $
Contractual Services 5,000
Commodities 12QQ
Total Equipment Maintenance $ 242.580 $
11
Amount Amount
ApproRdod v'
13 Pool Vehicle Maintenance
Personal Services $ 5,440$
Contractual Services 5,$00
Commodities �12,
Total Pool Vehicle Maintenance $
14 Traffic Signals & Street Lighting
Personal Services $ 3„245 $ -
Contractual Services 119, -
Commodities 7, -
Capital Expenditures 6,000
Total Traffic Signals & Street Lighting 351A5 $
Total Street Division $2,622.13 $ -
Q9.1 CIwunil� and Civic i
01 Community Groups
Contractual Services 20.5 $-
Total Community Groups $ 20.500 $-
02 4th of July & Civic Events, Etc.
Personal Services $ 15, $
Contractual Services 18,000
Commodities 11.5ffl
Total 4th of July & Civic Events, Etc. L4 ° $
03 Holiday Decorations
Personal Services $ 7,980 $
Contractual Services 11,000
Commodities 4000
Total Holiday Decorations 22.9 $
Total Community and Civic Services $ 88.380 $_
12
1
02 General Obligation Bonds
Debt Service Expense
Total General Obligation Bonds
Total Debt Service Funds
2 P!=Jon Funds
07 Pension Expense
Pension Benefits
Total Pension Benefits
Total Pension Funds
Total General Fund
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR GENERAL CORPORATE FUND
AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
ADD 3% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
FOR GENERAL CORPORATE FUND
13
Amount Amount
Approprijtgd L py' ed
21,795 $
21,795 $
S 21.795 $ -
S 10.600 $
$ 10.600 $
037 Inspect
06 Engineering Services
Contractual Services
Total Inspection Services
911 Strw vlon
04 Street Maintenance
Capital Expenditures
Total Street Maintenance
05 Snow Removal
Commodities
Total Snow Removal
14 Traffic Signals & Street Lighting
Contractual Services
Capital Expenditures
Total Traffic Signals & Street Lighting
Total Street Division
Amount Amount
AppmrigfA UAA
S 16.000 $
$ 16.000 $
�x,
$ 50, $
7,500
57.5 $
1,132.5 $
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
Appropriated from the proceeds of Motor Fuel Tax Allotments
14
2
04 CDBG Administration
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Total CDBG Administration
05 CDBG Community Programs
Contractual Services
Total CDBG Community Programs
07 CDBG Residential Rehabilitation
Personal Services
Capital Expenditures
Total CDBG Residential Rehabilitation
12 CDBG Multi -Family Rehabilitation
Personal Services
Capital Expenditures
Total CDBG Multi -Family Rehabilitation
Total Planning Department
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT FUND
Appropriated from the proceeds of Community
Development Block Grant
15
Amount Amount
$ 35,450 $
3,550 -
1,200
AIM $
$ 5,200 $ -
$
$ 3,100 $
$
275 900 $ -
Amount Amount
Appropriated u'
ed
IMRF and FICA Expense $ 782.835 $
Total Pension Expense $ 782.835
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL
RETIREMENT FUND 122,12 JAQ_ng
.v.
01 Administration and Support
Personal Services $ 456,970 $
Contractual Services 608,300
Commodities 27,500
Capital Expenditures 3,000
Debt Service Expense 60,1,925
Total Administration and Support 11.07 §25 $
02 Maintenance of Public Buildings
Personal Services $ 40,490 $
Contractual Services 11,500
Commodities
Total Maintenance of Public Buildings $
16
Amount Amount
Appropriatgd Levbw
03 Maintenance of Grounds
Personal Services $ 36,515 $
Commodities 5,400
Capital Expenditures 300
Total Maintenance of Grounds 1 42,215$
04 Water Supply Maintenance & Repair
Personal Services 1.42,470 $
Contractual Services 105,000
Commodities 21,190
Total Water Supply Maintenance & Repair 2&8.97 $
05 Water Distribution Maint. & Repair
Personal Services $ 153,005 $ -
Contractual Services 42,100 -
Commodities 45,700 -
Capital Expenditures
Total Water Distribution Maint. & Repair 307. $
06 Water Valve and Hydrant Maint.
Personal Services $ 100,950 $
Contractual Services 1,600
Commodities 36.7QQ
Total Water Valve and Hydrant Maint. $ 139.250 $
07 Water Meter Install., Repair & Repl.
Personal Services $ 87,735 $
Contractual Services 37,500
Commodities 7
Total Water Meter Install., Repair & Repl. S 209,935 $
17
Amount Amount
AorWriatv'
08 Equipment Maintenance & Operations
Personal Services $ 150,450
Contractual Services 123,000
Commodities 101,700
Capital Expenditures 9,000
Total Equipment Maintenance & Operations S 3,84.15
09 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance & Repair
Personal Services $ 79,145 $ -
Contractual Services 19,200 -
Commodities 11, -
Capital Expenditures 23, �
Total Sanitary Sewer Maintenance & Repair 132.345 $
10 Water System Improvements
Capital Expenditures S 205. $-
Total Water System Improvements $ 205.000 $
H Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Capital Expenditures $ 90.00 $-
Total Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 90,000 $_
12 Lake Michigan Water Acquisition
Personal Services 2,500 $ -
Contractual Services 3.097,5 -
Total Lake Michigan Water Acquisition 119Q. $-
Total Water and Sewer Division $ 6.645.855 $-
Appropriated from the proceeds derived from the sale
of water, sewer fees, and other revenues
18
Amount Amount
r priated Lgxyi!�d
3
01 Administration and Support
Personal Services $ 17, $ .
Contractual Services 0,500
Total Administration and Support 7
03 Parking Lot Maintenance
Personal Services $ 6,650 $ -
Contractual Services 12, -
Commodities 5, -
Capital Expenditures --ILM
Total Parking Lot Maintenance 13 .95 $-
Total Parking System Division $ 103.810 $-
Appropriated from the proceeds of parking fees
and other revenue l
ARTICLE Yl:l - REFUSE
915 591id Wage DispQ
02 Solid Waste Disposal
Personal Services $ 56,930 $
Contractual Services 2,469,700
Commodities 17,
Total Solid Waste Disposal $ 2.544.1.30 $
Total Refuse Disposal Fund $ 2.544.130 $
19
77
93 Motor Equipment Pool
Capital Expenditures
Total Capital Equipment
Total Motor Equipment Pool Fund
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR MOTOR EQUIPMENT POOL FUND
035 Risk Maname
01 Risk Management Program
Contractual Services
Total Risk Management Fund
Appropriated for the foregoing expenses, monies to be
derived from General Corporate and other revenues
06 Equipment Maintenance & Operations
Contractual Services
Capital Expenditures
Total Equipment Maintenance & Operations
Total Police Department
20
Amount Amount
v'
S 583.415 $
583,415$—
$ 583.415 $ —
L.21.4.0N22
$ 2.512.000 $—
$ 2.512.000 $—
l—x
$ 137, $
1 $
j_jJL4W$
01 Fire Administration
Capital Expenditures
Total Fire Administration
02 Fire Department Operations
Capital Expenditures
Total Fire Department Operations
05 Communications
Capital Expenditures
Total Communications
06 Equipment Maintenance & Operations
Contractual Services
Capital Expenditures
Total Equipment Maintenance & Operations
Total Fire & Emergency Protection Dept.
trlivi§iQn
02 Maintenance of Public Buildings
Capital Expenditures
Total Maintenance of Public Buildings
04 Street Maintenance
Capital Expenditures
Total Street Maintenance
05 Snow Removal
Capital Expenditures
Total Snow Removal
21
Amount Amount
v'
$ 8.500 $ —
$ 8.500 $ —
$ 25.500 $
25 $
11.25 $
11.25 $-
$ 145,000 $
5.61
i $
$ 4.000 $
$4 $
$ 400.000 -
$ 400.000 $-
i2 $_
i2 $-
12 Equipment Maintenance
Contractual Services
Capital Expenditures
Total Equipment Maintenance
13 Pool Vehicle Maintenance
Capital Expenditures
Total Pool Vehicle Maintenance
Total Street Division
77 Capital I.Mprgve
81 Community Improvements
Contractual Services.
Capital Expenditures
Total Community Improvements
91 General Equipment & Improvements
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service Expense
Total General Equipment & Improvements
Total Capital Improvements
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
22
Amount Amount
ApprQpriatev'
$ 200, $
02,M $ -
15 $-
15 $_
$ 639,500 -
$ 16,000 $
41 $
027 Capita),v
65 Flood Control Projects
Contractual Services
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service Expense
Total Flood Control Projects
Total Flood Control Const. Fund
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR FLOOD CONTROL CONST. FUND
"M -am=- 1►i • 1111IM9
77
62 Downtown Redevelopment Construction
Capital Expenditures
Interfund Transfers
Total Downtown Redevelopment Construction
Total Downtown Redevelopment Constr. Fund
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT CONSTR. FUND
23
Amount . Amount
A
$ 80,000 $
4,240,000
4
5 $
$
WPM
$ 250, S
$ 292.400 $_
$ 292.400 $ -
7 QvisW 1wromments
85 Police/Fire Building Constr
Capital Expenditures
Interfund Transfers
Total Police/Fire Building Construction
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR
POLICE/FIRE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
922 olio Pensio�
Pension Expense
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR POLICE PENSION FUND
For the Police Pension Fund there is hereby levied a tax, in
addition to all other taxes, as provided by law in the amount of
ADD 3% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
FOR POLICE PENSION FUND
24
Amount Amount
$ 3,952,500
$4,377.5 $
WOMM 313=
!. ' .... !
Pension Expense
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
For the Fire Pension Fund there is hereby levied a tax, in
addition to all other taxes, as provided by law in the amount of
ADD 3% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
FOR FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
031 Qfta Peffiim
Pension Expense
Amount Appropriated from Benefit Trust Fund No. 2
25
Amount Amount
AwwvdaW Levied
F I IXI X11.1,
$ 50,000
1.500
Amount Amount
v'
gd
• : i M IM t►
Principal
60 Corporate Purposes 1973 $ 145, $
61 Corporate Purposes 1974 200,000 169,295
67 Flood Control 1991A 200,000
69 Public Works Facility 1987B 255,000 255,000
70 Downtown Redevlpmt 1987C 55
$ 855.000 4 4 225
Interest
60 Corporate Purposes 1973
$ 20,750 $
61 Corporate Purposes 1974
45,200
64 Police & Fire Bldg 1991A
243,455 240,000
65 Downtown Redv 1991B
31,740
67 Police & Fire Bldg 1991A
174,520 170,000
68 Downtown Redevlpmt 1987D
113,875
69 Public Works Facility 1987B
178,230 95,000
70 Downtown Redevlpmt 1987C
22,615
91 Capital Impr. 1992A
66,900
92 Flood Control 1992A
116,700
93 Downtown Redevlpmt 1992B
�a-250
$ 1.022.735
Bank Charges
60 Corporate Purposes 1973
$ 750 $
61 Corporate Purposes 1974
200
64 Police & Fire Bldg 1991A
1,000
65 Downtown Redevlpmnt 1991B
1,010
67 Flood Control 1991A
980
68 Downtown Redevlpmt 1987D
500
69 Public Works Facility 1987B
900
70 Downtown Redevlpmt 1987C
1,000
91 Capital Impr. 1992A
1,600
92 Flood Control 1992A
1,800
93 Downtown Redevlpmt 1992B
1,599
$ 11.240 $
Total General Obligation Bonds
-88 25 S �929,295
26
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION
BOND AND INTEREST FUND
AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY (1)
ADD 5% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND AND INTEREST
(1) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by
abatements to be filed of $2,233,807.08 and personal
property replacement tax proceeds of $5,705.00.
+
082 i
Administration
Library Supplies
Medical Insurance
Building Maintenance
Total Library Operations
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR LIBRARY FUND
Appropriated for the foregoing expense of maintaining
a free public library from the proceeds of a special
library tax in addition to all other taxes
ADD 3 % FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
FOR PUBLIC LIBRARY
27
Amount Amount
AumpriAW v'
ed
$ 929,295
46.465
$ 1,684,770
$ 1,400,000
589,500
428,854
73,000
50,000
295,
153,739
1 2,C42,27
$2,932.592
Amount Amount
A r riawd Lgymied
IMRF Expense $ 228.155 $ 228.155
TOTAL APPROPRIATION FOR ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL
RETIREMENT FUND (LIBRARY)
For the Library Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund,
there is hereby levied a tax, in addition to all
other taxes, as provided by law in the amount of $ 228,155
ADD 3 % FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION 6,845
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND 2 °l'
28
ARTICLE
I General Fund
II Motor Fuel Tax
III Community Development
Block Grant Fund
IV Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (Village;
V Water & Sewer Fund
VI Parking Fund
VII Refuse Disposal Fund
VIII Motor Equipment Pool Fund
IX Risk Management Fund
X Capital Improvement Fund
XI Flood Control Revenue Fund
XII Downtown Redevelopment
Construction Funds
XIII Police/Fire Building Constr.
XIV Police Pension Fund
XV Firemen's Pension Fund
XVI Benefit Trust No. 2 Fund
XVII General Obligation Bond and
Interest Fund (1)
Totals - Village
XVIII Library Fund
XIX Illinois Municipal Retirement
Fund (Library)
Totals - Library
Totals - Village and Library
SUMMARY
Amount Amount Total Tax Levy
Amount To Be Raised For Loss Including
Aorol2riated and Cot 1,2ss is
$16,474,500
1,148,500
275,900
782,835
6,645,855
103,810
2,544,130
583,415
2,512,000
1,873,960
4,805,800
292,400
4,377,500
901,500 100,000 3,000 103,000
1,015,000 5,000 1,500 51,500
26,000
1,888,975
929,295
46,465
975,760
6 0
2,642,270
2,032,592
60,978
2,093,570
- 229,1,55
228,155
6,845
235,000
$2,870,425
$2,260,747
$67,823
$2,328.57
(1) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by abatements to be filed of $2,233,807.08 and personal property
replacement tax proceeds of $5,705.00.
29
Section 2: The sum of $190,000.00 is estimated to be received from personal property
replacement tax revenue during the fiscal year commencing May 1, 1992 and ending April 30,
1993 and has been included herein as funds to be derived from sources other than property taxes
for general obligation bonds and interest, pensions, library services and general corporate
purposes.
Section : That the Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby directed to
certify a copy of this Ordinance and is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of the same
with the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois, within the time specified by law.
Secfigp : That, if any part or parts of this Ordinance shall be held to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity, shall not affect the validity of the
remaining parts of this Ordinance. The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect hereby declares that they would have passed the remaining parts of the Ordinance if
they had known that such part or parts thereof would be declared unconstitutional or otherwise
invalid.
Section : That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval, publication in pamphlet form and recording, as provided by law.
AM:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of P=Lnbgj� 1222
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
30
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
TAXES FOR THE MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA
NUMBER ONE, SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER TWO, SPECIAL
SERVICE AREA NUMBER FIVE, AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER
SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993
PASSED AND APPROVED BY
THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
the 15th day of D cembe , 1992
Published in pamphlet form by
authority of the corporate authorities
of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois
the 15th day of Decem 1992.
N
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
TAXES FOR THE MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA
NUMBER ONE, SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER TWO, SPECIAL
SERVICE AREA NUMBER FIVE, AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER
SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING MAY 1, 1992 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1993
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois.
Sggtigp 1: That the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00), the same being the total
amount to be levied of budget appropriations heretofore made for the municipal purposes for the
fiscal year beginning May 1, 1992, and ending April 30, 1993, as approved by the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied of all
taxable property within the Special Service Area No. 1 of the Village of Mount Prospect
according to the valuation of said property as is, or shall be assessed or equalized by State and
County purposes for the current year 1992. The budgetary appropriations having been made
heretofore by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect were passed
and approved by Ordinance No. 4427 at a meeting hereof regularly convened and held in said
Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, on the 21st day of April, 1992, and thereafter duly
published according to law, the various objects and purposes for said budgetary appropriations
were heretofore made are set forth under the column entitled "Amount Appropriated," and the
specific amount herein levied for each object and purpose is set forth under the column "Amount
Levied" in Article I.
.cin 2: That the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00), the same being the total
amount to be levied of budget appropriations heretofore made for the municipal purposes for the
fiscal year beginning May 1, 1992, and ending April 30, 1993, as approved by the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied on all
taxable property within the Special Service Area No. 2 of the Village of Mount Prospect
according to the valuation of said property as is, or shall be, assessed or equalized by State and
County purposes for the current year 1992. The budgetary appropriations having been made
heretofore by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect were passed
and approved by Ordinance No. 4427 at a meeting hereof regularly convened and held in said
Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, on the 21st day of April, 1992 and thereafter duly published
according to law, the various objects and purposes for said budgetary appropriations were
heretofore made are set forth under the column entitled "Amount Appropriated," and the specific
amount herein levied for each object and purpose is set forth under the column entitled "Amount
Levied" in Article II.
Section 3: That the sum of one million three hundred twenty five thousand dollars
($1,325,000.00), the same being the total amount to be levied of budget appropriations
heretofore made for the municipal purposes for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 1992, and
ending April 30, 1993, as approved by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied on all taxable property within the Special
Service Area Number 5 of the Village of Mount Prospect according to the valuation of said
property as is, or shall be, assessed or equalized by State and County purposes for the current
year 1992. The budgetary appropriations having been made heretofore by the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect were passed and approved by Ordinance No.
4427 at a meeting hereof regularly convened and held in said Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois
on the 21st day of April, 1992, and thereafter duly published according to law, the various
objects and purposes for said budgetary appropriations were heretofore made are set forth under
the column entitled "Amount Appropriated," and the specific amount herein levied for each
object and purpose is set forth under the column entitled "Amount Levied" in Article III.
Section : That the sum of thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000.00), the same being the total
amount to be levied of budget appropriations heretofore made for the municipal purposes for the
fiscal year beginning May 1, 1992, and ending April 30, 1993, as approved by the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied on all
taxable property within the Special Service Area Number 6 of the Village of Mount Prospect
according to the valuation of said property as is, or shall be, assessed or equalized by State and
County purposes for the current year 1992. The budgetary appropriations having been made
heretofore by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect were passed
and approved by Ordinance No. 4427 at a meeting hereof regularly convened and held in said
Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois on the 21st day of April, 1992, and thereafter duly published
according to law, the various objects and purposes for said budgetary appropriations were
heretofore made are set forth under the column entitled "Amount Appropriated," and the specific
amount herein levied for each object and purpose is set forth under the column entitled "Amount
Levied" in Article IV.
0)
1 i t Sg[v-iqg Area No. 1 Bonds & liggrgg
9561 Principal
9562 Interest
TOTAL APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 1
BONDS & INTEREST
AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY (1)
ADD 5% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 1
(1) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by
an abatement to be filed of $7,490.00.
ARTICLE II - SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 2
1 Spegigj Sgryigg Argg Ng, a E!gnd5 & Interg§t
9563 Principal
9564 Interest
TOTAL APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 2
BONDS & INTEREST
AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY (2)
ADD 5% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 2
(2) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by
an abatement to be filed of $13,987.50.
3
Amount Amount
AppEggriggd L vi
$ 14,000 $ 14,000
8.470 1.000
15,750
$ 25,000 $ 15,000
5.800
:rr
$ 15,000
750
15,750
Amount Amount
Apprgpdated L vi
1; Hwei"11111
072 Lake Water Acaisition
6.705 SSA #5 JAWA Fixed Costs $_1,325, $ 1,325,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 5
LAKE WATER ACQUISITION LIX=
AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY $1,325,000
ADD 3% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION 39,75
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 57
1 Special Smirean Interest
9572 SSA #6 Principal $ 15,000 $ 15,000
9573 SSA #6 Interest 22.988 20.000
TOTAL APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 6
BONDS & INTEREST 37;"
AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY (3) $ 35,000
ADD 5% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION Lm
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY
FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 6 36 750
(3) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by an
abatement to be filed of $2,987.50.
4
ARTICLE
I Special Service Area No.1 (1)
II Special Service Area No.2 (2)
III Special Service Area No.5
IV Special Service Area No.6 (3)
SUMMARY
Amount
Amount To Be Raised
A1112wrigd By Tax Levy
$ 22,470 $ 15,000
30,800
Em
Amount
Total Tax Levy
For Loss
Including
And Cost
Uss & Cess
$ 750
$ 15,750
750
15,750
39,750
1,364,750
1.750
36.750
43 000
l 4 33{
(1) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by an abatement to be filed of $7,490.00.
(2) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by an abatement to be filed of $13,987.50.
(3) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by an abatement to be filed of $2,987.50.
5
Section 5: That the Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby directed to certify
a copy of this Ordinance and is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of the same with
the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois, within the time specified by law.
Seclion : That, if any part or parts of this Ordinance shall be held to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity, shall not affect the validity of the
remaining parts of this Ordinance. The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect hereby declares that they would have passed the remaining parts of the Ordinance if
they had known that such part or parts thereof would be declared unconstitutional or otherwise
invalid.
Section 7: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval, publication in pamphlet form and recording, as provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED THIS 15th Day of D 1992
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
0
Gerald L. Farley, Village President