HomeMy WebLinkAbout0153_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 24, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p,m. Present at the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald L Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran,
and Theodore Wattenberg. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Leo Floros
and George Van Geem. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager
John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager Michael Janonis, Director of
Planning and Zoning David Clements and Chief of Police Ronald Pavlock. Also
present were three persons from the print media.
11. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of October 10, 1989 were
accepted and filed.
Ill. UTIZENS TO BE HEARD
There were no citizens present wishing to address the Board and the Committee
moved on to the next item of business.
Mr. David Burr of Rich and Associates reviewed with Committee members the
proposed methodology to be used in undertaking the comprehensive downtown
parking study. Mr. Burr indicated that the study area would be bounded on the
east by School Street, on the north by Central Road, on the south by Prospect
Avenue and on the west at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Central Road.
Some of the things that Rich and Associates would be attempting to do Included:
1. Quantify and qualify parking demand and supply.
2. Determine patterns of usage and turnover rates.
3. Determine the effectiveness of parking regulation enforcement.
As a result, Mr. Burr indicated that his firm would develop a parking master plan
that would identify current problems and suggest ways to alleviate those problems.
Trustee Busse inquired about prior experience Rich and Associates had in
conducting downtown parking studies for similar communities. Mr. Burr indicated
that his firm had extensive experience. Trustee Busse also asked if there were
plans to review the commuter parking rates of neighboring towns and how they
impacted Mount Prospect. Again, Mr. Burr indicated that there would be
a,Wntion focused on the effects of parking suppiy and demand in neighboring
communities. Finally, Trustee Busse asked that the consultant be very clear when
surveying businesses that the study was an overall effort to alleviate downtown
parking problems and not an attempt to identify violators who would then be
ticketed.
Trustee Wattenberg indicated he was interested in hearing how the consultant
would suggest stepped up enforcement of parking regulations. Mr. Burr indicated
that it was premature at this time to respond to that question.
Trustee Corcoran asked that if the consultant identified a need for a parking
structure, would the consultant provide cost estimates for same. Mr. Burr
indicated that they would. Trustee Corcoran also asked if the consultant would
identify the costs involved in proper enforcement of parking regulations. Mr. Burr
indicated that they would include that as part of their study. Trustee Corcoran
further indicated that he was looking for suggestions from the consultant that
would help businesses in the study area to alleviate some of the parking problems
themselves. He indicated he was not looking for the Village to bear the full
brunt of alleviating the parking problem.
Further discussion among Committee members indicated a consensus that the
consultant proceed with the study.
Mayor Gerald Farley indicated to Committee members that this Ordinance had
been drafted at his request. Mayor Farley indicated that he had become alarmed
by the number of vacant buildings which seemed to fall into disrepair or were not
properly secured during the period in which they remained vacant. Mayor Farley
indicated that the Ordinance, as drafted, appeared to address all of the concerns
that he had and recommended that the full Committee consider it favorably.
Trustee Mark Busse inquired as to the need for such an Ordinance. Mayor
Farley indicated that he was aware of several buildings, including the Kentucky
Fried Chicken establishment on Rand Road and the former Bob Evans Restaurant
which had become eyesores during their periods of vacancy. Trustee Busse also
asked how this Ordinance would affect a business establishment which had
suffered a simple broken window. Assistant Village Manager Michael Janonis
indicated that the Ordinance covered only vacant structures and ongoing businesses
would not be affectedby the requirements.
After further discussion among Committee members, there was a consensus to
place the Ordinance on the next Village Board Agenda for formal consideration.
-2-
Trustee Timothy Corcoran indicated to Committee members that he was interested
in seeing what the Northwest Municipal Conference was doing regarding this
matter before proposing or undertaking any official action in Mount Prospect.
Mayor Geraid Farley indi,:ateLl that in the meantime, it would be prudent for the
Village to establish a philosophy regarding this matter so that any model
Ordinance produced by the Northwest Municipal Conference could be viewed
within that context.
Trustee Corcoran indicated that he was looking to provide a mechanism for
citizens to report graffiti and to, in turn, get the graffiti removed as quickly as
possible from buildings and other structures. He also indicated that he would be
interested in some type of restriction on the sale of spray paint to minors if
undertaken on a regional basis.
Committee members questioned how the problem was currently being addressed.
Village Manager John Fulton Dixon indicated that the administration was
generally successful in getting property owners to remove the graffiti on a
voluntary basis.
Police Chief Ronald Pavlock also added that efforts by Crime Prevention Officers
in having graffiti removed was generally successful.
Trustee Busse asked whether current Ordinances, including the Property
Maintenance Code, were sufficient to handle the problem. Chief Pavlock
indicated that he felt there should be some refinement including the addition of
a definition of graffiti.
Resident George Clowes, 604 South Elm, indicated that he supported the concept
of eradicating graffiti within the Village. However, he indicated he did not
support the proposed prohibition on the sale of spray paint to minors. He
indicated that it may very well cause a hardship to young adults who had a
legitimate interest in the purchase of spray paint.
After further discussion among Committee members, it was their consensus to
await the recommendation of the Northwest Municipal Conference.
VII. BEER GARDENS
Committee members reviewed a proposed Ordinance that would limit the hours
of operation for existing beer gardens and prohibit the location of new beer
gardens near residential areas.
Trustee Timothy Corcoran indicated that he supported the Ordinance completely
and that he felt that there was no other choice in rectifying this matter.
N
Trustee Mark Busse asked if a compromise had been reached with the McBride's
establishment regarding the noise problem at that location. Mayor Farley
indicated that he had been working on an agreement with the establishment's
owner and that the Ordinance was the direct result of those discussions. Rather,
Mayor Farley indicated that the Ordinance would provide a permanent soiution
to the problem on a Village -wide basis as well as be binding on any successor of
any current establishment operating a beer garden.
Trustee Ralph Arthur indicated he would favor a flat ban on beer gardens.
Trustee Theodore Wattenberg indicated he was reluctant to support such a
proposal because he had not heard of any problems caused by these types of
establishments.
After further discussion among Committee members, staff was directed to place
this Ordinance on the next Village Board Agenda for formal consideration.
VIII. HAM!GER'S REMRI:
Village Manager John Fulton Dixon reported that the Road Resurfacing Program
was moving along and he expected it to be finished by the end of the month
weather permitting,
Mr. Dixon also reported that he had recently received information from Citizens
Utilities Company that would allow the Village's consultant to perform the
necessary evaluation of the Citizens water system so as to establish an estimated
value for this system. Mr. Dixon also indicated that the City of Des Plaines had
been working with Citizens Utilities Company for the purchase of the system in
the Waycinden area of Des Plaines. Mr. Dixon indicated that he had been in
contact with Des Plaines to indicate an interest in working with Des Plaines to
purchase any and al of the system at the southern end of town. Mr Dixon also
indicated he would be in contact with officials from Prospect Heights to discuss
the Village's strategy and the desire of Prospect Heights to participate.
IX ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Trustee Timothy Corcoran complimented Mayor Farley on his efforts to protest
the erection of a 55' high billboard in Des Plaines adjacent to Mount Prospect at
Route 83 and Dempster. Trustee Corcoran indicated that while technically legal,
the billboard was not a prudent action on the part of Des Plaines.
Trustee Corcoran also inquired as to whether the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District.had been invited to an upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting to
discuss flooding problems. Mr. Dixon indicated that he had sent the letter to the
General Superintendent of the $WRD but had received no response. He
indicated that Citizens Utilities Company had been invited to the meeting also.
-4-
Trustee Corcoran also inquired as to the status of the Melas Park project. Mr.
Dixon indicated that earth moving work was continuing on schedule but that he
had recently received information that the Arlington Heights Park District had
requested the right to acquire land at the Melas Park site in order to build a
storage facilirf. Trustee Corcoran indicanJ this seemed to be �Ofltrary to the
master plan that had developed along with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District and the Mount Prospect Park District. It was indicated that the Arlington
Heights Park District had full knowledge of this effort and that their request
appeared to be untimely and imprudent.
There being no further business before the Committee of the Whole, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
'MEJ/rcw
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL E. JANONIS
Assistant Village Manager
-5.
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
IF/ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager .
FROM: Deputy Director Public Works
DATE: November 9, 1989
SUBJECT: Recycling Commission
At Tuesday night's meeting, the Recycling Commission finalized
their recommendations on collection of yard materials. Enclosed
with this memo is the packet of information they want distribut-
ed to the mayor and the board of trustees prior to next Tues-
day's Committee of the Whole meeting.
At that meeting, Chairman Ken Westlake will make a brief presen-
tation summarizing their recommendations, after which he and all
the members of the commission will be available to answer ques-
tions. I told them that a number of issues were up for discus-
sion that evening, but I believe they would be first on the
agenda.
Based on the proposal being made by the Recycling Commission, I
have put together a draft amendment to B.F.I.vs current con-
tract. Attached is a copy for your review. I have also sent a
copy to Tom Kleczewski. I assume that if the Board approves the
Recycling Commission's recommendation, they will also have to
approve this contract amendment. Let me know if there is any-
thing I may have omitted.
'Glen R. And
GRA/td
attach.
c: Herb Weeks
Mount P'sPect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 7W MY USA
70: Mayor and Board of Trustees
FROM: Recycling Commission
DATE: November 8, 1989
SUBJ: Collection of Yard Materials
As you know the law which bans Putting yard materials (leaves,
grass, branches, etc.) into a landfill becomes effective July 1,
1990. The Recycling Commission has been hard at work trying to
come up with not only an economically sound but also a Political-
ly viable solution to meet this deadline. In response to this
charge the Commission has evaluated the following Possible alter-
natives.
1. Complete ban on collection of grass clippings. Homeowners
would have to leave their grass clippings on their lawns or
individually compost it on their property.
2. Provide a drop-off site at Melas Park. Homeowners would be
required to bring their yard materials to a drop-off point
in biodegradable paper bags. There they would be deposited
in a dumpster and hauled away by Browning Ferris to a com-
posting facility.
3. The village would provide a weekly curbside pickup service
for yard materials. This would necessitate Browning Ferris
having one separate truck to Pick up grass clippings, and
another truck to pick up brush. The grass clippings would
be placed at the curb in biodegradable bags and the brush
would have to be bundled to prescribed specifications.
4. Extend the current leaf program past the normal cut-off
date.
Develop a transfer site at Melas Park to accommodate the
Possible Yard material drop-off program stated in #2 and
also to accommodate our leaf pickup program, as well as our
current recycling program.
Attached to this memo are a number of worksheets showing the
estimated Costs associated with each of the alternatives men-
tioned above.
It is the recommendation of the Recycling Commission that the
Village Board adopt a program that encourages our residents to
leave their grass clippings on their lawns or use them as com-
post. However, realizing that a total ban on collection of
grass clippings may not be well received by a number of our
residents, the Recycling Commission recommends the Mayor and
Board of Trustees implement a bag collection program and trans-
fer site as outlined in Alternatives 3 and 5. This type of
program would accommodate those residents wishing to continue
nn yr=ss 't _n--.�..":+",`,::r R ".,».,;.. ..r3 °..�., . ", a, .so •a
the Commission the opportunity to discourage the collection of
grass clippings through the program's instructional and educa-
tional process.
Under this proposed bag program residents would bag their grass
clippings into biodegradable 30 gallon paper bags. The cost
affixed to these bags would include: collection and disposal,
retailer commissions, administrative costs and and cost of the
bag itself. The purchase of the bag would be the responsibility
of the resident with bags being made available at various retail
sites throughout the Village.
Initially Browning Ferris submitted a flat rate price quote of
$.71 per home per month for the entire single family contract.
Under this type of program all residents would be assessed for
this extra service whether they utilize it or not. After fur-
ther negotiations, Browning Ferris agreed to a per bag fee of
$.34 instead. This means Browning Ferris would count the bags
collected by the special yard material truck and then charge us
at the rate of 34 cents per bag for all those collected. This
proposal presents an equitable answer for all residents as only
those residents who choose to bag their clippings will bear the
cost of the service. Pick-up service would be once a week, same
day as regular garbage/recycling collection April I thru Decem-
ber 1. It is our recommendation that we charge $1.25 per bag.
An average lot should require 2 - 3 bags per week.
This bag program also accommodates our current leaf pick-up pro-
gram. By having bags available the program would not have to be
extended. At the end of the program residents can use the bag
system for the collection and disposal of their leaves. Again,
the cost of the service would only be borne by those using the
service.
Brush collection would be contracted out to BFI at a cost of
$0.39 per home per month for 12 months. Collection of brush
would be available to all residents eight times a year April I
thru December 1 with the cost to be borne by the entire Village.
Unlike the Bag Program there is no way we can assign an equita-
ble rate on a per piece(bundle) basis for brush pick-up without
some sort of historical data. This rate and method of charging
will be reevaluated at the end of one full season. The Commis-
sion would then be in a better position to make further recommen-
dations for adjustments and future contracts.
The proposed transfer site to be located at Melas Park is needed
to accommodate our current leaf pick-up program. The Village,
along with the MWRD, mt. Prospect Park District and the
Arlington Heights Park District are currently redeveloping Melas
Park for expanded park activities. The Village's current prac-
tice of using the gravel parking lot as a transfer site is not
conducive to this proposed redevelopment., The Recycling Co=is-
�On t_heref)ra me-m7ends `""Rt a mo---- permanent screened site be
developed as a leaf and recycling transfer site for an estimated
$130,000 as outlined on the attached worksheets and sketch. We
further recommend that staff pursue any and all State funding
that may be available to help offset any or all of these project-
ed expenses.
At this point in time Browning Ferris has no historical figures
to enable them to come up with what volumes or what portions of
the total solid waste hauled from Mount Prospect is actually
Yard materials. Again, because of this factor the first year
will be used as a measurement for future contracts and refine-
ments of actual per bag costs. In consideration of this fact
BFI utilized a 40% participation factor in coming up with their
Proposal as outlined on the attached cost table and the existing
single family fee was left unaltered. The tipping fees are
currently included there and until we have a history of volumes
it is not possible to transfer that cost to the bag program.
In closing, the Recycling Commission feels that this Proposed
program meets the letter of the law and is the most viable for
our residents at this time.
RespectlY sum iited,
Ken Westlake
Chairman
Recycling Commission
KW/GRA/eh
Attached
WORKSHEETS
ALTERNATE #2
Grass Clippings - Ban grass from pickup
Drop off center (Transfer station) (No brush)
BFI Charges
Roll off container rental $40,00/mo.
Hauling charge $90-00/load
Tipping fee included in current single family rate
Cost of Bags $.25
Vendor commission $.05
Public Works Labor
Drop Ott hours - Mon. - Wed. - Fri. (8 months)
12:00 to 8:30 p.m.
Manhours (1)768 hrs. @ 13.30/hr. (9.50 start + 40% benefit)
Estimated Cost
Estimated total grass clippings per month 900 cu/yds based
on 15% of average total solid waste compacted.
Participation
Loose Load 1800 cu. yrds/ 30% 40% 50%
Roll off rental $40 x 8 x $ 960 $ 1,280 $ 1,600
Hauling charge(20 yrd. per (3) (4) (5)
roll off) 19,440 25,920 32,400
$90 x ? (216) (288) (360)
Bags + commission 70,022 93,350 116,609
Labor 10,214 10,214 10,214
Totals $1-00,636 $1-3-0,764 $16-0,893
*Projected bag selling price .44 .43 .42
Projected bag revenues $102,699 $133,802 $163,350
ALTERNATE #3
Grass clippings - Expenses
Contract B.F.I.
Monthly Pickup Rate $-71 per home per month
(Tipping Fees included in current single family rate)
Cost of 30 gal. biodegradable bag - $.25 each
Vendor commission - $.05
Average need 2 bags per week - 32 weeks
once a week service on normal garbage pickup day 4/1-12/1
Participation
Examples 500 60% 75%
BFI Grass 12,156 x .71 x 12 = $103,569 $103,569 $103,569
finne-%
Bags .25 each x 2/wk x 32 wk x ?
Commission
Total Expenses
Projected Revenue @ 1-00/bag
selling
97,248
116,704
145,872
(6078)
(7294)
(9117)
19,450
23,341
29,174
$22 - 267
�-243,614
$278,615
$388,992 $466\1816 $583,488
Breakeven Point - Approx. 2450 homes or 20% participation
50% 60% 75%
Actual Costs: .57/bg .52/bg .48/bg
COMPARISON INFORMATION
Landscape Lawn Service (average)
Mowing (1) cutting per week - $95.00/mo. ($23.75/wk)
Leaves (1) pickup - Avg. lot $70.00
Trimming (1) per year $350 - $375
ALTERNATE #3 (continued)
Brush - Expenses
Contract B.F.I.
Pickup Rate $-39 p --r home per month
(Tipping Fees included in current single family rate)
No bags - bundle 51 lengths 21 dia. 45 lb. limit
Once a month service on normal garbage Pickup day 4/1-12/1 or
follow leaf pickup schedule
BFI Brush 12,156 x .39 x 12 = 56,890
(100%)
Brush Pickup
Public Works
Start up costs:
Equipment
2 chippers @ $15,000 ea.
$ 30,000
2 dump trucks @ $55,000 ea.
1=1-2-0=00
$140,000
Labor cost
Manhors(4)�@ 13.30/hr x 1280 hrs.
$ 17,024
(160 hrs./month for 8 mo.)
(need 2 men crews)
(Total Labor $110,656)
ALTERNATE #4
Extended Leaf Pjckujo (4 additional weeks)
Public Works
Start up costs:
Equipment
2 dump trucks @ $55,000 ea.
$110,000
Labor
Manhours (11) 1760 hrs. @ 13.30/hr
$ 23,408
Need 11 men - 2 VacAll
3 Sweepers
4 Leaf Machines
2 Garbage Trucks
ALTERNATIVE 44 (continued)
Current annual leaf pickup program costs $82,000
Estimated Total Volume 6,000 cu. yrds. @
vrd = $49,700 tzzn4ng fee.
ALTERNATE #5
Transfer site - leaves - recycling - grass dropoff
Site development
Melas Park - north of pumping bldg. 40,000 sq. ft.
Wood Fence (match P.W.)
800 ft. @ $50.00/ft. $ 42,000
Asphalt/Stone base 40,000 sq. ft.
@ $1.75/ sq. ft. 70,000
Storm Sewer 2 catchbasins + sewer 5,000
Lighting (4) 10,000
Total $127,000
Projected total out of pocket program cost @ 40% participation rate for 1990 season (less tipping foe which is current-
ly included in monthly single family rate and administrative costs.
BFI $105,805.96
Bags 108,917.90
Commissions 15,559.70
Total $230,'283.56
Recommend selling price per bag $1.25 ea.
Estimated revenue @ 40% participation - $388,992.50
Brush.Pick-up
BFI proposed charge:
Flat monthly rate per single family per month for 12 months
$0.39 x 12,156 units x 12 months = $56,890,08
GRASS
CLIPPING AND BRUSH PICK-UP COSTS
11/2/89
Level of Participation
Grass Cliupinc�s
25a
33a
40e
50%
67%
750
Number of Participants
Bags per participant
Total Bags
BFI Proposed Charge
(Divided by Total Ba s
4 )
BFI Cost g
per Ba
3,039
x64
194,496
$103,569.00$103,569.00
194,496.00
$0.5325
4,052
x64
259,328
r
259,328.00
$0.3994
4,862 X6'X
x644
311,194
$103,569.00
3.11,194.00
$0.3328
x6644
388,992
$203,569.QX
388,992.00
$0.2b62
8,104
x64
518,656
$103,569.uX
518,656.0)0
_
$a_i997
9,117
x64
5II3,488
$103,569.OG
583,488.00
$0.1775
Cost of Bags
Commission
Future Tipping Fee(rst)
Admin. Cost (Est)
Cost per bag
0.3500
a.osoa
0.2500
0.1000
$1.2825
0.3500
0.0500
0,25x0
0.1000
$1.1494
0.3500
0,05fl0
0.2500
0.1000
$1.0828
0.350fl
0.0500
0.2500
0.1000
$1.0162
0.3500
0.0500
0.250a
o.loao
$0.9497
0.3500
0.0500
0.2500
0.1000
$0.9275
Projected total out of pocket program cost @ 40% participation rate for 1990 season (less tipping foe which is current-
ly included in monthly single family rate and administrative costs.
BFI $105,805.96
Bags 108,917.90
Commissions 15,559.70
Total $230,'283.56
Recommend selling price per bag $1.25 ea.
Estimated revenue @ 40% participation - $388,992.50
Brush.Pick-up
BFI proposed charge:
Flat monthly rate per single family per month for 12 months
$0.39 x 12,156 units x 12 months = $56,890,08
Exnenses
Single Family
Multi -Family
Recycling
Typical Month:
11/2/89
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
CUR -RENT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
12,156 @ $8.85 per home per month
8,390 @ $4.19 per unit per month
12,156 @ $1.11 per home per month
12,156 x $8.85
8,390 x $4.19
12,156 x $1.11
Discount(5%)
Net Year
$107,580.60
35,154.10
13x493.16
$156,227.86
7,811.39
$148,416.47
$1,780,997.64
Revenues .,(Estimated)
Recycling Sales $9,500 per month - Village share 555.
$5,225 x 12 = $62,700.00
Recycling Program Cost
BFI Charge $153,822-02
(less discount)
Less sales _62,700.00
Net Cost $ 91,122.02
Waste
Systems,.
BROWNING -FERRIS INDUSTRIES
Barrington District
October 18, 1989
TO: Mr. Glen Andler
FR: Tom Kleczewski
RE: Recycling Commission
I. GRASS CLIPPINGS
Fie<' yc:c,d pl3pteP 0
grass clippings Alternate #3
A. BFI to collect
g ppings at the curb weekly from each resident in
specially marked 30 gallon bio -degradable paper bags provided by the
Village. Bags would be sold by the Village at a rate to cover the
additional cost of the service. The cost to add additional equipment to
collect grass clippings will be 71 cents per month per residential unit
for 12 months.
B. Ban grass from pick up. Residents would placeAthenratgar�den waste in
bio -degradable paper bags, which they could bring to a drop off center,
centrally located in the Village. BFI would transport the garden waste
from the drop off center to the compost site. Bags would be sold by the
Village at a rate which would cover the cost of the system. It would be
necessary for the Village to monitor the drop off center to ensure that
only garden waste is placed there and only bio -degradable paper bags are
used. BFI would provide roll off containers at the drop off center at a
monthly rental rate of $40.00 per container. Each load would be hauled
at a rate of $90.00 hauling.
II. BRUSH `
Alternate #3
BFI could provide once a month collection of brush, shrubs, and tree
limbs provided that these items shall be bound in bundles not to exceed
five (5) feet in length and two (2) feet in diameter. Each bundle shall
not exceed forty-five (45) pounds in weight and shall be capable of
being handled and loaded by one (1) person. The cost to add additional
equipment to collect brush etc. once a month will be 39 cents per
residential unit per month for 12 months.
541 NORTH HOUGH • BARRINGTON, ILLINOIS 60010 • (312) 381-1720
Existing Pump Nouse
Parking Area
I I
Football Fields
EL
I i
I �
I I
1 I
_J
Softball Fields
rd
f �1�NSf Cly
I S�'tr
{
t`` l
1 �
t
l r
i
Parking Area
Central Road
Detention Basin
Driving Range
Soccer Fields
leer I- -k".V
I
AMENDMENT NO. 1
REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICE
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
FOR
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF YARD MATERIALS
THIS AMENDMENT to a refuse collection and disposal service
contract made and entered into this -. day of
19_, by and between the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
hereinafter called Village; and Browning-Ferris Industries of
Illinois, Inc., Barrington, Illinois, a corporation, hereinafter
called the Contractor,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, THE Village has employed the Contractor for the
collection and disposal of refuse for all residential and
multifamily units within the Village Of Mount Prospect, and
WHEREAS, the State of Illinois has passed Senate Bill #1599
that bans the dumping of yard materials (leaves, grass, branch-
es, etc.) into a landfill, and
WHEREAS, the Village wishes the Contractor to provide a
separate collection of yard materials, and
WHEREAS, the Contractor will dispose of these yard materi-
als at an approved composting facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration Of the promises, covenants
and agreements and payments hereinafter mentioned, the Village
and the Contractor hereby mutually agree as follows:
ARTICLE I - SERVICES REQUIRED
Add the following:
The Contractor shall also provide for a separate Village -
wide collection of yard materials (grass clippings, brush,
leaves, etc.) in single-family areas.
ARTICLE II - REFUSE DEFINED
Replace Items D & E with the following:
D. Yard materials, including bagged leaves, grass clip
pings, weeds, Christmas trees, small amounts of earth
and sod, bushes, brush clippings, tree limbs and
branch clippings, when securely bound in bundles not
exceeding five (5) feet in length and two (2) feet in
diameter. Each bundle shall not exceed forty-five
(45) pounds in weight and shall be capable of being
handled and loaded by one (1) person.
F. Small amounts of rocks and building materials result
ing from do-it-yourself projects, if placed in accept-
able containers as herein provided.
ARTICLEV - CONTRACT PROVISIONS
A. PICK-UP SERVICES
1. Regular Week,ly Residential Service
Change to:
1. Regular weekly Residential Service - Solid Waste
and Recyclables.
Add the following Item 10:
10. Yard material Pick-up Service
a. The Contractor will furnish a regular
scheduled weekly collection service for each
single-family unit and from all Village -
owned or leased buildings.
b. Pickups shall be at the front curb of the
residences or residential units to be served
or at the dedicated alley behind same.
C. The entire residential pickup service
throughout the Village will be accomplished
in two days (the same days as the normal
solid waste Pickup days).
d. This service will be limited to the months
of April through and including November.
e. Brush Pickup service will only be furnished
the first full week of each month - April
through and including November.
Add the following to Item (7):
All yard materials shall be disposed of at lawful-
ly operated composting sites located outside of
the Village and at the contractor's sole expense.
-2-
B Containers
1. Specifications
Add the following to item (a):
Disposable paper or Plastic bags of one or
two layers thickness but having a minimum
wet strength of fifty (50) Pounds may also
be used.
Replace item (d) with the following:
d. Biodegradable paper bags marked with offi-
cial Village yard material identification
must be used for grass clippings, leaves,
weeds, flower stalks, brush and small branch
clippings and other similar garden waste
materials. Bags will be a minimum two-ply,
50 -pound wet strength material, Kraft paper,
1611 x 1211 x 3511, 30 -gallon capacity, flat
bottom.
Add the following item (e):
e. container for collection of recyclables
(aluminum, newsprint and glass) will be
Village -furnished, 14.5 -gallon blue bins.
Excess materials that do not fit in the bin
may be put in paper bags and placed either
On top of or alongside of the blue bins.
� •j
1. Base Compensation
Add the following to item (c):
C. These payments will be made quarterly to the
Village.
Add the following item (d):
d. The Village also agrees to pay for providing
the once -a -week pickup service of yard ma-
terials as described in Articles 11 and V,
the sum of $0.34 per bag collected and $0.39
per month for each and every occupied sin-
gle-family dwelling unit for 12 months.
-3-
This fee only covers the cost for additional
equipment to provide these services. The
fees associated with the disposal charges
are included in the fee described in 1.a.
above.
2. Initial Co-,t,ation of Amount Due Contractor
Add the following:
On or about the 25th of each month, the Contrac-
tor will Supply to the Village a count of all
yard material disposal bags collected. This
total will be added to the Village-supplied resi-
dential counts for that month's billing totals.
Add the following:
0. Monthly Reports
During the remaining term of this contract, the Con-
tractor will supply monthly reports, including but not
limited to the following on quantities collected:
1. Total volume of refuse (solid waste only)
hauled to landfill.
2. Total number and volume of yard material bags
collected and hauled to compost site.
3. Total volume of brush collected and hauled to
compost site.
4. Total volumes of recyclables picked up and
revenues received from each.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Village Of Mount Prospect and Brown-
ing Ferris Industries of Illinois, Inc. have caused this Amend-
ment to be duly executed by their respective Officials on the
day and year first written above.
BROWNING -FERRIS INDUSTRIES
OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Thomas Kleczewski
Vice President
Date
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
John FU—It—on —Dixon
Village Manager
Date
-4-
,
village C)f'MCUMtProspect —
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Chuck Dencic, Inspection Services Director
DATE: November 8, 1989
RE: ROAD RESURFACING 70 YEAR PRW8RAN
The Village has approximately 130 miles of streets it maintains
The condition of the streets vary greatly, from very good to very
~
poor. Over the past 70 years, from 7980 to 1989° the Village has
esurfaced approximately 47 miles of street at a cost of about
$4,770,000 Dollars.
Prior to 1984" streets to be resurfaced were chosen by basically the
old method of - the worst streets get fixed first. Other factors
such as, number of complaints on a particular street spreading work
throughout town and requests by special interest `
In the late seventies and early eighties it became evident that streets
were deteriorating faster than they could be repaired, mainly due
no monetary restraints. Also, it was found that some of the streets
that were resurfaced and should have lasted for 15 to 20 years with
only minor repairs were failing sooner than
--expected IMS, Inc.(Novak, Co.) was retained in 1978 to do a pavement analysis for theYi7]age, The study dune by IMS took into account not onlythe surfaceoondition of the street but also the base course and sub-gradeoonditions. The study showed the reason for smme resurfaced streetsfailing prematurely was due to pooruame and sub -grade conditions.In 1985 Novak Dempsey retested the streets and updated their report.8amed on the 1985 report and taking
into account streets resurfaced
and/or reconstructed since 1985, our Village street ratings are as
follows:
RATING MILES
40
or Below
4
Miles
41
- 50
10
Miles
57
- hO
ll
Miles
61
- 70
20
Miles
71
- OO
45
Miles
u/
+
41
Miles
TO: Hr. John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Chuck Bencic, Inspection Services Director
DATE: November 8, 1989
KE: ROAD RESURFACING ln YEAR PROGRAM
Page 2
Streets with ratings above 70 are considered in good condition. Streets
bele* 50 u,e c�ns�ca'�� co -� -n reconscrvcz�un ru�:her than
resurfacing. Streets between SO to 70 may require either or both
resurfacing or reconstruction. Since the above ratings are bused
on a 1985 report the streets most likely have deteriorated so that
there may be more miles of street in the 70 and below ratings.
Prior to placing a street on the resurfacing program we must consider
not only the overall rating but also the individual surface, base
and sub -grade ratings. A street with good sub -grade and base ratings
but a pour surface rating would be a primecandidateforresurfacing
A street with a pour sub -grade or base rating and a good surface rating
may be left off the resurfacing list b �
because a new surface would not
substantially increase the total rating and as mentioned previous7y,
with a poor sub -grade or base the new surface, may fail prematurely. `
In addition to the ratings we also still consider other factors such
l Traffic Volumes
2) Drainage Problems
3} Location of Street
We also still do a yearly visual inspection of the street surfaoe
This is done to determine if one street is deteriorating faster than
'
another,
Based on pavement ratings and visual inspections we make a list of
streets we propose for resurfacing and/or reconstruction.The
additional items mentioned previously are then considered anda list
ranking the streets is prepared. This list is then reviewed by the
Director of Public Works, Superintendent of Streets"
Director oflnspection Services and the Village Engineer and a final ranking list
along with cost estimates is prepared' This list usually containsl to 2 million dollars of work made up of both -surfacing and
reconstruction proJeots. Once the budget is prepared
and a final
dollar amount is set, the final list of streets is completed'
Using 1989 costs and the 1985 street ratings following is a cost
estimate for repair-ing all 131 miles of Village streets:
RATING
MILES�
COST ESTIMATE
40
or
Below
4
Miles
$ 2,500,000
4/
to
50
lD
MIlea
5^850,000
51
to
60
ll
Miles
4,520,000
§l
to
70
20
Miles
4,900,000
77
to
80
46
Miles
7,650,000
Dl
+
41
Miles
4,920,000
TOTAL $30,340,000
TO: Mr. John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Chuck Denoic, Inspection Services Director
DAT[: November 8, 1089
RE: ROAD RESURFACING lO YEAR PROGRAM
Page J
Dollar figures shown for 'the streets in the 71 to 90 and the q7 +
nnonga t<ixe into account cnese streets will need minor mai ncenance
such as crack sea], seal coating or even minor patching over the t
lO year period. As can be seem from the above cost estimates,
is much more cost effective to maintain streets where" /
approximately $720,000 per mile - vm full reconstruction possible
approximate cost - $638,000 per mile' on o~ a street,
In addition to determining ratings, traffic drainage etc other
factors are also considered,Th ` ` ', '
Village such as Ljnneman d ere are a number of streets in the
portions of the "ma� are w ^` Meier «u^ and Seminole Ln., where
are also r on easements not on dedicated R.O.W.. There
some streets which only have one-half of the R O N such
as Marcella, Cypress and Helena. ' ' `^
Our policy in the past has been to allocate the majority of our road
repair dol lars to resurfacing streets and Just do one or two
reconstructions per year. As our streets continue to deteriorate
we may have to commit more dollars to reconstruction.
Over the past 5 years the Village has committed the following dollars
to resurfacing and reconstruction:
YEARTYPE
REPAIR
EXPENDITURE
MILES
1985
Resurfacing
$804,000
5.5
Reconstruction
112,500
0.6
7986
Resurfacing
690,000
6,7
Reconstruction
192,000
0.4
1987
Resurfacing
480,000
4.0
Reconstruction
199,000
O'4
1988
Resurfacing
480^000
3.5
Reconstruction
730,000
l'5
1989
Resurfacing
930,000
7.0
Reconstruction
000^000
U'7
TO: Mr. John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Chuck 8encic, Inspection Services Director
DATE: November 8, 1989
RE: ROAD RESURFACING 10 YEAR PROGRAM
Page 4
If the village were to embark on a 70 ,ear oro +0 reoe4rAll
streets in town we woula have to Commit aoout $'3,000,000 Dollars per
Year based on the cost estimate shown earlier in this report. However,
typically streets are assumed to have a 15 to 20 year life. This
assumed life includes normal maintenance such as crack sealing, seal
coating and minor Patching being done during the life cycle of the
street. Using the twenty year life cycle would reduce the yearly
cost of our road program to $1,500,000. However, using this extended
time period it will also take longer to resurface and/or reconstruct
all our streets and would keep the overall ratings of our streets
at a lower level than would a TO year program.
The magnitude of the street maintenance program along with new IDOT
regulations creates an additional concern. lDOT^s new regulations
now take projects which were previously considered resurfacing projects
and reclassified them as reconstructfon. The field work,deaigm
plans and specifications required for reconstruction ,
substantiallymore than for a resurfacing project.lweprnjects �s
are to n~^
our resurfacing and reconstruction projects out n — � �a timely
I would recommend that consultants be considered �"'the reconstruction
projects. Estimated cost for consultant fees.would be from l"��'on
^
75% of the construction costs. �* c«
Chuck Bencic
CB:rm
cc: File
Village of �-ount Prospect' li6
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Engineer I ing Coordinator
DATE: November 9, 1989
SUBJECT: Additional Information on Street Program
The following is additional information You requested on the
Street Program.
1.) The total number of miles Of Pozzolonic base streets is
18.32 miles
2.) Of the streets with an overall rating of 40 or below and
those 41 - 50.
A.) The number of miles of streets with rating 40 and
below which are Po-zzolonic base is 2.98 miles.
The number of miles of streets with rating 41 - 50
which are pozzolanic base is 7.91 miles.
B.) Of the streets with the above rating .378 miles do
not have curb and gutter.
Bob
BP: CVD/m
Im
MFT EXPENDITURES -OTHER THAN STREET WORK
1989 1990 BUDGET
l) 22-071-0E�7387
2) 22-071-05-7401
3) 22-071-14-6232
4) 22-071-14-0236
6) 22-071-14-6237
b) 22-071-14-6238
7) 22-071-14-8103
Salt/Calc. Chlor.
Salt/Calc. Chlnr,
Traffic Lt. Maint.
Traffic Lt. Naint,
Traffic Lt, Energy
Traffic Lt. Energy
0ptioon
TOTAL
$ 20,000
40,00
21,000
42,000
54,000
27,000
Village of M-junt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: November 10, 1989
SUBJECT: Property Tax Levy Requirements
An integral part of the process of determining the tax levy requirements of the
Village is first of all, to be aware of the Village's current financial position,
and secondly, to have a grasp of the estimated resources over the next several
years and the expected demands on those resources. To this end, I have prepared
two schedules to illustrate this information. The first is a schedule estimating
the revenues and expenditures of the General Fund for the 89/90 fiscal year, and
the second is a schedule projecting General Fund revenues and expenditures for
the six year period of 89/90 through 94/95.
Although there are a number of funds which make up the financial base of the
Village, I have only included the General Fund in the schedules mentioned above.
The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the Village and along with the
levy for Capital Improvements accounts for over 75% of the property tax levy. The
Water Fund, Motor Fuel Tax Fund and the Risk Management Fund are not property tax
dependent and the tax levy requirements for the debt service funds are pre-
determined and non -discretionary. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate to
focus on the General Fund to establish tax levy requirements.
The first schedule mentioned above shows actual revenues and expenditures for
88/89, budgeted amounts for 89/90, estimated amounts for 89/90 and the increase or
decrease between budget and estimated for the 89/90 fiscal year. Revenues are
listed by category with the 89/90 estimates based upon actual figures for the
first six months of the fiscal year. Expenditures are categorized by total
departmental expenditures and unbudgeted projects which have been undertaken in
the current fiscal year. Attached to this schedule are explanatory notes which
provide additional information regarding items which are worthy of special
mention.
Revenues for 89/90 are expected to total $17,580,300, some $1,690,600 more than
had been budgeted. Three categories make up almost $1,500,000 of this increase:
the State Income Tax Surcharge, Sales Tax, and Investment Income. Unbudgeted
projects of $945,000 have been initiated during the current year bringing total
expected expenditures to $17,337,430. The net result is that revenues are
expected to exceed expenditures by $242,870.
John Fulton Dixon
Page 2
Property Tax Levy Requirements
The second schedule uses 89/90 estimated revenues and expenditures as a base and
by making certain, assumptions, projects revenues and expenditures for the next
five years. The following assumptions have been used:
1. Property Taxes, Sales Tax, and State Income Tax are projected to increase
5% per year.
2. The State Income Tax Surcharge will generate $3,465,000 through 91/92 and
is based upon revenue estimates provided by the Illinois Municipal
League.
3. The Village will receive $500,000 per year from the Elk Grove Rural Fire
Protection District starting in 90/91.
4. All other sources of revenue (Licenses, Permits, Fees, Fines, Investment
Income, Reimbursements and Other Revenues) are expected to increase 3%
per year.
5. Operating Costs are expected to increase 6% per year. We expect infla-
tion to rise by 4-1/2% to 5%, but that insurance, in -range salary
increases, refuse disposal costs, and certain other costs will bring the
overall increase to 6%.
6. Five or six new personnel will be added in 90/91 and a payment of
$505,000 to the Solid Waste Agency will be required in 90/91.
7. Resurfacing expenditures of $500,000 per year will be made from the
General Fund.
I recognize that assumptions are actually only our best guesses and that actual
results will be subject to a number of influences. I fully expect that these
amounts will change, especially as more time passes. Nevertheless, I believe the
projections are reasonable and they can give us a picture of what to expect over
the next five years.
The last line on the schedule shows the Excess or Deficiency of Revenues over
Expenditures over the six year period. The effect of the State Income Tax
Surcharge can be seen in the balances in 89/90, 90/91 and 91/92. Over this three
year period, a total of $3,244,000 of revenues over expenditures are expected.
It should be noted that there is $945,000 in additional projects that are being
undertaken in the 89/90 fiscal lyear, but I did not include any specific amounts
over the next five years. There are three major projects that are being discussed
but for which commitments have not been made by the Village Board. The projects
are: 1) Street Resurfacing and Replacement Program estimated at $30 million over
the next 10-20 years; 2) Public Safety Building estimated at $5.5 million to $6.5
million; and 3) Central-WaPella Flood Relief Project at an estimated $850,000 to
$1,000,000. The expected excess of revenues over expenditures could be used for
these projects or for other projects which may be identified in the near future.
John Fulton Dixon
Page 3
Property Tax Levy Requirements
In the opening paragraph, I mentioned that the process of determining property tax
levy requirements included being aware of the Village's financial position. The
unreserved fund balance in the General Fund as of May 1, 1989 was $2,950,000.
Using a rule -of -thumb of 15% of expenditures as the ideal amount of fund balance
for working capital and contingencies, the fund balance should be maintained at a
level of approximately $2,500,000 for expenditures of $17,000,000 to $3,000,000
for expenditures of $20,000,000. It appears from the projections that over the
next 3 to 4 years, the Village should be able to maintain an appropriate fund
balance as well as addressing some of the infrastructure and facility needs that
have been identified.
A second, equally important factor in determining the Village's property tax
requirements is to work within the guidelines of policies established by the Mayor
and Board of Trustees. Policies may be short-term or long-term and they may be
written or informal, but they should be specific enough to reflect the direction
of the elected officials. Direction should be established for both expenditure
decisions as well as revenue sources.
For the purpose of the attached projections, I have assumed a policy of increasing
operating expenditures by 6%. The 6% figure was arrived at by using an inflation
factor of 4-1/2% to 5% and an additional one percent for extraordinary cost
increases. Operating expenditures include maintaining the present level of
services and normal equipment replacement. New services or increased levels of
services would require additional amounts to be added to the base upon which the
6% is calculated. Also, extraordinary amounts for capital outlay would be beyond
the scope of normal equipment replacement.
Examples of increasing the level of services would be the addition of personnel to
Fire, Police, and/or Public Works. An example of a new service is the addition of
Recycling to the Refuse Disposal Program. Extraordinary capital outlay would be
required for a boiler replacement or possibly for asbestos removal. When these
circumstances occur, the additional expenditures would need to be added to the
previously established operating expenditure base.
In the area of revenue sources I have used an assumption of 5% for increases in
Property Taxes, Sales Taxes and State Income Tax and an assumption of 3% for Other
Revenues. The assumed increases for Sales Tax and State Income Tax are conserva-
tive estimates based upon previous experience. The Village actually has no direct
control over these revenues as indicated by the 14% growth in sales tax last year
and the expected 9% this year. Sales Tax Revenue is dependent upon the local
economy whereas State Income Tax is dependent upon the overall State economy.
The Village has some control over Other Revenues such as Permit Fees and License
Fees, but as a practical matter these revenues seldom increase with the level of
inflation. Under these conditions, I believe a 3% assumption is reasonable over
the five year projection period.
John Fulton Dixon
Page 4
Property Tax Levy Requirements
The specific revenue source over which the Village has direct control is property
taxes. Property taxes make up approximately 30% of the revenue base of the
General Fund with the balance made up of approximately 50% from Sales Tax, State
Income Tax and Other Taxes and 20% from Other Revenues. The following table shows
the normal percentage increase in property taxes that would be required to support
a 6% increase in operating expenditures when combined with an assumed increase of
5% for Sales Tax and Other Taxes and 3% for Other Revenues.
The above table shows that if Property Taxes make up 30% of our revenue base, and
if the annual increases in the 70% are as listed, the annual increase in Property
Taxes should be 9.5%.
Because revenues in the last two fiscal years have been greater than normal
operating expenditures and because of the State Income Tax Surcharge, the percen—
tages in the above example are somewhat higher than necessary. Instead of a 9.5%
annual increase in property taxes a 5% increase appears to be adequate.
In the projections, I have used an assumption of an annual increase of 5% in
Property Taxes. If the assumptions prove valid, a 5% increase in Property Taxes
would provide the necessary revenues over the next three years to support a 6%
increase in operating costs.
There has been some discussion that a portion of the State Income Tax Surcharge
should be used to reduce property taxes. Based upon the revenue picture of the
Village, this is certainly a possibility. However, I should point out that a
reduction in any one year has a cumulative effect on future years. For example,
if the 1989 General Fund levy would be kept the same as the 1988 levy, and then in
1990 and each subsequent year there would be a 5% increase, the cumulative effect
over the projection period would be a decrease in revenues of $1,318,000. The
following table illustrates the cumulative difference:
Percent of
Annual
Contribution
Revenue Category
Total
Increases
to Total
Sales Tax & Other Taxes
50%
5.0%
2.5%
Other Revenues
20%
3.0%
.6%
Property Taxes
30%
9.5%
2.9%
100%
6.0%
The above table shows that if Property Taxes make up 30% of our revenue base, and
if the annual increases in the 70% are as listed, the annual increase in Property
Taxes should be 9.5%.
Because revenues in the last two fiscal years have been greater than normal
operating expenditures and because of the State Income Tax Surcharge, the percen—
tages in the above example are somewhat higher than necessary. Instead of a 9.5%
annual increase in property taxes a 5% increase appears to be adequate.
In the projections, I have used an assumption of an annual increase of 5% in
Property Taxes. If the assumptions prove valid, a 5% increase in Property Taxes
would provide the necessary revenues over the next three years to support a 6%
increase in operating costs.
There has been some discussion that a portion of the State Income Tax Surcharge
should be used to reduce property taxes. Based upon the revenue picture of the
Village, this is certainly a possibility. However, I should point out that a
reduction in any one year has a cumulative effect on future years. For example,
if the 1989 General Fund levy would be kept the same as the 1988 levy, and then in
1990 and each subsequent year there would be a 5% increase, the cumulative effect
over the projection period would be a decrease in revenues of $1,318,000. The
following table illustrates the cumulative difference:
John Fulton Dixon
Page 5
Property Tax Levy Requirements
Totals 532451000
OqQ
Property Taxes
With No Increase
in 1989
$ 4,771,000
4,771,000
5,009,000
5,260,000
5,523,000
5,799,000
31,133000
_.QOO
The difference in the totals of the above columns is $1,318,000. If property
taxes are reduced in any one year, the percentage increase in a subsequent year
may need to be doubled to get back to the level of revenue needed to support
normal expenditure increases.
As I previously mentioned, the projections use an annual increase in property
taxes in the General Fund of 5%. 1 should point out that the 1989 levy as
proposed includes an increase in the General Fund of 7%. If the Board adopted a
Policy of limiting the General Fund increase to 5%, it would mean reducing the
proposed 1989 tax levy by $98,500 and would reduce the estimated 1989 tax rate to
$.955. This would be consistent with the projections provided.
From the above discussion, I think it is clear that the Village needs a moderate
increase in property taxes to support normal increases in operating costs. I
realize that long range projections under our present environment are imprecise at
best; however, I believe the projections are reasonable and with annual revisions
can provide the framework through which the Village Board can establish direction
for upcoming budget expenditures as well as the 1989 and subsequent tax levies.
DCJ/sm
Enc.
Property Taxes
Fiscal Year
Tax Levy Year
As Listed
89/90
1988
$ 4,771,000
90/91
1989
5,009,000
91/92
1990
5,260,000
92/93
1991
5,523,000
93/94
1992
5,799,000
94/95
1993
6,089,000
Totals 532451000
OqQ
Property Taxes
With No Increase
in 1989
$ 4,771,000
4,771,000
5,009,000
5,260,000
5,523,000
5,799,000
31,133000
_.QOO
The difference in the totals of the above columns is $1,318,000. If property
taxes are reduced in any one year, the percentage increase in a subsequent year
may need to be doubled to get back to the level of revenue needed to support
normal expenditure increases.
As I previously mentioned, the projections use an annual increase in property
taxes in the General Fund of 5%. 1 should point out that the 1989 levy as
proposed includes an increase in the General Fund of 7%. If the Board adopted a
Policy of limiting the General Fund increase to 5%, it would mean reducing the
proposed 1989 tax levy by $98,500 and would reduce the estimated 1989 tax rate to
$.955. This would be consistent with the projections provided.
From the above discussion, I think it is clear that the Village needs a moderate
increase in property taxes to support normal increases in operating costs. I
realize that long range projections under our present environment are imprecise at
best; however, I believe the projections are reasonable and with annual revisions
can provide the framework through which the Village Board can establish direction
for upcoming budget expenditures as well as the 1989 and subsequent tax levies.
DCJ/sm
Enc.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Estimated Revenues and Expenditures
For the Fiscal Year Ending'April 30, 1990
General Fund
Expenditures:
Departmental Expenditures
$14,610,515
$16,392,430
$16,392,430
Fiscal Year
-
(10)
88/89
89/90
89/90
Increase or
Revenues:
Actual
Budget
Estimated
<Decrease>
( A)
Property Taxes
$ 4,264,362
$ 4,746,400
$ 4,771,000
$ 24,600
-
Sales Tax
5,278,385
5,480,000
5,750,000
270,000
( 1)
State Income Tax
1,508,599
1,570,000
1,650,000
80,000
( 2)
State Income Tax Surcharge
-
-
940,000
940,000
( 3)
Food & Beverage Tax
522,766
475,000
500,000
25,000
10,000
Other Taxes
305,395
208,750
274,000
65,250
( 4)
Licenses
1,019,629
1,145,000
1,118,500
< 26,500
25,000
Permits
534,160
300,000
380,000
80,000
( 5)
Fees
492,260
462,400
500,750
38,350
-
Service Charges
251,911
273,500
277,000
3,500
Fire Equipment
Fines
258,678
311,000
250,500
< 60,500>
( 6)
Investment Income
294,806
236,400
420,000
183,600
( 7)
Other Income
548,074
681,250
748,550
67,300
( 8)
Total Revenues
$15,279,025
$15,889,700
$17,580,300
$ 1,690,600
( 9)
Expenditures:
Departmental Expenditures
$14,610,515
$16,392,430
$16,392,430
$
-
(10)
Unbudgeted Projects:
(11)
Prospect Avenue
$ -
$ -
$ 245,000
$
245,000
Douglas Avenue
-
-
5,000
5,000
Central Road Engr.
-
-
110,000
110,000
Forest Ave. Engr.
-
-
15,000
15,000
Storm Water Study
-
-
10,000
10,000
Wolf Road
-
-
85,000
85,000
Melas Park
-
-
25,000
25,000
P W Bldg. Heat
-
-
35,000
35,000
Recycling Bins
-
-
80,000
80,000
Fire Equipment
-
-
310,000
310,000
Public Safety Bldg.
-
-
25,000
25,000
Totals
$ -
$ -
$ 945,000
$
945,000
Total Expenditures
$14,610,515
$16,392,430
$17,337,430
$
945,000
(12)
Excess or <Deficiency> of
Revenues over Expenditures
668 a 510
< 502,730>
__2_4_2j 70
745.600
(13)
(A) See attached explanatory notes.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
General Fund Estimated Revenues and Expenditures
For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1990
Explanatory Notes
1. Sales Tax revenues are expected to reach $5,750,000 compared to the
budgeted amount of $5,480,000 for an increase of $270,000. Receipts for
the first five months of the 89/90 fiscal year totaled $2,281,758 compared
to $2,034,991 for the same period last year. The increase for the first
five months is $246,767, or 12.1%. If we assume a 7% increase for the
balance of the fiscal year, the overall increase for the year will be
approximately $471,600, or 9%. The magnitude of the increase had not been
anticipated because we had expected a leveling off after the 14% increase
from 87/88 to 88/89. The continued growth in sales tax revenues is a very
positive indicator of the business economy in Mount Prospect.
2. Based upon the first five months of the fiscal year, we are anticipating an
increase of 9.4% in State Income Tax compared to the 5% that had been
anticipated in the budget. State Income Tax is distributed by the State of
Illinois on a per capita basis. The level of growth in State Income Tax
reflects the overall healthy economy of the State.
3. The $940,000 State Income tax Surcharge is the result of legislation that
became effective July 1, 1989. The amount estimated is somewhat higher
than had been projected by the Illinois Municipal League and is based upon
only three months experience. The State Income Tax Surcharge is a tempo-
rary revenue that was enacted for the two-year period of July 1, 1989 to
June 30, 1991.
4. The increase in Other Taxes of $65,250 is due primarily to estimated
receipts of $200,000 in Real Estate Transfer Taxes compared to the budgeted
revenues of $150,000.
5. Although the level of building activity within the Village is somewhat
lower than the level in fiscal 88/89, the increase in Permit Fees still
reflects strong growth.
6. Fine revenue is expected to be down $60,500 from the budgeted amount, but
at almost the same level as in 88/89. It has been recently pointed out
that new court fees have taken most of the fine money levied and is the
reason for the decrease. There has been some indication that the courts
will start assessing higher fines in coming months. If higher fines are
levied, this would help to increase the Village share in the future.
7. investment income is expected to be some $183,600 higher than had been
budgeted. There are three reasons for this increase: 1) interest rates
1-1/2% to 2% higher than had been expected; 2) the fund balance was higher
at the start of the year than anticipated; and 3) revenue has been higher
during the current year than expected.
8. The Other Income category takes in all other sources of revenue in the
General Fund such as various grants and reimbursements. The overall
increase of $67,300 can be attributed to reimbursements on the Central Road
Project.
9. Total Revenues in the General Fund are expected to be $17,580,300 compared
to total budgeted revenues of $15,889,700, for an increase of $1,690,600.
10. Because we have not had the formal six-month budget review yet, we are
expecting total General Fund budgeted expenditures to be expended. In
addition, unbudgeted projects which have been initiated during the year are
listed separately.
11. The listed Unbudgeted Projects are all items which have been identified as
additional expenditures during the current fiscal year. The Fire Equipment
and Public Safety Building amounts were expected to be paid from a bond
issue when the budget was prepared. However, because of additional
revenues being realized in the current year and because of a reduction in
the amount of funds needed, it seems that it would be more economical to
use existing funds rather than borrowing funds.
12. Total General Fund expenditures, with the additional projects, are expected
to be $17,337,430 compared to $16,392,430 as approved in the 89/90 budget.
The overall increase is $945.000.
13. Following is a summary of estimated General Fund results for the 89/90
fiscal year:
Total Revenues $17,580,300
Total Expenditures 17,337,430
Excess of Revenues over
Expenditures �___242,870
The net effect is that we will be adding $242,870 to the General Fund
balance rather than drawing the balance down by $502,730 as had been
budgeted.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND
89/90 - 94/95
1989/90
1990/91
1991/92
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95 _
Revenues
Property Taxes
$ 4,771,000
$ 5,009,000
$ 5,260,000
$ 5,523,000
$ 5,799,000
$ 6,089,000
Sales Tax
5,750,000
6,038,000
6,339,000
6,656,000
6,989,000
7,338,000
State Income Tax
1,650,000
1,733,000
1,819,000
1,910,000
2,005,000
2,106,000
State Income Tax Surcharge
940,000
1,750,000
775,000
-
-
-
Elk Grove Fire Protection
-
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
Other Sources
4,469,000
4,603,000
4,741,000
4,883,000
5,029,000
5,180,000
Total Revenues
$17,580,000
19,633,000
$19,434,000
$19,472,000
$20,322,000
$21,213,000
Expenditures
Operating Costs
$15,662,000
$15,662,000
$16,777,000
$17,784,000
$18,851,000
$19,982,0()0
Cost Increases
-
940,000
1,007,000
1,067,000
1,131,000
1,199,000
New Personnel
-
175,000
-
-
-
-
SWANCC
-
505,000
-
-
-
Additional Resurfacing
480,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
Capital Improvement Transfer
250,000
-
-
-
-
-
Additional Projects
945,000
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures
$17,337,000
$17,782,000
$18,284,000
$19,351,000
$20,482,000
$21,681,000
Excess <Deficiency> of Revenues
over Expenditures
1___L43.000
$ 1,851,000
$ 1,150,000
$ 121.000
$< 160,000>
$< 46B4O00
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 1, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was
called to order by Chairman Donald Weibel at 8:00 P.M. at the
Public Safety Building, 112 East Northwest Highway, Mount
Prospect, Illinois.
ROLL CALL
Present upon Roll Call:
Frank Boege
Tom Borrelli
Frank Breitsameter
Lynn Kloster
Errol Richardson
Louis Velasco
Donald Weibel, Chairman
Absent: Tom McGovern
William Navigato
Village Staff Present: David Clements, Planning and Zoning Dir.
Michael Sims, Staff Planner
Press Staff Present: Lara Dailey, Mount Prospect Times
Kevin Dougherty, Mt. Prospect Daily Herald
T.D. Roche Taegel, Mt. Prospect Journal
Mary Wisniewski, Chicago Tribune
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Velasco moved, and seconded by Mr. Boege, that the minutes
of October 18, 1989 be approved. All members voted Aye and
Chairman Weibel declared the minutes approved.
SUBDIVISIONS
Orchard Green Plaza Resubdivision - The petitioner requested:
(1) a change in the Comprehensive Plan Land -Use Map from
single family residential to community commercial;
(2) Development Code modifications to permit a building 20
feet from a detention area.and side slopes of 2 to 1 for
the detention area;
(3) Approval of a Plat of Subdivision, unifying 13 existing
lots into one lot of record.
The petitioner, Mr. John Sfire, owner and developer of the
subject site was present to review his proposed development plan
for the shopping center.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2
NOVEMBER 1, 1989
The center would have two anchor stores, an Eagle Food store
and a Sears furniture store which occupy about 85/ of the
total space. The remainder would be for smaller stores and
shops that were not yet determined. Mr. Sfire reviewed various
aspects of the project as they related to the proposed change
in land use designation for the site,ie- economics, traffic
analysis, flood control, and relation to surrounding area.
Concerning a development code modification request for detention
side slopes of 2 to 1, Mr. Sfire stated that he was accepting
Staff recommendation of a 4 to 1 slope although this would still
require a code modification.
Relating to the market outlook, Mr. Boege asked if the Omni
store that was opening up not far away was taken into consider-
ation. Mr. Sfire replied that it had been. Mr. Borrelli asked
if there was to be buffering along Rand and Euclid. Mr. Sfire
said that a landscape plan had been submitted to the Village
and it involved significant landscapping along with sidewalks,
street lights and a tree survey is underway to see how many
trees can be saved.
Mr. Weibel voiced concern about the adequacy of the retention
facility to handle storm water. Mr. Sfire assured him that all
requirements of Village Engineering as well as the MSD would
be met and that water run off control would be at least as good
and likely better than it currently is.
Mr. Sfire introduced Mr. E.M. Maiden, Director of Planning for
Rolfe Campbell Assoc.,Inc. Mr. Maiden stated that he would
recommend commercial use with buffering for the site whether
or not the Village approved this development. In his opinion,
residential single family was not the highest and best use for
the site. Mr. Velasco raised the question as to what might
happen if this change in land use request was approved. Other
developers might use this as a precedent to request similar
changes elsewhere. The developer however felt that a good
delineation was provided in this case with a 20 foot landscape
setback, berming and fencing and a park on the east line.
Mr. Ken Spitz from the Metro TransportationGroupwas intro-
duced and he spoke on the traffic situation. He commented on
traffic studies taken and stated that the site would add traffic
but the impact would not be great.
Chairman Weibel declared the public hearing on the change in
the Comprehensive Land -Use at 9:43 P.M.
A number of area residents were in attendance and Mr. Weibel
asked if anyone wished to make a statement. Jane Conrad, 1002
north Prospect Manor came forward and said that in the interests
of time the homeowners groups and other residents were allowing
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3
NOVEMBER 1, 1989
her to speak for all of them. She stated that they had over
1400 signatures from nearby residents on a petition protesting
the proposed development. Ms. Conrad reviewed an in-depth
analysis of the concerns the residents had in connection with
the proposed development. These included the added traffic
problems, flooding, and concern that this would lower the
market value of nearby property. She pointed out that this
development would not follow the principles and standards laid
out in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Harold Renschler of 424 Larkdale Lane spoke on the traffic
problems and stated that he believed the shopping plaza would
funnel more traffic through the neighborhood. He stated that
an IDOT traffic count at Rand and Euclid showed a daily total
of 88,000 cars. This differed considerably from the 45,000
vehicle figure stated earlier in the meeting by Mr. Spitz,
however the difference could not be immediately explained.
Chairman Weibel asked for comments from the Plan Commission.
Mr. Richardson remarked that he had the same concern about
the area as when the Comprehensive Plan waspreviously reviewed
and updated. That was that if the whole triangle formed by
Rand, Euclid and Elmhurst went commercial, it would be O.K.but
not on a piece meal basis and therefore he was not in favor
of this proposal. Mr. Velasco commented that he was against
this kind of development in his area and likewise couldn't
approve this proposal. Mr. Kloster said his thinking was the
same as Mr. Richardson's and that he thought there were already
more shopping centers than were needed. Mr. Breitsameter commented
that he felt both sides had made good presentations but that he
didn't think the proposed development had sufficient merit to
approve a change in the land use. Mr. Boege stated that he was
not in favor of the proposal from the human factor standpoint.
When people move into an area, he felt they should be able to
expect protection against changes that are detrimental to their
interests. Mr. Borrelli's comments were to the effect that the
Plan Commission is charged with upholding what is best for the
overall community. Based on the testimony he didn't feel the
net effect of the proposed project would enhance ;:he value of
the community. Mr. Weibel remarked that the parcel in question
is a very difficult one. It would be hard to develop it in a
residential manner as it is too close to intersections. He felt
the petitioner had done an excellent job on the plan development
and didn't think anything better could be done for the site.
Motion was made by Mr. Velasco, and seconded by Mr. Boege, that
the request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land -Use Map for
Orchard Green Plaza Resubdivision site from single family resi-
dential to community commercial be approved. The vote was 6Nay;
1 Aye and Chairman Weibel declared the motion failed.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4
NOVEMBER 1, 1989
Chairman Weibel asked for motions on the Development Code
modification request. Mr. Richardson moved, and seconded by
Mr. Velasco, that modification to permit building 20 feet
from detention area and side slopes of 4 to 1 for the detention
area be approved. The vote was 5 Aye; 2 Nay and Chairman
Weibel declared the motion passed.
Mr. Borrelli questioned the need for acting on resubdivision
plats and code modifications in view of the fact that the
Commission had voted against the comprehensive plan land -use
change. Comment was make that if the Village Board approved
the change in land use they would want the Plan Commission
recommendations on the Code modifications and plat of resub-
division. Mr. Kloster moved, and seconded by Mr. Richardson,
that the Orchard Green Plaza Resubdivision Plat be approved
and Chairman and Secretary authorized to sign contingent upon
Village Board approval of the change in land use from resident-
ial to community commercial. The vote was 4 Aye; 3 Nay and
Chairman Weibel declared the motion failed,
Chairman Weibel and fir. Borrelli expressed their appreciation
and commended both sides to the land -use question for well
prepared presentations.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Community
Development:
No report
B. Comprehensive
Plan:
No report
C. Development
Code:
No report
D. Text Amendment:
No report
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Chairman declared the
meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Lynn M. Kloster, Secretary
Phone 312 / 392-6000
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
November 15, 1989
VILLAGE HALL
100SOUTH EMERSON STREET
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 1989 MEETING
IV. SUBDIVISIONS
A. Mount Plaines Animal Hospital, 888 East Northwest Highway.
Development Code modifications for waiver of:
1. Parking lot water detention requirement.
2. Installation of curb and gutter around the perimeter of the
parking lot.
3. Installation of parking trees, and
4. Replacement of existing 10' wide sidewalk with a 7' wide
sidewalk.
V. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A.
Community Development Committee
vxon�
B.
Comprehensive Plan Committee
Mr. McGovern
MAYOR
Development Code Committee
_.
GERALD L. FARLEY
Text Amendment Committee
44, rod
TRUSTEES
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W. BUSSE
TIMOTHY J.CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE R. VAN GEEM
THEODORE J. WATTENBERG
111 a g e of
Nfi.ount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone 312 / 392-6000
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
November 15, 1989
VILLAGE HALL
100SOUTH EMERSON STREET
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 1989 MEETING
IV. SUBDIVISIONS
A. Mount Plaines Animal Hospital, 888 East Northwest Highway.
Development Code modifications for waiver of:
1. Parking lot water detention requirement.
2. Installation of curb and gutter around the perimeter of the
parking lot.
3. Installation of parking trees, and
4. Replacement of existing 10' wide sidewalk with a 7' wide
sidewalk.
V. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A.
Community Development Committee
Mr. Richardson
B.
Comprehensive Plan Committee
Mr. McGovern
C.
Development Code Committee
Mr. Kloster
D.
Text Amendment Committee
Mr. Velasco
VI, OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Phone 312 / 392-6000
N 0 T I C E
The November 16 Recycling Commission Meeting has been cancelled as the
Commission convened for a special meeting on November 7.
The next Recycling Commission Meeting is scheduled for Thursday,
December 14 at the Public Works Facility. An agenda will be sent prior
to that meeting.
MAYOR
GERALD L. PARLEY
TRUSTEES
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE R. VAN GEEM
THEODORE J,WATTENBERG
V# 1 a g e of
Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone 312 / 392-6000
N 0 T I C E
The November 16 Recycling Commission Meeting has been cancelled as the
Commission convened for a special meeting on November 7.
The next Recycling Commission Meeting is scheduled for Thursday,
December 14 at the Public Works Facility. An agenda will be sent prior
to that meeting.