HomeMy WebLinkAbout0293_0011/18/91
CAF/
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY REFERENDUM
FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PUBLIC QUESTION ON THE
BALLOT FOR THE APRIL 2, 1991 ELECTION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That pursuant to the authority vested in the
President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
by Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, 1970,
an advisory referendum shall be held in the Village of Mount
Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, during the general election to be
held April 2, 1991, for the purpose of submitting to the voters
the following proposition:
Shall the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount
Prospect authorize the construction of a new Fire and Police
Station at a cost of $6,992,000? 11
SECTION TWO:, That the local election official shall certify the
above public question to the election authority having jurisdiction
over the territory of the Village of Mount Prospect in the manner
provided by law.
SECTION THREE: That Notice of said election shall be published and
the form of the ballot shall be prepared in the form and manner
provided by law.
SECTION FOUR: That said advisory referendum regarding said public
question and all matters pertaining thereto shall be conducted in
the manner prescribed by statute for and during the aforesaid
general election.
SECTION FIVE; 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
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
49
1 'oa
CPN
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 8, 1991
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 71,4_0 Present at the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Ralph Xfffi-r, Mark Busse, Leo Floros, George
Van Geem and Don Weibel. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Timothy
Corcoran. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton
Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Public Works Director Herb Weeks,
Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Finance Director Dave Jepson; Randy
Patchett, Dick Bodner and Catherine Morley of RJN Associates; four members
of the press and 16 persons in the audience.
II. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of December 11, 1990 were
accepted and filed.
The Minutes of the Stormwater Management meeting held on December 29, 1990
were also accepted and filed.
111. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
There were no citizens who wished to be heard.
IV. RECAPTURE AGREEMENTS
Village Attorney Everette Hill reported that two Sections of the Village Code
regarding Recapture Agreements are in conflict. He outlined the suggested
wording for the new Ordinance to provide more flexibility.
Trustee Weibel asked if there is a pending request. Attorney Hill said that a
developer recently requested a Recapture Agreement, but staff would not allow
this under the more strict Section of the Village Code. Trustee Weibel indicated
that since there appeared to be no emergency involved that he would recommend
a review by the Plan Commission because the Development Code has normally
fallen under the jurisdiction of the Plan Commission. This matter was referred
to the Plan Commission for their recommendation.
Mayor Farley said the discussion would include projects contained in Phase I.
Trustee Van Geem said he would like to form a Commission to study the various
recommendations made by RJN Associates. Mayor Farley said he is reluctant to
form a Commission to rehash this material because this could cause a delay of six
months to two years. Trustee Arthur agreed with Mayor Farley, stating he was
very confident with the work performed by RJN Associates noting that we cannot
tolerate any further delay.
Trustee Van Geem said this is a very large project costing approximately $23
million. He said the Village has Commissions for Recycling and other concerns,
and he would like to see a matter of such great significance reviewed by such a
group. He said that he could get a study done and a recommendation in a month
on Phase 1.
Mayor Farley still felt the Village needs to move forward as quickly as possible,
and be did not favor the formation of a Commission.
Trustee Van Geem indicated he would like to know how much damage has
occurred with various flooding events and relate this to the cost of repairs
recommended by RJN Associates.
Trustee Weibel said he does not see the need to study this any further. He said
the Drainage and Clean Streams Commission looked at this many years ago and
agreed with recommendations very similar to those proposed by RJN Associates.
He noted this work was previously recommended by another firm.
Trustee Van Geem requested permission to obtain various names for a
Commission, have them approved at the first meeting in February, hold the
meeting and then make a recommendation by the end of February.
Trustee Busse said he has no trouble with Trustee Van Geerrf s request as long
as it does not delay the projects.
Trustee Floros said he would not support a Commission to discuss this. He said
the Village has discussed this over the years and he is comfortable with the
recommendations made by RJN Associates.
Mayor Farley then asked Randy Patchett to explain the various projects contained
in Phases I-IV.
The Committee asked questions about the various Phases. After Mr. Patchett
explained the various portions of the project contained in the four Phases, Mayor
Farley asked the Committee if there was consensus on whether the Village should
proceed with these projects.
There was a consensus by the Committee to proceed with various flood control
projects totalling approximately $14.4 million subject to obtaining adequate funding
and doing additional research as required.
Village Manager Dixon recommended holding off on the Des Plaines River work
because this work is considered the number one priority by the Army Corps of
Engineers and there may be an opportunity for Federal funding. Also, he
recommended holding off on almost $6 million of the improvements in the Weller
Creek channel because he would like to explore possibilities of working with
Arlington Heights and the State on this project. The Committee agreed with
these recommendations. It must be noted that Trustee Van Geern strenuously
disagreed with the approval of these projects in concept without a cost -benefit
analysis being performed.
The following projects were approved by the Committee in concept and represent
approximately $14.4 million in repairs:
In Phase 1, Central/Wa-Pella project has already been authorized for design. The
Prospect Manor/North Main project and the backwater control system by the Des
Plaines River were also approved in concept.
In Phase II, the See-Gwen/Golf project, the Weller Creek projects totalling
approximately $400,000 including the Main Street Bridge, the Emerson Street
Bridge, the realignment of the Creek at Elmhurst and the erosion control behind
Crumley Basin were included. Also approved in concept in Phase 11 was the
Fairview Gardens project.
In Phase 111, the See-Gwun/Milburn project, the Haden Heights project, the
Clearwater flooding project and the Stevenson/Thayer project were approved in
concept.
In Phase IV, the Catalpa/Birch project was approved in concept.
Mr. Patchett indicated that all of the projects recommended by RJN Associates
are stand-alone projects and will not have an adverse impact on other properties
within the Village.
The Committee also authorized the staff to proceed with discussions with District
57 regarding the possibility of detention at Lincoln School.
Finance Director Dave Jepson noted that a one-quarter percent Sales Tax would
bring in approximately $1,050,000 in a year and this would support approximately
a $13 million Bond Issue. He said he will provide a report, hopefully next week,
to firm up the figures.
Public Works Director Herb Weeks said there may be areas in town which
experience flooding. He noted the proposed projects should provide a ripple
effect for other flooding areas in the Village.
Randy Patchett, of RJN Associates, agreed this project should benefit other areas
of the town.
The Committee complimented Mr. Patchett for an excellent job inhisknowledge
of the subject.
Trustee Van Geem also commended RJN Associates but said he cannot support
any work without an economic analysis with the exception of the Central/Wa-
Pella project.
VI. MANAGER'S RE—PO
There was no Village Manager's Report.
VU. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
There was no further discussion to come before the Committee of the Whole.
The meeting adjourned at 10:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
9-01p, ep -
JOHN P. BURG
Assistant Village Manager
JPB/rcw
Village of Mtjulnt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 18, 1991
SUBJECT: FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT - FINANCING
Staff has sat down and come up with a new proposed implementation schedule for the
Stormwater Management Projects. You will note that we have five different Phases
starting in 1991 through 1997. We have moved the Central/Wa-Pella and Prospect/North
Main Projects into Phase II since they are eligible for the IEPA Loan Program. I feel
that the IEPA Loan Program is an integral part of keeping the cost down for Stormwater
Management Projects that we may undertake.
As you can see from the Chart, approximately two-thirds of the Project can be eligible
for the Loans and we feel that should be taken advantage of. The reduction in interest
lowers the payment on a Bond Issue by approximately 25% for the life of the Bond.
In the attached memorandum from the Finance Director, he outlines several scenarios
we have been discussing over the last couple of weeks. It is clear that the amount
collected from one-quarter percent Sales Tax is more than is needed to do the Flood
Control Projects. That amount is shown is Schedule I.
It is also important to note that in Schedules 2 and 3, we show a reduction of the Food
and Beverage Tax by the equivalent one-quarter percent Sales Tax. I would advise the
Board against reducing a Tax that is already in place particularly because the Food and
Beverage Tax money is anticipated to be needed to balance the General Fund and if
monies are reduced from General Fund sources, there needs to be a replacement
somewhere along the line with that amount of money.
Schedule 4 utilizes the technique of a Project Area User Charge. This would be based
on a maximum of $5.00 per month, or $60.00 per year, for people who contribute to the
problem or are directly affected. You will recall that RJN put some charts for
Central/Wa-Pella; for example. The people that would pay in this instance would be all
of those properties north of Central Avenue whose water runs towards the 25 affected
homes. Those 25 households would also pay, however, households South of the
immediately affected flooded area, while they derive some benefit, would not be paying.
This reduces the number of people that would have to contribute to the Project Area
User Charge significantly. It would still be possible for us to reduce the payments for
those commercial and other zoned property that have retention or detention on their
property. We would still recommend that we reduce their payment by as much as three-
quarters. While the collection of the User Fee is a concern, there will be some people,
I am sure, in every instance that may object to it, however, I feel it is fair to assess
those people who are getting direct benefits. Many of the people have spoken before
the Board who receive flood waters on a regular basis and have indicated they would be
willing to pay some monies for relief.
At $60.00 per year, over a 20 -year Bond Issue, the total amount they would pay for a
single-family residence, would be $1,200 significantly less than would be the amount one
would pay for overhead sewers for "ample or other major modifications to their internal
plumbing system. This amount is also less than, I am told, the premium would be for
Flood Insurance.
In addition, I believe no matter which plan is accepted that there be a reimbursement
program available for people in all areas of the Village who may wish to contribute to
some kind of stormwater management on their own proper -ties whether it be overhead
sewers or standpipes, construction of retention or detention basins, etc. I think this
would have to be an integral part of any of the programs.
I would recommend that the Board seriously consider the concept outlined in Schedule 4.
The Funds that are available over and above the amounts needed for the Stormwater
Management Projects be directed to other usage by the Village Board and I would
strongly urge that this be in the Capital Improvement Budget.
JOHN FULTO�DIX\O�
JFD/rcw
attachment
3rd revision
1-17-91
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Project Projected Capital Cost ($ millions)
Eligible for Not Eligible
IEPA Loan for IEPA Loan
Phase 1 (1991-1992)
Des Plaines River Backflow cont.
0.10
Stevenson/Thayer Flooding Area
1.30
1.40
Phase 11 (1992-1994)
Central/Wa-Pella Flooding Area
1.11
-
Prospect Manor/North Main
Flooding Area
4.95
6.06
Phase 111 (1994-1995)
Fairview Gardens Sanitary Area
1.47
Hatlen Heights Sanitary Area
0.76
-
Hatlen Heights Flooding Area
-
0.88
2.23
0.88
Phase IV (1995-1996)
See-Gwun/Milburn Flooding Area
-
1.65
See-Gwen/Golf Flooding Area
0.69
-
See-Gwen/Milburn Sanitary Area
0.38
-
1.07
1.65
Phase V (1996-1997)
Catalpa/Birch Flooding Area
-
0.24
Weller Creek Erosion Control
-
0.15
Clearwater Flooding Area
-
0.60
melas Park/Crumley Detention
Basins Erosion Control
-
0.05
1.04
TOTALS
$9.36
$4.97
TOTAL PROJECTED CAPITAL COST ($ MILLION)
ELIGIBLE PLUS NOT ELIGIBLE . . . . $14.33
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
DEFERRED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
Project
Phase VI
Weller Creek
Study Area
Des Plaines River
Drainage Area
Projected
Capital Cost
Type ($ Million)
Erosion Control 5.93
Bridge Work
Army Corps - Levee 2.45
Federal Funding
Local Improvements
Separate Storms
TOTAL $8.38
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director,�,,
DATE: January 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Flood Control Projects Financing Plans
At the special Committee of the Whole meeting on Saturday, December 29, 1990, the
Village Board made a determination to finance an estimated $14 million in flood
control projects with an additional 1/4¢ sales tax. The decision was reached after
a long and difficult discussion regarding the revenue sources that could be used for
these projects and the funding of general Village operations. It was a difficult
decision. With the exception of the JAWA Lake Michigan Water Project, the flood
control project is the single largest project the Village has undertaken. When the
project is completed, the debt service requirements will be in excess of $1.3 million
per year for approximately 20 years.
During the discussion there were a number of questions and suggestions raised that
I indicated we would respond to when the information became available. Following is
a summary of the items that were raised:
1, The Village should devise some method to provide an incentive to non-
residential properties to install detention.
L Property owners who receive a benefit from the improvement should pay a
portion of the cost of the improvement.
3. The Food and Beverage Tax should be reduced by 1/4g if the additional
sales tax is added.
4. One-third of the project costs should be paid by property taxes.
5. Certain phases of the proposed project should be deferred at this time,
thus reducing the total cost of the projects to approximately $14 million.
Some of the issues raised would adversely affect funding of general Village operations
and some of the positions originally expressed changed during the course of the
discussion. The answer to item 5 was resolved at the Committee of the Whole meeting
on January 8, 1991 when the Board agreed to a reduced list of projects. Also
subsequent to that meeting, RJN provided a list of the projects that should be
eligible for funding from the IEPA Loan Fund and which projects would require
conventional financing.
John Fulton Dixon
January 16, 1991
Flood Control Projects Financing Plans
The balance of this report is a summary of the information used to determine the
effect of these issues on an acceptable financing plan and to try to respond to some
of the questions raised.
Additional Sales Tax - The Village can add sales tax in increments of 1/4
cent which will be collected by the State of Illinois. The Village must
pass an ordinance and the tax would then become effective on September 1,
1991, Food, drugs and vehicles are exempted from this tax by State
Statute. For the seven month period of 9/1/91 - 4/30/92 the tax should
produce $640,500, and using an assumed 38 annual increase, the tax would
total $11,810,675 over a ten year period.
Currently, the following area communities have adopted an additional sales
tax; Aurora 112g, Chicago 1¢, Hoffman Estates 1/4¢, Rolling Meadows I-
1/4¢, Schaumburg 1/2¢, West Dundee 112g. (Hoffman Estates has passed an
ordinance to increase their tax to 112g as of 9/1/91). Attached is a
schedule of all municipalities throughout the state that have added an
additional sales tax.
Flood Proiects Debt Service is - A revised implementation schedule
prepared by RJN and Herb Weeks shows a total of $9.36 million that would
be eligible for the IEPA Loan Fund and $4.97 million that would require
conventional municipal financing. The revised schedule shows these
projects being completed over the six year period of 91/92 - 96/97. Using
an interest rate assumption of 3.758 for the IEPA eligible loans and 7.58
for the conventional loans, the total annual debt service for all loans
would be $1,161,100. The total for the ten year period of 1991/1992 -
2000/2001 would be $8,753,075.
If we assume that the estimated project costs would increase at an annual
rate of 58, the estimated costs of the projects financed from the IEPA
Loan Fund would increase to $10.24 million and the projects financed
conventionally would increase to $5.76 million. The annual debt service
requirement when all the projects were initiated would be $1,301,880 and
the ten year total would be $9,673,030.
Reduce Food and Beverage, Tax ay 114V, - Current Food and Beverage Tax
receipts amount to $550,000 annually. If the amount is reduced 1/4¢, it
would reduce General Fund revenues for the seven month period of 9/1/91 -
4/30/92 by $82,500 and over the ten year period of 1991/1992 - 2000/2001
the reduction would total $1,521,250. If the Food and Beverage Tax is
reduced, I assume that an equal amount of the 1/4¢ sales tax would be
transferred to the General Fund to offset this loss.
John Fulton Dixon
January 16, 1991
Flood Control Projects Financing Plans
Use Proveg,ty Taxes for 113 of the Froject Cost - Using property taxes to
fund 1/3 of the project cost would result in a tax levy of $45,775 in 1991
and $433,960 when the projects are completed. The levy would require an
additional tax rate of .6� in 1991 and approximately 5.5¢ when the
projects are completed.
The tax levy would eventually amount to an additional $13.75 per year for
all residential properties in the Village, $365 for 500 West Central, and
$228 for 604 West Central (Hines Lumber Company).
Incentives to Non -Residential Progerties to Provide Dete nti 2n - Trustee
Corcoran suggested that the Village provide some type of incentive for
properties to install detention including businesses, churches and
schools. Des Plaines is currently using an incentive program for
residential properties to correct plumbing problems that will mitigate
sewer back-up and other flooding problems. Their program provides for a
208 reimbursement up to a maximum of $1,000. During the first year they
had 143 properties participating at an average Cost to the Village of $650
per home ($93,000). Possibly a similar program (208 reimbursement) could
be offered to non-residential properties in the Village. It is difficult
to know whether a program of this type would be enough of an incentive for
non-residential properties. However, if it was successful it could be a
cost-effective way to help resolve the flooding problem.
A reimbursement is a positive incentive. A charge to properties
contributing to the flooding could also be an incentive to do something
to reduce the charge. This would also address the equity principle (those
who are responsible for the problem help to pay for the correction of the
problem) which was one of the factors that made a project user charge
appealing to the Finance Commission.
I discussed the possibility of a project area user charge that would only
apply to non-residential properties with Sheila Berry of Pedersen & Houpt.
Her opinion was that we could not apply a charge to only non-residential
properties.
A modest project area user charge based upon equivalent residential units
(ERU) and which included a credit of 758 for detention would put some
additional pressure on the non-residential properties. For example, a
$5.00 per month charge would result in an annual charge of $60 for a
residential property, $141 for 500 West Central (with a detention credit) ,
and $1,368 for 604 West Central (Hines Lumber Company).
Project Area Use Charge - There was a strong expression from the Finance
Commissioners that the properties who contribute to the need for an
improvement along with those who benefit from an improvement should pay
for the improvement. Some of the Village Board also supported this
John Fulton Dixon
January 16, 1991
Flood Control Projects Financing Plans
position with a modification to include a portion for public benefit.
Trustees Floros and Van Geem at one point in the discussion supported a
508 public benefit.
A 508 public benefit still amounts to a user charge to all properties in
the project area of an estimated $10 per month for the Central/WaPella
area and $9.25 per month for the North Main/Prospect Manor area. Also,
there was concern expressed over the potential problems of collecting the
user charge from the properties who had not experienced flooding problems.
If a project area user charge would be charged only to the properties that
either contributed to the problem or directly benefitted from the
improvement and a maximum charge of $10 per month per ERU was adopted, we
would collect an estimated $160,000 per year. If we charged all of the
properties in the project area a maximum of $5.00 per month per ERU, it
would generate an estimated $240,000 per year.
To show the effect of these various circumstances, I have prepared four schedules
which record the estimated cash flows for the 1991/92 - 2000/2001 fiscal years.
Schedule 1 shows the Additional Sales Tax Receipts and the Flood Projects
Debt Service. Over the ten year period a surplus of $2,137,645 should be
realized.
Schedule 2 shows the Additional Sales Tax Receipts, a Reduced Food and
Beverage Tax and the Flood Projects Debt Service. Over the ten year
period a surplus of $616,395 should be realized.
Schedule 3 is the same as schedule 2 except that Property Tax Receipts
have been added. A surplus of $3,840,735 should be realized over the ten
year period.
Schedule 4 shows the Additional Sales Tax Receipts, a Project Area User
Charge, and the Flood Projects Debt Service. Over the ten year period a
surplus of $4,026,265 should be realized.
From these schedules it can be seen that there are several workable plans that would
each cover the estimated $16.0 million in flood projects. Additionally, for Options
1, 3, and 4 there is a sizeable surplus. These amounts could be used to reduce the
length of the bond issues or could be used for other Village purposes.
DCJ/sm
Enc
4
Schedule 1
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Flood Control Projects Financing
Additional Sales Tax
1991/1992 - 2000/2001
(1) Assumes annual increase of 3%.
(2) Debt service based upon $10.24 million @ 3.75%, $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with
a 20 year level payment.
(3) 91/92 fiscal year includes period of 9/1/91 - 4/30/92.
Additional
Flood Projects
Fiscal
Sales Tax
Annual
Year
Regeints (1)
Debt Service (2)
Balance
91/92 (3)
$ 640,500
$< 137,325>
$ 503,175
92/93
1,099,525
< 379,125>
720,400
93/94
1,132,500
< 595,025>
537,475
94/95
1,166,475
< 880,725>
285,750
95/96
1,201,475
<1,171,430>
30,045
96/97
1,237,525
<1,301,880>
< 64,355>
97/98
1,274,650
<1,301,880>
< 27,230>
98/99
1,312,900
<1,301,880>
11,020
99/2000
1,352,275
<1,301,880>
50,395
2000/2001
1,392854
�1,30].880>
90,970
Totals
$11310, 675
$<9,6M230
$2,137,645
(1) Assumes annual increase of 3%.
(2) Debt service based upon $10.24 million @ 3.75%, $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with
a 20 year level payment.
(3) 91/92 fiscal year includes period of 9/1/91 - 4/30/92.
Schedule 2
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Flood Control Projects Financing
Additional Sales Tax and Reduced Food & Beverage Tax
1991/1992 - 2000/2001
(1) Assumes annual increase of 3%.
(2) Debt service based upon $10.24 million @ 3.75%, $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with a 20 year
level payment.
(3) 91/92 fiscal year includes period of 9/1/91 - 4/30/92.
Additional
Reduced
Flood Projects
Fiscal
Sales Tax
Food & Beverage
Available
Annual
Year
Receipts (1)
. . . .........
Tax (1)
Balance
Debt Servic (2)
Balance
91/92 (3)
$ 640,500
$<
82,500>
$ 558,000
$< 137,325>
$420,675
92/93
1,099,525
<
141,625>
957,900
< 379,125>
578,775
93/94
1,132,500
<
145,875>
986,625
< 595,025>
391,600
94/95
1,166,475
<
150,250>
1,016,225
< 880,725>
135,500
95/96
1,201,475
<
154,750>
1,046,725
<1,171,430>
<124,705>
96/97
1,237,525
<
159,400>
1,078,125
<1,301,880>
<223,755>
97/98
1,274,650
<
164,175>
1,110,47.5
<1,301,880>
<191,405>
98/99
1,312,900
<
169,100>
1,143,800
<1,301,880>
<158,080>
99/2000
1,352,275
<
174,175>
1,178,100
<1,301,880>
<123,780>
2000/20011,392,850
<
179,400>
1,213.450
<1,301.880
< 88,430>
$11J1.M75;
$<L521 250>
$10,289,425
S<9,673,030>
$616,395
(1) Assumes annual increase of 3%.
(2) Debt service based upon $10.24 million @ 3.75%, $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with a 20 year
level payment.
(3) 91/92 fiscal year includes period of 9/1/91 - 4/30/92.
Schedule 3
vILIAGooFMOUNT PROSPECT
Flood Control Projects Financing
Additional Sales rax' u*au,ru Fuua & Beverage Tax and Property Tux
1991/199e - oouo/xouz
(z) Assumes annual increase or3%.
(u) Property tax receipts equal 1/3 of annual uaot service coats.
(]) Debt service based upon $10.24 million @ 3.75w. $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with a zV year
level payment.
<4> 9I/92 fiscal year ionluuwa period of V/l/el ' 4/30/92.
Additional
Reduced
Property
Flood Projects
Fiscal
Sales rax
rnuu a Beverage
Tax
Available
Annual
Xpur
Receipts (1)
Tax (1)
Receipts(2)
Balance
Debt Service(3)
§alance
91/92(4)
$ 640.500
$<
82.500> $
45.775
$ 603.775
$< 137.325>
$ 466.450
92/93
1.099.525
<
14I.625>
126.375
1.084.275
< 979.125>
,oz.zuo
93/94
1.132.500
<
I45'875>
198.340
1'184.965
< 595.025>
589.940
94/95
1./66'475
«
150.250'
293.575
I.909'800
< 880.725»
429.0/5
95/96
1.201.475
<
I54.750»
390.475
1.437.200
<1.171.430>
265.770
96/97
1.237.525
<
159.400>
433.**0
1.512.085
<1.30I'880>
210.205
97/98
1.274.650
<
164.175>
433.960
1.544.435
<1.30I.880»
242.555
98/99
1.3I2.900
<
169.100»
433.960
1.577.760
<I.»nz.ouo»
275.880
99/2000
1.352.275
<
I74.I75>
433.*60
1.612.060
^2.30I'880>
310'180
2800/2001
_-I~392,I50
_<_1Z8,l00
433^960
__1.647�410
345~530
$1131M75
�1.521,250 J3.224340
$lL513.765
13�0,735
(z) Assumes annual increase or3%.
(u) Property tax receipts equal 1/3 of annual uaot service coats.
(]) Debt service based upon $10.24 million @ 3.75w. $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with a zV year
level payment.
<4> 9I/92 fiscal year ionluuwa period of V/l/el ' 4/30/92.
Schedule 4
VILLAGE OF Monmc pmOSpEur
Flood Control Projects Financing
Additional ouzos Tax and Project.Area User uuuroe
1991/1992 ' 2$$0/2001
(l) Assumes annual increase of lw.
(2) User charge based upon maximum of $5.00 per month for an estimated 4.000 equivalent
residential unit.
(3) Debt service based upon $10.24 miIImo @ 3.75%. $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with a 20 year
level payment.
(4) 91/92 fiscal year includes period of 9/1/9I - 4/30/92.
Additional
Project
Flood Projects
Fiscal
Sales Tax
Area
uvazauze
Annual
Year
Receipts (1)
Ugp,,r Charge (2)
Balance
Debt Service(3)
Balance
*1/92 (4)
$ 640.500
$ 24.000
$ 664.500
$« 137.325>
$ 527.175
92/99
1.099.525
127.860
1.227.385
< 379.125»
848.260
93/94
1.132.500
I27.860
1.260'360
< 595.025>
665.335
94/95
1.166'475
181.140
1'347.615
< 880.725>
*66.890
95/96
I.201.475
227./60
1.429.235
<1.171'430`
257.805
96/97
1.237.525
240.000
1.477.525
<1.301.880>
175.*45
97/98
1.2/4.650
240.000
1.514.650
x1.301'880>
212.770
98/99
1.3I2.900
240.000
1.552.900
<1.30I.080»
25I.020
99/2000
1.352.275
e40.000
1.592.275
<1.301.880>
2e0.395
z000/cooc
_1^392350
240,000
1,j632^850
_<1.301.880
33U0,970
SlJJM675
$ JAW620
�3,699�5,
��73,030
��6,�65
(l) Assumes annual increase of lw.
(2) User charge based upon maximum of $5.00 per month for an estimated 4.000 equivalent
residential unit.
(3) Debt service based upon $10.24 miIImo @ 3.75%. $5.76 million @ 7.5%, with a 20 year
level payment.
(4) 91/92 fiscal year includes period of 9/1/9I - 4/30/92.
Home Rule Sales Tax Rates
The following chart outlines the tax rates for each of the 32 home rule municipalities in Illinois that impose sales tax You will
find the "new" ST -1 combined rate preprinted on your Form ST -1 for each reporting period.
"New" ST."1
ST-1 Rate
Home Rule Rate
Combined Rate
Before 9/1/90
Effective 9/1/90
Effective 911190
Alton
General merchandise
6.5%
5%
7°'o
Food and drugs'
125%
Exempt
1.25%
Aurora
General merchandise
65%
5%
7%
Food and drugs
1.25%
Exempt
1,25%
Belleville
General merchandise
6.5%
25%
6.75%
Food and drugs'
1.25%
25%
1.5%
Bloomington
General merchandise
6.25%
5%
6.75%
Food and drugs'
1%
5%
1.5%
Burnham
General merchandise
7%
1%
8%
Food and drugs'
2%
Exempt
2%
Calumet City
General merchandise
7%
5%
7 5%
Food and drugs'
2%
Exempt
2 %
Champaign
General merchandise
6,25%
1%
7.25%
Food and drugs*
1%
Exempt
I%
Chicago.
General merchandise
7%
1%
8%
Food and drugs*
2%
Exempt
2%
Cicero
General merchandise
7%
1%
8%
Food and drugs'
2%
1%
3%
Danville
General merchandise
6.25%
1%
7.25%
Food and drugs'
1%
Exempt
1%
Decatur
General mercnandise
6.25%
1%
7.25%
Food and drugs'
1%
Exempt
1%
De Kalb
General merchandise
6.25%
75%
7%
Food and drugs*
1%
75%
1.75%
Elmwood Park
General merchandise
7%
1%
8%
Food and drugs*
2%
1%
3%
Galesburg
General merchandise
615%
.75%
7%
Food and drugs"
1%
Exempt
1%
Granite City
General merchandise
6.5%
75%
7.25%
Food and drugs'
1.25%
75%
2%
Hoffman Estates
General merchandise
7%
25%
7.25%
Food and drugs
2
25%
2.25°4
Joliet
General merchandise
6.5%
75%
7,25%
Food and drugs'
1.25%
75%
2%
Raters to quallfPng food.drugs. and medical appliances to be laxed at the -low" rate
(as contrasted with the -high" rate on food to,
'od , which s taxed at the same rate as general merchandise)
mediate consumpt,on, such as restaurant fo
'New" ST -I
Home Rule Rate
Combined Rate
Effective 911190
ST -1 Rate
Effective 911/90
Before 9/1/90
7 25%
Kankakee
General merchandise
6.25%
1%
1%
2%
Food and drugs*
1%
6.75%
Moline6.25%
General merchandise
5%
5%
1.5%
Food and drugs*
1%
Mount Vernon6.25%
75%
75%
7%
1.75%
General merchandise
117.
Food and drugs'
635%
Normal
General merchandise
6.25%
5%
5%
1,5%
Food and drugs'
1%
8%
Norridge7%
General merchandise
1%
3%
Food and drugs'
2%
T25%
Peoria
General merchandise
6.25%
%
Exempt
1 %
Food and drugs*
1%
Quincy
General merchandise
6.25%
75%
75%
7%
1.75%
Food and drugs*
1%
8.25%
Rolling Meadows
7%
1. 25%
1.25%
3.25%
General merchandise
2%
Food and drugs*
8%
Rosemont3%
General merchandise
7%
1%
Food and drugs*
2%
Schaumburg (Cook County)7%
.5%
7.5%
2%
General merchandise
2%
Exempt
Food and drugs*
Schaumburg (Du Page County)
6.5%
5%
7%
1,25%
General merchandise
1.25%
Exempt
Food and drugs*
7.25%
Sesser
General merchandise
6.25%
1%
1%
2%
Food and drugs*
1%
1%
7.25%
Springfield
General merchandise
6.25%1%
Exempt
Food and drugs*
1%
Stone Park
General merchandise
7%
1%
Exempt
8%
2%
Food and drugs'
2%
7.25 �'-
Urbana
General merchandise
6.25%
1%
Exempt
1%
Food and drugs'
1%
7%
West Dundee5%
General merchandise
6.5%
Exempt
125'�
1-25%
Food and drugs'
Raters to quallfPng food.drugs. and medical appliances to be laxed at the -low" rate
(as contrasted with the -high" rate on food to,
'od , which s taxed at the same rate as general merchandise)
mediate consumpt,on, such as restaurant fo
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 18, 1991
SUBJECT: STREET LIGHTING
The Village specifies mercury vapor street lights for residential and high-pressure sodium
lights for commercial and industrial. Mercury vapor provides a white light and high-
pressure sodium provides a yellow/orange light.
Throughout the community, there are 897 lights on wooden poles owned by
Commonwealth Edison for which the Village pays a monthly charge. Ninety-nine percent
of these are mercury vapor lights. Most of the Edison lights are residential and must
be mercury vapor by Village specifications. The annual cost for these lights is $87,600
which translates to $97.66 each per year or $8.14 per month.
The Village owns 414 street lights (including poles) plus an additional 23 street light
fixtures. Of these 437 lights, 123 are mercury vapor and 314 are high-pressure sodium.
Most of the Village -owned lights are on a flat rate based on the wattage and average
monthly hours of operation. Even if all the Village -owned mercury vapor lights were
converted to high-pressure sodium, the Village would save less than $1,000 per year.
However, the mercury vapor lights are mostly in residential areas per Village
specifications. High-pressure sodium lights are slightly more cost-effective when originally
installed or retrofitted and it would make sense to install high-pressure sodium lights
where appropriate and when the need arises.
As the attached Street Light List from Public Works indicates, the typical pole and light
assemblies including cobra and box lights range from $1,100 to $1,480. Another $12
would be added for the electric eye and anywhere from $5.35 to $43.41 would be added
for light bulbs. A typical new installation by a contractor including the concrete base,
electrical and labor would be about $3,500 or more. This original cost, of course„ would
be carried by the developer if appropriate. A typical knockdown requiring total
replacement of the pole and light by the village would cost about $3,000.
Incidentally, the cobra lights can be aimed to restrict the light to any given area including
only the street from curb to curb. The box lights have the same versatility. The cobra
head and box lights are comparably priced.
*�"' IT'
JOHN P. BURG
JPB/rcw
attachment
Location
Height
Arm
Type of
Light
Cost of
Pole
Cost of
Head
Amount
On
Hand
N.W. Highway
Q.
8'x10'
400 HIPS
$1200
$280
20
2
N.W. Highway
40'
I0'x10'
400 HPS
$1200
$280
50
2
Rts. 12 & 83
K),
15,
400 HPS
$1200
$280
5
-
Dempster/Algonquin 40,
15'
400 HPS
$1200
$280
6
S -Curve
27'
10,
400 Merc
$980
$300
27
2
Alter Prop.
W,
15'
400 HIPS
$1100
$280
19
-
Imperial Ct.
30'
is,
400 HPS
$1100
$280
1
Carboy
30'
15,
400 HPS
$1100
$280
1
Maple St. Lot
33'
Top of Pole Ht.
1000 HIPS
$1600
$496
6
Maple St. Lot
33'
Top of Pole Ht.
2-400 HIPS
$1600
$2135
1
Midway Dr.
30'
15,
400 Merc
$1000
$280
2
Lonnquist/83
30'
15'
250 Merc
$1000
$250
1
Rand/Central
35'
15,
400 HPS
$1100
$280
.33
2
Rand/Central
35'
15'
250 HPS
$1100
$280
6
Rand/Central
35'
15,
400 HIPS
$1200
$280
9
Central (Rand to Wolf)
35'
15'
400 HIPS
$1200
$280
9
(Not yet Installed - under construction)
Brentwood
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
$260
16
1
Harvest Homes
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
14
Ct. Kennicott
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
4
Bonita Ct.
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Frediani
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Linneman Rd.
25'
15-
250 Merc
$1100
260
4
17 N. Elmhurst
25'
15.
250 Merc
$1100
260
1
Elm/Evergreen/
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
4
School
Craig Ct•
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Bobby Ln.
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
3
Weller Ln.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
1
Crist Ct.
25'
is,
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
St. Cecilia
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
3
Noah Tr.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
5
Pendergast
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
1
Eastman Ct.
25'
is,
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Tree Farm
25'
is,
250 Merc
$1100
260
11
Prospect Ave.
is,
Lantern
50 HIPS
$850 (Complete)
15
Prospect Ave,
30'
Top of pole 150/250 HIPS
$1100
$280
14
Emerson
25'
6"
250 HIPS
$1100
$280
4
Busse
25'
6-
250 HPS
$1100
$280
7
Wille
25'
6"
250 HPS
$1100
$280
5
Busse
15'
Top of pole
250 Mer
$1100
$280
1
Busse
12'
Top of pole
175 Mer
$1100
$280
1
Centennial Dr.
15,
Top of pole
70 HIPS
$900
$200
3
Centennial Dr,
15'
Top of pole
70 HPS
$900
$200
2
OPUS
30,
10,
250 HIPS
$1000
$280
16
1
OPUS
30'
10"
400 HPS
$1000
$280
38
-
Jogging Path
is,
6-
150 HPS
$900
$250
19
Wolf Rd. (Central toEuclid) - 9 light poles not yet
installed (under
construction),
407 light poles (includes 18 under construction)
all village owned/maintained.
10 light poles in stock.
$11,050 original purchase Cost of poles in stock inventory.
8 different heights of poles; some can be substituted If base template is identical or a adapter
plate is available.
Several different manufacturers models, and composition.
10/8/90
6PCOSERIES 30 POLES
TRUSS -STYLE ARMS
Allbrockets have 2" N.P.S.
Slip fitters unless otherwise
specified.
Wall Thickness:.188 inch in every
shaft except where otharwise
sto fed.
'Wolf Thickncssr .219 inch.
**Wall Thickness: .250 inch.
.and
hale included in above
.at
numbers. Center of hand
hole 18" from ground.
}Luminaire Effective Projected Area
based on 80 mph wind velocity.
For 90 and 100 mph wind velocity,
see Application Recommendations.
_._.._ -T
SERIES 31 PLAIN BASE (Single Arm)
SERIES 32 PLAIN BASE (Twin Arm)
CALL OR WRITE FOR DETAILS ON 45' AND 50' MOUNTING HEIGHTS
30-1
MATERIAL
1. Shafts are one section design fabricated from a
weldable grade carbon steel structural tubing with a
uniform wall thickness. Material shall conform to
ASTM A-500 grade B with a minimum yield strength
of 46,000 P.S.I.
2. Base Plates are constructed of a structural quality
hot rolled carbon steel plate with a guaranteed mini-
mum yield strength of 36,000 P.S.I.
3. Anchor bolts are "L" bent bars having a minimum
yield strength of 50,000 P.S.I. furnished complete
with nuts and washers. Anchor bolt are galvanized
on threaded end.
FINISH
Poles are finished with a red oxide primer paint.
GENERAL
All poles have a reinforced handhole opening complete
with cover and grounding nut located 14" above the
base plate.
Consult factory regarding your product modifications
and any other requirements.
2"" (2,3/8" 0 D
BC
�.- 7-
o y s
A_ 4
A
P TTc
Ir.....
l ANCHOR BOLT
L w
14'°
c
Mfg. HL
(FL}A
Catalog
No. 1
Shaft
Size
Bap
Size
pn.}S
Bolt
Circle
on.) BC
Anchor
Bolt Size
(In.) pia, x Lgth.
EPA
Shipping
WL (Lba.)
10
RPSO.10.4
4" x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.0.10.0
.75 x 28
22.5
96
12
RPSQ-12.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.0.10.0
.75 x 28
18.6
108
14
RPSO.14.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.0.10.0
.75 x 28
14.5
120
16
RPSQ-16.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
13.0
132
18
RPSQ•18.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 26
9.8
144
20
RPSO-20.4.11
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
7.0
156
20
APSO.20.4
4' x 4' x 7ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
12.0
222
20
RPSO-205
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.5-11.5
1 x 40
22.6
304
24
RPSO-24-4
4' x 4' x 7ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
7.2
259
24
RPSO.24-5
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.5.11.5
1 x 40
14.9
351
24
RPSO-24.6
6' x 6' x 7ga
.2.0
11.012.0
1 x 40
24.5
416
30
RPSO 30.5
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.5.11.5
1 x 40
10.6
422
30
RPSO.W
6' x 6' x 7ga
12.0
11.012.0
1 x 40
17.8
503
35
RPSO35-5
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.511.5
1 x 40
4.9
490
35
RPSa364
6' x 6' x 7ga
12.0
11.012.0
1 x 40
9.5
575
39
RPSO W
6' x 6' x 7ga
12.0
11.012.0
1 x 40
8.4
633
C0��
OVM200-400 WATT
SWING-DOWN ROADWAY LIGHTING
OVM Roadway fixtures with removable "Swing -
Down Power Bridge" assembly provide the most
desired features of a two -door fixture, neatly
packaged in a single -door unit. It permits removal
of the ballast power package, reducing fixture weight
at installation time, and presenting a "wide open"
housing for ease of installation and wiring. Its ease
of removal means reduced maintenance time in the
event replacement is necessary and it offers a simple
way to upgrade from one wattage to another as traffic
or application needs change.
Design Features
• Swing -Down Ballast Assembly—Ballast, capacitor
and starter are mounted on a hinged bridge
assembly held in place with an easily -removed
wingnut. Unit features a removable power pack
with power disconnect, and no tools are required
for removal or replacement.
• Die -Cast Aluminum Housing—Consists of a top
housing and a hinged, one-piece globe ring/access
door.
• Die -Cast Two -Position Latch -2 -position safety
latch is specially designed to be opened with the
gloved hand.
• Filtered Optical System—A dacron-polyester,
non -wicking, filtering gasket is positively held in
place on the reflector.
How to Specify: Roadway fixture is to be constructed of a die-cast
aluminum upper housing and a one-piece bottom door/globe ring,
hinged at the back and latched on the street side with a die-cast
aluminum 2 -position latch.
The fixture shall attach to either a 1 %" or 2" mast arm with a 4 -bolt,
2 -bracket mounting arrangement that will provide ease in leveling
with positive holding against severe impact or vibration.
A factory -installed birdguard shall fit snugly around either a 1 Y.
or 2" mounting tenon.
The optical system shall be sealed with a non -wicking, breathing
and filtering gasket of dacron-polyester, die -cut and overlaid
to eliminate voids that occur with butt -joining. Gaskets to be
L 16 Wr
• Removable Refractor—The OVM refractor is
prismed borosilicate glass and can be easily
removed for cleaning without tools. Polycarbonate
refractors are available as an option.
• Four-bolt/Two-bracket Slipfitter—An enclosed
slipfitter with 2 non -corrosive brackets and a 4 -bolt
mounting assembly provides positive attachment
and easy leveling on 1 %" or 2" mounting arms.
• Fixed -in-place Birdguard—A factory -installed
plastic birdguard fits tightly around the 1 X" or 2"
mounting arm. It is designed to keep out wasps as
well as birds.
• Floating Anodized Aluminum Reflector—The
reflector is hydroformed of high quality reflector
aluminum and anodized to provide ease of cleaning
and continued performance. The reflector is spring -
mounted and "floats" into a sealed position as the
door is closed.
• Encapsulated Starters—The critical components
of the High Pressure Sodium starter are safely
encapsulated in an epoxy compound protecting
them from mechanical and environmental abuse.
• Porcelain Terminal Block—The low resistance
"tunnel -type" compression terminals are electro-
plated for use with either copper or aluminum
supply leads. These "tunnel -type" terminals are
mounted on a solid, glazed porcelain terminal
block which resists dirt accumulation and "voltage
tracking."
cemented full perimeter to the reflector seat with no metallic
clips or fasteners.
The unit shall be prewired to a porcelain terminal block with
"tunnel -type" compression terminals to accept incoming
supply lines.
The design shall provide an easily -removed ballast bridge
assembly, hinged for safety and held in place with hardware
requiring no tools for removal.
Photocontrol receptacles where required shall be provided with
a stop to prevent rotation beyond 3500 and shall be UL approved.
Starting aids where required shall be fully encapsulated to protect
the components against physical damage and attack by adverse
atmospheric conditions.
GIr�
SUCCESSOR
The RCL Series cutoff luminaire has been designed to meet new
or retrofit roadway and general off-street area lighting applications.
Combining aesthetics with durability and energy efficiency, the RCL
has a one-piece die-cast aluminum housing which ensures watertight
protection for the electrical components.
• Roadway distributions Type I, II & III medium cutoff available.
• True cutoff area lighting photometrics available -Suffix AC.
• Hinged, die-cast door encloses the gasketed reflector for a tight
fit and clean appearance.
• Utilizes a wide variety of HID lamp type and wattage combinations.
• Die-cast spring latches allow opening of the door without tools.
• Removable swing -down ballast assembly simplifies maintenance.
• Dark bronze enamel finish is standard.
a I h t S .t/ " G ti 2
ORDERING INFORMATION:
The following example illustrates the correct way to enter an order for an RCL fixture: RCL25SC73D.
LAMP
LAMP
1ST, 2ND & 3RD
4TH & 5TH DIGITS
6TH DIGIT=
7TH DIGIT= 8TH DIGIT=
9TH DIGIT=
10TH DIGIT=
DIGITS=
LAMP
LAMP
BALLAST VOLTAGE
PHOTOMETRIC
CUTOFF
PRODUCT FAMILY
WATTAGE
TYPE
TYPE
DISTRIBUTION
CLASSIFICATION
RCL
25=250 Watts
S=HPS
C=CW 7=277 Volts
3=Type III
D=Medium Cutoff
CATALOG
LAMP
LAMP
BALLAST
VOLTAGE' PHOTOMETRIC' INPUT
POWER
NET WT. SHIPPING
NUMBER
WATTAGE
TYPE
TYPE
DISTRIBUTION
WATTS
FACTOR
(LBS.)
VOLUME
RCL70SP23D3
70
HPS
HI REACT HPF
120
III MCO
97
H
31
RCL10SP23D3
100
HPS
HI REACT HPF
120
111 MCO
130
H
31
RCL15SP23D3
150
HPS
HI REACTHPF
120
III MCO
194
H
33
RCL20SC23D
200
HPS
CW
120
III MCO
250
H
38
Packed
RCL25SC23D
250
HPS
Cw
120
III MCO
300
H
38
1/ctn.
RCL31SC23D
310
HPS
CW
120
III MCO
370
H
44
1.65 cu. ft.
RCL40SC23D
400
HPS
CW
120
III MCO
465
H
46
RCL17MW23D
175
MET. HAL./MERC.
CWA
120
III MCO
215
H
32
RCL17RW23D
175
SUPER MET. HAL.
CWA
120
111 MCO
215
H
32
RCL25MW23D
250
MET. HAL./MERC.
CWA
120
111 MCO
295
H
34
RCL25RW23D
250
SUPER MET. HAL.
CWA
120
111 MCO
295
H
34
RCL40MW230
400
MET. HAL./MERC,
CWA
120
111 MCO
460
H
38
RCL40RW23D
400
SUPER MET. HAL.
CWA
120
111 MCO
460
H
38
1 -Other voltages available—Change 8TH DIGIT in catalog number to: 0=208, 4=240, 7=277, 8=480 volts.
N=Multi-tapped (wired at 277 volts).
2 -For Type I & II MCO distributions, change 9TH DIGIT to: 1=Type 1, 2=Type ll.
For area light cutoff distribution, change 9TH & 10TH DIGITS to AC (metal halide limited to tubular lamp only).
3 -Available in 120 -volt normal power factor reactor design—consult factory.
11
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
4 A- V-1
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1991
SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATIONS
In a survey of Home Occupation Regulations conducted by the Northwest Municipal
Conference in October, it was discovered that 19 of 23 communities responding allow
home occupations based upon performance standards in many cases es similar to what has
been recommended by the Zoning, Board of Appeals and staff. Six of the nineteen
communities charge a License Fee ranging from $25 to $50 annually. I discussed the fee
with Dave Jepson who felt that $25 would adequately cover our expenses.
If the Board approves a fee, I would recommend performing inspections only on an as -
needed or complaint basis.
JOHN P. BURG
JPB/rcw
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN P. BURG
FROM: EVERETTE M. HILL, JR., ESQ.
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1991
SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATIONS
Dave Clements and I have discussed on numerous occasions a "standards" approach
rather than an exclusionary approach to home occupations. I have also reviewed Dave's
memo to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals' Minutes with
respect to that issue.
From a legal standpoint, I concur wholeheartedly with Dave's approach.
An additional question has arisen as to whether or not the Village may license home
occupations, even if we do not provide formal mandatory periodic inspections of the
premises. Typically licensing fees must be related to some required performance on the
part of a municipality such as inspections. However, I believe that a reasonable license
fee may be justified even if formal inspections are not required of the premises on the
following basis:
1. It is an appropriate and reasonable exercise of municipal power to maintain
a list of all home occupations within the Village. This is significant for
Police and Fire purposes and also for tax purposes. There is a cost to the
Village associated with keeping such a list.
2. Even though there may not be formal inspections, there may be an
increased burden on the Village staff to make informal "drive-by" type of
inspections to assure that parking and signage standards are being observed.
3. It is reasonable to anticipate that from time to time, there will be
neighborhood complaints concerning specific home occupations and case by
case inspections may often be necessary to assure compliance with our
standards.
It is my opinion that a license fee based upon some reasonable estimate of what these
costs might be would be valid.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
EYERE-ft M(,MILL, JR., ESQ.
EMH/rcw
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER 4n( I
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DATE: DECEMBER 18,19"
SUBJECT: ZBA-96-A-90, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits, for your consideration, their recommendation on
three amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1. Amend Section 14.503.B. to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from
8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in all residential districts, and
add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain
performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602.
3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add
a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602.
The Zoning Board considered the amendments at their meeting of December 13, 1990. At
the meeting, David Clements, Director of Planning and Zoning, explained the purpose of
the proposed amendments as follows:
An earlier meeting time would allow the Zoning Board to handle more business at
the regular meetings and potentially avoid special meetings during busy months. It
would also reflect recent practice of the Zoning Board.
This would establish performance standards to regulate home occupations that
currently occur inconspicuously since the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance does not
allow them outright. Staff feels that many home-based businesses are compatible in
residential zoning districts provided they meet certain performance standards relative
to number of employees; signage display; noise; outside storage; traffic generation,
and other factors which could impact the neighborhood. Staff feels that measuring
the appropriateness of a business based on its impact is preferable to developing an
exhaustive list of permitted/excluded home occupations.
John Fulton Dixon
Page 2
Under current regulations, when physical improvements, such as a room addition, are
proposed on property consisting of more than one lot, but under single ownership,
the owner must consolidate the lots in order to get a building permit. This situation
usually occurs when two older, narrow lots have been developed as a single unit.
Staff does not feel that there is a public benefit to requiring lot consolidation in many
of these situations. The Plan Commission agrees that many lot consolidations are
unnecessary except in cases where easements or street dedications are required.
The proposed definition of "zoning lot" would recognize single tracts of land as
buildable units for zoning purposes (setbacks, number of buildings on a lot, etc.). A
zoning lot would not necessarily coincide exactly with one lot of record.
Also at the meeting, Janet Hansen of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, stated
support for Amendment 2 but suggested that one employee (nonfamily)be allowed for each
home occupation, rather than staffs suggestion that no, non -family members be employed
in home occupations. Tom McGovern of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission presented
testimony in favor of Amendment 3.
The Zoning Board discussed each amendment separately. They generally agreed that the
amendments, as proposed, should be approved, but suggested some changes to the home
occupation performance standards listed in the staff memo.
11
WHOM
[41W-11 [!�=(*R it U!m Ogg gme I I rg I L.-ji-71MO RKI Q 4=#QK4L%Q1 I lj# LOWW, M4 4 gjjjg;4rm�
Delete Item #3: "No mechanical or electrical equipment shall be used or stored
except such as permissible for domestic or household purposes."
2. To allow one non -family employee at a time, rather than a prohibition on any
employees.
mum
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 96-A-90
Hearing Date: December 13, 1990
PETITIONER*
Village of Mount Prospect
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
100 South Emerson
PUBLICATION DATE:
November 27, 1990
REQUEST:
Amend Section 14.503.B. to
change the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting time from 8:00
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Amend the
existing regulations for home
occupations in all residential
districts, and add standards to
allow home occupations in
residential districts subject to
certain performance standards,
and appropriate definition in
Section 14.2602. Amend Section
14.101.G to clarify the
interpretation of lot
consolidations, and add a
definition of "zoning lot" to
Section 14.2602.
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Ronald Cassidy
Robert Brettrager
ABSENT:
Lois Brothers
Micheale Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Margaret Gaweke, 416 S. Mt.
Prospect Road. Janet Hansen, Chamber of Commerce.
Chairman Basnik introduced this case stating that the
petitioner is requesting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Amend Section 14.503.8 to change the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting time from 8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations
in all residential districts, and add standards to
allow home occupations in residential districts
subject to certain performance standards, and
appropriate definition in Section 14.2602.2
3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation
of lot consolidations, and add a definition of
"zoning lot" to Section 14.2602.
ZBA-96-A-90
December 13, 1990
Page 2 of 3
The petitioner, David Clements, Director of Planning and
Zoning, presented the case stating that the first request has
to be formally changed in the Zoning ordinance, to reflect
the current meeting time.
Mr. Clements stated that the second request is to allow home
businesses in certain situations, noting that the Planning
and Zoning department receives many calls regarding this and
they must tell them this is not allowed. He noted that in the
community a wide range of inconspicuous home businesses
exist, many of which have Illinois revenue numbers. Home
based businesses vary from contractor's offices, part-time
caterers, artist studios, to computer consultants Staff
typically becomes aware of home occupation if it is one that
disturbs neighbors. Theses matters are investigated on a
complaint basis. It would be appropriate to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow home occupations, if the home-based
business met certain standards. For example, a home
occupation should have no employees, display no sign, nor
have any retail sales on premise. Also, no home occupation
should include storage of supplies or inventory. Many
communities regulate home occupations based on such
performance standards, and this would be a reasonable
approach for Mount Prospect to consider.
Mr. Clements then introduced Mrs Janet Hansen, executive
director with the Chamber of Mount Prospect. Mrs. Hansen
stated that the Chamber of commerce had voted in favor of
allowing home businesses in the Village of Mount Prospect and
presented the Board with facts founded by the Chamber of
Commerce. The Board then reviewed the comments made by the
Chamber of Commerce. They also separately considered the
standards presented in the staff memo.
Mr. Clements stated that amendment * 3 and the definition of
1. zoninglot" would allow existing properties consisting of
more than one lot, under single ownership, to.be considered
as a single buildable unit for zoning and building permit
purposes. Under current regulations, when physical
improvements, such as a room addition, are proposed on
property consisting of more than one lot, but under single
ownership, the owner must consolidate the lots in order to
get a building permit. This situation usually occurs when two
older, narrow lots have been developed as a single unit.
Staff does not feel that there is a public benefit to
requiring lot consolidations in many of theses situations.
Tom McGovern of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission stated
that the Plan Commission agrees with staffs proposal and
feels that many lot consolidations are unnecessary except in
ZBA-96-A-90
December 13,
1990
Page 3 of 3
cases where easements or street dedications are required.
The Board then generally discussed the amendments noting that
for amendment number 2 they make the following changes to the
standards listed in the memo from staff:
1. Delete item *3 pertaining to mechanical and
electrical equipment. They felt item # 4 would
cover any problems associated with the use of such
equipment.
2. Change item # 6 to allow on non -family member
employee at one time rather than no non -family
employees as suggested by staff.
Chairman Basnik then entertained a motion to grant the
petitioners request with the changes to Amendment 2 as
discussed.,
Mr. Cassidy moved. Mr. Lannon seconded.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Lannon,. Pratt, Cassidy, Brettrager,
Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
This case must still be heard before the Village Board.
Michelle Thompson
Recording Secretary
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN W --
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
SUBJECT:
^6 90 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
This application for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance was filed by the Village of Mount
Prospect. Three amendments are proposed as follows:
1. Amend Section 14.503.B. to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from
8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in all residential districts, and
add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain
performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602.
3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add
a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602.
These amendments will be discussed individually.
The Zoning Ordinance establishes the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time as 8:00
p.m. in August of 1990, the Zoning Board determined that the meeting time should
be changed to 7-30 p.m., to perhaps handle more business at the regular meetings,
in hopes of avoiding special meetings every month during the busy spring and
summer season. This amendment merely changes the meeting time as stated in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Amendment
The Chamber has suggested that the Village consider adopting standards that would
allow home occupations. On August 28, 1990 Janet Hansen, Chamber Executive
Director, preliminarily discussed home occupations at a Committee -of -the -Whole
meeting. At that time, the Village Board determined it would be appropriate to refer
the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a public hearing.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 2
At the present time, Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance prohibits home occupations,
and offices in homes, "except that a surgeon, physician, dentist, lawyer, clergyman,
or other professional person using his residence for consultation, emergency
treatment or the performance of religious rites only, and not for the neral practigg
of the profession."
However, what we find in the community is a wide range of inconspicuous home
based businesses, many of which have Illinois revenue numbers. Home based
businesses vary from contractor's offices, part-time caterers, artist studios, to
computer consultants. Staff typically becomes aware of home occupation if it is one
that disturbs neighbors. These matters are investigated on a complaint basis.
The difficulty with the present requirements is that well-meaning residents call the
Village Hall and inquire about opening a home business, and are advised that the
Zoning Ordinance does not allow home occupations. In many cases, these residents
are aware of other home occupations in the Village, and do not understand why they
cannot gain approval.
It would be appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupations,
if the home-based business met certain standards. For example, a home occupation
should have no employees, display no sign, nor have any retail sales on premise.
Also, no home occupation should include storage of supplies or inventory.
Many communities regulate home occupations based on such performance standards,
and this would be a reasonable approach for Mount Prospect to consider. A survey
of members of the Northwest Municipal Conference indicates that virtually every
municipality has provisions to allow home occupations.
It is recommended that the following Sections be amended:
Amendment to ADD Home Occupations, as defined herein, to the following
Sections as permitted uses:
R -X 14.1001A R-2 14.1301A
R-1 14.1101.A. R-3 14.1401.A -
R -A 14.1201A R-4 14.1501A
Amendment to DELETE Home Occupations from the following Sections, as
specifically excluded uses:
R -X 14.1001.8.5 R-2 14.1301.8.4
R-1 14.1101.8.5 R-3 14.1401.8.5
R -A 14.120I.8.5 R-4 14.1501.B.5
ADD to Section 14.2602 the following definition:
Homs Occugadon - Home Occupations to be permitted in all
residential zoning districts, subject to the following definition and
performance standards:
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 3
Home 9S09AqQn is an accessory use conducted completely within a
dwelling unit, carried on by any member of the immediate family
residing on the premises, clearly incidental and secondary to the use
of the dwelling for residential purposes. The following standards shall
govern the operation of a home occupation:
1. There should be no sign, display or alteration that will indicate
from the exterior that the home is being utilized in whole or in
part for any purpose other than that of a dwelling.
2. No substantial amount of stock in trade shall be kept or
commodities sold.
3. No mechanical or electrical equipment shall be used or stored
except such as permissible for domestic or household purposes.
4. No offensive noise, vibration, smoke fumes, odor, heat or glare
or electrical interference shall be noticeable at or beyond the
property line.
5. No explosive or combustible materials shall be used.
6. No person shall be employed other than a member of the
immediate family residing on the premises.
7. No outside storage of any kind related to the home occupation
shall be permitted.
8. The home occupation shall not generate traffic or parking in
excess of what is normal in a residential neighborhood.
9. The home occupation shall not utilize more than 25 percent of
the gross floor area of the dwelling unit.
10. A professional person may use his residence for infrequent
consultation, emergency treatment, or performance of religious
rites, but not for the general practice of his profession.
Staff believes it is best to regulate home occupations based on such performance
standards, because this provides a measurement of impact on a neighborhood. This
is considered preferable to creating a lengthy W of permitted home occupations,
which might not be able to list every reasonable home business.
Amendment
The Scope of Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.101.0, states that it
is unlawful "to construct one building on more than one lot, or to occupy more than
one lot by more than one main use." This is being interpreted to mean that a
principal building, such as a house, cannot be on more than 1 lot, or the portion of
any lot. For example, there are many homes built on two 25 foot lots. If a resident,
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 4
in such an example, hopes to add a room addition, current policy requires that the
two 25 foot lots be consolidated or combined into a 50 foot lot. In consolidating the
two 25 foot lots into one 50 foot lot, the resident then has only one building on one
lot, meeting the intent of the current requirement. This is an expensive and
unnecessary burden for a property owner. If a home has existed for years on two 25
foot lots, or some similar example, and it is being properly assessed, there is no
public benefit to having the property owner consolidate the parcel, in order to get
a building permit for a room addition or other, improvement.
The Plan Commission has reviewed a number of such lot consolidations over the
years, and does not believe such a requirement is necessary. However, the Plan
Commission notes that consolidation plats should be done if there is the need for
easements or street dedications. The Plan Commission recommends that the Zoning
Board take appropriate action to amend Section 14.101 to eliminate the lot
consolidation requirement.
Staff recommends that Section 14.2602, Definitions, be amended to add a definition
of "zoning lot", as follows:
Lot. Zoning is a single tract of land located within a single block which (at the
time of filing for a building permit) is designated by its owner or developer
as a tract to be used, developed, or built upon as a unit, under single
ownership or control. Therefore, a "zoning lot or lots" may or may not
coincide with a lot of record.
With this definition, a tract of land is designated a buildable unit for zoning purposes,
thus not having to coincide exactly with one lot of record.
In researching this matter, staff found that a number of other suburban municipalities
utilize a zoning lot definition for similar purposes.
Further, staff recommends that the statement found in 14.101.G be deleted.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT'
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: KENNETH H. FRITZ, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1990
SUBJECT: BUSINESS VISITATION PROGRAM
BACKGROUND:
As a follow-up to earlier discussions between Mayor Gerald Farley and Janet Hansen, I met
with Janet Hansen to develop a Business Visitation Program which would involve the
Village, Chamber and selected businesses and industries in Mount Prospect. This meeting,
which Janet Hansen and I attended, was an outgrowth of an earlier meeting sponsored by
the Golden Corridor focusing on business expansion and retention opportunities. Last
year, Arlington Heights Economic and Community Development Department, in
cooperation with the Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce, the Golden Corridor
Council, and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs designed a
program that included business visitation.
The principal objective of such a program is, I believe, to improve communication between
local government, the Chamber, and the individual businesses and industries. Such a
program should be tied into an overall economic development program and marketing
strategy for the community. The objectives of a business visitation program in Mount
Prospect should be part of a larger economic development strategy for Mount Prospect. In
order to enhance the Village's economic development efforts, there should be a serious
effort made to involve the private sector in the broad development activities of the
community. Those communities successful in economic development have achieved success
after a strong public/private partnership has been established. This requires involvement
of both business and government leaders.
Business Retention Proara
The Mount Prospect Chamber is currently seeking to update their inventory of business and
industry existing in the community through means of a telephone survey and update. The
internal image of Mount Prospect can be strengthened through the close cooperation
between private business and local government sectors. The use of this business and
industry survey will help gain insight into the problems and areas for cooperation between
business and government.
John Fulton Dixon - Page L
December 13, 1990
Recommended Action
The Village of Mount Prospect should institute a program to facilitate the retention and
expansion of business firms located in the Village.
The WHY of It
Programs to facilitate business retention and expansion serve at least two important
functions. First, they convey to local business that the Village is concerned about their
welfare in continued presence and growth within the community. This type of attention can
often lead to increased employment through expansion of local firms. It can also lead to
improvements in the Village's internal image.
Resident business programs are also important from a second perspective. A satisfied local
businessman/industrialist is an important asset in terms of selling the community to
prospects considering locating in the Village. Most prospective companies looking at Mount
Prospect as a potential location will want to meet with local business leaders to discuss
operating conditions in the area. Nothing is more discouraging to prospects than
unfavorable impressions of an area conveyed by existing employers. Existing firms can face
a variety of problems that might affect their decision to remain or expand within the
community. A list of potential problem areas could include property taxes and Cook
County's method of assessment, licensing fees, zoning regulations, fire and police protection,
traffic congestion, parking and sources of finance among other factors. Any one or a
combination of such issues could restrict the operation of a particular firm to such an extent
that the business fails or moves elsewhere. Fortunately, most of these issues can be
addressed by local action.
The HOW of it
The Village economic development staff will play an important role in identifying and
helping to resolve operational problems of local firms. The key elements of the program
are visitation, communication, and follow-up. Businesses should be visited to:
A. Communicate that the community cares about business in Mount Prospect and
appreciates their contribution to local economy.
B. Discuss the type of economic development assistance available through state and local
program.
C. Obtain an early warning of future needs or potential problems and coordinate with
the appropriate organization to solve these problems.
Btt$tness Visitation Program Description
1. Companies to be Visited
A team made up of a Village local government and Chamber representative to visit
twelve businesses in the Mount Prospect area. The initial selection should be based
on a broad geographic range and also a representation of small to large firms.
Business firms in growth or in change should be given priority.
John Fulton Dixon - Page 3
December 13, 1990
2. Vi5i ation Team Make -Up
The team would be made up of the following:
a. A management level executive in the industry or a related industry similar to
the firm being visited.
b. The Village of Mount Prospect Economic Development Director.
C. The Mount Prospect Chamber Executive Director.
The specific objectives of the teams would be to:
a. Reinforce Village and Chamber commitment to business stability and growth.
b. Interview business owners on aspects of the local business climate as they see
it and as it impacts their particular business operation.
C. Identify critical short- and long-term issues to be addressed by either the Village
or corporate community to assist the target business directly.
d. Provide references to and financial assistance for other consulting services as
may be needed.
3. I, mplemen a i n
The four key components to the implementation of the business visitation program
are:
a. Identification of target companies.
b. Team development and orientation.
C. Interviews.
d. Follow-up.
Ideplifigation of Target Companie,,;
The first step in the process requires identification of twelve Mount Prospect
companies meeting the criteria for target companies discussed above.
Information will be gathered from local Chamber files, Illinois Manufacturer's
Directory and public tax data from the Finance Department of the Village.
learn Development and QrieLitgtion
The success of the project, to a large extent, depends upon the make-up of the
team and the orientation. Since twelve businesses will be targeted for visitation,
several different teams will be identified. The teams would visit these companies
over a period of six months beginning in April.
John Fulton Dixon - Page 4
December 13, 1990
Orientation would be kept very simple in form in order to improve the chances
for success. The Chamber Executive Director would provide orientation to
include the following areas:
a. Background of the project.
b. Interview format.
c. Specifics of the companies being visited.
Interviews
The object of the interview is to make the business owner recognize that their
business is considered significant to the economic future of the Village of Mount
Prospect. The businesses were selected because they are representative of the
best in Mount Prospect and can assist the Village and Chamber promote business
retention and attraction in the future.
Notes will be taken during each interview (see attached form drafted by the
Mount Prospect Chamber). These notes would be written up as an individual
report for each business. A final report would be prepared compiling the
information on all companies visited. The report would provide a sample of the
needs of the business community and provide some insights into the advantage
of continuing the Business Visitation Program. The overall results would be
presented to the Village, Chamber and Boards and copies sent to the Golden
Corridor Council, and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community
Affairs.
4. Program Mgnage_men
The program would be managed jointly by the Mount Prospect Economic
Development Director and the Mount Prospect Chamber Executive Director. The
pilot program would take approximately six months in duration to complete once the
team visits had began. The following is a suggested schedule of activities for the pilot
program.
Activity
C=12. Date
Qrganization Res
--V.
1. Identify target businesses
April,1991
Chamber/Village
2. Identify team members
Ongoing
Chamber/Village
3. Orientation meetings
Ongoing
Chamber/Village
4. Schedule team visits
May, 1991
Chamber/Village
S. Conduct visits
June, 1991 to
Dec., 1991
Interview Team
6. Compile results/prepare final rept.
Dec., 1991
7. Follow-up on short term action
items
Continuing
Chamber/Village
John Fulton Dixon - Page 5
December 13, 1990
The Future
The Mount Prospect Village Board and Chamber, the Golden Corridor Council and
the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs would receive a final
report. The Business Visitation Program would enable the staffs of the Village and
Chamber to then explore the structuring of a full-fledged business inventory and
retention program. The successful components of the program would be carefully
documented and weaknesses would be identified for correction. A fully expanded
program would be an ongoing effort. A program of this nature would be computerized
so that the data base could be kept current at regular intervals.
Other r P n i l PrQjggts g a IVisitation r r
There has been discussion in the past among the Chamber and Village officials about the
need for a handbook that might be developed jointly by the Chamber and Economic
Development staff to highlight Village and Chamber programs that would assist the
businessman. This handbook could be distributed through the Village offices and the
Chamber and could become an important tool in encouraging more accurate information
about expanding businesses in the community and their need for Village and Chamber
assistance.
KHF:hg
Attach.
cc: David M. Clements
Janet Hansen, Executive Director, Mount Prospect Chamber
MOUNT PROSPECT VISITATION REPORT FOAM (DRAFT)
Company
Contact Phone
Address
Type of Business
I . How many years has your business operated at this location?
❑ 1 year or less 0 2-5 years 0 5-10 years 0 10-25 years 0 More
2. Do you 0 Own 0 Lease this facility?
3. What Is the total gross floor area in square footage?
0 Under 5,000 sq. ft. ❑ 5-10,000 sq. ft. ❑ 10-20,000 sq. ft. 0 20-30,000 sq. ft.
0 30-50, 000 sq. ft. 0 50-70,000 sq. ft. 0 75-100,000 sq. ft. 0 over 100,000 sq.ft.
4. What 1s your approximate number of employees at this location?
5. Do you expect a change in the amount of your employment within the next year?
0 Increase ❑ Decrease 0 Remain the Same
6. It you expect a change, by what amount?
7. Do your operations require more or less space than is available at your location?
❑ More 0 Less 0 Neither
8. Are you considering expansion of your facilities during the next two years?
0 Yes ❑ No If yes, when do you expect this to occur?
9. If yes, how much additional square footage will be required?
10. Do you plan expansion at 0 Current Site 0 New Construction 0 Available Building
11. Are you planning on expanding within Mount Prospect?, 0 Yes 0 No
12. If no, why not
13. If you are planning an expansion, are you having any difficulties with your plans?
0 No ❑ Availability of land ❑ Availability of buildings
0 Zoning ❑ Additional Parking 0 Financing
0 Access 0 Other
14. Would you like assistance with your expansion? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Please comment on the business climate in Mount Prospect
16. Is there anything the Village or the Mount Prospect Chamber could do to assist you?
THANK YOU.
Phone: 708 / 392-8000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
AGENDA
BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Special Meeting
Tuesday, January 22, 1991
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
U. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Downtown Development Strategy Update
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Public Safety Building (Fire/Police Station) Location
V1. ADJOURNMENT
MAYOR
GERALD L PARLEY
TRUSTEES
71
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
dl ltYar
TIMOTHY J CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE R VAN DEEM
THEODORE J WATTENBERG
Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A FIELDS
Phone: 708 / 392-8000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
AGENDA
BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Special Meeting
Tuesday, January 22, 1991
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
U. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Downtown Development Strategy Update
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Public Safety Building (Fire/Police Station) Location
V1. ADJOURNMENT
Rhone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 70e / 392-6022
AGENDA
SIGN REVIEW BOARD
Monday, January 21, 1991
Trustees' Room, 2nd Floor, Village Hall
100 South Emerson Street
7:30 P. M.
SIGN -2-91. GVS Wont j!r9§p_qqAssociates, 740, East Rand Road
The petitioner requests a variance in sign area for a freestanding sign of 15 square feet
instead of the maximum required 75 square feet allowed (Section 7.315, Table 2.2). In
addition, the petitioner is requesting a special use equity option (Section 7.330.D) to permit
two signs on one wall face on the Lube Pro building facing Rand Road. Also requested is
a height and width variation (Section 7.315, Table 2.2) for a future Courtesy Home Center
pylon sign to be placed in the approximate location of the existing sign. The sign
modifications are to be incorporated in the Sign P.U.D. and approved as part of the zoning
P.U.D. for the Courtesy Home Center site approved earlier by the Village Board.
MAYOR
GERALD [- FARC EY
TRUSTEES
ri
RAL pi� i W ARTHUR
MARK W 8 45SE
I iMol RY J CORCORAN
-ED FLOROS
GEORGE R VAN GFFM
THEODORE J WATTENSERG
Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A FIELDS
Rhone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 70e / 392-6022
AGENDA
SIGN REVIEW BOARD
Monday, January 21, 1991
Trustees' Room, 2nd Floor, Village Hall
100 South Emerson Street
7:30 P. M.
SIGN -2-91. GVS Wont j!r9§p_qqAssociates, 740, East Rand Road
The petitioner requests a variance in sign area for a freestanding sign of 15 square feet
instead of the maximum required 75 square feet allowed (Section 7.315, Table 2.2). In
addition, the petitioner is requesting a special use equity option (Section 7.330.D) to permit
two signs on one wall face on the Lube Pro building facing Rand Road. Also requested is
a height and width variation (Section 7.315, Table 2.2) for a future Courtesy Home Center
pylon sign to be placed in the approximate location of the existing sign. The sign
modifications are to be incorporated in the Sign P.U.D. and approved as part of the zoning
P.U.D. for the Courtesy Home Center site approved earlier by the Village Board.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT SIGN REVIEW BOARD
January 7, 1991
CALL TO ORDER. -
The regular meeting of the Sign Review Board (SRB) was officially called to order by
Chairperson Adelaide Thulin at 7:35 p.m. on Monday, January 7, 1990 at the Village Hall,
100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
ROLL CALL:
Members of the SRB present: Hal Predovich, Thomas Borrelli, Richard Rogers and
Chairperson Adelaide Thulin. Absent was Warren Kostak. Village staff present was Kenneth
Fritz. Chairperson Thulin declared a quorum present.
APPROVAL Of MINUTES:
The minutes of the December 3, 1990 SRB meeting were not considered for approval due
to the extensive Agenda, and will be considered at the next meeting of the SRB.
NEW BUSINESS:
Sign -12-90. Oehrlein & Oehrlein. 100 East Nortbwest-HiAmAy
Mr. Burke Oehrlein was present as petitioner to answer any questions posed by the SRB.
The petitioner requests a variation from the Sign Ordinance Section 7.305.B.1.b to allow a
non -illuminated side wall sign within 48.29 feet of the interior lot line, instead of 50 feet from
the nearest interior property line as required by the Ordinance. The non -illuminated letters
would be 12" and 6" in height with the extreme width of sign copy being 15 feet long.
After a brief review of the request, a motion was made by Mr. Predovich, seconded by Mr.
Rogers to approve the request for variation as presented. The vote on the motion to approved
passed 4 ayes, 9 nays, 1 absent.
N-13-90. Bell Federal Savings. 200 E. Kensin
The petitioner seeks to modify the sign P.U.D. for Randburst by adding a sign on the east
elevation of the subject premises at 200 East Kensington Road. Two existing signs are
technically not in conformance with the Sign P.U.D. for Randburst since they are backlit box
signs. The petitioner proposed to replace the non -conforming existing signs with individual
backlit letters applied directly to the building surface in conformance with the Sign P.U.D.
Management for the Rouse/Randhurst Company have given their approval to the sign changes
including the additional sip to be added on the east elevation of the subject property.
After brief review of the signage proposed to be added in the lowering and relocation of the
freestanding sign to meet the Sign Code as well as other backlit signs on the wall, a motion
was offered by Mr. Borrelli to approve the request as presented. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Predovich. The vote on the motion to approve passed with 4 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent.
Sign Review Board Minutes
Page 2
The petitioner seeks a variation and Special Use from Section 7.305.A and Section 7.330.1)
to erect two entrance signs to reflect a name change at St. John's Apartments to "The Lake
Club Residential Apartments." Each sign is proposed to measure Y-8" high and " wide to
be mounted on. the top of the existing brick wing walls on either side of the ingress and egress
to the apartment complex on Russe Road. The letters for the property name consist of 75'"
and 13" letters and are chrome in color. The ,phone number is 6" high and midnight blue
in color. The background is proposed to be blue to match the color of the property exterior
paint. The signs when mounted above the brick wing walls will make the total height of the
sign from ground T-5".
Mr. Fritz pointed out in his memo that the St. John's Apartments were first developed in
unincorporated Elk Grove Township and were subsequently annexed to the Village of Mount
Prospect. At the time of development, the sign was placed in front of an, ornamental fence
bordering the pond on the subject property. Through subsequent right-of-way widening for
pavement improvements on Busse Road, the sign now encroaches upon a State right-of-
way 61/2 feet. Because of the heavy landscaping in front of the fence on either side of the
existing freestanding sign, it is not possible to relocate a freestanding sign that could be seen
from the adjacent roadway because the property drops off sharply to the pond immediately
to the west. It is therefore, the desire of the property owner to place two identification signs
on the brick wing walls on either side of the ingress and egress to the apartment complex.
These signs would be set back sufficiently to meet the minimum setback distance of 5 feet
from the property. The brick wall previously had the signage "St. John's Apartments" applied
directly to the brick. Over a period of years, vandals had twisted off the individual letters
and it was the management's desire to place the sign therefore, on top of the brick wing walls.
Mr. Rogers stated, while not obJecting to the two separate signs near the entrance brick wing
walls, he had some concerns over the appearance of the flat signs resting on top of a curved
wing wall. He felt that they did not blend in well with the appearance of the brick walls.
After some discussion, it was suggested that the signs be raised 4" to 6" above the top edge
of the brick wall and a softer frame be used to accentuate the character of the brick wall,
and soften the sharp edges of the flat plywood sign.
A motion was made by Mr. Predovich to grant the relief to the property owner to allow two
signs to be placed above the brick wing walls on either side of the ingress and egress drives
provided that the flat plane of the sign be softened by adding a frame and small legs to
separate the sign from the top edge of the brick wall by 4" - 6". The motion was seconded
by Mr. Borrelli. The vote on the motion passed by 4 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent.
E—ums DeliC*—niral Road
The petitioner seeks avariation of 11 feet from the interior'lot line to aproposed freestanding
sign instead of the 60 foot setback from an interior lot required by the Sign Code. The
petitioner also seeks variations in the front and exterior sideyard setback of 3.75 feet instead
Sign Review Board Minutes
Page 3
of the required 5 foot setback, and modification of the sight distance triangle by placing a
9 foot high freestanding sign within the sight triangle.
The previous owner of the Express Deli and Pantry sought relief from the Village on four
setbacks and parking variations to permit the existing site conditions to remain (ZBA-54-
V-88). Ordinance #3983, Section 3, states "that the petitioner install landscaping at the base
of the existing freestanding sign. Said landscaping plan to be approved by Planning and Zoning
Department." The sign that existed at the time of the zoning case was non -conforming, and
the previous owner was told that it would have to meet the Code with respect to area, height,
setback, etc. The new owners of the business are seeking variations on setbacks and sight
triangle in order to erect a sign at the same general location as the previous freestanding
sign.
The petitioner's request for a variation in setback from the interior lot line seems reasonable
given the reduced height and size of the sign as compared with the previous freestanding
sign. The height of 9 feet in the sight triangle does not appear to block any vision from the
southbound traffic from Ridge Avenue onto Central Road. The staff recommends that the
lettering and color selection proposed for the freestanding sign be consistent with the wall
sign previously installed, if the request for variations are granted.
After a review of the request there was discussion by the Board members relative to the copy
of the freestanding sign. It was suggested that the changeable copy be reduced from two
lines to one line, and that the letter -copy for the changeable signs be at least 6" in height
to conform to the standards of the Sign Code.
Mr. Rogers made a motion to approve the variations in setback and height of the sign and
modification of the sight triangle, provided that the changeable copy on the freestanding sign
be reduced from two line to one, and that the color and lettering style of the freestanding
sign be similar to the wall sign. The motion by Mr. Rogers was seconded by Mr. Borrelli.
The vote on the motion was 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent.
U 31 W 091 13,1DI YIF
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
1r
Dv
ml 17pj7��
iq HFritz, Economic e
i
Rhone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting
Thursday, January 24, 1991
7:30 P. M.
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
ZBA-91-V-90. John and Diane Gianaris, 1110 South Bu.s5.e HQad,
This case was continued from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of December 13, 1990.
The applicants are requesting the following variations:
1. Section 14.3016.A.3 to allow a 23'-8" wide driveway in lieu of the maximum allowed
21 feet .
2. Section 14.1102.A to allow 41% impervious surface in the front yard in lieu of the
required maximum of 35%.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is final in this case. (See NOTE)
ZHA-1-V-91, D
AMas Buckman, 212 No
_dh Dale Avenue
The applicant is seeking a variation 'to Section 14.102.B.2 to allow a 4 foot setback for a
shed rather than 5 ft. allowed by Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals is final in this case.
(See NOTE)
Z,RA--2-V-91, Kenneth & Kargn Fruh, 24.3 North Yates
The applicants are seeking a variation to Section 14.102.B.1 to allow a 4 foot separation
between the principal structure and an accessory structure in lieu of 10 feet. Village Board
action is required for this case.
ZBA-3-V-91, WjIlig SakmiHgntM Drive
m . L 22
The applicant is seeking a variation from Section 14.102.B.4 to allow a 144 square foot (12'
x 12') shed in lieu of the maximum size allowed of 120 square feet. Zoning Board of
Appeals is final in this case. (See NOTE)
MAI.
I. FAR I EY
N
J.PRUSTEES
RAH W ARTHUR
MARK W B JSSF
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
1- ED FLDFKJS
GFORCE R VAN GE EM
THEODORE j WATTENSFRr
Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLEAR
100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A AELDS
Rhone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting
Thursday, January 24, 1991
7:30 P. M.
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
ZBA-91-V-90. John and Diane Gianaris, 1110 South Bu.s5.e HQad,
This case was continued from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of December 13, 1990.
The applicants are requesting the following variations:
1. Section 14.3016.A.3 to allow a 23'-8" wide driveway in lieu of the maximum allowed
21 feet .
2. Section 14.1102.A to allow 41% impervious surface in the front yard in lieu of the
required maximum of 35%.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is final in this case. (See NOTE)
ZHA-1-V-91, D
AMas Buckman, 212 No
_dh Dale Avenue
The applicant is seeking a variation 'to Section 14.102.B.2 to allow a 4 foot setback for a
shed rather than 5 ft. allowed by Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals is final in this case.
(See NOTE)
Z,RA--2-V-91, Kenneth & Kargn Fruh, 24.3 North Yates
The applicants are seeking a variation to Section 14.102.B.1 to allow a 4 foot separation
between the principal structure and an accessory structure in lieu of 10 feet. Village Board
action is required for this case.
ZBA-3-V-91, WjIlig SakmiHgntM Drive
m . L 22
The applicant is seeking a variation from Section 14.102.B.4 to allow a 144 square foot (12'
x 12') shed in lieu of the maximum size allowed of 120 square feet. Zoning Board of
Appeals is final in this case. (See NOTE)
Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Page 2
ZBA4-Z-9-1. ZBA-5-Y-91. Elig Chartouni. 2020 ELiclid Av nue
The applicant is requesting to rezone the western 17,798 sq. ft. of Lot 1 in Mobil Oil
Corporation Subdivision from B-4 to B-3 to construct a small commercial shopping center.
The applicant also requests variations to the following Sections of the Ordinance:
1. Section 14.2002.13 to allow a 0'-0" sideyard adjacent to commercial in lieu of 10 ft.
2. Section 14.2002.E to allow the following parking lot setback variations:
-Minimum 2'-6" front setback vs. 30 feet
-0'-0" sideyard setback vs. 10 feet.
-3'-11" sideyard setback to residential vs. 20 feet
3. Section 14.3012.A to allow 18 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 44 required by Code.
Village Board action is required for all requests.
ZHA-6-Z-91, Gladsigog NonMd Trust. (Dan Coffaro. Sr.) 412 and 41.4E Rand Road
This request will be continued to the February 28, 1991 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the properties from R-1 Single Family Residential to
B-2 Business Office to allow construction of an office building. Village Board action will
be required for this case.
ZBA-#-V-2I, N I aple Stree
ProStat His.-origal S-o-cift IQ1 South M
The petitioner is requesting variations from the following Sections of the Ordinance in order
to accommodate construction of a handicapped facility:
1. Section 14.1023 to allow more than one accessory building (non -garage) on a lot.
2. Section 14.102.B.3 to allow 15'4" height rather than the maximum 10 ft. allowed by
Code.
3. Section 14.102.B.4 to allow 775 sq. ft. size rather than the permitted maximum of 120
sq. ft.
4. Section 14.3012A to allow 2 on-site parking spaces rather than 8 required by Code.
Village Board action will be required for all requests.
NOTE: In all cases where the Zoning Board of Appeals is final, a fifteen (15) day period
is provided for anyone wishing to appeal their decision. No permit will be issued
until this period has elapsed.
Rhone: 706 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
NOTICE OF MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the President and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect will meet in
Executive Session on Tuesday, January 22, 1991 at 6:45 P.M.
at the Senior Center, 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect
for the purpose of discussing the potential litigation.
The Village Board will convene a Special Meeting of the
President and Board of Trustees immediately following the
Executive Session at approximately 7:30 P.M.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 19th day of January, 1991.
MAYOR
GERALD L FARLEY
TRUSTEES
RALPH W. ARTHUR
MARK WBUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEOFLOROS
GEORGE R VAN DEEM
THEODORE J. WATTENBERG
Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Rhone: 706 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
NOTICE OF MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the President and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect will meet in
Executive Session on Tuesday, January 22, 1991 at 6:45 P.M.
at the Senior Center, 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect
for the purpose of discussing the potential litigation.
The Village Board will convene a Special Meeting of the
President and Board of Trustees immediately following the
Executive Session at approximately 7:30 P.M.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 19th day of January, 1991.
Phone: 708 / 392-8000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
NOTICE OF MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the President and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect will meet with members
the Mount Prospect Park District Board and the Arlington Heights
Park District Board on Thursday, January 31, 1991 at the hour of
7:30 PM at the Arlington Heights Park District Administration
Building, 410 North Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights,
Illinois, for the purpose of discussing the Melas Park Agreement.
Residents are invited to attend and express their opinions on
this subject.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 17th day of January, 1991.
MAYOR
GERALD L FARLEY
TRUSTERS
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE R VAN SEEM
THEOOOPEJ WAT7ENBERG
Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE
I MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect. Illinois E30056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone: 708 / 392-8000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
NOTICE OF MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the President and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect will meet with members
the Mount Prospect Park District Board and the Arlington Heights
Park District Board on Thursday, January 31, 1991 at the hour of
7:30 PM at the Arlington Heights Park District Administration
Building, 410 North Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights,
Illinois, for the purpose of discussing the Melas Park Agreement.
Residents are invited to attend and express their opinions on
this subject.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 17th day of January, 1991.