HomeMy WebLinkAbout0419_001Minutes
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
I October 8, 1991
Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Mayor Gerald L Farley. Trustees present
were Mark Busse, George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Leo Floros, Paul Hoefert, and Irvana Wilks.
Also present were Village Manager John F. Dixon, Public Works Director Herbert L. Weeks,
Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Planning & Zoning Director David Clements,
Planner Mike Sims, Finance Director David C. Jepson, three members of the news media and
three Village residents.
IIMinutes
The Committee of the Whole Minutes of September 24, 1991 were accepted and filed.
Trustee Mark Busse took this opportunity to present a plaque to Mayor Farley from the
Mount Prospect Football Association. Trustee Busse represented the Village at a banquet
commemorating the Mount Prospect Football Association's 35th Anniversary.
01WJq M-- UNR
Village Manager Dixon reported to the Committee that the 10 year annexation agreement
with Opus, Inc. for the development of the Kensington Center for Business expired in April
1991. During the term of the agreement Opus had been responsible for maintenance of three
entrance markers and the common property in the development. Over the past two years,
Village Staff has been meeting with Opus and certain property owners to spell out the
responsibilities of each party. Mr. Dixon stated that Dale Jesse, President of the Kensington
Business Owners Association was in attendance at the meeting.
Village Manager Dixon said there were four issues that had not been resolved. The first was
the three entrance signs to the center. The Village had granted Opus permission to build the
signs on public right-of-way with the condition that Opus and its successors perpetually
maintain the signs and the landscaping around the signs. Mr. Dixon stated that the property
owners had requested that the signs be changed to eliminate the name "Opus" from the signs
and add Village of Mount Prospect. He said they also requested that the Village help
maintain the signs and the landscaping.
The second issue was maintenance of certain common areas of parkways and the cul-de-sacs
in Kensington. Mr. Dixon stated that parkway areas are generally maintained by adjacent
property owners but that there were three common areas and five cul-de-sacs which are not
adjacent to one specific property. The property owners had requested that the Village assume
maintenance of the common areas and the cut -de -sacs. Mr. Dixon said the estimated cost to
add these areas to the Village's mowing contract was $9,000. The third issue was the
maintenance of bike trails and the footbridges, Mr. Dixon explained that River Trails Park
District had declined to accept the responsibility of the bike trails and consequently, the
Village clearly has this responsibility. However, there was a question regarding replacement
of benches and waste receptacles,
The last issue regarded the maintenance of detention ponds in Kensington. Under the
annexation agreement, the Village has the responsibility for inflow and outflow structures and
the dept of the ponds and the property owners are responsible for fresh water wells and the
related electricity. Mr. Dixon stated that we all share a concern that the ponds be maintained
properly.
Mr. Date Jesse, president of Kensington Business Owners Association, stated that the Owners
Association was formed last spring to monitor the maintenance in the park. Mr. Jesse said
that many business owners came to the Kensington Center because of the attractiveness of
the park and its premier location. Mr. Jesse added that the business owners were a part of
the community and wanted to be good corporate citizens. He said they would like to see
the Opus name removed from the entrance signs and replaced by the "Village of Mount
Prospect."' The property owners would also like the Village to assume the maintenance of
the signs and costs of electricity. He said he agreed with h Mr. Dixon that we need more
information regarding the ponds.
Trustee Busse said he agreed that Kensington was a premier business park and that it adds
a great deal to the Village. It provides jobs as well as sales taxes and property taxes.
Additionally, the businesses from the park contribute to the civic and social groups in the
community. He said he would like to see the Village continue to work with the owners
association. In regard to the entrance sips he asked Mr. Dixon to explain the Village's policy
regarding entrance signs. Mr. Dixon responded that the Village will repair a damaged
entrance sign if we can collect froth, the person who damaged the sip. Otherwise, the Village
does not repair the sip. Trustee Bose also asked if parking lots in, Kensington will need to
be maintained at a higher standard than the requirements that were in existence when the
parking lots were originally constructed. Mr. Dixon said only new lots or additions will need
to be maintained at current code standards.
Trustee Hoefert said the entry markers for business areas are a benefit to the owners and that
he did not support taking on the maintenance of these signs.
Trustee Corcoran said he also thought the Kensington entrance markers were meant to be
advertising and he was not in favor of maintaining the signs. Trustee Corcoran said he
realized the center produced significant revenue but he did not think businesses should get
special consideration because of the revenue they generate.
Trustee Floros said when approval was given to Opus to put up the entrance signs, it was
understood that it was for their benefit more than for the Village. He agreed the Kensington
businesses were good corporate citizens but that they should maintain the signs.
Mayor Farley said that the consensus of the Board was not to take the responsibility for the
signs.
In regard to the maintenance of the cul-de-sacs and common areas, Mr. Dixon said the
Village does, maintain areas on Lonnquist Blvd., Elmhurst Avenue, Evergreen Avenue,
Prospect Avenue, and certain parts of the Central Road right-of-way. Public Works Director
Weeks said there are a number of cul-de-sacs in residential areas that are all maintained by
residents. Mr. Dixon said there are 5 cul-de-sacs in Kensington with a center island and 3
areas with are not associated with any one specific property. He estimated it would cost the
Village $9,000 per year to maintain these areas.
Trustee Corcoran asked if a covenant to the property required the property owners to form
a property owners association. Bob Richmond, vice-president of the owners association, said
there was no requirement to form an association when they purchased the property. He said
they found out later that Opus would only be maintaining the property for a limited time.
Trustee Corcoran said he sympathized with the property owners and would like to see the
property owners maintain the areas in question and the Village then reimburse them for the
cost, He asked Herb Weeks to get an estimate from the contractor who does work for the
Village.
Trustee Clowes said he did not see how we could accept improvements but not the
responsibility for them. However, he said he was concerned about providing parkway
maintenance and did not support accepting this responsibility.
Trustee Wilks said she was concerned about the empty buildings in Kensington. She said she
would like to see a firm cost figure and a compromise worked out with the property owner.
Trustee Floros said he did not support maintaining the entrance markers, but he did support
maintaining the cul-de-sacs and the common areas. He said the demands from the
Kensington properties are minimal and that we should not be unmindful of the funds received
from those properties.
Trustee Hoefert said he was concerned that future maintenance costs could be significant.
He said he supported accepting maintenance of the common areas along Wheeling Road but
he thought the adjacent property owners could maintain the cul-de-sacs along with their own
properties.
Mayor Farley said there was a consensus for the Village to proceed with the maintenance of
the cul-de-sacs and common areas.
During the discussion of the bike trails, the Committee generally agreed that the Village
should fulfill its responsibility to maintain the bike trails. Trustee Corcoran said he would
like to see a North and South link to the trails so more people could use them. There was
also some concern about maintaining the furniture and benches but the consensus was that
these items were necessary.
The Committee and the representatives of the Kensington Business Owners Association
supported the Village Manager's recommendation that the Village hire an expert on pond
maintenance to set up a consistent maintenance program. Mayor Farley said the Village
Manager should proceed and bring the recommendations back to the Village Board.
Trustee Busse asked about the status of the traffic signal at Feehanvflle Drive and Wolf Road.
Mr. Dixon responded that Opus has agreed that they are responsible for the signal and the
design work should be completed by the end of October. He added that the Village is still
discussing a possible payment to Opus for oversizing of water mains. Mr. Dixon said that
Opus wants this issue resolved before the traffic signal is installed.
Planning and Zoning Director David Clements explained that a Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is a new requirement of all recipients of Community
Development Block Grant funds. The CHAS is a five-year plan to make affordable housing
available in Mount Prospect. Mr. Clements commended Planner Mike Sims for the work he
put into developing the CHAS and asked him to summarize the plan for the Committee.
Mr. Sims stated that the CHAS has four major elements: 1) CHAS development and citizen
participation; 2) Development of a Community Profile; 3) Development of the five-year
strategy; and 4) the actions during the first year of the plan. The CHAS identifies five
housing priorities in the Village:
1. To provide new construction housing for elderly low income residents by a maximum
of 50 units of new HUD assisted elderly housing.
2. To address the special needs of elderly low income and very low income residents
in various housing settings by encouraging the creation of more shared senior
housing, continuing to rehabilitate senior citizen homes through the Village's 0%
Interest Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, and by encouraging senior citizens
to participate in the Section 8 existing housing assistance payments vouchers and
certificates programs operated by the Housing Authority of Cook County.
3. To provide housing opportunities for first-time low income homeowners. Achieving
this priority will require the Village, of Mount Prospect to enter into a consortium
with Des Plaines, Arlington Heights, and Schaumburg, in order to be eligible for new
HOME Program funds.
4. To promote a financial rental assistance program throughout the Village by
encouraging owners of rental property in Mount Prospect to participate in the Section
8 existing housing assistance payments programs and other HUD/CDBG supported
financial assistance programs for the rehabilitation of apartments.
5. To provide financial assistance in the purchase or rehabilitation of housing for the
mentally HI by assisting the National Alliance for the Mentally III in purchasing five
residential homes over the next five years in Mount Prospect.
The actions to be taken during the first year includes seeking a not-for-profit developer to
submit a 50 unit senior citizen housing application to HUD, promoting the senior shared
housing program and Section 8 existing housing assistance payment vouchers or certificates
programs, discussing the formation of a CHAS consortium with Arlington Heights,
4
Schaumburg and Des Plaines, and assisting the National Alliance for the Mentally III and
purchasing or rehabilitating one home in Mount Prospect.
In response to a question by Trustee Corcoran, Mr. Sims stated the maximum of 50 new units
for elderly low income housing was based upon the land available and marketing demand.
Trustee Floras said he thought this figure was low. Trustee Clowes said he did not think the
$90,000 figure was accurate for low priced condominiums and he would like the figures
reviewed. Trustee Hoefert also expressed a concern that the housing prices unfairly
represented conditions in the Village, Trustee Wilks said she was pleased with the report and
that Mount Prospect has. been a leader in providing affordable housing.
Tom Larnber of National Alliance for the Mentally III and Jack Markowski of Northwest
Housing Partnership said they were pleased with the CHAS and appreciated the leadership
the Village has taken.
Mr. Sims said they will review the items mentioned by the Committee and make appropriate
changes. He said the Village then needs to adopt the CHAS by resolution.
Ojos =11 —�'- - - M
Village Manager Dixon announced the groundbreaking ceremony for the new Fire and Police
Building at 7:00 a.m., Friday, October 11, 1991. Also, he said he will be meeting with other
Village Managers to review the proposed SWANCC agreement on October 10, 1991.
3 M 0 0 rol—"t
Trustee Hoefert asked if anything was being done to resolve the street lighting problem in
the Boxwood area. Mr. Dixon responded that the Village is attempting to solve the problem
by using higher wattage lamps.
Trustee Corcoran requested that a record be kept of the additional costs from special requests
that the Village Board approves.
moingmt wrtrignm
The Village Board recessed at 10:03 p.m. to go into Executive Session. The Committee
returned to Committee of the Whole at 12:20 a.m. There being no further business, the
Committee of the Whole adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
David C. Jepson, Finance Director
A RIVER TRAILS
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Mt. Prospect, IL
c7 n
October 7, 1991
To: His Honor Mayor Farley
The Mount Prospect Board of Trustees
Dear Mayor and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board:
The purpose of this letter is to re -acquaint you with the Cook County Highway
Department's plan to widen Euclid/Lake Avenue, which includes the northeast section of
Mount Prospect.
As some of you may recall, early this year there was an open meeting with the County
Highway Department at which time citizens voiced their opposition to the proposed plan.
A campaign was launched by concerned citizens (River Trails Community Association) to
resist the project. After the County Board was approached by our committee, Richard
Phelan, Cook County Board President, intervened and postponed construction.
Upon hearing that this same project, was about to germinate in both Glenview and
Wilmette, the residents in those communities rose in total opposition to the widening of
Euclid/Lake Avenue (4,700 signed petitions). On September 16th the Wilmette Village
Board unanimously voted to oppose the Euclid/Lake widening (resolution attached), On
September 19th the Glenview Village Board followed suit and also voted unanimously to
oppose the project (resolution attached). A meeting with the Cook County Board has been
scheduled for the near future by committees representing residents of Glenview and Wilmette
at which time resolutions and petitions will be presented. In addition, County
Commissioner, Richard Siebel, has already gone on record as opposing the project (see
attached letter).
His Honor Mayor Farley
The Mount Prospect Board of Trustees
Page 2
Also included with this letter is a copy of our reasons for opposition and a letter from Dr.
Tom Rich, Superintendent of School District 26, to Mr. Phelan. The Board of Education
has supported our views and publicly announced its opposition to the widening as well.
We hope that you would follow the lead of our neighbors in Wilmette and Glenview by
supporting citizens of Mount Prospect who are opposed to this project. We look forward
to an opportunity to meet with Mayor Farley and the Board of Trustees to discuss this
issue.
Respectfully,
River Trails Community Association
RIVER TRAIL'
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Mt. Prospect, IL
'A_
More than 1,000 residents of Mt. Prospect are opposed to the
EUCLID AVENUE WIDENING
REASONS WE OPPOSE THE PROJECT:
Cars will travel faster with 4 open lanes
Children walking or riding bikes to the 3 schools and 2 parks in the
area will be dangerously close to traffic
Children attempting to cross 5 lanes of traffic will be at greater risk
• Real Estate professionals & appraisers estimate $10,000 decline in value
• Traffic 6 ft. closer to yards and living rooms
• Residents received county tax increases of 301/o or more
. Noise level will increase beyond current high level
. Dust &-dirt stirred up by trucks/cars will increase
. Increased traffic will actually be encouraged on Euclid
. Our ruid=1W neighborhood atmosphere will deteriorate
. The area will suffer through its second consecutive year of construction
. Small businesses in the area would suffer greatly during an already difficult
economic climate
. 2-MiMm of our tax dollars being spent on an unneeded project when
other county roads are in need of repair
PLEASE!!! Help us keep our neighborhood a safe and great place
to live !!
RESOLUTION 91-R-35
WHEREAS, Lake Avenue, which passes through the Villages of
Wilmette and Glenview and other communities to the west, is a Cook
County roadway; and
WHEREAS, Lake Avenue is a major arterial roadway, carrying a
normal traffic load in excess Of 30,000 vehicles today and
projected to increase to more than 40,000 vehicles by 2010, and
WHEREAS, the County is proposing to widen Lake Avenue between
Laramie Avenue in Wilmette to Waukegan Road in Glenview from four
lanes to five lanes, with the new fifth lane being for the purpose
of enabling vehicles to make left turns; and
WHEREAS, the County contends that the widening of Lake Avenue
in the manner proposed will facilitate the flow of traffic and
reduce the number of turning accidents; and
WHEREAS, certain residents Of Wilmette and Glenview object to
the widening of Lake Avenue in the manner proposed, on the grounds,
among others, that a widened roadway will encourage more and
higher -speed traffic and detract from the residential character of
the area; and
WHEREAS, the County has invited the Villages Of Wilmette and
Glenview to comment upon the proposed widening of Lake Avenue
before final Plans for the project are made; and
WHEREAS, the County conducted a Public hearing on its proposal
at the Glenview Village Hall on August 22, 1991, attended by
Village Trustees, staff and numerous residents of the Village of
Wilmette; and
WHEREAS, a video tape of the foregoing Public hearing was made
available for viewing on cable TV in the village Of Wilmette at
various times during the period from September 3 through September
16, 1991, and
WHEREAS, the Village Board of the Village Of Wilmette
conducted a Public hearing with regard to the proposed widening of
Lake Avenue at its regular meeting on September 16, 1991, at which
Wilmette residents were given the opportunity to offer testimony;
and
WHEREAS, the Village Board of the Village of Wilmette has
become fully informed on the County's proposal through the
foregoing process:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Village Board of the Village Of Wilmette
takes the following Position with respect to the proposed widening
ofLake Avenue and respectfully
accordance therewith: requests Cook County to proceed in
1. The County should not widen Lake Avenue from four lanes
to five lanes between Laramie Avenue and Waukegan Road.
2. The County should Proceed with certain improvements to
Lake Avenue between Laramie Avenue and Harms Road, as
follows:
a. Traffic lights and intersection improvements
should be provided at the entrance to the
Wilmette Golf Course.
b. Traffic light improvements should be provided
at the Lake Avenue intersection with Harms
Road, including appropriate pedestrian
crossing signals, and coordinated with
improvements at the Wilmette Golf Course.
C. The badly deteriorated rubber crossing over
the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad tracks
should be replaced.
3. The County Should join the Village of Wilmette in
�ncouraging the State of Illinois to undertake roadway
improvements on willow Road from Edens Expressway to the
west, including the widening of the pavement to at least
four lanes at locations where the roadway is now only two
lanes.
PASSED this -loth— day of ggpjeMbe_r_' 199 1
AYE: �7
NAY:-----() -
BOARD ACTION RE PROPOSED LAKE AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT AT THE
SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTER-BER 19, 1991.
MOVED BY TRUSTEE BROWNE, SECONDED BY TRUSTEE FIRFER, TO
ADOPT THE BOARD'S POSITION REGARDING THE PROPOSED COUNTY
FROM LARAMIE AVENUE TO WAUKEGA.1; ROAD, AS FOLLOWS:
1. THE VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW IS STRONGLY AND CATEGORICALLY
OPPOSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIFTH LANE c!;
AVENUE. LJ KE
2. LAKE AVENUE (AS WELL AS SUNSET RIDGE, WAGNER, AND OTHER
GLENVIEW ROADS) , ARE CURRENTLY BEING FORCED TO CARRY
TRAFFIC DIVERTED FROM WILLOW ROAD. THIS IS DIRECTLY
RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THE REQUIRED AND N
IMPROVEMENT OF WILLOW ROAD ECESS21-Ry
FROM TWO LA14ES TO AT LEI..ST
FOUR LANES HAS NOT YET TAKEN PLACE.
3. IT IS THE VILLAGE OF GLENVIEWIS POSITION THAT IT WOULD
BE PREMATURE AND COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE To CONSIDER
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WOULD RESULT TN Tvn
PHYSICAL WIDENING OF LAKE AVENUE BEFORE CONCRETE N'.s
DRIED ON AT LEAST A FOUR LANE WILLOW ROAD AND TRAFFIC
PATTERNS ESTABLISHED. ONLY THEIN, CAN WE ACCURATELY
ASSESS AND RESEARCH WHAT, IF AN`YTHING MAY BE NFrDED 0!;
LAKE AVENUE BY WAY OF FUTURE TRAFFIC' IMPROVEI�E�,-
THE BENEFIT OF GLENVIEW. _- S FOR
4. ANY OPERATING IMPROVEMENTS WHICH THE COUNTY COULD
EMPLOY TO IMPROVE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC SHOULD
SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED. SUCH INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS MIG3-:,T
INCLUDE SIGNALIZATION CHANCES; SIGNAGE; DELAYED LEF-
TURNS; LEFT TURN ARROWS, AND MAINTENANCE A.111D
IMPROVEMENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS, ETC.IT SHOULD BE
NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE STRETCHED To
INCLUDE ANY IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WOULD PHYSICALLY CH�,NCE
THE EXISTING PARAMETERS OF
STREETS. LAKE AVENUE OR INTERSECTING
5. THE VILI�AGE THE COOK COUNTYD 'OF GLENVIEW EMPHATICALLY CALLS ON
PRESIDENT TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ITS
ZOIN WITH THE VILLAGES OF WILMETTE AND
GLENVIEW AND NORTHBROOK AND OTHERS, TO TAKE: A PUBLIC
AND VIGOROUS STAND THAT THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE STATE
,
TO WIDEN WILLOW ROAD TO AT LEAST FOUR LANES.
ON ROLL CALL
AYES: TRUSTEES BROWNE, ESLER, FIRFER
AND PRESIDENT SMIRLES. , FULLER, LYNCH, MCCREERY
NAYS: NONE
ABSENT- NONE
MOTION CARRIED.
OFFICE OF THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINC;5
RICHARD A SIEBEL. CHICAGO
September 20, 1991
Mr. Glenn W. Frederichs
Superintendent
Cook County Highway Department
1122 County Building
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Re: Proposed Widening of Lake Ave. -- Northfield
Township
I am sure you are aware that the Board Of Trustees of the
Villages of Glenview and Wilmette unanimously Oppose the
Proposed widening Of Lake Avenue. In view of the
Position taken by the two village boards and the
sentiment of the residents living in the vicinity of Lake
Avenue, I hereby request that the proposed widening of
Lake Avenue project be withdrawn.
Very truly yours,
I
Richard A. Siebel, Member
Board of -Commissioners
RAS:nn
cc: Honorable Richard J. Phelan
Honorable Marco Domico
Honorable James Smirles
Honorable John Jacoby
RIVER Tr,,.IiILS SCHOOL DISC/:RICT N0.26
1900 E. Kensington Road - Mt. Prospect, Illinois 600561924 - Phone (708) 297-4120
Or, Tcr-) P,ch, SL;:er,;rferCent Cr. M. Meisterheim, Asst. Supt.
F=ebruary 7, 1991
Honorable Richard Phelan, President
COCK COUNTY 30A -F -D
118 North Clark Street
Chicago,
IL 60602
Dear President Phelan:
1 a= --iting this letter at the request of the Board of Education, River'.
Trails School District 26. At its regularly scheduled meeting of February
5, 1991, the proposed Euclid Avenue road improvement program was brought to,
the Board's attention by interested citizens. The evening before, Monday,
Febru-ary 4, 1991, the Cook County Highway Department held a public hearing
cn the issue. Over 56 residents were in attendance. The residents
expressed great dissatisfaction with the proposal. They were irate that.
the project had proceeded so far without a public hearing.
There are 39 driveways on either side of Euclid Avenue between Wolf Road
and Burning Bush Lane, There are a total of 50 drive -ways along Euclid
Avenue between ;;olf Road and River Road. All the children east of Wolf
Road walk along the sidewalk on their way to the community's major
recreational area which includes a swimming pool, the recreation center, a
—:-.4atuze golf course, a driving range, a nature trail, baseball fields,
and basketball courts. Widening Euclid Avenue will mean that a higher
vol, .e of traffic traveling at higher speeds will be closer to children
walking along the sidewalk. Whatever advantages there may be by installing
lefthand turn lanes along this section of Euclid Avenue pale in comparison
to the threat of a loss of life.
There are traffic signals and lefthand turn lanes at the intersections of
kneeling and Euclid, Wolf and Euclid, and River and Euclid, traffic signals'
at Euclid and Burning Bush and Sycamore and Euclid. A shopping center is
scheduled for construction this summer adjacent the Rob Roy Country Club
Village. NO doubt a traffic signal will have to be installed for this
section of Euclid. Therefore, within an area of less than two miles, there
-w"*Il be seven, traffic signals, three of which will have lefthand turn
lanes. Given the situation, the widening of Euclid Avenue is not going to
e x ; e di t e t *I-"-- flow o f traffic.
The Honorable Richard Phelan
Page Tvo
February 7, 1991
114 the real issue is the flow of traffic, it would seem that the widening
of either or both Camp McDonald and Kensington Roads, which are half a mile
north and South of Euclid Avenue respectively, would be the most practical,
safest and farsighted solution. The expenditure of county funds for the
Euclid project is going to add to traffic congestion and create a safety
hazard. If the County Highway Department cannot widen either Camp McDonald
or Kensington, the funds allocated for the Euclid project would be better
used so=e-where else.
The co=ent was made at the Board meeting that the Euclid Avenue project
was a "done deal." The Board of Education, District 26, certainly hopes
that under your leadership, which is beginning on such a promising note,
that this is not the case. Local citizens who must live with this
situation every day can be heard.
it was the consensus or the Board of Education that the Euclid Avenue
project has not had sufficient public input and that the propo sal does
create a serious traffic and safety hazard for the community.
Respectfully yours,
Tom R1Ch, Ed,D.
Superintendent of Schools
TR/r-ns
c: Mz. Carl Hansen
Cook County Co=issioner
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Cheryl L. Pasalic, Communications Administrator
DATE: November 6, 1991
RE: Preliminary Report on Telenois Performance Evaluation
As you know, due to the fact that some of the materials requested
of the cable operator for the performance evaluation were just
provided and others have not yet been provided, review of Telenois,
performance has been difficult and time consuming. Some of the
materials were—just - provided --to --us--less--than a- week-- ago. I—have_
asked our advisors to rush their evaluation of this information so
that we can give you as complete a report as possible within the
time frame you have requested.
First of all, I am enclosing Exhibit A which is the original
request for information that was hand delivered to Telenois on
July 26, 1991 with a 30 day window for response.
Exhibit B includes the point by point answers that were hand
delivered to me on August 26, 1991.
Exhibit C is correspondence that went back and forth between staff
and legal counsels over the information from Telenois that was
incomplete, missing, or of a questionable nature.
Exhibit D is the report on technical data provided by the Village's
technical advisor, Jonathan Kramer.
Exhibit E includes materials and the minutes of the public hearing
held on August 27, 1991 with regards to Telenois' performance.
Exhibit F includes materials from the special performance
evaluation held in 1990 due to the high numbers of complaints about
service.
Exhibit G includes additional materials provided by Telenois that
were hand delivered on October 9, 1991 and October 31, 1991.
Memo to John F. Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 2
The Village's team of experts who assisted me in the evaluation of
the information provided included: legal counsels Robin Charleston
of Jones, Ware, & Grenard and Buzz Hill of Arnstein & Lehr;
financial advisor Lou Karrison of Wolf & Co.; and technical advisor
Jonathan Kramer of Communications Support Corp. All of these
people are very knowledgeable in the area of cable television and
communications, and several are considered to be among the best in
their respective fields.
The conclusions presented herein were reached after evaluating all
the information from Exhibits A through G.-' -- This report will
highlight the conclusions reached, by category, and any
recommendations that can also be offered.
Complaints/Customer service
Since the last required performance evaluation in 1987, unresolved
complaints to the Village followed an interesting trend of being
high one year followed by an improvement the next year.
Unresolved Complaints to Village
1988 320
1989 174
1990 328 with 3 requests for information
1991 (to date) 146 with 10 requests for information
When Telenois was asked to provide information for the 1990 special
performance evaluation, the Village asked for a summary of all
complaints received from 1988 through 1990 by category. The
numbers that were provided are in Exhibit F. Telenois submitted
that the complaints received were:
1988 1989 1990
Reception 4 4 3
Rates 2
Restoration 1
Customer Service 2
General Concerns 1 2
Memo to John F. Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 3
For the 1991 performance evaluation, Telenois was again asked to
supply a reporting of all complaints received. The statistics,
provided in Exhibit B, were considerably more detailed than the
numbers provided in 1990, but seem to closely resemble the numbers
of complaints received by the Village and not the total number
received by Telenois.
It should also be noted that Telenois voiced an objection to
complying with the Village ordinance claiming that Telenois was not
given an opportunity to respond to a 1989 addition of customer
service standards. Video tape records of the hearings held in 1989
on the addition show that then System Manager, Mark Hess, was
present and did give a -presentation.
Telenois was also asked to provide a current list of customer
service standards that are adhered to by their employees. The
National Cable Television Association has customer service
standards that Telenois submitted and adheres to.
Programming
Telenois was asked to provide the schedules for any access studio
workshops that have been held in the Mount Prospect studio in the
last five years. As the evidence in Exhibit B shows, Telenois has
held no workshops for Mount Prospect residents at the Mount
Prospect studio nor are any access productions allowed at the Mount
Prospect studio. Residents are told to use other facilities in
other communities. Telenois claims the Mount Prospect studio was
designed for their use only, although no evidence exists to support
this claim which contradicts the franchise agreement. The
franchise agreement clearly states in Section 21(a)
"Franchises shall provide production
studios in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines,
Niles, Mount Prospegt, Park Ridge and
Schaumburg - either Bartlett, Hanover Park or
Streamwood, final determination subject to
approval of the three municipalities. All
studios should be of comparable size and shall
contain comparable equipment as proposed by
Franchisee. Studios shall be available for
use by all subscribers and users within
Franchisee's cable system."
In addition, Section 20(b) of the franchise agreement requires that
"Workshops shall be held at each production studio not less than
once every three months during the second, third and fourth year
of the franchise term. Thereafter, Franchisee (sic) may hold
workshops as needed on an area -wide basis but not less than once
a Memo to John Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 4
a year at each studio." These provisions have not been complied
with and the company is in direct violation of the franchise.
Telenois was asked to provide information on access equipment
available, its use, its life expectancy, and replacement. The
answers provided to these questions can be found in Exhibits B and
G. It is still unclear when some of the equipment will be updated
or replaced. It is blear that not much in the access equipment
pool has been updated or replaced except for small items. it is
also unclear how state of the art in access can be maintained when
some of the equipment is no longer manufactured.
Telenois was asked to provide what hours the Mount Prospect studio
is available for access use. The -response, in -Exhibit B, was that
the editing system at Mount Prospect could be reserved. No mention
of access production/studio time was made in that response.
It is unclear from the answers, provided in Exhibit B, regarding
the staff, equipment, and facilities at the Mount Prospect facility
as to how much of that staff's time is devoted to access versus
Telenois' local origination (LO) versus outside work for clients.
Figures were provided for staff from all facilities. It had come
to the attention of the *members of the Northwest Municipal Cable
Council in the last year, that TCl/Telenois was also operating a
separate production operation for hire to outside clients. The
information Telenois submitted did indicate that the -Mount Prospect
studio and facilities are used approximately 75% of the time for
LO production, 15% of the time for in-house employee training tapes
and or customer information programs, and 10% for outside clients.
Thereagain, we still have a franchise violation that relates to the
inaccessibility to the studio.
Overall use of access has been low in the past, but promotion of
access programming also appears to have been lacking. Telenois
notes a recent increase in interest and indicates they will be
encouraging growth. It is unclear how that will be accomplished
and by what means from the information provided. A big factor that
could boost access use is the incorporation of 1/211 VHS equipment
into production and playback. In the past, only professional 3/41,
equipment was used. This equipment, while of a much higher
quality, is not as user friendly and is cumbersome, as well as far
more complicated. With the proliferation of camcorders, perhaps
access can finally be more accessible to the public in Mount
Prospect. Previously, I had suggested the incorporation of VHS to
allow for Little League games and the like and this idea was
rejected. I would encourage the Village Board to require more
definitive time frames for the incorporation of VHS into the access
equipment pool.
Memo to John F. Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 5
It is important to note to the Board that no financial expenditures
were reported or released by Telenois with regards to what
investments have been made to refurbish or replace equipment in the
last 5 years and what plans there were to refurbish or replace
equipment in the next 5 years.
After reviewing future plans for access provided by Telenois, I
would ask the Board to seek more definitive plans for promoting and
making access of all types more successful.
After reviewing the materials submitted with regards to staffing,
it is not possible to evaluate their qualifications as only names
and job descriptions were provided. In addition, no future
staffing information was provided.
The overall consensus on Programming is that LO programming seems
to be strongly supported and promoted, yet public, educational, and
governmental access are not as actively supported and encouraged.
The Village Board should consider requesting more definitive time
frames and stronger action plans.
RE&9ORMF GTIM
Telenois claims to be in compliance with the franchise agreement
with regards to interconnection with other area cable systems.
Materials were provided in Exhibits B and G, but it is our
understanding that any interconnects that exist are for advertising
purposes only and no copies of any interconnect agreements have
been filed with this office as required. These interconnect
channels that are required (20) are to be used for programming
purposes 'by all forms of access (public, educational, and
governmental) . Telenois is not in compliance with Section 10 of
the franchise agreement.
•
R -ran
It had come to our attention during prior modification talks that
some sort of stock transfer had taken place in 1988 and Telenois
was seeking a transfer of ownership during the negotiations. This
was never done on a formal basis, but rather informally. At that
time, we sought clarification and received an affidavit from Terrel
Davis showing 100% ownership of Telenois had been transferred from
TCI Development Corporation to TCI of Illinois, Inc. in 1988.
Village approval was not sought nor was there proper notice of this
matter to the Village. Therefore, we requested further explanation
and received only another copy of an identical affidavit from
Terrel Davis. A notice of violation was issued to Telenois on
October 11, 1991 and an opportunity to cure was offered. The
response to the notice and repeated requests for clarification of
this situation are in Exhibit B, C, and G. It is still the opinion
Memo to John F. Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 6
of our legal counsels that a serious franchise violation has
occurred and the Village Board should hold a violations hearing to
determine whether penalties should be imposed.
Services and Technical Data
It has come to the attention of the Village through complaints from
businesses that they are treated differently and charged different
rates and charges than single-family residences and it has also
been the practice of Telenois to make different agreements with
multi -family dwellings. The franchise agreement is non-
discriminatory and does not classify different types of services
available. several businesses have complained that Telenois has
quoted excessive-charges--when—they-inquire-about--getting cable
service. In addition, I have personally been told by Telenois
sales staff in the past that services are not encouraged for
commercial properties. This issue was briefly explored in a
franchise violation hearing last year in which Telenois was found
in violation for not providing service to a business. Several
Trustees commented at this hearing that businesses should not be
treated differently as we do not encourage discrimination in Mount
Prospect. As you know, I referred some pending complaints of the
same nature to your attention earlier this year. I would like the
Village Board to make a ruling on whether these complaints should
be pursued further. I have left these on my pending list awaiting
a ruling.
The franchise agreement requires that Telenois file copies of all
correspondence and required forms of the FCC and other regulatory
bodies with the Village. These have not been provided in previous
years unless requested for a performance evaluation. Telenois was
notified on July 26, 1991 that they have not complied with these
requirements, and was given the opportunity to cure. Copies were
provided in Exhibits B and G after being requested.
Exhibit D points out some serious concerns on the part of our
technical advisor. Since 1990, the Village has been told numerous
times by Telenois management that the Village had been fully
upgraded with fiber optic trunking. As recently as the August 27,
1991 public hearing, System Manager Kelvin Fee stated that the
system had been fully upgraded with fiber. System tests and maps
and now revised statements from Telenois (Exhibits B, C, & G) show
that while fiber optic cable does run through the Village, only the
Southwest corner of the Village receives any benefit from it, and
the rest of the community is served by the same system as before
the "upgrade." Telenois claims that approximately 45% of their
subscribers in Mount Prospect live in this Southwest corner of the
community. This fiber that does run through Mount Prospect really
Memo to John F. Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 7
benefits Des Plaines and Arlington Heights. As you know, the
promise of a fiber upgrade was what initiated last year's
modification talks.
It is our recommendation that the village Board seek a schedule
from Telenois of when Mount Prospect will benefit from full fiber
as the other communities or the Village will be forced to
investigate invoking the favored nations provision of the franchise
agreement.
While Telenois did provide a list of other communities served by
TCI owned companies, the franchise copies were not provided. I
would recommend the Board ask for those agreements to compare ours
with for compliance.
Survey
The Village Code requires Telenois to do a subscriber survey in
conjunction with a performance evaluation.-- It was hard-- to -
interpret some of the results submitted at first (Exhibit B), but
a further explanation was provided as requested (Exhibits C & G).
302 cable subscribers out of over 8,000 in Mount Prospect were
interviewed by telephone by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc.
The results (Exhibit B) have a 95% confidence interval of plus or
minus 5.6% about any one reported percentage.
The results were not overwhelmingly positive or proof of
improvement. The majority of those answering cited that Telenois
was doing about the same as in the past, or worse in the quality
of service offered, technical quality, and quality of programming.
* rating of only fair or poor was cited by the majority on offering
* good value for the money, being open when calling for assistance,
and charging reasonable monthly rates for basic service. The most
frequently cited problem was service outages, with about the same
number next citing either no problem or poor reception/picture and
other problems. The next cited problem was rates. 54% have had
to telephone the cable company, 16% have had to go to the Telenois
offices, and 29% have had to have a service call or an install in
the last 12 months. of those who phoned Telenois, the statistics
were 60% felt the handling of their calls was good or excellent.
40% felt they were handled only fair or poorly. Of that 40% who
were only handled fair/poor, 30% were put on hold, 22% said the
problem took too long to fix, 20% said lines were busy, 16% said
it took too many rings to get a person.
Memo to John F. Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 8
Of those who visited Telenois' office, 61% had good or excellent
service, 32% had only fair or poor service. Of the 32% who had
fair/poor service, 56% said the person at Telenois was rude, 44%
said the person couldn't help, and 13% said they had to wait too
long.
of those who had service or install calls to their homes, 78% felt
the company handled the visit good or excellent, 21% felt only fair
or poor. of that 21%, 42% said it took too long to get someone to
the home, 32% said the person was incompetent/indifferent, 21% said
it was a specific technical problem.
overall, 74% said they were only somewhat satisfied, neutral,
somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with how Telenois
handles requests and complaints compared to 80% of all the area
systems that were surveyed in 1989. 50% said that the way Telenois
handles -requests and complaints has not changed, somewhat
deteriorated, or greatly deteriorated while 36% said they had
somewhat or greatly improved.
Rates were cited as way too high by 44% of those surveyed versus
38% who said it was high but acceptable. 17% felt the rates are
about what one would expect.
I was contacted by the survey company regarding the survey, and
their representative expressed the opinion that his was not a
statistically favorable survey. What does come forth is that while
customer service has improved slightly, there is still a ways to
go to make it better for subscribers. Rates of course are being
addressed at the federal level and technical quality still needs
to be addressed here locally.
Financial
Telenois refused to provide the financial information requested for
review with the exception of some projections which were not
specific to Mount Prospect. (Exhibits B, C, & G) Our financial
advisor could not render a professional opinion on what was
provided as it did not meet the requirements of what was requested.
Mr. Karrison could not evaluate the other areas questioned due to
the fact that Telenois refused to submit the information (Exhibits
B, C, & G). It is clear that the Village ordinance and franchise
agreement require Telenois to comply with the request for
information.
Telenois has indicated that other than an interest in pursuing
reduction of the system, they have no other modification plans
Memo to John F. Dixon
November 6, 1991
Page 9
to the franchise agreement. Telenois also indicated that it will
seek renewal of the franchise when the window for renewal opens
(1993). (Exhibit B)
With regards to the request for information or copies of all legal
actions, only a partial listing of cases was provided originally
(Exhibit B) . Subsequently, additional information was provided on
October 31, 1991 after a discussion I had with kelvin Fee and Ava
Whaley. (Exhibit G)
Conclusion
It is my recommendation after review of all the materials submitted
and after consulting with Village advisors, that the Village place
Telenois on notice for the franchise violations and non-compliance
issues highlighted. ' Telenois will be given the opportunity to cure
these or they will be brought forward for a hearing before the
Village Board for possible action.
I will be present on Tuesday, November 10 to present this
information along with legal advisor Robin Charleston who can also
answer questions the Village Board may have.
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: November 8, 1991
SUBJECT: Budget Projections for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year
The budget process in the Village of Mount Prospect includes several distinct
stages during its life -cycle. The first stage is a planning phase in which needs
are identified, programs evaluated, and services recommended; the second is a
priority setting stage during which the Village Board reviews the proposed
recommendations and seeks citizen input through public hearings; the third is
the legislative stage in which the budget is formally adopted by the Village
Board and becomes the authorization to expend funds; and the last stage is
implementation. Prior to the implementation stage, the budget process is
primarily a planning process; but when the budget is adopted, it becomes the
approved fiscal plan for providing Village services during the coming year.
During the implementation stage, the budget acts as a control device whereby
receipts and expenditures are compared to the approved fiscal plan. All receipts
and expenditures are recorded and monthly reports are then prepared which
identify each financial transaction with the budget. These reports, containing
varying amounts of detail, are distributed to the Village Board, the Village
Manager, department heads, supervisors and other interested parties. After the
end of the fiscal year, the Annual Financial Report provides a permanent record
of the actual results for the, year compared to the budgeted amounts.
One additional benefit of the budget process that is realized during the
implementation stage is the information obtained in the current budget year that
can be used in planning for the next budget cycle. After a sufficient amount
of time has elapsed during the current fiscal year, trends are established and
these trends can be used for projecting totals for the entire budget year. When
reasonably accurate projections of total revenues and expenditures can be made,
they can be used to estimate the resources (fund balances) that will be available
to start the next budget year.
During the past several weeks, each line item in the 1991/92 budget has been
reviewed with the goal of developing projections of total revenues and
expenditures for the current budget year. Using this and other available
information, estimates have been made of the expected revenues and expenditures
by fund and the fund balances that should be available to start the next fiscal
year. The results are reported in four attached schedules: 1) Estimated
Revenues by Fund; 2) Estimated Expenditures by Fund; 3) Estimated Available Fund
Balances and 4) Estimated Revenues and Expenditures of the General Fund.
Schedules 1 and 2 are organized by fund and contain the actual 1990/91 fiscal
year totals, 1991/92 budget amounts, 12 month estimated amounts for 1991/92, and
John Fulton Dixon
November 8, 1991
Budget Projections for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year
the expected increase or decrease from the original budget. Schedule 3 contains
the actual available fund balances as of April 30, 1991, the estimated revenues
and expenditures for the 1991/92 fiscal year from Schedules 1 and 2 and the
estimated fund balances as of April 30, 1992. The fourth schedule shows specific
information for the General Fund and includes supplementary pages which explain
significant increases or decreases. A discussion of some of the more noteworthy
information in the attached schedules follows:
Schedule I - Estimated Revenues By Fund
Total Village revenues, net of interfund transfers, for the 1991/92 fiscal year
are expected to be $45,628,870, a total of $2,606,140 more than had been
budgeted. Most of the increase occurs in the Capital Projects Funds ($1,827,865)
but there are actually net increases in each fund group except the Special
Revenue Funds. Many of the revenue sources are expected to be lower than
budgeted as a result of the downturn in the economy, but some unexpected
increases and the sale of bonds have more than made up for these decreases. Some
of the significant differences are explained below:
General Fund - The increase of $226,100 in the General Fund can be
attributed primarily to an increase in the State Income Tax, State Use Tax,
and Multi -Family Refuse Disposal Fees. Many of the revenue sources in the
General Fund are down as a result of the economy, but the increases just
mentioned more than offset the decreases. The increases and decreases are
shown in Schedule 4 and are discussed in more detail in the Explanatory
Notes to Schedule 4.
Special Revenue Funds - Decreases are expected in the Motor Fuel Tax (MFT)
Fund and the CDBG Fund along with a modest increase in the IMRF Fund. The
decrease in the MFT Fund is due to lower MFT receipts than expected, and
the decrease of $60,785 in the CDBG Fund is the result of scaling -back some
of the CDBG projects, CDBG revenues represent reimbursements for actual
project expenditures and, as a result, when expenditures are decreased
revenues are also decreased correspondingly.
Enterprise Funds - In the Water and Sewer Fund, the overall increase in
revenues of $97,350 is made up of increased water sales of $262,000 coupled
with a decrease in Special Service Area No. 5 property tax revenue of
$125,000. Water sales are expected to be approximately 100,000 (1,000
gallons) more than anticipated as a result of the hot and dry summer in
1991. The Special Service Area property taxes are down because of the
elimination of the tax levy for SSA #5 bonds and interest.
John Fulton Dixon
November 8, 1991
Budget Projections for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year
Internal Service Funds - The purpose of an internal service fund is to
provide goods or services to another fund (or department) of the Village.
The Village uses internal service funds to provide insurance for all
Village departments and for vehicle replacement. Revenues in an internal
service fund come primarily from the other Village funds and, accordingly,
these amounts are reported as expenditures in the operating departments.
As a result of the increase in medical costs of an estimated $150,000,
the operating departments in the General Fund and the Water Fund will
reimburse the Risk Management Fund by this amount, thus increasing revenues
in the Risk Management Fund.
Capital Projects Funds - As mentioned earlier, total revenues in the
Capital Projects Funds are expected to be $1,827,865 more than had been
budgeted. The Capital Improvement Fund shows an increase of $942,750 and
the Flood Control Construction Fund shows an increase of $1,530,985, along
with decreases in the Police and Fire Building Construction Fund and the
Downtown Redevelopment Fund.
The increase in the Flood Control Construction Fund and the decrease in
the Downtown Redevelopment Fund are because bonds were sold for different
amounts than had been planned. The increase in the Capital Improvement
Fund is due primarily to the extension of the State Income Tax Surcharge,
When the budget was prepared, it was expected that the Surcharge would end
on June 30, 1991. However, a portion was made permanent as of July 1, 1991
and a portion was extended for an additional two years. Receipts of
$265,000 were received under the prior legislation (for May and June 1991)
and $860,000 is expected in the current fiscal year as a result of the
new legislation, We had originally planned on putting the $265,000 from
the prior Surcharge legislation in the Police and Fire Building Construc-
tion Fund but, because of the lower than expected construction bid, this
amount is now being put in the Capital Improvement Fund.
Debt Service Funds and Pension Funds - The increase in the Debt Service
Funds is the result of a transfer of $38,000 from the Insurance Reserve
Bond and Interest Fund, transfers from the Flood Control Construction Fund
and Interest Income. The increases in the Police and Fire Pension Funds
are due to gains on the sales of investments.
Schedule 2 - Estimated Expenditures By Fund
Total Village expenditures, net of interfund transfers, for the fiscal year
ending April 30, 1992 are expected to be $39,491,225, some $1,107,495 less than
had been expected. Again, the biggest variations between budgeted amounts and
estimated amounts are in the Capital Projects Funds. The differences in these
John Fulton Dixon
November 8, 1.991
Budget Projections for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year
funds generally represent a change in the scope of the projects or a difference
in the expected pay out schedule. Significant changes in various funds are
explained below:
General Fund - The increase of $411,065 in the General Fund is summarized
below:
Medical Insurance (All Departments) $136,400
Police Recruit Testing 17,000
Police Overtime 27,500
Fire Overtime and Holiday Pay 69,500
Refuse Disposal Costs 191,200
Civic Services 23,200
Other Net Decreases -<93800>
The amounts listed above are discussed more fully in the Notes to Schedule
4,
Community Development Block Grant Fund - The decrease of $60,785 is due
to changes in the Facade Program and the Downtown Improvement Program.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the grantors of the
funds, have put a temporary "hold" on expenditures for these types of
projects and, as a result, total expenditures will be reduced.
Water and Sewer Fund - The overall increase of $94,425 is made up of an
increase of approximately $100,000 in water main improvements along with
increases in the amount of water purchased and decreases in personnel
costs.
Risk Management Fund - The increase of $147,585 is the result of increased
medical costs and workers' compensation claims. Medical claims are
expected to be $1,250,000 rather than the $1,150,000 that was included in
the budget and workers' comp claims are expected to be $300,000 compared
to the $225,000 that had been budgeted. These amounts along with some
other decreases make up the estimated increase of $147,585.
Capital Projects Fund - The Capital Improvement Fund is expected to be down
$57,280 because an amount that had been included for possible repairs to
the old Police and Fire Building will not be expended. The estimated
expenditures in the Police and Fire Construction Fund reflect the actual
amount expected to be paid out in the 91/92 fiscal year which is less than
had been anticipated. Unexpended contract amounts will be rebudgeted in
4
John Fulton Dixon
November 8, 1991
Budget Projections for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year
the 92/93 fiscal year. The budgeted amount in the Downtown Redevelopment
Fund included $750,000 for property acquisition. However because of
uncertainties regarding expected acquisitions, no amounts are being
estimated during the balance of the 91/92 fiscal year. This is the reason
expenditures are expected to be down $789,510 in the Downtown Redevelopment
Fund.
The increase of $989,700 in the Flood Control Construction Fund is due
to the addition of the Clearwater Park Project at $650,000, the Prospect
High School Project at $90,000, accelerated engineering fees of $380,000,
and $50,000 in bond and interest costs. These increases along with
expected decreases of $187,500 in the Rebate Programs make up the overall
increase. Under the two Rebate Programs included in the budget, it is
expected that $12,500 will be expended out of the $100,000 allocated for
the Residential Program and no expenditures are anticipated out of the
$100,000 allocated for Non -Residential properties.
Schedule 3 - Estimated Available Fund Balances
This Schedule is probably the single most important source of information for
financial planning purposes for the next budget year. The schedule contains the
available fund balances as of April 30, 1991, the 1991/92 estimated revenues
and expenditures from Schedules I and 2 and the estimated balances that should
be available to start the next fiscal year (April 30, 1992). By knowing the fund
balances that will be available to start the next budget year, a more accurate
and appropriate budget financing plan can be prepared.
Following is a summary of some of the more important items of information in this
Schedule:
General Fund - It is expected that the fund balance in the General Fund
as of April 30, 1992, will be approximately $2.9 million, This, balance
takes into consideration the additional revenues and expenditures
summarized in Schedules 1 and 2 and explained more fully in Schedule 4.
I have mentioned on other occasions that 15% of expenditures is the level
of fund balance that is needed to maintain a strong financial position.
Fifteen percent of current expenditures is $2.74 million. Based upon this
criteria, the fund balance is approximately $170,000 more than the desired
standard. This amount provides an additional contingency for unexpected
expenditures and/or revenues that come in less than anticipated.
Motor Fuel Tax Fund - The balance in the Motor Fuel Tax Fund as of
April 30, 1992 is expected to be $414,839. This is right at the target
of $400,000 that is needed for cash flow purposes in this fund,
John Fulton Dixon
November 8, 1991
Budget Projections for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year
Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds - The balances listed for the
Water and Sewer Fund, Parking Fund, Risk Management Fund and the Vehicle
Replacement Fund are not available fund balances but rather the net working
capital (current assets less current liabilities) of these funds. In these
types of funds, the focus of financial planning is not on the fund balance
so much as on the premise that revenues should equal expenditures.
Additionally, unique circumstances of each fund needs to be taken into
consideration in determining the appropriate fund balance. For example,
the net working capital of the Water Fund includes approximately $600,000
in receivables and inventories that will not be liquidated, and is not
available for current expenditures. Also, the balance in the Risk
Management Fund needs to be adequate to meet future liability and medical
claims. The Vehicle Replacement Fund was first established in the 90/91
fiscal year. The fund balance represents "funded depreciation" and, by
its nature, will need to be increased to insure that funds will be
available when major pieces of equipment need to be replaced.
The balance in the Water and Sewer Fund is at a level which represents
approximately six months cash requirements and this is more than adequate.
However, based upon a five-year plan of scheduled rate increases that was
presented in 1990, it is expected that this amount will be drawn -down over
this period,
Capital Projects Funds - The balances in the Capital Projects Funds are
generally restricted for specific purposes. For example, the balances in
the Police and Fire Building Construction Fund, the Downtown Redevelopment
Fund and the Flood Control Construction Fund are reserved for those
specific projects. The balance in the Capital Improvement Fund is somewhat
different in that it is not allocated for a specific project. The Capital
Improvement Fund is used to finance the Police, Fire and Public Works
contributions to the Vehicle Replacement Fund, certain capital equipment
and certain improvements. Any available balance in excess of $400,000 to
$500,000 can be used for other capital projects.
The steep increase in the balance of the Capital Improvement Fund is due
to the unexpected extension of the State Income Tax Surcharge. Based upon
current legislation, $870,000 is expected in the 91/92 fiscal year,
$1,050,000 in the 92/93 fiscal year and then $185,000 in the 93/94 fiscal
year. Because of an expected shortfall of revenue in the General Fund in
1992/93 it may be necessary to fund the General Fund's share of street
resurfacing from this fund.
Additionally, the balance in the Police and Fire Building Construction Fund
represents an estimated $500,000 more than will be needed for this project.
This amount can be reappropriated when the actual costs are firmed up.
John Fulton Dixon
November 8, 1991
Budget Projections for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year
Debt Service Funds - The balances in the Debt Service Funds are restricted
for payment of principal and interest on the various bond issues. Any
excess funds will be used to abate subsequent tax levies.
Pension Funds - The balances in the Pension Funds are restricted for future
pension and disability payments. The overall totals should increase
approximately $2.8 million this fiscal year.
Schedule 4 - Estimated Revenues and Expenditures, General Fund
This report summarizes the revenues by category and expenditures by function in
the General Fund, Total revenues are expected to be $18,346,900 and total
expenditures $18,263,885 for an excess of revenues over expenditures of $83,015.
There are a number of significant revenue and expenditure changes when estimated
amounts are compared with budgeted amounts. The State Income Tax Surcharge was
not expected to be extended when the budget was prepared and, as a result, there
is a significant increase in State Income Tax. Additionally, a change in the
billing procedures for multi -family refuse disposal charges resulted in an
unexpected revenue source. On the expenditure side, total expenditures are
expected to be $411,065 more than budget. The Notes accompanying Schedule 4
explain the revenue and expenditure increases and decreases in more detail. The
net effect of total revenues and expenditures in the General Fund in the current
fiscal year should result in an increase in the fund balance of $83,015.
In conclusion, the attached schedules show total estimated revenues and
expenditures for the current fiscal year along with estimated fund balances that
should be available as of April 30, 1992. The projections are based upon actual
data for the first six months of the year and although they are subject to
change, I believe they are reliable. The Village has been affected by the
downturn in the economy, but the results are not as ominous as they have been
for many other governmental bodies.
As mentioned earlier, the budget as adopted, becomes the fiscal plan of the
Village. This plan, as is the case with other plans, may need to be changed
when circumstances change or when new opportunities become available. Changes
within a fund may be made at the discretion of the Village Manager, However,
changes that increase the amount of any specific fund must be formally approved
by a budget amendment. A schedule of budget amendments to provide for changes
during the first six months of 91/92 is being prepared and will be presented for
Village Board consideration in December.
DCJ/sm
Attachments
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Estimated Revenues By Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1992
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds:
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
Comm Development Block Grant
IL Municipal Retirement Fund
Totals
Enterprise Funds:
Water & Sewer Fund
Parking System Revenue Fund
Totals
Internal Service Fund:
Risk Management Fund
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Totals
Capital Projects Funds:
Capital Improvement Fund
Police & Fire Bldg. Const.
Downtown Redevelopment Fund
Flood Control Const. Fund
Totals
Debt Service Funds:
General obligation Bonds
Special Service Area Bonds
Totals
Pension Funds:
Police Pension Fund
Firemen's Pension Fund
Benefit Trust #2
Totals
Totals - All Funds
Less Interfund Transfers
Totals - Village Funds
Schedule I
$36,866,212 $43,122,230 $45,735,160 $ 2,612,930
S< - —> 1:59-9 59-0> q< 106,290> -< - 6,790>
116 8-621,243 .J022,x,'730_45 , 6,288L0 S 2,606,,�140
Fiscal Year
90/91
91/92
91/92
Increase or
Actual
Budget
FstiM2ted
<1ecrease
$18,125,699
$18,120,800
$18,346,900
$ 226,100
$ 1,150,058
$ 1,205,300
$ 1,157,650
$< 47,650>
630,088
325,130
264,345
< 60,785>
668,486
748,275
�752 325
$ 2,448,632
$ 2,278,705
$ 2,174,320
$< 104,385>
$ 6,318,121
$ 6,139,200
$ 6,236,550
$ 97,350
181,481
184,380
185,380
1,000
$ 6,499,602
$ 6,323,580
$ 6,421,930
$ 98,350
$ 1,917,269
$ 2,125,000
$ 2,269,910
$ 144,910
6�
644,900
—663 600
... 18,7oo
$ 2,527,155
$ 2,769,900
$ 2,933,510
$ 163,610
$ 455,994
$ 493,750
$ 1,436,500
$ 942,750
1,375,513
4,500,000
4,324,715
< 175,285>
39,584
1,038,500
567,915
< 470,585>
1,900.000
3.430,985
1-530,985
$ 1,871,0911
$ 7,932,250
$ 9,760,115
$ 1,827,865
$ 1,109,614
$ 1,365,745
$ 1,474,285
$ 108,540
93,205
78,850
76.600
.< 2,250>
$ 1,202,819
$ 1,444,595
$ 1,550,885
$ 106,290
$ 1,995,782
$ 2,025,000
$ 2,185,100
$ 1.60,100
2,176,677
2,207,400
2,343,400
136,000
18 755
20,000
19,000
�>
$ 4,191,214
$ 4,252,400
$ 4,547,500
$ 295,000
$36,866,212 $43,122,230 $45,735,160 $ 2,612,930
S< - —> 1:59-9 59-0> q< 106,290> -< - 6,790>
116 8-621,243 .J022,x,'730_45 , 6,288L0 S 2,606,,�140
�
�
Schedule 2
VILLAGE or uonmr pauorEor
Estimated Expenditures By ruou
For the Fiscal Year Eouioc »eziz zo. 1992
Fiscal Year
90/91
91/92
91/9e
Increase or
Actual--
Budget
Estimated
<Decrease
General Fund
*1/.797.061
$17.852.820
518.263.885
$ 411.065
Special Revenue Funds:
Motor vvez z^^ ruou
$'1.I48'630
$
1.415'000
$
1'3e4.350
$< 20.650>
Comm. Development Block Grant
630.088
325.I30
264.245
� � 60,785>
--
IL Municipal Retirement poou
6i�268
I2L0��
Z2l,i�i
—595>
Totals
$ 2.431.986
$
2.461.210
$
2.379.180
$< 82.00>
Enterprise Funds:
Water a Sewer ruou
$ 6.372.5/2
$
6'352.430
V
e'446.855
$ 94.425
Parking System Revenue Fund
225,491
217~985
218,040
55
Totals
$ 6.598.063
$
6.570'415
$
6.e64.8e5
$ 94'480
Internal Service Fund:
Risk Management Fouu
$ I.934.956
$
2.125.080
$
3.272.585
$ 147.585
Vehicle Replacement Fund
263�532
�58�500
549L,400
_<__-9,1I0*
Totals
V 2.198.488
$
2.683.500
$
2'821.985
$ 138.485
Capital Projects Funds:
Capital Improvement Fund
$ 824.663
$
7e0.785
$
so».»o»
$< »/,zoo>
Police & Fire Bldg, ovoat.
-
4.400.000
2.622.500
<1.777.�nn>
Downtown Redevelopment ruuu
376.555
887.000
97.490
< /89.510>
rIonu Control o^oet. ruou
__l�LZ1j650
2,861.350
289,I00
Totals
$ I.201.218
$
7.879.435
¢
6'244.845
$<1.634.59¢^
Debt Service Funds:
General Obligation Bonds
y 1.037.877
*
1.370.450
$
I.395.285
$ 24.835
Special Service Area auoua
85,9I3
84^990
81,990
-
Totals
$ I.123.780
$
I.455.440
$
1.480'2/5
$ 24.835
Pension ruumo:
Police Pension Fund
$ 763.878
$
831.500
$
79*.500
$< 35'000/
Firemen's reoaivu Fund
868.327
937.900
9I9.950
< 17.950/
Benefit Trust �2
va
26J002
_26,0I0
26,000
-
Totals
$ 1.658.207
$
I.795'400
$
1'742'450
$< 52 950>
rotnIe - All Funds
$33.008.803
$40'698.220
$39.597.515
$<l.loo.ruu>
ceoo o� z �uo� Transfers raosfezu
$<-__>
1!�_92���>
���_�l���>
$<__6^�90x
Totals - viII��e xuouo
J1La0_8_,_8
L�Q+, 98�,720��������
uexeuuze 3
VILLAGE OF monmr Pxommoor
Estimated available
xuoo Balances
April so,
1992
Actual
91/92
yl/*u
Estimated
Balance
Estimated
Estimated
aaIuucea
4/30/91
Rgvenues
General Fund
$ n'ocn.zeo
#18'346.900
¢I8.263.085
V 2.9I2.207
Special Revenue Funds:
Motor Fuel Tau ruou
¢ 651.539
$ z.zo7.ozo
¢ �.»o4.aoo
G 414839
Comm Development Block Grant
'
2e4.345
u64 »4�
—
.
IL Municipal Retirement nvum
]0J1�
Z5�3l5
`
�L481
62,720
zntoIa
$ 682'419
$ 2.I74.320
$ 2'379.180
* 477.559
Enterprise Funds:
Water & Sewer Fund
¢ 3.673.180
$ 6.238.550
$ 6,446,855
—�
$ 3,462,795
Parking System Revenue Fund
_��
18_5 380
—983
Totals
$ 3.867.743
$ 6.421.*30
$ 6.664.895
$ 3'624.778
Internal Service Fund:
Risk Management rvuu
$ 1.078.205
$ x_.2ey'9Io
$ 2,272,585
$ 1,075,530
Vehicle ae zacemeo� souu
�
_L]
.��l
549.400
40.555
zvtuzs
@ 1^424.560
$ 2'933.510
$ 2.821.985
$ I.536'085
Capital Projects ruouo:
Capital Improvement Fund
$ 347.60I
$ 1.436.500
$ 663.505
$ I'l20 soo
ruIire a Fire Bldg. Const.
2.411.762
4.324.715
2.622.500
'
4'1/4'977oowotowo
Redevelopment Fund
x 150'261»
xo7.y1s
97.4*n
320'164nzuou
Control Const. Fund
�_-
��I���
569,635
Totals
$ 2.610.102
$ *.760.I15
$ 6.244'845
$ 6.125.372
Debt Service Funds:
General obligation nuodo
$ 979'267
$ 1.474.285
$ 1'395.285
$ z ouD 267
Special Service Area avode
___J33�69
Z6.6��
&�990
——
—125,379
z^taza
$ 1.113.036
$ 1.550.885
$ 1.480.275
$ I.183'646
eeooiuo ruoay:
Police Pension Fund
$15.e06.366
$ 2.185.I00
$ 796.500
$17,294,966
Firemen's Pension rvna
17.8/5'046
2.»43.400
919 ,950
'
�e2va4o6
aeo���� Trust �e
__�L�i
l��
__���
' '
246.168
zntaza
$34.034'580
$ 4.547.500
$ 1.742.450
$36.839'630
Totals - All Funds
¢46.561.632
$45'735.160
$39.597.515
$52'699.277
Less � z �unm Transfers oer rauo er*
�< -__>
J:�- _��^290>
J:�-_l��^��0»
Totals- Village vill�Funds
1��1.1�a� 32
����LJ,Z0
M.4 9 J1.2 2 5
J5 ?_ 6 9 9,2.��
Ex,oan of <oezzoi*ocr> of
Revenues over Expenditures L__12 8L_��� L _16 �/�9 8 0 L-�UL-0 15 J��~�U�^��> (o)
(A) See attached explanatory notes.
Schedule 4
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PaoanEcr
Estimated Revenues
and Expenditures
For
the rxucaz Year
Eoaioa xnziz
ao, 1992
General Foou
Fiscal Year
90/91
91/92
9I/92
Increase or
Revenues:
Actual
Budget
Estimated
<Decrease>(
A)
Property Taxes - General
$ 3.191.826
$ 3.354'300
$ 3,366,900
$ 12
ouIea Tax
ouIea ro^ - Special Payments
5.770.367
126,815
6,100,000
-
op�x0O0
' `
,600
< Ir5'Oou"
'
(l)
State Income Tax
Sales anoe Tax
1.942.818
z_.,2z.000
2_.oun 'oun
275uno
2)utate
& Beverage Tax
258.231
529.091
255'000
550,000
370,000'oou
520'000
115'000
< 30'000>
(3)Fo«u
Real Estate Transfer Tax
389.764
450'000
460'000
zo'OnOotber
Taxes
68.066
105.000
zzz'ono
7'000Liceooea.
Permits, Fees
I.876.570
1,731,100
I'764'050
32'950
(4)zntezgvveromeutaz
Revenue
186,409
206.500
1/0'675
< 35'825>eazviva
obuzaes
320.044
356'100
349'500
< 6'600"rioeo
oionuuul Fees/Taxes
245.435
3.049.610
],o.ouO
2'125.550
285'600
2`271'100
x 85'000>
145'550
( u)aefuoe
(6)zoreatmoot
Income
406.356
252'500
238'500
< 14'000>otber
Income
320.012
2vn.5o0
246'625
< 42'875>
7)ooe'rime
Reimbursements
_2
__�L���
�5Q
266J50
L-'
18JU0
Total a Revenues
§���2�^��
��L�2�~���^��.��>
226.1J00
(o)
Expenditures:
Public Representation
$ 72.302
$ 71.700
$ 71,200
$< xOn>
Village Administration
473.I63
410.275
4xo'77u
16
Communications Division
167.423
214.095
I9»'*u0
,500
< Io'lys>
Village Clerk's office
141.312
I38.865
I44'425
x^zoo
Finance Department
780.465
846.740
8o]'220
6'4un
Inspection Services
828.891
879.318
nuz'4cn
u'zzu
Police Department
4.576.655
4.903'290
4.992'»4u
89'25z
( o>
Fire Department
4.051.482
4.268.e20
4.»o9'u7o
zn0'lso
(D])
oeutcuz Dispatch
339.588
328.9e5
3ao'zcn
l'lo5
Human Services
2/e.713
309.385
slu'uuo
o'4»u
rzaooiug and zvoiog
261.378
2/9.100
28o'U35
x'y3o
Streets & Public Property
3.4/8.583
2.862.740
2,841,485
< 2z'25o>
(11)uefuaa
oiopveaz
2.I16.302
2,205.670
2''s96'no0
zyz'Iuo
(12)
Capital Improvements
91.570
'
.
'
Civic Groups
75.911
7*.480
�oo o9z
--`-
23 215
(ls)
Pensions & Debt Service
����
�,�5
'
zucaz ox»eoditurea2�I^�6
1�
�I7J852.820
$18.263.A85
$__4L1,065
(14)
Ex,oan of <oezzoi*ocr> of
Revenues over Expenditures L__12 8L_��� L _16 �/�9 8 0 L-�UL-0 15 J��~�U�^��> (o)
(A) See attached explanatory notes.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
General Fund Estimated Revenues and Expenditures
For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1992
Explanatory Notes
Revenues
Sales Tax revenues are expected to show an overall increase of $155,000 over
the previous year but still $175,000 less than had been budgeted. The reason
for the deficiency can be attributed to the downturn in the economy and
because a new Wal-Mart Store had been expected to open prior to the start of
the fiscal year. The new Wal-Mart Store actually opened on November 5, 1991.
For estimating purposes I have assumed Wal-Mart will add $200,000 per year
in sales tax with 208 realized in November, 308 in December and the remaining
508 spread out over the remaining 10 months. Except for the additional amount
from the Wal-Mart Store, no other increases in Sales Tax revenues are
expected.
One of the bright spots in the revenue picture of the General Fund is the
additional State Income Tax that will be realized because of the extension
of the Surtax. The State Income Tax rate was increased from 2.58 to 2.758
on a permanent basis on July 1, 1991 with an additional .258 added on a
temporary basis for the period of 7/1/91 - 6/30/93. The increase to the
Village is due to the distribution formula used. One -twelfth (1/12) of total
receipts is distributed to municipalities and counties on a per capita basis.
The increase of $275,000 over the amount budgeted represents a 208 increase
in the $1,725,000 originally budgeted for 10/12 of the fiscal year,
3. The increase in the State Sales and Use Tax is due to a "catch-up" by the
State for the Use Tax. The State Sales Tax provisions were changed effective
January 1, 1990 to provide for a uniform tax rate throughout the State. As
a result of this change, municipalities were scheduled to receive a specific
portion of the amount collected as Use Tax. However, during the State Fiscal
Year of 7/1/90 -6/30/91 adequate funds were not appropriated to make the total
distribution. As a result, approximately $140,000 for the months of December
1990 through April 1991 were not received until August 1991, It is expected
that the Village will receive approximately $100,000 of that amount in the
91/92 fiscal year and the balance in the Village's next fiscal year (1992/93).
Although there were no increases in license or permit fees during the current
fiscal year, the overall total is expected to be up some $33,000 for the year.
The increase can be attributed primarily to permit fees that were received
for several. major projects.
5, The decrease in Fine revenue of $85,000 is made up of $30,000 less in Circuit
Court fines and $55,000 less in parking violation fines. An increase in the
parking fine from $10 to $20 was expected to produce an extra $65,000 this
fiscal year. However, the number of tickets issued was down some 25% for the
period of May through October and it does not appear that extra revenue will
be realized.
6, The increase in Refuse Disposal Fees/Taxes is because the Village has changed
its procedure with regard to multi -family units. The Village is now paying
the entire cost of the multi -family pick up charges and then billing the
multi -family units their proportionate share. As a result, an additional
revenue is recorded but along with the higher revenue is a corresponding
increase in expenditures, The new multi -family billings are expected to total
$265,500 in the 91/92 fiscal year.
7. Other Income is expected to be down $43,875 from the amount budgeted and down
$73,000 from the amount received last year. Other Income includes reimburse-
ments and other types of miscellaneous revenue. The total generally reflects
less activity than in prior years.
8, Total General Fund revenues of $18,346,900 are expected to be $226,100 more
than the $18,120,800 that was anticipated when the budget was prepared. The
reasons for the increase have been explained above; however, it should also
be mentioned that the overall increase would have been much greater if it had
not been for the downturn in the economy,
Expenditures
Expenditures for medical insurance for all departments have been increased
from $3,750 per employee to $4,300 per employee. Based on 248 employees in
General Fund departments, the total increase for all General Fund employees
is $136,400. The $13,750 increase for the other 25 employees is recorded in
the Water Fund.
9. The increase of $89,255 in the Police Department is made up of $49,500 for
medical insurance, $17,000 for a Police Officer Test and an additional $27,500
for overtime in the Patrol Division,
10. The increase in the Fire Department is due to an increase in medical insurance
of $41,800, additional holiday pay of $17,000 and increased overtime of
$52,250. The additional holiday pay is the result of payment for seven
holidays in 92/92 rather than six. The increase in overtime is due to two
firefighters that have been off duty the entire year due to illness or injury.
PA
11. The Streets Division budget is actually down $21,255 even though there was
an increase in medical insurance of $17,000. The decrease can be attributed
to some reductions in personnel costs and a reduction of $17,000 in the
shared -cost tree program.
12. Although the 91/92 budget was prepared without the benefit of knowing what
the new refuse disposal contract costs would be after August 1, 1991, the
actual costs are reasonably close to the estimated costs. The one exception
is in multi -family charges. There is actually a significant reduction in the
total multi -family costs; however, because of the difference in the method
of billing multi -family users the whole amount is now being paid by the
Village rather than only the amount for the 2nd pick up as in the prior
contract. The result is an overall budget increase of $191,180 in expendi-
tures which are more than offset by revenue from multi -family units of
$265,500.
13. The increase in Civic Groups is due to an additional $2,400 for the 4th of
July Parade and $20,000 for the 75th Anniversary Celebration.
14, Total General Fund expenditures are expected to be $18,263,885, a total of
$411,065 more than had been budgeted.
15. When the 91/92 budget was approved, Revenues were expected to exceed
Expenditures by $267,980. Based on Estimated Revenues for 91/92 of
$18,346,900 and Estimated Expenditures of $18,263,885, the excess of Revenues
over Expenditures will be $83,015.
3
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM:
VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
DATE:
NOVEMBER 8, 1991
SUBJECT:
TAX LEVY FOR TAX YEARS 1990 AND 1991
A 7" j.,.
As you can see from the information provided by the Finance Director Mr. Jepson, staff
has stayed within the 5% limits set by the Village Board for increases in tax levy. To do
this, the Village services tax rate increases by 4% and the library services by 8%, bringing
a total combined increase to 4.9%. The pension amounts are increased by slightly over
16%, and bonded indebtedness is reduced by over 11%.
As we review the numbers, it becomes interesting to note that because of the $90,000
decrease in bonded indebtedness in the Village for the coming year, it causes us to have a
truth in taxation hearing. I am sure that the legislators never anticipated that there would
be reductions in bonded indebtedness. Debt amounts are to be deducted from the tax levy.
Because of our prudent fiscal policy in reductions of bonded indebtedness, it causes a
hearing to be held. However, the operational numbers still remained below the 5% level.
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: November 8, 1991
SUBJECT: Truth in Taxation/1991 Tax Levy
The "Truth in Taxation Act" provides that any unit of local government that
intends to levy property taxes in an aggregate amount that exceeds 1058 of the
amount extended in the preceding year must disclose that fact by publication and
by holding a public hearing. The Act is specific as to the method and timing
of the publication and spells out the size and contents of the notice. In
addition to disclosure by publication and the public hearing, the Act states that
the corporate authorities shall determine (by resolution) the amounts that are
necessary to be raised by taxation not less than 20 days prior to the adoption
of the tax levy ordinance.
The Act was originally enacted in 1981, but was amended in 1983 to include the
following paragraph: "Any notice which includes information substantially in
excess of that specified and required by this Act shall be an invalid notice."
This provision prevents the Village from detailing the various purposes of the
levy, such as garbage collection, employee pensions, Library, etc. Additionally,
it prohibits any explanation of an increase or decrease in the proposed levy.
Finally, the Act specifically excludes amounts levied for election costs from
the 1058 test, and the Cook County Clerk's Office has determined that levies for
general obligation debt service should also be excluded.
Based upon the above requirements, the Village will need to comply with the
Truth in Taxation Act for the proposed 1991 tax levy. The proposed 1991 tax levy
for Village purposes is $7,339,160 and for Library purposes is $2,279,915 for
a total levy of $9,619,075. This amount represents a 4.98 increase over the
combined 1990 levy of $9,168,486. However, when debt service is subtracted, the
proposed 1991 levy is 6.58 higher than the comparable amount for 1990.
The Village portion of the total 1991 tax levy represents a 48 increase over the
Village portion for 1990 and the Library portion of the total 1991 levy
represents an 88 increase over 1990. The specific tax levy requests for 1991
and the percentage change from 1990 for Village Services and Library Services
is shown on attached Schedule A.
Also attached is an updated copy of the schedule, Real Estate Tax Levies and Rate
Comparisons, which shows actual tax levies, tax rates, and equalized assessed
valuations for 1988 - 1990 and estimates for 1991. The Village tax rate is
expected to increase from $0.910 to $0.956 and the Library tax rate is expected
to increase from $0.273 to $0.297. Even though the tax levies for the Village
and the Library must be combined for the purpose of this notice, they are
separated on the tax bills when they are mailed.
Pursuant to the procedures prescribed in the Truth in Taxation Act, the following
schedule must be followed:
1. November 19, 1991 - adopt resolution establishing the amounts of
money needed to be raised by taxation for the fiscal year, May 1,
1991 April 30, 1992.
2. November 19, 1991 - establish a public hearing on the 1991 tax levy
ordinance for December 17, 1991.
3. December 3, 1991 first reading of the 1991 tax levy ordinance.
4. December 4, 1991 publish notices of tax levy requirements and the
date and time of the public hearing.
5. December 17, 1991 - public hearing and second reading of the 1991
tax levy ordinance,
6. December 18, 1991 - file tax levy ordinance with County Clerk.
Also attached are copies of the resolution establishing the amount of monies
needed to be raised by taxation and the publication notice.
DCJ/sm
Enc
Schedule A
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Comparative Property Tax Levies
For the Tax Years 1990 and 1991
1990 1991 Percentage
Levu Levy Change
VillageServices:
General Corporate Purposes
$3,347,500
$3,514,875
5.0%
Garbage Collection
1,751,000
1,838,550
5.0%
Capital Improvements
412,000
412,000
Employee Pensions
731,300
849,750
16.2%
Bonds & Interest
815.732
723,985,
-11.3%
Total Village Services
57.057 ,532
$7,339,160
4.0%
Library Services:
Library Operation
$1,707,534
$1,861,070
9.0%
Maintenance & Repair
148,475
161,840
8.8%
Employee Pensions
224,952
227,012
0.9%
Audit & Insurance
29,993
29,993,
Total Library Services
$2,110,954
$2,279,915
8.0%
Total Village and Library Tax Levy $9,168,486 $9,619,075
Less Bonds & Interest < 81.5,722> < 7M9851>
Total Village and Library
Less Bonds & Interestja. �27,54� 88.895090
4.9%
-11.3%
6.5%
I
Exhibit A
NOTICE OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX INCREASE FOR VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
I. A public hearing to approve a proposed property tax levy increase for the Village
of Mount Prospect for May 1, 1991 - April 30, 1992 will be held on December 17,
1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the Mount Prospect Senior Center, 50 South Emerson Street,
Mount Prospect, IL.
Any person desiring to appear at the public hearing and present testimony to the
taxing district may contact John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager, 100 South Emerson
Street, Mount Prospect, IL, 708 392-6000.
II. The corporate and special purpose property taxes extended for May 1, 1990 -
April 30, 1991 were $8,352,754. The proposed corporate and special purpose
property taxes to be levied for May 1, 1991 - April 30, 1992 are $8,895,090.
This represents a 6.58 increase over the previous.year.
III. The property taxes extended for debt service for May 1, 1990 - April 30, 1991
were $815,732. The estimated property taxes to be levied for debt service for
May 1, 1991 - April 30, 1992 are $723,985. This represents a 11.38 decrease over
the previous year.
IV. The total property taxes extended for May 1, 1990 - April 30, 1991 were
$9,168,486. The estimated property taxes to be levied for May 1, 1991 -
April 30, 1992 are $9,619,075. This represents a 4.98 increase over the previous
year.
At said public hearing the President and Board of Trustees shall explain the reasons
for the proposedincreasein the tax levy and shall permit all persons desiring to be
heard an opportunity to comment and present testimony thereon.
Dated this 4th day of December, 1991 /s/ Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Village Levies:
General Corporate
Garbage
Capital Improvement
G.O.Bonds - Village
G.O.Bonds - Library
IMRF - Pension
Police Pension
Firemen's Pension
Village Totals
Library Levies:
operation & Maint.
Maint. & Repair
IMRF - Pension
Audit & Insurance
Library Totals
Village and Library
Totals
Equalized Assessed
Valuation
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Real Estate Tax Levies and Rate Comparisons (1)
1988
Actual
Actual
Rate
Amount
$ .5269
$3,112,660
.2484
1,467,750
.0697
412,000
.1104
652,211
.0378
223,469
.0781
461,440
.0087
51,500
$1.0800 $6,381,030
$ .2500 $1,472,487
.0212 125,032
.0232 136,990
0046 27,295
S .2990 51,761.804
1989
Actual
Rate Amount
$ .4281 $3,141,500
.2298 1,689,200
.0561 412,000
.0818 601,598
.0304 223,469
.0778 571,650
.0140 103,000
.0070 51,500
$ .9250 $6,793,917
$ .2227 $1,634,609
.0193 142,140
.0259 190,550
.0041 29,994
$ .2720 51,997.293
1990
Actual
Rate
Amount
$ .4319
$3,347,500
.2257
1,751,000
.0531
412,000
.0772
599,180
.0279
216,552
.0876
679,800
.0066
51,500
$ .9100 $7,057,532
$ .2210 $1,707,534
.0191 148,475
.0290 224,952
.0039 29,993
_5_.2730 $2,110,954
1991
Estimated
Rate Amount
$ .4577 $3,514,875
.2395 1,838,550
.0537 412,000
.0675 518,017
.0268 205,968
.0973 746,750
.0101 77,250
.0034 25,750
$ .9560 $7,339,160
$ .2424 $1,861,070
.0211 161,840
.0296 227,012
.0039 29,993
5 .2970 52,279,915
1.3790 58,142,834
k1,1970 58,791,210l 1830 §9.168.486 1.2530 59,619,075
$590,778,708 $735,079,199 $775,783,364 $767,760,000
(1) Rates Per $100 Equalized Assessed Valuation.
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNTS OF MONEY ESTIMATED TO BE
NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
UPON THE TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE VILLAGE FOR THE YEAR COMMENCING
MAY 1, 1991 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 1992.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Act 82-102 there has been enacted into law,
effective July 29, 1981, certain legislation entitled "The Truth in Taxation
Act," as amended; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Act any taxing body which proposes to adopt a
tax levy in an aggregate amount of more than 1055 of the amount of taxes
extended on the tax levy in the preceding year on taxable property within such
taxing body is required to make a determination as to such amounts to be levied,
not less than twenty (20) days prior to the adoption of the tax levy, and is
further required to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed tax levy,
pursuant to the publication of a proper notice of hearing; and
WHEREAS, on the 16th day of April, 1991 the Village of Mount Prospect
adopted Ordinance No. 4296 approving the Annual Budget for the fiscal year from
May 1, 1991 to April 30, 1992, covering the cost, expenses and liabilities of
all general corporate and special municipal purposes and activities to be
undertaken during the said fiscal year, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Budget, the Village of Mount Prospect an-
ticipates and determines that it shall require an aggregate tax levy of
$8,895,090 exclusive of election costs and debt service, as more particularly
set forth in attached Schedule A, upon all the taxable property within the
Village, which proposed tax levy is an increase of $542,336 over the tax levy.
of $8,352,754 for the preceding fiscal year as extended; and
WHEREAS, such proposed tax levy upon all the taxable property within the
Village for the year beginning May 1, 1991 and ending April 30, 1992 constitutes
a tax increase of approximately 6.55 and it is deemed to be in the public
interest that a public hearing be held with respect to the various aggregate tax
levy amounts, as hereinafter set forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION 1: This Board does hereby determine that the aggregate amount of
money to be levied (exclusive of any amounts levied for election costs and debt
service) as necessary to be raised by taxation upon all the taxable property
within this Village for the year commencing May 1, 1991 and ending April 30,
1992, for general corporate and special municipal purposes, is estimated to be
$8,895,090.
SECTION 2: The amount herein above determined to be the aggregate tax
'eVy Upon all taxable property within the Village for the year commencing May 1,
1991 and ending April 30, 1992 constitutes a proposed tax levy of approximately
1,06.5% of the property taxes extended upon the tax levy for the preceding year
ending April 30, 1991, an aggregate tax levy increase of approximately 6.5%.
SECTION 3: A public hearing with respect to the intent of the President
and Board of Trustees of this Village to adopt a tax levy ordinance to establish
and levy the amounts determined herein to be raised by taxation, shall be held
in the Board Room in the Mount Prospect Senior Center, 50 South Emerson Street,
Mount Prospect, Illinois at 7:30 p.m. o'clock on Tuesday, December 17 1991.
SECTION 4: The Village Clerk is herein authorized and directed to publish
a notice of said public hearing in the Mount Frospegj_HERA newspaper by no
sooner than December 4, 1991 nor later than December 10, 1991, which notice
shall be substantially as set forth in the attached Exhibit A and shall state
in plain and simple language (1) the amount of property taxes, exclusive of
election costs and debt service, extended or estimated to be extended upon all
the taxable property within the Village for the preceding year ending April 30,
1991; (2) the amount of the proposed levy, exclusive of election costs and debt
service, for the current year beginning May 1, 1991; (3) the percentage increase
or decrease in the amount of taxes to be levied; and (4) the date, time and
place of the public hearing concerning the proposed tax levy. The form of
notice shall be no less than 1/8th page in size and the smallest type used shall
be twelve point and shall be enclosed in a black border no less than 1/4th inch
wide. The notice shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where
legal notices and classified advertisements appear.
SECTION 5: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage and approval in accordance with law.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1991,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
VILLAGE CLERK
MAYOR