HomeMy WebLinkAbout0421_001Minutes
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
November 26, 1991
Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 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, Finance Director David C. Jepson, and
Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer. Additionally, there were two members of the news
media and five Village residents present.
11 Minutes
The Committee of the Whole Minutes of November 12, 1991 were accepted and filed.
Dennis Schachner of 202 East Berkshire introduced himself and stated that he works for
Telecom Services Group, Ltd. Mr. Schachner said that his firm recently submitted a proposal
to the Village to provide telephone consulting services for the new Police and Fire Building.
He added that he understood that their proposal was the lowest submitted, and he wanted
to assure the Village Board that they could do the work for the amount proposed.
Mayor Farley said he would request a report from the Village Staff on this matter.
!X M� rm-mmumm
Finance Director David Jepson reviewed a report with the Committee which compared tax
levies and General Fund revenues and expenditures for the last five years with projected
amounts for the next five years. Mr. Jepson stated that this report was prepared as a follow-
up to the discussion of the 1991 tax levy on November 12, 1991. He explained that because
property taxes are only one source of the revenues which finance general Village services, the
tax levy should be discussed in relation to all General Fund revenues and General Fund
Expenditures. Mr. Jepson also stated that one of the reasons for the discussion was to provide
the Village Board with an opportunity to give input to the upcoming 1992/93 budget.
Mr. Jepson stated that property taxes increased 52.1% from 1986 - 1990, and that they were
projected to increase 27.1% from 1991-1996. The reason for the decrease over the next five
years is due to the specific direction of the Village Board to reduce the tax levies. The 1991
levy is expected to increase 4% and the next four levies by 9.1%, 4.7%, 5.6%, and 2%
respectively. A separate analysis was also made to see what the effect would be if the 4%
increase for 1991 would be eliminated. Mr. Jepson stated that if the 1991 levy did not
increase over the 1990 levy and the 1992 levy would be the same as projected, the increase
in the tax levy from 1991 to 1992 would be 13.4%.
In regard to General Fund revenues, Mr. Jepson stated that total revenues had increased
41.6% over the past five years but are only expected to increase 20.7% over the next five
years. He mentioned that one of the primary reasons for this difference is that during the
past five years the Real Estate Transfer Tax, the Food and Beverage Tax, and the
Hotel/Motel Tax were added to the revenue base. These three sources account for $1,050,000
per year. In addition, property taxes, sales taxes, state income tax, and permits and licenses
are not expected to increase over the next five years at the same rate as the last five years.
Mr. Jepson added that property taxes are expected to increase 5% per year over the next five
years; sales taxes and state income tax are estimated at 4%, with ,no increase anticipated in
the level of permit related revenues. However, licenses are expected to increase $350,000 in
94/95 due to a suggested increase in the vehicle license fee.
General Fund expenditures increased 46.8% during the previous five years and are expected
to increase 26.8% during the next five years. Mr. Jepson pointed out that the 26.8% is based
on an assumption of a general increase of 6010 in 92/93 and 5010 per year in 93/94- 96/97.
He stated that because expenditures are increasing faster than revenues, the projected
expenditures do not include any provision for street resurfacing projects from, General. Fund
monies. He also said that based on the projections, it appears expenditures will exceed
revenues by over $1 million in 96/97.
Mr. Jepson concluded by saying that the Village has been affected by current economic
conditions but we have weathered the storm better than many other governmental entities.
He emphasized that revenue increases are not keeping up with expenditure increases and the
trend indicates that existing revenue sources will not continue to support the existing level of
Village services. He said that under these circumstances, he would not recommend reducing
the proposed 1991 tax levy to the 1990 level.
Village Manager John Dixon said that the Village is in a very similar position to where it was
in 1987 when it was facing double digit increases for property taxes. He said that as in 1987
the Staff is willing to look at alternate revenue sources to provide more revenues. He added
that efforts have been made to keep expenditures down in the General Fund and a number
of reductions have been made. However, because salaries make up 800/c. of the cost of
general services it is 'difficult to reduce expenditures without cutting services. He also said
that when the economy turns down, the Village has a .greater demand for services. He stated
that a community is known by the services it provides, and the quality of services provided
by the Village is what makes Mount Prospect the outstanding community that it is.
Trustee Clowes commended the former Mayor and Trustees for their efforts to control costs
for Village services. He cited the Park Ridge survey which consistently has shown Mount
Prospect with the lowest costs per capita of any of the municipalities surveyed. He said he
agreed with the Village Manager that we are in a similar position to where we were in 1987,
but he did not agree with tate solution. He said that the climate is different today than in
1987' and that the Village should live within its existing revenue sources. Trustee Clowes said
we should look at the delivery of services and come up with ways to provide the services with
fewer people.
Trustee Clowes said he was concerned with the sharp increase in the tax levy for IMRF
pensions. Because this is a mandated expenditure he asked if the Northwest Municipal
Conference could take this up as a legislative issue. Trustee Clowes added he was not
proposing to reduce the General Fund tax levy or capital expenditures, but to simply reduce
the levy for Capital Improvements and to replace it with State Income Tax Surcharge
revenues. He mentioned this would amount to a reduction of about $280,000, and he did not
think it would seriously impact the Village.
Trustee Clowes also said that for a longer-term solution the Village needed to control costs
better. He mentioned that overtime should be restricted for emergency purposes when it is
expected to exceed the budgeted amount. He said that in regard to direction to the Staff he
was opposed to a Telecommunications Tax but that he supported going from two cans to one
can for refuse pick-up when enough data is available. Also, he said he would support a future
vehicle license fee increase.
Trustee Corcoran said he agreed that the 1/4� State Income Tax Surcharge would be
temporary and the Village should not count on these funds after June 30, 1993. He added
that he did not want to see the property tax levy jumping up and down. He preferred to
designate a single -digit percentage increase in the 3 to 4% range and stick with it. Trustee
Corcoran said the Village should limit expenditures and then look at the revenues. If
revenues fall short we must spend less.
Trustee Corcoran stated that we cannot overlook infrastructure needs and only cut capital
expenditures if there is a revenue shortfall. He said if we cut back now it will cost more later.
If expenditures must be reduced, the Village must look at the number of employees.
However, he cautioned that if we lose employees we will lose services. Trustee Corcoran said
he supported the proposed 1991 tax levy and that he would like to discuss user fees at a
future Committee of the Whole meeting.
Trustee Wilks said she supported the proposed 4% increase for the 1991 tax levy. She also
thought it would be a disservice if the Board would force expenditure cuts on the various
departments. She said she would like to hear from the department directors before
addressing the overtime issue. Trustee Wilks also said she would like to see some rate studies
to determine if the Village is recovering its costs from various fees. She added that the
Village should continue the resurfacing program at its current level and that the Village must
learn to do more with less.
Trustee Hoefert said he agrees that we must look at the expense side first and we must learn
how we can do our jobs better. He said it was paramount that the Village have a stable tax
rate and that he supported the proposed 1991 tax levy. Trustee Hoefert also said he would
like to get input from the department directors.
Trustee Hoefert added that we should get a handle on the costs behind the fees we are
charging. Also, he stated that other than in the area of life safety we must look at the
number of employees. Trustee Hoefert also said that the only way he would support direct
billing for refuse disposal would be for a corresponding decrease in the tax levy.
Trustee Floros stated he supported the proposed 1991 tax levy. He said that a 4% increase
was reasonable and the Village°s record of fiscal responsibility speaks for itself. Trustee
Floros, added that if the department directors were consulted he is sure that they would ask
for more personnel rather than come up with reductions. He said it is easier to talk about
staff reductions than itis to actually do it.
Trustee Busse stated that he thought we needed a plan spelling out where we want to go and
that we should have input from thedepartmentdirectors. He said he was concerned that if
personnel were reduced services would be cut and that he did not want to jeopardize current
services. He added that Village employees are doing a good job as evidenced by the Park
Ridge survey and that they get the job done in a cost effective way. Trustee Busse said be
would also like to see a continuation of the street resurfacing program. Also, he said that he
would like to see recommendations from the Finance Commission.
Mayor Farley said the budget process should follow the same pattern as prior years with Staff
requests reviewed by the Finance Commission prior to presentation to the Village Board. He
said one of the disappointing aspects this year was the additional overtime that is needed.
He said he understood we use overtime to control the number of employees but greater
control should be exercised. He said the Village Board should be kept appraised when
changes occur,
Mayor Farley said he supported the 1991 tax levy as proposed and that he would like to see
the 1992 levy kept at a similar level of increase.
VMan=r-'.s R,Q=
Village Manager Dixon said that aconstruction trailer has been moved on to the site of, the
new Police and Fire Building and building activity should start soon.
VI Other Business
Trustee Wilks noted that two commission members were retiring and she asked if all retiring
commission members could be formally recognized at a Village Board meeting, Mayor Farley
agreed and said that an appropriate Certificate of Appreciation would be developed.
Trustee Wilks also said she was very pleased with the holiday decorations that had been put
UP.
VII Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
David C. Jepson, ,finance Director
4
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM: EVERETTE M. HILL, JR., ESQ.
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1991
SUBJECT: VOTING REQUIREMENTS ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Questions have arisen from time to time as to the number of members of the President
and Board of Trustees who must vote affirmatively to override a recommendation of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Some background into how our system for hearing Zoning
matters works is appropriate.
Our Zoning Board of Appeals essentially hears four types of cases which are as follows:
1. Variations
2. Special Uses
3. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
4. Appeals from rulings of our Zoning Administrator
In many Illinois municipalities, all decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals are final
and do not go before the President and Board of Trustees. In these instances, any
appeal from the ruling of the Zoning Board of Appeals must be taken directly to the
Circuit Court.
In some other municipalities, no decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals are final. In
those municipalities, the ZBA only makes recommendations to the President and Board
of Trustees and the President and Board of Trustees have final say over the petition.
In Mount Prospect, we have a hybrid system.. Certain of the matters heard by the
Zoning Board of Appeals require action by the President and Board of Trustees. For
certain other matters, the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is final and appeals
from those decisions must be taken directly to the Circuit Court by way of administrative
review.
With respect to Special Uses and Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Mount
Prospect ZBA has only the authority to make recommendations to the President and
Board of Trustees. The final decision with respect to Special Uses and Zoning
Amendments rests with the President and Board of Trustees.
With respect to appeals from rulings of the Zoning Administrator, it is my interpretation
of our Ordinance that the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is final and appeals
from those decisions must go directly to the Circuit Court. Section 1.4.904 of our Zoning
Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous on this particular issue and, perhaps, needs to be
amended to clarify it to make the intention of the Village clear.
With respect to Variations, there are certain Variations which are heard by the ZBA for
which the ZBA's decision is final. These include: Lot area and height increases which
will not vary from the regulations in our Ordinance by more than 25%, certain residential.
driveway widths and Variations as to the placement of certain accessory buildings on lots
of 50 feet or less.
As to any other Variation and for any Special Use amenendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, the eventual approval of the President and Board of Trustees is required.
If such a Variation or Special Use fails to receive the approval of the Zoning Board of
Appeals in the form of a favorable recommendation to the Board, then the proposed
request may not be granted by the President and Board of Trustees except by a favorable
vote of two-thirds of all the members of the President and Board of Trustees present and
voting. The key phrase in this statement is "present and voting." Often, when a super
majority vote is required of the Board, the Statute or Ordinance will use the language,
"of those holding office." When the "holding office" language is used, it means that the
super majority will be figured on the basis of the entire Board whether all members are
present at the meeting or not.. For example„ if a Statute requires a two-thirds majority
of all members of the President and Board of Trustees then holding office and a vote
on that subject comes up at a meeting at which six members are present, then five of
the six members present must vote in favor. However, in the instance of our Zoning
Board of Appeals, since our Ordinance requires only a two-thirds vote of those present
and voting for override, then if only six members are present at the meeting, only four
votes will be required for passage.
It should also be noted that a super majority vote of the President and Board of Trustees
is not required to deny a proposed request in the face of a favorable vote of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The super majority is required only when the ZBA votes against a
proposal and the Board wishes to adopt a proposal against the negative recommendation.
of the ZBA.
It should also be noted that with respect to Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, a
super majority of the President and Board of Trustees is not required to override a
negative recommendation, of the ZBA_ In those instances, a two-thirds majority of those
present and voting is required only when 20% of owners of certain property adjacent to
the proposed project object to it.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
EMH/rcc
ARNSTEIN & LEHR
120 SOUTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA - SUITE 1200 ' CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 00606.3913
(312) 87&7100 SAMAIN=N LLINOA
FAX (SIP) 8764286 WEST PALM REACH,RLORIDA
TELEX 914921-1142
Everene M. HIII Jr. MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN
(312) MW4
TO: Mayor Skip Farley
Village of Mt. Prospect
FROM, Everette M. Hill, Jr.
DATE: June 21, 1991
RE: Omnibus Voting
The issue of a consent agenda has recently been raised by
some of our trustees. Consent agendas are dealt with in Illinois
Revised Statutes, ch. 24, Sec. 311-17, under the rubrick of
"Omnibus voting". That section states in part as follows:
"In addition, the Corporate Authorities at any
meeting made by unanimous consent take a single
vote by ayes and nays on the several questions of
the passage of any two or mare" of the designated
ordinances, orders, resolutions or motions placed
together for voting purposes in a single group
which single 'vote shall be entered separately in
the journal under the designation "omnibus vote",
and in such event the clerk may enter the words
"omnibus vote,, in the 'journal in each case in lieu
of entering the names of the members of city
council Voting "aye" and of those voting "nap, on
the passage of each of the designated ordinances,
orders, resolutions and motions included in such
omnibus group. The taking of' such single or
omnibus vote and such entries of the words
"omnibus vote" in the journal shall be a
sufficient compliance with the' requirements of
this section to all intents and purposes and with
like effects as if the vote in each case had been
taken separately by ayes and nays on the question
Of the passage of each ordinance, order,
resolution and motion included in such omnibus
group and separately recorded in the journal.
Likewise, the ayes and nays shall be taken upon
the question of the passage of any other
resolution or motion at the request of any
alderman and shall be recorded in the journal.,,
Tu ,w
G.FtP^",4^C,r...,.. ...._ _, ., . .....,_.. _.....
M �...
Mayor Skip Farley
June 21, 1991
Page 2
The omnibus voting Option is clearly a Consent agenda under
a different TM. It could probably redone
Without • YVillage
T meeting,
" w. . Y Code { + Y for a
nsent
aHowever, it remains my opinion genda. w
to change w a Consent agenda hat if the Board
y. our Village Code or Omnibus Voting system that we
• wamend
vote statute, the una ,
to
provide.
wY nt 4 • C
w
each and every
Board is required at
ordinance were to te ng in order
Y
use the rt
• • r m Y r
amended
w agenda,
such smeetinecessary. The d w
agenda as ems Could simply be
consent itemsYPrIacerk. wn the
Under the
item F ♦removed
from the♦.the Board. ny
Onsent r,. ..wugst of amember µ
If you have further questions, please contact me.
\\HGM\EMH2A-09