HomeMy WebLinkAbout0830_001October 13, 1992
I Rai Cab
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gerald L. Farley at 7:35 p -.m. Trustees present were
Mark Busse, George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Leo Floros, Paul Hoefert and Irvana Wilks. Also
present were Village Manager Michael E. Jannis, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Inspection
Services D" ; for Chuck Bencic, Deputy Pubs: Works Director Glen Andler, Engineering
Coor&MW Jeff Wulbecker, Deputy Fire Chief Lo "e Jackson, and Finance Director David Jepson.
In "tion, Dick Bachhuber, Chairmen of the Finance Commission, " 25 idents, serve'
repn=tatives of the Ballerup Skokie Orchestra of BWerup, Denmark, and two members of the print
media were in attendance.
H mutes of September 22, 1992 and SeptetubMer 29, 1992
The minutes of September 22, 1992 were accepted with the following changes:
1. The last sentence in paragraph 4 on page 3 should be replaced with the following:
"Village Manager Jannis stated that there was a difference between a commission which
was a recommending body only and one whose decision was final with the option to
appeal within 15 days. He questioned which authority the Board wanted to endorse. All
concurred with the latter."
2. The last sentence on page 4 should be changed to read as follows: " However, Trustee
Wilks urged caution because the parking spaces were also under jurisdiction of District
57 and the Village should strive to maintain a good working relationship with that
Board.
The minutes of September 29, 1992 were accepted and filed.
III Citizens to be Heartl
Mayor Farley called upon Trustee Wilks to introduce the representatives of the Ballerup Skokie
Orchestra of Ballerup, Denmark, a suburb of Copenhagen. Trustee Wilks introduced Ole and Then
Henriksen along with two members of the orchestra. The orchestra features ancient Danish music
and performs with wind instruments that have been used for 3,000 years. After performing two
songs, Then Henriksen thanked the many residents of the Village who provided housing during their
stay in Mount Prospect and for the warm hospitality extended to the group.
No Village residents appeared before the Committee.
Mayor Farley stated that he was changing the order of the agenda because of the number of
residents present regarding the Storm Water Management Project.
IV Comprehensive Storm Water Management Project - Status Report
Mayor Farley stated that he was given a flyer that suggested the Village would be cancelling the
Prospect Manor/North Main Flood Control Project. He stated that this information was erroneous
and that the Village intended to proceed with this project.
Village Manager Janonis said the purpose of this meeting was to review the recommendations of staff
to move up three projects to take advantage of TEPA low-interest loans. The Village has been
informed that the Fairview Gardens Sanitary Project, the See Gwun/Milburn Sanitary Project and
the Hatlen Heights Sanitary Project are eligible for TEPA loans in 1993. The loans would be issued
at an interest rate of 3.36%. These three projects were previously scheduled for the 94/95 and 95/96
fiscal years.
Mr. Janonis explained that to qualify for the loans the projects must be bid in 1992 with construction
starting by March 31, 1993. If the Village proceeded at this time it is estimated that it would save
$50,000 per year for 20 years in interest costs. Mr. Janonis recommended that the projects be bid
with the stipulation that these three projects would only be undertaken at this time if the Village
receives the TEPA loan funds.
Mr. Janonis stated that these three projects would be undertaken in 1993 in addition to the Prospect
Manor/North Main (PM/NM) Project. The PM/NM Project is not eligible for the IEPA loan
program but would be financed by a general obligation bond issue. He said this was a Win/Win
situation where the Village would receive low interest loans and some of the flooding problems
would be corrected sooner than had been anticipated.
George Watanabe, 607 Prospect Manor, said he was pleased that t1v Village was moving ahead with
the PM/NM Project. However, he said he was concerned with the impact of drainage from Prospect
High School on the Randview Highlands sewer system. He said he had been under the impression
that this problem had been addressed in previous years but he found out recently that it had not been
previously corrected. Mr. Watanabe had a number of other questions regarding the storm water and
sanitary sewer flow from Prospect High School.
Village Manager Janonis stated that the High School is its own jurisdiction and that they do not need
to get permits from the Village before they start building projects. He said they only need to receive
approval from the Illinois Capital Development Board. He added that the Village of Mount Prospect,
the Village of Arlington Heights and Prospect High School are currently working on the drainage
problems of Prospect High School in conjunction with the PM/NM Project.
It was recommended Mr. Watanabe provide a`liist of questions that he would like answered and staff
would arrange a meeting with all the interested parties to resolve these questions.
2
CI
In response to a question, Finance Director Jepson stated the revenue from the 1/4E sales tax would
support the three additional projects as well as the PM/NM Project. Trustee Wilks said she would
like to see a debt service schedule showing all Village Debt.
Mayor Farley polled the Board and stated there was support to proceed with bidding of the PM/NM
Project. along with the Fairview Gardens Sanitary Project, the See Gwun/Milburn Sanitary Project
and the Haden Heights Sanitary Project.
Building Code Review
Deputy Fire Chief Lonnie Jackson reviewed the proposed changed to the Fire Prevention Code. He
said one of the changes that is being recommended is to bring all the sections dealing with Fire
Protection under one chapter. He pointed out that Article II - Automatic Detection and/or
Extinguishment of Fire was being moved from Chapter 21 to Chapter 24 without change; Article III -
Fireworks was being moved from Chapter 23 to Chapter 24 without change; and Article IV - Fire
Alarms was being moved from Chapter 23 to Chapter 24 without change.
Deputy Chief Jackson made the following comments regarding the recommended changes:
24.10LA 1 - 10 Housekeeping changes only
Items 11 - 14 Codifying existing practice
Item 14A The Code relating to standpipes is being amended from 75 ft
to 35 ft. This is consistent with the Building Code.
Item 15 Codifying present practice
Item 16 This change requires a strobe light located above each fire
department connection. The requirement will be phased over
2-3 years and should only cost about 40 per light.
Items 17 - 20 Codifying existing practice
Item 21 This section requires a back-up power source for all exit signs
when a building is occupied.
Items 22 - 28 Codifying- present practice.
The Board discussed the possibility of exceptions to the Fire Prevention Code due to new technology.
Deputy Chief Jackson said this is currently provided for in the Code. Additionally, there was some
discussion regarding the sale and use of sparklers in the Village which are currently prohibited. The
Board did not support any changes to this practice.
3
Trustee Wilks said she received a letter from Kimball Hill Ihvelopers with several questions
regarding the proposed Building Code changes. Mr. Janonis said the letter along with staff responses
will be distributed to the other Trustees and that the items would. be discussed when the ordinance
was presented for the first reading.
Mayor Farley questioned the training level of Village Inspectors. He said they should be cross -
trained so that different inspectors would interpret the Code in the same way. Mr. Bencic stated that
each inspector is in a training program which provides cross -training. Trustee Busse said he was
concerned that the Village was discouraging improvements by requiring buildings to be brought up
to the Building Code.
VI Manager's Report
Village Manager Janonis distributed a map of the proposed amendment to the TIF area and reported
that the Development Plan would be available by October 15, 1992.
VII Other Business
Trustee Wilks reported that she attended a Fire Prevention Week program where the Mount Prospect
Fire Department received an award from the Illinois Fire Alliance. She complimented the
department on this achievement.
Trustee Corcoran reported that he was requesting SWANCC to adopt a resolution requiring at least
50% of the Executive Committee to be elected officials. The Mayor and Trustees unanimously
supported Trustee Corcoran in this action. He also reported that he was not satisfied with the
material provided by the SWANCC staff prior to scheduled meetings. He said he would be
requesting more timely information. 1.
Trustee Clowes commended Cheryl Pasalic for being elected to the board of NATOA. He also said
he had been contacted by a resident regarding the berm on Thomas More Drive. Village Manager
Janonis said he would provide more information on the issue. Trustee Clower also pointed out an
article in the current issue of City and State magazine by Tank Industry Consultants.
VIII Adjournment
Mayor Farley said an executive session was necessary. The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m. to
executive session. The meeting reconvened at 11:57 p.m. and adjourned at 11:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David C. Jepson, Finance Director
4
Viiia a of Mount Prospect ,
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1992
SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
1992-1997 LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
While the above-mentioned program encompasses a multi-year commitment to strategic
planning and proposed changes to current budgeting techniques, our immediate focus
must be on the near-term revenue/expenditure imbalance that we face. Our goals at the
November 10 Committee of the Whole meeting should be to (1) reach agreement with
regard to making up this year's shortfall; (2) establish fiscal year 93/94 Levy requirements
so that the Village can proceed with the steps necessary to establish the 1992 Tax Levy
and (3) reach general agreement on the parameters of a multi-year spending/revenue
plan.
Basis for Discussion
As stated many times before, the Village of Mount Prospect is in sound financial
condition. This has been achieved through a combination of conservative fiscal
stewardship on the part of elected officials and the implementation of innovative, cost-
effective management practices on the part of staff. By any reasonable measure, the
municipal government of Mount Prospect is a lean and cost-effective operation. In
addition, the quality and scope of services provided to residents is without equal in the
northwest suburban area. This combination of low costs and outstanding services is one
of the primary reasons why the Village of Mount Prospect is such an attractive place to
live and/or operate a business. Attached are several surveys which bear out this fact.
Other factors continue to place pressures on keeping costs reasonable and service quality
high. Those factors include growth prospects, the economy and the normal cost of doing
business.
Realistically, we cannot hope to significantly reduce costs or even hold them level unless
we are prepared to also significantly reduce the quality or level of services. By making
a practice of operating at a near optimum level, it becomes extremely difficult to cut a.
lot of fit from the budget without also taking a large chunk of the meat. It quickly
becomes an either (cost)/or (service) proposition.
If we overreact to a weak economy or feel that we alone should bear the major
responsibility of reducing residents' overall tax burden, then we chart a course of
alternating crisis management in bad times and catch-up management in good times.
The organization and the community are then in a constant state of flux. Perhaps the
better way to approach the issue is to look at it in a simpler format and develop a
number of principles that can help guide the decision-making process.
The first principle should be that - Revenues must not exceed expenditures.
The second principle is that optimizing organizational efficiency and holding down
controllable costs is our #1 priority.
The third principle is that innovation and a dedication to the highest level of quality,
personalized service is an equal priority.
The fourth principle is that there are certain core services that municipal government
must provide to its residents.
The fifth principle is that given optimal organizational efficiency, funding to support the
agreed-upon level of services must be provided.
Deficit Reduction Plan
The five principles can be reduced to a formula that will help determine what
adjustments are necessary in terms of spending, revenues and service levels. Under
normal circumstances, expenditures equal revenues and the balance is "0." The current
situation indicates that the Village, given present spending and funding levels, is in a
deficit position. Figures, along with more detailed information, are contained in the
attached memo from Mr. Jepson entitled, "92/93 through 96/97 Budget Projections."
Also attached are two worksheets which outline a proposed format for logically working
the deficit down to zero. As you will see, the formula provides for various possibilities
including expenditure reductions, additional revenues, utilization of available fund
balances and as a last step - service reductions.
Given the Board's current policy of limiting the Ig.W, increase in the Property Tax Levy
to :5% and capping spending at 5%, staff is proposing the following for consideration:
1. Spending caps of 4.5% in 93/94; 4.0 in 94/95; 3.5% in 95/96 and 96/97.
2. Additional revenues derived in whole or in part from:
Reconsideration of the 5% limit on the growth of the Tax Levy by
excluding Debt Service.
New revenue sources such as water in lieu of taxes, resident
ambulance fee, gasoline tax, utility tax.
Proceeding to a one -can refuse disposal program (an annual decrease
in the garbage levy is also proposed in an effort to return a portion
of those costs to residents).
3. Combining the IMRF Fund with the General Fund in order to realize
certain one-time gains.
4. Utilizing available Fund Balances in 92/93 and 93/94 while maintaining a
fiscally responsible fund balance of $2,500,000.
5. Establishing the remaining amount, if any, of the projected deficit. That
figure will then be addressed through a series of service cuts and
accompanying reductions in force.
This year's deficit can be eliminated with modest revenue reductions, one-time revenue
sources, water in lieu of taxes and a partial draw -down on available fund balances.
Fiscal years 93/94 through 96/97 will require more detailed analysis.
Specific details regarding all aspects of the deficit reduction plan will be provided at the
Committee of the Whole meeting. I am confident that by working through the Deficit
Reduction Plan elected officials and staff will be able to produce an acceptable solution
to address (1) this fiscal year; (2) establish a Levy amount for next fiscal year and
(3) identify a spending/revenue plan through fiscal year 96/97.
MEJ/rcc
A Vision for the Future
92/93 - 96/97
"Laying the Groundwork"
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Deficit Reduction Plan
92/93 - 96/97
The following actions will either add to the proposed deficit or reduce the deficit:
Additional Services
- Add to Deficit
Expenditure Reductions
- Reduce Deficit
Additional Revenues
- Reduce Deficit
Available Fund Balances
- Reduce Deficit
Service Reductions
- Reduce Deficit
Deficit Reduction Formula
Projected Deficit
Add: Additional Services
Sub -Total
Subtract: Expenditure Reductions
Additional Revenues
Fund Balances
Sub -Total
Service Reductions
1
j?
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Deficit Reduction Worksheet
92/93 - 96/97
Year
92/93
93/94 94/95
95/96
96/97
Projected Deficit
$570,600
$11,107,200 $1,367,000
$1,59-3,500
$1,696,600
Additional Services
+
+ +
+
+
Sub -Total l
$
Expenditure Reductions
Additional Revenues
Fund Balances
Saw -TOW
Service Reductions
Balance
$ -0-
-0- $ -0-
$
$ -0-
A Vision for the Future
92/93 - 96/97
Multi -Year
Spending/Revenue Plan
MOUNT PROSPECT 2 - A VISION FOR TfEE FUTURE
Multi -Year Spending/Revenue Plan
92/93 - 96/97
The following features are included in the Mount Prospect 2000 Multi -Year Spending/Revenue Plan:
1. Expenditure Reduction Plan
93/94 -
94/95 -
95/96 -
4-1/2% Maximum Increase
4% Maximum Increase
3-1/2% Maximum Increase
2. Funding Commitment for Additional Services
3. Refuse Disposal Basic Service Plan
Basic Service Provided
Property Tax Reductions
Bonus Stickers
4. Property Tax Levy Caps
5. New Revenue Sources
6. Available Fund Balances
1MRF Fund
General Fund
4
A Vision for the Future
Expenditure Reduction Plan
92/93 - 96/97
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Expenditure Reduction Plan
3.5% Expenditure Limitation
The following schedule shows the phased expenditure reductions to arrive at a maximum
increase in expenditures of 3.5 % by the 95/96 fiscal year:
(1) 92/93 projections include $102,000 in reductions with an additional $50,000 to be
identified.
93/94 reduction 1/2%, 94/95 reduction 1%
95/96 reduction 1-1/2%, 96/97 reduction 1-1/2%
(2) A contingency of 25% of planned reductions will be available for contingencies or by
Board authorization only.
6
Expenditure
Net
Rgdugtjon (1)
Contingency ()
Reduction
92/93
$102,000
$ -
$102,000
92/93
50,000
-
50,000
93/94
93,200
-23,300
69,900
94/95
283,200
-70,800
212,400
95/96
588,000
-147,000
441,000
96/97
916,000
-229,000
687,000
(1) 92/93 projections include $102,000 in reductions with an additional $50,000 to be
identified.
93/94 reduction 1/2%, 94/95 reduction 1%
95/96 reduction 1-1/2%, 96/97 reduction 1-1/2%
(2) A contingency of 25% of planned reductions will be available for contingencies or by
Board authorization only.
6
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Expenditure Reduction Plan
3.5% Expenditure Limitation
92/93 - 96/97
The following schedule shows where expenditure reductions will take place from 92/93 - 96/97:
(1) Personal Services includes wages and pension benefits.
7
Personal
Commodities
Total
Services
& Services
Expenditure
Rgductions (1)
p§
Rcdudons
92/93
$ 93,000
$ 9,000
$102,000
92/93
30,000
20,000
50,000
93/94
72,300
20,900
93,200
94/95
227,000
56,200
283,200
95/96
474,000
114,000
588,000
96/97
741,600
174,400
916,000
(1) Personal Services includes wages and pension benefits.
7
A Vision for the Future
Additional Services
92/93 - 96/97
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Additional Services
3 Police Officers
93/94 - 96/97
The funding commitment for 3 additional police officers is listed below:
Salary &
Other
Total
lkn at, (1)
Cq§t5 1 (2)
_ _ Cost
93/94 $115,500
$19,500
$135,000
94/95 130,500
191500
150,000
95/96 147,500
19,500
167,000
96/97 169,500
19,500
189,000
(1) Salary and Benefits includes wages, pension benefits, uniform allowance, and medical
insurance.
(2) Other Costs includes training, insurance, supplies and vehicle expense.
A Vision for the Future
Refuse Disposal
Basic Service Program
92/93 - 96/97
10
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Refuse Disposal
Basic Service Program
The Refuse Disposal "Basic Service Program" includes the following listed services as well as
property tax relief.
Basic Service Includes:
One Container or Bulk Item per Week
Current Recycling Program
Move In and Move Out Allowance - 10 Containers
Spring and Fall Cleanup - Unlimited Pickup
5 Bonus Stickers per Year
Up to 25 % of Multi -Family Costs
Property Tax Reductions:
1992 Total Levy (Excluding Debt Service) Reduced 1/2%
1993 Total Levy (Excluding Debt Service) Reduced 1 %
1994 Total Levy (Excluding Debt Service) Reduced 1-1/2%
1995 Total Levy (Excluding Debt Service) Reduced 1-1/2%
11
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Refuse Disposal
Basic Service Program
The expected dollar amounts for the bonus stickers, the property tax reductions and the Village
savings are listed below:
Bonus Property Tax Village
Suers (1) Reductions,, (2) sayiG&L
93/94 $ 95,600
$ -33,100
$459,900
94/95 95,600
- 103,900
551,100
95/96 115,000
-216,900
548,100
96/97 115,000
-339,700
432,800
5 Bonus Stickers per year plus 10 Container Allowance for each move in and move out.
(1) Savings includes Brush, S/F and M/F
(2) 1992 Tax Levy reduced 1/2%
1993 Tax Levy reduced 1 %
1994 Tax Levy reduced 1-1/2%
1995 Tax Levy reduced 1-1/2%
12
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000
A Vision for the Future
Property Tax Levy Caps
92/93 - 96/97
13
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Property Tax Levies
5% Cap - Total 1992 Levy
This schedule shows the allocation of the 1991 and the 1992 tax levies using a 5 % cap for the
1992 tax levy:
The priorities for allocating property tax dollars are:
1. Debt Service
2. Pensions
3. Refuse Disposal
4. Corporate Purposes
14
1991
1992
%
Pum_
� ._
I,e y
Differeno
plff=�
Corporate
$4,669,505
$4,515,829
$(153,676)
(3.3)%
Refuse Disposal
1,838,550
2,060,000
221,450
12.0%
Pensions
_ IQ7, 2
154.5QQ
47.380
44.2%
Sub -Totals
$6,615,175
$6,730,329
$115,154
1.7%
Debt Service
_ 723,,9284
2757 Q
251.776
34.8%
Totals
17,222112
17,72§.,2
220,22
5.0%
The priorities for allocating property tax dollars are:
1. Debt Service
2. Pensions
3. Refuse Disposal
4. Corporate Purposes
14
91
-0661 ut pied ;unouie
agp ump ssol oq Ipm sonssi puoq 2upsrxo pun AIT oe3 sp
io3 sluauiannbai aotAias Igop io3 W1 M oql `awp Imp
iayd •s=A any ixou agp io; mmA iod OI$ uegp ssol 3o
saxel f4jadoid ut oswntu uE aos Ipnn (uopenleA passassd
pazgenbg 000`SZ$ `000`091$ 3o onlEA 193llew) podsoid
iunoW ut auioq Im!dA4 E `loofoid sup 3o llnsoi E sd
aEaA aad Oi$ uvgZ ssa'I aq
IpAj ja"o amog inidAjL E ao; aseaaaul xEs ,(:pado.j
:aingooiq
wnpuaiojai Buiplmg ani puE oollod 1661 ludd agp ut poxeoddv uopenonb 8uTmollo3 agZ
OS8`£ZZ -
9LO`99£`6
9ZZ`Zt,1`6
9661
06Z`Lt, -
9LO`OZ6`8
98L`ZL8`8
9661
SL8`681 +
99£`96V`8
OtZ`S89`8
V661
066`LLI +
000`160`8
066`89Z`8
£661
909`9IZ$ +
680`90L`L$
969`IZ6`L$
Z661
mol UO 2uipnl3xg xEZ
dra %S dED %S
:tAolaq utAogs si Anal Imo3 agp
uo deo % S e ptm aouuos jgap Suipnloxo deo % g e pm soiAal Imol age uoom4oq aouaia33ip oU
9661 - Z661
sa!AWI XRL Xpado.j
3WIMA MU IIOA NOISIA V - OOOZ ,L33dSOHd JMOW
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Property Tax Levies
1992 -1996
The proposed tax levies (3rd column) result from the 5 % cap excluding debt service less the
reduction that would come from the Refuse Disposal Basic Service Plan. This amount is then
compared with the previous projections of the 5 % cap on the total levy in the 4th column.
16
5% Cap
Refuse
Proposed
5% Cap
Exluding
Disposal
Tax
Total
Debt Service
Reduction
Levies
Levy
1992
$7,921,695
$( 33,100)
$7,888,595
$79706,082
1993
8,268,990
(103,900)
8,165,090
8,091,000
1994
8,685,240
(216,900)
8,468,340
8,495,365
1995
8,872,785
(339,700)
8,533,085
8,920,075
1996
9,142,225
(472,250)
89669,975
9,366,075
16
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000
A Vision for the Future
New Revenue
Sources
17
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
New Revenue Sources
Payment in Lieu of Taxes
A payment from the Village's Water and Sewer Utility in lieu of property taxes would be about
$150,000 per year.
Fixed Assets 4/30/92 $15,978,600
$159,786
Village Tax Rate x .927
Payment 1148.IQQ
Customers of Private Utilities pay property taxes on
assessed valuation (Residents who use Citizens
Utilities Water and Sewer pay taxes to the Village
through Citizens Utilities Company).
18
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
New Revenue Sources
Ambulance Fee
The addition of an ambulance fee to residents along with the existing fee charged to non-
residents would raise about $125,000 to $150,000 per year.
Non -Resident
Current Billings
464 @ $125 $58,000
Collection Ratio
$58,000 @ 77.7% = $45,000
The Village's collection ratio for non-residents is
77.7%. The Village accepts what is paid by
insurance or Medicare.
Residents - (Pr
Additional Billings
1800 @ $100 --
Collection Ratio
$180,000 @ 75 %
Other M nicip itis
Arlington Heights
Hoffman Estates
19
$135,000
Schaumburg
Elgin
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
New Revenue Sources
Gasoline Tax
A Gasoline Tax of 1i per gallon would amount to about $150,000 per year in new revenue.
15 Gas Stations in Mount Prospect
Estimated Sales @ 85,000 gallons per month
Monthly Sales
lil
x 12
Annual Sales 1,020,000
Total Sales
Tax Rate
Park Ridge
20
x .01
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
New Revenue Sources
Utility Tax
A tax on utility bills of 1 % would raise an estimated $500,000 per year in new revenue.
Estimated Utility Bills:
Residential:
Electric $1,200 @ 1%
Gas 720 Q 1%
Water 280 Q 1%
Telephone 444 1%
Totals $2,600
Number of Residential Properties
Total Residential @ 1 %
Commercial (Estimated):
$345,800 x 50%
Total Utility Tax @ 1 %
Other M; unicioalilig§
Elmhurst Niles
Glenview Evanston
Lake Forest Streamwood
21
$12.00
7.20
2.80
4.00
$26.00
x13.300
$345,800
= 172.900
Park Ridge
Oak Park
Wilmette
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
New Revenue Sources
Special Service Area Tax
Tank Farm
A special service tax to cover the additional risk to the Village from the Tank Farm would raise
an estimated $100,000 per year.
Tax Levy
Fiscal
Estimated
'Total
Year
Rate
Tax
1992
_
_
-
1993
94/95
411
$100,000
1994
95/96
431
$105,000
1995
96/97
401
$110,000
1996
97/98
42t
$115,000
Maximum Tax Rate
22
501 per $100 EAV
W
A Vision for the Future
Available Fund Balances
23
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Available Fund Balances
The amount of fund balances in excess of worldng-cash requirements and
contingencies can be used to offset the expected deficits.
DvW Fund (1) $60,200
General Fund (2) $600,000
(1) A one-time gain of $60,200 can be realized by combining the DAA
Fund with the General Fund.
(2) The General Fund balance on 4/30/92 was $3,156,752. The balance
should not be reduced below $2,500,000.
24
A Vision for the Future
Summary of
Spending/Revenue Plan
92/93 - 96/97
25
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Spending/Revenue Plan Summary
92/93-%/97
2/93 92/24 4/95 95196 96/97
Projected Deficit 570 $1,3671OOCt 593 500 1 696�tD
1. Expenditure Reductions (1)
Current Budget
$ 50,000
3.5 % Limitation
$ -
Contingency - 25 %
-
Totals
$ -
2. Additional Service
70,000
3 Police Officers
$ -
3. Refuse Disposal - Basic Service (2)
59.MO-
Brush
$ -
Multi -Family 75/25
-
Single -Family
-
Property Tax Reduction
Net Savings
4. Property Tax Levy
5 % Cap - Excluding Debt
Service
5. New Revenue Sources
Water -In Lieu of Taxes
Ambulance Fee
Gasoline Tax (ea. lb)
Utility Tax (ea. 1 %)
SSA Taxes - Tank Farm
6. Fund Balances (3)
IMRF Fund
General Fund
$ 135,000
$ 150,000
$ 167,000
$ 189,000
$ 45,
$ 60,000
$ 67,
$ 70,000
48,000
70,000
72,5W
77,500
X00
59.MO-
6L5,M
62,5.000
$ 493,
$ 655,
$ '765,
$ 772,500
33,100
(103,900)
(216,900
(339,700)
$ 459,900
$ 551,100
$ 548,100
$ 432,800
$ -
$
215,600
$
178,000
$
189,900
$148,100
$
153,900
$
160,100
$
166,500
-
120,000
125,000
130,000
-
150,000
150,000
150,000
500,000
525,000
550,000
-
-
100,000
110,000
$ 60,200
$
-
$
$
-
$312,300
$
287,700
$
$
-
$( 47,300)
$ 173,100
135,000
150,000
580,000
115,000
(1) Expenditure Reductions for 92/93 assume a hiring freeze for non-essential positions, and for 93/94-96/97 it assumes a reduction
of 1/2% per year until the annual increase in expenditures is capped at 3.5%.
(2) The assumed implementation date for the Basic Service Plan is August 1, 1993. The corresponding property tax reduction
assumes a maximum annual increase of 4-1/2% in 1992, 4% in 1993, and 3-1/2% in 1994 and thereafter.
(3) A one-time gain of $60,200 can be realized by combining the IMRF Fund with the General Fund. A maximum of $600,000
of the existing General Fund Balance can be used for deficit reduction.
26
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Deficit Reduction Plan
92/93 - 96/97
The following actions will either add to the proposed deficit or reduce the deficit:
Additional Services
- Add to Deficit
Expenditure Reductions
- Reduce Deficit
Additional Revenues
- Reduce Deficit
Available Fund Balances
- Reduce Deficit
Service Reductions
- Reduce Deficit
M_ i „_1 • i ff*TJ
Projected Deficit
Add: Additional Services
Sub -Total
Subtract: Expenditure Reductions
Additional Revenues
Fund Balances
Sub -Total
Service Reductions
Balance
27
j?
MOUNT PROSPECT 2000 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
Deficit Reduction Worksheet
92/93 - 96/97
Year 92/93
93/94
94/95
95/96
96/97
Projected Deficit $570,600
$1,107,200
$ 1,,M7,W
$1,593,500
$i,
Additional Services
Sub -Total
Expenditure Reductions
Additional Revenues
Fund Balances
Sub -Total
Service Reductions
Balance $ -
4,:
-0-
4
28
Federal Income Tax
$7,508
FICA Tax
$4,117
September 1992
Taxes Paid
By A Typical
Mount Prospect Family
State Income Tax
$1,418
$286
Property Taxes
$2,385
Village Government
Services
$1 $232 $217
Educational Cook County Township
Purposes Government Government Services
Services
Culture &
Recreational
Purposes
Water & Sewer
District
Purposes
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: January 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Comparable Community Expenditures and Revenue Survey
The Finance Department of the City of Park Ridge recently completed its tenth annual survey of
budget expenditures and selected revenues from eighteen comparable communities. In previous
years there were nineteen participating communities; however, Evanston did not participate in
the current survey. The two attached schedules are taken from the current survey. Schedule 1 is
a comparison of adjusted budget expenditures on a per capita basis and Schedule 2 shows
payments that a typical family (2.8 persons) makes directly to the municipality. The survey is dated
January 1992 and was taken from 1991/92 budget amounts.
In Schedule 1, budget amounts have been adjusted to represent similar services in each
municipality and specifically excludes Community Development Block Grant projects. From the
schedule it can be seen that Mount Prospect's per capita expenditures are again the lowest of the
eighteen communities. The $636 per capita expenditures in Mount Prospect are $75 less than Des
Plaines, $204 less than Arlington Heights, and some $279 less than the average of all communities.
Schedule 2 shows the annual revenues that each municipality receives directly from a typical
household. These direct payments include vehicle and dog licenses, property taxes, water and
sewer charges, garbage pick-up fees (if separate from property taxes) and utility taxes. Mount
Prospect ranks fifteenth in the eighteen communities. I should point out that it is more difficult
to compare direct payments than expenditures in the sample communities because of the influence
of other revenue sources. However, the comparison is worthwhile and shows the typical Mount
Prospect family paying $110 less than the average of all the communities.
We all recognize that needs and priorities vary from community to community. However, I believe
the survey information demonstrates the continuing commitment to provide necessary services to
the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect at the lowest possible cost.
DCJ/sm
Enc
Schedule 1
COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON (1)
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE COMPARISON
1991/92 Fiscal Year
Compiled January 1992
Adjusted Expenditures
Rank MuniciDality Budget 2 P2PRIAti2n Pera it
1
Schaumburg (3)
$95,295,106
68,586
$1,389
2
Highland Park (3)
39,167,226
30,600
1,280
3
Winnetka
14,108,324
12,271
1,150
4
Lake Forest
20,128,035
17,836
1,129
5
Wilmette
27,428,304
26,690
1,028
6
Glenview (3)
38,274,130
37,400
1,023
7
Oak Park
52,126,734
53,648
972
8
Northbrook (3)
27,580,134
32,308
854
9
Arlington Heights (3)
63,419,173
75,460
840
10
Elmhurst
34,630,014
42,029
824
11
Skokie
48,679,197
59,432
819
12
Deerfield
14,009,697
17,450
803
13
Downers Grove (3)
37,306,560
46,858
796
14
Naperville
67,441,452
85,351
790
15
Niles
21,228,463
28,284
751
16
Des Plaines
37,859,704
53,223
711
17
Park Ridge
24,303,374
36,075
674
19
Mount Prospect
33,799,545
53,170
636
$38,710,287 43,148 $ 915
(1) Source - City of Park Ridge
(2) Adjusted budget includes total City Budget including MFT, Library, Garbage
and excluding Park District, Electric Utility, Sanitary Districts, Community
Development Block Grants, Bus Service, Flood Control Proceeds, Cemeteries and
Golf Courses.
(3) The budget has been increased for these cities for the amount paid by all
households for scavenger service.
Schedule 2
COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON
ANNUAL REVENUES RECEIVED FROM AVERAGE HOME
January 1992
* Assumes once per week curb pickup where alternative levels of garbage service are available. Also includes recycling charge.
City
Total
Vehicle
License
Dog
Garbage
Water
Utility
Sewer
Property
Direct
Under 35
Over 35
License
Charge*
Bill
Tax
Charge
Tax
Paygents
Position
Assumptions for
97,000
$2,642
29,000
Sample Family
1Cal
near
MV
Oak Park
40.00
40.00
10.00
-
203.70
132.10
92.5
803.30
1,321.25
1
Highland Park
30.00
30.00
5.00
231.60
128.38
132.10
18.00
312.91
887.99
2
Lake Forest
60.00
60.00
10.00
-
220.49
143.12
14.78
356.12
864.51
3
Glenview
20.00
20.00
5.00
174.00
193.03
132.10
48.50
251.43
844.06
4
Park Ridge
30.00
30.00
8.00
15.00
234.32
143.82
-
370.04
831.18
5
Arlington Heights
20.00
20.00
5.00
155.40
291.00
_
-
325.67
817.07
6
Winnetka
20.00
20.00
10.00
-
186.08
-
61.22
516.49
813.79
7
Deerfield
30.00
30.00
5.00
86.16
226.93
-
60.95
366.56
805.60
8
Northbrook
24.00
24.00
10.00
214.20
218.25
-
24.25
242.15
756.85
9
Naperville
-
-
8.00
-
172.47
140.72
116.70
310.04
747.93
10
Wilmette
35.00
35.00
10.00
-
114.11
132.10
85.58
311.17
722.96
11
Elmhurst
12.00
12.00
5.00
73.68
193.03
-
198.40
216.78
710.89
12
Skokie
10.00
10.00
10.00
-
149.12
13.04
-
506.34
698.50
13
Des Plaines
15.00
15.00
4.00
117.60
209.52
-
-
300.44
661.56
14
Mount Prospect
20.00
20.00
5.00
-
230.86
-
26.19
343.07
645.12
15
Downers Grove
-
-
-
105.00
175.06
-
114.76
146.07
540.89
16
Niles
15.00
15.00
-
-
192.06
79.26
-
172.84
474.16
17
Schaumburg
17.00
17.00
2.00
134.64
245.41
4.35
33.95
-
454.35
18
Mean
22.11
22.11
6.22
87.63
199.10
58.48
49.75
325.08
755.48
* Assumes once per week curb pickup where alternative levels of garbage service are available. Also includes recycling charge.
y
5
m
m
z
o z
m 21 om
IC)
K
A D
D m
Z
C
9
r
G)
m
O
O
z
M
O
CAM
n
1
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Area Municipalities
Tax Rates and Fees
November, 1992
(1) Refuse disposal fees represent the monthly charge paid either to the municipality or the scavenger for refuse disposal and recycling, excluding yard waste. Volume based user fees for Hoffman Estates
and Mount Prospect assume 1.7 containers per week.
(2) Combined Water and Sewer rate based on annual use of 97,000. Additional amounts for Mount Prospect and Palatine represent water and sewer projects supported by property taxes. Property taxes
are converted to a rate per 1,000 gallons.
1991
Property
Tax Rale
Food &
Beverage
Tax
Hotel
Motel
Tax
Real Estate
Transfer
Tax
Home Rule
Sales
Tax
Utility
Tax
Ambulance
Fee
Refuse
Disposal
Fees (1)
Vehicle
IJance
Fee
Waley & Sewer Gasoline
Rates (2) Tax
Arlington Heights
$ .7184
1.0%
4.0%
$ -
1/4%
$50/50
$14.00
$20.00
$3.00
Buffalo Grove
1.161
3.0%
3.00
1/2%
0/150
12.10
22.50
2.94
Des Plaines
.821
3.0%
1.00
-
8.26
15.00
2.16
Elk Grove Village
.605
1.0%
5.0%
3.00
1/2%
13.10
20.00
2.45
Glenview
.747
-
5.0%
-
5%
-
10.25
20.00
2.50
Hoffman Estates
1.343
4.0%
3.00
1/2%
35/100
9.95
15.00
3.59
Mount Prospect
.927
1.0%
3.0%
3.00
1/4%
m
0!125
0.75
20.00
2.75 + .61
Palatine
1.176
4.0%
-
1/2%
-
13.60
20.00
1.64 + .53
Park Ridge
1.096
1.0%
4.0%
2.00
5%
0/125
1.25
30.00
2.78 1t/Gal
Rolling Meadows
708
1.0%
3.5%
3.00
1/4%
0/120
10.00
20.00
3.31
Schaumburg
2.0%
4.0%
1.00
1/2%
-
50/100
13.32
17.00
3.22
Streamwood
1.403
1.00
I/2%
4%
0/50
11.58
10.00
4.44
Wheeling
1.145
-
-
12.76
20.00
3.06
Excludes
Library
I
1__Per$IODO
Rate
Resident/
Non -Resident
Monthly
Charge
Passenger
Vehicle
Per 1,000 Gal.+
Property Tax per
1,000 Gal.
(1) Refuse disposal fees represent the monthly charge paid either to the municipality or the scavenger for refuse disposal and recycling, excluding yard waste. Volume based user fees for Hoffman Estates
and Mount Prospect assume 1.7 containers per week.
(2) Combined Water and Sewer rate based on annual use of 97,000. Additional amounts for Mount Prospect and Palatine represent water and sewer projects supported by property taxes. Property taxes
are converted to a rate per 1,000 gallons.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT""
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael E. Jannis, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: November 5, 1992
SUBJECT: Direct Payments for General Municipal Services
Because a municipality uses a variety of taxes and fees to finance general municipal services,
it is difficult to evaluate the cost of these services to the residents by just looking at property
taxes or one or two fees by themselves. Also, certain taxes and fees such as the hotel/motel tax
and sales taxes are shared by non-residents and thus may not have a direct impact on many
residents. I believe one of the most accurate methods of evaluating the cost of municipal
services to residents is to compare the "direct payments" that a typical resident pays to the
municipality.
On the attached schedule, the direct payments from property taxes, utility taxes, and refuse
disposal fees are compared for Mount Prospect and 12 other area communities. In this schedule
Mount Prospect ranks 12th out of the thirteen municipalities with total direct payments of $278
for a typical family. This compares to $337 for Des Plaines and $376 for Arlington Heights.
Only Schaumburg is lower than Mount Prospect and that is because they do not levy property
taxes.
I believe this information confirms other surveys which show Mount Prospect with a relatively
low cost of providing municipal services.
DCJ/sm
Enc
DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR VILLAGE SERVICES
PROPERTY TAXES, UTILITY TAXES AND REFUSE DISPOSAL FEES
Municipality
Property
Taxes (1)
Utility
Taxes (2)
Refuse Disp.
Fees (3)
Total
Rank
Arlington Heights
$208
$ -
$168
$376
8
Buffalo Grove
337
-
145
482
5
Des Plaines
238
-
99
337
9
Elk Grove
175
-
157
332
10
Glenview
217
130
123
470
6
Hoffman Estates
389
-
119
508
2
Mount Prospect
26
4
278
12
Palatine
341
-
163
504
3
Park Ridge
318
130
15
463
7
Rolling Meadows
205
a
120
325
11
Schaumburg
-
-
160
160
13
Streamwood
407
104
'139
650
1
Wheeling
332
-
153
485
4
Average >
$264
$28
$121
$413
(1) Assumed single family residence with an EAV of $29,000.
(2) Assumed annual utility payments of $2,600.
(3) Fee paid to municipality or contractor for refuse disposal and recycling and excluding yard waste,
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT °•
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Directo
DATE: November 3, 1992
SUBJECT: 92/93 Through 96/97 Budget Projections
Attached are two schedules which contain updated financial projections for the General
Operating Funds of the Village. The projections are based on six months' experience for the
92/93 fiscal year and on various assumptions for the 93/94 - 96/97 fiscal years. Schedule 1
shows actual revenues and expenditures for the 91/92 fiscal year and then the budgeted amounts
for 92/93 compared to estimated amounts for the entire year. Schedule 2 uses 92/93 estimated
amounts as a basis and then shows projections of expected revenues and expenditures for the
93/94 - 96/97 fiscal years. Schedule 1 includes a separate page of explanatory notes for
extraordinary differences between budget and estimated amounts and Schedule 2 includes a page
specifying the assumptions that are being used.
Both schedules confirm the preliminary views that were presented in August 1992 that the
Village is facing an extended period in which expenditures are expected to be significantly higher
than current revenue sources. For the 92/93 fiscal year, the deficiency is estimated at $570,600
and for 93/94 - 96/97 the gap ranges from $1.1 million to $1.7 million.
The overall deficiencies in the current projections are somewhat less than the amounts projected
in August. 1992 due to the following reasons: 1) Cost savings of approximately $100,000 for
92/93 are reflected in the estimates for 92/93; 2) The current projections assume that the IMRF
Fund will be combined with the General Fund for a 92/93 savings of $42,400 and a 96/97
savings of approximately $110,000; 3) The annual increase in Public Safety expenditures for
93/94 - 96/97 has been reduced from 5.5% to 5%. This change reduces projected 96/97
expenditures by approximately $250,000; and 4) more specific revenue projections were used
for 93/94 - 96/97 than had previously been used.
Following is a comparison of the projected deficiencies presented in August 1992 with the
amounts in Schedules 1 and 2:.
Michael E. Jannis
Page 2
92/93 Through 96/97 Budget Projections
August 1992 November 1992 Increase
Fiscal Projected Projected or
Yor Deficiency Defii n < Decrease >
92/93 $ < 649,750 > $ < 570,600 > $ < 79,150 >
93194
$ < 1,197,050 >
94/95
$ < 1,546,100>
95/96
$<1,937,300>
96/97
$ < 2,177,900 >
$ < 1,107,200>
$ < 1,367,000>
$ < 1,593,500>
$ < 1,696,600>
$ < 89,850 >
$ < 179,100 >
$ < 343,800 >
$ < 421,300 >
Multi-year projections need to be refined on a regular basis, especially because of the
compounding effect that changes have in future years. However, the revised amounts still point
out the seriousness of the problem for the Village.
One of the changes that is included in the current projections is the combining of the EWRF Fund
with the General Fund. Traditionally, a municipality will set ug each property tax levy in a
separate "special revenue" fund and expend the amounts from the' separate fund. With home -
rule authority the Village does not have to follow this practice, and in fact, can combine the
IMRF levy with the general corporate levy. The advantage of thh; approach is that it becomes
unnecessary to maintain a separate fund balance for working cash j purposes. This change will
free up an excess of revenues over expenditures of $42,400 for die 92/93 fiscal year and will
also allow a one-time transfer of the DARF Fund balance of $60,200 as of April 30, 1992 to the
General Fund.
I recognize that these projections will change in the future as a result of changes in Village
operations, changes in the economy and possible changes in Village policy. Nevertheless, I
believe that the information presented in these schedules provides a starting point for future
budget considerations. When material changes take place in the future, I will keep you
informed.
DCJ/sm
Enclosures
Schedule 1
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
General Operating Funds (1)
Estimated Revenues and Expenditures
For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1993
Excess of <Deficiency>
Revenues over Expenditures BBQ �,< „ 7 1r5> 1< §"' § > §Q2,,985> M
(1) Includes General Fund, Refuse Disposal Fund, IMRF Fund and the portion of the Capital Improvement Fund
used for equipment and vehicle replacement.
(2) See attached page for explanation.
Fiscal Year
91/92
92/93
92/93
Increase or
Ac ual
< >
(2)
Revenues:
General Fund:
Property Taxes - General
$ 3,430,637
$ 3,541,800
$ 3,530,075
$< 11,725>
Sales Tax
5,746,281
6,000,000
5,800,000
< 200,000:>
A
State Income Tax
1,997,692
2,070,000
2,060,000
< 10,000>
State Sales & Use Tax
385,005
331,500
328,000
< 3,500>
Food & Beverage Tax
536,235
530,000
540,000
10,000
Real Estate Transfer Tax
430,983
480,000
480,000
-
Other Taxes
106,035
119,750
113,425
< 6,325>
Licenses, Permits, Fees
1,871,131
1,833,000
1,838,650
5,650
Intergovernmental Revenue
59,863
169,200
134,250
< 34,950>
B
Service Charges
350,520
376,500
374,650
< 1,850>
Fines
331,430
325,700
335,500
9,800
Investment Income
284,409
240,000
160,000
< 80,000>
C
Other Income
233,652
250,550
248,950
< 1,600>
One -Time Reimbursements
262&44Q
7 Q
75,000
Total General Fund
$16,026.321
$16,343,000
$16,018,500
$< 324,500>
Refuse Disposal Fund Fees/Taxes
2,394,179
2,572,400
2,575,800
3,400
IMRF Fund Revenues
757,416
818,450
801,700
< 16,750>
Capital Impry Fund Revenues
549,443
58170
586.760
-
Total Revenues
$19,727.359
$20,320,610
11 9,982,7kQ.
$< _337,850>
D
di r $:
Public Representation
$ 72,620
$ 74,735
$ 78,120
$ 3,385
Village Administration
454,799
508,735
478,730
< 30,005>
E
Communications Division
198,830
241,500
232,650
< 8,850>
Village Clerk's Office
157,466
163,065
165,385
2,320
Finance Department
925,761
983,465
987,290
3,825
Inspection Services
983,246
1,055,120
1,004,665
< 50,455 >
F
Police Department
5,275,797
5,563,050
5,541,150
< 21,900>
G
Fire Department
4,545,611
4,921,725
4,971,460
49,735
H
Central Dispatch
330,015
353,000
353,815
815
Human Services
366,196
390,355
387,385
< 2,970>
Planning Department
344,186
359,390
414,175
54,785
1
Streets & Public Property
2,916,215
3,109,180
3,233,430
124,250
J
Streets - Resurfacing
318,836
-
-
Refuse Disposal
2,423,512
2,544,130
2,566,400
22,270
Civic Groups
99,414
88,380
82,025
< 6,355>
Pensions & Debt Service
54,,324
X32,39524,295K
Total Expenditures
$19.466,828
$20,388,225
$20,553,360
$ 165.135
L
Excess of <Deficiency>
Revenues over Expenditures BBQ �,< „ 7 1r5> 1< §"' § > §Q2,,985> M
(1) Includes General Fund, Refuse Disposal Fund, IMRF Fund and the portion of the Capital Improvement Fund
used for equipment and vehicle replacement.
(2) See attached page for explanation.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Schedule 1
General Operating Funds
Estimated Revenues and Expenditures
For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1993
Assumptions for 93/94 - 96/97
Explanatory Notes
A. Sales Tax revenue for the first five months of the 92/93 fiscal year totaled $2,289,017
compared to $2,344,488 for the same period last year. This represents a decrease of $55,471
or 2.37%. It is estimated that the Village will receive $5,800,000 for the 92/93 fiscal year or
approximately 1 % more than the 91/92 total of $5,746,281. To realize the 92/93 total, sales
tax revenues will need to increase an average of 3.2% over the remaining 7 months of the
fiscal year.
B. The decrease in Intergovernmental Revenues of $34,950 is made up of . the following:
Employment Counselor Grant $14,100; Police & Fire Training Grants $10,500; Personal
Property Replacement Taxes $7,350; and Other Grants $3,000.
C. Investment Income is expected to be $80,000 less than budgeted and some $124,400 less
than 91/92 because of the dramatic decrease in interest rates over the past year. For the first
six months of the 91/92 fiscal year the average of short-term rates was almost 6% compared
to less than 3.5% for the first six months of 92/93. The Village has an average of about
$3,000,000 in general operating funds invested throughout the year.
D. The overall reduction in Total Revenues from the 92/93 Budgeted amount to the 92/93
Estimated amount is $337,850.
E. The reduction in expected expenditures of $30,005 in Village Administration is due to the
vacancy of the Assistant Village Manager position.
F. The decrease of $50,455 for Inspection Services is due to the vacancy of the Engineering
Technician position along with related benefit costs.
G. The reduction of $21,900 in the Police Department is due to a decrease in costs for Crossing
Guards and lower than expected costs for gasoline.
H. The increase of almost $50,000 in the Fire Department is due primarily to an increase in the
expected costs for the Sick Leave Incentive and for Compensated Absences. The increase in
Compensated Absences is the result of the "vesting" of accumulated sick leave for 10 Fire
Department personnel. Fifty percent of the value of accumulated sick leave is eligible for
payment (vesting) upon serving 20 years with the Village or with 10 years service and reaching
age 60.
Schedule 1
I. The increase in the Planning Department is primarily due to the expected payment of $100,000
to Broadacre Development Company compared to a budget amount of $50,000.
J. The increase in the Streets and Public Property Division of $124,250 is primarily due to the July
wind storm. The Forestry Division is expected to expend an additional $62,400 for personal
services and $59,850 for contractual services because of the storm.
K. The increase of $24,285 in Pensions and Debt Service is due to the correction of the pension
calculation for Charles Nick for the period of 1981-1992.
L. Total Expenditures for 92/93 are expected to be $20,553,360 compared to the budgeted
amount of $20,388,225. This represents an increase of $165,135 of expected expenditures
over budgeted expenditures.
M. Total Estimated Revenues of $19,982,760 are expected to be $570,600 less than Total
Estimated Expenditures of $20,553,360.
Schedule 2
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
General Operating Funds (1)
Estimated Revenues and Expenditures (2)
93/94 - 96/97
Public Representation
93/94
94/95
95/96
96/97
Village Administration
im
538,800
im
im jjjd
Revenues:
244,300
256,500
269,300
282,800
General Fund:
173,700
182,300
191,500
201,000
Property Taxes - General
$ 4,557,800
$ 4,736,100
$ 5,021,100
$ 5,391,700
Sales Tax
6,032,000
6,273,300
6,524,200
6,785,200
State Income Tax
2,121,800
2,206,700
2,295,000
2,386,700
State Sales & Use Tax
343,400
357,100
371,400
380,700
Food & Beverage Tax
561,400
584,000
607,400
631,700
Real Estate Transfer Tax
504,000
529,200
555,600
583,500
Other Taxes
113,000
117,500
122,300
127,100
Licenses, Permits, Fees
1,825,000
2,200,000
2,225,000
2,250,000
Intergovernmental Revenue
202,700
210,900
219,300
228,000
Service Charges
395,000
415,100
435,800
457,600
Fines
350,000
360,000
370,000
380,000
Investment Income
175,000
200,000
225,000
250,000
Other Income
245,000
255,000
265,000
275,000
One -Time Reimbursements
75.QQO
Total General Fund
$17,501,100
$18,444,900
$19,237,100
$20,127,200
Refuse Disposal Fund Fees/Taxes
2,822,200
3,023,000
3,163,500
3,389,500
IMRF Fund Revenues
-
-
Capital Impry Fund Revenues
Total Revenues
$20,323,300
$21,462,,900
4QQ&20
$23,516,700
Public Representation
$ 82,000
$ 86,100
$ 90,400
$ 95,000
Village Administration
513,200
538,800
565,800
594,100
Communications Division
244,300
256,500
269,300
282,800
Village Clerk's Office
173,700
182,300
191,500
201,000
Finance Department
1,036,700
1,088,500
1,142,900
1,200,100
Inspection Services
1,054,900
1,107, 600
1,163,000
1,221,200
Police Department
5,816,700
6,107,600
6,412,900
6,733,600
Fire Department
5,198,100
5,458,000
5,730,900
6,017,500
Central Dispatch
371,500
390,100
409,600
430,100
Human Services
398,400
418,300
439,200
461,100
Planning Department
356,100
373,900
392,600
412,300
Streets & Public Property
3,290,600
3,455,100
3,627,800
3,809,200
Streets - Resurfacing
-
250,000
250,000
250,000
Refuse Disposal
2,771,700
2,993,400
3,173,100
3,363,400
Civic Groups
84,600
88,800
93,200
97,900
Pensions & Debt Service
39,909
-39,900
41,90Q
44,000
Total Expenditures
$21,430,500
4 Q;Q,
$23,994,100
$25,213,300
Excess of <Deficiency>
Revenues over Expenditures < 1 1 " > 1<1'1f " > I <.L.521 > 1<119910P
(1) Includes General Fund, Refuse Disposal Fund, IMRF Fund and the portion of the Capital Improvement Fund
used for equipment and vehicle replacement.
(2) See attached page for assumptions used.
Schedule 2
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
General Operating Funds
Estimated Revenues and Expenditures
93/94 - 96/97
Assumptions for 93/94 - 96/97
Property Taxes - 5% Annual increase in the total levy
Sales Tax )
State .Sales & Use Tax )
Food & Beverage Tax ) 4% Annual Increase
Intergovernmental Revenue )
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Service Charges ) 5% Annual Increase
State Income Tax - 3% for 93/94 and 4% for 94/95 - 96/97
Licenses, Permits, Fees - Increase of $10 in the Vehicle License Fee effective 5/1/94
Fines
Investment Income ) Estimated Trend Increases
Other Income
One -Time Reimbursements ) Forfeiture of Escrow Deposits
Refuse Disposal - 8% for 93/94 & 94/95 and 6% for 95/96 & 96/97
Streets Resurfacing - $250,000 per year 94/95 - 96/97
Other Departments/Divisions - 5% Annual Increases after a reduction of $215,000 in 92/93
estimated expenditures to adjust for extraordinary expendi-
tures
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Deficit Reduction Plan
92/93 - 96/97
Expenditure Reductions
Additional Services
Additional Revenues
Available Fund Balances
Service Reductions
- Reduce Deficit
- Add to Deficit
- Reduce Deficit
- Reduce Deficit
- Reduce Deficit
Projected Deficit $
Add: Additional Services (+)
Sub -Total $
Subtract: Expenditure Reductions (-) $
Additional Revenues (- )
Fund Balances (- )
Sub -Total $
Service Reductions (-) $
Balance
VELLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Deficit Reduction Plan Worksheet
92/93 - 96/97
Year
Projected Deficit
92/93
$ 70,600
93/94
$1,,107,100$1,367,
94/95
95/96
i ,
96/97
$l,
Additional Services
+
+
+
+
+
Sub -Total
Expenditure Reductions
Additional Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
Fund Balances
��r�fNPrl`111 �r,��,ff
Service Reductions
-
-
-
-
-
Bae
$ -0-
Phone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting
Thursday, November 12, 1992
7:30 P.M.
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
ZRA:71-SIL-22. Am and QgQ k
The petitioners are seeking a Special Use Permit as required in Section 14.1101.C.6 to
allow the installation of a ground -mounted satellite antenna.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
Edward
The petitioner is seeking a variation from Section 14.1102.B.1 to allow a reduction in the
required interior sideyard setback from 7.2 ft. to 4.5 ft. to allow a 4' x 9' room addition to
the second story.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.1102.B.1 to allow a reduction to the
required interior sideyard setback from 8.6 ft. to 5.75 ft. to allow an addition to the existing
attached garage.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
ZDAIEVU2, G1 Giovaengli. 10 East Sunset
The petitioner is seeking a variation to Section 14.1102.D.4 to allow a 7 ft. service walk to
encroach into the sideyard setback instead of the maximum allowed 36 inches.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
w�
MAYOR;w„
GERALD L FARLEY
TRUSTEES
MARK W BUSSE':
GEORGE A. CLOWES
TIMOTHY J.CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
PAUL WM HOEFERT
IRVANAK WILKS
Village of Mount Prospect
VIUA,6E MAMMAGIR
MICHAEL E JANONIS
VILLAGE CLERK
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A FIELDS
Phone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting
Thursday, November 12, 1992
7:30 P.M.
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
ZRA:71-SIL-22. Am and QgQ k
The petitioners are seeking a Special Use Permit as required in Section 14.1101.C.6 to
allow the installation of a ground -mounted satellite antenna.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
Edward
The petitioner is seeking a variation from Section 14.1102.B.1 to allow a reduction in the
required interior sideyard setback from 7.2 ft. to 4.5 ft. to allow a 4' x 9' room addition to
the second story.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.1102.B.1 to allow a reduction to the
required interior sideyard setback from 8.6 ft. to 5.75 ft. to allow an addition to the existing
attached garage.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
ZDAIEVU2, G1 Giovaengli. 10 East Sunset
The petitioner is seeking a variation to Section 14.1102.D.4 to allow a 7 ft. service walk to
encroach into the sideyard setback instead of the maximum allowed 36 inches.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Page 2
-7 h i 'n h E w
The petitioners are seeking the following variations in order to construct a detached two -
car garage:
1. A variation to Section 14.102.B.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 1.57 ft. instead of
the minimum required 5 ft. for an accessory structure.
2. A variation to Section 14.1102.B.2 to allow an exterior sideyard setback of 17.3 ft.
instead of the minimum required 20 feet.
Village Board action is required for this case at their meeting of December 1.
2 Kimball i nI!M.WAgt r l Road
The petitioners are seeking the following:
1. A rezoning from I-1 Light Industrial of Article XXII to R-3 Apartment Residence
of Article XIV; as allowed in Article VIII, Amendments.
2. A Special Use Permit as required in Article XXV to allow a Planned Unit
Development which consists of 92 townhome units on 8.76 acres.
Village Board action is required on this case at their meeting of December 1.
NOTE: In all cases where the Zoning Board of Appeals is final, a fifteen (15) day
period is provided for anyone wishing to appeal their decision. No permit will
be issued until this period has elapsed.
I
6
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT SIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting of the Sign Review Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson
Adelaide Thulin at the Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
ROLL CALL
Members of the Sign Review Board present were John McDermott, Richard Rogers,
Elizabeth Luxern, and Chairperson Adelaide Thulin. Absent were Commissioners Hal
Pr ch and Wren Kostak., Also present was Kenneth Fritz, Economic Development
Coordinator; and Harold Rerftchler, resit.
MINUTES:
The minutes of October 5 and October 19 were approved unanimously on a motion by
Liz Luxem, seconded by Richard Rogers.
NEW BUSINESS:
This e was continued to November 2,1992 to allow Wal-Mart the opportunity to gather
information together regarding signage that they seek on the west wall of their facility. In
addition, the Sign Review Board wanted to know Wal -Mart's future plans for additional
signage. Mr. Kevin Fowler, representing Wal-Mart Stores in Mount Prospect, indicated
that they plan to change ft background r from light grey to the same deep blue
background with white letters as was located over the main entrance. He further indicated
that they have no intention to seek a tenant panel on the Mount Prospect Plaza signage
or a separate freestanding sign on their tenant parcel. Mr. Fowler indicated that the
proposed change in background color will be approximately 38'wide ich would extend
from the corner to the first break in the parapet wall over the garden center.
The Sign Review Board felt that the change in colors on the wall and sign copy would be
a benefit to Wal-Mart In the appearance of the signage.
Motion:
A motion was made by Richard Rogers, seconded by Elizabeth Luxem to approve
change in colors for the background and the sign copy for the west wall, provided
treestanding sign would notb • •ht in the future. The motionpassed 4 ayes,
• absent.
Sign Review Board Minutes Page Two
November 2, 1992
The petitioner seeks a variation from Section 7.305.A.2 and 7.305.A.8 to permit a
freestanding sign 15' in height instead of the 12' maximum; and a reduction of the 25' site
distance triangle to 12' at the Amoco Station located at than southwest corner of Main
Street and Kensington Road.
Mr. Glen Corkill, of Corkill Electric, represented Amoco and indicated that the present
signage changed in the last year does not allow the operator enough visibility at the
corner for the product identification and gas price signs.
The present sign had been lowered to 12' height from the top of the logo torch emblem
to grade. This leaves the gas price panels within 3' of the established grade at this
location. Because of the busy. intersection of Kensington, Land, and Elmhurst Roads,
Corkill, together with Amoco, designed a sign that incorporates the logo and gas pricing
panels in a more readable fashion, side-by-side, with a total sign area of 42 square feet,
and a clearance from the bottom of the sign to grade of 9°8", which will help visibility,
especially upon exiting the station onto Elmhurst Road. The site distance triangle
reduction froth 25' to 12' does not compromise safety and is, in U4 2' more than what
has been proposedby the Sign Review Board and staff as a new standard for site
distance triangle in the Sign Ordinance.
Motion:
A motion was made by Elizabeth Luxem, seconded by John McDermott to accept the
proposal for variations in height and site distance triangle for the Amoco free standing
sign. The motion was approved 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 members' absent.
Circuit City requests a Special Use and Variation to amend Ordinance #3666 in Sections
7.305.6.1 and 7.305.B.6 of the Sign Ordinance in order to permit three wall signs on one
street frontage instead of one wall sign per street frontage as required by the Ordinance.
Additionally, they seek a 35' height for the wall sign instead 30' maximum as required by
the Ordinance. Mr. Greg Kinton, Construction Administrator for Circuit City, made a
presentation on behalf of his company, indicating that Circuit City identification package
is consistent in that they seek a 35' entrance pylon that rises above the parapet wall by
5'. The entrance pylon is so designed as to present two surfaces of possible signage.
Circuit City plans to place the name "Circuit City" on both of these surfaces. The signage
would be open channel letters with exposed white neon. An additional sign area is
proposed for the exterior wall south of the main entrance to read "appliances, computers,
video and audio". This signage constitutes a major departure by identifying product
identification which has not been permitted in previous cares, specifically the Electric
Avenue -Montgomery Ward signage in this same center.
Elizabeth Luxem indicated her concern over the fact that this 1.ype of an operation with no
internal access to the interior of the mall proposed is a departure from the shopping
center concept that provides full access to the businesses from the interior court area of
the shopping center. She likened the operation, as proposed, to a stand-alone store or
Sign Review Board Minutes Page Three
November 2, 1992
strip center, instead of the original shopping center concept. Mr. I(Inton indicated that,
in order for their concept of retailing to be successful, they must hoe control at the main
entrance, thus a secondary access point to the Interior of ft wall would pose a security
problem and would not work well with the layout of tw store since the storage area would
be back toward the interior of the mall. Mr. Kinton Indketed that within the next year,
there will be 30 Circuit City stores in the Chicago market area. This location is among the
first 19 expected to be open by the end of the first quarter of 1993.
Mr. Rogers questioned the need for the height of ft entrance pylon being as high as
proposed. Mr. l Inion replied that the design of the entrance of ft former Spiess building
is such that in order for the signage to be easily readable, ft entrance pylon would need
to project above the parapet wall. He indicated that the existing Spiess entrance design
has a structure Oud rises above ft parapet wall. He also Indicated that the entrance
Pym will serve as the initial customer center ire the main entrance and will serve as
the main foyer to the larger space on the interior of the 33,000 square foot space.
Motion:
A motion was made by Richard Rogers, seconded by John McDermott to approve the
Special Use amendment to Ordinance #3666 in order to permit two "Circuit City* signs
on the entrance pylon. Additionally, a variation of 33' be granted for the wall ,sign instead
of the 30' maximum as permitted by the ordinance. The third wall sign which proposed
to identify the product lines of appliance, computers, video audio was denied. ' be
motion passed 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 members absent.
OIL
This is request by Amoco Oil to seek a Variation of 3' to permit a freestanding sign 15' in
height instead of the 12' maximum. The station is located at the northwest corner of
Dempster and Elmhurst. It was also noted in the sW reportthat the other three corners
of this intersection are in the City of ides Plaines and all have larger freestanding signs.
These include the White Hen Pantry, Phillips 66 Station, and theJewel-Osco development.
In addition, a large billboard is located at the south edge of the Phillips 66 Station that has
received a lot of criticism from both the City of Des Plaines and residents of Mount
Prospect The existing sign is 120 square feet in area and 25' in height. What is being
proposed is a sign height of 15' and a sign area of 51 square feet. This sign also includes
an identification panel for the existing car wash on the property. There is existing
landscaping at the base of the present sign. It is proposed that the new sign will be
located on the same base upon removal of the non -conforming sign.
Motion:
A motion was made by Richard Rogers, seconded by Elizabeth Luxem to approve the
height variation of 3' as presented for the sign at this location. The motion was approved
4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 members absent.
Sign Review Board Minutes
November 2, 1992
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Kenneth H. Fritz
Economic Devel
KHF:ci
Page Four
BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 28, 1992
.TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Business District Development and
Redevelopment Commission was called to order at 7:32 P.M. at the Village Hall, 100
South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
H
Members of the Commission present: Chairman Hal Predovich, Commissioners Keith
"Youngquist, Bart Ke k, and Joseph Janisch. Absent were Commissioners John Eilering
and John Metzenthin. Also present were Janet Hansen, Mount Prospect Ctwnber
Executive Director, David Clements, Planning Director, Kenneth Fritz, Economic
Development Coordinator, and Jim Buzeski, Daily Herald Reporter.
Q ESS=
HM&N 9f n
David Clements, Planning Director, outlined the changes that need to be presented to the
Village Board as amendment #2 to the existing Tax Increment Finance District #1. He
explained that the second amendment would be merged wfth the earlier amendment #1
which included the majority of the block by Wille, Central, Mein, and Busse. The result
will be a complete document showing TIF .District #1 with Amendments #1 and #2
incorporated into the revised Redevelopment Project and Plan for the Downtown.
Mr. Clements reviewed the changes to the document by referencing the highlighted and
lined out sections of the document as either being the addition or deletions respectfully.
Some of the major features of the revised TIF Redevelopment Project and Plan were to
include redevelopment objectives earlier adopted by the Village Board and reviewed in
joint sessions with the BDDRC regarding the triangle redevelopment area. These
objectives included discussion on the elements of land use, development character,
design guidelines, parking, and pedestrian movement.
Additionally, sections of the recently revised Comprehensive Plan, dealing with downtown
development, were incorporated into the TIF' District document Modification of the Maple
Street corridor development and mixed use residential and commercial in the triangle area
have been incorporated into the Tax Increment Finance document.
Mr. Clements briefly reviewed the requirements for eligibility under the state statutes for
designation as a Tax Increment Finance District under the qualifications as a conservation
area. He indicated that more than 50% of the buildings in the area must be over 35 years
BDDRC Minutes October 28, 1992
Page Two
of age. Of the 14 other factors set forth in the act, 8 are present in the TIF District area.
He also stated that the factors present are reasonably distributed throughout the area and
all blocks within the study area show the presence of conservation factors.
Particular attention was given to exhibits 1 through 4, made', part of the Redevelopment
Project and Plan document. These included a new project boundary map for TIF District
#1; an exhibit indicating the proposed development program for specific target areas
within the new district; generalized land uses within the amended district; an identification
of the target areas listed alphabetically "A" through "I". These maps serve to clarify many
of the questions regarding the active target areas that will be focused upon as the
redevelopment prdcess continues within the TIF District.
The highest priority for redevelopment focuses on Target Are "G", mixed use retail and
residential. This block contains Village owned properties of the former Public `Works
garage and 100 West Northwest Highway (formerly Aldi's, Steak and Stuff, and presently
Sara Lee and the Antique Center). The only property not under Village ownership is the
Terrace Supply strip center located at the Southwest corner of Wille and Central.
Mr. Keljik expressed his concern that the proposed Senior Citizen Housing, if developed
in the triangle redevelopment area, might make the project marginal financially, since the
land and building would be tax exempt under the Section 202 Program.
Mr. Clements indicated that the next step in the Amendment #2 expansion of the TIF
District is the convening of a Joint Review. Boards now a State requirement, made up of
the major taxing bodies affected by the expansion, namely the elementary, high school,
and community college districts, in addition to the County of Cook and the Park District,
The Joint Review Board was scheduled to convene their first meeting on the 29th of
October and report their findings with respect to the change in the TIF District to the
Village Board within 30 days of that date. The Village Board will meet again after
discussing the changes to the district with the Joint Review Beard on Tuesday, November
24. Therefore, the next BDDRC meeting scheduled for review of this document will be
November 18, 1992. At this meeting a revised project plan by Broadacre will be reviewed
as well as the Senior Housing portion of that development.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m on a motion by Bart Keljik, seconded by Joseph
Janisch.
Kenneth H. Fritz
Economic Devel
KHF:cl