HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/2001 COW agenda COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time:
Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, April 24, 2001
50 South Emerson Street 7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Dennis Prikkel
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Irvana Wilks
II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2001
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
The Village Departments that coordinate the development process have been working for some
time to modernize Village Codes and make the development process more "user friendly." The
latest step in that effort has been to clarify when and how the Development Code applies to
developments. The Development Code contains procedures for subdividing property,
construction and design standards for public and private improvements, and various procedures
related to development.
A key section of the Development Code identifies those types of projects to which the Code is
applied. However, the text of that section is difficult for developers to interpret, making it difficult
for them to anticipate required improvements related to their development, redevelopment or
expansion. In addition, the Development Code as currently written applies to each of these types
of projects in an "all or nothing" manner. That is, modest expansions or improvements can be
held to the same site and right-of-way improvements as a newly constructed facility. This
standard has required some projects to request exceptions from the Code and may have had the
effect of discouraging others from proceeding.
The changes proposed for the Development Code would clarify the type of projects that require
the improvements spelled out in the Development Code. Also, the changes would prescribe
varying levels of improvement, depending on the scale of the development project. The details of
these changes are described in the attached memo and graphics from Public Works Project
Engineer Chuck Lindelof. These proposed changes have been presented to the Plan
Commission and Economic Development Commission; both bodies were supportive of the
changes (minutes of those meetings are attached). Further amendments to the Development
Code, focused on modernizing technical standards for physical improvements, are also being
made and will be presented to the Village Board for review by summer.
Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE
OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD
CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT
PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 8471392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064.
V. MULTIPLE BOND RATINGS
This topic was requested for Committee of the Whole discussion by the Village Board.
The Village of Mount Prospect has historically utilized the services of Moody's Investors Service
to rate its credit worthiness. Typically this is done in conjunction with the issuance of general
obligation bonds. For many years, Moody's has rated the Village's outstanding general obligation
debt at Aa. In 1998, they revised their rating formula and began utilizing suffixes of "1," "2" and
"3" to further reflect the strength of the credit ratings, with a "1" being of a higher credit worthiness
than a "3." The Village's debt has been rated Aa3 since 1998. While not the best rating
available, that being Aaa, debt rated in the Aa category is considered to be of excellent quality.
Attached is a copy of the most recent credit rating analysis prepared by Moody's Investors
Service for the Village.
There are two other major credit rating services which are generally accepted by investors; those
being Standard & Poor's and Fitch/IBCA. In the Midwest region, Standard & Poor's has a much
greater presence than Fitch/IBCA. Attached is a summary of the ratings assigned by Moody's,
Standard & Poor's and Fitch.
Opinions vary as to whether the benefits of obtaining multiple ratings outweigh the costs involved.
The most obvious benefit of multiple ratings is that it provides a "second opinion" on a
government's financial condition for the government, its residents and investors. If a
government's bond rating is relatively strong or improving, multiple ratings could be a positive
public relations move.
The Finance Commission reviewed this subject matter and made a recommendation, which is
contained in the draft minutes of their last meeting (included). Appropriate staff will be on hand to
answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VI. ACCEPTANCE OF CREDIT CARDS FOR MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS
Another Committee of the Whole topic requested for discussion by the Village Board involves
whether the Village should allow for the payment of taxes, fees or services charges. The Village
of Mount Prospect currently does not accept credit or debit cards.
On the surface, one would think that accepting credit and debit cards would be an easy decision
to make. It makes sense from a pure customer service standpoint. However, the matter of
whether or not to accept credit and debit cards is one that has been debated by cities and villages
extensively for many years. Municipalities provide many services to the public that are not
voluntary in nature, such as water and sewer service, the real estate transfer tax, traffic citations,
building permits and vehicle stickers. Residents are required to "consume" these services and
pay the appropriate fee if they meet certain criteria. This is much different than a business entity,
or park district for that matter, trying to get consumers to voluntarily purchase goods or services.
At the heart of the debate is the fact that municipalities accepting credit cards must pay a fee to
the bank processing the credit card transactions. This fee can range anywhere from 2% to 3.5%
of the amount charged, depending on sales volume and the number of transactions. The credit
card companies strictly prohibit businesses and governments from passing on the credit card fee
as a surcharge to the customer. Therefore, a municipality collects only 97% or 98% on the dollar
when a customer pays the fee or tax by using a credit card. Some view this as the cash
customers subsidizing the customers that choose to pay by credit card. The controversy is that
you want to improve customer service, but do you improve it to one group of customers at the
expense of other customers?
The Finance Commission considered this topic and made recommendations, which are contained
in their draft meeting minutes (included). Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions
and facilitate discussion.
VII. FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
The financial health of the Village is of paramount importance to the Mayor and Board of Trustees
and administration. Constant review of the Village's financial position with regard to revenues
and expenditures allows budgetary decisions to be made in an informed manner. To that end,
the Village has engaged in quarterly reporting of the Village's financial position.
This year, it is especially important to be vigilant given the recent closing of Montgomery Wards
and J.C. Penney department stores at Randhurst Shopping Center along with a general
weakening of the national and local economies. Other impacts occasioned by State legislation,
litigation and the recently completed Census, will affect the Village's revenue and expenditure
totals.
Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth has prepared a general overview of our revenue and
expenditure position based upon the recently completed first quarter. While it is early in the year,
and clear trends have not been established, there is enough information to begin looking for
areas of concern that merit close scrutiny and some preliminary strategic discussion.
Appropriate staff, will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
H:\GEN\Cow~Agenda\042401 COW Agenda.doc