Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 08/14/2001 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, August 14, 2001 50 South Emerson Street 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corooran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUS'ES OF JULY 24, 2001 II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. 2001 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW - 2002 PRE-BUDGET WORKSHOP Traditionally, the Village Board has engaged in a mid-year review of the current year Budget as a means of monitoring the Revenue and Expenditure levels contained therein. In 1996, the Village Board added a new component to this process, a Pre-Budget Workshop, specifically designed to look forward toward the coming Budget year with the idea of setting parameters and giving staff direction for the next Budget. This latter exercise was facilitated by the inclusion of a forecast budget in the annual Budget document. With the close of June financial activity, staff is in the position to present mid-year financial data as well as review the 2002 forecast Budget. Overall, I believe you will find the Village's finances to be in order for 2001 and that based on the 2002 forecast budget presented last year and the softening economy, we will need to make some difficult choices regarding service delivery levels and the implementation of new initiatives going into next year. With regard to the 2002 Budget, it is anticipated that the Village Board and staffwill engage in an overview of the upcoming Village Budget with particular focus on problems, trends, initiatives and revenue/expenditure projections. The discussion will lead to establishing general parameters for the construction of the actual Budget document that will be formally considered later in the year. As was the approach last year, I would again suggest that the focus remain broad as opposed to more detailed discussions regarding specific line items. If, during the Pre- Budget Workshop, questions arise regarding current or new initiatives proposed by staff or Village Board, I would again suggest that the focus be on defining the initiative and what the issues are pro and con so that staff can then undertake research with the idea of being prepared for detailed discussion at the regular Budget Hearings. 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, 647/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. In that same light, it would be appropriate for Board members to raise individual items or initiatives, which theywould like to have considered in preparation of the upcoming Budget. A "Budget Suggestion" sheet is included in your in[ormation package. If at all possible, I would ask that completed sheet(s) be brought to the meeting for consideration by the entire Board. If there is consensus to .pursue particular items, then staff can follow-up as appropriate and include same within the proposed Budget document. Finance Director Doug EIIsworth will provide an overview of his report and appropriate Department Directors and staff will be available to answer questions and facilitate discussion. You may want to bring your 2001 Budget book to the meeting as additional reference material. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION Property Acquisition 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body." H:\GEN\Cow~Agenda\081401 COW Mid Year Budget Agenda.doc MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JULY 24, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaeie Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth, Community Development Director William Cooney and Deputy Public Community Development Director Michael Blue. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from July 10, 2001. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Corcoran to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved. II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he has concerns about the proliferation of motorized scooters throughout the community. The preliminary research that he has undertaken shows that these are not regulated by the State and the operators typically ignore traffic control signs and operate in the street and pose a significant danger to themselves and other vehicles. IV. VILLAGE HALL DISCUSSION Project Financing Options Mayor Farley introduced the topic by stating that it is important to consider professional design assistance to determine what the space allocation needs are for such a project and the discussion this evening will focus on financing, the Referendum question and design team designation. Village Manager Janonis stated that this is the point where the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee report left off with the Village Board acceptance of the report last summer. He stated that it is necessary to obtain assistance to get the most accurate budget numbers for moving forward with this project if it is the desire of the Board to move forward. Part of the process will include applying a design to the preliminary budget to determine whether the anticipated budget is adequate. He also suggested that the Village Board focus on the financing approach, not on the actual amount necessarily at this point since the numbers are all basic estimates at this time. Finance Director EIIsworth provided an overview of the current debt capacity on the Police and Fire Building and the Public Works Building. The two Bond issues will be paid off in fiscal year 2007. He provided a review of the estimated debt necessary for the Village Hall/Community Center project. He highlighted the anticipate interest and process costs including the investment proceeds. He estimated the debt service annually at $1.09 million and provided a funding scenario whereby additional revenue would be obtained directly from the Property Tax Levy in addition to the annual General Levy. Village staff reviewed various other funding options including spreading out a Property Tax Levy increase over several years and the utilization of existing funds from other parts of the Budget including the Road Fund. He stated his projections assume an annual Property Tax increase of 3.5% for general expenditures. He also outlined an option utilizing Fund balance to reduce the Property Tax Levy increase over several years whereby the excess funds would be utilized to reduce the Levy overall. Assuming the additional funds are transferred from contingency funds in the General Fund and the Property Tax Levy increase is spread over three to four years, the average taxpayer would incur a $4.00 increase in their Property Tax for this project. Such a scenario would retain the Fund balance at approximately 25% which has been a previously-stated policy. Staff would recommend Option C or D whereby the Property Tax Levy increase is spread over several years and there is a utilization of contingency funds from the General Fund. Village Manager Janonis stated that even though debt capacity will be available in 2007, it would be very difficult to wait because of the need to complete downtown redevelopment prior to the expiration of the TIF District and the opportunity to put the Village Hall property back on the tax roles before the end of the TIF. He also stated that construction costs will continue to rise and will have a substantial impact on the project if it is held until debt becomes available. Finance Director EIIsworth also stated that with the upcoming Budget for 2002, there will be additional pressure put on the Levy to retain a 3-1/2% increase due to preliminary revenue estimates. He also highlighted the fact that the Village has not utilized the reassessment gain to obtain additional funds and the Levy amount has been based on the actual dollar need of the Village. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Several comments were made regarding the need to invest in the downtown. There was also a comment regarding the benefits related to conservative budgeting allowing the Village Board to even consider transferring contingency funds from the General Fund to assist in funding this project. There were several comments regarding the option whereby a transfer of contingency money from the General Fund was utilized to minimize the increase in the Property Tax Levy and spread the Levy increase over several years. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider ~marie-or-Option D whereby approximately $'1.7 million would be transferred from the General Fund contingency fund and approximately $2 million would be transferred from the Street Improvement Fund surplus and approximately 1% would be added to the Property Tax Levy for years 2002 through 2005. Referendum Discussion Mayor Farley stated that according to the State Statutes, the Village Board is not obligated to make a final determination regarding whether to put a Referendum question on the Mamh 2002 ballot regarding the Village Hall/Community Center until December 2001. Therefore, the Village Board could wait until there are better cost figures based on the professional design services that are under consideration. Village Manager Janonis stated the Village is Home Rule and is not required to go to Referendum but he stated it has been an unwritten policy to go to Referendum for approval for the construction of public buildings. He stated in isolation, the Village Hall question may tend to be ripe for Referendum but with the timing situation and the need for completion of the downtown, it may be worthwhile to consider an alternative approach. He stated there needs to be a final decision by the Village Board by December 17, 2001 in order to get on the March 2002 ballot. John Korn, 301 North William, Chairman of the Finance Commission, spoke. He stated that the Commission had recommended last year that the Village Board not go to Referendum for this project. Part of the motivation for this recommendation is that any process regarding consideration for the Village Hall/Community Center would encourage public input and the time left on the TIF is essential for this project. He also stated that previous large capital expenses were done without Referendum including the Road Program and the Flood Control Program. Bill Lynch, 207 South Louis, spoke. He stated that as a taxpayer, he would like to have a say regarding the senior activities in any new building. He would also prefer a Referendum in order to consider any type of design. Trustee Corcoran stated that he had originally supported a Referendum for public building decisions, however, the Village Board has made tough decisions in the past regarding significant expenditures and stated it is necessary to move the project forward and there will be plenty of opportunity for public decision regarding the facility. 3 Trustee Zadel stated that he believes there will be plenty of opportunity for public input regarding the structure and if there is a good financial plan, there is no need to consider a Referendum. Trustee Wilks stated that she feels the question should be put to the voters just as previous questions have been and feels this decision is different than other decisions regarding significant expenditures where no Referendum was considered. Trustee Lohrstorfer stated the Village has committed itself to downtown redevelopment and considers this project a significant component of the downtown redevelopment effort. He stated if this would have been the first downtown project, he would support a Referendum question, but since it is the last piece of the puzzle, he feels it is not necessary. Trustee Hoefert stated he is concerned about moving away from the Referendum philosophy regarding public building issues. He stated he would support a Referendum for this project. Leo Floros, 11'1 North Emerson, spoke. He would urge the Village Board to move forward without a Referendum. He is concerned about asking for a Referendum at this stage of the project. He also suggested that the Mount Prospect Public Library project be completed without a Referendum also. Jeff Bruner, 220 South Hatlen, spoke. He stated he likes the way things are moving in the downtown and feels that going to a Referendum would significantly hamper, if not stop, the progress that has been made in the downtown. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items; There was a question regarding whether the Referendum question would be brought up in a formal vote before the Village Board. It was also stated that there would be significant cost issues if a Referendum question delayed the project. Trustee Skowron stated that the Village Board's position has remained virtually the same as a year ago regarding the Referendum question. She stated that she is comfortable with the decision of not going to a Referendum. Mayor Farley stated it is time to make a decision now and if a question is asked utilizing a Referendum, regardless of the outcome, it should be followed. Consensus of the Village Board was not to consider a Referendum at this time regarding the Village Hall/Community Center project based on a straw poll of 5-2. Design Team Designation Assistant Village Manager David Strahl provided a general overview of the three firms that were interviewed by the Village Board on July 21. He also provided information regarding the projected costs for the services of each firm. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: Several Trustees stated that they were pleased with the three teams that were interviewed and feel that any of the three are capable of completing this project. There were also comments regarding the need to participate in the process to ensure that all components are considered. The process that had been laid out by staff whereby an architect and a construction manager were involved from the beginning was endorsed as the most beneficial from the Village's standpoint. Village Manager Janonis stated there would be public workshops whereby the public would be invited to provide their input. Consensus of the Village Board was to enter into a contract for services with DLK and WB Olson for architectural and construction management services for the Village Hall/Community Center project. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis reminded everyone one of the upcoming Mid-Summer Block Party scheduled for the downtown at 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on July 28. VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Wilks thanked the individuals in the audience for coming to participate as citizens to this very important discussion regarding the Village Hall. She also stated that the Village needs to consider an Ordinance to change from its current 7:30 p.m. start time to the proposed 7:00 p.m. start time for upcoming meetings. VII. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. ~Respectf,ullv ~__.,~ ~_,~ DAVID STRAHL DS/roc Assistant Village Manager H:\GEN\Cow~Minutes\072401 COW Minutes.doc 5 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JULY 17, 2001 SUBJECT: 200'1 MID-YEAR REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE 2002 BUDGET FORECAST Traditionally, the Village Board has engaged in a mid-year review of the financial status of the current year's budget and also reviewed the forecast for the upcoming year. Not only are these actions considered prudent fiscal management practices, but they also provide the foundation for the preparation of the upcoming annual budget. This memorandum is intended to supplement the June 30, 2001 Budget Revenue and Expenditure Summaries submitted with the July 17~ Board meeting agenda packet. The principal focus of this memorandum is on the General Fund, since it is the main operating fund of the Village. Aisc discussed to a lesser degree are a few of the more material operating and capital project funds. It should be pointed out that the current estimates of revenues and expenditures for 2001 are just that - estimates. There could still be significant variances that appear or disappear during the remaining six months of the fiscal year. 2001 MID-YEAR REVIEW GENERAL FUND The 2001 Budget as amended reflects a planned deficit of $113,498 on revenues of $28,000,810 and expenditures and other financing uses of $28,114,308. The deficit can be attributed to an unexpected increase in our Northwest Central Dispatch fees and the carry-over of certain capital improvements and purchases from the preceding fiscal year. Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 2 As part of the mid-year review, we looked at all revenue and expenditure accounts to determine if any material variances seem likely. In total, we expect revenues to come in at $28,163,834, almost $164,000 higher than original projections. Expenditures are estimated at $27,698,686, which is $156,000 more than the currently authorized budget. Therefore, fund balance is expected to drop $106,012 in 2001, rather than the $113,498 reflected in the amended budget. Exhibit 1, attached hereto, presents a summary of our current projections of revenues and expenditures with a comparison to the original budget. General Fund Revenues: Overall, revenues are doing relatively well compared to our original projections. Half- way through the fiscal year, actual revenues of $14,786,927 represent 52.8% of budget. The following chart shows revenue collections as a percentage of annual budget for each of the main revenue categories. General Fund Revenue Collections as a Percent of Annual Budget 90- 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 R~wnu~ Property tax revenues of $3,098,745 are running at 44.2% of budget. The collection percentage is a little on the Iow side. We will be watching the second installment of the 2000 tax levy carefully to see if collections once again fall short of expectations as they Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 3 did last year. Revenues classified as "Other Taxes" include such sources as the sales tax, food and beverage tax, real estate transfer tax, hotel/motel tax, telecommunications tax and the utility tax. in total, revenue collections from "Other Taxes" came to $5,723,437 as of June 30~, which is 52.6% of annual budget. Sales tax collections, which make up more than 70% of the "Other Taxes" category, are at $3,889,688. This represents 50.3% of budget. While we are holding our own with regard to our original 2001 projections, our year-to-date collections are in fact running 4% below the prior year's collections. We anticipate sales tax receipts for the year to fall 5% below last year's receipts. The real estate transfer tax continues to come in strong. We have collected $413,132 out of an annual projection of $682,900. Adding to the strong performance was the sale of several large commercial and multi-family properties. We now expect the year end collections to come in $67,100 ahead of budget. The Village's utility tax on electricity and natural gas has brought in $629,078 so far this year. This 85.6% of the $1,160,000 originally budgeted. The tax on electricity is right in line with budget. The tax on natural gas is expected to come in $121,000 above projections. Collections from licenses and permit fees total $1,974,593, or 69.3% of the $2.8 million budget. Vehicle license revenue of $993,512 is at 86% of budget given that the deadline for the 2001/2002 sticker was May 1't. Revenue from the infrastructure maintenance fee is expected to come in $110,000 under budget for the year due to the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling that wireless telecommunications companies should not be subject to the infrastructure maintenance fee. Building permit collections through June 30th totaled $110,637, which is 35% of annual projection. This is on the Iow side for several reasons. First of all, the majority of construction activity takes place in the summer months. Secondly, the new building permit fees did not take effect until June 1st. Finally, the Village has not yet received the permit fees from either the second building of the Residences at Towne Centre or the Lofts and Stores project. Intergovernmental revenues totaled $2,823,279 as of June 30~, which is 54.2% of the $5,209,440 annual projection. Due mostly to the receipt of a $132,000 grant for a single-family rehab program, we expect to end 2001 $106,000 above our original budget projections. Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 4 Receipts from State's distribution of the state income tax, our largest intergovernmental revenue source, totaled $2,355,874 at June 30t~. This represents 57% of the annual budget. This figure is somewhat deceiving however. State income tax receipts are not received evenly throughout the year. Historically, receipts are higher during the first half of the year as taxpayers make their final tax payments in March and April. It should be brought to your attention that our 2001 receipts are running 2% behind last year's collections. This is due to a drop in corporate earnings and the fact the 2000 census showed our population increased at a rate less than the State of Illinois as a whole. We expect to end 2001 with a shortfall of approximately $66,000. Revenue from Fines totaled $199,294 for the first six months. This represents 39% of the $510,000 projected for the year. Revenue from fines began to fall sharply around this time last year. We expect our receipts for the year to fall $70,000 short of budget. Investment income amounted to $289,138 for the first six months, representing 66% of the $435,000 projected for the year. With interest rates dropping significantly over the past three months we expect our annual total to come in just slightly above budget. Our investment income for the year 2001 will still come close to budget because of our locking in higher rates for an extended time period prior to the drop. However, most of our General Fund investments will be maturing towards the end of 2001. As will be discussed later, our investment income for 2002 is expected to drop considerably. Miscellaneous Revenue consists of reimbursements and other revenues. Reimbursements to date total $209,707 out of a budgeted $298,309. Other revenues in the amount of $146,446 exceed our annual projection of $138,675. General Fund Exoenditures: The approved 2001 budget, as amended on April 4, 2001, totals $28,114,308. Of this amount, expenditures total $27,542,338 and other financing uses total $571,970. As of June 30"', the Village had recorded expenditures of $12,983,609. This represents 47.1% of budget. Other Financing uses, which consists of a transfer to the Capital Improvements Fund came to $285,985 (50% of budget). While total expenditures are within 3% of the benchmark of 50%, there is a much larger disparity within specific departments and programs. The following chart illustrates General Fund expenditures by department/program as a percentage of annual budget. Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 5 General Fund Expenditures as a Percent of Annual Budget Public Re Man E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent Public Representation expenditures totaled $67,659 through June 30t~, representing 63.5% of budget. The reason this program is above the 50% benchmark is that organizational memberships are typically paid in the beginning of the year. In the first half of the fiscal year membership dues of $27,516 were paid, compared to the annual budget of $32,760. Expenditures of the Village Manager's Office for the first six months totaled $551,680. This represents 46% of their $1.2 million annual budget. At this time, we do expect legal fees related to labor contract negotiations to come in $30,000 over budget. Other expenditures are expected to come in very close to budget. Expenditures of the Television Services Division of the Manager's Office amounted to $104,502 for the first six months of 2001. This is 63% of the division's annual budget of $165,863. The negative variance from the benchmark is the result of unbudgeted salary adjustments related to the intergovernmental programming agreements recently Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 6 adopted. A budget amendment ordinance will be presented to the Board for consideration within the next few months that will adjust the wage budget and incorporate the additional programming revenues the Village will be receiving. Also contributing to the budget variance is the fact that the division has spent $28,212 out of its $30,500 capital budget. Community Development Department expenditures of $754,969 are right at 50% of the annual budget for that department. However, the department is coordinating a recently received single-family home improvement grant in the amount of $132,000. We will be coming to the Board with a request to increase this department's budget by $132,000 to cover the anticipated grant expenditures, Expenditures of the Human Services Department totaled $288,506 at June 30% representing 43% of budget. There are two factors contributing to the large variance. First of all, the department has $25,000 budgeted for computer programming of which nothing has been spent. Secondly, expenditures related to a few of their larger programs are mostly incurred in the second half of the year. This includes the summer adventure program, flu shots, and senior taxi program. It is fully expected that expenditures will be much closer to budget at year-end. Fire Department expenditures for the six months just ended totaled $3,534,989, which is 46% of the $7,586,121 annual budget. Public Works Department expenditures funded through the General Fund amounted to $2,226,506 for the first half of the fiscal year. This represents 43.6% of the annual budget of $5,101,407. The reason for the relatively large variance from the 50% benchmark is the timing of certain projects and expenditures. Projects such as sidewalk construction and grounds maintenance are more likely to be initiated and paid for in the summer months. The Miscellaneous category is used to account for the retirement pensions of two former employees. At the mid-year mark, expenditures of $7,760 represent 37% of the $21,170 budget. The large variance is due to the fact one of the pensioners passed away in December and his spouse is entitled to a smaller pension payment. For the past several years, total General Fund expenditures have come in anywhere from one to three percent under budget. Although we see no reason at this point to believe 2001 will be any different, to be conservative we are generally not showing any variance from budget for General Fund Expenditures as reflected in Exhibit 1. The only exceptions are the items referred to above. Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND Revenues in the CDBG Fund for the six months ended June 30th total $56,654. This represents just 11.3% of the $499,376 originally projected for the year, Program income, consisting mostly of repayments of previously granted home improvement loans, makes up almost the entire revenue balance. The Village has not needed to request any CDBG grant money yet this fiscal year. CDBG Fund expenditures incurred to-date totaled $33,561. This is 6.7% of the $499,376 budgeted for the year. CDBG expenditures fall into four categories. Following is a breakdown of expenditures incurred to-date, compared to annual budget for the four categories. Expenditures Annual ;:PerCent ~ CDBG Program Year-to-Date Budget Administration $ 5,650 $ 20,976 26.9% Community Programs '12,510 53,400 23.4 Neighborhood Improve. 0 285,000 0.0 Residential Rehab 15,401 140,000 11.0 Total $33,561 $499,376 6.7% Historically, the majority of CDBG expenditures have been incurred during the second half of the year. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues were projected at $2,704,017 for the year. Through June 30~ we have received $661,909, or 24.5% of budget. $1.7 million is expected from streetlight grants. As of June 30t~ the streetlight projects have not commenced, therefore we have not received any grant proceeds. The Village was the recipient of a $200,000 grant for corridor improvements earlier this year. This grant was not anticipated when the 2001 budget was presented and approved. A budget amendment to account for the grant and its expenditures will be presented to the Board in the near future. The approved budget for this fund is $3,811,843. Total expenditures for the first six months were $214,541, or 5.6% of budget. Most of the capital projects and improvements budgeted for the year will be initiated during the summer months. The $50,000 for Police in-car video cameras, funded entirely through a 2000 State grant, were not received until early 2001. Therefore we will be asking for a supplemental budget amendment to add this line item to the 2001 budget. Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 8 DOY/NTOWN REDEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND The 2001 Budget shows estimated revenues of $949,000. Included in this figure are $925,000 from the proceeds of property sales and $24,000 of investment income. To- date, we have received $467,328, or 49% of budget. In the near future we will be asking the Board to amend the budget. Revenue from the sale of land for the Lofts and Shops development was originally expected in late 2000. The closing did not take place until early 2001. We also expected partial reimbursement for environmental site-cleanup costs in 2000. The reimbursement, estimated at $282,000, is now expected in late 2001. Expenditures incurred to-date total $614,390, representing 35% of the $1,773,792 annual budget. While certain line item expenditures currently exceed budget, the streetscape improvements, facade, interior improvements and infrastructure program expenditures are currently well under budget. STREET IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND This fund was created to account for the 1997 revenue enhancements that are earmarked for the street improvement program. Revenues of $2,317,933 were projected for 2001. Revenues actually received as of June 30th total $1,394,810, or 60% of budget. A total of $3,556,917 has been budgeted for street reconstruction. As of June 30"' only $549,689, or 15%, has been expended. The vast majority of the pay-outs will take place in the second half of the year. FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues collected to date amount to $117,378, or 11% of the $1,112,200 originally projected. The large negative variance can be attributed to the fact the Village has not yet received the $1,000,000 State grant for Weller Creek improvements. Only $11,765 has been spent thus far out of the $2,871,942 annual budget. Construction on the Weller Creek and Wedgewood improvement projects has not begun as of yet. As you are aware, the Weller Creek project will now be spread out over the next two years, as opposed to completing the project in 2001. WATER AND SEWER FUND Revenues through June 30t~ total $3,432,825, representing 44% of bUdget. This is typical, as water consumption increases during the summer months. Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 9 Expenditures are budgeted at $8,261,305 for the year. After six months, actual expenditures have totaled $3,069,934, or 37% of budget. Expenditures appear to be Iow because of capital improvements planned for later in the year. There are no material variances expected between now and the end of the year. RISK MANAGEMENT FUND The Risk Management Fund was created to account for the insurance and risk retention activities of the Village. These include employee health and life benefits, workers compensation, and property and casualty insurance. Revenues for the Risk Management Fund were projected at $3,785,640 for the year. As of June 30t" actual revenues total $1,855,574, or 49% of budget. The total expenditure budget for the Risk Management Fund is $3,535,903. To date, $1,885,539 (53%) has been expended. Expenditures for liability claims are running well ahead of budget. A total of $170,094 has been expended to-date out of an annual budget of $100,000. Much of this has to do with the Romero class action lawsuit. Fortunately, our workers compensation claims are coming in under budget. 2002 FORECAST The 2001 Annual Budget includes a forecast budget for the year 2002 for each operating and capital project fund. The purpose of this portion of my memorandum is to bring forward any material variances in revenues or expenditures now expected for the year 2002. GENERAL FUND Exhibit 2 has been prepared to compare the original forecast numbers to our most recent estimates. The original forecast budget shows an operating deficit of $563,108 on revenues of $28,870,243 and expenditures and transfers totaling $29,433,351. Generally speaking, the deficit is the result of anticipated revenues not keeping up with the growth in expenditures. Contributing to the anticipated operating deficit for 2002 is the inclusion of the following two items in the forecast budget: $100,000 for rent for temporary space for the human services department/senior center; and three new fireflghter positions. Our more recent estimates now show that the operating deficit has widened to $1,013,552. The outlook for 2002 has deteriorated due to the flattening or reduction in certain revenue sources. Following is a bdef discussion of some of the more material changes expected from the original forecast budget. Mid-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 10 Revenues: At this time, we expect 2002 revenues to come in $456,422 lower than what was projected twelve months ago. With regard to property tax revenue, we still are projecting a 3.5% overall increase in the tax levy. Sales tax receipts are expected to grow only 2% from the 2001 projections as opposed to the 4% built into the 2002 forecast budget. This resulted in a reduction of $183,900 in projected sales tax revenue. Food and Beverage Tax receipts are falling short of projections for 2001: Therefore we are revising our 2002 estimates downward by $21,150~ Our telecommunications tax receipts are running slightly ahead of projections for 2001. We are therefore increasing our 2002 estimate by $21,000. Utility Taxes are coming in strong for 2001. Even discounting the amount we expect to receive from NiGas somewhat, we are still expecting an increase of $46,000 over the original 2002 forecast budget. Vehicle license fees have come in at $1.14 million for the past few years. We are therefore reducing our 2002 projection by $30,000. 2002 forecast revenue from the Infrastructure Maintenance Fee has been reduced by $103,800 on account of the Supreme Court ruling regarding wireless telecommunications companies. Our forecast for the state income tax is expected to come in $110,000 less than what was projected last year. As previously discussed, our receipts our down due to lower corporate earnings and the reallocation of the tax distribution due to the 2000 census. Revenue from Fines is coming in less than budget for the second straight year. We therefore are reducing our forecast for 2002 by $84,000. interest rates have fallen by almost 200 basis points over the past few months. We expect our investment earnings for 2002 to be $85,000 less than originally projected. The forecast still assumes that the Village will strive to maintain no more than a 3.5% id-Year Budget Review July 17, 2001 Page 11 overall increase in its property tax levy. Exoenditures: At this time we do not expect expenditures for 2002 to materially vary from the forecast budget prepared last year. OTHER OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS At this time, there are only a few significant changes expected in the other operating and capital project funds. In the Flood Control Construction Fund, we will be carrying over to 2002 one-half of the planned expenditures for both the Weller Creek and Wedgewood projects, which is approximately $922,000. BUDGET CALENDAR Attached as Exhibit 3 is the 2002 budget calendar as presented in the current 2001 bUdget document. If this schedule now presents any conflicts, we should revise it as soon as possible. Please note that state law requires the Village to hold a public hearing on the proposed tax levy on a Monday evening. It is currently scheduled for Monday, December 3rd. YEAR 2002 BUDGET DIRECTION Finally, I have attached a copy of the New Project/Service Suggestion Form (Exhibit 4). This form is intended for use by the Village Board to facilitate communication between the Board and staff concerning any new ideas they would like to see included in the 2002 proposed budget. It would be helpful if the forms could be returned to you by September 7, 2001 so that the ideas can be incorporated in to our preliminary budget deliberations. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Copy: Finance Commission Members Department Directors Carol Widmer, Deputy Finance Director \~Dp01 \V01 \USERS~DELL SWOR\budget~200 I'uMid-Year~Transmittal Memo.doc Exhibit 1 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 2001 Budget YTD Actual 2001 Variance- 2000 2001 01/01/01- Current Favorable Actual Budget 6/30/01 Estimate (Unfavorable) Notes Revenues: Property Taxes 6,526,331 7,011,234 3,098,745 7,011,234 0 Sales Taxes 8,108,323 7,731,600 3,889,688 7,702,906 (28,694) A Food and Beverage Tax 455,010 489,600 234,604 473,665 (15,935) B Real Estate Transfer Tax 820,628 682,900 413,132 750,000 67,100 Telecommunications Tax 850,519 846,000 463,342 875~000 29,000 Utility Taxes 930,876 929,000 629;078 1,050,000 121,000 C Other Taxes 167,444 196,900 93,593 196,900 0 Vehicle Licenses 1,118,833 1,160,000 993,512 1,140;000 (20,000) Infrastructure Maintenance Fee 307,226 420,000 115,895 310,000 (110,000) D Other Licenses, Permits, Fees 1,326,191 1,268,500 865,186 1,268,500 0 State Income Tax 4,136,516 4,119,300 2,355,874 4,053,787 (65,513) E Other Intergovernmental 1,173,940 1,090,140 467,405 1,262,000 171,860 F Charges for Services 618,332 673,652 322,288 673,652 0 Fines and Forfeits 436,806 510,000 199,294 440,000 (70,000) G Investment Income 585,003 435,000 289,138 450,000 15,000 Reimbursements 284,612 298,309 209,707 325,000 26,691 Other Revenu~ 281,044 138,675 146,446 182,000 43,325 Total Revenues 28,127,634 28,000,810 14,786,927 28,164,644 163,834 Expenditures Public Representation 97,858 107,006 67,959 107,006 0 Village Manager's Office 1,092,008 1,207,462 551,680 1,237,462 (30,000) H Television Services Division 198,643 165,863 104,502 165,863 0 Village Clerk's Office 135,709 143,370 69,420 143,370 0 Finance Department 1,225,625 1,321,370 680,641 1,321,370 0 Community Development Dept. 1,294,512 1,521,121 754,969 1,653,121 (132,000) Human Services Dept. 596,601 672,810 288,506 672,810 0 Police Department 8,866,036 9,431,942 4,611,725 9,431,942 0 Fire Department 6,880,585 7,586,121 3,534,989 7,586,121 0 Public Works Department 4,771,985 5,101,407 2,226,506 5,101,407 0 Community and Civic Services 263,487 262,696 85,052 262,696 0 Miscellaneous 384,387 21,170 7,760 15,518 5,652 Total Expenditures 25,807,436 27,542,338 12,983,609 27,698;686 (156,348) Excess of Revenues over Expend. 2,320,198 458,472 1,803,318 465,958 7,486 Other Financing Uses Transfer to Capital Improve. Fd; (1,024,000) (571,970) 285,985 (571,970) 0 Total Other Financing Uses (1,024,000) (571,970) 285,985 (571,970) 0 Excess of Revenues over Expend. and Other Financing Uses: 1,296,198 (113,4981 2,089,303 (106,012) 7,486 Exhibit 1 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 2001 Notes Assumes 5% decrease in 2001 due to softening economy and closure of certain businesses. Assumes 4.1% increase over 2000 collections. 2000 collections fell under budget. The utility tax from natural gas is expected to exceed expectations by $121,000. Due to a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling, the infrastructure maintenance fee paid by wireless companies is being escrowed and not recorded as revenue. Loss of $110,000 is estimated. State income tax receipts are running 2% behind 2000 collections due to census and drop in corporate earnings. $132,000 in grant proceeds from Single Family Rehab program was not originally budgeted. Revenues from fines dropped significantly in 2000 and continues to remain Iow in 2001. Legal fees related to negotiations are running $30,000 over budget. $132,000 of expenditures related to Single Family Rehab Program were not included in budget. Exhibit 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 2002 FORECAST 2001 2002 Forecast Currently Original Currant Increase Percent Projected Forecast Forecast (Decrease) Chan~le Notes Revenues: Property Taxes 7,011,234 7,249,793 7,249,793 0 0,00 A Sales Taxes 7,702,906 8,040,864 7,856,964 (183,900) (2.29) B Food and Beverage Tax 473,665 504,288 483,138 (21,150) (4.19) C Real Estate Transfer Tax 750,000 706,800 715,000 8,200 1.16 D Telecommunications Tax 875,000 863,000 884,000 21,000 2.43 E Utility Taxes 1,050,000 954,000 1,000,000 46,000 4.82 F Other Taxes 196~900 199,500 199,500 0 0.00 Vehicle Licenses 1,140,000 1,170,000 1,140,000 (30,000) (2,56) G Infrastructure Maintenance Fee 310,000 420,000 316,200 (103,800) (24.71) H Other Licenses, Permits, Fees 1,268,500 1,281,800 1,281,800 0 0.00 State Income Tax 4,053,787 4,284,072 4,175,000 (109,072) (2.55) I Other Intergovernmental 1,262,000 1,117,100 1,163,000 45,900 4.11 J Charges for Services 673,652 691,616 691,616 0 0.00 Fines and Forfeits 440,000 524,000 440,000 (84,000) (16.03) K Investment Income 450,000 435,000 350,000 (85,000) (19.54) L Reimbursements 325,000 307,810 307,810 0 0.00 Other Revenue 182,000 120,600 160,000 39,400 32.67 Total Revenues 28,164,644 .28,870,243 28,413,821 (456,422) (1.58) Expenditures Public Representation 107,006 113,341 113,341 0 0.00 Village Manager's Office 1,237,462 1,211,982 1,211,982 0 0.00 Television Services Division 165,863 170,695 170,695 0 0.00 Village Clerk's Office 143,370 149,830 149,830 0 0.00 Finance Department 1,321,370 1,376,310 1,376,310 0 0.00 Community Development Dept. 1,653,121 1,587,192 1,587,192 0 0.00 Human Services Dept. 672,810 818,241 818,241 0 0.00 Police Department 9,431,942 9,801,817 9,801,817 0 0.00 Fire Department 7,586,121 8,017,574 8,017,574 0 0.00 Public Works Department 5,101,407 5,329,543 5,329,543 0 0.00 Community and Civic Services 262,696 271,223 271,223 0 0.00 Miscellaneous 15,518 21,603 15,625 (5,978) (27.67) M Total Expenditures 27,698,686 28;869,351 28,863,373 (5,978) (0.02) Excess of Revenues over Expend. 465,958 892 (449,552) (450,~?.~) (50,498) Other Financing Uses Transfer to Capital Improve. Fd. (571,970) (564,000) (564,000) 0 0.0 Total Other Financing Uses 1571 ~970) (564,000) (564,000) 0 0.0 Excess of Revenues over Expend. and Other Financing Usss: (106,012) (563,108) (1,013,552) (450,444) 80.0 Exhibit 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 2002 FORECAST Notes A 3.5% overall property tax hike proposed. B Sales tax receipts estimated to increase 2% over 2001 projected receipts. C Food and beverage tax estimated to increase 2% over 2001 projected receipts. D Real estate transfer t~x estimated at 5-year average. E Telecommunications tax estimated at 1% above 2001 estimated. F Utility tax receipts on natural gas estimated to decrease slightly in 2002 from 2001 levels. G Vehicle license fees have remained relatively constant for past few years. H Assumes 2% growth over 2001 projected for Infrastructure Maint. Fee. No longer collecting on wireless. Income tax receipts estimated at 3% above 2001 projections. J Other Intergovern. revenues estimated at 3% above 2001 projected balance, less $135,000 Home Rehab grant. K Assumes fine revenue will remain at level received past two years. L Investment income is expected to drop due to 200 basis point drop in rates. M Pension expense decreased due to death of pensioner: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BUDGET CALENDARS 2001 and 2002 2001 2002 DATE ACTION DATE 3/17/00 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Worksheets forwarded to Department 3/16/01 Directors 4/07/00 Completed CIP Worksheets returned to Finance Department 4/06/01 5/01/00 to Department CIP reviews with Village Manager and Finance Director 4/30/01 5105100 to 5104101 5112/00 Complete Proposed CIP Amounts 5/18/01 5/26/00 Deliver Proposed CIP to Village Board and Finance Commission 6/01/01 6/22/00 Review Proposed CIP with Finance Commission 6/28/01 6/27/00 Committee of the Whole - ClP Review Session 7/10/01 7/18/00 Acceptance of Proposed CIP at Village Board Meeting 7/17/01 7/21/00 Budget Worksheets forwarded to Department Directors 7/20/01 8/08/00 Committee of the Whole - Mid-Year Budget Review and Pre-Budget 8/14/01 Workshop 8/11/00 CIP available for distribution 8/03/01 8/18/00 Completed Budget Worksheets returned to Finance Department 8/17/01 8/25/00 Revenue Estimates completed by Finance Department 8/24/01 9/04/00 to Department Budget reviews with Village Manager and Finance Director 9/03/01 9/08/00 to 9/07/01 9/15100 Complete Proposed Budget Amounts 9/14/01 xxxi VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BUDGET CALENDARS 2001 and 2002 2001 2002 DATE ACTION DATE 10/06/00 Deliver Proposed Budget to Village Board and Finance Commission 10/05/01 10/06/00 Proposed Budget available for public inspection at the Village Clerk's Office 10/05/01 and the Mount Prospect Public Library 10/12/00 Review Proposed Budget with the Finance Commission 10/Il/01 10/19/00 10/18/01 10/26/00 10/25/01 11/02/00 11/01/01 10/24/00 Committee of the Whole - First Budget Hearing (6:00 pm - 10:00 pm) 10/23/01 Overview, Village Administration, Finance & Police 11/14/00 Committee of the Whole - Second Budget Hearing (6:00 pm - 10:00 pm) 11/13/01 Human Services, Fire and Community Development 11/28/00 Committee of the Whole - Third Budget Hearing (6:00 pm - 10:00 pm) 11/27/01 Public Works Department and Non-Departmental 12/04/00 Troth in Taxation Public Hearing 12/03/01 12/05/00 First Reading of Proposed Budget Ordinance at Village Board Meeting 12/04/01 Public Hearing and Second Reading of Proposed Budget Ordinance at Village 12/18/01 12/19/00 Board Meeting 1/19/01 Approved Budget available for distribution 1/18/02 xxxii Exhibit 4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT NEW SERVICE/PROJECT SUGGESTION FORM 2002 BUDGET Suggested by: New Service/Project Name: Description of New Service/Project: Estimated Cost (if knoWn): Potential Source of Funds: Please return this form to the Village Manager by September 7, 2001. This area for the use &the Village Manager Assigned to the Department of: Comments: Signature of the Village Manager 33MAYOR %,~x-~r~/ VILLAGE MANAGER Gerald L. Farley ~ Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK T.o~yJ. oorcor~p~u~ w~ .oef~ Village of Mou n t P r ospect w,~ w. ~w~ Richard M. Lohmorfer ~icha~,~ w. Sko~o~ Community Development Department Pho~: 847/392-6000 Irvana K. Wilks Fax: 847/392-6022 Michael A~ Zadel 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: 2~d Floor Conference Room Wednesday Village Hall August 15, 2001 100 South Emerson Street 7:00 p.m. Mount Prospect, IL 60056 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 1, 2001 IV. OLD BUSINESS None V. SUBDIVISIONS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Vote on FY2002 Funding Recommendations Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) VII. COMMENTS/OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINuTEs OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION August 1, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to order by Secretary Carol Tortorello at 7:02 p.m. atthe Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. ROLL CALL: Present: Carol Tortorello Edwin Janus Bill Reddy Absent: Matt Sledz, Vice-Chairman Gary Grouwinkel Village Staff Present: Nicole Roberts, Neighborhood Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Others in Attendance: Linnea Pioro, Camp Fire,"Camp Kool" program Nancy Corry, Summer Adventure program April Foley, Mentor program Dianne Kovack, Clayground Inc. Barb Evos, Clayground Inc. Melissa Sly, District 57 John Healy, Resident David McArdle, Resident Lindsay Hopkins, Learning for Life program Robert Walsh, Resources for Community Living Jere Teed, CEDA Northwest Center Caryn Brauweiler, Children's Advocacy program Cynthia Ash, Girl Scouts program APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Carol Totorello asked for comments or changes to the minutes. Bill Reddy stated that the minutes were not accurate in summarizing his reasons for not funding the Boy Scouts program. Ms. Roberts asked Mr. Reddy to submit a brief summary of his reasons for denying funding to the Boy Scouts program, and Bill Reddy agreed to submit the information. There were no other comments or changes to the minutes. Bill Reddy moved to approve the minutes as corrected and Carol Tortorello seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 3-0. Carol Tortorello asked staff ro present the first case, PC-11-01. SUBDIVISION: PC-11-01 Garland's Lot Resubdivision 2233 South Busse Petitioner: Mr. John Healy, Arrow Road Construction Staff: S-?anne Mas6, Long Range Planner The petitioner is seeking to create two lots of record by subdividing an existing lot Arrow Road is purchasing this lot from a neighboring property owner. The petitioner will be expanding an existing parking lot to Lot 1. Lot 2 will remain undeveloped at this time. Staff recommended approval. The plat was approved 3~0. Mount Prospect Plan Commission page 2 August 1, 2001 NEW BUSINESS: Community Development Block (CDBG) FY 2002 Public Hearing: Ms. Nicole Roberts, Neighborhood Planner stated that the purpose of this meeting is to give all interested parties the opportunity to attend the meeting and discuss the funding recommendations. She said that due to conflicting schedules, not all Plan Commission members could attend this meeting. Therefore, in order to allow each member the opportunity to vote on the funding recommendations, members agreed to hold the public portion of the meeting tonight, but postpone the vote on funding recommendations until the August 15,2001 Plan Commission meeting. Secretary Carol Tortorello asked Ms. Roberts to give an update on District 57 "Character Counts" program. Ms. Roberts stated that Melissa Sly, Program Coordinator of the "Character Counts" submitted a letter with additional information on how CDBG funds would benefit the low and moderate-income residents of Mount Prospect. Ms. Roberts said that based on an assessment of the letter, the Character Counts program has two events in mind: supporting crime prevention month at Randhurst with the Mount Prospect Police Department, and supporting a community cleanup in Spring 2002. She said that the crime prevention event is an eligible activity that benefits all residents; however, in order to meet HUD's guidelines, at least 51% of low-income residents must attend the event. Ms. Roberts said that the letter did not specify how they would determine that at least 51% of low and moderate-income residents would attend the event. Also, although the community cleanup would meet HUD's guidelines of benefiting low and moderate-income residents, the letter did not specify which low and moderate-income area would benefit from the event. Therefore, the recommendation was made to deny funding to .the "Character Counts" program. The Plan Commission agreed that there is an extra $1,000 to allocate, but postponed how to allocate the extra funds until the August 15, 2001 Plan Commission meeting. Secretary Carol Tortorello opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 pm., and asked applicants applying for CDBG funds to respond to the funding recommendations in the order that they signed in. Linnea Pioro of the Camp Fire "Camp Kool" program thanked the Plan Commission for their continued support of the program. However, she said that their program uses CDBG funds to pay for a portion of their youth counselors' salaries; therefore, the reduction in funding would reduce the number of counselors to youth. Edwin Janus stated that the decision to reduce their funding was based on the limited number of youth served by the program. He said that during FY2000, records showed that the program served 37 out of 130 youth they proposed to serve from Mount Prospect. Lirmea Pioro stated that the program actually served 72 youth. She agreed to submit information showing the total number of youth that benefited from the program during program year 2000. Nancy Corry and April Foley expressed appreciation for the Plan Commission's continued support of the Summer Adventure and Mentor program. They spoke about the programs that were undertaken this year, past and future performances, and their funding needs. Nancy Corry stated that the increase in funding would allow her to continue to provide quality services to the youth of Mount Prospect. Dianne Kovack of Clayground Inc., expressed appreciation for the Plan Commission's continued support of her arts program. She said that the Center has experience an increase in demand for services due to its new location; therefore, the additional funding would allow her to respond to the increase in demand. Ed Janus voiced concerns about the limited number of residents served by the program. He said that during FY 2000, records showed that the program served 25 out of 60 youth from Mount Prospect. Ms. Kovack said that the program actually served 87 youth from Mount Prospect. She agreed to submit information showing the total number of youth that benefited from the program during program year 2000. Lindsay Hopkins of Boy Scouts of America, Learning for Life program was concerned that the program was not funded. She spoke about the benefits of the program to the low and moderate-income youth of Mount Prospect. She also stated that, although they receive funding from Boy Scouts of America, the Mount Prospect Plan Commission page 3 August 1, 2001 Learning for Life program has a separate Board of Directors from Boy Scouts of America. In addition, she said that the Learning for Life program selects the schools and businesses for its programs, but the schools and businesses selects the adults who work with the youth. Bill Reddy stated that the decision to deny funding to the Learning for Life program was based on the fact that Boy Scouts of America does not consider homosexuals to be acceptable role models for youth. Therefore, as a homosexual, he will not support a program that considers homosexuals unacceptable role models for youth. Lindsay Hopkins stated that the Learning for Life program is a subsidiary of Boy Scouts of America, and has a non- discriminatory policy. Bill Reddy stated that the Learning for Life program is the same agency as Boy Scouts of America and the contractual agreement is between the Village and Suburban Northwest Council and not the Learning for Life program. Edwin Janus voiced support of the Learning for Life program. Robert Walsh of the Resources for Community Living spoke about the programs that were undertaken this year, past and future performances, and their funding needs. He made an appeal to maintain the current level of funding on the basis that the reduction would prevent the agency from expand'rog its program. Edwin Janus stated that the decision to reduce funding was based on the limited number of residents served during program year 2000. He said that during FY 2000, records showed that the program served 4 out of 7 residents from Mount Prospect. Mr. Walsh stated that the program actually served 6 residents of Mount Prospect. He agreed to submit information showing the total number of residents that benefited from the program during program year 2000. Jere Teed of CEDA Northwest Self-Help Center, "Transitional Living" program spoke about the benefits of the program to the Mount Prospect community. He expressed concerns about their reduction in funding and inquired about the funding criteria. Ms. Roberts stated that the decision to reduce funding was based on the limited number of residents served by the program. Ms. Roberts also said that based on the 2001 six month monitoring site visit, the program did not place any residents from Mount Prospect. Carolyn Brauweiler of the Children's Advocacy Center expressed appreciation for the Plan Commission's continued support of the program. She spoke about the benefits of the program to the community and the need for the additional funding. Cynthia Ash of Girl Scouts expressed appreciation for the Plan Commission's support of the program. She spoke about the purpose of the program and its benefits to the Mount Prospect community. The Plan Commission reiterated that the program would be given "seed money" and continued funding would be based on the performance of the agency. COMMENTS AND OTHER BUSINESS: There were discussions on how to determine what specific items agencies purchase using CDBG funds. Ms. Roberts stated that programs such as VOMP Summer Adventure & Mentor submit receipts for items purchased using CDBG funds. The Plan Commission requested census tract information for Boxwood and Judith Ann area. Secretary Carol Tortorello closed the public session at 8:15 p.m., Edwin Janus moved to adjoum and Bill Reddy seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Nicole Roberts, Neighborhood Planner Suzanne Mast, Long Range Planner H:\GEN\PLNG\PC\PC 200i\Minutes\S-01-01 (CDBG Public Hearing).doc MAYOR _ ~-~ ~ Phone: (847) 392-6000 Gerald L. Farley ~ Fax: (847) 818-5336 TRUSTEES TDD: (847) 392-6064 Timothy J, Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstor~er Michaele W. Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis V'LLAG~OLE.K Village of Mount Prospect Velma W. Lowe 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 23, 2001 HASBEEN CANCELLED