The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3. Item AnnexationStudy 04/12/2011Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM ' TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: BRIAN SIMMONS, AICP, DEPUTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CLARE L. O'SHEA, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: APRIL 8, 2011 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION STUDY Introduction The implementation program of the Village's Comprehensive Plan recommends the Village evaluate the unincorporated areas completely surrounded by /or contiguous to the Village's corporate limits for suitability and feasibility of annexation into the Village of Mount Prospect. Recently the Village Board requested staff review the potential impacts of annexing adjacent unincorporated areas into the Village. In addition, Cook County recently announced one possible strategy to reduce the County's budget deficit would be to transfer over control of unincorporated properties to municipalities. This announcement provides further support for the need to review the potential impacts of annexing properties in proximity to the Village. This study aims to understand the current impact on Mount Prospect municipal services related to annexation opportunities surrounding the Village. Staff has identified four unincorporated areas for possible annexation: 1) Forest River, 2) United Airlines Area (UAL) and surrounding areas, 3) Oakton Corridor, and 4) Lynn Court. These areas are further defined below: Forest River Located at the northeast end of Mount Prospect, this unincorporated area, which predominately consists of single - family residential homes, is bounded by Kensington Road to the north, River Road to the east, Gregory Street to the south, and the Wisconsin Central Railroad to the west. Forest River contains approximately 137 acres of land including public rights -of -way. Public rights -of -way account for nearly 20% of the area leaving approximately 110 net acres in private property. 2. United Airlines Area and Surrounding Areas Commonly referred to as "UAL and Surrounding Areas," this unincorporated area is bounded by Dempster Street on the north (but includes the Birch Manor Condominiums), Elmhurst Road on the east, the fuel tank farms on the south, and Busse Road on the west. Portions of this area are already within current Village boundaries. This area contains approximately 250 acres of land including public rights -of -way. Public rights -of -way account for nearly 10% of the area leaving approximately 230 net acres in private property. Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 2 3. Oakton Corridor This unincorporated area is located along Oakton Street with Elmhurst Road on the east, and the Northwest Toliway (1 -90) to the south and west, and consists primarily of small industrial and commercial uses. This area contains approximately 91 acres of land including public rights -of -way. Public rights -of -way account for nearly 10% of the area leaving approximately 81 net acres in private property. 4. Lynn Court Lynn Court is a small residential area located near the southwest corner of the Village. It is bounded by 1 -90 on the south, the Commonwealth Edison right -of way on the east, and residential properties on the north and west. The area is 1.8 acres and does not include any additional local, county or state roads. Annexation Cost Analysis To perform this analysis, Community Development Department staff solicited information from each Department on the potential impacts of annexation on their operations. Where feasible these costs were broken down by the sub -areas studied. Unfortunately, not all expenses could be broken down in this manner and therefore would need to be considered in their aggregate form. For most Village departments, phasing in the costs of annexation is not possible. Increasing the Village boundaries necessitates immediate expenditures on Police and Fire personnel and equipment in order to minimize public safety risks. The hiring of inspectors and social workers by Community Development, Public Works and Human Services must occur soon after annexation in order to maintain a reasonable workload for existing employees. The Public Works Department would need to spend money up front to purchase additional equipment and hire personnel. Infrastructure improvements could be spread out over several years through the Village's Capital Improvement Plan or constructed and financed with Special Service Areas as discussed later in this report. Total Monetary Summary • Estimated One -Time Expenditures: $19,127,000 • Estimated Annual Expenditures: $2,737,464 • Estimated Annual Revenues: $1,771,667 • Estimated Yearly Deficit (not including one -time expenses): - $965,797 Aggregate Costs When available, estimated expenditures have been broken down for each area. Due to the nature of many Village services, most costs can only be viewed in the aggregate. These include: • Public Works — four new employees: $412,000 • Human Services - Social worker, nurse, and supplies: $218,832 • Community Development — One Environmental Health inspector and an increase in building inspection services: $148,000 • Police - One additional beat, with one squad car and six officers: $510,278 for the first year, plus salaries thereafter Fire Service and the Potential Dissolution of the Elk Grove Township Fire Department Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 3 A unique situation exists relating to the annexation of the UAL and Oakton Corridor areas. Currently, these areas are protected by the Elk Grove Township Fire Department ( EGTFD). If the area was annexed into the Village of Mount Prospect, the EGTFD would most likely not have enough jurisdictional area left to justify its continued existence. As such, the Mount Prospect Fire Department would have to take responsibility for the EGTFD's entire current jurisdiction, including areas of unincorporated Cook County not being considered for annexation into the Village of Mount Prospect. Because of this unique situation, estimating the financial cost to the MPFD of annexing the proposed areas would require further inquiry, including discussions with the EGTFD and financial estimates relating to fire service. These additional costs have not been included in this memo. Industrial Areas In the United Airlines area and the Oakton Corridor the majority of development is industrial or commercial in nature. In both areas vacancy rates are high. Although annexing these areas would result in a net loss for their first year related expenses, eventually the revenue generated by these properties will offset their costs to annex. These areas will potentially benefit from the proposed Star Line and Elgin /O'Hare improvements that are currently being studied. If initiated, these public improvements would likely spur significant redevelopment opportunities that would enhance the areas aesthetic and economic appeal. United Airlines • Potential Annual Village Revenue: $974,542 • Public Works One -Time Expenditures: $1,665,000 • Public Works Annual Expenditures: $196,000 • Police: 500 calls for service United Airlines recently announced that they will be moving their corporate headquarters to downtown Chicago by the end of the 2011. The long term redevelopment of their 100 acre campus will play a key role in shaping the future of this area. In addition, the Village has initiated discussions with Arc Disposal to annex their property into the Village. Although many roads within the area, particularly in the vicinity of Arc Disposal, are in very poor condition, many in the eastern portion are relatively well maintained and some already have sidewalks. Major infrastructure expenditures would include $500,000 for flood control and $780,000 for the reconstruction of several roads in the area. Although this area is completely surrounded by the Village, it cannot be forcibly annexed due to its size. Annexation would need to include participation of a majority of the property owners or piecemeal annexation until the remaining land area is of sufficient size to forcibly annex. Oakton Corridor • Potential Annual Village Revenue: $464,180 • Public Works One -Time Expenditures: $3,187,000 • Public Works Annual Expenditures: $267,000 • Police: 1,500 calls for service The Oakton Corridor conditions are similar to those of United Airlines, although the financial disparities are higher. The Mount Prospect Police Department predicts that the Willoway Terrace mobile home development will generate a large number of calls for service each year. In addition, Public Works estimates that it would have to spend two million dollars on flood control and nearly one million improving roads in the area. Nonetheless, potential for increased future revenue is high due to the area's location and prospective public improvements Annexation Study Committee of the whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 4 mentioned above. This area is bordered by 1 -90, Mount Prospect, and the City of Des Plaines; therefore, it cannot be forcibly annexed. Annexation of the Oakton Corridor area would require a voluntary annexation procedure. Residential Areas Generally speaking, residential areas are revenue neutral to the Village due to a lower EAV rate and higher service costs. For this reason the financial benefits of annexing residential areas are less pronounced. Annexation of these areas therefore would be more policy related if the Village desired to maintain regulatory control of the properties within these areas. Assuming regulatory control can ensure these areas remain aesthetically consistent with the remainder of the Village. Lynn Court • Potential Annual Village Revenue: $16,412 • Public Works Annual Expenditures: $2,200 • Police: 25 calls for service Due to Lynn Court's small size, bringing it into the Village would be inexpensive and would allow for consistent service delivery to a fringe area. Annexation of the Lynn Court area would complete the Village boundary along the southwest corner of the Village adjacent to the 1 -90 right -of -way. This area is surrounded by the Village on three sides and 1 -90 to the south and therefore could be forcibly annexed if the Village decided to pursue annexation. Forest River • Potential Annual Village Revenue: $353,255 • Public Works One -Time Expenditures: $14,275,000 • Public Works Annual Expenditures: $646,000 • Police: 350 -400 calls for service Of the four proposed annexation areas, Forest River would be the most expensive to improve to Village standards. The area is predominantly located within a floodplain and Public Works would need to spend around $10,000,000 to control future flooding. Although bringing a more uniform appearance to this neighborhood could be desirable, the large cost of bringing this area up to Village standards presents a difficult hurdle. This area is bordered by Mount Prospect to the north, Des Plaines to the west and south, and unincorporated Cook County to the east. This area exceeds 60 acres; therefore voluntary annexation by its property owners would be required. Financing Options The Village could choose to absorb all or a portion of these costs through its' General Fund and/or Capital Improvement Fund. However, given the extensive public improvements that would be required to bring many of these areas up to Village standards, significant Village -wide property tax increases would be necessary. The short term cost - benefit of annexing these properties would be negative to the Village. Another option would be to create Special Service Areas (SSA) to cover the cost of the needed public improvements within the areas analyzed. SSA's are special taxing districts that can be utilized to fund a wide range of special services or physical improvements within a defined geographic area of a municipality. An SSA district allows local governments to establish service areas without incurring debt or levying a tax on the entire community. The tax is only assigned to the specific area to which the infrastructure will benefit. In an SSA, the costs of the Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting Aprif 12, 2011 Page 5 improvements are disbursed evenly among affected properties through their equalized assessment value (EAV). For example, the anticipated cost of improvements for the United Airlines unincorporated area is $14,275,000 and the EAV of this area is $33,751,368. The cost of improvements per dollar of EAV of this area is calculated as follows: Cost of Area Improvements / Total EAV of Area = EAV Disbursement Ratio $14,275,0001$33,751,368 = $0.422951EAV A residential property with a market value of $300,000 (therefore an EAV of $101,103) would therefore be responsible for a total assessment of $42,761 ($101,103 x $0.42295 = $42,761) in this area. This amount could be financed over 20 years to reduce the annual impact on affected property owners but it is still a significant figure. If the County pursues the policy to transfer control of the unincorporated areas to the Village, we would pursue a cost sharing agreement to reduce the burden the Village and property owners in the affected areas. Conclusion The above report provides an overview of the costs associated with annexing all or individual areas reviewed in this analysis. The attached documents provide additional information on the breakdown of these expenses and various methods by which property could be legally annexed into the Village. If the Village Board determines that annexation of one or all of these areas are worth pursuing, staff will work on developing a plan to contact property owners to discuss annexation opportunities. Please forward this report and attachments to the Village Board for the review at the April 12 COW meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. I concur: .I } William J. Cboney, Jr., AIC� Director of Community Development H: \PLAN \Annexation Study \2010 Update \41211_COWmemo.docx Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 6 r-T9J - z►17j:GW-iFkf4 AKOR IiF40,1 There are six methods by which municipalities may annex territory in the State of Illinois. Three of these methods are court controlled and three have no requirement of court intervention. These methods are listed here, followed by a description of how annexation agreements work: A. Court Supervised Petition by Owners and Electors The Landowners and electors residing on the land file a Petition for Annexation in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Petition must be signed by fifty one percent of both the owners of record and the electors residing on the land. The Circuit Court sets a date for a hearing on the Petition. Notice of the Court hearing is published by the Petitioner. The hearing is held in the Circuit Court with respect to the annexation petition. (First, the Court removes from the territory proposed to be annexed any property that is located on the edges of the territory to be annexed whose owners have objected to the annexation, if the removal of the property will not destroy the contiguity of the remaining properties to be annexed. The court then considers whether the Petition is in compliance with the statute.) If the Petition is found to be in technical compliance, the Court enters an Order forwarding the Petition to the municipality for its consideration. If the Corporate Authorities approve the annexation, the property is annexed subject to the ability of ten percent of the voters of the municipality to sign a petition requesting that a referendum on the annexation be held. If a referendum is held, the decision of the voters is then final. This method is useful because there is no prohibition on size or shape of the property to be annexed and, so long as the property is not on the edges of the territory to be annexed, property within the territory may be annexed against the wishes of its owner. B. Court Supervised Petition by Owners and Electors (Section 7 -1 -11) This method is similar to the method described in Number 1 above except the requirements are more precise. Because of the strictness of the requirements, this method is seldom used. The Petition for Annexation must be signed by at least 100 electors and by the owners of at least fifty percent of the properties to be annexed. The territory to be annexed must be less than one square mile in area, must contain more than 500 residents, cannot be adjacent to a municipality having a population of 100,000 or more and cannot include any individual property in excess of ten acres without the consent of the owners of the 10 acre or more parcels. The Court procedure is the same as Number 1 above. However, if the Corporate Authorities deny the annexation petition, then. a referendum is held and the decision of the electors final. C. Court Supervised Annexation Initiated by Municipality The municipality initiates this proceeding by passing an ordinance indicating the territory it desires to annex. The ordinance is filed with the Circuit Court and hearing date is set. Notice of the Court hearing must be given to all owners of properties in the territory to be annexed. At the hearing, property on the edges of the territory to be annexed is removed if the owners of the property object to the annexation and the removal will not destroy contiguity. The Court then reviews the validity of the ordinance and if valid, an election is ordered in the unincorporated territory to be annexed. A majority of the electors living in the territory (not voters who cast a vote) must vote in favor of the annexation to approve the annexation of the territory. No tract of land in excess of ten acres may be annexed without the consent of the owner of the property unless the property is subdivided into lots or is bounded on at least three sides by properties subdivided into lots. No smaller portion of land may be carved out of a larger piece of land of less than ten acres and under one owner without the consent of the owner. This method is sometimes useful in annexing subdivided land adjacent to the municipality. Since there is no requirement of a petition, the annexation proceedings may be initiated in a simpler manner. This Annexation Study Committee of the Whofe Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 7 method can also be used to annex the land of a consenting owner when separated by land of an objecting owner of a parcel less than ten acres in size. D. Voluntary Annexation of Territory without Court Supervision A Petition for Annexation is prepared by the owners and electors of the property to be annexed. The Petition for Annexation is valid if 100% of the owners and 50% of the electors have signed the Petition. The Petition is presented to the municipality and if approved by the corporate authorities, the property is annexed. This procedure is the simplest and is the method of annexation most often used. There is no requirement of notice; a public hearing, court supervision or an election. In order to use this method, however, all property owners must agree upon the annexation. No portion of the property may be forcibly annexed. This method is often used in conjunction with an annexation agreement with the property owner. In such cases, a public hearing is required for the annexation agreement. E. Voluntary Annexation of Surrounded Territory Only unincorporated territory that is wholly bounded by two or more municipalities may be annexed. The territory is annexed if a majority of the property owners submit a petition for annexation to the municipality and the corporate authorities agree to the annexation and pass an ordinance annexing the property. The size (in area) of the annexing municipality cannot be increased by more than one third of its size prior to the annexation. There is no other size limitation on the amount of area of the territory to be annexed. This annexation is useful when not all property owners will agree to annex to the municipality. It does not require court intervention and there is no requirement that objecting landowner's property be removed from the annexation if it is on the edge of the territory to be annexed. Its use is limited, however, by the requirement that the territory be totally surrounded. F. Involuntary or Forced Annexation A municipality may annex territory without the owners consent in very limited circumstances. The property to be annexed must be less than 60 acres in size. The property must be wholly bounded (a) by one or more municipalities; or (b) by one or more municipalities and a creek, a river or stream, the Illinois state boundary, a forest preserve district, property owned by the State of Illinois except highway right -of- way or if the territory is a parcel of less than ten acres and bounded by one or more municipalities and an interstate right -of -way and a frontage road. Notice must be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the territory to be annexed at least ten days prior to the date the annexation ordinance is passed. Notice must be given in writing to any fire protection and library districts that have jurisdiction over property in the territory. If the territory lies within a township other than the township in which the municipality is located, the township must also receive written notice ten days prior to the date of annexation. If the Corporate Authorities pass the annexation ordinance, the territory is annexed. There is no requirement that notice be provided to the property owner. A question is often asked as to whether a municipality may forcibly annex territory of more than 60 acres on a piecemeal basis. The answer is, "no," because there will always then be a portion of the border that is adjacent to unincorporated territory. However, if the surrounded territory is under multiple ownership, then the various owners may, seriatim, voluntarily annex and thus eventually pare the territory down to less than 60 acres. G. Annexation Agreements Section 11- 15.1 -1 of the Illinois Municipal Code provides that property may be annexed to a municipality subject to certain conditions set forth in an annexation agreement between the municipality and the property owners of the property to be annexed. The authority of municipalities to enter to annexation Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 8 agreements was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court in Meegan v. Village of Tinley Park, 52111.2d 354, 288 N.E.2d 423 (1972). The vast majority of annexations occur through the use of annexation agreements. The provisions of the annexation agreement provide the various responsibilities of each of the parties with respect to the property to be annexed. Through the annexation agreement the development or redevelopment of the property may be agreed upon with certainty. The common law prohibits contract zoning. However, through an annexation agreement, a specific development proposal may be approved and then required of the property owner. This ensures the property owner or developer a specific use of the property while requiring the development to be completed in accordance with specific plans. Annexation agreements may, therefore, provide for rezoning of the property, subdivision, planning and engineering design standards, density, restrictions on use of the property, limitations on increases of permit fees, and costs of construction of public improvements. Annexation agreements may be entered into for future annexation of territory that is not currently contiguous to the municipality. In that manner, a municipality may plan for its territorial expansion knowing that certain property will only be annexed to that municipality. The parties to an annexation agreement must be the municipality and the owners of record of the property to be annexed. Annexation agreements may have a term of up to twenty years. Prior to execution of any annexation agreement, the municipality must hold a public hearing, providing notice in a newspaper of general circulation 15 to 30 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The annexation agreement must be approved by ordinance passed by a vote of two- thirds of the corporate authorities then holding office. Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 9 APPENDIX 2: LAND USE AND POPULATION DATA ,1Ll Population 687* Restaurants 0 Businesses (majority zoned County 1 -1, 1 -3) 81 Residential Units 83 Birch Manor Condos 280 OAKTON CORRIDOR Population 717* Restaurants 4 Liquor Stores 1 Businesses (majority zoned County 1 -1) 83 Residential Units Willow Terrace Mobile Home Park 376 FOREST RIVER Population 673* Restaurants 2 Businesses 4 Church 1 Residential Units Single Family Homes 274 LYNN COURT Population 61 Residential Units Single Family Homes 26 * 2000 Census Tract level data used to calculate the population of the four unincorporated areas. 2010 Census Tract level data was not available at the time of study. Land Use Descriptions The 1 -1 Restricted Industrial District is intended to control the development of lands to be used by industrial firms that have high standards of performance and that can locate in close proximity to residential and business uses without creating nuisances. District regulations are designed to permit the operations of most manufacturing, wholesaling and warehousing activities while providing adequate protection to adjacent district uses and sufficient control of external effects to protect one industry from another. Some retail uses are permitted that service the industrial uses within the industrial district or that do not depend upon intensive visits of retail customers. The 1 -3 Intensive Industrial District is intended to provide land for use by heavy or intense industries. The district is designed primarily for manufacturing, assembling and fabricating activities including large scale or specialized operations which may have some detrimental effects on surrounding districts. Less restriction is placed upon outdoor use and storage, although such uses must conform to the performance Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 10 standards of the district. Certain uses, with established functions in the economy but having a well -known nuisance potential, are permitted only in this district and generally only by special use permit. Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 11 APPENDIX 3: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE DATA Table 1: UAL AND SURROUNDING AREAS —� Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 12 Table 2: OA CORRIDOR__ Oil I —� �E. Depa rtment/ Expe nse Item Ex nse One Time TOTAL Ann ual TOTAL . ...... - ....... ........ ................. .. . . Pu blic Works ! A nnual Maintenance Op eratio ns [A - _ -�- $108,000 - Additi Personnel ; I $103,000 - i k So lid Waste T amping Fe [c] _ - _ I $56080 —d Carts per Home (1 R ecycling and 1 Garbage} $3_0000 jNew Equipmen [D] - $103,000 _P a ...................._ _. - - -- �_ $994,000......._ {Inf rastructure I m rnvements E — _ -- Flood Contra $2,060,000 $3187000 $267000 I -- .... ..... .. -. .. -. __ -. _..... i _ ....._.6 Fl Human Services !Co mmurrity Development [3 — IT TO - ONE TIME — � $3,787,000 I ANN L $267,000 , d ?Revenue Revenue Annual .�....�; TOTALi Property Taxes [K] --.... ....... ......- - Total EAVforArea (2009L. 40,0 __22,85 'Tax Rate: 6.346% , Total Taxes: $2,539,850.06 Villa a Share:0.754 ��- - - - $301 ,772; _ $301,772 - - - - - -- ' Food .................... & Beverag Tax Revenue - IRes taurants(4 @ $2,300AVG.) � $9,2 00' $5, - - $14,800( O Potential Revenue �UtiIity 376Units @$98.80)(Resid �_- i $3T ,149 Sta Shared Revenue (864 New Residents @ $77.00) - - � $66,528 —� nesses 185 AVG.) Busines Licenses 83 i @ $ ( Bu _.._ . - $15355 Re ntal Licenses 376 Units @ $40 - � $15,040 IVehicleStickers 376Units@$36 1 $13,536 $147,6081 - _— i -� - -- ANNUALI $464,180 Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 13 I - ------------- -- - - - - -- - - ------------ E N 1 I Departme�-- �, - – ---- Expense One Time i TOTALI Experse (Annual), � Public Works Annual maintenance Operations [A] $386,000 Additional Personnel $206,000 LS.lid Waste Tipping FesjPL___ —E�--, o $54,000 , ()00 New ER21p Ca rts per Home (I Recycl and I Garbage) $,30,000 _Tentjp ' 6900 00 _q, lInfrastructure lmprqveTents_[E] $3,739000 . ... ........... iFlood Control [F] $loxoxoo i $14,275,000 IPolice [GIf i Fire CHI' HI _C 4-- Human Services jCommunity c Dev ONETIMEJ $ 14 , 275- 1 000- 1 – ANNUAL! $64 I - keenue venue (Ann-amf 77Re, TOTAL; ;Total EAV for Area (2009):33,751,368 Jax Rate: 6.346 $2 141 861.81 L__ mm– Village Share:0.754 $254,485ft $114,181 Food &Beverage - Tax Revenue . . ........................... --- --- . . . ... ........................... . .. . .. . $ 4, IWO $4,600! Other Potential Revenue Ut! I i ty Tax (264 U n i ts 9 $98.90) (Re s I d e ntl a I On I [L] ___ $26,0831 ;State Shared Revenue (756 New Residents @$77.00 $58,212! — — — 113usiness Licenses (Z Businesses @D $185 AVG $37 !Vehicle Stickers (264 Units 9 $9, 504 $94,169 ANNUALI $353,255 Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 14 Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 15 Table 5: AGGREGATE !Department/Expense Item — Expense One Time I TOTAL Ex nse Annual TOTAL; E { -- - - -__. Public Works [Annual Maintenance Opera A �— - --. $582,000 , Addltional Pe rsonnel 4 8 _ _ .. 412_) — — ?Solid Wast Tip Fees - �- - ' $117,20 0 CartsperHome {iRecyclingaradi_Garbagei New E ui ment 1,11 _I rl - _. — _ - _ - -_ — I $60 0001 -- _$515 000 Infrastructurelm � � -- - - j - $5, 677,000 � - Flood Control E —__ _._ $12, 19 127 000 $1,111,200 I `Police lone Ful�EquippedMarke Squad Car 545000 jAdditlona! Fuel Cosks _ _ _ _ $ p ;Patrol Officers (6) (Includes Aca demy Tra i n i n g a nd First Yea r 1�5al assume 4096 fo r beneflts) $459, 465 278 Fire [F] € ---- ....... _ - - -- iOn eAmbulance $125000 € Firefig hters/Paramedic(7) - -- $669154 _{ $794 H� uma Services ,Equipment ( Phones,su laptops two pnnt P[ ) Nurse Full time- u grade from $23,832 ........ ....... Case Worker BSW Level $105,000 $218832 Community Developmerrt Environme Health Divis _..._ _ i Envi nor mental Health In s�ector(I ry r ___�_._ -� -^ $88 $88,000 E 'guild Dh6sion rn -m^ -- — - - -- ild f$uin Ins Thi Pa rt — g— -� 60 000 i 560,000 � 3 s TOTAL j ONE TIME $19, 127, 000 € ANNUM.[ Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 16 Notes Table 1: UAL and Surroundina Areas [A] Increased costs per year to provide Public Works services. [B] One additional person would need to be added to the Public Works Department to perform necessary work. [C] Solid Waste Tipping Fees are fees paid to the waste hauler. [D] Anticipate one new piece of equipment to perform Public Works duties [E] Parkway trees and reconstruction of roads including Imperial Court, James Drive, Addison Court, Malmo Drive, and a portion of Carboy Drive [F] A portion of this area is influenced by the Higgins Creek floodplain. Stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection measures would be necessary. [G] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [H] Estimated costs for the Mount Prospect Fire Department cannot be computed without more information. [I] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [J] Estimated costs for building and environmental health divisions calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [K] The tax rate and revenue is estimated under the assumption that the amount of money levied for the entire Village of Mount Prospect will result in the same rate for the 2010 tax year. [L] Utility tax revenue is based off an estimated $98.80 per household. This estimate was based on a Park Ridge survey, which certain assumptions were made for usage levels. The Finance Department does not have access to this type of information for businesses. Table 2: Oakton Corridor [A] Increased costs per year to provide Public Works services. [B] One additional person would need to be added to the Public Works roster to perform necessary work. [C] Solid Waste Tipping Fees are fees paid to the waste hauler. [D] Anticipate one new piece of equipment to perform Public Works-duties [E] Parkway trees and reconstruction of roads including Hamilton Road, Diane Drive, Elizabeth Drive and Weiler Road. [F] A portion of this area is influenced by the Higgins Creek floodplain. Stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection measures would be necessary. [G] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [H] Estimated costs for the Mount Prospect Fire Department cannot be computed without more information. [I] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [J] Estimated costs for building and environmental health divisions calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [K] The tax rate and revenue is estimated under the assumption that the amount of money levied for the entire Village of Mount Prospect will result in the same rate for the 2010 tax year. [L] Utility tax revenue is based off an estimated $98.80 per household. This estimate was based on a Park Ridge survey, which certain assumptions were made for usage levels. The Finance Department does not have access to this type of information for businesses. Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 17 Table 3: Forest River [A] Increased costs per year to provide Public Works services. [B] Two additional persons would need to be added to the Public Works roster to perform necessary work. [C] Solid Waste Tipping Fees are fees paid to the waste hauler. [D] Anticipate two new pieces of equipment to perform Public Works duties [E] Parkway trees and reconstruction of roads including Anita Avenue, Bonnie Brae Avenue, Brookfield Avenue, Morrison Avenue, Hill Street, Gregory Street, Lee Street, Woodland Road and Grayl_ynn Drive. [F] A portion of this area is influenced by the McDonalds and Feehanville Creek floodplain. Stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection measures would be necessary. [G] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [H] Estimated costs for the Mount Prospect Fire Department cannot be computed without more information. [I] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [J] Estimated costs for building and environmental health divisions calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [K] The tax rate and revenue is estimated under the assumption that the amount of money levied for the entire Village of Mount Prospect will result in the same rate for the 2010 tax year. [L] Utility tax revenue is based off an estimated $98.80 per household. This estimate was based on a Park Ridge survey, which certain assumptions were made for usage levels. The Finance Department does not have access to this type of information for businesses. Table 4: Lynn Court [A] Solid Waste Tipping Fees are fees paid to the waste hauler. [B] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [C] Anticipate new pieces of equipment to perform Public Works duties [D] Estimated costs calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [E] Estimated costs for building and environmental health divisions calculated as an aggregate of all four potential annexation areas. (Table 5) [F] The tax rate and revenue is estimated under the assumption that the amount of money levied for the entire Village of Mount Prospect will result in the same rate for the 2010 tax year. [G] Utility tax revenue is based off an estimated $98.80 per household. This estimate was based on a Park Ridge survey, which certain assumptions were made for usage levels. The Finance Department does not have access to this type of information for businesses. Table 3: Aggregate [A] Increased costs per year to provide Public Works services. [B] Four additional persons would need to be added to the Public Works roster to perform necessary work. [C] Estimated costs for the Mount Prospect Fire Department cannot be computed without more information. [D] Estimated costs for infrastructure improvements in all four potential annexation areas. [E] Estimated costs for stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection measures as necessary. [F] Monetary figures were not stated in the Fire Department's Annexation Estimate memo. Figures are taken from a 2006 study. [G] The tax rate and revenue is estimated under the assumption that the amount of money levied for the entire Village of Mount Prospect will result in the same rate for the 2010 tax year. [H] Utility tax revenue is based off an estimated $98.80 per household. This estimate was based on a Park Ridge survey, which certain assumptions were made for usage levels. The Finance Department does not have access to this type of information for businesses. Annexation Study Committee of the Whole Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 18 APPENDIX 4: MAP OF POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS Annexation Areas Nile's Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: WILLIAM F. COONEY, COMMUNITY DEVELOMPENT DIRECTOR FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER DATE: APRIL 6, 2011 SUBJECT: POTENTIAL ANNEXATION IMPACTS The Public Works Department has reviewed the 4 locations considered as potential annexation areas. Each area was evaluated as to its potential effects on the Public Works Department in the event that it was annexed to the Village. Effects include annual maintenance operations such as street sweeping, tree trimming, snow removal, PW administrative costs, resurfacing, solid waste, etc.; additional personnel to perform PW duties; additional equipment necessary; flood control measures; and improvements necessary to bring the infrastructure up to current Village standards at current prices. UAL Area This annexation would include 0.69 miles of local streets, 1.5 miles of IDOT and CCHD roads and 2,200' of creeks. • Annual Maintenance Operations Increased costs per year to provide Public Works services. $ 88,000 • Additional Personnel One additional person would need to be added to the Public Works roster to perform necessary work. Cost per year. $ 103,000 • New Equipment Anticipate one new piece of equipment to perform PW duties $ 206,000 • Infrastructure Improvements Reconstruction of Roads including Imperial Court, James Drive Addison Court, Malmo Drive, and a portion of Carboy Drive. $ 804,000 Parkway trees $ 140,000 • Flood Control A portion of this area is influenced by the Higgins Creek floodplain. Stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection measures would be necessary. $ 515,000 • Solid Waste Tip fees per year. $ 5,000 Page 2 ... Potential Annexation Impacts April 6, 2011 Oakton Area $ 386,000 • Additional Personnel This annexation would include 0.75 miles of local streets, 0.6 miles of IDOT and CCHD roads and 1, 500' of creeks. perform necessary work. Cost per year. $ 206,000 • Annual Maintenance Operations Anticipate two new pieces of equipment to perform PW duties Increased costs per year to provide Public Works services. $ 108,000 • Additional Personnel Avenue, Morrison Avenue, Hill Street, Gregory Street, Lee Street, Woodland Road and GrayLynn Drive. One additional person would need to be added to the Public Works roster to perform necessary work. Cost per year. $ 103,000 • New Equipment Feehanville Ditch floodplains. Stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection Anticipate one new piece of equipment to perform PW duties $ 103,000 • Infrastructure Improvements Tip Fees per year $ 54,000 Reconstruction of Roads including Hamilton Road, Diane Drive, Elizabeth Drive and Weiler Road. $ 875,000 Parkway trees $ 119,000 • Flood Control A portion of this area is influenced by the Higgins Creek floodplain. Stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection measures would be necessary. $ 2,060,000 • Solid Waste Tip Fees per year $ 56,000 Carts per home (1 recycling and 1 garbage) $ 30,000 Forest River Area This annexation would include 3.0 miles of local streets, 0.5 miles of IDOT and CCHD roads and 2,030' of creeks. • Annual Maintenance Operations Increased costs per year to provide Public Works services. $ 386,000 • Additional Personnel Two additional persons would need to be added to the Public Works roster to perform necessary work. Cost per year. $ 206,000 • New Equipment Anticipate two new pieces of equipment to perform PW duties $ 206,000 • Infrastructure Improvements Reconstruction of Roads including Anita Avenue, Bonnie Brae Avenue, Brookfield Avenue, Morrison Avenue, Hill Street, Gregory Street, Lee Street, Woodland Road and GrayLynn Drive. $ 3,502,000 Parkway trees $ 237,000 • Flood Control Portions of this area are influenced by the McDonald Creek and Feehanville Ditch floodplains. Stream bank improvements, tree trimming and other flood protection measures would be necessary. $10,300,000 • Solid Waste Tip Fees per year $ 54,000 Carts per home (1 recycling and 1 garbage) $ 30,000 Page 3 ... Potential Annexation Impacts April 6, 2011 Lynn Court Area This annexation does not include any additional local streets, MOT or CCHD roads or creeks. • Solid Waste Tip Fees per year $ 2,200 For purposes of this evaluation it was anticipated that the watermain and sanitary sewer systems would not be changed as part of the annexation process. If these services were desired by the residents, it is anticipated that the benefiting residents would pay for the cost of those improvement through a special assessment. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Jeff Wulbecker CC: Public Works Director Glen R. Andler Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey Street Superintendent Paul Bures Forestry Superintendent Sandy Clark Water / Sewer Superintendent Matt Overeem Administrative Superintendent Jason Leib H: Engineering\ Development\ Reviews\ Potentia lAnnexationAreas \2011\ImpactsMm Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: WILLIAM COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: CHIEF JOHN K. DAHLBERG DATE: MARCH 31, 2011 SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT ISSUES RELATED TO PROPOSED ANNEXATION SCENARIOS 1 -4 Summary of Facts: The most recent potential annexation discussions have focused on four potential annexation scenarios. The four potential annexation areas include: ■ The area west of Des Plaines River Road, north of Gregory Street, east of the Wisconsin Central Railroad right of way and south of Kensington Road; hereinafter referred to as Area #1. ■ The area commonly referred to as the United Airlines Parcel and contiguous unincorporated areas north of Oakton Street or the "Donut "; hereinafter referred to as Area #2. ■ The unincorporated areas south of Oakton Street, north and east of the Northwest Tollway and west of the current City of Des Plaines border west of Elmhurst Road; hereinafter referred to as Area #3. ■ The unincorporated portion of Lynn Court in the extreme southwest potion of the Village; hereinafter referred to as Area #4 Perceived Police Department Workload / Service Issues by Area: ■ Area #1 : It is anticipated that this annexation area, which is comprised of approximately 250 single family residences, a new moderate in scope town home development and some commercial properties along both State Route 45 (Des Plaines River Road) and Kensington Road, including a popular established sports bar / eatery (Dick's Roadhouse), will add approximately 350 — 400 calls for service to the department's current workload. Chief amongst the increase in workload generated by this annexation area will be service calls to the residents of the area, followed by motor - vehicle traffic crashes along the approximately 2 miles of residential streets and Y2 mile of state highway (Route 45) that would become the jurisdiction of the M.P.P.D., followed by calls for service generated by the commercial properties. Page - 1 - C: \Documents and Settings \COshea \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content .Outlook \9LLJ5YWLWnnexation Issues Memo April 2011.doc Area #2 : It is anticipated that this annexation area, which is composed of predominately commercial properties of a light industrial and office nature in addition to two significant residential properties, the Willow Way Trailer Park, and the Birch Manor Condominium Complex, and limited retail uses will add approximately 1,500 calls for service to the department's current workload. Chief amongst the increase in workload generated by this annexation will be traffic accidents along the nearly 2.75 miles of state highway, arterial roadways and side streets that would become the jurisdiction of the M.P.P.D., service calls to the residents of the area, followed by service calls to commercial properties. Area #3 : It is anticipated that this annexation area, given its existing property use mixture, which is almost entirely commercial including light industrial, office and some limited retail would result in approximately 500 calls for service to the department's current workload. Chief amongst the increase in workload generated by this annexation will be service calls to commercial properties followed by traffic crash investigations on the nearly 1 mile of interior streets within the proposed annexation area. ■ Area #4: It is anticipated that this annexation area, which is comprised of a small number of multifamily residential townhome units containing less than 40 units and 100 people would add approximately 25 calls for service to the department's current workload. Taken separately, the four areas currently being considered for possible annexation do not represent the potential for significant police workload increases. As a result, meaningful workload impact analysis of Areas 1 -4 individually would be difficult at best. However, when viewed in the aggregate, these annexations are likely to result in an appreciable increase in the level of police service obligations (workload) going forward. Therefore, the police department's analysis of costs associated with the proposed annexations assumes that all four annexations will occur. Resource Allocation Objectives The department's current resource allocation focuses heavily on two major objectives; ➢ Equality of unit workloads; (number of calls for service assigned to each patrol beat [a specific geographic area of patrol and call responsibility with established physical boundaries in which an officer or patrol unit is assigned]. ➢ Equality of Service Provided; (e.g., percent of calls answered within established response time parameters). Purpose of Beat Design ■ To distribute police presence uniformly throughout the jurisdiction. Beat Design Objectives ■ Balance unit workloads. • Balance and minimize response times. • Balance and minimize cross -beat dispatches. Page - 2 - C: \Documents and Settings \COshea \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content .Outlook \9LLJ5YWLWnnexation Issues Memo April 2011.doc • Officer Safety. • Geographic Integrity (Neighborhoods) Assumptions • One unit assigned to each beat area. • Beat unit handles all call for service to beat area, if available. Advantages of Beat Design ➢ Lower police response times. ➢ Foster officer familiarization with small geographic areas. ➢ Facilitate a more efficient police presence. The four potential annexations as proposed include three areas on the south side of the Village. At present, the police department has three (3) patrol beats on the north side of the Village and three (3) patrol beats on the south side of the Village. Cover cars or units that have umbrella responsibilities are deployed on a south side, north side and /or Village -wide basis. The department's position is that the annexations, as proposed, will require the addition of a fourth (4 th ) patrol beat on the south side of the Village. It is the police department's position at this juncture that the Area #1 annexation could be absorbed by the existing beat structure in place on the north side of the Village. Based upon the Northwestern University Traffic Institute's publication, Police Resource Allocation, the department determined that the current relief factor for a patrol officer within this agency is 2.05. Given the fact that the new south side beat will require staffing on a 24 hour basis, and our current 8 hour shift schedule, the new beat will require 6.15 officers to staff. For the purposes of this memorandum, the number will be rounded to six (6) full time officers and one (1) additional squad car will be required. The estimated first year costs for staffing the new beat follow One (1) fully equipped, marked squad car .................. .....................$45,000.00 Additional Fuel Costs ............... ............................... ......................$9,000.00 Six (6) patrol officers .............. ............................... ....................$375,354.00 ( *Includes Training (Academy) Costs. Salary Based on Union Contract Effective 01 May 2011) Total Costs (excluding benefits ) .............................. ....................$426,354.00 I will be available to expound on these projections at our next committee meeting. In the meantime, please let me know if you require any additional information. JD c: D/C Semkiu, D/C Janowick Cmdrs. Wagner, Gross, Eterno, Zboril and McGuffin Page - 3 - C: \Documents and Settings \COshea \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content .Outlook \9LLJ5YWLWnnexation Issues Memo April 2011.doc Village of Mount Prospect Fire Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: BRIAN SIMMONS, DEPUTY COMMUNITY DEVELOIPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: FIRE CHIEF DATE: AUGUST 20, 2010 SUBJECT: 2010 ANNEXATION STUDY — FIRE DEPARTMENT VIEWPOINT The last time we reviewed the attached documents was in 2005. While that was only 5 years ago, several aspects of the fire service have changed since then, which necessitated a thorough look at the information. Here are my recommendations regarding the three primary areas: 1. Forest River Subdivision — The fire department currently provides fire and EMS protection to this area under an agreement with the Forest River Fire Protection District ( FRFPD). Staffing and equipment is already provided; therefore no impact would be experienced. Currently the Village receives money from the FRFPD through the residents' tax statement. FRFPD is a separate taxing body. Their tax rate is frozen based upon a consent decree issued by the courts back in 1971. 1 am told that this tax rate is one of; if not the lowest fire protection tax rates in Cook County. Additionally some off the money collected by the fire district is reduced to pay the three appointed district trustees and legal fees incurred. Annexation of this area should provide a funding level commensurate with today's rates. 2. United Airlines Property — This area is currently protected by the Elk Grove Township Fire Protection District (EGTFPD). To the best of my knowledge this area only generates approximately 150 emergency responses annually. If that number was to remain similar our fire department could provide protection to this area with little impact. We would need to reevaluate the impact if this area was redeveloped with tenants that would increase our emergency responses. 3. Oakton Corridor — For the purposes of this report, I understand this area to include all unincorporated property on either side of Oakton Street between Elmhurst Road and Busse Road; and all intersecting side streets. Annexation of this area would not cause enough emergency responses to impact the fire department if its current commercial make -up remained. Obviously, redevelopment of this area could impact the number of responses and necessitate additional resources. 4. Lynn Court - We currently protect all of Lynn Court except for 5 of the townhome buildings (3017, 3021, 3025, 3029 & 3031). We could provide fire & EMS service to these 5 buildings with little impact to the fire department. There may be some fire code issues that we are not aware of, but compliance should not be a problem. 2010Annexation Study — Fire Department Viewpoint August 20, 2010 Page 2 While any of the above areas can be annexed without impact to the fire department, a combination of areas #2 and #3 will likely require the fire department to add additional apparatus and personnel. A lot hinges on whether the Elk Grove Township Fire Department ( EGTFD) continues to operate. At some point I would expect that annexing one of these areas would likely cause the EGTFD to cease its' operations. The EGTFD is a privately held company that contracts for service with the EGTFPD. The area they protect goes beyond the areas in #2 and #3. If our annexation(s) cause them to walk away from their fire /EMS protection our fire department will likely need to cover a large portion of their response area. Without a doubt, the Mount Prospect Fire Department will have to add additional apparatus and personnel if the Elk Grove Township Fire Department ceases to exist. It is difficult to predict the exact number of resources that would be necessary to protect that area. Would we have an opportunity to take possession of their apparatus? How would the UAL property be used? What would be the total impact to our services? The area within Fire District 12 (south end of community) is protected by an engine and ambulance (Golf & Busse Roads) that are quite busy. We rely on the Elk Grove Township Fire Department to respond to our community approximately 150 times per year. Most of these responses are when our current engine and /or ambulance are on another emergency. The Elk Grove Township Fire Department responds to approximately 700 emergency incidents annually. We could not handle that much of an increase in responses without additional resources. Recommendation The area in Area 1 is currently being handled by the fire department and will not be adversely affected by annexation. We must use caution when considering the annexation of Areas 2 & 3. While either area can be absorbed without adding resources, the combination of both areas will necessitate added people and apparatus. Since either of these areas can make the Elk Grove Township Fire Department cease to exist; we may find ourselves protecting the entire are, which will cause us to purchase apparatus, equipment and personnel. Area 4 is a small enough area that we could absorb the 5 townhomes without a significant impact. I recommend a slow and systematic approach to annexations. Prior to any proposed annexation should consider our exposure to a larger fire /EMS protection responsibility. Michael Figolah Stss It Y y` Y Uill.g..f ASW t V "fll TO FROM: DATE: Village of Mount Prospect MOUNT PROSPECT Human Services Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM HUMAN SERVICES BRIAN SIMMONS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR NANCY MORGAN, HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR APRIL 27, 2010 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION IMPACT ON THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT In reviewing the cost of providing Human Services Department services to the populations of the four potential annexations areas, we estimate the department would need to add staff to meet the increased demand for social services and nursing. - -The department would need to hire a new full -time Social Worker (MSW level) at an annual rate of approximately $70,000. The benefits would be the standard full time benefit package or @$35,000. - -The current part-time temporary Public Health Nurse status would change to full -time regular Public Health Nurse, and the salary would be approximately $60,000. The benefits would include the standard full -time benefit package or an additional @$30,000. - -The department would need to hire a part-time clerical person to assist with data entry, flyers, filing, etc. with the additional professional staff. This cost to the Village is estimated at $13,832. The total increase to the Human Services Department's budget would, also, include phones, supplies, two Nextel phones, two laptops and one PC, two portable printers, and other office supplies. The total expected cost would be @$218,832. (See attached Excel spreadsheet for detailed information by tract.) Social Services Justification Contact is made with residents for social services on an average of four times in a twelve month period. Those contacts last approximately forty -five minutes long plus travel time for home visits *. We estimate due to the expected high -risk areas that are being considered for annexation, the percentage of service calls will be greater than the present numbers of residents and contacts made. With an additional 599 ** residents of the estimated new population of 2,140 * ** making 2,696 social services contacts at an average of forty -five minutes per contact, additional staff time of 2,022 hours /year or would be needed. The cost to the Village would be an annual salary of $70,000 plus benefits. The total package would cost the Village approximately $105,000 /year. I Public Health Nursing Justification Contact is made with residents for nursing /health on an average of six (6) contacts in a twelve month period. Those contacts last approximately thirty minutes long. (This does not take into consideration travel time for home visits which we estimate at an additional ninety hours * * * *.) The additional 599 residents of the estimated new population making 3,594 nursing /health contacts would require approximately 1,947 hours in staff time, a full -time position. The cost to the Village would be an annual salary of $60,000 plus benefits. The total package would cost the Village approximately $90,000 /year. The addition of two new positions would add more work onto a support staff already at maximum workload. This would necessitate the hiring of at least a part-time position. (The present support staff assists eight positions.) A nineteen hour /week clerk would cost an additional $13,382 with no benefits. * The potential number of new clients was reached by using 25% of new residents in the UAL and Forest River areas plus 33% of the new residents living in the Lynn Court and Oakton Corridor area, both located in low- income census tracts. ** Travel time calculated by using 5% of new clients living at farthest ends of town requiring @ thirty minutes for round trip; and 4.5 visits provided by staff. * ** The total number of estimated new residents of 2,140 was obtained by adding all homes and units in the four proposed annexed areas and multiplying them by their average household size using the 2000 census for their specific tracts. (See Attached Spreadsheet for specific information.) *"** travel time calculated by using 5% of new clients living at farthest ends of town requiring @ thirty minutes for round trip; and 6 visits provided by staff. H:ANLOUTAnnexation Impact for 2010 ReporllAnnexation Impact 2010.doc lJ� vi N O \ CD O v 0 0 en Q Q ^ U QJ O O Q X x 0 v Z fl C Q'� z Qj M Q V 3 O CL — tD Ul) M m CL B as 00 cn v O 3 ro \ i 's ? QJ m cr1 cd S O Ln t/T V1 C _ CA O ru z \ Y C a va ro c ° O co r� 0 C:, a m u '-n CC) Ln m o o ^!` o O 0 Sri 0 i.ri N s Q c _ U U O O f6 U O C ra p Q1 O \ Ln U [f vi N Qi 00 lD O �n 76 u O N LM � U O i > t! Ql V) C r ti ~ `� O O h,,. O O O CO - Q) L n 'n �D m s. n% O 0 O 0 O p' -O 'D O Z Q � m m o + 0 CD + C U O O tl.zr ro v c r v \ r` M lD O� N �? w QJ _> z = � c 00 — co m Ln 3 3 =' 3 c rn 3 •-+` N N QJ C 'p m Q) N v QJ c M -N.. h0 C bD C Z7 40 C -O 00 C 'p ". 0 w p 0) � 00 M ONO, M L!1 '-I N N ^ eN-•I M 00 CD ;, 4 O X3 Ln CD O + CD O + F— 00 LL {S! 'd O - p C O (J (O O cp N N ' : j 7► _� Cl N C r0 QJ N i c ro — c �, Y C: c o c v = O o O O S n ' �•" O S 0 0 rn V Z j N v ,�. C Q E . -0 S , n 7 • N � •O w s V1 41 I.f) > > Q1 O , O to v> Q/ C Lr) N +, ,L'- v) Q! C N Cl ' �„ -. W C L,!) C2- cc Q U 00 �n w d O Q U CO u� vi Q'' IL". QJ c[ > N O Q V 00 O" `.`�, ,: Q> Q. J cc > a 0 Q O O M - . < V 00 d F — -_ (/1 OQ Q w Q m I— U 0 O _N N V