The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. NEW BUSINESS 12/7/04 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2004 SUBJECT: PZ-43-04: V ARIA nONS (SETBACKS & LOT COVERAGE) 2020 CAMP MCDONALD ROAD READ EDUCATIONAL CENTER - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-43-04, a request for relief from lot coverage and setback regulations, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their November 11, 2004 meeting. The READ Educational Center is an existing Montessori school. In an effort to improve access to the site and general site conditions at the Subject Property, the Petitioner proposes to create a drop-off area, add parking spaces by expanding the parking lot, reconfigure the access to the site, and relocate the garbage dumpster. The existing parking lot is irregularly shaped and is setback from the west lot line between 4'-14'. The Petitioner explored different designs for the drop-off area and worked with the Village's Engineering Division to arrive at a design that, although does not meet current Village Codes, improves the interior circulation of the site. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's requests for Variations. They found that relocating the dumpster so it maintains the required 10' front setback, but is setback 3' from the interior lot line, would eliminate the need for one Variation. Although the proposed location still requires a Variation (from the side yard setback requirement), the P&Z stated that the screening would minimize the impact of the dumpster in a required yard. The P&Z discussed the proposed changes to the parking lot and noted that the site currently does not comply with zoning regulations. They found that the existing conditions limit the Petitioner's ability to improve the site. Also, the proposed improvements would improve access to, and within the site. Therefore, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve Variations to allow: 1) the reduction of the side yard setback for the parking lot and the garbage dumpster; 2) an overall lot coverage of 77%; 3) the reduction of the parking lot drive aisle to 20'; and 4) the reduction ofthe required parking spaces to 12. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their December 7,2004 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, Jr., A CP /be H,IPLANIPlam'"'g & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004\MEJ Mcnoos\PZ-43-04 MEJ MEMO (2020 Camp McDonald Road - V AR).doo MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-43-04 Hearing Date: November 11,2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2020 Camp McDonald Road PETITIONER: Gregory Hùbert, Read Educational Center PUBLICATION DATE: October 27,2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-24-416-027 -0000 REQUEST: Variations for setbacks, lot coverage, parking lot MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Gregory Hubert Jeff Whyte Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue approval of the minutes of the previous meeting and the two items of Old Business to the December 9th meeting. Joseph Donnelly moved and Matt Sledz seconded the motion, which was approved S-O. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-43-04, a request for Variations to setbacks, lot coverage, parking & lot. She noted thàt the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said the Subject Property is located on the north side of Camp McDonald Road, between River Road and Park Drive, and contains a one-story school building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 District to the east and west, by the R4 Multi-Family District to the north, and the Rl Single Family to the south, across Camp McDonald Road. The Subject Property is generally rectangular in shape and the existing building is currently set back 30' from the south (front) lot line, 40' from the west, and is located on the north (rear) and east (interior) lot lines. The existing parking lot is irregularly shaped and is setback from the west (interior) lot line between 4'-14'. Ms. Connolly said that the READ Educational Center is an existing Montessori school with a pre-school program for 3-S year olds and a kindergarten to Sth grade curriculum. Also, the school offers a specialized program for deaf and hearing-impaired children. In an effort to improve access to the site and general site conditions at the Subject Property, the Petitioner proposes to create a drop-off area, add parking spaces by expanding the parking lot, reconfigure the access to the site, and relocate the garbage dumpster. The dumpster is currently located along the west elevation of the school building, towards the rear of the structure. The Petitioner proposes to modify the area where the dumpster is currently located and proposes to relocate the dumpster to the south area of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate that the dumpster enclosure would be located 3' from the east (interior) lot line and approximately 6' from the south (front) lot line. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-43-04 Page 2 The dumpster would be screened with a 6' wood fence and have a concrete pad. The construction of the dumpster enclosure would comply with Village regulations, however, the proposed location requires relief from zoning regulations because the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' setback. The Petitioner proposes to locate the dumpster enclosure in the required front and side yard in an effort to maximize the number of parking spaces and for safety reasons. The proposed location would allow for an additional parking space and the dumpster would be located away from the students' play area. In addition, the proposed location minimizes potential sight obstructions. Although parking is certainly important to the school, Staff recommends that the dumpster be located within the parking lot area to maintain the established street view along Camp McDonald Road. Currently, the parking lot is not striped. Staff conducted a site visit and determined that the site currently parks at least 9 vehicles. It is Staffs understanding that a section of the paved surface is used for student outdoor activities, subject to the weather conditions, and vehicles generally do not park in close proximity to the play area. The Petitioner proposes to expand the play area and install a fence around the perimeter of the play area. The Petitioner proposes to expand the parking lot and provide 11 standard parking spaces and one handicap space. Site access would be reconfigured so vehicles would enter from the east driveway, drop-off the student (a teacher 'delivers' a student to the building), and then exit the site using the west driveway. The new parking spaces would be located 'head-in' along the west elevation of the school and additional spaces would be created along the west lot line. Staff and parents would use the parking spaces. The Petitioner proposes a 4' setback along the west lot line and a 20' wide drive aisle. It is important to note that, although the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' setback and a 24' wide drive aisle, the proposed design, coupled with the reconfigured access to the site, would help to improve the interior circulation. Also, the dash striped walkway area is intended to minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit the 20' wide drive aisle and the 4' setback along the west lot line, which is adjacent to an animal clinic. The Petitioner proposes to plant evergreen bushes to minimize the impact of the encroachment on the adjacent property. Currently, a portion of the parking lot/paved area has a 4' setback, however, the new parking lot is required to meet current code regulations. Also, the 20' wide drive aisle is necessary to create the maximum number of parking spaces with minimal impact on the adjacent property. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per employee and 8 visitor spaces. The school has 5 employees, therefore the Petitioner is required to have 13 parking spaces. Due to site constraints and existing conditions, the Petitioner proposes to provide 12 parking spaces and is seeking a Variation to permit one space less than the Zoning Ordinance requires for the Subject Property. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate that a permeable paver would be used for a portion of the drop-off area. The Petitioner's architect has provided information from the manufacturer to establish that the pavers are a permeable material. However, the Village Code does not recognize the proposed material as permeable and it is included in the impervious calculation. Although the Petitioner proposes to expand the parking lot and driveway (access to the site), the site will have an increase in 'green' because the play area will be expanded. The Engineering Division confirmed that, based on the information submitted by the Petitioner's architect, the base of the play area meets the Village's pervious definition. Although the Petitioner is decreasing the permeable area of the site from 21 % to 23%, a variation for lot coverage is still required because the proposal exceeds the 75% lot coverage limitation by 370 square feet. The existing building and parking lot do not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the existing structures encroach into the required rear and side yards. The Petitioner does not propose any changes to the building, but is seeking approval to modify the parking lot and access to/from the site to improve the interior circulation. The proposed access and parking lot design is intended to minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and create a safer parking lot. In order to approve the requests, the Board has to find they meet the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-43-04 Page 3 Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to improve the site by creating more parking, reconfiguring the parking lot and access to/from the site, reducing lot coverage, and relocating the dumpster. The existing conditions create traffic congestion on-site, which then spills off-site and consequently adversely impacts vehicles traveling on Camp McDonald Road. The Petitioner has explored different designs for the drop-off area and worked with the Village's Engineering Division to arrive at a design that, although does not meet current Village Codes, improves the interior circulation of the site. The proposed changes would benefit the neighborhood by minimizing traffic conflicts on Camp McDonald Road, providing more on-site parking, and increasing green space. However, the width of the property and the location of the building limit the Petitioner's design options. Therefore, some of the requested Variations meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed landscaping would help minimize impacts of the encroachments on the adjacent properties (animal clinic and gas station). The Petitioner's requests for variations for: 1) side yard setbacks, 2) lot coverage, 3) parking lot design, and 4) number of parking spaces meets the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance because the existing conditions and width of the lot limit the Petitioner's ability to arrive at a design that would comply with all zoning regulations. However, the proposed dumpster enclosure could be relocated to comply with Village Code. Based on these findings, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board deny the requested Variation for the dumpster location and approve Variations to allow: less parking spaces than are required by the Zoning Ordinance with the final count to be determined based on the dumpster location; a parking lot to encroach into the required side yard and have a 4' setback (west lot line), as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30,2004; 20' wide drive aisle as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004; and 77% lot coverage as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004 for the READ Educational Center at 2020 Camp McDonald Road, Case No. PZ-43-04. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Gregory Hubert, President of the Read Educational Center, was sworn in and thanked the Planning & Zoning Commission for hearing their request. He explained that theirs is the only school that teaches the deaf along with hard of hearing children. He said that it is important to maintain the site and to ensure the structure remains attractive and safe. He introduced their architect, JeffWhyte. After being sworn in, Mr. Whyte said Judy had done a very good, very thorough job explaining the request. He showed current pictures of the facility and proposed drawings of the improvements. He also stated the reason for the requests was to install a turnaround away from traffic for the safety of the children and that the turnaround necessitated other changes in landscaping, paving, parking lot configuration, etc. Directional and traffic regulatory signs will be provided at the entrance and exit to help drivers easily negotiate the drop-off area. Mr. Whyte showed the planned landscaping and enlarged playground. He also showed the reconfigured dumpster location that would meet Village Code. He reviewed how another parking place would be possible if the Commission was agreeable to sacrificing a tree. Mr. Whyte explained their thoughts on why they thought the permeable surface they plan to use in the turnaround would alleviate any water retention problems caused by increased lot coverage. Mr. Whyte described the dumpster enclosure. Richard Rogers said he preferred the original planned location of the dumpster, but about four feet further back, rather than the new alternative. He also appreciated Mr. Whyte's efforts to save a tree in lieu of a parking space with added asphalt. Ms. Juracek agreed with the new dumpster location. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 8: 16 pm and asked for a motion or further discussion, especially on the dumpster. Mr. Rogers said he would make a motion that the dumpster maintain the required 10' front yard setback and three or four feet back from the side yard setback, or, the original position, but four feet further back. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-43-04 Page 4 Ms. Juracek said the motion before the Planning Zoning Commission by Richard Rogers is to approve the side yard Variation, provided the dumpster is not located in the 10-foot front yard setback. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek, NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Alternative three, where the dumpster is located no less than 3-feet from the east lot line, is recommended for approval to the Village Board. Ms. Juracek said she would entertain a motion to approve the Petitioner's request for Variations for the parking lot design, parking lot setback, one parking space, and lot coverage. Richard Rogers said that he is usually not in favor of circular driveways, but in this situation, the proposed design would improve access to/from the site. Mr. Rogers made a motion to approve Variations to allow: 1) the side yard setback for the parking lot as shown on the exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004, 2) the dumpster to encroach into the required side yard; 3) 77% lot coverage, 4) the parking lot design as shown on the exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004, and 5) 12 parking spaces subject to the Petitioner relocating the dumpster at least 10' from the front lot line and no less than 3' from the east lot line for the property located at 2020 Camp McDonald Road, Case No. PZ-43-04. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Juracek, Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:51 p.m., after hearing another case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. H:IPLAN\Planning & Zoning COMMlP&Z 2004\MinutesIPZ-43-04 2020 Camp MC Donald Rd Read Educ Or.doc CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 43-04 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department LOCATION: 2020 Camp McDonald Road PETITIONER: Gregory L. Hubert, READ Educational Center OWNERS: Gregory L. Hubert, READ Educational Center PARCEL #: 03-24-416-027 -0000 LOT SIZE: 0.35 acres (15,109 square feet) ZONING: B3 Community Shopping LAND USE: Montessori School (READ Educational Center) REQUEST: Variations for: 1) Front Yard Setback, 2) Side Yard Setback, 3) Lot Coverage, 4) Parking Lot design, and 5) Number of Parking Spaces LOCATION MAP 1417 1416 1415 .414 1413 1412 1413 1411 1410 1411 141/9 1408 .409 -.;.. - Village Boundary 0 Oul 01 Village ~ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLA1\TNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2004 HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2004 SUBJECT: PZ-43-04 - V ARIA nONS (SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE, PARKING & LOT) 2020 CAMP MCDONALD ROAD (READ EDUCATIONAL CENTER) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the November 11, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by the READ Educational Center (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 2020 Camp McDonald Road (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking Variations for: 1) front yard setback, 2) side yard setbacks, 3) lot coverage, 4) parking lot design, and 5) the number of parking spaces. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the October 27,2004 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the north side of Camp McDonald Road, between River Road and Park Drive, and contains a one-story school building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 District to the east and west, by the R4 Multi-Family District to the north, and the Rl Single Family to the south, across Camp McDonald Road. The Subject Property is generally rectmgular in shape and the existing building is currently set back 30' from the south (front) lot line, 40' from the west, and is located on the north (rear) and east (interior) lot lines. The existing parking lot is ilTegu]arly shaped and is setback from the west (interior) lot line between 4' -14'. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The READ Educational Center is an existing Montessori school with a pre-school program for 3-5 year olds and a kindergarten to 5th grade cUlTiculum. Also, the school offers a specialized program for deaf and hearing-impaired children. In an effort to improve access to the site and general site conditions at the Subject Property, the Petitioner proposes to create a drop-off area, add parking spaces by expanding the parking lot, reconfigure the access to the site, and relocate the garbage dumpster. Dumpster Enclosure The dumpster is currently located along the west elevation of the school building, towards the rear of the structure. The Petitioner proposes to modify the area where the dumpster is currently located and proposes to relocate the dumpster to the south area of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate that the dumpster enclosure would be located 3' from the east lot line and approximately 6' from the south lot line. The PZ-43-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting November 11, 2004 Page 2 dumpster would be screened with a 6' wood fence and have a concrete pad. The construction of the dumpster enclosure would comply with Village regulations, however, the proposed location requires re!ief from zoning regulations as the Zoning Ordinance requires the dumpster encJosure to maintain a 10' setback. The Petitioner proposes to locate the dumpster enclosure in the required front and side yard in an effort to maximize the number of parking spaces and for safety reasons. The proposed location would allow for an additional parking space and the dumpster would be located away from the students' play area. In addition, the proposed location minimizes potential sight obstructions. Although parking is certainly important to the school, Staff recommends that this dumpster be located within the parking lot area to maintain the established street view along Camp McDonald Road. Existing Parking Lot Cun-ently, the parking lot is not striped. Staff conducted a site visit and determined that the site currently parks at least 9 vehicles. It is Staffs understanding that a section of the paved surface is used for student outdoor activities, subject to the weather conditions, and vehicles generally do not park in close proximity to the play area. The Petitioner proposes to expand the play area and install a fence around the perimeter of the play area. Proposed Parking Lot / Drop-Off Area The Petitioner proposes to expand the parking lot and provide 11 standard parking spaces and one handicap space. Site access would be reconfigured so vehicles would enter from the eastern driveway, drop-off the student (a teacher 'delivers' a student to the building), and then exit the site using the western driveway. The new parking spaces would be located 'head-in' along the west elevation of the school and additional spaces would be created along the west Jot line. Staff and parents would use the parking spaces. The Petitioner proposes a 4' setback along the west lot line and a 20' wide drive aisle. It is important to note that although the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' setback and a 24' wide drive aisle, the proposed design, coupled with the reconfigured access to the site, would help to improve the interior circulation. Also, the dash striped walkway area is intended to minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit the 20' wide drive aisle and the 4' setback along the west Jot line, which is adjacent to an animal c1inic. The Petitioner proposes to plant evergreen bushes to minimize the impact of the encroachment on the adjacent property. CulTently, a portion of the parking lot/paved area has a 4' setback, however, the new parking lot is required to meet current code regulations. Also, the 20' wide drive aisle is necessary to create the maximum number of parking spaces with minimal impact on the adjacent property. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per employee and 8 visitor spaces. Since the school has 5 employees, the Petitioner is required to have 13 parking spaces. Due to site constraints and existing conditions, the Petitioner proposes to provide 12 parking spaces and is seeking a Variation to permit one space less than the Zoning Ordinance requires for the Subject Property. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate that a permeable paver would be used for a portion of the drop-off area. The Petitioner's architect has provided information from the manufacturer to establish that the pavers are a permeable material. However, the Village Code does not recognize the proposed material as permeable; therefore, it is included in the impervious calculation. Although the Petitioner proposes to expand the parking lot and driveway (access to the site), the site will have an increase in 'green' because the play area will be expanded. The Engineering Division confirmed, that based on the information submitted by the Petitioner's architect, the base of the play area meets the Village's pervious definition. Although the Petitioner is increasing the penlleable area of the site from 21 % to 23%, a variation for lot coverage is still required because the proposal exceeds the 75% lot coverage limitation by 370 square feet. PZ-43-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting November 11, 2004 . Page 3 . .." GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The existing building and parking lot do not comply with the ViJ1age's zoning regulations because the existing structures encroach into the required rear and side yards. The Petitioner does not propose any changes to the building, but is seeking approval to modify the parking lot and access to/from the site to improve the interior circulation. The proposed access and parking lot design is intended to minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and create a safer parking lot. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Zoning Ordinance bulk requirements. The' greyed' boxes indicate relief from the Zoning Ordinance is necessary. B3 Community Shopping Building Setbacks Parking Lot Setback Dumpster Req. Existin!! ProDosed Req. Existin2 Proposed Req. Proposed SETBACKS: Front 30' 30' No 10' 3' 0' (New 10' 6' 1.5" changes driveway Interior 10' 0' (east) No changes 10' 4' & 14' 4' 10' 3' 40' (west) (west) (entire west) Rear 20' 0' No changes 10' 33' No n/a n/a Change LOT COVERAGE 75% 79% 77% Max DRIVE AISLE 24' U nstriped 20' wide wide VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.c.9 of the ViJ1age Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to improve the site by creating more parking, reconfiguring the parking lot and access to/from the site, reducing lot coverage, and relocating the dumpster. The existing conditions create traffic congestion on-site, which then spills off-site and consequently adversely impacts vehicles traveling on Camp McDonald Road. The Petitioner has explored different designs for the drop-off area and worked with the Village's Engineering Division to arrive at a design that, although does not meet current ViI1age Codes, improves the interior circulation of the site. The proposed changes would benefit the neighborhood by minimizing traffic conflicts on Camp McDonald Road, providing more on-site parking, and increasing green space. However, the width of the property and the location of the building limit the Petitioner's design options. Therefore, the requested Variations meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed landscaping would help minimize impacts of the encroachments on the adjacent properties (animal clinic and gas station). PZ-43-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting November 11, 2004 Page 4 RECOMMENDA nON The Petitioner's requests for variations for: 1) front yard setback, 2) side yard setback, 3) lot coverage, 4) parking lot design, and 5) number of parking spaces meets the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203.c.9 of the Zoning Ordinance because the existing conditions and width of the lot limit the Petitioner's ability to arrive at a design that would comply with all zoning regulations. Based on these findings, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board deny the requested Variation for the dumpster location and approve Variations to allow: 1) Less parking spaces than is required by the Zoning Ordinance; final count to be determined based on the dumpster location; 2) A parking lot to encroach into the required side yard and have a 4' setback (west lot line), as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004; 3) A 20' wide drive aisle as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004; and 4) 77% lot coverage as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004 for the READ Educational Center at 2020 Camp McDonald Road, Case No. PZ-43-04. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Di ector of Community Development ij, HIPLAN'.Planni"g & Zoning COMM\P&l1004'SialT "","0\P2-4)-04 MEMO (2020 C"np McDoo..ld - READ Erluc"io" VAR) do, Archi.Build Architects and Mastér Builders November I, 2004 Judy Connelly Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson St. Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Read Educational Center Dear Judy: Enclosed please find information regarding the Unilock Eco-Stone paving system. Additionally please note that the expanded playground area will have a bark chip play surface over the existing ground to match the existing playground surface. This area will be permeable. Sincerely; Jeff wI '!jr Archi'Build, Inc., 645 S. Meacham Road, Schaumburg, IL 60193 Phone: 847-490-0094, Fax 847-891-9003 SURFACE WATER FLOW ¡-----~--- ---~r.-------_.!._-_.._-I DRAINAGE VOto--- ----"-, . I I ! ! ;--- ECOLOC PAVERS -'. . . , ,: '- d ~ .rl~' "i .0.' LJD.. 'i,(----:n~'I~~:(----:lír--"IIID....' ~-- _:__I~\~~~lli!.'--, Þ\JlptD'-~9JlI;?ì )-1 c!JrL' 1'"\.?'7r'1-J{'i";':~)7I)"!p)lry,L"-,'x(Z>\:i",jV)i~W;,,líF;:""JI}c:,,-,;-- CHIP GRAVEL (CA-16, 1 '~e;f{[f6ç'ÇCli~~~~1~~lÞ"\ii~~ti~Ç~~~í:ii~~~1~~fE~~J~~1fB~?;Œ~~Æ~3\¥~:~; (2-5 mm) >'\-II'-';~)¡" ,-í,ì-\!-".)'-I. .., ...:1lÆ.'-;'...¡~'."".J(-r:Z(-.--',;X,):(-P,L)I-[;j'??:'.;:,-F:17..0'-ié.~;;-'U.;(."f.'J¡C'.'.'.'.'.,;!'e>r;-!,'..II{,".!A PERMEABLE BASE :rf~:?':f;f}?,,'¿:.JÇt~~;;;9c,;4~7~?;1'Þ::~~>~BY~?Ç~!.tt~1~~?;.'t~~3~fig~"fi7~i~j;3i~eÄ\~' -- (CA- 7, 6 inches ,7.\ .Il-- '.../7\ ,¡,'-.//.) _II j.---U7t: I, ,'-U"-'\ , +,t.'-,,--,IIj--IJ->-'\)Ij'-"-';---<'.'i l' i;"/ after roller compaction) DRAINAGE PIPE -4f~~~~¿~r~~J~~~4tÎ~;~~~~:g~~f~~;)~~~#~fei~¡ -- (CA-1, B Inch.. . TO STORMWATER (7"\, Ill'-i-~~\ ):,,(k¿l(, JI-()?':,,'(, i 'l-7'(»1\ .!'l-'J/r~-"I.lf".::'/-<j\ 1(.f.~-.. :'~!, ¡'~.<. ;>}~.' after roller compaction) SRYESCTHEAMR'GOERASRTEAORAGí={JÔtl~ '~\ì?1-. ::~, ..\t,?-~..L;-.,o.. _:j&. j'i,-,~,=lJ¡-\~;;'\-;""'(: ': il';;>~::Lk5< ¡~;:<'j ,'-':;;;\ n-- -.._0---1 \'.:.--'-'.,./...'/'/..".."" ....... .. GEOTEXTILEFILTER <. . f;:/\~\~l{/;'/,<;« ... /< '/.'../ </ . ,,\:,,:>.<,.'<'," " ',// ."'// I I I I I I ì I , , I i , I i ; I I i I ! to 1,5 inch) ,'. LOW PERMEABILITY SUBGRADE .- HIGH WATER TABLE -y.-."'- --__._--n. ., -. ..-.- -- ,..- --.-------------------- i ! i ¡E' L- ngtneer's Seal ECOLOC ; ~ ¡ Permeable Pavers : un i Lt.' tiC! I i Collection and Disposal of Infiltration ¡ Designed to be a step ahead! " : i r '----1 e----- L-----~--~---~--L - i I - -I i _L -----; !~ ".__.i.......--......_...- .~-~_. I 1.800 UNILOCK I ECOLOC2.DWG Eng,n.., ,.0ukS app'ovo th. On" d- and confi<m ,ka condítioM www.unilock.com PAVER DETAIL Cross Section " UNI ECO-STONE@ PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1993 , ~ un.UJ'~ Designed to be a step ahead.~ lEI PREfACE Preparation of this report was sponsored by the UNI-GROUP U.S.A. as part of their research, education, and technology transfer efforts regarding interlocking concrete block pavements and their use in the United States. The UNI-GROUP U.S.A. is an association of concrete paving block manufacturers in the United States and Canada and is an affiliate of the worldwide UN I'" organization. t Design Considerations For The UNI Eco-Stone"" Concrete Paver was prepared by Raymond S. Rollings, Ph.D., P.E. and Marian P. Rollings, Ph.D., P.E. of Rollings Engineering, 11 Lake Circle Drive, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 39180. The information presented in this report will provide information and guidelines for the planning and design of projects utilizing the UNI Eco-Stone pavement system. It is not intended to replace or supercede the judgement and discretion of professional pavement engineers. UNI-GROUP U.S.A. HEADQUARTERS OFFICE: 4362 Northlake Boulevard, Suite No. 207, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 626-4666. FAX (561) 627-6403. (800) 872-1864 www.uni-groupusa.org . E-mail info@uni-groupusa.org ., 1993 UNI-GROUP U.S.A. This report may not be reproduced whole or in part without express written consent of UNI-GROUP U.S.A. All UN/'" Products are trademarks of and are exclusively licensed by F. von Langsdorff Lic. Ltd., Inglewood, Ontario, Canada. ECO-STONE@ and UNI ECO-STONE</) U.S. Patent No. 4,834,575 \ iw' ADDENDUM As a leader in the interlocking concrete paver industry in North America, UNI-GROUP U.S.A. is committed to providing design professionals with the latest research and development technology for the UNI Eco-Stoneli> Permeable Paving System. Since the preparation of this report in 1993, substantial additional testing and research has been conducted in the United States, Canada, and overseas on infiltration, structural design, environmental engineering, stormwater management, and pavement maintenance. Case studies on the UNI Eco-Stone"" Pavement System are also available. For a copy of any of these reports, contact UNI-GROUP U.S.A. or call your local UNI Manufacturer. INFILTRATION AND STRUCTURAL TESTS OF PERMEABLE ECO-PAVING B. Shackel, J. O. Kaligis, Y. Muktiarto, and pamudji In laboratory tests conducted on UNI Eco-Stone@ in 1996 by Dr. Brian Shackel at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, measurements of water penetration under heavy simulated rainfall were studied, and the structural capacities of the paver surfaces were evaluated. A range of bedding, jointing, and drainage void materials was tested, ranging from 2mm to 10mm aggregates. The best performance was achieved with a clean 2mm-5mm aggregate containing no fines. The use of ASTM C-33 grading was found to be inappropriate where water infiltration is the primary function of the pavement. The experimental data showed that it was possible to reconcile the requirements of obtaining good water infiltration (capable of infiltrating rainfall intensities similar to those in tropical conditions) with adequate structural capacity that is comparable to that of conventional concrete pavers. t EI unlu:Jc.c Designed to be a step ahead." LOCKPAVE~ PRO DESIGN SOFTWARE Dr. Brian Shackel , The Lockpave<!) Pro computer program has been developed to assist design professionals in the structural design of . interlocking concrete block pavements for a variety of applications. The structural design aspects of UNI Eco-Stone"" pavements are included in the program and a hydraulic design component based on the SWMM model will be added. DRAINAGE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES FOR UNI ECO-STONE@ PERMEABLE PAVEMENT Dan G. Zoffinger, Su Ling Cao, and Daryl Poduska The information provided in this report, based on testing begun in 1994 at the Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A & M University under the direction of professor Dan Zollinger, serves as a guideline for the design of concrete paver block pavement systems using UNI Eco-Stone!!). The guidelines are organized to give the reader a brief review of basic hydrological concepts as they pertain to the design of pavements and the benefits of using Eco-Stone@ in pavement construction projects. Information is provided on how runoff infiltration can be controlled in the pavement subsurface and its interactionwith the performance of the pavement system. A method is provided to determine the amount of infiltration and the storage capacity of a permeable base relative to the time of retention . and degree of saturation associated with the characteristics of the base. The guidelines contain a simple step-by- step process for the engineer to select the best pavement alternative in terms of base materials and gradations for the given drainage, subgrade strength conditions, and the criteria for maximum allowable rutting. ONGOING RESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY Professor William James In 1994, laboratory and site testing of the UNI Eco-Stone!!) Paving System was begun at Guelph University in Ontario, Canada, under the direction of William James, Professor of Environmental Engineering and Water 'Resources Engineering. The research has generated several graduate theses with a focus on environmental engineering and stormwater management. THE LEACHING OF POLLUTANTS FROM FOUR PAVEMENTS USING LABORATORY APPARATUS Reem Shahin ~ 1994 This thesis describes a laboratory investigation of pavement leachate. Four types of pavements were installed in the engineering laboratory: asphalt, conventional interlocking pavers, and two UNI Eco-Stone@ pavements, to determine the effect of free-draining porous pavement as an alternative to conventional impervious surfaces. Runoff volume, pollutant load, and the quantity and quality of pollutants in actual rainwater percolating through or running off these pavements under various simulated rainfall durations and intensities were studied. UNI Eco-Stone@ was found to substantially reduce both runoff and contaminants. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL ENRICHMENT OF STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM TWO PAVING SURFACES Brian Verspagen - 1995 This study examines the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from an impervious asphalt surface and a UNI Eco- Stone~ permeable concrete paver surface. The pavement samples were heated and a rainfall simulator was used to generate rainfall and cool the pavement samples. Thermocouples were used to monitor the temperature in the subgrade and at the surface and inlet and outlet water temperatures were monitored. The primary objective of the research was to measure the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from the two types of pavement. The study revealed that the UNI Eco-Stone(\) pavement produced very little surface runoff and exhibited less thermal impact than the asphalt surface. The environmental advantage with the Eco-Stone(\) permeable pavement is its ability to allow rainfall to infiltrate the surface and thereby reduce total thermal loading on surrounding surface waters. un.U:JCK: Designed to be a step ahead."' - DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF TEST SECTIONS OF POROUS PAVEMENTS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY OF PARKING LOT RUNOFF . Michael Kaestner Thompson, PEng. - 1995 This thesis examines the design, construction, and instrumentation of four test sections of parking lot pavement (one conventional interlocking paver, two UNI Eco-Stone'" using two different filter materials, and one conventional asphalt) to assess alternatives to the impervious pavements commonly used in parking areas and low speed roadways. Appropriately designed Eco-Stone'" pavements could reduce impacts from runoff and reduce pollutant load on surrounding surface waters by infiltrating stormwater. Preliminary results showed reductions in surface contaminants and temperatures when compared to impervious pavements. J LONG-TERM STORMWATER INFILTRATION THROUGH CONCRETE PAVERS Christopher Kresin - 1996 This study investigates the infiltration capacity of porous concrete paver installations of various ages. Using a rainfall simulating infiltrometer, several test plots at four UNI Eco-Stone@ installations were subjected to a total of 60 tests comprising two simulated rainfalls of known intensity and duration. The first rainfall provides initial moisture losses to wetting the drainage cell material, while data collected during the second rainfall is used to calculate effective infiltratien capacity. Long-term stormwater management modeling was reviewed and suggestions made to enhance the modeling capabilities of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Storm Water Management Model. These changes will permit simulation of long-term responses of surfaces paved with permeable concrete pavers. The study showed that although the infiltration capacity of the UNI Eco-Stone@ pavements decreased with age and degree of compaction (traveled versus untraveled), it could be improved with removal of the top layer of the drainage cell aggregate material. The report also noted that all but two of the sites studied were constructed with improper drainage cell material, which restricted the potential infiltration. The thesis strongly recommends that Eco-Stonel.iJ installations be constructed and maintained as per the manufacturers' specifications to ensure adequate performance. FEASIBILITY OF A PERMEABLE PAVEMENT OPTION IN THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) FOR LONG-TERM CONTINUOS MODELING Craig Kipkie - 1998 The purpose of this project was to examine the feasibility of, and attempt to develop computer code for the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). The code would allow planners and designers to simulate the response of permeable pavements in long-term modeling applications. The infiltration capacity of the permeable pavement was determined from past studies of UNI Eco-Stone'" and accounts for degradation over time and regeneration by mechanical means. Various simulations run with the proposed new code indicated that using permeable pavements could greatly reduce flows when compared to impervious surfaces. EXPERT OPINION ON UNI ECO-STONE@ - PEDESTRIAN USE Professor Burkhard Bretschneider - 1994 This report tested UNI Eco-Stone@ for safety and walking ease under a pedestrian traffic application in the parking lot of the Lenze Company in Aerzen, Germany. Bicycles, wheel chairs, baby carriages, and foot traffic were tested. Ladies high heel shoes were tested for penetration depth in the drainage cell aggregate materials. The findings showed that proper filling and compaction of the drainage cell materials was important for good overall performance. EXPERT OPINION - IN-SITU TEST OF WATER PERMEABILITY OF TWO UNI ECO-STONE@ PAVEMENTS Saenke Bargwardt - Institute far Planning Green Spaces and for Landscape Architecture - University of Hannover - 1994 Tests were performed on two UNI Eco-Stone'" pavements of various ages at two different locations in Germany. A parking lot at the train station in Eldagsen was installed in 1992, while the Lenze Company parking lot in Gross Berkel was installed in 1989. The results showed that the Eldagsen site was capable of infiltrating 350 IIsec/ha, and even after 60 minutes, absorbed more than 200 I/sec/ha. At the Lenze site, the Eco-Stone@ pavement was capable of infiltrating 430 I/sec/ha, and even after 60 minutes, a rainfall amount of 400 IIsec/ha was absorbed. Although the comparison shows that the older test area had a higher permeability than the newer installation, laboratory tests showed the lesser permeability values of the Eldagsen site were the result of the existence of fines. This reconfirms the recommendation for selecting proper gradation of drainage cell and bedding materials in the 2mm to 5mm range and that ASTM C-33 grading should not be used if infiltration is the primary function of the pavement. 1m un.u:JrK Designed to be a step ahead." \ . RIO VISTA WATER TREATMENT PLANT Case Study Case study on the Castaic Lake Water Agency of Santa Clarita, CA project - Water Conservatory Garden and , Learning Center Parking Lot. Features 27,000 sq ft parking lot installation of UNI Eco-Stone@ permeable pavers. MICKEL FIELD AND HIGHLANDS PARK Case Study Case Study on Mickel Field/Highlands Park of Wilton Manors, FL project - Renovation of community parks' walkways and parking lots. Features over 37,000 sq ft of UNI Eco-Stone@ permeable pavers. TABlE OF CONTENTS II DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Structural Considerations Water Impact on Design Wearing Course and Bedding Layer Base and Subbase Courses Subgrade Hydraulic Design Filter Requirements Special Considerations FIGURES 1 Drainage Voids in UNI Eco-Stone@ Surface 2 Components of a Concrete Paver Pavement 3 UNI Eco-Stone@ 4 Dimensions of UN! Eco-Stone@ 5 Machine Placement of UNI Eco-StonetIJ 6 UNI Eco-Stone@ With Joint and Drainage Voids Filled 7 One-Hour/One-Year Frequency Storm 8 Drainage Fill Gradations and Flow Rates 9 Comparison of Test and ASTM Gradations 10 Vienna Soccer Stadium 11 Loading Area in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 12 St. Andrews Church Parking Area, Sonoma, California 13 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Parking Area INTRODUCTION Purpose Description Subgrade and Base Course Surfacing Materials , III SPECIFICATIONS REFERENCES TABLES 1 Typical Friction Angles for Nonplastic Materials 2 Typical Permeability Values for Highway Materials 3 Infiltration Tests on UNI Eco-Stone\!' by Muth (1988) Typical Soil Infiltration Rates Recommended Filter Criteria Potential Drainage Void Gradations Urban Stormwater Compared to- Drinking Water . 4 5 6 7 IV APPLICATIONS V CONCLUSION SAMPLE DESIGN DRAWINGS , un.UJ'~ Designed to be a step ahead." - SECTION I: INTRODUCTION As increasingly large areas of the United States have been devßloped, stormwater control and management has become a major public problem. As more land is developed and covered with impermeable surfacings, storm runoff has increased, and potential for downstream flooding due to this elevated runoff has risen. Approximately seven percent of the land in the United States is within recognized flood plains (Wanielista and Yousef 1993). Also the increased runoff from developed areas has degraded water quality significantly. Nonpoint pollution sources (e.g., storm water runoff and atmospheric fallout, as opposed to point pollution sources such as sewage discharges) have caused over 50 percent of the organic chemicals and 98 percent of the suspended solids in the Great Lakes (International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes 1978). This is not an isolated incidence. Studies of combined stormwaterlsewage systems have found that 40 to 80 percent of the annual oxygen-consuming load is due to stormwater runoff (Pisano 1976). In Florida, nonpoint sources such as stormwater runoff account for 85 to 90 percent of the metals, 90 percent of the oxygen-consuming material, and 99 percent of the suspended solids in the water system (Livingston and Cox 1989). ~ Local municipalities, counties, regional authorities, and state agencies are increasingly using a variety of mandatory regulatory stàndards in an attempt to control the problems associated with stormwater runoff in developed areas. These regulatory restrictions vary from agency to agency but might include requirements such as: a. A specified design storm must be retained on-site and discharged to the surrounding drainage system slowly over a specified time (e.g., a 4-in. rain must be retained on-site and discharged over 7 days). b. For a developed area, specific stormwater discharge rates and water quality standards may be established quantitatively or may be set to be some proportion of predevelopment levels (e.g., flow rates and suspended solids in the water from a developed site cannot exceed predevelopment rates for the site). c. The amount of impermeable surfacing may be limited to some percentage of the whole site (e.g., 20 percent of a site may not be covered with an impervious surface). e. Sediment and other pollutants must be reduced to the same degree as required for point sources. ~ There is considerable variation in specific regulatory requirements, but increasingly, the design of stormwater control basins, ponds, weirs, and similar structures is becoming a major aspect of site development. The cost of these structures is significant, but the lost value of property used for these basins and similar structures or left undeveloped to meet regulatory requirements may be even more significant. Much of the problem with the stormwater runoff is due to use of large expanses of relatively impermeable asphalt and concrete for parking areas, roads, sidewalks, plazas, etc., in developed sites. To overcome this problem, permeable pavements of various types have been tried, but because of various problems with them, their use has been fairly limited (Nichols 1993). Open-graded asphalts and permeable "no fines" concrete are expensive and difficult to build and maintain. Open-graded polymer concretes can be used but are very expensive relative to conventional paving. Open-celled pavers or grid pavers have a number of environmental advantages but are generally used for occasional traffic. Another alternative is to use permeable gravel-surfaced pavements, but their high maintenance costs and poor quality surface often makes this approach unacceptable. Consequently, even though permeable pavements offer some promising alternatives to solving stormwater runoff problems, technology had not provided an effective permeable surface, even as recently as the early 1990's. L a unlLDCK ¡/':;;~lIe1 /1, he:¡ :If:þ ;¡J,ead' In 1991, the UNI Eco-Stone@ concrete paver was introduced in North America following its development in Germany. Eco-Stone.' provides, for the first time, a structurally sound, low maintenance, permeable pavement ?urface. This interlocking paver continues to offer the strength, aesthetics, and durability of the traditional solid concrete paver, but also introduces new characteristics that provide the design engineer and architect new possibilities in pavement \ surface water control. When the UNI Eco-StoneiP> pavers are installed, they form a tight surface with narrow joints separating the pavers, just as with conventional solid pavers. However, the design of the Eco-Stone <!> pavers also creates openings comprising approximately 12 percent of the surface area, as shown in Figure 1. When properly filled with permeable material, these voids drain rainwater through the pavement surface into the layers below. This offers some unique opportunities for the designer to develop new ways of handling surface water to meet regulatory requirements and potentially reduce the size or need for special stormwater retention facilities, reduce run-off and resultant downstream flooding, mitigate pollution impact on surrounding surface waters, and contribute to groundwater recharge or storage. ~ Figure 1 Drainage Voids in the UNI Eco-Stone<!> Surface UNI Eco-Stone\!) provides the engineer and architect with the opportunity to develop new, nontraditional pavement designs that can offer major environmental benefits. In today's ecologically aware environment, this product gives the designer a tool with the flexibility to be used in a variety of ways to overcome stormwater management problems and decrease the adverse impact of developing land for public use. It should also significantly decrease the cost of compliance with many regulatory requirements for stormwater management. Purpose Experience with UNI Eco-Stone'" in the United States is limited, and guidance for the design professional on how to Incorporate this product in projects is also scarce. This report will review available testing information from the U.S. and Germany and will extrapolate from existing practice to provide basic design information on how designs can be developed for Eco-Stone@ pavements. Test data on this product is not extensive, but much of the information developed for solid concrete pavers and for conventional pavements can be applied to UNI Eco-Stone~ installations. Preparation of this report was sponsored by UNI-GROUP U.S.A. as part of their research, education, and \ technology transfer program to provide the designer with up-to-date and reliable technical information on UNI'" concrete paving products. Description Figure 2 shows the typical components found in any interlocking concrete paver pavement whether it is a solid concrete paver or a UNI Eco-Stone\!> pavement. The surface is composed of high-quality concrete pavers that are separated from one another by narrow sand-filled joints. The high quality of the concrete pavers provides strength, durability, and aesthetics, and their tight manufacturing tolerances, combined with interlocking shapes, laying patterns, and sand-filled joints, allow the pavers to interact so that they function together as a unified structure rather than as individual units. Fig.2e Figure 2 Components of a Concrete Paver Pavement Subgrade and Base Course Extensive research summarized in detail in Rollings and Rollings (1992) has shown that concrete paver-surfaced pavements behave as flexible pavements, and they should be designed as such. The base and subbase courses are the major structural load-carrying elements of any flexible pavement since they distribute the load to levels that can be tolerated by the subgrade. The most common example of a flexible pavement is the traditional asphalt- surfaced road that uses a relatively thin asphalt surface over thicker underlying granular base and subbase courses. The base and subbase provide the structural strength of the flexible pavement (whether paver or asphalt surfaced), and consequently, must be a major element in the structural design. The subgrade is the underlying natural soil or fill upon which the pavement will be built. The strength of this soil when wet has a major impact on the required thickness of the flexible pavement, and improper estimation of the final subgrade strength can cause major failures in flexible pavements. . . unU,DCK Designed to be a step ahead.'" 1m Construction of the Eco-Stone@ pavement is similar to that of traditional solid pavers. The subgrade, subbase, and base course are de~igned and constructed in the same mé!nri~r as conventional solid paver-surfaced pavements, and more detailed-gûipance is available in RolliritisáñâRÔnrngs'(1992J.thé ingress of water into the pavement through the openings in the Eco-Stone@ pavement surface requires some special design considerations that are discussed in Sections" and III of this report. ~ Surfacing Materials UNI Eco-Stone@ is used for the pavement surface and differs from the traditional solid concrete paver only in having the drainage openings shown in Figure 1. The individual Eco-Stone@ paver is shown in. Figure 3, and the typical paver dimensions are shown in Figure 4. The UNI Eco-Stone@ paver itself is manufactured to the same standards as specified in ASTM C 936 "Standard Specification for Solid Concrete Interlocking Paving Units" that is used for traditional solid pavers. The unique characteristic of Eco-StoneOV is the void, which allows drainage of surface water into the pavement structure. The bedding layer is loosely spread by hand-screeding or with screeding equipment t<;> a depth of 1 inch. The pavers are placed on the bedding layer by hand or by machine (Figure 5). The pavers are then seated and leveled by compacting them with a vibratory plate compactor typically capable of providing more than 5,OOO-lb centrifugal force and operating at 80 to 90 Hz. Finally, the block joints and drainage openings are filled with pervious material by a combination of sweeping and vibrating until the joints and drainage openings are tightly packed with fill (Figure 6). The specific materials used for the bedding layer and to fill the joints and drainage voids will directly affect the permeability of the pavement. Selection of these materials will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Fig.3e Figure 3 UNI Eco-Stone@ Fig.4e Figure 4 Dimensions of Eco-Stone@ Fig.5e Figure 5 Machine Placement of UNI Eco-Stone@ L Fig.6e Figure 6 Eco-Stone Surface with Joints and Drainage Voids Filled ~ EI un,wcK. Designed to he a step ahead.. SEcnON II: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS This section will examine some of the factors that must be addressed in designing a UNI Eco-Stone@ pavement. , Eco-Stone's@ allowance of water into the pavement structure is a departure from conventional pavement practice, and this requires that some structural and hydraulic considerations be addressed in order to insure that the water flow is properly controlled. It is also important to remember that no pavement design is any better than the quality of the construction. Poor pavement performance, whether in conventional pavements such as asphalt or concrete, or in pavers, is most often due to the use of poor quality materials in the pavement or poor construction rather than design (Michau and Wilson 1988; Rollings and Rollings 1991). As a result, proper design must be coupled with proper material use and construction in order to achieve a satisfactory pavement. Structural Considerations As noted earlier, extensive research in the U.S. and overseas has established that concrete paver-surfaced pavements should be designed according to flexible pavement design theory. Discussion of flexible pavement design approaches can be found in standard texts such as Yoder and Witczak (1975), and an in-depth review of its application to pavers can be found in Rollings and Rollings (1992). Briefiy, the basic concepts of flexible pavement design can be summarized as follows: . Provide sufficient pavement thickness to protect the 5ubgrade from being overstressed by traffic loads. . Provide quality base and subbase materials that can support the applied loads. . Provide a stable surface that serves as the wearing course for traffic. . Compact all materials to provide strength and resist densification under traffic. This report will only consider the impact of UNI Eco-Stone's@ unique characteristics on the design process, and the reader is referred to the aforementioned references for more extensive detail and discussion of design. "' Most researchers have found that traditional solid pavers interact with one another, so their load spreading ability or stiffness is greater than that of conventional asphaltic concrete surfacings (Rollings and Rollings 1992). Eco-Stone" is manufactured to the same tolerances as the traditional solid paver; it is placed in an interlocking pattern, as is the traditional solid paver; and it uses a bedding layer and filled joints between pavers, as do traditional solid pavers. The only difference from the traditional solid paver is Eco-Stone's@ drainage openings, which are typically filled with permeable gravel. Shear in the gravel-filled voids and friction in the joints will resist any attempt for a paver to displace vertically, just as with traditional pavers. Table 1 shows some representative soil shear strength data in terms of friction angles. Typical jointing sand used in traditional paver installation would correspond to uniform fine to medium sands with corresponding values in the low thirties. As gravel-sized particles are added, grading improves, or as the particles become more angular, increases. In the case of an angular, crushed gravel that might be used to fill the drainage opening in UNI Eco-Stone~, the value would be expected to be in the upper thirties or low forties. As a result, if proper materials are used in the drainage openings and joints, Eco-Stone@ should have structural strength characteristics and load distributing capabilities similar to traditional solid pavers. Therefore, the thickness design methods for traditional pavers that are discussed in depth in Rollings and Rollings (1992) should also be valid for UNI Eco-Stone@. Table 1 Typical Friction Angles for Nonplastic Materials Soil Type Gradation Particle Shape $ (degrees) Silt 28 Fine Sand Uniform Rounded 30 ': Fine Sand Uniform Angular 34 Sand Well Graded Rounded 34 Sand Well Graded Angular 40 Sand & Gravel Well Graded Rounded 36 Sand & Gravel Well Graded Angular 40 , Note: Friction Angle, <1>, values are approximate and vary wit~ specific soil characteristics and test conditions. un.WCK Designed to be a step ahead.~ - Water Impact on Design Traditionally, pavement design attempts to prevent the penetration of water into the pavement .structure. Asphalt surfaces are applied to keep underlying materials dry and to serve as a wearing course, and joints in concretè ' pavements are meticulously sealed to prevent water from getting through. However, pavement engineers know that pavements are not really impermeable and that water must eventually get into the pavement. This may occur in a wide variety of ways such as: ~ . Leakage through cracks in the pavement . Poor densification of asphaltic concrete . Concrete joint sealant failure (typical life 3-4 years) . Leakage through construction joints between asphaltic concrete placement lanes . Infiltration from the sides of the pavement . Ground water andlor frost effects . Vapor movement and capillary rise in the soil As a result, the pavement engineer commonly designs on the assumption that his subgrade and other pavement layers will beèome saturated, and the soaked CBR test remains the most common criterion for estimating subgrade strength for pavement design (Yoder and Witczak 1975; Rollings and Rollings 1992). The problem of internal drainage of pavements is currently a hot topic of debate and study in the technical pavement community (e.g., Cedergren 1974, Federal Highway Administration 1980). Thus, even though UN! Eco-Stone@ allows water to drain directly into the pavement structure, it is not as radical a departure from conventional paving technology as it may at first appear, because current pavement design approaches already assume water penetration into the pavement. In fact, one notable pavement authority recommends that the design assume that 50 to 67 percent of the rain on a Portland cement concrete pavement and 33 to 50 percent of the rain on an asphaltic concrete pavement will penetrate the pavement (through the methods listed earlier) and must be drained off (Cedergren 1974, Cedergren et al1973, Federal Highway Administration 1980). The key factor with Eco-Stone@ will be to ensure that the water is controlled and managed so that the pavement performance is not adversely affected. 'This is a conservative assumption insuring adequate drainage capacity at the worst point rather than an actual estimate of the water penetration expected everywhere. l Wearing Course and Bedding Layer The granular materials used in the joints, drainage openings, and bedding layer under the UNI Eco-Stone@ must be highly permeable, must retain their strength when wet, and must drain freely enough that no pore pressures develop under traffic loadings. Considerations for permeability will be discussed in more detail in following sections. Strength in the presence of water can be achieved by using only nonplastic, granular materials that are preferably composed of crushed particles. To assure that no pore pressure develops under loading, the materials should be free of material passing the No. 200 sieve (which will also improve permeability). These are very similar to the requirements used for bedding and jointing sands for traditional paver installations (see Rollings and Rollings 1992 for detailed discussion), except that the allowable percentage passing the No. 200 sieve is reduced and the desirability of using crushed particles is emphasized. As will be discussed later, the gradation will also tend to be coarser to increase permeability. Base and Subbase Courses The base and subbase courses are major structural load carrying elements in the pavement and they must retain strength in the presence of water if the pavement is to be stable. Rollings and Rollings (1992) compare different requirements for these layers and provide guidance for their specification for traditional solid pavers. For pavements using Eco-Stone"", the stability of the base and subbase material in the presence of water must be assured, and their stability will be enhanced if non plastic materials are used. Common pavement specifications allow a plasticity index of 4 to 6 percent for base courses and 4 to 12 percent for subbases, but with UNI Eco-Stone"', it would be prudent to use only nonplastic materials (i.e., plasticity index of 0). Similarly, some common pavement specifications allow up to 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve for base courses and up to 25 percent for subbases. It would be prudent for this application to restrict these limits more tightly, perhaps to 3 and 5 percent, respectively. ~/ III un'toc" . ._,..... ........-------.-.,-....---..- /1,.,./.1:""'/ ((I II" " \("I"J!,('"d' Subgrade As with conventional pavements, the subgrade strength should be estimated based on soaked CBR values. Frost '- intr~duces some special design considerations, and these are prob~bly best addressed using the Corps of "' Engineers procedures (Department of the Army 1985, Yoder and WItczak 1975). Use of Eco-Stone~ does not directly impact these considerations of subgrade design strength or frost effects. However, certain highly expansive or swelling soils that are found in some locations change volume drastically whenever their moisture content changes. These soils would probably not be appropriate under a permeable surface such as UNI Eco-Stone(~ unless very careful design was done to insure the volume stability of these soils. Eco-Stone'" allows penetration of water into the pavement structure, but if the system is designed to accommodate the water in-flow, pavement performance can be maintained. The major consideration from a structural pQint of view will be to use materials that do not lose strength in the presence of water and to maintain adequate permeability so that pore pressure does not develop in the pavement due to dynamic traffic loading. The following section will further examine hydraulic design. Hvdraulic DeSign The hydraulic design will consist of determining how much water flows into the pavement system, and once it is in the system, what will be done with it (Le., will it be allowed to soak into the subgrade or will it be diverted through a drainage layer to another location). The coefficient of permeability, k, of the materials comprising the pavement will be a critical parameter in determining how water flows into and through the system. Unfortunately, soil permeability is one of the most complex phenomena encountered in soil mechanics. Values can vary from 102 to 10'0 cmlsec (twelve orders of magnitude). Few properties of any material vary so widely and are so difficult to determine. Empirical correlations between permeability and simple soil properties often give erroneous results. Laboratory tests are difficult to conduct, and often the laboratory test conditions and test sample are very different from the real field conditions. Finally, field tests are expensive and often difficult to interpret because of complex field stratification and " other conditions. Milligan (1975) offers some guidance on selection of appropriate methods of determining 1 permeability for soil materials. Many small concrete paver projects have limited funding for testing, so permeability determinations may often have to be based on empirical correlations between soil properties and permeability or estimates based on soil classification. In general, the parameters that seem to correlate with permeabilities of materials used in bases and subbases in pavements are the effective grain size (0'0), the percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and the porosity (a function of density and specific gravity). One of the oldest equations is Hazen's equation (Hazen 1911) k = C,O1O2 where k is permeability in mlsec C, is a constant equal to 0.010 to 0.015 for clean sands D,o is the effective grain size or the particle size in mm at which 10 percent of the soil particles are _smaller. Another theoretical equation derived by Taylor (1948) takes the form ~ where , k is the coefficient of permeability O. is the effective particle diameter, usually taken as D,o 'Y is the unit weight of the permeant .J is the viscosity of the permeant e is the void ratio C is a shape factor un'IDCK: Designed to be a step ahead." Ell Obviously, there are many factors that affect permeability, and simple, widely used relations such as Hazen's equation do not address all of ~hese. Such empirical relations are not very reliable, and tests have found the constant C, in Hazen's equation can vary from 0.004 to 0.120 rather than the typical values 0.01 to 0.015 given earlier (Carter and Bentley 1991). .Consequently, calculations b(ised on such imprecise estimates of permeability will not be very accurate and considerable conservatism in selection of parameters is warranted. Table 2 shows typical permeability values for common materials encountered in pavements and may be useful in assessing the appropriateness of pèrmeability values whether derived from laboratory tests, field tests, estimates, or correlations. More detailed discussion of permeability determination for pavement applications can be found in Federal Highway Administration (1980) and Cedergren (1974). Table 2 Typical Permeability Values for Highway Materials ~ Material Portland Cement Concrete Asphaltic Concrete Compacted Clays Compacted Silts Silty and Clayey Sands Concrete Sand with Fines Clean Concrete Sands Well Graded Aggregate Without Fines Uniformly Graded Coarse Aggregate Note: This table adapted from Carter and Bentley (1991). Permeability (em/s) <10-ð 4 x 10-3 to 4 X 10-8 <10-7 7 x. 10-6 to 7 x 10-8 10-5 to 10-7 7 x 10-4 to 7 x 10-6 7 x 10-2 to 7 x 10-4 10-1 to 10-3 102 to 10-1 Generally, pavement subsurface drainage is designed to accommodate the one-hour/one-year frequency storm (Federal Highway Administration 1980, Cedergren 1974) or the one-hour/two-year frequency storm (Corps of Engineers 1992). The one-hour/one year frequency storm map for the U.S. is shown in Figure 7 (Department of Commerce 1961). From this Figure, design storms would range from 0.2 to 2.4 inches/hour depending on location within the U.S. The guidance in Figure 7 would appear to be a reasonable method of estimating a typical design storm for a UNI Eco-Stone@ pavement to handle common pavement surface drainage conditions. However, if the Eco-Stone'" pavement is being designed to meet local stormwater control regulations, the design storm will be specified by the regulatory agency and will normally be more severe than the one-hour/one-year storm (e_g_, 100-year storm requirements are common). '- Fig.7e Figure 7 One-Hour/One-Year Frequency Storm (Department of Commerce 1961) The rate at which water will flow through the UNI Eco-Stone@ surface will depend on the specific materials used to fill the drainage voids and on the slope of the pavement. Tests at Karlsruhe University of Engineering in Germany used gravel chips sized between 5/64 inch and 1/4 inch (2 to 5 mm) to fill the drainage openings and for the bedding layer. A clean sand free of fines and with a maximum particle size of 5/64 inch was used to fill the joints between the Eco-Stone'" pavers. The gravel in the drainage opening was tamped down so that it was covered with a 3/4-inch thick layer of the joint sand. This represents the most common current design of Eco-StoneGV pavements in Germany (Langsdorff 1993). Table 3 shows the results of this infiltration testing by Muth (1988). UN/ Eco-Stone'Š! can drain essentially any storm in Figure 7 with zero slope on the pavement. With increasing slope or increasing storm intensity, some runoff may occur, but Eco-Stone'" has significantly reduced the runoff. Table 3 Infiltration Tests on UNI Eco-Stone@ by Muth (1988) Rainfall (in.lhr) 2.8 1.4 4.2 4.2 Slope (%) 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 Runoff(%) 0 0 15 25 ~ EI U".u:J'~ Designed to be a step ahead.~ Phalen (1992) conducted tests of several materials with different gradations in the Eco-Stone@ drainage openings. Unlike Muth, Phalen tested only a single fill material in the drainage openings and did not cover the material in the openings with a layer of jointing sand. The gradations of the materials tested by Muth and Phalen, 'along with their .... drainage rates at very shallow grades, are shown in Figure 8. When the jointing sand covers the coarse aggregate , in the drainage voids, the permeability of the sand controls the inflow of water. This can be clearly seen by comparing the 2.8-in./hour rate reported by Muth (1988) for jointing sand over highly permeable gravel to the rates of 1.3 to 2.7-in./hour reported by Phalen (1992) for sand alone in the drainage openings. Phalen's other reported results for increasingly coarse fill material in the drainage voids show that flow rates of 18.7 to 172-in./hour are possible. By judicious selection of drainage opening fill ,and jointing material, the designer can achieve a wide range of permeabilities for the UNI Eco-Stone<5> surface to achieve a specific project's drainage objectives. The tests by Muth (1988) also found that Eco-Stone<5>, with a 1.2-inch (3 cm) thick gravel bedding layer, gravel-filled drainage voids with a thin sand surfacing, and sand-filled joints, would hold the equivalent of a O.6-in. (16 11m2) rain within the voids of the system. Once this retention volume is reached, the base course and other underlying materials must be able to drain water from the UNI Eco-Stone@ drainage voids and joints to allow further absorption of water. . Once the water penetrates into the base course,it must be handled in some manner. If the subgrade is sufficiently permeable, water can simply drain vertically into the ground, however, as seen in Table 4, most soils are appreciably less permeable than the UNI Eco-Stone~ pavement surface. Under these conditions, and particularly if the subgrade is clay or there is any significant traffic loading of the pavement, it will not be desirable to have the water sit in the pavement structure while it infiltrates slowly into the subgrade. In such cases, water will need to be drained away from the pavement, where it can be stored to allow infiltration into the soil or discharged into other drainage systems. In any case, design of subsurface drainage systems within pavements is treated extensively in existing literature, and the reader is referred to references such as Cedergren (1974), Federal Highway Administration (1980), or Corps of Engineers (1992) for details on layout, materials for drainage layers, drainage calculations, etc., that are common to all pavements. The data in Table 3 and Figure 8 should provide some reasonable preliminary guidance on infiltration rates through the Eco-Stone«> surface to use with these established design methods. " Table 4 Typical Soil Infiltration Rates (Department of the Army 1965) Soil Sand and Gravel Mixtures Silty Gravels and Sands to Silts Silty Clay to Sandy Clay Clays Rock, not badly fractured uses Symbol GW, GP, SW, SP GM, SM, ML, MH, OL SC,CL CH,OH Infiltration (in.lhour) 0_8 - 1.0 0.3 - 0.6 0.2 - 0.3 0.1 - 0.2 0.0 - 0.1 ~ Figure 8 Drainage Fill Gradations and Flow Rates The water collected from the drainage layers of the pavement does not have to be discharged to a holding qasin or storage pond. If the impermeable surface soil layer is relatively thin, it may be possible to place a well or trench through this layer to more pervious underlying layers that can accommodate water from the drainage layer. It is also feasible to store the water in a gravel-filled trench or well and allow it to percolate slowly into even relatively impermeable soils. This allows the surface area above these storage areas to be used for other purposes. The volume of water that can be stored in a completely saturated soil or aggregate (whether in a pavement layer or in a storage area) can be calculated as Eq.2e where , v = volume of water in one cubic foot of soil or aggregate 'Yd = dry density of in-place soil or aggregate Gs = specific gravity of soil or aggregate 'Yw = unit weight of water = 62.4 IbId unUJJCf( Designed to be a step ahead.- - Filler Requirements When water flows from one sailor aggregate material into ånotherof different gradation, there is danger that fine particles from the fjr~t mate.ríal may wash into the second. This will resu.lt in gradual erosion of fines from the first material and an accumulation of in the second material. Internal movement of fine materials is highly undesirable and can cause problems with structural stability and plugging of the drainage system. Each material used in the Eco-Stone"' pavement system should be checked against established filter criteria to insure that problems with clogging and internal erosion are avoided. Table 5 shows several different criteria published by two federal agencies that can be used with the UNI Eco-Stone"" system. These and other similar criteria were originally developed from steady state seepage tests for earth dams, so they may not be totally accurate for pavement applications with dynamic traffic loads. As a result, some conservatism in applying these criteria is warranted; however, they constitute the best guidance currently available. Gap graded materials are notoriously susceptible to internal erosion problems, so they should probably be avoided in UNI Eco-Stone'" pavements. Table 5 Recommended Filter Criteria '-.. Source Recommended Particle Size Ratios 015/015 015/085 050/050 Limitations caE US8R ~5 ~5 s 25 Cu s 20, no gap graded material Uniform filters Graded filters with rounded particles Graded filters with angular particles ~12,S40 ~ 6, S 18 ~ 5, S 10 ~ 12, S 58 ~ 9, S 30 Notes: 1. CaE from Department of the Army (1979) and Federal Highway Administration (1980), USBR from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1974). 2. All ratios, OJO" give particle diameter of filter to particle size of protected soil. Ox is particle diameter at which x percent of the particles in soil are smaller. 3. C" = 060/010, suggested limit not mandatory. 4. Federal Highway Administration (1980) also suggests that 05 of the filter ~ 0.074 mm. Special Considerations \. Drainage structures and filters tend to clog with time, and the designer should consider the potential for reduced water flow through the Eco-Stone'" pavement surface over time. Fine debris and detritus may accumulate between the surface particles in the drainage openings, thereby reducing the material's flow capacity. Qualitative success in restoring permeability to UNI Eco-Stone"' surfaces has been reported from Germany using conventional street sweepers equipped with vacuums, water, and brushes (UN I-Group U.S.A. 1992). Therefore, as the normal accumulation of debris and fines reduces the Eco-Stone pavement's permeability, periodic cleaning using commercial street sweeping equipment should be all that is needed to restore the pavement's permeability. Additional aggregate fill material can be added at the same time, if necessary. Conventional pavement maintenance requirements for traditional solid concrete pavers are low (Rollings and Rollings 1992) and should be similar for UNI Eco-Stone'" pavements. There is generally some loss of permeability of filters and granular drainage systems over time. For example, relief wells along the Mississippi River have observed a 35 percent reduction in efficiency over 25 years due to clogging. In light of this experience, it is probably prudent for the designer of UNI Eco-Stone pavements to allow for some loss in flow capacity within the pavement system over the life of the pavement. Tests have shown that Eco-Stone!!) can accommodate women's high heels and wheelchairs. Tests with a 165-Ib weight on a lady's shoe heel left imprints of 0.03 and 0.07-in. in UN' Eco-Stone@ fill material (Bretschneider 1992a). Good quality and compaction of the fill material will obviously avoid problems in this area. Trials with a wheel chair found that UN! Eco-Stoner" could be traversed without problem, and if drain::Jf}p, opp,ninf}5 'IIf":rr: nr;t prr;(j(;r!¡ fill(;,). IrJ; r,:;t;;; It'd:;' r,út,c-éó[¡j¡ rr..,U'jfJf:r, ,,1¡r,r.lu']rJ 'Ala {(::é:A.I/(; (Brr;t:/A'¡((::¡rl(;r 1'1rÛr)j. ¡'J~li~t>/(; (,frA((¡;J/¡'j(¡ ¡fl'))',;;I!;'; If/;;' ;':::'tÆ-ri¡ cc,r;sü..,w,,-a Ec.o-S!ú(¡e:" pao/e:mf::r,ts sho(jld not pose proO{f:ms for ladies In h'gh hee:/s or for thE: handicapped. l 1m Un'LDCK. Designed to be a step ahead." SlcnOM III: SPECIFICAnONS , UNI Eco-Stone@ should generally be specified to meet ASTM C 936 "Standard Specification for Solid Concrete Interlocking Paving Units." Rollings and Rollings (1992) has a detailed description of specification requirements for traditional solid pavers, and this material will be equally valid for Eco-Stone"'. One of the critical elements of the UNI Eco-Stone@ pavement system is the fill material for the drainage openings, and quantitative data on this topic has been reported by Muth (1988) and Phalen (1992), as discussed in the previous section. Conceptually, it is clear that the material n~~ds to be highly permeable. Depending on the amount of drainage needed for a specific project, this fill would normally be a clean gravel. It would be desirable for this to be a crushed material to provide maximum stability, and it would simplify construction if the same material was used in both the bedding layer and drainage openings. The filter criteria in Table 5 should be checked to ensure the materia! used in the joints does not wash into the bedding and drainage void material and that the drainage void fill does not wash into the bedding layer if different materials are used. Table 6 compares Phalen's 3/8-in. aggregate (Phalen 1992) that achieved very high flow rates with several standard ASTMgradations that might be used for filling the drainage openings and for the bedding layer. Figure 9 compares several of these ASTM gradations with Muth and Phalen's test gradations. Muth used a gravel gradation corresponding to an ASTM No.9, and even with a 3/4-in. thick layer of sand, he achieved a flow rate of 2.8-in.lhr. Phalen's various sand and aggregate-sand mixes in Figure 8 achieved roughly comparable results to Muth's and are approximately covered by the ASTM C 33 gradations in Figure 9. This data shows that sand-filled drainage voids or gravel-filled drainage voids covered with sand can achieve flow rates on the order of 1 to 3-in.lhr. This should suffice for handling the rain from common storms (shown in Figure 7) and maintaining a dry pavement under these conditions. However, if the designer needs to accommodate more severe storms, such as the 1 OO-year storm, to meet regulatory requirements, then a more pervious fill is needed. Phalen's work with Mixes 4 and 5 and the 31B-in. aggregate in Figure 8 clearly shows that proper selection of the drainage fill material will allow any design storm to be accommodated. Standard ASTM gradations No.7 through 9 in Table 6 are all candidates for high-capacity drainage opening fill materials. Their nominal permeabílities provide the designer with an indication of their relative drainage potential. The designer should select the drainage opening and joint materials to achieve the specific design objectives of the individual project. , Table 6 Potential Drainage Void Gradations 1/2-in. 3/8-in. No.4 No.8 No. 16 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200 Nominal k in em/see No.7 90-1 00 40-75 0-15 0-5 0-5 No.8 100 85-1 00 10-30 0-10 0-10 0-5 ASTM D 448 Sizes No. 89 100 90-100 20-55 5-30 0-10 0-5 No.9 ASTM C 33 Phalen's 3/8-in. Sieve No. 100 85-100 10-40 50-85 10-30 2-10 0-3 100 95-100 80-100 1 100 35 8 25 12 2 1 0.03 6 Notes: 1. Gradations are given as percent passing. 2. Nominal k was calculated using Hazen's equation and the approximate midpoint of the gradation band Fig.ge Figure 9 Comparison of Test and ASTM Gradations " un.we" Designed to be a step ahead." EI There are two basic approaches to selecting and P~i~~~gs~~:sfi~~~a~:~a~:~~~r~: {~~~t~h~n~~~~I~a{/~_o~~~i~~~ A ~ravel gradation may be selec~ed that h~s sand ~:vel sized to fill thedrqinage voids and provide high permeability. JOints between the pavers but IS predominately g ,,' ".;" " ",. ..'.""'",, .'..T"'.h'."" .'. .11 tend to Concentrate gravel . .. . d' t th 'o'nts and VOId spaces. e sweeping WI This materIal IS sw~pt and vlb:ate In ~ h e J I II sand partiCles will fill the joints between pavers. Alternatively, a particles in the drainage openings, an t. e sma .er d' e voids and then a sand can be swept and vibrated gravel gradation can first be swep.t and vibrated Into the . r~I~~gbut a r~vel with precisely the right proportion and into the joints. The first approach IS prob~bly the most eff~clel T' he secgond approach requires handling two materials, . . I t always be avaIlable or economlca . . sizes of part~c es may no . I I ss stringent The filter requirements discussed earlier limit the relative ~~~~:~;~;~;~:e~~t~~atl~eu~ea~~~~~eaj~n~s and dr~ina'ge op~nings (e.g:, a fine sand could not meet the filter requirements if a coarse 3/8-in. gravel was used to fill the drainage openings). in la er must drain water quickly, must prevent the fill materials in the joints and drainage openings from :~~h~~d~nt~ th~ undurlyinu cJrilinílfjo lílYor, iHld filII:.! ¡Illow 11111 pilYIJ[!¡ If¡ II/I hlljlflJrI ¡Hid IfJvr,od nllllllhl1l1, 11111 beddin~ layer gradation should be 'selected 10 éJctliuvu tho nulJd(( p(rlllIJíltJllily will II/ appll II" II 110 I.f ,1/ ,,1¡¡liI III'¡ III , tests. Also, the filt(Jr criteria in TiltJlo ~ IIH1:;1 I/o cIH(;klld 10 1I:ilH IIlílllI, jllllll jHI" 1.lrill/liI!I) "IJIIIIII!J 1111 rllllll,/lIII" an; compatible: with Iho tmddinf) lílYllr Wj(iI/lJ 111110 p¡l1lidll~,IJIIl1 ¡'n'¡""I(j '"YII' W,' "'(IIII/(II, I¡I"'I'¡ 1'lIlldl;I";; may be encountered in proper seating and Ic:wuling of tho P,WlJf!i. ~CJr IJXWllplo, 1111, c.lJim¡lI/ !¡I/I) 1/111111 rlllllllHH I gradation could héJVU up 10 60 purGfJnl of lito )iJrlidll:¡ ~Jm in. m 1;f(Jllr Hw¡ rJli'Y b" ilpllr/¡j(,¡/I! /JIll I¡¡lflld" (¡I¡/II, where problems with love/inu ¡mr ~>(liltirt!J 01 HIli pi lVi/PI r;(¡¡¡d r!l:V':1/11 NIlIIIIIIfIIIIVII {IIIHIf/1II11 11/ dll"II"I,/p III flll'¡ area, so it is probably prudfJnt /0 avoid yrmjutirm.'i Illilt (;ollliJIIlIlIlY ilfHJI'J{Jiltl1lwfjll/ /lli/I/ 11/111 tllllI/ fll¡ tfl/rJ¡/III',', (II the bedding /ay&r. ~ The whole pavement system, including the UNI Eco-Stone'" surface, the underlying base, and subbase, must be designed as a complete system to ensure that the objectives of the project are met. For example, it does no good to have a highly permeable surface on top of an impermeable base course that will not let water drain. There are ample references, such as Cedergren (1974), Federal Highway Administration (1980), Corps of Engineers (1992), or Department of the Army (1979), that provide detailed guidance on design of drainage systems for pavements including the characteristics needed in drainage layers. ~ SEcnON IV: APPLICATIONS Stormwater management is a difficult public policy problem, and attempts at regulation have placed increasingly restrictive requirements on site development. This was discussed briefly in Section I and is covered in more depth in a variety of current references (e.g., Wanielista and Yousef 1993, Reeve 1993, Nichols 1993). While specific approaches vary in different localities, the net effect of the regulatory requirements is either a) to limit the area that can be covered with impermeable pavements or structures on a site, or b} (and more commonly) to require on-site stormwater retention, resulting in covering significant areas of each individual site with stormwater retention ponds or basins to hold the regulation specified storm. This latter approach of uniform on-site detention has been sharply criticized as largely ineffective in accomplishing its goal of preventing flooding and it accomplishes little for improving water quality (Ferguson 1991). Critics of uniform on-site detention advocate regional approaches to more rationally manage water flows. In addition, they emphasize the importance of infiltration into the ground as the logical way of handling stormwater since it would then contribute to groundwater recharge, provide normal basal flow to surrounding streams, and improve the water quality. Much of the past concern with stormwater management has been centered on preventing flooding, but today, pollution levels of stormwater runoff are causing new concerns. Table 7 illustrates this problem by comparing urb<ln stormwater to current drinking water standards. Contamination problems with stormwater runoff include the content of suspended solids, toxic metals and chemicals, compounds with high oxygen demand, bacteriological contamination, various oils and fuels, deicing salts and nutrients, and increased temperature. All of these factors have potentially harmful effects on the surrounding environment when stormwater is released to surrounding natural waters. I.~ - un.wt." Designed to be a step aheud" Table 7 Urban Stormwater Compared to Drinking Water Standards (After Wanielista and Yousef 1993) " Parameter Stormwater Concentration Greater Than (mg/L)' 50% of Samples 10% of Samples 5% of Samples Drinking Water Standards Total dissolved Solids 700 2000 9000 500 Total Phosphorus 0.27 0.65 0.82 Total Nitrogen 2.20 4.50 5.60 NO¡-N 0.50 1.10 1.40 10 Copper 0.02 0.10 0.21 1.3 Lead 0.04 0.10 0.50 0.010 Zinc 0.10 0.21 0.42 0.030 Cadmium < 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.010 . Based on analysis of samples from three studies to determine percentage of samples equaling or exceeding given parameter, e.g., 50% of analyzed samples had 700 mg/L or more of total dissolved solids, 10% had 2000 or more, etc. UNI Eco-Stone@ offers the designer and developer a new option for handling stormwater that is both effective in water control and provides superior enhancement of stormwater quality. As discussed in preceding sections, Eco-Stone@ pavements can be designed to drain any desired design storm through the pavement surface to an underlying drainage layer where the water can either be held and allowed to drain slowly into the subgrade, or it can be collected for storage, treatment, or discharge depending on the specific requirements of the project. The process of draining through the Eco-Stoneore surface and underlying drainage media will slow the water flow, allow time for oxidation of some contaminants, filter suspended solids and some contaminants, and cool the water temperature. ,. Obviously, not all contaminants (e.g., salts) can be removed by this process, but if needed, the water accumulated under a UNI Eco-Stone@ system could be collected and treated (e.g., run through an oil-water separator) to further enhance the water quality. Pavements have been a major contributor to the stormwater runoff and pollution problem, but with UNI Eco-Stone"', the paved surface is no longer necessarily a contributor to this problem. UNI Eco-Stone@ provides a functional pavement surface as well as a powerful new stormwater management concept for stormwater management. From the consumers' point of view, the rapid vertical drainage of UNI Eco-Stone<!ì also ends the perennial problem of wading across channels of water and through puddles in parking lots. Since its introduction in 1989, Eco-Stone'" placement in Europe is approaching five million square feet, and its use is growing (Langsdorff 1993). One of the most dramatic examples in Europe is the Vienna Soccer Stadium parking lot shown in Figure 10. Although the UNI Eco-Stone\!J has just recently been introduced in the U.S., it is quickly finding applications, including a loading area in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (Figure 11), S1. Andrews Church parking and entry area in Sonoma, California (Figure 12), and a parking lot for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (Figure 13). Fig. 10e Figure 10 Fig. 11e Figure 11 Fig. 12e Figure 12 Fig. 13e Figure 13 Vienna Soccer Stadium Loading Area in F1. Lauderdale, Florida 81. Andrews Church Parking Area, Sonoma, California Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Parking Area " ! : un.WCK Designed to be a step ahead.'" EI Initial use of UNI Eco-Stone'" in the United States has been for relatively lightly loaded parking areas. The product does have considerable structural strength if the whole pavement system is properly designed, and Eco-Stoner;; should not be limiteq to light-duty applications, as is often the case with the turf pavers. An excellent example of a heavily loaded Eco- Stone'" application is the aggregate handling area at Interlocking Paving Systems, Inc. in Hampton, Virginia. The pavement cònsists of an Eco-Stone@ surface and 18 incfièsðf granular basë övera wet, weak clay subgrade. A geotextile filter fabric was used between the subgrade and granular base to prevent fine clay particles from pumping into the granular base. The base consisted of three layers of aggregate. First, a 12-inch layer of crushed 2-inch aggregate (railroad ballast rock) was placed. A4-inch thick layer of 3/4 to 1-inch sized aggregate was placed and compacted next; followed by a 2-inch thick layer of 3/8 to 1/3-inch sized aggregate. The subgrade is sloped to one end where a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe collects the water and drains it away. This pavement is performing very well under heavy daily traffic of aggregate hauling trucks. This installation of UNI Eco-Stone'") is a good example of sound application of the engineering principles discussed earlier in this report. The Eco-Stone" surface with gravel-filled drainage openings allows rapid drainage of rainwater into the base course. The system of placing and compacting progressively finer sizes of base course aggregates is known as macadam construction and provides a very porous and structurally strong pavement system. It has the strength to carry load; it is very pervious to allow rapid drainage of the water through the base; and the strength of the macadam base is not affected by the water. The macadam construction used in this base course allowed it to'function both as the structural component and as the drainage layer to convey the water to the drainage pipe. The geotextile, used as a filter, prevents the fine-grained clay from pumping into the base course aggregate. The saturated clay subgrade would not allow the stormwater in the base course to infiltrate, so it was collected at one end of t~e project and removed from the site. Properly designed UNI Eco-Stone'" pavement systems will provide functional pavements for aoy loading conditions and can be designed to accommodate any needed stormwater management requirement. \¿ SECTION V: CONCLUSIONS The UNI Eco-Stone@ paver is a highly versatile product that provides designer professionals, developers, land planners, regulatory agencies, and environmental commissions with ne~ options for stormwater management. It provides a highly functional pavement surface that can offer major environmental benefits, and when the entire pavement system is properly designed virtually any traffic load or design storm, including 1 DO-year design storms, can be accommodated. A review of the information in this report found that: l 1. UNI Eco-Stone"" offers new possibilities in pavement surface water control to meet regulatory requirements and potentially reduce the size or need for special stormwater retention facilities. It reduces runoff and downstream flooding, mitigates pollution impact on surrounding surface waters, and contributes to groundwater recharge and/or storage. 2. Eco-Stone" will permit better landcuse planning, allowing more efficient use of property for greater economic value. This makes UNI Eco-Stone'" cost effective, as it will provide more usable property that otherwise would not be developed due to requirements for stormwater retention or by limitations on how much impermeable area is allowed on a site. Often, the footprint of a building is controlled by the amount of parking area available. This product gives the designer a tool that can be used in a variety of ways to address stormwater management problems and decrease the adverse impact of land development. 3. Cost of compliance with many regulatory requirements for stormwater management could significantly decrease with the use of Eco-Stone"". 4. UNI Eco-Stoner¡;) is an innovative, environmentally-beneficial paving system that emphasizes infiltration as a natural way to handle storm runoff - conserving rainwater, recharging groundwater storage, improving water quality, and reducing storm runoff pollutants. In today's ecologically aware environment, Eco-Stone'" offers new options for lessening the impact of development on the eco-system. 5. Eco-Stone"' has the strength, aesthetics, and durability of traditional interlocking concrete pavers with the added benefit of permeability. 6. Construction of a UNI Eco-Stone@ pavement is similar to that of traditional solid concrete pavers (a flexible pavement), with design considerations for water in-flow. The entire pavement system, including the Eco-Stone'" surface, the underlying base, and subbase, must be designed as a complete system to ensure that all project objectives are met. 7. Properly designed UNI Eco-Stone" pavement systems will provide functional pavements for virtually any loading conditions and can be designed to accommodate any needed stormwater management requirements. \. - un.wc.c Designed to be a step ahead." \ I REFERENCES Bretschneider B 1992a "Expert Opinion on UNI Eco-Stone@," Hildesheim, Germany. , . ,. . Bretschneider, B. 1992b. "Supplement to Expert Opinion on UNI Eco-Stone<'>," Hildesheim, Germany. Carter, M. and S. Bentley, 1991. Correlations of Soil Properties, Pentech Press, London, United Kingdom. Cedergren, H., J. Arman, and K. Obrien, 1973. "Development of Guidelines for the Design of Subsurface Drainage Systems for Highway Pavement Structural Sections," Final Report, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers, 1992. "Drainage Layers for Pavements," Engineering Technical Letter 110-3-435, Washington, D.C. I ' ¡ I r ! Cedergren, H., 1974. Drainage of Highway and Airfield Pavements, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Department of the Army, 1965. "Drainage and Erosion Control, Drainage for Areas Other than Airfields," TM 5-820-4, Washington, D.C. Department of the Army, 1979. "Drainage and Erosion Control, Subsurface Drainage Facilities for Airfield Pavements," TM 5-820-2, Washington, D.C. Department of the Army, 1985. "Pavement Design for Seasonal Frost Conditions," TM 5-818-2, Washington, D.C. Department of Commerce, 1961. "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States," Technical Paper No. 4d, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration, 1980. "Highway Subdrainage Design," Report No. FHWA-TS-80-224, Washington, D.C. , Ferguson, B., 1991. "The Failure of Detention and the Future of Stormwater Design," Landscape Design, Vol. 4, No. 12, Gold Trade Publications, Van Nuys, California. International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes, 1978. "Environmental Management Strategies for the Great Lakes," Windsor, Ontario. Hazen, A., 1911. Discussion of Dams on Sand Foundations, Transactions, No. 73, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Langsdorff, H. Yon, 1993. Private Communication, F. von Langsdorff Licensing Limited, Bauverfahren, Germany. . Livingston, E. and J. Cox, 1989. "Florida Development Manual," Vol. I, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida. Michau, P. and D. Wilson, 1988. "An Evaluation of Typical Concrete Paver Failures in South Africa," Proceedings, Third International Conference on. Concrete Paver Paving, Rome, Italy. Milligan, V., 1975. "Field Measurement of Permeability in Soil and Rock," Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Volume II, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Muth W, 1988. "Drainage with Interlocked Paving Bricks," Research Institute for Water Resources, Karlsruhe University of Engineering, Karlsruhe, Germany. !" , . "þ . , un..~ø'K Designed to be a step ahead.'" - Ni;hOIS, D., 1993. "Porous Paving: Stormwater Management Alternative," Landscape Design, Vol. 6, No.1, Gold Trade Publications, Van Nuys, California:. Pha'len, T, 1992. "Development of Design Criteria for Flood Control and Ground Water Recharge Utilizing UNI Eco-Stone'"' and Ecoloc'"' Paving Units," Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. \ " Pisano, M., 1976. "Non point Sources of Pollution: A Federal Perspective," Journal of Environmuntill [/lVil/pt/I/IIU Division, Vol. 102, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Reeve, A., 1993. "Understanding Stormwater Problems," APWA Reporter, Vol. 60, No.1, AmoricéJn Public Work~ Association, Washington, D.C. Rollings, R. S. and M. P. Rollings, 1991. "Pavement Failures: Oversights, Omissions, and Wishful Thinking," Performance of Constructed Facilities Journal, Vol. 5, No.4, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. /<ollill!J:ì, R S dlld M P 1~()IIiI1H:'¡, 1 O!}/, "Applic;¡¡(joJlIoi for Concmto P¡¡vino Hlockti ill Itlo I'njnd : ;11111111 Mill ~I"." IJIIII ;'IIIIP IJ:; ^, '¡IIrIlIiClildl (j¡IIdlllln, I hJlldH Télylor, D., 1948. Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Uni-Group U.S.A., 1992. "UNI Eco-Stone"'," video report, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. U,S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1974. "Earth Manual," Washington, D.C. Wanielista, M. and Y. Yousef, 1993. Stormwater Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York. Yoder, E. J. and M. W. Witczak, 1975. Principles of Pavement Design, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. SAMPLE DESIGN DRAWINGS ~, ~ Des. 1 Des. 2 Des, 3 Des. 4 Des. 5 v. - un'~'J( Desiflned to be a sleD ahead" , . VILLAGE OF l\--.JUNT PROSPECTr'-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request The Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW Village Board Final Z Case Number 0 pz- - 02 ~ ~~ Development Name/Address O~ ~~ Date of Submission Z..... -0 ~- r;¡¡¡ Hearing Date ~ Z .... . z 0 ~ 0 ~ Z .... r;¡¡¡ Eo-< .... ¡;lJ z 0 .... ~, O- f;¡;, s::: Z ~ .... -- =-a. z Q, ;:;:¡< 0' ~ C ~ U -« == Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 2t:>20 /£. ?.AM P Me. De:;/"IA '-þ ¡:::!. D. Tax J.D. Nwnber or County Assigned Pin Nwnber(s) 03 -2.4 - If/v - ðzf - ð~ Z~~ , Legal Description (attach additional sheets ifnecessary) Lot 1 in Venture Resubdivision of part of Lot "A" in Woodview Manor, Unit Number 2, and aU of Lot 1 in Centers Subdivision of part of Lot "A" in Woodview Manor Unit Number 2, being a subdivision of part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Maridian, in Cook County, Illinois. - - - - - ..,. Name '- ¡-(¿ ~o r- 'I L. I-t ~b Lr -t- Corporanon ì ((EA» EJ.--c:.'-lt..ìð""'~( C~",-i:.~,- Street Address ').. ~ ~o e-a...s.-I:: CA.-.p JA..~ .oð~,-~ (~ City State Zip Code M.-é P rö.$.pe..~ -t: :;::- L- ¡; 0 ðSb Telephone (day) ~; " -, ~"î '( Telephone (evening) ~ J. D d-3 'í 3..,}...Þb ~ ~ C~ { ( Fax ~tf-I ~,-, Pager ~)...o 8" Interest in Property F re. .s. ~ J é '-- ~ . .: -G- -t!-.r2 ßo.c....r-~ ',' .' Z Name f Telephol ay) 0 I~ ~b e-;:t- '. - Cn!~O (" y L-. g'f( ')-'iì 3~ð~ i ~ Corporation . Telephone (evening) ¡ ~ ~ tÁ b ¿J... ",-c<--£ ," ð .... ~ ( C.e...v...--t.er '30 '>-3 'f I ? d-f.. C~{{ ~o ~£ Street Address Fax: ~ Q) ~ d.- ð ~~ -t- C""""f 1'-\c1 ð ,,"' f J... g. ~~l ~'7( ~..\--o y- O .... ~o.. C' City State Zip Code Pager ~ U t1 -l- P rz> s. f e.. c "é ;r:::L ' ð ð..>'- < = Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor Z Name Telephone (day) 0 I - E--.;!3 Address Fax ~.~ O~ ¡;¡;. 0 ~~ ~d Engineer Z Q) ¡;;¡ S Name Telephone (day) 0 g. ~~ C > Address Fax ~ Q) UO <I = Architect - \eFF" \x!;-I'Ý1'E: . A~¿;.¡/ Boll-P. JÁ/~. Name Telephone (day): ð11. 4'9()~c::cr14 Address ¿,1J5 S. ÆA.Ac:.;;~ }:i?p. Fax 8J/I.Æ<1/. '1~:.3 ~I-JAb/H.ðu,t!c,. It.. &ðÞ93 . Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations - This property is owned by the Read Educational Center, a ~on~essori School ,a - specialty school for deaf children, and a non-for-profit organization. Th~y are .the - only school offering unique specialized educational serv~ces for deaf children In. Illinois. Their goal is to make their property more use~ friendly an? safer f~r their - ~ students by installing a Drop-off area. To do so a variance of ordinances IS ¡¡¡¡¡ ~~ requested. These variances are necessary for several reasons. - o~ II The existing building and parking lot was built prior to being purchased by Read. - The existing layout and shape of the prope~ cre~te difficult~e~ that ~o~ld not be - present on other lots. Additionally, the relationship of the existing bUIlding to the - cn~ site create unique problems with meeting current codes. The purpose of the. to) variances. is not for financial gain. These variances will only improve the p.ubhc -< - welfare and neighborhood. These variances wifl not im~air the light a~d air to - adjacent property nor substantially increase the congestion of the public streets (in fact it should reduce any potential congestion), nor increase any danger of - fire, or impair natural drainage to adjacent property. - Variances are requested for: the allowable Jot coverage, the parki~g lot side .yard - set back, the dumpster enclosure side yard setback, and the quantIty of parking spaces (reduced by one). - . 0'. f. Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials håve been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents pennission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby afflIIl1 that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to ~est of my knowledg~. ( fJ--4- ? - .3. 0 ,"--", 0 c¡ Applicant ~:z.. ~ Date If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 ----- Fence 0.90'N Plat of Survey DESCRIPTION tV N LEG A L ----. Lot 1 in Venture Resubdivision of port of Lot "A" in Woodview Monor, Unit Number 2, and all of Lot 1 in Centers Subdivision of port of Lot "A" in Woodview Manor Unit Number 2, being a subdivision of port of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian. in Cook County, Illinois. Said parcel containing 0.347 acres (15,109 square feet), more or less. Venture Resubdivis;on Recorded tl,ay ,4, '979 Document \'lumber 24959052 STATE OF IlliNOIS COUNTY OF WILL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2020 E. Camp McDonald Rood, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 ,Lot 1 Lot 2 ~ .,,: II) .... ,t-' '~~¡'\'\o\\. t-'- This is to certify that I, an Illinois Professional Land Surveyor. have surveyed the property described in the caption above. and that this Professional service conforms to the current Illinois Minimum Standards for a Boundary Survey. Given under my hand and seal in Plainfield. Illinois. this 31st day of May, 2004. ~ ... -.,¡;;: ~- 2' ~ THOMAS E. BAUMGARlNER. ILUNOIS LA SURVEYOR NO. 3142 UCENSE EXPIRATION 11-30-2004 =-' a I('j 10 C. -" """""""" """ ~L LANa'I'", ", o¥- """""""" oS'. '", $',,""""'" """" ~'~ j /:: /' THOMAS E. '\~"%. ~ I? f BAUMGARTNER ì á ~ :: Q.. ¡ 35-3142 ¡ '" :; :: oft\' PlAINFIELD ¡ oft :; \, ;~....." ,.,......~ ¡ '" of,..,"'"""""", ..p ", "',,'. OF" ILL' "", "'"""""",,' 0_5 10 20 30 40 SCALE: 1" = 20' 50 . 0 (100.00') 100.00 100.DO' R&M LEGEND IRON PIPE FOUND SET 5/8" X 30" REBAR RECORD DATA MEASURED DATA RECORD & MEASURED DATA 4' WOOD FENCE " ' " .~ó .<:>~ q}< NOTE: I have made no independent search of the records for easements, encumbrances. ownership, or ony other facts which an accurate and current title search may disclose as a part of this survey, but have relied upon the information supplied to me by the owner's representative. I also state that a current Title Commitment was not furnished as a port of this survey. Camp ~waterva/ve manhole, £culvert @ 100' ROW:' McDonald READ Educational Center :ril 2020 E. Camp McDonald Road N Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 /",powerpo/e~ I', ~inlet powerpO/e~ ..(N Cardinal Land Surveying >-11625 Whispering Oaks Drive ~ Plainfield, Illinois, 60544 CD Road Tel 815-439-1221 Cell 815-210-9929 Fax 815-439-1470 cardinalteb@aol.com DATE: 06-1-04 DWGIf: 253 "'ro¡::::. .:.....~.....,~_.-.. '.'. I v , , I , I () , ". 2-Sugar Maple. 3. 9-Buming Bush, 24.-30' 0 Q 3 '0 š: ß 0 :> !!!. 0. ::0 0. NOTE. ALL TREES SHALL HAVE SUITAaLE PLANTING SOIL A MINIMUM OF 3'-0. . DEEP. ALL SHURBS SHALL HAV" A SUITABLE PLANTING SOIL A MINiMUM OF 18" DE:P. .,' '" n " ", Playg.rou~d- LAWN TO BE A TYPICAL SUN I SHADE MIX OF PROTOCOL PERENNIAL RYEGRASS. KEN BLUE KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS. AND BOREAL CREEPING qED F::3CU;¡ OR SIMULAR. Ii ." ". -1\\ 1 (1) Proposed Landscape Plan z::?\ . ) l01Me. ~eofWprk loC",",',." "'.. "'- --'- ..... . , '-......_~ 1 ---..""- , "......--......~ vwl 11/30/04 12/02/04 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2020 CAMP MCDONALD ROAD (READ EDUCATIONAL CE~ WHEREAS, Gregory L. Hubert dba READ Educational Center (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner') has filed a petition for Variations with respect to property located at 2020 Camp McDonald Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property') and legally described as follows: Lot 1 in Venture Resubdivision or part of Lot "A" in Woodview Manor, Unit Number 2, and all of Lot 1 in Centers Subdivision of part of Lot "A" In Wood view Manor Unit Number 2, being a subdivision of part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 03-24-416-027-0000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations to allow the encroachment of the parking lot into the required side yard with a four-foot (4') setback on the west lot line, the dumpster to encroach into the required side yard, seventy-seven percent (77%) lot coverage, a twenty-foot (20') wide drive aisle, and twelve (12) parking spaces on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for the Variations being the subject of PZ-43-04 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 11 th day of November, 2004, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics newspaper on the 27'h day of October, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-43-04; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. c 2020 Camp McDonald Road Page 2/2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings offact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow the following: . Encroachment of the parking lot into the required side yard with a four-foot (4') setback on the west lot line as shown on the attached exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004; . Encroachment of the dumpster into the required side yard as shown on the attached exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated November 22, 2004; . Seventy-seven percent (77%) lot coverage; . A twenty-foot (20') wide drive aisle as shown on the attached exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004; . Twelve (12) parking spaces on the Subject Property, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Gerald L. Farley Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:ICLKOlfilesIWINIORDINANCIVariation 2020 Camp McDonald,READ Educ Ctr,Dec,2004.doc Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois t' INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE "!>b ~-r'Þ ,~?(C'f TO: DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 2004 PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND ABATEMENT ORDINANCES SUBJECT: PURPOSE: To obtain approval of the attached four ordinances related to the tax levies of the Village, the Mount Prospect Public Library, and the Village's two special services areas. BACKGROUND: Prior to December 23, 2004 the Village must have on file with the County Clerk its 2004 tax levy and abatement ordinances. The Village will receive the proceeds from the 2004 tax levy in 2005. The Village Board first discussed the proposed 2004 tax levy at its October 26th Committee of the Whole meeting, at which staff recommended a net Village tax levy of $12,093,915, an increase of 4.8% over the prior year's levy. The Mount Prospect Library Board approved their tax levy request at its meeting on October 21,2004. They are asking for a total levy, inclusive of a 2% provision for loss and cost, of $7,072,560. This represents an increase of 9.9% over the 2003 levy. DISCUSSION: The following table compares the proposed 2004 tax levy to the 2003 levy for the Village and Library. The amounts presented in the table are net of abatements and are inclusive of the 2% provision for Joss and cost. Fund 2003 LEW 2004 LEW INCREASE % CHANGE VILLAGE General $ 6,340,450 $ 6,624,249 $ 283,799 4.48% Refuse 2,289,820 2,289,820 0 no change Debt Service 1 ,025,441 1,201,599 176,158 17.2% Police Pension 918,385 964,304 45,919 5.0% Fire Pension 965,660 1,013,943 48,283 5.0% Total Village $11,539,756 $12,093,915 $ 554,159 4.8% LIBRARY Operations $ 4,806,980 $ 5,457,211 $ 650,231 13.52% Debt Service 1,626,365 1,615,349 (11,016) (0.7%) Total Library $ 6,433,345 $ 7,072,560 $ 639,215 9.9% TOTAL $17,973,101 $19,166,475 $ 1,193,374 6.6% A detailed spreadsheet of all proposed levies, including detailed levies and abatements for each outstanding bond issue, is also attached. 2004 Property Tax Levy November 22, 2004 Page 2 The Village's 2003 equalized assessed valuation (EAV) was $1,321,886,943. Our 2004 EAV is estimated to increase 10% to $1,454,075,637 from the prior year. The large increase expected is due to the Cook County triennial assessment of village property. The Village's 2004 tax rate is expected to decrease to $0.832 from the 2003 rate of $0.874. The Library's 2004 tax rate is estimated at $0.486, compared to the 2003 rate of $0.487. For illustration purposes only, a home with an EAV of $73,664 (a market value of approximately $311,950) in 2003 will pay taxes of $618 to the Village of Mount Prospect and $361 to the Library for the levy extended in 2004. This represents increases of $14 and $25, respectively, over the levy extended in 2003. Special Service Area No.5 was created in the mici-eighties to help fund the bringing of Lake Michigan water to the Village's water system. It is recommended the 2004 levy remain the same as the 2003 levy ($1,545,773). The resulting tax rate is estimated to be $0.124. Special Service Area No.6 was created in 1987 to fund certain capital improvements in the area of George and Albert Streets. Bonds were sold in 1988 to fund the construction. Only those property owners benefiting from the improvements pay debt service used for the capital improvements. A net levy of $27,800 is being recommended. This includes an abatement of $1 0,000 using available funds on hand. The resulting tax rate is estimated to be $0.295. The Village Board is being asked to consider four ordinances related to the 2004 tax levy. Two of the ordinances establish the initial levy of the Village (including the Library) and the two special service areas. There are also two abatement ordinances that reduce a portion of the debt service tax levies established by the various bond ordinances. The proposed ordinances reflect the numbers as presented in the proposed 2005 budget. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board approve the attached 2004 tax levy and abatement ordinances. 1 /ía<.HJ¿;'~' {'~- L,/ - --'- DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Attachment DOE/ 1:\Property Taxes\2004 Levy\Levy and Abatement Ordinance Cover Memo to Board.doc , ~' VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMARY OF 2004 PROPERTY TAX LEVY 2% Net Provision Tota! 2004 2004 Loss and 2004 Levy Abatement Levy Costs Extension VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT General Corporate Fund 6,494,362 0 6,494,362 129,887 6,624,249 Refuse Fund 2,244,922 0 2,244,922 44,898 2,289,820 Police Pension Fund 945,396 0 945,396 18,908 964,304 Firefighters' Pension Fund 994,062 0 994,062 19,881 1,013,943 Debt Service Funds Series 1987A (Ord. 3782) 151,000 0 151,000 3,020 154,020 Series 1996A (Ord. 4780) 212,200 212,200 0 0 0 Series 1998A (Ord. 4917) 62,683 62,683 0 0 0 Series 1998 Taxable (Ord. 4977) 152,695 152,695 0 0 0 Series 1999 (Ord. 4999) 905,600 905,600 0 0 0 Series 2000 (Ord. 5114) 291,498 291,498 o 0 0 Series 2001 (Ord. 5212) 389,528 o 389,528 7,791 397,319 Series 2002A & B (Ord. 5236) 973,350 442,173 531,177 10,624 541,801 Series 2003 (Ord. 5301) 911,332 805,000 106,332 2,127 108,459 Total Village 14,728,628 2,871,849 11,856,779 237,136 12,093,915 MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC LIBRARY Library Operations 5,350,207 0 5,350,207 107,004 5,457,211 Library Debt Service 1,583,675 0 1,583,675 31,674 1,615,349 Total Library 6,933,882 o 6,933,882 138,678 7,072,560 TOTAL - VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND PUBLIC LIBRARY 21,662,510 2,871,849 18,790,661 375,814 19,166,475 SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.5 1,515,464 0 1,515,464 30,309 1,545,773 SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.6 37,800 10,000 27,800 556 28,356 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR THE CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,2004 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the day of ,2004 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois the day of , 2004. þ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR THE CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,2004 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That the sum of Eighteen Million Seven Hundred Ninety Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-One ($18,790,661), the same being the total amount to be levied of budget appropriations heretofore made for the corporate and municipal purposes for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004 as approved by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied on all taxable property within the Village of Mount Prospect according to the valuation of said property as is, or shall be assessed or equalized by the State and County purposes for the current year 2004. Section 2: The budgetary appropriations theretofore having been made heretofore by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect were passed and approved by Ordinance No. 5395 at a meeting hereof regularly convened and held in said Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, on the 16th day of December, 2003, and as amended by Ordinance No. 5427 passed and approved on the 20th day of April, 2004, and further amended by Ordinance No. 5xxx passed and approved on the 21 5t day of December, 2004, thereafter duly published according to law, the various objects and purposes for said budgetary appropriations are heretofore made and set forth under the column entitled "Amount Budgeted", and the specific amount herein levied for each object and purpose is set forth under the column entitled "Amount Levied", in Articles I through XVII. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE I - GENERAL FUND 01 II Public Representation 01 Mayor and Board of Trustees Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Total Mayor and Board of Trustees 02 Advisory Boards and Commissions Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Total Advisory Boards and Commissions Total Public Representation Village Administration 01 Village Manager's Office Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Total Village Manager's Office 02 Legal Services Contractual Services Office Equipment Total Legal Services 2 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 25,000 0 2,560 0 0 0 59,856 0 500 0 5,000 0 0 0 92,916 0 9,370 0 3,088 0 0 0 2,000 0 500 0 14,958 0 107,874 0 302,380 0 71,727 0 6,000 0 3,750 0 4,200 0 3,450 0 300 0 391,807 0 340,000 0 0 0 340,000 0 12 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 03 Personnel Services Personal Services EmpJoyee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Total Personnel Services 04 Management Infonnation Systems Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Total Management Information Systems 05 Public !nfonnation Persona! Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total Public Infonnation Total Village Administration Television Services Division 02 Cable TV Operations Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Other Equipment Total Cable TV Operations 3 Amount Amount Budgeted Levied 166,970 0 49,133 0 16,850 0 30,650 0 1,450 0 300 0 265,353 0 169,070 0 58,583 0 3,800 0 440,852 0 2,860 0 3,500 0 14,050 0 692,715 0 45,430 0 17,878 0 1,150 0 77,500 0 520 0 2,000 0 144,478 0 1,834,353 0 62,810 25,965 1,850 20,761 1,350 5,100 8,500 126,336 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 17 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 04 Intergovernmental Programming Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Other Equipment Total Intergovernmental Programming Total Television Services Division Village Clerk's Office 02 Village Clerk's Office Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total Village Clerk's Office Finance Department 01 Finance Administration Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Total Finance Administration 02 Accounting Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Commodities Total Accounting 4 Amount Amount Budgeted Lcvied 27,960 0 8,955 0 0 0 3,636 0 0 0 2,125 0 1,250 0 43,926 0 170,262 0 90,790 35,726 1,700 29,040 1,600 4,400 163,256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,820 35,013 4,650 20,750 6,700 7,000 2,200 202,133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 273,490 107,090 4,925 2,000 387,505 0 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY Amount Amount Budgeted Levied 04 Duplicating Services Contractual Services 6,265 0 Commodities & Supplies 6,400 0 Total Duplicating Services 12,665 0 05 Insurance Program Personal Services 46,850 0 Employee Benefits 15,136 0 Insurance 302,479 0 Total Insurance Program 364,465 0 06 Customer Services Personal Services 224,420 0 Employee Benefits 80,492 0 Contractual Services 44,300 0 Commodities & Supplies 8,500 0 Total Customer Services 357,712 0 07 Cash Management Personal Services 33,330 0 Employee Benefits 10,521 0 Total Cash Management 43,851 0 Total Finance Department 1,368,331 0 21 Community Development Department 01 Community Development Administration Personal Services 144,080 0 Employee Benefits 39,789 0 Other Employee Costs 1,491 0 Contractual Services 0 0 Utilities 3,835 0 Commodities & Supplies 518 0 Total Community Development Administration 189,713 0 02 Planning & Zoning Personal Services 99,360 0 Employee Benefits 34,362 0 Other Employee Costs 2,276 0 Contractual Services 18,128 0 Utilities 3,788 0 Commodities & Supplies 2,330 0 Total Planning & Zoning 160,244 0 5 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 03 Economic Development Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Total Economic Development 05 Building Inspections Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Total Building Inspections 06 Housing Inspections Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total Housing Inspections 07 Health Inspections Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total Health Inspections Total Community Development Dept. 6 Amount Amount Budgeted Levied 44,480 0 ]2,035 0 683 0 37,200 0 94,398 0 449,330 0 ]83,860 0 5,888 0 56,] 88 0 10,945 0 11,050 0 0 0 7] 7,261 0 210,590 0 74,254 0 2,000 0 13,175 0 4,027 0 2,250 0 306,296 0 69,145 0 25,523 0 828 0 ]3,329 0 2,309 0 ],000 0 11 2,] 34 0 1,580,046 0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 31 Human Services Department 01 Human Services Administration Personal Services 105,540 0 Employee Benefits 30,804 0 Other Employee Costs 1,900 0 Contractual Services 61,544 0 Utilities 9,]80 0 Commodities & Supplies 3,950 0 Office Equipment ],500 0 Other Equipment 0 0 Total Human Services Administration 2]4,418 0 02 Social Services Personal Services 211,250 0 EmpJoyee Benefits 70,713 0 Other Employee Costs 1,650 0 Contractual Services 266 0 Commodities & Supplies 0 0 Total Social Services 283,879 0 03 Nursing/Health Services Personal Services 90,310 0 Employee Benefits 29,608 0 Other Employee Costs 250 0 Contractual Services 27,264 0 Commodities & Supplies 32,325 0 Other Equipment 0 0 Total Nursing/Health Services 179,757 0 04 Senior Center Leisure Programs Personal Services 18,475 0 Employee Benefits 6,913 0 Contractual Services ] 7,976 0 Commodities & Supplies 800 0 Total Senior Programs 44,]64 0 7 41 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 05 Youth Activities Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Total Senior Programs Total Human Services Department Police Department 01 Police Administration Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Total Police Administration 02 Patrol and Traffic Enforcement Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Other Equipment Total Patrol and Traffic Enforcement 03 Crime Prevention & Public Services Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Total Crime Prevention & Public Services 8 Amount Budgeted Amount levied 52,215 9,082 100 252 1,000 62,649 784,867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 764,085 0 1,352,935 0 78,450 0 69,700 0 52,000 0 9,775 0 650 0 2,327,595 0 5,344,660 3,636,842 973,616 0 528,360 0 43,930 0 500 0 11,300 0 6,902,366 3,636,842 185,635 0 32,604 0 1,000 0 2,200 0 6,050 0 227,489 0 42 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 04 Investigative and Juvenile Program Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Other Equipment Total Investigative and Juvenile Program 05 Crossing Guards Personal Services Employee Benefits Commodities & Supplies Total Crossing Guards 06 Equipment Maintenance & Operations Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Other Equipment Total Equipment Maintenance & Operations Total Police Department Fire Department 0] Fire Administration Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Other Equipment Tota] Fire Administration 02 Fire Department Operations Personal Services Employee Benefits Other EmpJoyee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Building Improvements Other Equipment Total Fire Department Operations 9 Amount Amount Budgeted Levied 982,160 0 160,242 0 2],175 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,166,577 0 24,700 0 1,900 0 150 0 26,750 0 625,161 0 8,000 0 9,750 0 642,911 0 11,293,688 3,636,842 549,060 1,277,215 55,600 30,930 250 7,500 5,000 8,010 1,933,565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,924,200 780,160 24,900 135,370 11,750 5,000 51,160 5,932,540 2,857,520 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,857,520 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 03 Fire Training Academy Personal Services Employee Benefits Commodities & Supplies Total Fire Training Academy Amount Amount Budgeted Levied 9,000 0 140 0 4,000 0 13,140 0 300,910 0 100,090 0 4,890 0 1,750 0 5,760 0 1,000 0 414,400 0 15,300 0 42,500 0 300 0 2,000 0 60,100 0 109,920 0 38,582 0 1,000 0 236,968 0 46,500 0 500 0 433,470 0 1,000 0 4,300 0 5,200 0 10,500 0 20,300 0 1,860 0 8,525 0 1,000 0 31,685 0 8,829,400 2,857,520 04 Fire Prevention Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Other Equipment Total Fire Prevention 05 Fire Communications Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Other Equipment Total Fire Communications 06 Equipment Maintenance Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Other Equipment Total Equipment Maintenance 07 Emergency Preparedness Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Total Emergency Preparedness 08 Paid-On-Call Program Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Other Equipment Total Paid-On-Call Program Total Fire Department 10 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 50 Public Works - Administration 01 Public Works Administration Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Other Equipment Total Public Works Administrgtion 51 Public Works - Streets/BIdgs/Parking 0 I Street Di vision Administration Personal Services Employee Benefits Total Street Division Administration 02 Maintenance of Public Buildings Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total Maintenance of Public Buildings 04 Street Maintenance Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Infrastructure Tota] Street Maintenance 05 Snow Removal Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Other Equipment Total Snow Removal ] ] Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 217,705 107,427 23,700 626,004 17,955 7,400 1,000 560 1,001,751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124,890 0 29,857 0 154,747 0 329,950 0 ] 04,585 0 187,510 0 12,700 0 67,260 0 702,005 0 ]47,850 0 40,720 0 34,500 0 15,200 0 1 10,000 0 348,270 0 158,965 0 37,314 0 34,800 0 6,635 0 0 0 237,714 0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY Amount Amount Budgeted Levied 07 Storm Sewer and Basin Maintenance Personal Services 107,420 0 Employee Benefits 34,849 0 Contractual Services 10,600 0 Commodities & Supplies 6,100 0 Total Stonn Sewer and Basin Maintenance 158,969 0 08 Maintenance of State Highways Personal Services 19,875 0 Employee Benefits 6,295 0 Contractual Services 17,070 0 Commodities & Supplies 21,460 0 Total Maintenance of State Highways 64,700 0 09 Traffic Sign Maintenance Personal Services 66,670 0 Employee Benefits 20,577 0 Commodities & Supplies 18,170 0 Total Traffic Sign Maintenance 105,417 0 Total Public Works - Streets/Bldgs/Parking 1,771,822 0 52 Public Works - Forestry/Grounds 01 Forestry Division Administration Personal Services 150,710 0 Employee Benefits 44,665 0 Total Forestry Division Administration 195,375 0 02 Maintenance of Grounds Personal Services 219,125 0 Employee Benefits 64,563 0 Contractual Services 99,865 0 Commodities & Supplies 6,260 0 Other Equipment 5,770 0 Total Maintenance of Grounds 395,583 0 03 Forestry Program Personal Services 240,230 0 Employee Benefits 77,465 0 Other Employee Costs 750 0 Contractual Services 302,740 0 Commodities & Supplies 9,480 0 Total Forestry Program 630,665 0 12 52 61 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 04 Public Grounds Beautification Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Total Public Grounds Beautification Total Public Works - Forestry/Grounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,410 6,535 4,500 9,170 41,615 1,263,238 Public Works - Engineering 01 Engineering Services Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Office Equipment Other Equipment Total Engineering Services 468,330 139,856 3,450 50,857 6,095 500 1,500 670,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 Traffic Control & Street Lighting Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total Traffic Signals & Street Lighting Total Public Works - Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72,410 22,978 4,000 95,000 19,000 213,388 883,976 Community Service Programs 01 Community Groups & Misc. Contractual Services Other Expenditures Total Community Groups & Misc. 03 4th of July & Civic Events, Etc. Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total 4th of July & Civic Events, Etc. 81,900 0 7,000 0 88,900 0 47,000 0 7,125 0 50,750 0 300 0 12,800 0 117,975 0 13 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY 04 Holiday Decorations Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Services Utilities Commodities & Supplies Total Holiday Decorations 05 Blood Donor Program Personal Services Employee Benefits Commodities & Supplies Total Blood Donor Program Total Community Service Programs 82 Retiree Pensions 01 Miscellaneous Pensions Pension Benefits Total Miscellaneous Pensions Total Retiree Pensions 89 Non-Departmental 01 Contingencies Interfund Transfers Total Contingencies Total Non-Departmental TOTAL GENERAL FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR GENERAL FUND AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR GENERAL FUND 14 Amount Amount Budgeted Levied 6,540 0 2,092 0 51,595 0 100 0 8,900 0 69,227 0 1,850 0 150 0 800 0 2,800 0 278,902 0 53,714 53,714 53,714 0 0 0 270,000 0 270,000 0 270,000 0 31,655,480 6,494,362 31,655,480 6,494,362 129,887 6,624,249 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE II - REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND 56 Public Works - Refuse Disposal 0 I Refuse Disposal Program Personal Services Employee Benefits Other Employee Costs Contractual Services Utilities Insurance Commodities & Supplies Total Refuse Disposal Program 2 Refuse Leaf Removal Program Personal Services Employee Benefits Commodities & Supplies Total Leaf Removal Program TOT AL REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND ARTICLE III - SERIES 1987A DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 81 Debt Service 02 G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Total Debt Service TOTAL SERlES 1987A DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 1987A DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 1987A DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 15 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 77,560 0 25,482 0 750 0 3,236,561 2,244,922 545 a 4,298 0 17,045 0 3,362,241 2,244,922 124,445 a 35,236 0 11,300 a 170,981 0 3,533,222 2,244,922 3,533,222 2,244,922 44,898 2,289,820 40,198 40,198 110,802 110,802 0 0 151,000 151,000 151,000 151,000 151,000 151,000 151,000 0 151,000 3,020 154,020 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE IV - SERIES 1996A DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL 81 Debt Service 04 G.O.Bonds - Flood Control Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Flood Control Total Debt Service TOT AL SERIES 1996A DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES I996A DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 1996A DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL ARTICLE V - SERIES 1998A DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL 81 Debt Service 04 GO. Bonds - Flood Control Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Flood Control Total Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 1998A DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 1998A DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 1998A DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL 16 195,000 0 17,200 0 900 0 213,100 0 213,100 0 213,100 0 213,100 0 0 0 55,000 0 7,683 0 300 0 62,983 0 62,983 0 62,983 0 62,983 0 0 0 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY Amount Budgeted Amount Levied ARTICLE VI - SERIES 1998C DEBT SERVICE FUND, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT 81 Debt Service 03 G.O.Bonds - Tax Increment Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Tax Increment Total Debt Service 130,000 0 22,695 0 600 0 153,295 0 153,295 0 153,295 0 153,295 0 0 0 TOTAL SERIES 1998C DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES I998C DEBT SERVICE FUND AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 1998C DEBT SERVICE FUND, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VII- SERIES 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT 81 Debt Service 03 G.O.Bonds - Tax Increment Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Tax Increment Total Debt Service 680,000 0 225,600 0 600 0 906,200 0 906,200 0 906,200 0 906,200 0 0 0 TOTAL SERIES 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 1999 DEBT SERV1CEFUND AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT 17 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE VIII - SERIES 2000 DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL 8] Debt Service 04 G.O.Bonds - F]ood Contra] Bond Principa] Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - F]ood Control Tota] Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 2000 DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 2000 DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 2000 DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL ARTICLE IX - SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 81 Debt Service 02 G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Total Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 200] DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS ]8 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 180,000 0 ]] ],498 0 600 0 292,098 0 292,098 0 292,098 0 292,098 0 0 0 190,000 190,000 199,528 199,528 600 0 390,128 389,528 390,] 28 389,528 390,] 28 389,528 390,]28 389,528 7,791 397,319 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE X - SERIES 2002A DEBT SERVICE FUND, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT 81 Debt Service 03 G.O.Bonds - Tax Increment Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Tax Increment Total Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 2002A DEBT SERVICE FUND TOT AL BUDGET FOR SERIES 2002A DEBT SERVICE FUND, DOWNTOWN RED. AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 2002A DEBT SERVICE FUND, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ARTICLE XI - SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 81 Debt Service 02 G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Total Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 19 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 35,000 0 1,050 0 600 0 36,650 0 36,650 0 36,650 0 36,650 0 0 0 591,700 531,177 17,751 0 600 0 610,051 531,177 610,051 531,177 610,051 531,177 610,051 531,177 10,624 541,801 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE XII - SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL 81 Debt Service 04 G.O.Bonds - Flood Control Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Flood Control Total Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, FLOOD CONTROL ARTICLE XIII - SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, WATER IMPROVEMENTS 81 Debt Service G.O.Bonds - Water and Sewer Revenues Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Water and Sewer Revenues Total Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE WATER IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 2002B DEBT SERVICE FUND, WATER IMPROVEMENTS 20 238,700 0 7,161 0 600 0 246,461 0 246,461 0 246,461 0 246,461 0 0 0 79,600 0 2,388 0 500 0 82,488 0 82,488 0 82,488 0 82,488 0 0 0 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE XIV - SERIES 2003 DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 81 Debt Service 02 G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Bond Principal Interest Expense Bank and Fiscal Fees Total G.O.Bonds - Property Taxes Total Debt Service TOTAL SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR SERlES 2003 DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SERIES 2003 DEBT SERVICE FUND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS ARTICLE XV - POLICE PENSION FUND 82 Retiree Pensions 02 Police Pensions Pension Benefits Contractual Services Commodities and Supplies Total Police Pensions Total Retiree Pensions TOTAL POLICE PENSION FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR POLICE PENSION FUND AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR POLICE PENSION FUND 21 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 450,000 106,332 461,332 0 600 0 911,932 106,332 9] 1,932 106,332 911,932 106,332 9 11,932 106,332 2,127 108,459 2,224,670 945,396 1,250 0 200 0 2,226,120 945,396 2,226,120 945,396 2,226,120 945,396 2,226,120 945,396 18,908 964,304 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY ARTICLE XVI - FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND 82 Retiree Pensions 03 Firefighters' Pensions Pension Benefits Contractual Services Total Firefighters' Pensions Total Retiree Pensions TOTAL FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOT AL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND ARTICLE XVII - MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND 95 Mount Prospect Library 02 Library Services Component Unit Expenditures Bond Principal Interest Expense Total Library Services TOTAL MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND TOTAL BUDGET FOR MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS & COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND 22 Amount Budgeted Amount Levied 2,266,330 994,062 700 0 2,267,030 994,062 2,267,030 994,062 2,267,030 994,062 2,267,030 994,062 19,881 1,013,943 22,046,400 5,350,207 660,000 660,000 923,675 923,675 23,630,075 6,933,882 23,630,075 6,933,882 23,630,075 6,933,882 138,678 7,072,560 Section 3: The sum of $238,100 is estimated to be received from personal property replacement tax revenue during the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004 and has been included herein as funds to be derived from sources other than property taxes for general obligation bonds and interest, pensions, library services and general corporate purposes. Section 4: That the County Clerk is directed to add 2% to the requested tax levy as a provision for loss and cost. Section 5: That the Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of the sal11e with the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois, within the time specified by law. Section 6: That, if any part or parts of this Ordinance shall be held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such constitutionality or invalidity, shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect hereby declares that they would have passed the remaining parts of the Ordinance of they had known that such parts or parts thereof would be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 7: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, publication in pamphlet form and recording, as provided by law. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this - day of December, 2004. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk 24 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2004 TAX LEVY SUMMARY Amount Total to be Raised Amount Tax Levy Amount by for Loss Inc!. Loss Article Fund Budgeted Tax Levy and Cost and Cost I General $ 31,655,480 6,494,362 129,887 6,624,249 II Refuse Disposal 3,533,222 2,244,922 44,898 2,289,820 III Series 1987 A Debt Service, Public BIds. 151,000 151,000 3,020 154,020 IV Series 1996A Debt Service, Flood Ctr!. 213,100 0 (a) 0 0 V Series 1998A Debt Service, Flood Ctr!. 62,983 0 (a) 0 0 VI Series 1998C Debt Service, TIF 153,295 0 (a) 0 0 VII Series 1999 Debt Service, TIF 906,200 0 (a) 0 0 VIII Series 2000 Debt Service, Flood Ctr!. 292,098 0 (a) 0 0 IX Series 2001 Debt Service, Public Bldgs 390,128 389,528 7,791 397,319 X Series 2002A Debt Service, TIF 36,650 0 (a) 0 0 XI Series 2002B Debt Service, Public Bldgs 610,051 531,177 (a) 10,624 541,801 XII Series 2002B Debt Service, Flood Ctr!. 246,461 0 (a) 0 0 Xl1I Series 2002B Debt Service, Water 82,488 0 (a) 0 0 XIV Series 2003 Debt Service, Public Bldgs. 911,932 106,332 (a) 2,127 108,459 XV Police Pension Fund 2,226,120 945,396 18,908 964,304 XVI Firefighters' Pension Fund 2,267,030 994,062 19,881 1,013,943 Village Totals 43,738,238 11,856,779 237,136 12,093,915 XVII Mount Prospect Library Library Services 22,046,400 5,350,207 107,004 5,457,211 Series 2002 Library Bonds Debt Service 1,583,675 1,583,675 31,674 1,615,349 Library Totals 23,630,075 6,933,882 138,678 7,072,560 Village and Library Totals 67,368,313 18,790,661 375,814 19,166,475 (a) Amount to be raised by tax levy has been reduced by planned abatements totaling $2,871,849. 23 y ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR THE MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER FIVE AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,2004 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the - day of , 2004 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois the - day of , 2004. E- " ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR THE MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER FIVE AND SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER3!, 2004 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois: Section 1: That the sum of One Million Five Hundred Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty- Four Dollars ($1,515,464), the same being the total amount to be levied of budget appropriations heretofore made for the municipal purposes for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004, and ending December 31, 2004, as approved by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied on all taxable property within the Special Service Area Number 5 ofthe Village of Mount Prospect according to the valuation of said property as is, or shall be, assessed or equalized by State and County purposes for the current year 2004. The budgetary appropriations having been made heretofore by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect were passed and approved by Ordinance No. 5395 at a meeting hereof regularly convened and held in said Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois on the 16th day of December, 2003, and thereafter duly published according to law, the various objects and purposes for said budgetary appropriations were heretofore made are set forth under the column entitled "Amount Budgeted," and the specific amount herein levied for each object and purpose is set forth under the column entitled "Amount Levied" in Article I. Section 2: That the sum of Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($37,800), the same being the total amount to be levied of budget appropriations heretofore made for the municipal purposes for the fiscal year beginning January 1,2004, and ending December 31,2004, as approved by the President and Board of Trustees ofthe Village of Mount Prospect, be and the same is hereby levied on all taxable property within the Special Service Area Number 6 of the Village of Mount Prospect according to the valuation of said property as is, or shall be, assessed or equalized by State and County purposes for the current year 2004. The budgetary appropriations having been made heretofore by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect were passed and approved by Ordinance No. 5395 at a meeting hereof regularly convened and held in said Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois on the 16th day of December, 2003, and thereafter duly published according to law, the various objects and purposes for said budgetary appropriations were heretofore made are set forth under the column entitled "Amount Budgeted," and the specific amount herein levied for each object and purpose is set forth under the column entitled "Amount Levied" in Article II. Amount Budgeted Amount Levied ARTICLE 1 - SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.5 61 Lake Water Acquisition 6105512-540800 6105512-540815 TOTAL APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.5 LAKE WATER ACQUISITION 1,580,700 370,464 1,145,000 1,145,000 2,725,700 1,515,464 30,309 1,545,773 SSA #5 JAWA Water SSA #5 JAWA Fixed Costs AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS AND COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.5 ARTICLE II - SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.6 83 Special Service Area No.6 Bond and Interest 8308106-710607 SSA #6 Principal 8308106-720608 SSA #6 Interest 35,000 35,000 5,495 2,800 40,495 37,800 846 38,646 TOTAL APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.6 BOND AND INTEREST AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY ADD 2% FOR LOSS AND COST OF COLLECTION TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO.6 Article I Special Service Area No.5 II Special Service Area No.6 SUMMARY Amount Budqeted 2,725,700 40,495 Amount to Amount for be Levied Loss & Cost 1,515,464 30,309 37,800 846 Total Tax Levy 1,545,773 38,646 Section 3: That the County Clerk is directed to add 2% to the requested tax levy as a provision for loss and cost. Section 4: That the Village Clerk of the ViIIage of Mount Prospect is hereby directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of the same with the County Clerk of Cook County, IIIinois, within the time specified by law. Section 5: That, if any part of this Ordinance shaIl be held to be unconstitutional or othervvise invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity, shaIl not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. The President and Board of Trustees of the ViIlage of Mount Prospect hereby declares that they would have passed the remaining parts of the Ordinance if they had known that such part or parts thereof would be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 6: That this Ordinance shaIl be in fuIl force and effect from and after its passage, approval, publication in pamphlet fonn and recording, as provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2004 Gerald L. Farley, ViIlage President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, ViIlage Clerk 2 , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ABA TE APART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR CORPO- RA TE AND MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,2004 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the - day of ,2004 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the corporate authorities ofthe Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the - day of , 2004. f ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR CORPO- RATE AND MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,2004 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: Section One: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect find as follows: A. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No.4 780 adopted March 6, 1996 and authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for financing flood control capital improvement projects within the Village there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of$212,200.00 for bond principal and interest payments. B. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4917 adopted March 18, 1998 and authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for financing flood control capital improvement projects within the Village there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of $62,683.00 for bond principal and interest payments. c. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4977 adopted December I, 1998 and authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for financing land acquisition costs and other redevelopment costs within the Village's District No.1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area there was levied for 2004 the sum of$152,695.00 for bond principal and interest payments. D. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4999 adopted March 2, 1999 and authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for financing the acquisition ofland within the Village's District No.1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of$905,600.00 for bond principal and interest payments. E. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 5114 adopted June 6, 2000 and authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for financing various flood control capital improvement projects there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of$291 ,498.00 for bond principal and interest payments. 1 F. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 5236 adopted March 5, 2002 and authorizing the issuance of general obligation refunding bonds, Series 2002A, and general obligation refunding bonds, Series 2002B, to refund the Village's Series 1993A bonds, Series 1993B bonds, and Series 1994A bonds, there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of $973,350.00 for bond principal and interest payments. G. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 5301 adopted January 21, 2003 and authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds for financing a portion of the costs of constructing a new village hall and community center as well as a multi-level parking deck there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of $911 ,332.00 for bond principal and interest payments. H. That as of December 1, 2004 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the Series 1996A General Obligation Bond and Interest Funds the sum of $212,200.00 for application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4780 adopted March 6, 1996. 1. That as of December 1, 2004 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the Series 1998A General Obligation Bond and Interest Funds the sum of$62,683.00 for application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4917 adopted March 18, 1998. J. That as of December 1, 2004 there is available in the Village's Downtown Redevelopment Fund the amount of $152,695 .00 for application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4977 adopted December 1, 1998. K. That as of December 1, 2004 there is available in the Village's Downtown Redevelopment Fund the amount of $905,600.00 for application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4999 adopted March 2, 1999. L. That as of December 1,2004 there is available in the Village's Series 2000 General Obligation Bond and Interest Fund the sum of$291,498.00 for application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 5114 adopted June 6, 2000. M. That as of December 1,2004 there is available in the Village's Series 2002A and Series 2002B Debt Service Funds the sum of $442,173 for application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 5236 adopted March 5, 2002. N. That as of December 1, 2004 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the General Fund the sum of$805,000 for application to bond principal and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 5301 adopted January 21,2003. 2 Section Two: It is hereby declared and detennined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the amount of $212,200.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for the purpose of financing flood control capital improvement projects within the Village pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 4780 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of $212,200.00 being the entire amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004. Section Three: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the amount of $62,683.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for the purpose of financing flood control capital improvement projects within the Village pursuant to Ordinance No. 4917 be and the sameis hereby abated in the amount of$62,683.00 being the entire amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing January 1,2004 and ending December 31,2004. Section Four: It is hereby declared by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the amount of$152,695.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for the purpose of funding property acquisition and other redevelopment costs within the Village's District No.1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to Ordinance No. 4977 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of $152,695.00 being the entire amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year conunencing January 1,2004 and ending December 31, 2004. Section Five: It is hereby declared by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the amount of$905,600.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for the purpose of funding property acquisition within the Village's District No.1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to Ordinance No. 4999 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of $905,600.00 being the entire amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004. Section Six: It is hereby declared by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the amount of$291 ,498.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for the purpose of funding various flood control capital improvement projects pursuant to Ordinance No. 5114 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of$291 ,498.00 being the entire amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004. Section Seven: It is hereby declared by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the amount of$973,350.00 levied for GoO. Bond and Interest payments for the purpose of refunding a portion of the Series 1993A, Series 1993B and Series 1994A bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 5236 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of$442,173.00, leaving a balance of$531, 177.00 as that amount levied for such bond and interest payments for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004. 3 Section Eight: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the amount of $911,332.00 levied for G.O. Bond and Interest payments for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of constructing a new village hall and community center and parking deck pursuant to Ordinance No. 5301 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of$805,000.00 leaving a balance of$l 06,332.00 as that amount levied for such bond and interest payments for the fiscal year commencing January 1,2004 and ending December 31,2004. Section Nine: Village Ordinance Nos. 4780, 4917, 4977, 4999,5114,5236 and 5301 are and each is hereby amended with respect to the tax abatements declared herein and set forth in Sections Two through Eight of this Ordinance. Section Ten: The Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois within the time specified by law: Section Eleven: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form and filing as provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this - day of ,2004. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk 4 It ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR UNLIMITED TAX BONDS OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2004 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the - day of ,2004 Published in pamphlet fonn by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the - day of ,2004. ~ ./ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR UNLIMITED TAX BONDS OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,2004 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: Section One: follows: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect find as A. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3950 adopted June 21, 1988 authorizing the issuance of Unlimited Tax Bonds of Special Service Area Number 6 of the Village of Mount Prospect there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of $3 7 ,800 for principal and interest payments. B. That as of December 1, 2004 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the Article I - Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $1 0,000 for application to bond and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance 3950 adopted June 21, 1988. Section Two: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of this Village that the amount of$37,800 levied for Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest payments of Special Service Area Number 6 of this Village, pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3950 adopted on June 21, 1988 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of$l 0,000 leaving a balance of$27,800 as that amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004. Section Three: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees ofthe Village of Mount Prospect that Village Ordinance 3950 is hereby amended with respect to the tax abatement declared herein and set forth in Section Two of this Ordinance. Section Four: The Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois within the time specified by law. Section Five: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form and filing as provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this - day of ,2004. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk 2 ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR UNLIMITED TAX BONDS OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2004 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the - day of , 2004 Published in pamphlet fonn by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the - day of , 2004. ~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ABATE A PART OF THE TAXES LEVIED FOR UNLIMITED TAX BONDS OF SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER SIX OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2004 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2004 BE ITORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: Section One: follows: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect find as A. That pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3950 adopted June 21, 1988 authorizing the issuance of Unlimited Tax Bonds of Special Service Area Number 6 of the Village of Mount Prospect there was levied for the year 2004 the sum of $37,800 for principal and interest payments. B. That as of December 1, 2004 there has been collected, deposited to and on hand in the Article I - Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest Fund the sum of $1 0,000 for application to bond and interest payments for the bonds issued pursuant to Village Ordinance 3950 adopted June 21, 1988. Section Two: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees of this Village that the amount of$37,800 levied for Unlimited Tax Bond and Interest payments of Special Service Area Number 6 of this Village, pursuant to Village Ordinance No. 3950 adopted on June 21, 1988 be and the same is hereby abated in the amount of$l 0,000 leaving a balance of$27,800 as that amount levied for such bond and interest payment purposes for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004. Section Three: It is hereby declared and determined by the President and Board of Trustees ofthe Village of Mount Prospect that Village Ordinance 3950 is hereby amended with respect to the tax abatement declared herein and set forth in Section Two of this Ordinance. Section Four: The Village Clerk ofthe Village of Mount Prospect is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois within the time specified by law. Section Five: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form and filing as provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this - day of ,2004. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk 2 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: PROPOSED 2005 BUDGET FROM: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO: DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 PURPOSE: To present for the Village Board's consideration an ordinance adopting the annual budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2005 and ending December 31,2005. BACKGROUND: The Village Manager released his proposed budget on October 5, 2004. Over the past several weeks the Finance Commission met three times to review the document. The Village Board, meetin~ as a Committee of the Whole, f"e'lleweêfthedõcÚmerïfon Øc::fo6èr 26th and November 9 h. DISCUSSION: Attached hereto are changes to the proposed 2005 budget and 2006 forecast that resulted from the above-mentioned meetings held with the Village Board and Finance Commission. Chanaes to the 2005 Proposed Budaet Projected revenues did not change from what was originally presented. Total Village expenditures also remained unchanged, but there were changes to two accounts that offset one another. The contribution to the Historical Society was increased by $2,500 while the Independent Classes account in Human Services was decreased by a like amount. At the time the proposed budget was prepared and distributed, the Mount Prospect Public Library budget, included in the Village's budget as a component unit, was not yet available. The Library's budget for 2005 reflects revenues and expenditures of $8,536,993. Included in their budget is $1,584,675 for debt service on the Series 2002 Library bonds the Village issued on their behalf. 2005 Proposed Budget November 17, 2004 Page 2 ChanQes to 2006 Forecast BudQet There were no changes to the 2006 forecast budget. Summary With the aforementioned changes, the proposed 2005 Budget for the Village totals $69,796,088. This represents an 11.6% decrease over the current 2004 Budget. Projected revenues for the Village in 2005 are $71,102,377. This is an increase of 5.0%. Both the projected revenues and budgeted expenditures for the Mount Prospect Library for 2005 are $8,536,993. A public hearing on the proposed budget has been scheduled for December 21 st. Notice of the public hearing will be published in the Daily Herald on December 9, 2004. The proposed ordinance attached hereto would officially adopt the budget for the Village of Mount Prospect. Once the ordinance is passed, the Finance Department will revise the budget document to incorporate the approved changes. We expect to have the approved budget document produced no later than January 18th. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board pass the accompanying draft ordinance adopting the 2005 annual budget. .. / J, "'// II /(' / ¿/ {~-- Vf.>..~.4~.- DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DOE! Attachment 1:\Budget 2005\Ordinance Cover Memo - 2005 Budget.doc PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing on the proposed 2005 Budget for the Village of Mount Prospect will be held on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Village Board Room at Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. The proposed budget may be examined on weekdays in the Office of the Village Clerk in the Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to present oral or written comments. The proposed spending plan is for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2005. Following is a summary of the proposed budget by fund type: Village Funds: General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Project Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Pension Funds Total Village Funds Library Funds Total Village and Library Funds MICHAEL E. JANONIS Village Manager Published in the Daily Herald December 9, 2004. $33,927,415 6,243,600 4,541,053 2,378,257 9,581,509 8,428,866 4,695.388 $69,796,088 8.536,993 $78.333.08 t ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2005 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2005 IN LIEU OF PASSAGE OF AN APPROPRlATION ORDINANCE PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the - day of ,2004 Published in pamphlet fonD by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois the - day of , 2004. ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2005 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2005 IN LIEU OF PASSAGE OF AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect in accordance with State Statutes, have provided for the preparation and adoption of an Annual Budget in lieu of passage of an Appropriation Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the tentative Annual Budget for the Village of Mount Prospect for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2005, as prepared by the Budget Officer for the Village and submitted to the President and Board of Trustees, was placed on file in the Office of the Village Clerk on October 5,2004 for public inspection, as provided by Statute; and WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly published on December 9, 2004, a public hearing was held by the President and Board of Trustees on said tentative annual budget on December 21,2004, as provided by Statute; and WHEREAS, following said public hearing, said tentative Annual Budget was reviewed by the President and Board of Trustees and a copy of said tentative Annual Budget is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The Annual Budget for the Village of Mount Prospect for the fiscal year beginning January 1,2005 and ending December 31,2005, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby approved and adopted as the Annual Budget for the Village of Mount Prospect for said fiscal year. SECTION TWO: Within thirty (30) days following the adoption ofthis Ordinance there shall be filed with the County Clerk of Cook County a copy thereof duly certified by the Village Clerk and Estimate of Revenues by source anticipated to be received by the Village in the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2005, duly certified by the Chief Fiscal Officer. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,2004. ATTEST: Gerald 1. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 PROPOSED BUDGET SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES Account Name Account Number 2005 Original Proposed Budget Recommended Change 2005 Proposed Budget As Amended VILLAGE GENERAL FUND Expenditures Human Services Senior Programs Independent Classes Community & Civic Services Contractual Services M.P. Historical Society Other General Fund Expenditures 0016102-540980 4,000 (2,500) 1,500 35,000 2,500 37,500 33,083,688 0 33,083,688 33,122,688 0 33,122,688 0013104-540340 Village General Fund - Total Expenditures LIBRARY FUND Revenues Property Taxes, Library Services Property Taxes, IMRF & FICA Property Taxes, Building Maintenance & Repair Property Taxes, Insurance & Audit Property Taxes, Bond & Interest Other Revenues 0 4,479,027 4,479,027 0 468,596 468,596 0 277,339 277,339 0 125,245 125,245 0 1,583,675 1,583,675 0 1,603,111 1 ,603,111 0 8,536,993 8,536,993 Library Fund - Total Revenues Expenditures Salaries & Benefits Salaries Medical Insurance IMRF Pension FICA & Medicare Unemployment Compensation Sub-Total Salaries & Benefits 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 0 3,310,254 3,310,254 0 283,800 283,800 0 224,734 224,734 0 253,234 253,234 0 1,800 1,800 0 4,073,822 4,073,822 0 1,800 1,800 0 15,000 15,000 0 25,000 25,000 0 18,000 18,000 0 16,245 16,245 0 14,000 14,000 0 5,200 5,200 0 3,500 3,500 0 28,000 28,000 0 20,000 20,000 0 125,950 125,950 0 20,200 20,200 0 14,800 14,800 0 22,000 22,000 0 25,600 25,600 0 5,000 5,000 Other Administrative Costs Audit Legal Fees Printing Other Operating Expense Community Services Youth Programs Professional Memberships Board - Training & Development Staff - Training & Development Telephone Insurance Processing Supplies Office Supplies Library Supplies Postage Consulting Fees 1201 1203 1203 1204 1205 1207 1208 1209 1210 1301 1302 1304 1305 1306 1309 1310 Page 1 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 PROPOSED BUDGET SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES 2005 2005 Original Proposed Proposed Recommended Budget Account Name Account Number Budget Change As Amended Other Administrative Costs (continued) Contractual SeNices 1311 0 55,550 55,550 Data Processing Costs 1312 0 40,000 40,000 Sub-Total Other Administrative Costs 0 455.845 455,845 Building Maintenance Costs Building Maintenance 1401 0 50,000 50,000 Equipment Maintenance 1402 0 47,551 47,551 Equipment Rental 1403 0 27,000 27,000 Janitorial Expenses 1404 0 48,000 48,000 Equipment 1408 0 69,000 69,000 Heating & Air Conditioning 1501 0 88,000 88,000 Water & Sewer 1502 0 4,500 4,500 Sub-Total Building Maintenance Costs 0 334,051 334,051 Books & Library Materials Adult Book 1401 0 259,000 259,000 Adult Audio-Visual 1402 0 65,500 65,500 Youth Books 1403 0 98,000 98,000 Youth Audio-Visual 1404 0 23,000 23,000 Periodicals 1408 0 23,000 23,000 Microform 1501 0 26,000 26,000 Electronic Resources 1502 0 69,100 69,100 Sub-Total Books & Library Materials 0 563,600 563,600 Other Funds Gift Fund 0 100,000 100,000 Building & Equipment Fund 0 425,000 425,000 Capital Improvement Fund 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 Debt SeNice Fund 0 1,584,675 1,584,675 Sub-Total Other Funds 0 3,109,675 3,109,675 Library Fund - Total Expenditures 0 8,536,993 8,536,993 Page 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY TOTAL VILLAGE BUDGET ,', '.'2003 '" 2004 2004 ,,' "", 2005 2006 Actual Budget Estimate Budget Forecast " " '" -'" .. REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES Property Taxes 10,636,339 11,453,283 11,435,633 11,980,598 12,572,948 Other Taxes 10,538,637 12,378,646 12,755,452 12,838,924 13,336,489 Licenses, Permits & Fees 3,273,801 2,814,250 2,946,700 2,801,736 2,801,952 Intergovernmental Revenue 14,179,037 14,903,344 14,795,744 15,376,615 15,688,590 Charges for Service 13,999,212 15,373,741 15,252,510 16,118,285 17,151,647 Fines and Forfeits 626,247 556,500 565,660 527,100 528,100 Investment Income 9,230,308 4,431,950 3,368,134 4,591,120 4,828,645 Reimbursements 823,471 627,051 551,151 337,616 344,820 Other Revenue 3,934,587 4,147,865 4,109,379 4,325,383 4,685,154 1nterfund Transfers 1,096,677 962,730 962,730 805,000 315,000 Other Financing Sources 13,612,310 60,000 1,875,000 1,400,000 60,000 Village Revenues and Other Sources 81,950,626 67,709,360 68,6f8;õ~J'~" "1f,rtrl;3 11 72,313,345 Mount Prospect Library Revenues 6,213,135 23,768,025 23,768,025 8,536,993 (a) Total Revenues and Other Sources 88,163,761 91,477,385 92,386,118 79,Ö39,37Ö 72,313,345 BUDGET EXPENDITURES Village Operating Budget 42,358,783 46,704,007 46,217,006 48,239,192 50,288,645 Village Capital Budget 18,019,382 14,804,734 15,150,842 5,322,294 9,163,388 Debt Service Budget 5,790,067 5,967,704 5,966,804 4,541,053 3,833,577 Pension Systems Budget 4,117,883 4,546,864 4,334,254 4,750,018 4,928,683 Internal Services Budget (b) 43,598,668 6,907,875 6,264,907 6,943,531 7,668,857 Total Village Expenditures 113,884,783 78,931,184 77,933,813 69,796,088 75,883,150 Mount Prospect Library Budget 14,151,688 23,641,875 23,641,875 8,536,993 (a) Total Expenditures 128,036,471 102,573,059 101,575,688 78,333,081 75,883, 150(d) ==-:cc ',," """.' '-'" CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES (d) Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues & Other Sources Over Expenditures (39,872,710) (11,095,674) (9,189,570) 1,306,289 (3,569,805) Fund Balances Start of Budget Year 159,628,503 119,755,793 119,755,793 110,566,223 111,872,512 End of Budget Year 119,755,793 108,660,119 110,566,223 111,872,512 108,302,707 Less: Pension Fund Balances ( c ) (68,632,402) (70,945,903) (70,428,011) (73,159,606) (76,233,145) Available Fund Balances 51,123,391 37,714,216 40,138,212 38,712,906 32,069,562 (a) Not available as of December 21,2004. (b) Internal Services Budget includes Vehicle Maintenance Fund, Risk Management Fund, and Capital Fixed Assets, The Equipment Replacement Fund and Computer Replacement Fund are included in the Village Capital Budget. (c) Pension Fund Balances are reserved for pension benefits and not available for appropriation. (d) Does not include the results of operation of the Mount Prospect Library'- VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES BY REVENUE TYPE 2003 2004 2004 2005 2006 Actual Budget Estimate Budget Forecast PROPERTY TAXES 10,636,339 11,453,283 1 1,435,633 11,980,598 12,572,948 OTHER TAXES Home Rule Sales Tax 2,335,898 3,293,778 3,363,750 3,456,825 3,560,550 Food & Beverage Tax 645,22 I 587,000 590,000 603,800 620,500 Special Service Area Taxes 1,481,850 1,567,913 1,567,556 1,555,942 1,531,825 Property Tax Increment 1,185,391 1,441,077 1,647,677 1,8 15,025 2,146,033 Real Estate Transfer Tax 1,006,865 827,500 1,131,500 928,500 928,500 Utility Taxes 3,522,007 4,311,278 4,113,157 4,137,692 4,202,781 Municipal Motor Fuel Tax 160,038 165,000 148,000 152,440 157,000 Other Taxes 201,367 185,100 193,812 188,700 189,300 10,538,637 12.378,646 12,755,452 12,838,924 13,336,489 LICENSES, PERMITS & FEES Vehicle Licenses 1,339,381 1,368,000 1,360,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 Other Licenses 355,426 347,750 361,500 346,500 346,500 Permit Fees 940,492 485,500 481,000 456,000 456,000 Infrastructure Mtc Fee Franchise Fee 322,948 330,000 335,000 340,000 340,000 Other Fees 3 I 5,554 283,000 409,200 294,236 294,452 3,273,801 2,814,250 2,946,700 2,801,736 2,801,952 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE State Sales Tax 7,726,966 8,489,505 8,239,000 9,056.295 9,237,420 State Income Tax 3,486,71 I 3,353,394 3,336,485 3,436,580 3,539,700 State Motor Fuel Tax 1,660,113 1,630,765 1,630,765 1,647,100 1,663,545 Other State Taxes 687,141 682,875 736,774 754,740 773,025 Community Devl Block Grant 271,291 485,450 485,450 449,000 445,000 Other Grants 346,815 261,355 367,270 32,900 29,900 14,179,037 14,903,344 14,795,744 15,376,615 15,688,590 CHARGES FOR SERVICE Water & Sewer Charges 6,241,598 6,624,915 6,636,915 6,892,392 7,163,287 Parking Charges 157,589 224,850 150,500 211,250 211,250 Refuse Disposal Charges 952,265 1,009,300 1,009,300 1,044,800 1,074,180 Internal Service Fund Charges 5,873,872 6,707,813 6,712,372 7,200,412 7,910,922 Other Service Charges 773,888 806,863 743,423 769,431 792,008 13,999,212 15,373,741 15,252,510 16,118,285 17,151,647 FINES AND FORFEITS 626,247 556,500 565,660 527,100 528,100 , INVESTMENT INCOME General Fund 209,419 230,000 84,553 156,000 156,000 Pension Funds 8,332,333 3,711,000 2,933,632 4,113,500 4,358,420 Other Funds 688,556 490,950 349,949 321,620 314,225 9,230,308 4,431,950 3,368,134 4,591,120 4,828,645 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES BY REVENUE TYPE , , , " REIMBURSEMENTS OTHER REVENUE ViJlage Police & Fire Pension Contributions Developer Donations Employee & Retiree Contributions Other Revenue TOTAL VILLAGE REVENUES INTERFUND TRANSFERS OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Bond Proceeds InstaJlment Note Proceeds Sale of Property MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY REVENUES " 2003 2004 2004 Actual Budget Estimate ccc ""..'" " 823,471 627,051 551,151 '2005 Budget , " 2006 Forecast , ' 337,616 344,820 1,775,707 2,164,920 2,164,920 2,295,580 2,520,859 103,714 81,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 1,641,242 1,686,945 1,684,297 1,762,103 1,846,595 413,924 215,UUO 235,162 242,700 242,70U 3,934,587 4,147,865 4,109,379 4,325,383 4,685,154 67,241,639 66,686,630 65,780,363 1,096,677 962,730 962,730 805,000 315,000 12,235,000 1,377,310 13,612,310 60,000 60,000 705,000 1,170,000 1,875,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 60,000 60,000 6,213,135 23,768,025 23,768,025 8,536,993 (a) , - " "<,' ",'<' >'" ,"", "",' ".:,'-:,,' ,'> REVENUES AND OTHER S() , "VILI:AGE'ÀNì>' ÚBRARÿi' -" ":"":,"::;"-',:,;,,::::;;,,5','\::>:1,/':"',, CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES Total Revenues & Other Sources Total Expenditures Additions to <Use of> Fund Balances 88,163,761 128,036,471 (39,872,710) 91,477,385 1 02,573,059 (11,095,674) 92,386,118 10 1 ,575,688 (9,189,570) 79,639,370 78,333,081 1,306,289 (b) 72,313,345 75,883,150 (3,569,805) ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES (b) Additions to Pension Fund Balances 6,990,902 2,367,215 1,795,609 2,731,595 3,073,539 Additions to Other Fund Balances <Use of> Other Fund Balances (46,863,612) (13,462,889) (10,985,179) (1,425,306) (6,643,344) (39,872,710) (11,095,674) '(9,189,570) 1,306,289 (3,569,805) (a) (b) Figures not avaílable as of December 21, 2004. Does not include the Mount Prospect Library. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES 2003 2004 2004 2005 2006 Actual Budget Estimate Budget Forecast VILLAGE OPERATING BUDGET PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 100,879 107,874 111,446 117,383 1] 9,867 VILLAGE ADMINISTRATION Village Manager's Office ],794,586 1,834,353 2,047,932 ],947,752 2, 1]0,229 Television Services Division 160,689 170,262 159,302 213,757 207,596 Village Clerk's Office ] 54,065 163,256 157,628 ]71,874 180,786 Finance Department ] ,247,599 1,368,33] ],344,214 1,570,355 ],660,723 Totals 3,356,939 3,536,202 3,709,076 3,903,738 .4,159,334 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Community Development 1,387,815 1,580,527 1,534,725 1,670,374 1,774,220 Community Developnient/CDBG 402,845 620,305 611,106 728,123 511,445 Totals ] ,790,660 2,200,832 2,145,83] 2,398,497 2,285,665 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT 686,969 784,867 692,07] 720,533 757,397 PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION Police Department 10,224,377 ]1,320,9]2 ] ] ,296,066 11,664,483 12,286,037 Fire Department 8,310,005 8,829,400 8,723,987 9,372,02] 9,981,807 Totals ] 8,534,382 20,150,3] 2 20,020,053 2] ,036,504 22,267,844 .. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Administration 96],884 ],001,751 998,406 1,104,48] 1,138,0]9 Streets/Bldgs/Parking 2,229.527 2,325,767 2,486,896 2,507,178 2,6] 7, 196 Forestry 1,251,233 ],273,238 1,273,271 1,428,718 ] ,497,573 Engineering 930,757 1,240,]5] 1,243,926 ],108,457 ],170,560 Water/Sewer 8,001,166 9,308,159 8,766,800 9,204,528 9,914,388 Refuse Disposal 3,] 42,526 3,533,222 3,533,196 3,634,727 3,770,384 Totals 16,5]7,093 18,682,288 18,302,495 18,988,089 20,108,]20 COMMUNITY & CIVIC SERVICES 275,184 278,902 273,394 269,448 275,418 CONTINGENCIES & EQUITY TRANSFERS 1,096,677 962,730 962,640 805,000 315,000 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES ::",-c-cc-:' cc», 2003 "2004' ""2ÖÕ:r'" ""'2005 ,~" "2006 Actual Budget Estimate Budget Forecast ,.:.,.. .'..' "..." ,. VILLAGE CAPITAL BUDGET Village Improvements & Equip 11,317,149 6,622,331 7,103,629 486,000 2,721,020 Community Improvement Projects 486,102 251,635 251,635 35,000 410,000 Downtown Redeve]opment Constr 437,951 2,150,189 2,572,543 251,221 95] ,360 Flood Control Projects 409,278 686,744 355,000 547,538 382,713 Street Improvement Projects 4,371,650 3,831,385 3,781,385 2,527,500 3,735,045 Motor Equipment Rep]acement 797,724 ],115,300 956,650 1,275,335 816,950 Computer Rep]acement 199,528 147,150 130,000 199,700 146,300 Totals ]8,019,382 14,804,734 15,150,842 5,322,294 9,163,388 -: DEBT SERVICE BUDGET Debt Service - Property Tax 2,026,559 2,019,966 2,0]9,966 1,979,111 1,450,361 Debt Service ~ Tax Increment 779,385 912,075 911,175 1,096,145 996,675 Debt Service - Home Rule Sales Tax 1 1,487,935 1,499,168 1,499,168 1,427,997 1,386,54 I Debt Service - Home Ru]e Sales Tax 2 1,496,188 1,496,000 1,496,000 Dcbt Service - Special Service Area 40,495 40,495 37,800 Totals 5,790,067 5,967,704 5,966,804 4,541,053 3,833,577 '.' PENSION SYSTEMS BUDGET ' Miscellaneous Pensions 52,859 53,7]4 53,714 54,630 55,548 Police Pensions 2,016,299 2,226,120 2, I 26,882 2,366,440 2,428,761 Fire Pensions 2,048,725 2,267,030 2,153,658 2,328,948 2,444,374 Totals 4,117,883 4,546,864 4,334,254 4,750,'018 . . 4;928,683 VILLAGE INTERNAL SERVICES BUDGET Vehicle Maintenance Services 1,123,483 1,277,582 1,262,389 ],274,181 1,339,712 Risk Management Casualty and Property Insurance 2,092,3 79 1,069,0]3 1,039,015 1,260,047 1,272,385 Medical Insurance 3,747,314 4,561,280 3,963,503 4,409,303 5,056,760 Capital Fixed Assets 36,635,492 Totals 43,598,668 6,907,875 6,264,907 6,943,531 7,668,857 MOUNT PROSPECT LIBR<\.RY BUDGET 14,151,688 23,641,875 23,641,875 8,536,993 (a) (a) (b) Figures not available as of December 21 , 2004. Does not include the Mount Prospect Library. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES BYFUND 2003 2004 2004 2005 2006 Actual Budget Estimate Budget Forecast GENERAL FUND 28,798,480 31,218,204 32,267,586 33,122,688 33,946,524 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Refuse Disposal Fund 3,200,760 3,317,523 3,306,890 3,341,773 3,371,153 Motor Fuel Tax Fund 1,691,647 1,662,015 1,657,865 1,669,600 1,686,045 Law Enforcement Block Grant 12,201 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Community Dev. Block Gmt 402,846 550,450 535,450 499,000 495,000 Asset Seizure Fund 672 7,700 400 500 500 DEA Shared Funds Fund 18,993 12,000 35,250 12,250 12,250 DUI Fine Fund 12,600 10,100 15,100 10,100 10,100 5,339,719 5,569,788 5,560,955 5,543,223 5,585,048 DEBT SERVICES FUNDS G.O. Bonds - Property Taxes 1,929,083 1,979,962 1,976,462 1,991,366 1,709,405 G.O. Bonds - Tax Increment 873,426 1,008,000 1,009,500 1,075,650 1,034,600 G.O. Bonds - Home Rule Sales Tax I 1,171,335 1,100,276 1,123,350 1,154,175 1,188,775 G.O. Bonds - Home Rule Sales Tax 2 1,173,556 1,097,926 1,124,250 335,000 Special Service An~a Bonds 30,988 35,956 24,217 5,147,400 5,217,152 5,269,518 4,580,408 3,932,780 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Capital Improvement Fund 409,059 452,551 419,951 40,000 85,000 Series 2001 Project Fund 19,924 Series 2003 Project Fund 12,338, I 03 40,000 15,374 Downtown Redevlpmnt Const 1,724,9'70 440,077 1,354,677 2,085,975 1,117,033 Street Improve Const Fund 1,761,861 1,500,165 1,443,971 1,365,165 1,747,600 Flood Control Const Fund 122,362 15,000 15,000 12,000 10,000 16,376,279 2,447,793 3,248,973 3,503,140 2,959,633 '.. ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water And Sewer Fund 7,968,998 8,246,940 8,229,740 8,493,217 8,764,112 Village Parking System Fund 135,650 82,440 116,236 116,452 Parking System Revenue Fund 187,564 241,655 203,955 107,370 107,500 8,156,562 8,624,245 8,516,135 8,716,823 8,988,064 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Vehicle Maintenance Fund ],146,584 1,228,529 1,228,529 1,309,945 1,370,233 Vehicle Replacement Fund 1,142,1]5 1,045,548 990,548 1,058,035 ] ,058,035 Computer Replacement Fund 230,560 227,906 227,906 161,201 169,287 Risk Management Fund 4,544,436 5,269,830 5,231,794 5,679,93 I 6,357,067 7,063,695 7,771,813 7,678,777 8,209,112 8,954,622 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES BY FUND 2003 ""'. 2004 '2004 :2005 Budget 2006 Actual Budget Estimate Forecast FIDUCIARY FUNDS Police Pension Fund Fire Pension Fund Benefit Trust #2 Fund 5,720,943 5,347,181 367 11,068,491 3,431,674 3,428,691 3,052,118 3,024,031 3,686,073 3,740,910 3,941,095 4,005,579 6,860,365 6,076,149 7,426,983 7,946,674 . " , , (a) (b) Figures not available as of Decemþer21, 2004. Does not include the Mount Prospect Library. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY EXPENDITURES BY FUND 2003 2004 2004 2005 2006 Actual Budget Estimate Budget Forecast GENERAL FUND 29,2] 5,233 3 1,645,480 3] ,725,070 33,927,4]5 35,363,]01 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Refuse Disposal Fund 3,142,526 3,533,222 3,533,196 3,634,727 3,770,384 Motor Fuel Tax Fund 2,063,164 2,461,793 2,461,793 1,871,750 1,812,360 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 12,20] 12.524 12,5]5 4,000 Community Development Block Grant 402,845 620,305 611,106 728,]23 511,445 Asset Seizure Fund 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 DEA Shared Funds Fund 11,360 4,700 18,000 1,000 1,000 DUI Fine Fund 13,393 3.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Totals 5,645,489 6,642,544 6,644,610 6,243,600 6,107,189 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS G.O. Bonds - Property Taxes 2,026,559 2,019,966 2,019,966 1,979,111 1,450,361 G.O. Bonds - Tax Increment 779,385 912,075 911,175 1,096,145 996,675 G.O. Bonds - Home Rule Sales Tax I 1,487,935 1,499,168 1,499,168 1,427,997 1,386,541 G.O. Bonds - Home Rule Sales Tax 2 1,496,188 1,496,000 1,496,000 Special Service Area Bonds 40,495 40,495 37,800 Totals 5,790,067 5,967,704 5,966,804 4,541,053 3,833,577 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Capital Improvement Fund 898.6] 3 9]2.111 825,374 575.000 3,964,020 Series 2001 Project Fund 4,262,648 100,000 Series 2003 Project Fund 6,655,015 5,786,400 6,400,435 Downtown Redevelop Const Fund 437,951 1,824,982 2,247,336 251,719 951,875 Street Improvement Const Fund 3,630,154 2,893,980 2,897,890 1,004,000 1,504,000 Flood Control Const Fund 409,278 686,744 355,000 547,538 382,713 Totals 16,293,659 12,204,217 12,726,035 2,378,257 6,802,608 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water and Sewer Fund 8,001,166 9,308,159 8,766,800 9,204,528 9,914,388 Village Parking System Revenue Fund 227,014 164,404 240,367 215,617 Parking System Revenue Fund 259,462 262,59] 297,993 136,6]4 ]30,828 Totals 8,260,628 9,797,764 9,229,197 9,581,509 10,260,833 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Vehicle Maintenance Fund I, ]23,483 1,277,582 ] ,262,389 ],274,18] 1,339,7]2 Vehicle Replacement Fund 797,724 1,115,300 956,650 ] ,275,33 5 8]6,950 Computer Replacement ] 99,528 ]47,150 ] 30,000 ]99,700 ] 46,300 Risk Management Fund 5,845,89] 5,640,293 5,012,518 5,679,650 6,339,745 Capital Fixed Assets 36,635,492 Totals 44,602,118 8,180,325 7,36] ,557 8,428,866 8,642,707 "..,. ., VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY EXPENDITURES BY FUND ,." ,-, """ 2003 2004 2004 2005 Actual Budget Estimate Budget ,,' .,' " "" .', " ,. ". .. 2,016,299 2,226,120 2,126,882 2,366,440 2,048,725 2,267,030 2,] 53,658 2,328,948 ]2,565 4,077,589 4,493,150 4,280,540 4,695,388 2006 Forecast FIDUCIARY FUNDS Police Pension Fund Fire Pension Fund Benetit Trust #2 Fund Totals 2,428,76] 2,444,374 4,873,135 MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY BUDGET ]4,151,688 23.64] ,875 23,641,875 8,536,993 (a) (a) Figures not available as of December 21,2004. (b) Does not include the Mount Prospect Library. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY AVAILABLE FUND BALANCES 12-31-2005 Estimated Balance 12-31-04 2005 Budget Revenues 2005 Budget Expenditures ~;~~~~ ~~£~~; GENERAL FUND 9,467,670 33,122,688 33,927,415 8,662,943 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Refuse Disposal Fund 1,858,595 3,341,773 3,634,727 ] ,565,641 Motor Fuel Tax Fund 815,712 1,669,600 1,871,750 613,562 Local Law Enf. Block Grant (75,493) 10,000 (65,493) Community Development Block Gmt (2,515) 499,000 728,123 (231,638) Asset Seizure Fund 42,400 500 7,000 35,900 DEA Shared Funds Fund 84,377 12,250 1,000 95,627 DUI Fine Fund 25,850 10,100 1,000 34,950 TOTAL 2,748,926 5,543,223 6,243,600 2,048,549 - ',. DEBT SERVICES FUNDS ".:t"'::h G.O, Bonds - Property Taxes 191,362 1,991,366 1,979,111 203,617 G,O. Bonds - Tax Increment 530,482 ] ,075,650 1.096.1 45 509,987 G,O. Bonds - Home Rule Sales Tax 1 (314,216) 1,154,175 1,427,997 (588,038) G-O. Bonds - Home Rule Sales Tax 2 (3] 0,309) 335,000 24,691 Special Service Area Bonds 13,958 24,217 37,800 375 TOTAL 111,277 4,580,408 4,541,053 150,632 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Capital Improvement Fund 1,535,067 40,000 575,000 (,000,067 Series 2001 Project Fund Series 2003 Project Fund (701,973) (70 I ,973) Downtown Redevelop Const Fund (395,010) 2,085,975 251,719 ] ,439,246 Street Improvement Const Fund 17,677 1,365,165 1,004,000 378,842 Flood Control Const Fund 998,734 12,000 547,538 463,196 TOTAL 1,454,495 3,503,140 2,378,257 2,579,378 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water and Sewer Fund (a) 3,822,352 8,493,217 9,204,528 3,111,04] Village Parking System Fund (a) 163,666 116,236 240,367 39,535 Parking System Revenue Fund (a) 69,715 107,370 136,614 40,471 TOTAL 4,055,733 8,7]6,823 9,581,509 3.19],047 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2005 BUDGET SUMMARY AVAILABLE FUND BALANCES 12-31-2005 .. .. . Estimated 2005 2005 Estimated ..' Balance Budget Budget Balance ,y. 12-31-04 Revenues Expenditures 12-31-05 ,.iii". iG INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS (b) Vehicle Maintenance Fund 528,600 1,309,945 1,274,181 564,364 Vehicle Replacement Fund 5,197,650 1,058,035 1,275,335 4,980,350 Computer Replacement Fund 671,782 161,201 199,700 633,283 Risk Management Fund 499,907 5,679,931 5,679,650 500,188 TOTAL 6,897,939 8,209,112 8,428,866 6,678;185 PENSION FUNDS (a) Police Pension Fund 34,445,771 3,686,073 2,366,440 35,765,404 Fire Pension Fund 35,982,240 3,740,910 2,328,948 37,394,202 TOTAL 70,428,011 7,426,983 4,695,3gg 73,159,606 Totals - Village Funds 95,164,051 71,102,377 69,796,088 96,470,340 ii, 1 Less: Pension Funds (c) (70,428,0 11) (7,426,983) (4,695,388) (73,159,606) ,..' MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND 15,402,172 8,536,993 8,536,993 (a) (b) (c) (d) Estimated balances reflect cash and investment balance, not fund equity. Estimated balances for Internal Service Funds ref1ect unrestricted net assets only. Pension Funds are restricted for future pension benefits and do not constitute" Available Fund Balances." Not available as of December 21, 2004.