HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 08/13/2002COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location:
Mt. Prospect Park District CommunityCenter
1000 West Central Road
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran
Trustee Paul Hoefert
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer
Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Irvana Wilks
Trustee Michael Zadel
II.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF
JULY 9, 2002
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV. CONSIDER BAN ON MOTOR-DRIVEN SCOOTERS
During the past several years, the popularity of motor-driven scooters (a.k.a. go-peds or
motorized skate boards) has skyrocketed. Along with the proliferation of these (vehicles), has
come complaints from all parts of the community regarding the inherent danger in these
vehicles and the sometimes-reckless manner in which they are operated. The Village had, in
the past, received a small number of requests seeking the strict regulation or outright ban of
these vehicles in the Village. Other neighboring communities such as Des Plaines and
Hoffman Estates, have taken an aggressive stance in banning the use of these vehicles on
public property and have begun aggressive enforcement. With the tragic death this past July
of a Des Plaines youth who was struck by an automobile while on such a motorized scooter the
need to consider the strict regulation or outright banning of same has arisen anew. Given the
most prevalent users of these devices are pre-teen/young teenagers (pre-driver's license),
there is a wide spectrum of driving skills at play and no formal/uniform mechanism for training
said users. The Police Chief has recommended an outright ban ofthese devices.
Village Attorney Everette Hill, in consultation with Chief Eddington, has drafted an Ordinance
banning the use of these devices, which is modeled after the Hoffman Estates prohibition.
Besides banning the use of these devices on public ways, the Ordinance also provides for fines
and the ability of the Police to impound said vehicles under certain circumstances.
NOTE:
ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,
847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD ~47/392-6064.
VI.
A staff report and draft Ordinance are provided for your review. Appropriate staff will be on
In attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS
This topic has been previously discussed at the April 9 and May 14, 2002 Committee of the
Whole meetings.
Earlier this year, two Variation requests for the size and placement of sheds came to the
Viilage Board for consideration. In each case, the sheds' respective sizes greafiy exceeded
the current 120 square feet maximum allowed by the Code. Both cases also requested
Variations to allow placement of the sheds in existing utility easements or setback areas.
These cases and the issues they raised prompted considerable discussion among Village
Board members. As a resultof that discussion, the two shed variation cases were tabled,
and staff was directed to research whether the current shed regulations were outdated as to
both allowable maximum size of a shed and its placement on one's property.
As a result, staff surveyed surrounding communities regarding their regulatory schemes and
found that two methods of regulation prevailed. Some communities simply state the
maximum allowable size of a shed, regardless of lot size, with the only other limiting factor
being overall lot coverage. Other communities followed a formula wherein the maximum
size of a shed was determined by multiplying lot size by some factor to determine maximum
shed size, again with overall lot coverage being a limiting factor. Staff indicated it could be
comfortable ad ministering either type of regulatory scheme. The May 14 discussion resulted
in direction to staff to develop regulations within a "formula"framework plus an overall "not-
to-exceed" maximum shed size.
Staff went back and reworked all previously discussed options and tested same against ten
randomly selected lots throughout the Village. The attached staff report reviews each of
those options and their impact on these sample lots. Staff's recommendation calls for shed
size not to exceed 2% of the lot area along with not-to-exceed maximums. An additional
limiting factor would be current lot coverage limitations. Additionally, staff is recommending
new definitions, which clarify and distinguish sheds from other accessory structures.
Appropriate staff will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
2002 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW/2003 PRE-BUDGET WORKSHOP
For the past several years, the Village Board has engaged in a mid-year review of the
current year Budget as a means of monitoring the revenue expenditure levels contained
therein. Concomitantly, the Village Board also engages in a Pre-Budget Workshop,
specifically designed to look forward toward the upcoming Budget year with the idea of
setting fiscal parameters and giving staff direction for preparation of next year's Budget.
With the close of June financial activity, staff is in the position to present mid-year financial
data as well as review the 2003 Forecast Budget. Not surprisingly, this past year's
economic downturn has had adverse impacts on Village revenue streams. Unless the
economic climate changes dramatically in the last half of 2002, we can expect to end the
year with a draw down in General Fund fund balance of some $714,000. Given current
revenue trends, the 2003 Forecast Budget as it now stands, shows a General Fund deficit of
approximately $1.2 million. For both 2002 and forecast 2003, the growth in the projected
deficits is a direct result of declining revenues.
For both 2002 and forecast 2003, the deficits will need to be addressed by substantial
expenditure reductions, the draw down of fund balance or the identification of new or
additional revenue sources. Preparation of the 2003 Budget will be especially difficult in the
coming months. Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth has provided a comprehensive
memorandum detailing the Village's financial condition for both the balance of 2002 and
forecast 2003.
Staff will share its current Budget preparation strategy and look to the Village Board for
direction regarding expenditure reductions and/or revenue additions. Appropriate staff will
be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
CLOSED SESSION
LAND ACQUISITION
5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "'l~e purchase or lease of real propertyfor the use of the public
body."
II.
III.
IV,
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JULY 9, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to Order at 7:10 p.m. by Village Manager Michael
Janonis. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoren, Michaele
Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Absent'from the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald Fadey, Trustees Paul Hoefert and Richard Lohrstorfer. Staff
members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village
Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth, Fire Chief Michael
Figolah, Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm, Police Chief Richard Eddington, Public
Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey and
Community Development Director William Cooney,
Motion made by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to appoint
Trustee Comoran as Mayor Pro Tern for the meeting. Appointment was
approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes from June 11, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and
seconded by Trustee Wilks. Minutes were approved.
CI,T,I.ZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN REVIEW
Village Manager Michael Janonis provided a summary of the purpose of the
ClP process and stated this is the first step in the annual Budget process. He
also stated that the approval of any CIP item does not guarantee funding in the
next fiscal year or any fiscal year. He stated the document is primarily used for
illustrating what is on the horizon in terms of large projects. He stated that staff
has deferred several projects due to weak economic conditions and the fact that
the Budget does not currently include a transfer of funds to the Capital Fund from
the General Fund as has been done in the past.
Finance Director Doug EIIsworth provided a summary of the document
components with the various schedules and summary pages including projected
funds to be tapped [f such a project were to go forward as depicted in the
document. He also highlighted the fact that there is a need for a steady source
of revenue for future projects. He also highlighted the fact that the TIF Fund has
recently received an advance from the General Fund to cover the cost of several
development projects and the General Fund will need to be repaid from TIF
investment increment by the end of the TIF period. He also stated that there are
significant sewer projects on the horizon, which will need to be addressed at a
date in the future.
Assistant Village Manager David Strahl provided a general overview of the
CIP items requested by Administration. Among the items under consideration
are two projects relating to TV upgrades and wiring connections for the Village
Board Room in the new Village Hall.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a recommendation that the staff: incorporate as much future
technology opportunities in the new building as these systems come on line in
the future.
Community Development Director William Cooney provided a summary of
the Community Development projects in the ClP. He highlighted the Streetscape
timing program and the Village Hall corridor and improvement schedules based
on downtown construction projects.
Fire Chief Michael Figolah provided a summary of the Fire Department's ClP
items. He provided details of the Station 12 improvements and the fact that
several Grants are assisting in the project. He also stated that the expansion of
the Public Works facility is related to the replacement of Station 14 in the future,
thereby, the shift of vehicle maintenance personnel from Fire that manage the
f~re apparatus to Public Works would be complete.
Police Chief Richard Eddlngton provided a summary of the Police Department
projects. He stated the additional squads that are requested are dependent on
the traffic unit approval. However, he would request additional consideration to
separate out the pumhase from the establishment of the traffic unit so the
additional squads could be available for Police personnel related to traffic
enforcement activities. He also highlighted the need for the pistol range
improvements and their radio upgrade to allow for below grade radio reception.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a comment made regarding the amount of equipment that is in a
squad car and the operating conditions for the Officers in the vehicles.
2
Public Works Director Glen Andler provided an overview of the projects
related to Public Works. He mentioned the fact that 2007 is the start of the Street
Maintenance Program, which is at the conclusion of the accelerated Street
Replacement and Resurfacing Project, He also highlighted the fact that there is
a new Flood Control Project that has been added for 2004/2005 in the Prospect
Meadows area. He said there is a water main relocation for the streets in the
Prospect Meadows area from the rear yards in conjunction with the project. He
stated that the water system in the area was a pdvate water system, which was
taken over by the Village when the area was annexed.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a question highlighting the Busse Road improvement options targeted
for 2004 and the likely location for sidewalk installation with any improvements
that may be considered.
Village Manager Janonis stated that several funds were. anticipated to be
discussed fully due to the projected General Fund deficit.
John Korn, Chairman of the Finance Commission, spoke. He highlighted the
fact that the staff has already deferred numerous projects due to budgetary
constraints and they are supportive of the changes recommended by !he
Administration. He also stated that the focus of the Village Hall construction
should be on the Administration initially and not on special meeting needs or
group needs. He did confirm that there does appear to be a difficult 2003 Budget
season ahead and is looking forward to working with the Administration and the
Village Board for possible solutions.
VilXage Manager Janonis stated that he will be bringing the CIP to the next
Village Board meeting for approval and reminded everyone that the ClP approval
does not guarantee funding in any Budget year.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S' REPORT
Village Manager Janonis stated 'that Coffee with Council is scheduled for
July 13 from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. in the Village Hall.
VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Trustee IA/ilks wanted to thank everyone for their participation for the 4~ of July
events.
Village Manager Janonis also wanted to highlight the efforts of Jill Friedrichs for
th
her coordination of the 4 of July Parade.
3
II. ADJOURNMENT
There was no further business and the Committee Of the Whole meeting
immediately adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
DS/rcc
4
CHF 02-317
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
RICHARD EDDINGTON, CHIEF OF POLICE
JULY 31,2002
MOTORIZED SCOOTERS
Please find attached two local ordinances that prohibit the use of motor driven cycles or
personal use vehicles. Hoffman Estates and Roselle have passed these ordinances.
I would recommend the Hoffman Estates version in that it allows for the impounding of
the motorized scooter for a 24-hour period. There is an impounding charge of $100 with
a reimbursement option if the party is found not guilty. This is a significant deterrent.
As a matter of policy, we can reserve enforcement under the Illinois vehicle code for
chronic or repeat offenders. This will have an impact on the offending driver when he or
she applies for a driver's license. This comment is based on the assumption that most
of the users of these motorized scooters are below the age of sixteen and do not
currently have a valid Illinois drivers license.
In conclusion, I believe a modified version of the Hoffman Estates ordinance would be
our most prudent course of action. It allows for maximum discretion on the part of the
officer.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
RE:dr
,~,ttachments
C:
Deputy Chief Ron Richardson
Deputy Chief Kevin Condon
Commander John Dahlberg
Buzz Hill, Village Attorney
Motorized Scooters CHF 02-317
HOFFMAN ESTATES PD
~UL.*~9, 200~ 12:57PM:
ORDINANCE NO, 3,~ - 2002
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 6-2-1-HE-11-1314 OF THE
J-IOFFMAN.ESTATES MUNICIPAL CODE
NOW, THEREFOKE~ BE IT OKDAINED by thz President and Board of Trustees
of the Village of Hoffman Estates, Cook and Kane Counties, ll[~nois, as follows:
$pction I: That S~ction 6-2-1-HE-I 1-1314, ~MOTO~R DRIVEN CYCLES_, of the
Hoffman Estates Municipal Code be amended to read as follows:
HE-11-1314. MOTO~ DP-WEN ~¥CLES
A. }:or the purpose of this Section, Motor Driven or Elec~c Cycles are
defined as any mbtorcycle, motor scooter, motorized pedal cycle, motor driven
skateboard with leas than 150 cubic centimeter displacement, or elec~¢ scooter,
electric pedal driven cycle or electrie skateboard.
B. No person ~hall opiate Motor Driven or Electric Cyales upon any public or
private street, public sidewalk, pa~rking Jot, hike path or public park.
C. A peace officer who cites a person for a violation of this Section may
. impound any Motor Drivcn or Electric Cycle used /ay the persor~ in the
commission of th~: offense. The persna ~[ owner may recover the Motor Driven or
Electric Cycle fr6m the impound after a minimum of 24 hom~ at%er cihation upon
payment cfa fee.of $100. This SlO0 fee includes the costs incurred by the Village
to remove the Motor Driven or Electric Cycle to the impound. Upon the
presentation of a:signed cour~ order by the person whose Motor Driven or Elec~c
Cycle was impounded showing that the person has been acquitted of the offense or
that the charges have been dismissed against the p~son for that offense, the
Village shall refund the $100 fcc to the person or owner who paid such fee.
D. E×emptio~s -
1. Any police vehicle, fire vehicle, Village vehicle or Park Disffict
vehicle driven by an employee in the course of his/her duties shall be
permittedl to use any public or private street, parking lot, sidewalk, hike
path or public park when it is necessary in the performance of his/her
duties.
2. Motorized wheelchairs and hny other Motor Driven or Elec~/c Cycle
that is specifically subject to Article 11 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. I
S_ecti.pn 2: That any person, firm or corporation g'ailty of violating any of the
previa{ohs of this Ordinance shall be fined not less than Ten Dollar~ (5;1000) nm more:
than Five Hun&ed Dollars ($500.00) for each offense.
u,~,-29. 200}-12:57PM ?OFFMAN ESTATES PD NO. 1691 p. ]
-2-
Lcotign 3,: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized to publish this ordi~nae in
p~mphle~ fo~.
~c~tion 4: That this ordinance shall be in ~11 force ~d effect immediately ~om
and after its passage ~d approval,
PASSED THIS l~ day of.av~Y
APPROVED THIS ._~t day of
VOTE
Trustee Kenlcy-Rupnow
Trustee Frank
Trustee Mills
Trostee Boester
Trustee Brigano
Trustee Rusakle~icz
_, 2002
au~'t ,2002
AYE NAY
_.Z..x
APPROVED:
V llage President
ATTEST:
Published in pamphlet fo~m this ',srh flay of
__,2002
07/a~/2~02 i5:27 1530~J809787 RDSELLE POLIC~ I~¢,GE 03
· ORD]NANCE NO. 2002-2912
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10,
"ROSELLE COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC CODE", ·
... . "¢)_F THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Presiden{ and Boaod of Trustees of the Village of
RoSalie, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, that Chapter 10, "Rosalie
COmprehensive Traffic Code' as amended, of the Code of Ordinances is hereby
further amended as follows:
: -SECTLL~N 1: 'I[HAT the Section 16 retated to the Operation, Use and
COntrol of Personal Use Vehicles, as defined in Chapter 10, Section 1-217.1, is
heieby added to Chapter 10 of the ~Rosetle Comprehensive Traffic Code" and
sh~l~ read as follows:
Chapter 10, Section 16-101 - Operation of Personal Use Vehicle~: All
peisons operating or in control of a Personal Use Vehicle shall comply with
pr~4sions of this Code.
Chapter 10, Section 16-101a ~ No person shall use, operate, ride or
cohtrol any Motorized Skateboard or Motorized Scooter on a public strew,
pa!king lot, sidewalk, bike path, pedestrian walkway or pedestrian overpass. The
· use, operation or riding of a Motorized Skateboard or Motorized Scooter may be
p~m tted on private property with the permission of the property owner, or on
public streets while participating in a parade authorized by the Corporate
AChorities of the Village.
Chapter i0, Section 16-101b - No person shall use, operate, ride or
cohtrol any Personal USe Vehicle on private property without the property
owner's consent or at any location prohibited by signs restricting such use.
Chapter 10, Section 16-101c- No person shall operate, ride or control
a,ny Personal Use Vehicle recklessly. For purposes of this section the term
reckless y is defined as riding in the path of other motor vehicles, pedestrians,
bloyclist, or while clinging to vehicles, or in such a manner as to interfere with
m~tor vehicle traffic, or any other act which would be reckless under the Illinois
M~tor Vehicle Code.
..~F~CTION ;2; THAT If any part, portion or section of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of any portion
oOthe 'Code of Ordinances of the Village of Rosalie".
SECTION :}; THAT all parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
r~ ~eal~l to the extent of such conflict.
7/03/2002 15:~7 .163~gBOSTS7 ROSELLE POLICE PAGE
~CTION 4: THaT this amending ordinance shall be In full force and
effe~, from and after its passage, approval and publi~;ation in pamphlet form as is
hereby authorized to be done by the President and Board of Trustees,
AYES: ' ' Rhode, Eckert; Plasschaer~, Stephens, Sass, Devin
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
PASSED and APPROVED this 25th day of March, 2002
PUBLISHED in pamphlet form this 26th day of March, 2002
AT~'EST:
President, Vi'l]age of Roselle
Si ,.dr~inance~'personal use vehicles
Pahqck A. Lucamky
E. Kenneth Frlker
Gerard E. Den~sey
Terrence M, Bamicle
Brace A. Zolna
James P. Bartley
Michael J. Duggan
Thomas P. Bayer
Dennis G. Walsh
Scott F. Ulfler
Everett¢ M. Hill, Jn
Janet N. Petseha
James V. Ferolo
Michael T, Jumsik
Thomas M. MelOdy
LAW OFFICES
KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD.
Suite 1660
20 North Wacker Drive
Chlca~, Illinois 60606-2903
Telephone (312) 9844400
Facsimile (312) 984~5444
(312) 606-7077
Orland Park Office
15010 S. Ravthia Avenue, Suite 17
Orland Park, IL 60462-3162
Telephone (708) 349-3888
Facsimile (708) 349-1506
Wfiter=s Direct Dial (312) 984-6420
Wfiter=s E-Mail ~[nhill@knlinet.com
Rinda y. AIY~5on
Lance C. Malina
Kathleen T. Hera~
John R. Wiktor
George A. Wagner
James G. Wargo
Suzanne M. Pitch
Michael A. Marts
Shawn P. Lee
Of Counsel
Richard T. Whnmer
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Mr. Michael E. Janonis
Village of Mount Prospect
Everette M. Hill, Jr.
August 8, 2002
Motor Driven Scooters
As we have discussed in recent weeks, it is my opinion that the Illinois Vehicle Code
currently prohibits the use of "gopeds" or "motor driven scooters" from public sidewalks and
streets. However, in order to discern such a prohibition one must link at least six disparate
sections of the Vehicle Code. This attenuated linkage is a probable recipe for disaster in
Court should we attempt to write a ticket for the prohibited usage.
In view of this problem, you had asked that I draft an ordinance that would clearly set
forth the prohibition and assure appropriate enforcement.
Please find attached an ordinance that defines "motor driven scooters" and bars them
from our streets and sidewalks. It does not ban them from private property. The Ordinance
provides that such illegally used scooters will be subject to 24 hour impoundment by the
police department. The minimum fine for illegal usage is set at $200.00.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 18 OF
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION 1: Article Xl, Motorcycles, of Chapter 18, Traffic, of the Mount Prospect
Village Code, shall be amended by adding a new Section 18.1103 which shall be and read
as follows:
Sec. 18.1103. Motor Driven Scooters.
A. For the purpose of this Section a motor driven scooter is
defined as any electric or gas ddven wheeled scooter, cycle or other vehicle
that does not provide a permanent seat installed by the manufacturer for the
operator of the vehicle.
B. No person shall operate a motor driven scooter upon any public
or private street, public Sidewalk, parking lot, bike path, public park or on any
other public property.
C. No person shall operate any motorized vehicle of any kind or
nature upon any sidewalk within the Vitlage except for the purpose of
crossing a sidewalk for ingress or egress to a lawful driveway.
D. A peace officer who cites a person for a violation of this Section
may impound any motor driven scooter used by the pei'son in the
commission of the offense. The person or owner may recover the motor
driven scooter from the impou nd 24 hours after the citation was written upon
payment of a fee as set forth in Appendix A, Division II. In the case where
the operator was a person under 18 years of age, the scooter may only be
returned to a parent or legal guardian. The fee shall include the costs
incurred by the Village to remove the motor driven scooter to the impound.
Upon the presentation of a signed court order by the person whose motor
driven scooter was impounded showing that the person has been found not
guilty of the offense, the Village shall refund the impoundment fee to the
person or owner who paid such fee,
DRAFT
E. Exemptions.
1. Any police vehicle, fire vehicle, Village vehicle or
Park Distdct vehicle ddven by an employee in the course of his
or her duties.
2. Motorized wheelchairs as defined in Article II of
the Illinois Vehicle Code.
F. Any person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this
Section shall be fined as set forth in Appendix A, Division III.
SECTION 2: Section 3, AppendixA, Division II of the Mount Prospect Village Code
shall be amended by adding the following:
Sec. 18.1103 Motor Driven Scooters.
D. Impoundment fee - $100.00
SECTION 3: Section 4, Appendix A, Division III of the Mount Prospect Village
Code shall be amended by adding the following:
Sec. 18.1103 Motor Driven Scooters.
F. Fine - Not less than $200.00 nor more than $1,000.00.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full rome 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 ., 2002.
ATTEST:
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk DRAFT
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
staff has further reviev~d
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JULY 10, 2002
SUBJECT:
SHED REGULATIONS
In light of the recent discussions by the Village Board on the topic of storage shed sizes,
possible regulations that would provide greater flexibility to our residents while maintaining the integrity of our
zoning regulations. The information provided below and in the attached documents is intended to provide the
Village Board with sufficient information to make a final determination on this matter.
Staff has reviewed four options that could be utilized by the Village to regulate shed sizes. These options include
1) adopting a maximum size that would apply to all lots (current regulation), 2) setting a lot size threshold (10,000
square feet) and allow one size shed for smaller lots and a larger size shed for larger lots, 3) utilizing a formula
method to calculate the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures ("Arlington formula") and 4)
basing the maximum size of sheds upon a percentage of the lot size. Each of these options has its' own unique
benefits and drawbacks which are outlined below.
Staff also chose 10 varying sized lots throughout the Village and applied the four options listed above to determine
what size structures could be built under each scenario. The actual plats of survey for each lot are attached to this
memorandum to provide a visual aid to the Village Board.
Options
One size shed for all properties - The Village currently regulates sheds by setting a maximum size (120 square
feet) for all properties and through various bulk regulations (lot coverage, setbacks, etc.). This maximum size
applies to all properties throughout the Village regardless of their respective sizes. The Village could maintain the
status quo and keep the maximum size of the permitted storage sheds at 120 square feet or it could increase the
maximum size to a larger number if so desired by the Village Board. Listed below is a chart that illustrates the lot
coverage ratio of various size sheds in relation to the siz~ of the ten lots that have been chosen for review:
Lot # Lot Size 120 Sq. Ft 150 Sq. Ft. 200 Sq. Ft. 250 Sq. Ft.
1 7,205 1.67% 2.08% 2.78% 3.47%
2 7,426 1.62% 2.02% 2~69% 3.37%
3 8,400 1.43% 1.79% 2.38% 2.98%
4 8,664 1.39% 1.73% 2.31% 2.89%
5 11,280 1.06% 1.33% 1.77% 2.22%
6 11,325 1.06% 1.32% 1.77% 2.21%
7 15,260 0.79% 0.98% 1.31% 1.64%
8 20,000 0.60% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25%
9 20,130 0.60% 0.75% 0.99% 1.24%
10 30,500 0.39% 0.49% 0.66% 0.82%
Benefits - This system is very easy to understand and regulate since it does not require the homeowner or Village
staffto calculate the size of the shed based upon the lot size or any other structures on the property. So long as the
property doesn't exceed allowable lot coverage ratios, the owner can construct the maximum size shed.
Drawbacks - This system does not take into account the various size lots that exist throughout town and therefore
"penalizes" larger properties by restricting the maximum size of the shed to what would be allowed on the smallest
of lots in town. The Village has recently received complaints that the current 120 square foot maximum is not large
enough for today's needs.
Set maximum size for smalFlarge lots - One option the Village could consider is to permit larger sheds on larger
lots. The Village could establish a lot size threshold, say 10,000 square feet, and permit one size shed (150 square
feet) on lots smaller than that and a larger size shed (200 square feet) on lots greater in total area.
Benefits - This system would enable homeowners on larger lots to construct larger sheds that would house yard
equipment that is necessary to maintain those lots.
Drawbacks - This system would penalize properties that are just under the threshold size (in this case lots that are
9,900 square feet) and would appear to be more arbitrary than the other options. In addition, owners of smaller
properties that have one car garages often complain that they have the greatest need for the larger sheds since they
do not have enough space to store their belongings.
"Arlington" formula - Several surrounding communities utilize a formula to determine the maximum allowable
shed size. These formulas typically multiply the lot width by the required rear yard setback by a locally determined
ratio that generates the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures (lot width x rear yard setback x
ratio = maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures). Other accessory structures include detached
garages, driveways, patios, pools, etc. The following chart demonstrates the square footage that would be possible
on the sample ten lots with a 40% and 30% ratio applied.
Lot # Lot Size Rearlotwidth Rear Setback .4 ratio .3 ratio
1 7,205 55 25 550 413
2 7,426 62 25 620 465
3 8,664 57 25 570 428
4 10,275 75 25 750 563
5 11,280 80 25 800 600
6 11,325 75 25 750 563
7 15,260 70 25 700 525
8 20,000 100 30 1,200 900
9 20,130 122 30 1,464 1,098
10 30,500 I00 30 1,200 900
Benefits - This system takes into account the size of the property and typically enables owners of larger lots to
construct larger sheds. It also looks at the amannt of other structures that are located in the rear yard and
specifically limits the amount of lot coverage in that portion of the property. This system also provides
homeowners greater flexibility in choosing what types of accessory stmctores they desire to construct on their
property.
Drawbacks - The greatest drawback to this system is that it penalizes owners that have detached garages that are
located in the rear yard while allowing very large sheds on those properties that have been developed with attached
garages. In the above chart, lots #3 (with both ratios) and #7 (with the 30% ratio) would not be allowed to
construct a shed because they have detached garages that use up the allowable square footage for accessory
structures. If the Village Board wishes to pursue this system, I would recommend that we adopt a maximum size
shed on any lot (250 square feet) so that we don't have situations where a property owner could construct very large
structures. I would also note that this system would be more difficult for homeowners to understand since they
wottld have to calculate how large their garage could be based upon a variety of factors.
Utilize a percentage of the lot size - A resident at one of the recent Committee of the Whole meetings raised this
proposal. The resident proposed that we allow sheds to be constructed no greater in size than 2% of the total lot
area. Therefore an owner could construct a 200 square foot shed on a 10,000 square foot lot. Listed below is a
chart that demonstrates the maximum size shed that would be permitted on our 10 sample lots.
Lot # Lot Size 2%
1 7,205 144
2 7,426 149
3 8,664 173
4 10,275 206
5 11,280 226
6 tl,325 227
7 15,260 305
8 20,000 400
9 20,130 403
10 30,500 610
Benefits - This system would be relatively easy to regulate and understand from a staff and resident standpoint. It
would also allow for larger sheds on larger lots. If the Village adopted this system with a maximum allowable shed
size for any lot (250 square feet) then this system could be very effective.
Drawbacks - If the Village did not apply a maximum size limit with this system, owners of large lots could build
very large sheds. There are a few lots in town that are close to an acre is size which would be allowed sheds
exceeding 800 square feet under this system.
Definitions
Several Trustees raised concerns that if we increase the size of storage sheds that these larger structures could be
utilized to store vehicles and/or to create office space or workshops. In order to address this concern, the Village
could adopt definitions for garages and sheds that would restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in these
structures. The Village Code currently defines accessory structures as "a subordinate structure detached from but
located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal
structure".
The Village could modify the accessory structure definition by adding text defining the permitted uses of garages
and sheds. The following text provides one possible solution to this matter:
Accessory Structure - A subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure,
the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, bUt are
not limited to the following:
Garages - A structure designed to house motor vehicles and to store household items and
equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is
located upon.
Sheds - A structure that is designed to store household items and equipment necessary to maintain
and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upon. The sheds shall not be
utilized to store automobiles or to locate office, work or living space.
ecommendation
Staff recommends that the Village Board modify our codes to allow sheds to be constructed no greater in size than
2% of the total lot area or 250 square feet, whichever is less. This system provides for varying size sheds and
would be easily understood by our residents. In addition, staff recommends that the Village modify the accessory
structure definition to further define garages and sheds as listed above. Please forward this memorandum and
attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at a future Committee of the Whole meeting.
J. Coone~y'Jr.
H:'~DM N~BILL'WIEMO S~sheds-O62602.do~
4
Lot #1
/9 EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC
~ GARAGE
, ~:..:;;~.....:~;-....;::.:::i 20
:.'..~:'..'...:!:?:~.:.¢;ifO;~'.'~l~n~:~:.':.: ..... ......
· /,:LI~;S..S.'.*,':':;'F,*.::I.¥'~.::?F~*;'~',':::'I,~4 ~-.'~.4~' .
· :..:.,.**:::~///?~//~/~?.~'/
...,~_,,,,,~.,..I
· ' :***~C? *
'~'*' 0 ':,"*!
:.'*'*:.*'**, ~
Lot #2
~,Ot'O~
I
~ ,Ot'g£--'l
Lot #3
;o
34,3V
4' Concrete
~7' Bituminous Road
Lot #4
Lot #5
00'0~
X
Lot #6
Lot #7
Lot #8
00'00 I,
Lot #9
Lot #10
II.
III.
IV.
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
APRIL 9, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at
the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowren
and Irvana Wi!ks. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer
and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael
Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development
Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Mike Blue,
Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels, Building Division Inspector Nick
Licari, Fire Marshal Paul Valentine, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village
Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from March 26, 2002. Trustee Hoefert requested several
revisions regarding the Minutes and the desCriPtion of the Village Hall project and
asked that the approval of the Minutes be deferred until the revision is provided.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS
Community Development Director Bill Cooney summarized the staff research
that he has obtained from other communities. This information was requested
based on the frequency of requests for Variations that have come before the
Village Board recently. He highlighted the fact that several towns approach shed
regulations similar to Mount Prospect where the maximum square footage is
used as the determining factor for administrative regulation. He also highlighted
that several communities utilize a formula for maximum shed size computed on
the property size and other accessory structures On the Site. He also stated that
a review of the market place has shown that there are sheds available within the
parameters that Mount Prospect utilizes for shed regulations. He stated the
formula for computing maximum size iS m0~'e complex and would require
additional staff explanation and generate larger sheds depending on the property
size. He also suggested that if the formula were to be used, then there could be
the opportunity to create a band of various property sizes (based on square
footage) unique to various shed sizes,
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
There was support expressed for considering an increase in the overall shed size
compared to what is currently regulated. There was also discussion regarding
the need to make the regulation easy to administer and maintain the required
setback for larger sheds. There was a concern that with the larger shed sizes,
there could be additional requests before the Board for Variations to allow such
larger sheds on limited property that would necessitate encroachment in the
setbacks. There were comments made regarding the need to keep the size of
the shed below a typical garage size.
Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an increase in the size but
· gather input from the Planning and Zoning Commission with guidance from
the Village Board considering the larger sizes based on property square
footage and maintenance of the setbacks.
Walter Feder, 808 Lancaster, spoke. He would suggest the Board consider
reducing the setback based on the size of the shed.
Doug Doughty, '1431 Blackhawk, spoke. He stated that he has a larger shed
and would not want to take stock what was available in the market place as a
basis for determination of what size is appropriate. He also wanted to point out
that usage of sheds does change over time and the Village would not eliminate
all Variation requests with a proposed change.
V. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS
Village Manager Janonis introduced the topic by stating this has been a three-
year process and the goal was to make the Code much more understandable
and user-friendly. He also hoped that the revisions would make the Code more
equitable for application since the Code does touch on several Departments at all
times.
Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof provided a general overview to the Village
Board regarding the revision process and what changes were made. He said
many of the changes were necessitated through staff review of the process and
some changes were made through additional staff. He stated one of the main
goals for changes for the Code over time was to reduce the turn-around time and
confusion by users of the Code. He stated that 90% of the changes could be
categorized as organizational in nature and the Code has been separated into
two sections; one for site improvements and the other for site construction
standards for better application. He also stated that much of the content
changes are reflective of new materials and standard practices and would like to
complete the process prior to the construction season for this year.
2
VI.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
There was general support for the proposed changes, however, there were some
concerns raised regarding the Permit process turn-around time. There was also
a question regarding the lawn sprinkler regulations. Several Board members
also asked what the process has been for these changes; whether input has
been obtained from the developers into the Code changes.
Chuck Lindelof stated that there were comments that were included from
various developers.
.REVISIT SIDEWALK INSPECTOR PROGRAM
Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the options for the
Sidewalk Inspector were originally intended as a proactive process to
supplement the self-initiated inspections currently undertaken by Inspectors
along with the complaint investigation process. He stated that such a program
would require additional staff and he felt that the program could be undertaken
with less than a full-time staff person. He stated that the program would be used
as an early warning inspection before larger problems are noticed.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
An issue was raised regarding the need to be proactive in inspections to protect
the property value and neighborhood value. There was some concern regarding
excessive governmental intervention in such a program. There were also
concerns raised about what standards would be utilized and how such standards
would be defined for application in the insPeCti°n process itself. There was a
concern raised about this project reappearing after a previous discussion by the
Village Board. It was noted that the housing stock is getting older and there
could be some opportunity for addressing issues before they become much
larger to resolve.
Walter Feder, 808 Lancaster, spoke. He was concerned about postal delivery
people cutting across yards and killing the grass instead of using the sidewalk.
Dale Barbara Draznin, 220 South Hatlen, spoke. She stated that the Board
should consider the necessary standards to be considered with the help and
safety as the primary concern for the residents.
Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to continue to develop
this concept and return to the Village Board with cost and development of
inspection standards for review as part of the Mid-Year Budget discussion.
VII. USE OF DRIVIT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IN MOUNT PROSPECT
Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the use of this
material has been problematic in some areas of the country due to water damage
and durability. He stated the installation of the material has been determined as
the root cause for the water infiltration. Improper installation causes the water to
be trapped behind the material as the water eats away at the structural material
of a building. He stated that there have been some improvements to the material
where a drainage system has been developed to allow the water to filter out from
underneath the material if it does penetrate the exterior. He stated the Village
currently has no regulations on the application of the material.
Building Division Inspector Nick Licari spoke. He stated there are two
different types of systems currently available, which have been developed due to
the litigation that has taken place due to the damage from water infiltration
behind the material. He stated one opportunity that could be considered is a
third party inspection to ensure the installation is properly done and paid for by
the developer and the material would have to be applied in such a way for the
water to get out if it, in fact, did get behind the material.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
Several members stated they do not have confidence in the product and fett it
should be banned as a material for use in the Village. There was also concern
raised that an Inspector would have to be on site the entire time of installation to
ensure proper installation.
Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to consider possible
liability exposure by the Village if banned as a building material based on
research that would be undertaken by the Village Attorney.
VIII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Janonis reminded the Village Board of the upcoming Coffee
with Council on April 13 and this meeting would be the last Floating Coffee with
Council and would take place at Fire Station 12 from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 noon,
once the initial meeting was completed at the Village Hall from 9:00 a.m. until
10:15 a.m.
He also wanted to remind everyone that April 20 was the Welcome New
Resident event from 9:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.
4
X. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Trustee Hoefert suggested the Board consider a discussion regarding garage
conversions to living space and consideration whether such conversion should
be allowed with the likelihood that another garage would not be constructed on
properties of a specific size.
Consensus of the Village Board was to consider this as a future Committee
of the Whole topic.
Several members of the Village Board expressed regret at the recent resignation
of Deputy Community Development Director Michael Blue since he recently
accepted a new position at the City of Highland Park as the Director of
Community Development.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
5
II.
III.
IV.
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MAY 14, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at
the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard
Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel, Staff members
present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager
David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Finance
Director Doug EIIsworth and Public Works Director Glen Andler.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from April 9, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and
seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Trustees Lohrstorfer
and Zadel abstained.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
Finance Director Doug EIIsworth provided a summary of revenue and
expenditures to date for this current fiscal year. He stated that the revenue
stream is such that it arrives at different times throughout the fiscal year so it is
tough to estimate revenues this early in the fiscal year since many arrive later on
in the year. He stated that expenditures are easier to track during the first three
months because they tend to be fairly stable throughout the year except for
capital construction projects which happen during the construction season. He
stated Property Tax receipts have dropped over time due to the numerous tax
appeals that have been processed and approved. He stated that Sales Tax is
not as far behind as previously estimated but still is lower than previous years.
He stated at this point there is a still is a projection of a $640,000 General Fund
deficit and would find it difficult to reinstate the Capital Improvement Fund
transfer in 2003 with the current revenue scenario. He stated that rising Pension
and Health Insurance costs will be an additional challenge for 2003. He stated
that there still is a deficit projected for 2003 and stated that typical expenditures
raise at a normal rate of 4%. With revenues being fiat, there is a need for
approximately $1 million of new money each year to balance the budget.
VI.
He stated that the initial projections of the General Fund do not include the
transfer to the CIP for 2003 but there will be a need to address the CIP funding in
the near future.
STREETSCAPE UPDATE
Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the
Streetscape progress throughout the downtown to date along with projected
timeframes for other improvements in the downtown.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There were significant positive comments regarding the appearance of the work
in the downtown area as several Trustees relayed comments they have received
from citizens as the projects start to take shape. There were also comments
regarding the timing of the various work and the total time allotted for various
improvements.
Public Works Director Glen Andler stated that all the bricks that were
previously installed will soon be replaced since the bricks do not meet the
specifications of the contract. He stated the brick replacement will be at no cost
to the Village and will be coordinated so to minimize disruption among downtown
businesses. He stated that sections of the brick would be removed and then
replaced as the project moves throughout the downtown.
REVIEW OF SHED REGULATIONS
Village Manager Michael Janonis stated this is a follow up of previous
discussions based on some variation requests from several residents regarding
larger sheds. Community Development has done much of the requested
research by the Board for consideration of possible parameters for shed
consideration.
Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided the baseline
information and the marketplace details of the various shed sizes. He also
suggested there are several policy options regarding shed regulation. Among
those are lot coverage limits as a factor on the shed size along with outright
maximum square footage limits.
General comments of the Village Board members included the following items:
There was some discussion regarding maximum lot coverage including all
structures. There was also a concern raised regarding the possible loophole of
multiple structures in the case of a detached single-family car garage. There
were comments made regarding the clarification of the hard surface necessary to
utilize a garage versus an accessory structure such as a shed.
2
There were also comments regarding the maintenance of the required setback
regardless of the shed size to be considered. A suggestion was made to create
various shed sizes based on the lot sizes in various bands or ranges of lot size.
There was a concern raised regarding the P~rcentage of lot coverage formula
and a suggestion was made to use the break point of the lot size for the range
criteria instead. There was also a suggestion simplifying the regulation whereby
a maximum size would be defined and enforced.
Doug Doughty, 1431 Blackhawk, spoke. He suggested a clarification for the
structure height and to dearly define the difference between a shed and a
garage. He also suggested the Village Board consider the size of the shed
based on the lot size and coverage percentage for the individual lot.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a discussion regarding the application of a possible formula regarding
shed size based on square footage and lot coverage. A comment was also
made regarding the definition of logic to allow reasonable maximum use of
property by individual homeowners.
Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that there could be an impact on the
walkthrough permit process for sheds depending on the policy as defined by the
Board and the likelihood that residents will not have the necessary information
available in order for permit processing on a walk through basis.
Consensus of the Village Board was to maintain the ten foot height of a
shed, maintain the setbacks and consider how the formula would work
based on lot size for a single accessory structure; i.e., shed. This proposal
was presented to staff for further analysis to be brought back for additional
consideration.
VII, VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Janonis stated the Public Works Open House is scheduled for
May 18 from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
VIII. ANYOTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Farley wanted to apologize to citizens and the Village Board about how
he treated a person that appeared before the Board at the last meeting. He
appreciated the civility that is typical of this Village Board but he had several
extenuating circumstances that affected his judgment in running the meeting on
this particular night and would work not to repeat the situation again.
3
otion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Corcoran to move
into Closed Session to discuss land acquisition.
Meeting adjourned into Closed Session at 9:13 p.m. The Closed Session ended
at 9:37 p.m. The Village Board reconvened into open session at 9:38 p.m.
X. ADJOURNMENT
There was no further business and the Committee of the Whole meeting
immediately adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
4
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
JULY 17, 2002
2002 MID-YEAR REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE 2003 BUDGET
FORECAST
Traditionally, the Village Board has engaged in a mid-year review of the financial status
of the current year's budget and also reviewed the forecast for the upcoming year. Not
only are these actions considered prudent fiscal management practices, but they also
provide the foundation for the preparation of the upcoming annual budget.
This memorandum is intended [o supplement the June 30, 2002 Budget Revenue and
th
Expenditure sUmmaries Submitted with the July 16 Board meeting agenda packet.
The principal focus of this memorandum is on the General Fund, since it is the main
operating fund of the Village. Also discussed to a lesser degree are a few of the more
material operating and capital project funds.
It should be pointed-out that the current estimates of revenues and expenditures for
2002 are just that - estimates. There could still be significant variances that appear or
disappear during the remaining six months of the fiscal year.
2002 MID-YEAR REVIEW
GENERAL FUND
The 2002 Budget, as amended in April, reflects a planned deficit of $211,950 on
revenues of $28,382,315 and expenditures of $28,594,265. The deficit can be
attributed to a carryover of uncompleted projects from 2001 and one-time costs
associated with moving Television Services and Human Services to temporary
locations.
As part of the mid-year review,, we looked at all revenue and expenditure accounts to
determine if any material variances seem likely. We now expect total General Fund
revenues to come in at $27,943,909, almost $440,000 less than originally projected.
Expenditures are now estimated at $28,658,165, which is $64,000 more than the current
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 2
authorized budget. Therefore, fund balance is expected to drop $714,000 in 2002,
compared to the $212,000 reflected in the amended budget. Exhibit 1, attached hereto,
presents a summary of our current projections of revenues and expenditures, with a
comparison to budget.
General Fund Revenues:
On the surface it would appear General Fund revenues are doing relatively well
compared to our original projections. Halfway through the fiscal year, actual revenues
of $14,822,014 represent 52.2% of budget. The following chart shows year-to-date
revenue collections as a percentage of annual budget for each of the main revenue
categories.
140
General Fund Revenue Collections as a Percent of
Annual Budget
120
100
40
20
0
Revenue Type
However, as can be seen in the preceding chart, revenues in several categories are
o th
below the 50 % benchmark set as of June 30 .
Property tax revenues of $3,371,133 are running at 46% of budget, which is slightly
on the Iow side. As Cook County is granting more successful property tax assessment
appeals we are finding our property tax revenue dropping slightly. We are now
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 3
estimating that we will lose 1.5% of our levy, as opposed to the 1% previously
assumed. We expect our property tax receipts to come in $36,526 less than budget for
the year.
Revenues classified as "Other Taxes" include such sources as the sales tax, food and
beverage tax, real estate transfer tax, hotel/motel tax, telecommunications tax and the
utility tax. in total, revenue collections from "Other Taxes" came to $5,629,608 as of
June 30th, which is 50.6% of annual budget.
Sales tax collections, which make up more than 70% of the "Other Taxes" category,
are at $4,063,179. This represents 51.7% of budget. Retail sales in the Village have
bounced back nicely over the past six months. Our year-to-date collections are running
5% above the prior year's collections. We anticipate sales tax receipts for the year to
come in 4% -higher than the prior year, resulting in a positive budget variance of
$181,036.
The Village's telecommunications tax and the utility tax on electricity and natural gas
are running slightly below budget. We expect to end the year with unfavorable budget
variances of $34,000 and $40,4-20, respectively.
Collections from licenses and permit fees totaled $2,028,004, or 73.3% of the $2.8
million budget. Vehicle license revenue of $994,760 is at 87% of budget, which is to be
expected given that the deadline for the 2002/2003 vehicle sticker was May 1st.
Revenue from the infrastructure maintenance fee is expected to come in $86,200 under
budget due to the loss of revenue from wireless telecommunications companies.
Cable television franchise fees are running significantly higher for the second year in
a row. We now expect receipts for the year to come in $75,000 above the $265,000
originally projected.
Intergovernmental revenues totaled $2,508,671 as of June 30th, which is 48% of the
$5.2 million annual projection. Intergovernmental revenues in the General Fund include
the local share of the state income tax, photo processing tax, use tax, replacement tax
and other miscellaneous state and federal grants.
Receipts from the State's distribution of the state income tax, our largest intergovern-
mental revenue source, totaled $2,061,070 at June 30th. This represents 49% of
budget, however the figure is somewhat deceiving. Local governments do not receive
state income tax receipts evenly throughout the year. Historically, receipts are higher
during the first half of the year as taxpayers make their final tax payments in March and
April. It should be brought to your attention that our 2002 receipts are running a horrific
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 4
12% behind last year's collections. The large decrease can be attributed to increased
unemployment and a drop in corporate earnings. We expect to end 2002 with total
income tax receipts coming in at 10% below our 2001 collections. This is a shortfall of
approximately $530,000.
The State of Illinois recently adopted legislation that eliminated the local government
share of the photo processing tax as of July 1st. This will result in a negative budget
variance of $72,000 for 2002.
The local share of the state use tax is expected to come in $82,000 below projections
for the year. This is the result of decreased use tax reporting, and not a change in the
allocation formula set by the State as was being considered down in Springfield.
Revenue from Fines totaled $247,412 for the first six months. This represents 57% of
the $434,400 projected for the year. Revenue from fines began to increase sharply
towards the end of 2001 and continue to exceed projections. We expect a positive
budget variance of $40,600.
Investment income totaled $127,038 for the first six months, representing 37% of the
$345,000 projected for the year. A negative variance of $85,000 is expected for the
year due to declining interest rates.
Miscellaneous Revenue, consisting of reimbursements and other revenues, totaled
$532,239 as of June 30th. This is 121% of the $438,560 projected for the year. There
are two extraordinary items that are causing the positive variance. First is the $180,000
settlement from the RJN lawsuit. The other is the receipt of $84,400 for ceding our
private activity bond volume cap earlier in the year. Neither of these transactions were
included in the 2002 revenue projections.
General Fund Expenditures:
The approved 2002 budget, as amended, totals $28,594,265. As of June 30th the
Village had recorded expenditures of $13,272,096. This represents 46.4% of budget.
While total expenditures are within 4% of the benchmark of 50%, there is a much larger
disparity within specific departments and programs. The following chart illustrates
General Fund expenditures by department/program as a percentage of annual budget.
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 5
General Fund Expenditures
as a Percent of Annual Budget
Public Works
0 '10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percent
Public Representation expenditures totaled $67,372 through June 30!h, representing
63.8% of budget. The reason this program is above the 50% benchmark is that
organizational memberships are typically paid in the beginning of the year. In the first
half of the fiscal year membership dues totaling $28,126 were paid, compared to the
annual budget of $31,500.
Expenditures of the Village Manager's Office for the first six months totaied $556,848.
This represents 43% of their $1.3 million annual .budget. At this time we do expect legal
fees to come in $120,000 over budget. Other expenditures are expected to come in
very close to budget. MIS Division and Public Information Division expenditures are
currently at 33% and 37% of-budget, respectively, due to the timing of operating
expenditures and capital purchases.
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 6
Expenditures of the Television Services Division came to $89,278 for the first six
months of 2002. This is 44% of the division's annual budget of $205,228. The positive
variance from the benchmark is the result of our not yet spending the $22,300 budgeted
for temporary office space.
Expenditures of the Human Services Department totaled $334,934 at June 30th,
representing 40% of budget; The positive variance in this division is also due to the
budgeting of temporary office space. A total of $130,000 is budgeted for 2002 with only
$4,6'75 having been spent to date. Excluding this line item, the department's
expenditures represent 47% of budget. It is now expected that Only one-half of the
$130,000 budgeted for the temporary office space will be expended in 2002.
Police and Fire Department expenditures for the six months just ended are very close
to the budget benchmark, at 48% and 47%, respectively. We do expect to bring to the
Board a budget amendment of $8,900 for the Police Department, representing
expenditures incurred in 2001 but not paid until 2002.
Public Works Department expenditures funded through the General Fund totaled
$2,205,128 for the first half of the fiscal year. This represents 43% of the annual
budget of $5,108,187. The reason for the relatively large variance from the 50%
benchmark is the timing of certain projects and expenditures. Projects such as
sidewalk construction and grounds maintenance are more likely to be initiated and paid
for during the summer months.
The Miscellaneous category in the above chart includes the Community and Civic
Services budget program and the miscellaneous retirement pensions of two former
employees. At the mid-year mark, Community and Civic Services expenditures of
$74,388 represent 25% of the $303,485 budget.
For the past several years, total General Fund expenditures have come in anywhere
from one to three percent under budget. Although we see no reason at this point to
believe 2002 will be any different, to be conservative we are generally not showing any
variance from budget for General Fund expenditures as reflected in Exhibit 1. The only
exceptions are the items referred to above.
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
Revenues received to-date of $1,611,510 are at 47% of projections.
the first six months totaled $1,470,549, representing 43% of budget.
Expenditures for
Due to the recent sale of the balefill site, the Solid Waste Agency's debt service costs
are going to be dropping significantly over the next few years beginning with the rates
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 7
that went into effect May 1, 2002. The Village expects its debt service payments to
SWANCC to come in $165,000 below budget for 2002. With the further rate reduction
planned for May 1,2003, our debt service costs for 2003 are expected to come in a full
$300,000 below the $525,000 shown in the forecast budget. Based on these savings,
the property tax levy earmarked for refuse collection and the multi-family refuse charges
for 2003 could be reduced in total by $300,000. The savings in the refuse tax levy
could theoretically be transferred to the General Fund's tax levy if the Village Board
concurred with the idea. Using a formula based on the tons of waste remitted to
SWANCC the General Fund's tax levy could increase by approximately $200,000,
reducing the deficit projected for that Fund in this report.
MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
Revenues of $790,598 through June 30th represent 49% of projections. Our MFT
allotments from the State are running 3% ahead of 2001. We had assumed 2% for the
2002 Budget.
Expenditures totaled $1,205,144 at June 30th, which is 44% of budget.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND
CDBG Fund expenditures totaled $202,766 to-date. This is 27% of the $756,851
budgeted for the year. CDI~G expenditures fall into four categories. Following is a
breakdown of expenditures incurred to-date, compared to annual budget for the four
categories.
Administration $ 16,8;15 $ 43,265 38.9%
Commu nib/Programs 10,581 55,200 19.2
Neighborhood Improve. 88,434 480,586 18.4
Residential' Rehab 86,936 177,800 48.9
Total $202,766 $756,851 26.8%
Historically, the majority of CDBG expenditures have been incurred during the second
half of the year.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Revenues were projected at $1,048,150 for the year. Through June 30th we have
received $106,856, or 10% of budget. $727,000 of grant revenue is expected later in
the year.
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 8
The approved budget for this fund is $2,188,865. Total expenditures for the first six
months were $720,571, or 33% of budget. Most of the capital projects and
improvements budgeted for the year will be initiated during the summer months.
Earlier this year the Village closed on the purchase of the doctor's building on Busse
Avenue. The expense anticipated and budgeted for in 2001. Therefore, the $673,500
expense will be brought forward as a recommended budget amendment later this
summer.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND
The 2002 Budget shows estimated revenues of only $I ,000. As of June 30th we had
received $631, or 63%. All of the estimated incremental property taxes from the
downtown tax increment financing district are expected to be used to cover TIF debt
service.
The Village has not yet closed on the sale to Norwood Builders of the final portion of the
former Northwest Electric site. The sale was originally expected to occur in late 2001.
Earlier this month Norwood remitted $625,000 to the Village as a deposit. This
represents approximately one-half of the purchase price. The closing is now expected
to take place this fall. This also will be brought forward as a budget amendment later
this summer.
A total of $331,557 has been expended to date, which represents 21% of the $1.55
million budget for 2002. Staff now believes that an additional $250,000 for
infrastructure improvements, originally anticipated for 2001, will be needed for 2002.
200'1 and 2002 G.O. Bond Project Funds
These two capital project funds were created to account for the financing of the new
village .hall/community center and parking structure. Revenues and expenditures are
significantly below the 50% benchmark on account of the timing of the project. The
most recent estimate is that the project will be $1,000,000 higher than original
estimates.
Also, the Board recently approved a $275,500 increase to the estimated cost of
improving Fire Station 12. The Village Manager has recommended that this amount be
added to the upcoming 2002 bond issue.
STREET IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND
This fund was created to account for the 1997 revenue enhancements that are
earmarked for the street improvement program. Revenues of $1,854,992 were
projected for 2002. Revenues actually received as of June 30th total $1,027,314, or
55% of budget.
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 9
A total of $2,856,788 has been budgeted for street resurfacing and reconstruction. As
of June 30th only $692,710, or 24%, has been expended. The vast majority of the pay-
outs will take place in the second half of the year.
FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION FUND
Revenues collected to date amount to $46,952, or 4% of the $1,075,000 projected.
The large variance from the benchmark can be attributed to the fact the Village has not
yet received the $1,000,000 state grant for Weller Creek improvements.
A total of $802,599 has been spent thus far out of the $2,704,099 annual budget (30%).
The Board did approve a $86,772 change order to the Weller Creek streambank
stabilization project in June. This will be a future budget amendment.
WATER AND SEWER FUND
Revenues through June 30th total $3,465,945, representing 43% of budget. This is
typical, as water consumption increases during the summer months.
Expenditures are budgeted at $9,063,162 for the year. After six months, actual
expenditures have totaled $2,932,257, or 32% of budget. Expenditures appear to be
Iow because of capital improvements planned for later in the year. There are no
material variances expected between now and the end of the year.
POLICE AND FIREFIGNTERS' PENSION FUNDS
Revenues in the Police and Firefighters' Pension Funds are failing significantly below
budget as the funds' equity investments had negative returns for the first six months of
the year. The Police Pension Fund has recorded revenues totaling 4.5% of projections.
The Firefighters' Pension Fund did only slightly better at 13% of projections.
2003 FORECAST
The 2002 Annual Budget includes a forecast budget for the year 2003 for each
operating and capital project fund. The purpose of this portion of my memorandum is
to bring forward any material variances in revenues or expenditures now expected for
the year 2003.
GENERAL FUND
Exhibit 2 has been prepared to compare the original forecast numbers to our most
recent estimates. The original forecast budget shows an operating deficit of $639,552
on revenues of $29,106,407 and expenditures totaling $29,745,959. Generally
speaking, the deficit is the result of anticipated revenues not keeping up with the growth
in expenditures.
Mid-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 10
Our more recent estimates now show that the operating deficit has widened to
$1,232,588. The outlook for 2003 has deteriorated due to a reduction in certain
revenue sources. Following is a brief discussion of some of the more material changes
expected from the original forecast budget.
Revenues:
At this time we expect General Fund revenues for 2003 to come in $696,000 lower than
what was projected twelve months ago.
The forecast assumes that the overall property tax increase will be 4%, with one-half
of one pement going towards debt service on the new village hall.
Sales tax receipts are expected to increase 2% over our current 2002 projection. This
results in a $145,360 positive variance from the original 2003 forecast.
Our forecast for the state income tax is expected to come in $546,000 less than what
was projected last year. As previously discussed, our receipts our down due to lower
corporate earnings and increased unemployment.
Other Governmental Revenues are showing a decrease of $188,000 from the
forecast due to the elimination of the local government share of the state photo
processing tax and a reduction in the state use tax.
The weighted average yield of our investment portfolio continues to drop as
investments with higher interest rates mature and are replaced at lower interest rates.
We expect our investment earnings for 2003 to be $85,000 less than originally
projected. We also factored into the estimate the General Fund advancing the TIF
Fund approximately $1 million in 2003.
Expenditures:
At this time the only negative variance from the forecast is legal fees. We expect
expenditures to be approximately $85,000 higher in that category.
The current forecasts for expenditures have been modified to reflect a recent budget
directive from the Village Manager. The Manager has asked departments to present
their 2003 budget requests showing no increase over the 2002 Budget in the areas of
commodities, contractual services and capital spending.
id-Year Budget Review
July 17, 2002
Page 11
BUDGETCALENDAR
Attached as Exhibit 3 is the 2003 budget calendar as presented in the current 2002
budget document. If this schedule now presents any conflicts, we should revise it as
soon as possible.
YEAR 2003 BUDGET DIRECTION
Finally, I have attached a copy of the New Project/Service Suggestion Form (Exhibit 4).
This form is intended for use by the Village Board to facilitate communication between
the Board and staff concerning any new ideas they would like to see included in the
2003 proposed budget. It would be helpful if the forms could be returned to you by
September 4, 2002 so that the ideas can be incorporated in to our preliminary budget
deliberations.
· ELLSWORTH, CPA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Copy:
Finance Commission Members
Department Directors
Exhibit 1
Revenues:
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Food and Beverage Tax
Rea[ Estate Transfer Tax
Telecommunications Tax
Utility Taxes
Other Taxes
Vehicle Licenses
Infrastructure Maintenance Fee
Other Licenses, Permits, Fees
State Income Tax
Other Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines and Forfeits
Investment Income
Reimbursements
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
GeneralFund
Revenues and Expenditures
2002
2002
2001 Current
Actual Bud~let
6,797 777 7,305,151
7,729 085 7,856,964
480 265 483,138
826 717 715,000
823 142 884,000
1,085 379 985,420
201 774 200,096
1,133,053 1,140,000
214,262 316,200
1,387,565 1,308,800
4,049,867 4,175,000
1,139,819 1,014,410
735,846 780,176
468,941 434,400
492,970 345,000
265,797 307,710
248,777 130,850
Budget
YTD Actual 2002 Variance-
01/01/02- Current Favorable
6/30/2002 Estimate (Unfavorable) ..Notes
3,371,133 7,268,625 (36,526) A
4,063,179 8,038,000 181,036
187,650 483,138 0
361,206 715,000 0
475,481 850,000 (34,000)
466,497 945,000 (40,420) C
75,596 185,096 (15,000) D
994,760 1,135,000 (5,000)
115,179 230,000 (86,200) E
918,065 1,383,800 75,000 F
2,061,070 3,644,880 (530,120) G
447,601 845,410 (1691000) H
377,909 782,000 1,824
247,412 475,000 40,600
127,038 260,000 (85,000) J
353,754 487,710 180,000 K
178,485 215,250 84,400 L
28,081,036 28,382,315 14,822,014 27,943,909 (438,406)
Expenditures
Public Representation 100,590
Village Manager's Office 1,264,541
Television Services Division 182,592
Village Clerk's Off`Ice 152,694
Finance Department 1,313,565
Community Development Dept. 1,580,585
Human Services Dept. 635,161
Po[ice Department 9,519,849
Fire Department 7,619,556
Public Works Department 4,877,196
Community and Civic Services 285,114
Miscellaneous 15,520
Total Expenditures 27,546,963
ExcessofRevenuesoverExpen~ 534,073
Other Financing Uses
Transfer to Capital Improve. Fd. (571,970)
Total Other Financing Uses (571,970)
Excess of Revenues over Expend.
and Other Financing Uses: (37,897)
As of July 16, 2002
105,663 67,372 105,663 0
1,283,449 556,848 1,403,449 (120,000)
205,228 89,278 205,228 0
144,504 70,406 144,504 0
1,393,203 714,943 1,393,203 0
1,513,944 682,896 1,513,944 0
831,486 334,934 766,486 65,000
9,838,911 4,763,907 9,847,8tl (8,900)
7,850,578 3,704,183 7,850,578 0
5,108,187 2,205,128 5,108,187 0
303,485 74,388 303,485 0
15,627 7,813 15,627 0
28,594,265 13,272,096 28,658,165 (63,900)
(211,950) t,549,918 (714,256) (502,306)
M
N
O
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
(211,950) 1,549,918 (714,256) (502,306)
Exhibit 1
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
General Fund
Revenues and Expenditures
2002
Notes
A We now expect a 1.5% uncollected rate on property taxes, verses 1%.
B Sales tax receipts are running 5% ahead of prior year. CL~rrent estimate assumes 4% growth for year.
The 2002 Budget assumed 2% growth.
C The utility taxes on both natural gas and electricity are running below budget.
D Hotel tax is estimated to be down $15,000.
E Infrastructuree maintenance fee revenue has fallen below estimates due to loss of fee on wireress companies.
Cable TV franchise fees are expected to run $75,000 ahead of budget.
State income tax receipts are running 12% below budget through 6/30. Assuming 10% reduction for year.
We had assumed receipts would be up 3% for 2002.
The local government share of the state photoprecessing tax was eliminated effective 7/1/02, resulting in
a shortfall of $72,000 for 2002. The local share of the state use tax is expected to fall $82,000 below prejection.
The personal property replacement tax is expected to come in $15,000 below budget.
Police fines are expected to run $40,000 more than budget.
Lower interest rates are expected to result in a $85,000 shortfall in investment earnings.
Other reimbursements is exected to exceed projections by $180,000 due to the receipt of the RJN settlement.
Other revenues are expected to exceed projections by $84,400 due to the ceding of the private activity bond
volume cap which was not budgeted for.
Legal fees in the Manager's Office are expected to exceed budget by $120,000. The expenditures for the Village
Attorney are expected to exceed budget by $95,000 due to an increase in both the monthly retainer and billable hours.
The expenditures for the labor attorney are expected to exceed budget by $25,000.
The temporary rent expense is expected to be half of the $130,000 budgeted for 2002.
To reflect additional training expenses incurred in December 2001 but charged to 2002.
Exhibit 2
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
2003 FORECAST
Revenues:
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Food and Beverage Tax
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Telecommunications Tax
Utility Taxes
Other Taxes
Vehicle Licenses
Infrastructure Maintenance Fee
Other Licenses, Permits, Fees
State Income Tax
Other Inten~overnmental
Charges for Services
Fines and Forfeits
Investment income
Reimbursements
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
Expenditures (NOTE M)
Public Representation
Village Manager's Office
Television Services Division
Village Clerk's Off.ice
Finance Department
Community Development Dept.
Human Services Dept.
Police Department
Fire Department
Public Works Department
Community and Civic Services
Miscellaneous
Total Expenditures
Excess of Revenues over Expend.
Other Financing Uses
Transfer to Capital Improve. Fd.
Total Other Financing Uses
2002
Ouffent
Proje~ions
2003 Forecast
Original Current Increase Percent
Forecast Forecast . (Decrease) Change
Notes
7,268,625 7,565,569 7,527,742 (37,827) (0.50) A
8,038,000 8,053,400 8,198,760 145,360 1.80 B
483,138 495,216 492,800 (2,416) (0.49) C
715,000 730,000 730,000 0 0.00
850,000 901,680 858,500 (43,180) (4.79) D
945,000 1,005,128 954,450 (50,678) (5.04) E
185,096 203,045 203,045 0 0.00
1,135,000 1,140,000 1,135,000 (5,000) (0.44) F
230,000 322,500 350,000 27,500 8.53 G
1,383,800 1,323,250 1,383,800 60,550 4.58
3,644,880 4,300,250 3,754,226 (546,024) (12.70) H
845,410 1,033;400 845,410 (187,990) (18.19) I
782,000 803,743 803,743 0 0.00
475,000 446,142 475,000 28,858 6.47 J
260,000 330,000 245,000 (85,000) (25.76) K
487,710 318,234 318,234 0 0.00 L
215,250 134,850 134,850 0 0.00
27,943,909 29,106,407 28,410,560 (695,847) (2.39)
105,663 107,638 106,236
1,403,449 1,398,944 1,479,600
205,228 202,695 201,396
144,504 150,776 149,669
1,393,203 1,466,621 1,444,578
1,513,944 1,590,138 1,576,392
831,486 833,403 827,674
9,847,811 10,229,249 10,200,627
7,850,578 8,171,987 8,128,453
5,108,187 5,247,656 5,182,537
303,485 307,169 306,304
15,627 39,683 39,683
28,723,165
(779,256)
29,745,959
(1,402) (1.30)
80,656 5.77
(1,300) (0,64)
(1,107) (0,73)
(22,043) (1,50)
(13.746) (0.86)
(5,729) (0.69)
(28,622) (0.28)
(43,534) (0.53)
(65,119) (1.24)
(865) (0.28)
0 0.00
(639,552)
0
2~,643,148 (102,811) (0.35)
(1,232,588) (593,036) 93
0 0 #DIV/O!
0
0 #DIV/O!
0 0 0
N
Excess of Revenues over Expend.
and Other Financing Uses: (779,256) (639,552) ./1,232,588) (593,036) 92.7
Exhibit 2
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
2003 FORECAST
Notes
A 4.0% overall property tax hike proposed, including the phase in of the new village hall debt service.
Consistent with 2002, we are projecting one-half pement less in receipts.
B Sales tax receipts estimated to increase 2% over 2002 projected receipts.
C Food and beverage tax estimated to increase 2% over 2002 projected receipts.
D Telecommunications tax estimated at 1% above 2002 estimated.
E Utility tax receipts on natural gas estimated to increase sligh*Jy in 2003 from 2002 levels.
F Vehicle license fees have remained relatively constant for past few years.
G The new state collected simlified telecommunications tax/iMF takes effect 1/1/03.
H income tax receipts estimated at 3% above 2002 projections.
Reflects the elimination of the photoprocessing tax and a reduction in the use tax receipts.
J Assumes fine revenue will remain at level received in 2002.
K Assumes interest rates remain constant. Factors in $1 million advance to TIF Fund.
L Does not assume fee for ceding volume cap is received in 2003.
M Does not yet reflect the transfer of all computer related expenses to the Village Manager's Office.
Current expenditure projections for 2003 are based on Manager's budget directions that no increases
are to be requested for supplies, contractual services and capital costs over the 2002 amended budget.
N Reflects the higher costs of the Village Attorney and labor afloreey fees.
2002
DATE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BUDGET CALENDARS
2002 and 2003
ACTION
2003
DATE
3/16/01
4/06/01
4/30/01
to 5104101
5/18/01
6/01/01
6/28/01
7/10/01
7/17/01
7/20/01
8/03/01
8/14/01
8/17/01
8/24/01
9/03/01
to 9/07/01
9/14/01
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Worksheets forwarded to Department
Directors
Completed CIP Worksheets returned to Finance Department
Department CIP reviews with Village Manager and Finance Director
Complete Proposed CIP Amounts
Deliver Proposed CIP to Village Board and Finance Commission
Review Proposed CIP with Finance Commission
Committee of the Whble - CIP Review Session
Acceptance of Proposed CIP at Village Board Meeting
Budget Worksheets forwarded to Department Directors
CIP available for distribution
Committee of the Whole - Mid-Year Budget Review and Pre-Budget
Workshop
Completed Budget Worksheets returned to Finance Department
Revenue Estimates completed by Finance Department
Department Budget reviews with Village Manager and Finance Director
Complete Proposed Budget Amounts
3/15/02
4/12/02
5/13/02
to 5/17/02
5/24/02
6/07/02
6/27/02
7/09/02
7116/02
7/19/02
8/06/02
8/13/02
8/19/02
8~23~02
9/04/02
to 9/10/02
9/17/02
xxviii
2002
DATE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BUDGET CALENDARS
2002 and 2003
'~' ACTION
2003
DATE
10/05/0I
10/05/01
10/11/01
10/18/01
I0/25/01
11/01/01
10/23/01
11/13/01
11/27/01
12/03/01
12/03/01
I2/18/01
1/18/02
Deliver Proposed Budget to Village Board and Finance Commission
Proposed Budget available for public inspection at the Village Clerk's Office
and the Mount Prospect Public Library
Review Proposed Budget with the Finance Coramission
Committee of the Whole - First Budget Hearing (7:00 pm _ 1 0:00 pm)
Overview, Village Administration, Finance & Human Services
Committee of the Whole - Se cond Budget Hearing (7:00 pm - 1 0:00 pm)
Police, Fire and 'Community Development
Committee of the WhoIe- Th ird Budget Hearing (7:00 pm - 1 0:00 pm)
Public Works Department and Non-Departmental
Troth in Taxation Public Hearing
First Reading of Proposed Budget Ordinance at Village Board Meeting .
Public Hearing and Second Reading of Proposed Budget Ordinance at
Village Board Meeting
Approved Budget available for distribution
10/08/02
10/08/02
10/17/02
10/24/02
11/07/02
11/14/02
10/22/02
11/12/02
11/26/02
12/03/02
12/03/02
12/17/02
1/17/03
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
NEW SERVICE/PROJECT SUGGESTION FORM
2003 BUDGET
Exhibit 4
Suggested by:
New Service/Project Name:
Description of New Service/Project:
Estimated Cost (if known):
Potential Source of Funds:
Please return this form to the Village Manager by September 4, 2002.
This area for the use of the Village Manager
Assigned to the Department of:
Comments:
Signature of the Village Manager