HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 02/25/2003 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time:
Mt. Prospect Community Center Tuesday, February 25, 2003
1000 West Central Road 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corceran Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel
I1.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF
FEBRURAY 11, 2003
III.
IV.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
NATIONAL POLLUANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PHASE II
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has promulgated rules
requiring municipalities like Mount Prospect to develop a program designed to reduce the
quantity of pollutants picked up by storm sewers and discharged to waterways during storm
events. Some common waterway pollutants include oil and grease from roadways,
pesticides from lawns, sediment from construction sites, and litter, The Village operates
approximately 90 miles of storm sewers. These sewers primarily drain areas of the Village
developed after 1960. The Village's storm sewers discharge to the Des Plaines River,
McDonald Creek, Feehanville Creek, Weller Creek, and Higgins Creek. Each creek
ultimately outflows to the Des Plaines River.
Working through the local governing agency, (Illinois Environmental Protectioin Agency,
I EPA), Mount Prospect is required to develop a storm water management program covering
six (6) specific control measures, along with best management practices to ensure the
success of each measure. The program design must be submitted to the IEPA by March 10,
2003. While most of the measures can be achieved at little or no cost, others will require
substantial future expenditures to achieve full compliance.
Public Works staff will review the proposed program and related costs as well as answer
questions.
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 I00 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000,
EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
OVERVIEW OF PENSION PLANS
Mount Prospect employees are covered by three different pension plans. Sworn Police and
Fire personnel are members of local, separate (Police/Fire) pension plans. All other non-
sworn Village employees are members of the state-administered Illinois Municipal
Retirement fund (IMRF). Staff will present an overview of each pension plan, including its
structure, operation, benefit design, financial condition, investment philosophy and employer/
employee obligations.
OVERVIEW OF HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
All full-time Village of Mount Prospect employees and their dependents are covered by a
comprehensive medical insurance plan. Coverage includes major medical, doctors visits,
emergency room visits, and prescription drug coverage among other things. The plan is
supplemented by an IRS 125 flexible compensation plan (allows eligible medical expenses
to be paid with pre-tax dollars) and a voluntary, employee-funded dental plan. Staff will
present an overview of the plan, including plan design, benefit levels, cost trends, employee
contributions, and cost containment strategies.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
CLOSED SESSION
PERSONNEL
5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (2) "Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees
or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of
employees."
MINUTES
COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
II.
III.
IV.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley, in the Mt. Prospect
Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. 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, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public
Works Director Sean Dorsey, Solid Waste Coordinator Lisa Angell, Human Services Director
Nancy Morgan and Social Worker Nine Persino.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from January 14, 2003. Motion was made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and
Seconded by Trustee Zadel. Minutes were approved.
Approval of minutes from Special Village Board Workshop of January 28, 2003. Motion made
by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
Mike Ruzicka representing the Mount Prospect Lions Club spoke. He was present to
state the Farmers' Market raised over $10,000 during the last season and part of the money
will be utilized for the George Gattas Scholarship Fund, the purchase of a new mountain bike
for the Police Bicycle Patrol and $5,000 to the Village Food Pantry at Human Services. He
wanted to thank the community for its ongoing support of the Farmers' Market and reminded
everyone the 2003 edition of the Farmers' Market is scheduled for June 8 through October
12.
Human Services Director Nancy Morgan spoke. She wanted to thank the Lions Club for
their ongoing assistance in the very worthy cause of helping out those less fortunate.
OVERVIEW OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Mayor Farley provided an introduction of the topic and stated this was the first such meeting
in preparation for future negotiation and bid package creation leading to the possible new
contract in late 2004.
Solid Waste Coordinator Lisa Angell spoke. She provided an overview of the program and
the necessary steps that will be required for the new contract. She stated the current contract
is effective from May 1, 2000 to December 31, 2004. She stated the current contract
provides for a single-family and multi-family collection. Total single family pick-up per week is
13,500 along with recycling materials.
She stated the program allows for two waste units per household and requires the purchase
of waste stickers for any additional items above the standard two units. She stated the
current sticker price is $1.75 and has been that price since 1996. She stated the program
allows for three clean-up weeks per year, an unlimited move-in collection, Christmas tree
collection, assistance for the Public Works leaf pick-up program and the pick up of bagged
leaves at curbside. She stated there is a user fee for yard waste disposal or a subscription
service.
She stated there are 68 multi-family properties in the program which receive at least twice a
week service. The first pick up is included and the additional pick-up at the multi-family
properties are on a pay per unit basis. She stated recycling is an option for multi-family
dwellings and if they participate, there is a 10% reduction in the monthly cost available. She
stated that recycling collection is also offered to non-profit agencies. She stated the Village
benefits from the location of the SWANCC transfer site including the ability to drop items off
at the site by residents. She stated the Village currently enjoys a 43% diversion rate of
materials from the waste stream for recyclable materials.
She stated part of the discussion for the new contract will be the anticipation of an automated
collection system which is becoming more standard throughout the industry. She highlighted
the fact that in order for the automated system to work, it would be a necessity to require the
residents to have a toter for facilitating collection. There are several toter options that would
need to be explored as part of contract negotiations. She also stated there are several
payment option types including volume based, weight based, sticker only, subscription or a
fiat fee.
She stated that commercial solid waste services could be included in the contract
negotiations if there is adequate interest by businesses. She stated that SWANCC could
assist in formulating the commercial collection survey. In discussions of the commercial pick-
up service with the Village of Skokie shows there was a 45% response rate of the businesses
wanting the service. She stated the timeline for the next contract would start later this year
with an initial evaluation period of the current program with recommendations to the Village
Board by December 2003 with bid specifications out in spring of 2004 for implementation in
early 2005.
George Luteri, Chairman of the Solid Waste Commission, spoke. He stated the current
program works well based on the residents' experience and the fact that there are few
complaints. He is concerned about automated systems and the concern that such a change
would confuse and complicate collection activities. He also wanted to make sure there was
some discussion regarding disposal of bulk items and how they would be included in an
automated system along with bad weather implications in utilizing a wheeled toter.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a suggestion that the automated program be evaluated with an open mind and to
look for all available options during the negotiation and the bid sPecification stage. There was
also discussion regarding toter options. There was also a discussion regarding the details
and number of multi-family pick up from the variance in the average number of pick-ups per
multi-family property.
It was suggested that some consideration be undertaken for more recycling options if a
market exists. It was also suggested that the solid waste program undertake an evaluation of
volume versus weight and the cost differentials associated with each option. It was
suggested that the intent of the overall solid waste program be evaluated from the
homeowner's perspective whereby recycling has been encouraged by way of volume
reduction.
2
I.
VII.
Village Manager Janonis stated there will be a need to consider cost options for the current
system if there is any attempt to retain the system in any form. He also stated that overall
SWANCC capital costs have been going down over time which will impact the overall focus of
the program. He aJso stated there will be the need to evaluate the funding philosophy for
solid waste because $2.5 million of the property tax is currently earmarked for solid waste
expenses.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
Motion made by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to move into Closed
Session.
Meeting adjourned into Closed Session at 8:35 p.m. Meeting reconvened from Closed
Session at 9:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
DS/mc
H:\GEN\Cow\Minutes\021 I03 COW Minutes.doc
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
3
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM:
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
FEBRUARY 18, 2003
SUBJ:
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PHASE 2 COMPLIANCE EFFORTS
Backgrdund
NPDES Phase I Rule
In 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated
regulations establishing Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) storm water program. The Phase I rule required operators of large municipally
owned separate storm sewer systems, those serving populations of 100,000 or more, to
develop and implement storm water management programs.
These programs were intended to be an initial effort to reduce the quantity of pollutants
picked up by storm sewers and discharged to waterways during storm events. USEPA
believes that these programs can be effective at limiting the discharge of many common
waterway pollutants including oil and grease from roadways, pesticides from lawns,
sediment from construction sites, and litter.
NPDES Phase 2 Rule
In 2000, USEPA rule makers finished the Phase 2 rule. This rule extends the NPDES
storm water program requirements to smaller municipally owned storm sewer systems
situated in urban areas. The Mount Prospect separate storm sewer system is covered
by the Phase 2 rule.
The Village operates approximately 90 miles of storm sewers. These sewers primarily
drain areas of the Village developed after 1960. The Village's storm sewers discharge to
the Des Plaines River, McDonald Creek, Feehanville Creek, Weller Creek, and Higgins
Creek. Each creek ultimately outflows to the Des Plaines River.
NPDES Phase 2 Rule Requirements
USEPA designed the Phase 2 rule to utilize a general permit approach. Under this
approach, USEPA will issue general permits to local environmental protection agencies.
In illinois, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) will hold the general
permit for ail, or most, small storm sewer operators in the state. The Village, in turn, is
required to file a notice of intent to join the state's permit by March 10, 2003.
Page 2 of 6
National Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 Compliance Efforts
February 18, 2003
Notice of Intent
In order to join the state's permit, the Village was required to develop a storm
water management program that includes the following six (6) minimum control
measures:
Pubfic Education and Outreach
A plan for distributing educational materials and performing outreach to
inform citizens about the impacts polluted storm water runoff discharges can
have on water quality.
Pubfic Participation/Involvement
A method of providing opportunities for citizens to participate in program
development and implementation, including effectively publicizing public
hearings and/or encouraging citizen representatives on a storm water
management panel.
Elicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Develop and implement a plan to detect and eliminate elicit discharges to the
storm sewer system (includes developing a system map and informing the
community about hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper
disposal of waste).
Construction Site Runoff Control
Develop, implement, and enforce an erosion and sediment control program
for construction activities that disturb 1 or more aci'es of land (controls could
include silt fences and temporary storm water detention ponds).
Post~Construction Runoff Control
Develop, implement, and enforce a program to address discharges of post-
construction storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment
areas. Applicable controls could include preventative actions such as
protecting sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands) or the use of structural best
management practices such as grassed swales or porous pavement.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
Develop and implement a program to reduce pollutant runoff from municipal
operations. The program must include municipal staff commitments to
pollution prevention measures and techniques (e.g., regular street sweeping,
reduction in the use of pesticides, or frequent catch-basin cleaning).
IEPA rules also stipulate that the Village identify and/or establish specific best
management practices (BMPs) designed to satisfy the intent of each measure. An
example of a BMP designed to satisfy the intent of the pollution prevention/good
housekeeping control measure might be a formalized and documented street
sweeping program.
Page 3 of 6
National Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 Compliance Efforts
February 18, 2003
In addition, IEPA requires that measurable goals be developed for each BMP. An
example of a measurable goal for street sweeping might be to sweep all Village-
owed streets once every three (3) weeks, weather permitting.
Finally, IEPA has also mandated that each municipal storm sewer system joining the
State of Illinois general permit must identify a timetable implementing each BMP.
For the Village of Mount Prospect; the timetable for implementing a formal street
sweeping program would be immediately; it is already an existing program. All
management practices must be implemented within the next five (5) years.
All of these requirements, including identification of BMPs, development of
measurable goals, and formulation of timetables must be memorialized in writing on
the notice of intent form. For your reference, a copy of the completed notice of intent
form staff proposes to submit to IEPA is attached as Appendix 1.
Ann'ual Pro~lress Reports
Following IEPA acceptance of the notice of intent, the Village will also be required to
submit an annual progress report detailing efforts made to meet measurable goals.
A key feature of these reports will be to demonstrate progress made towards
meeting measurable goal implementation deadlines.
Future Responsibilities
At the present time, IEPA has identified no additional requirements necessary to
demonstrate compliance with NDPES Phase 2 rules. However, it is prudent to be
mindful that the purpose of the NPDES is to improve the quality of surface waters.
As such, it is feasible that degradation of water quality in the Des Plaines River, or in
Village creeks, could lead to additional state mandates such as treatment of storm
sewer discharges or systemic monitoring of receiving waters.
Village Compliance Efforts
Staff, with assistance from Stanley Consultants, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, has developed
a comprehensive listing of BMPs with associated measurable goals, and timelines.
Additionally, we have also attempted to provide estimated budget impacts for each BMP.
This listing is detailed in the tables found in Appendix 2 and summarized below.
Pubfic Education and Outreach
· Continue existing public education programs including distribution of the solid
waste/recycling brochure, public works open house, Arbor Day ceremony,
welcome new resident reception, and public works facility tours for children's
groups.
· Modify existing programs as follows:
o Post pet waste collection ordinance on Village web site.
o Increase storm water related newsletter articles to three (3) per year.
o Produce one (1) storm water related MPTV short segment per year.
· Develop a new program to include a storm water related flyer or brochure with
business license renewal documents. This new program is an effort to comply
with specific IEPA requirements for outreach to the business community.
· There are no new costs necessary to satisfy this control measure.
Page 4 of 6
National Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 Compliance Effods
Februaw 18,2003
Public Participation / Involvement
· Continue existing public participation opportunities including solid waste
commission meetings, educational seminars for school groups and multi-family
property owners, storm water management updates to the Village Board,
residential parkway tree planting programs, single and multi-family recycling
programs, and coffee with council meetings.
· Develop a new program to evaluate the feasibility of extending recycling program
to the commercial sector. This new program is an effort to comply with specific
IEPA requirements for outreach to the business community, it is also incidental
to current efforts to evaluate the potential for including businesses in the
exclusive solid waste contract.
· There are no new costs necessary to satisfy this control measure.
Elicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
· Continue existing elicit discharge detection and elimination programs including
storm sewer mapping, elicit discharge detection procedures, storm sewer outfall
inspections, building sump pump inspections, MWRDGC elicit discharge tracing
and elimination programs, HazMat response and clean-up programs, and annual
creek inspections.
· Develop new programs including:
o An in-house program to perform closed circuit television inspection of
storm sewers in commercial areas on a 10-year cycle.
o Publicize elicit detection procedures in Village newsletter, MTPV, and on
Village website.
· There are no new costs new costs necessary to satisfy this control measure.
Construction Site Runoff Control
· Continue existing construction site runoff control programs including engineering
plan reviews, plan review training, construction site inspections, construction site
inspection training, construction site code enforcement, and utility construction
parkway restoration program.
· Modify existing programs as follows:
o Update Village Code to incorporate new IEPA requirements for run-off
control (i.e. iEPA now requires all developers of parcels I acre or larger
to file a notice of intent to join the State of Illinois NPDES general permit).
· Produce new programs to inform developers of new regulations utilizing:
o MPTV
o Village website
o Village newsletter
o Informational packet distributed to developers and builders as part of the
permit process.
· Staff estimates a $10,000 initial expense and a $2,000 annual expense to
develop and print an informational packet for distribution to developers and
builders.
Construction Site Runoff Control
,, Continue existing post-construction site runoff control programs including
documentation and record-keeping for plan reviews and inspections, requiring
Page 5 of 6
National Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 Compliance Efforts
February 18, 2003
storm water control measures on new construction, requiring public hearings for
code variances, periodic training to update review and inspection staff on new
storm water requirements, issuing stop work orders for construction sites in
violation of Village Code, and inspecting retention/detention ponds twice yearly.
· Modify existing programs as follows:
o Update Village Code to incorporate new IEPA requirements for post
construction run-off control.
· Produce new programs to inform developers of new regulations utilizing:
o MPTV
o Village website
o Village newsletter
o Informational packet distributed to developers and builders as part of the
permit process.
· Staff estimates that there would be no new cost to satisfy the requirements of this
control measure (Note: costs for developing informational packet are considered
incidental to the cost of developing same to satisfy Construction Site Runoff
Control measure).
Poflution Prevention / Good Housekeeping
· Continue existing pollution prevention / good housekeeping programs including
detention/retention pond cleaning, storm sewer outfall structure repairs, catch
basin/inlet cleaning, public work facility vehicle washing station, proper disposal
of street cleaning and leaf program debris, covered landscape and material
storage, contained hazardous materials storage, street sweeping, and controlled
application of herbicides and pesticides.
· Develop a computerized maintenance management system to document
maintenance, plan review, and inspection activities. Inherent to this effort will be
the development of written andard operating procedures, policies, and protocols.
· Staff estimates that the cost to develop and implement an effective computerized
maintenance management will cost approximately $60,000.
Discussion
Staff has attempted to frame NPDES Phase 2 compliance with the dual goals of
satisfying federal regulations and minimizing costs. Accordingly, a review of our BMP
and measurable goal commitments will reveal substantial utilization of existing
programs. Furthermore, additional compliance was gained by modifying of other
existing programs. These results are intentional and were sought in order to improve
environmental safeguards for Vii[age waterways at the lowest possible cost.
However, two (2) notable exceptions to this philosophy are the storm sewer-mapping
project and the computerized maintenance management system.
Staff has endorsed continuing efforts to survey and map existing storm sewer system
assets at a rate of approximately $75,000 per year through 2006. USEPA and IEPA rule
makers have specifically stipulated that the development of accurate storm sewer
system maps is an essential component of the NPDES compliance process. Every
notice of intent must delineate an effort to develop a good storm sewer map.
Consequently, staff has determined that this cost is necessary and unavoidable.
age 6 of 6
National Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 Compliance Effo~s
Februaw 18,2003
Staff has also endorsed an effort to develop a computerized maintenance management
system to document maintenance activities, plan reviews, and inspections. Staff has
proposed to acquire this technology by means of an estimated $60,000 expenditure in
2006. Such a program is not an explicit requirement of NPDES Phase 2 rules.
However, NPDES rules do imply an additional duty to document activities and keep
records of enforcement actions. Staff believes that an investment in a computerized
maintenance management system will lend structure to record keeping and streamline
data retrieval processes necessitated by NPDES reporting and enforcement
requirements.
Conclusion
The deadline for filing a notice of intent to join the State of Illinois NPDES general permit
is March 10, 2003. Presently, the Village is well positioned to satisfy the requirements of
the NPDES Phase 2 rules and submit a notice of intent prior to the State deadline.
Staff requests that the Village Board be petitioned to approve the BMPs, measurable
goals, timelines, estimated budgets, and notice of intent form presented herein.
Staff also requests that the Village Board authorize the Mayor to sign the notice of intent
form. A suitable resolution requesting same will be presented for the Village Board's
consideration at the March 4, 2003 regular meeting.
Sean P. Dorsey
Cc: Director of Public Works Glen R. Andler
File
C:\STORM\NPDES COW MEMO,doc
NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PHASE 2 COMPLIANCE EFFORTS
APPENDIX
Notice of Intent
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTICE OF INTENT
FOR GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES FROM
SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS
(MS4s)
Part I. General Information
input forms in Word format are available
by via email.
marilyn.davenport~.epa.state.il.us
or by calling the Permit Section at
217/782.0610
See address for mailing on page 4
For Office Use Only - Permit No. ILR40
1. MS4 Operator Name: Village of Mount Prospect Department of Public Works
2. MS4 Operator Mailing Address:
Street- 1700 W. Central Road City- Mount Prospect
State- Illinois Zip Code- 60056
3. Operator Type: Village
4. Operator Status: Local
5. Name(s) of Governmental Entity(ies) in which MS4 is located: Village of Mount Prospect
6. Area of land that drains to your MS4 (in square miles): 10 square miles
Latitude/Longitude at approximate geographical center of MS4 for which you are requesting
authorization to discharge:
Latitude: 42 04 0 Longitude: 87 56
DEG. MIN. SEC. DEG. ~YIN
SEC.
8. Name(s) of known receiving waters: Attach additional sheets (Attachment 1) as necessary:
1. Wellers Creek 2.
3. McDonald Creek 4.
5. Higgins Creek 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
Feehanville Ditch
Des Plaines River
9. Persons Responsible for Implementation/Coordination of Storm Water Management Program:
Name Title
Glen R. Andler Director
Telephone No.
847-870-5640
Deputy
Director 847-870-5640
Area of Responsibility
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Sean P. Dorsey
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied.
Page
Part II. Best Management Practices (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented in the MS4 Area
(Details of BMP implementation for each checked B34[P number, e.g., A.1, E. 2, is required in Part lV of
this NO10
A. Public Education and Outreach
[] A.1 Distributed Paper Material
[] A.2 Speaking Engagement
[] A.3 Public Service Announcement
[] A.4 Community Event
[] A.5 Classroom Education Material
[] A.6 Other Public Education
B. Public Participation/Involvement
[] B.1 Public Panel
[] B.2 EducationalVolunteer
[] B.3 Stakeholder Meeting
[] B.4 Public Hearing
[] B.5 Volunteer Monitoring
[] B.6 Program Coordination
[] B.7 Other Public Involvement
C. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
[] C.1 Storm Sewer Map Preparation
[] C.2 Regulatory Control Program
[] C.3 Detection/Elimination Prioritization Plan
[] C.4 Illicit Discharge Tracing Procedures
[] C.5 Illicit Source Removal Procedures
[] C.6 Program Evaluation and Assessment
[] C.7 Visual Dry Weather Screening
[] C.8 Pollutant Field Testing
[] C.9 Public Notification
[] C.10 Other Illicit Discharge Controls
D. Construction Site Runoff Control
[] D.1 Regulatory Control Program
[] D.2 Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs
[] D.3 Other Waste Control Program
[] D.4 Site Plan Review Procedures
[] D.5 Public Information Handling Procedures
[] D.6 Site Inspection/Enforcement Procedures
[] D.7 Other Construction Site Runoff Controls
E. Post-Construction Runoff Control
[] E.1 Community Control Strategy
[] E.2 Regulatory Control Program
[] E.3 Long Term O&M Procedures
[] E.4 Pre-Const Review of BMP Designs
[] E.5 Site Inspections During Construction
[] E.6 Post-Construction Inspections
[] E.7 Other Post-Const Runoff Controls
F. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
[] F.1 Employee Training Program
[] F.2 Inspection and Maintenance Program
[] F.3 Muni Operations Storm Water Control
[] F.4 Municipal Operations Waste Disposal
[] F.5 Flood Management/Assess Guidelines
[] F.6 Other Municipal Operations Controls
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 2
Part III. Qualifying Local Programs
Attach additional sheets (Attachment 2) as necessarf:
(Describe any qualifying local programs that you will implement in lieu of new permitting requirements.)
1. Public Education and Outreach:
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) provides public education and outreach as
part of services that Village pays for. Includes brochure on waste disposal and recycling.
2. Public Participation/Involvement:
Illinois EPA hosts yearly hazardous waste collection pickup in the Chicago land region in which Mt.
Prospect residents may participate.
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination:
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) responsible for water
pollution control and sanitary/combined sewer treatment for multiple Chicago land communities. Part of
their responsibility is to check outfalls and to trace illicit discharges found and enforce disconnections of
illegal discharges.
4. Construction Site Runoff Control:
5. Post-Construction Runoff Control:
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping:
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 3
Part IV. Measurable Goals (include shared resPonsibilities) Proposed to be Implemented
by the MS4
Attach additional sheets (Attachment 3) as necessary
(BMP No. should match that checked bt Part 11 of this NOI. The applicant may repeat the satne BMP No. where more than one
BMP of similar ~ype is to be implemented. Where necessary, attach additional sheets to provide ,tore detail on each specific BMP.)
BMP No. A.I
Brief Description of BMP: Solid Waste Recycling Brochure ~ VillaRe provides a brochure to all residents
which covers ~arba~e disposal, recvclin~ leaf collection~ and other debris removal.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current circulation to residents.
Milestones:
Year 1: Maintain current program
Year 2: Maintain current program
Year 3: Maintain current program
Year 4: Maintain current program
Year 5: Maintain current program
BMP No. A.1
Brief Description of BMP: Pet Waste Collection Village Code - Current code is posted on Village website
and information included in Village newsletter.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue current notification and enforcement practices.
Milestones:
Year 1: Continue Existing Practice
Year 2: Continue Existing Practice
Year 3: Continue Existing Practice
Year 4: Continue Existing Practice
Year 5: Continue Existing Practice
BMP No. A.1
Brief Description of BMP: Storm Water Newspaper Article
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Publish 1 article every other news letter for three articles per
veer.
Milestones:
Year 1: Publish first article in June 2003.
Year 2: Publish three articles.
Year 3: Publish three articles.
Year 4: Publish three articles.
Year 5: Publish three articles.
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 4
BMP No. A.1
Brief Description of BMP: Business storm water fiver insert.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Include a storm water related fiver insert in the annual
business license renewal application.
Milestones:
Year 1: Collect information for flyer preparation
Year 2:
Year 3: Include flyer ~v/licencse renewal application
Year 4: Include flyer w/licencse renewal application
Year 5: Include fiver w/licencse renewal application
Part V. Certification
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather
and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
system, or those p~ersons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations.
Authorized Representative Name and Title
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Signature Date
Mail completed form to:
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ATTN: PERMIT SECTION
POST OFFICE BOX 19276
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied, Page 5
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Copy attd complete this page if additional pages are necessary:
Attachment 1
Receiving Streams (Continued)
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Information required by this form mast be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 6
Copy and complete this page if additional pages are necessary:
Attachment 2
Part III (Continued) Qualifying Local Programs
(Describe any qualifying local programs that you will implement in lieu of new permitting requirements.)
la. Public Education and Outreach:
2a. Public Participation/Involvement:
3a. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination:
4a. Construction Site Runoff Control:
Sa. Post-Construction Runoff Control:
6a. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping:
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 4t5 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 7
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. A.3
Brief Description of BMP: Cable TV Short Segment
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Develop and implement storm water education short segment
program by October 2005
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3: Broadcast first segment October.
Year 4:
Year 5:
BMP No. A.4
Brief Description of BMP: Public Works Open House Display - Village conducts an annual public works
open house. As part of this there is a storm water segment display to educate children.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Conduct open house annually.
Milestones:
Year 1: Continue annual program
Year 2: Continue annual program
Year 3: Continue annual program
Year 4: Continue annual program
Year 5: Continue annual program
BMP No. A.4
Brief Description of BMP: Arbor Day Community Event - Annual event hosted bv the Public Works
deprtment involving tree planting with participation by school children.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Conduct Arbor Day annually.
Milestones:
Year 1: Continue annual program
Year 2: Continue annual program
Year 3: Continue annual program
Year 4: Continue annual program
Year 5: Continue annual program
BMP No. A.4
Brief Description of BMP: Welcome New Resident Reception - Village hosts event twice a year in which
new residents have an opportunity to learn about Village services and practices. Included is a Public
Works booth which hands out the waste and recycling program brochure.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Welcome New Resident Reception twice annually.
Milestones: Year 1: Continue annualprograms
Year 2: Continue annual programs
Year 3: Continue annual programs
Year 4: Continue annual programs
Year 5: Continue annual programs
result in your application being denied. Page 8
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. A.6
Brief Description of BMP: Public Works Facility Tour - Public Works hosts tours for school children to
teach them about Village services and provides education on storm svater pollution prevention control.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Conduct two tours per year or more as requested.
Milestones:
Year 1: Continue annual tours
Year 2: Continue annual tours
Year 3: Continue annual tours
Year 4: Continue annual tours
Year 5: Continue annual tours
BMP No. B.1
Brief Description of BMP: Solid Waste Commission - Commission of residents that hold meetings with
the intent to act in advisory capacity to Mayor & Board of Trustees in proposing rules and regulations
regarding waste disposal and recycling.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue current program
Milestones:
Year l: Continue current program
Year 2: Continue current program
Year 3: Continue current program
Year 4: Continue current program
Year 5: Continue current program
BMP No. B.2
Brief Description of BMP: Educational Volunteer Program- Public Works staff educates childrens
classes and multi- family units owners on pollution prevention issues as requested.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Increase student awareness throu.oh current program
Milestones:
Year 1: Continue current program
Year 2: Continue current program
Year 3: Continue current program
Year 4: Continue current program
Year 5: Continue current program
BMP No. B.4
Brief Description of BMP: Village Board Update / Public Hearing - Public Works provides an annual
report to the BOard and public on Storm water management
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Annual update to Board
Milestones:
Year 1: One public meeting per year
Year 2: One public meeting per year
Year 3: One public meeting per year
Year 4: One public meeting per year
Year 5: One public meeting per year.
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 9
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. B.7
Brief Description of BMP: Tree Planting Program - Residents may request new trees for the parkway
and share in cost.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue existing tree planting ~ro~ram.
Milestones:
Year 1: Continue existing program.
Year 2: Continue existing program.
Year 3: Continue existing program.
Year 4: Continue existing program.
Year 5: Continue existing program.
BMP No. B.7
Brief Description o f BMP: Residential Recycling Program - Residents for both single and multi-family
homes have option for recycling pick-up at no additional cost - Village has very good participation
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current level of participation in recycling program
Milestones:
Year 1: Maintain current program
Year 2: Maintain current program
Year 3: Maintain current program
Year 4: Maintain current program
Year 5: Maintain current program
BMP No. B.7
Brief Description of BMP: Commercial Recycling Program - Village ordinances requires commercial
rec¥clers to offer services to businesses~ with businesses arranging for own pick-up
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Evaluate adding businesses to residential recycling program
and continue to provide recycling guidance to businesses.
Milestones:
Year 1: Complete business recycling evaluation by December 03.
Year 2: Continue providing business recycling ffuidance
Year 3: Continue providing business recycling guidance
Year 4: Continue providing business recycling guidance
Year 5: Continue providing business recycling guidance
BMP No. B.7
Brief Description of BMP: Coffee with Council - Village provides an open forum to residents to discuss
any issues with the Village council once a month.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue coffee with Council program.
Milestones: Year 1: Continue existing ~ro~ram
Year 2: Continue existing program
Year 3: Continue existing program
Year 4: Continue existing program
Year 5: Continue exlstin~ ~ro~ram
i. f,~.,.~:~v., ~,~;.~d b: ~',,;~ £~, ~, ,~o~ b~ v, v. ~.Ld: ...... vl~ ,. i~l~ 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Ya;l..',: to d ....... ~ v.~ * ~,~: ~]Zo fy, .~ £,v.~ b~;,~ ~, ....... d .i~d ~ ~',d
result in your application being denied. Page 10
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. C.1
Brief Description of BMP: Storm Sewer System Map - Village currently surveying all storm sewer system
and inputting into GIS system
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Complete one quarter of village mapping per year.
Milestones:
Year 1: Complete first quarter bv March 2003.
Year 2: Complete second quarter bv March 2004.
Year 3: Complete third quarter bv March 2005.
Year 4: Complete fourth quarter by March 2006.
Year 5: Update annually.
BMP No. C.2
Brief Description of BMP: Illicit Connection Ordinance - Current ordinances not adequate for new
requirements and will be revised and updated to meet new requirments.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Adopt revised ordinance by 2004.
Milestones:
Year 1: Develop revised ordinance by December 2003.
Year 2: Adopt revised ordinance bv Septebmer 2004.
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
BMP No. C.3
Brief Description of BMP: Illicit Detection/Elimination Plan - Village existing program provides for
detection/elimination requirements. (See follow on BMPs).
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current pro~ram
BMP No. C.4
Brief Description of BMP: Illicit Discharge Inspection - Inspections performed durin~ regular O&M
activities as well as for new construction. Storm sewers are videotaped o a 10 year cylce. 200 -300
residential and comercial buildings are inspected annually for illicit connections.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue exisitng pro~rams and practices.
Milestones: Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue exisitnff programs and practices.
Continue exisitnR programs and practices.
Continue exisitng programs and practices.
Continue exisitng programs and practices.
Continue exisitng programs and practices.
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 11
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. C.4
Brief Description of BMP: Hazardous Materials Response Program - Fire Department has a fully
trained hazardous materials response team that will respond to accidental and intentional probably
hazardous spills.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program.
Maintain current program.
Maintain current program.
Maintain current program.
Maintain current program.
BMP No. C.5
Brief Description 9f BMP: Illicit Connection Removal - VillaGe either notifies MWRD of illegal
discharge or enforces code for source removal.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program.
Maintain current ~roeram.
Maintain current program.
Maintain current oroeram.
Maintain current program.
BMP No. C.5
Brief Description of BMP: Hazardous Materials Cleanup Program - Fire Department will either clean
up a hazardous spill or make arrangements for the clean-up.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program with the Village Fire Dept~
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program with the Village Fire Dept.
Maintain current program with the Village Fire Dept.
Maintain current program with the Village Fire Dept.
Maintain current program with the Village Fire Dept.
Maintain current program with the Village Fire Dept.
BMP No. C.7
Brief Description of BMP: Dry Weather Creek Inspections - Currently inspected twice year
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program of two inspection per year.
Milestones:
Year 1: Two inspections per year~
Year 2: Two inspections per year~
Year 3: Two inspections per year.
Year 4: Two inspections per year.
Year 5: Two inspections per year.
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 12
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (inclUde shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. C.9
Brief Description of BMP:
but not well publicized.
Public Notification - Current procedures to call in for illegal discharges exist
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Publicize existing procedures in newsletter & TV.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3: Publicize procedures in newsletter and TV bv March 2005
Year 4:
Year 5:
BMP No. D.1
Brief Description of BMP: Storm Water Controls Ordinances - Current ordinances do not meet the
requirments of new regulations and will be updated.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Update and adopt revised ordiances.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Update ordinances for construction site storm water runoff by December 2003.
Adopt revised ordinances bv September 2004.
BMP No. D.1
Brief Description of BMP: Educate Stakeholders - Developers and Contractors - Current codes are on
the Village website and published in the newsletter. In addition guidance reference materials are provide
as requested. New information from revised ordinances will be included when completed.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program to educate stakeholders.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 13
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. D.4
Brief Description of BMP: Storm Water Runoff Site Plan Review - Current practices include reviewing
construction plans and erosion control is required on all proiects. Code variances require a public
hearing. Staffis trained for plan reviews.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current plan review procedures and staff training.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
BMP No. D.5
Brief Description .of BMP:
implemented.
Installation/Inspection Training - Staff trained as new requirements are
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue current training procedures.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue existin~ practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existin~ practice
Continue existing practice
BMP No. D.5
Brief Description of BMP: Site Inspection and Enforcement - Construction sites are currently inspected
once a week or more as needed and those that do not comply are shut down.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue existing inspection and enforcement practice.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue existing practices
Continue existing practices
Continue existin~ practices
Continue existing practices
Continue existing practices
BMP No. D.7
Brief Description of BMP: Public Notification - BMP previously counted in which current procedures
exist but need to be publicized.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Publicize program in newspaper and TV.
Milestones: Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3: Publicize program in newsletter and TV bv March 2005.
Year 4:
Year 5:
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 14
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (inclUde shared respOnsibilities) Proposed t° be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. D.7
Brief Description of BMP: Utility Construction Parkway Restoration - Current Village code requries
utility work permit which establishes parkway restoration requirements that are strictly enforced.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue Exisitng utility work permit program.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
BMP No. E.1
Brief Description of BMP: Post Construction Runoff Control Ordinance for Development,
Maintenance, and Improvement - Current ordinances do not meet requirements of new regulation and
will be updated.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Update and adopt revised ordinance by September 2004 for
post construction storm water runoff.
Milestones:
Year 1: Prepare updated ordinance by December 2003.
Year 2: Adopt revised ordinance by September 2004.
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
BMP No. E.2
Brief Description of BMP: Educate Stakeholders - Developers and Contractors - Current codes are on
the Village website and published in the newsletter. In addition guidance reference materials are provide
as requested. New information from revised ordinances will be included when completed.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program to educate stakeholders.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 15
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. E.3 .
Brief Description of BMP: Structural BMP Maintenance Ordinance - Current ordiances address long
term structural BMP maintenance requirements.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current ordiance and enforcement procedures.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
BMP No. E.4
Brief Description of BMP: BMPs Design Review - Permanent storm water BMPs required on
construction proiects and plans are currently reviewed. Any code variances require a public hearing.
Staff is fully trained.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current review practices.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current oroeram
Maintain current program
Maintain current program .
BMP No. E.5
Brief Description of BMP: BMP Installation and Inspection Training - Villa~[e staff currently trained as
new requiremetns for construction are implemented.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue current training practices.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 16
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. E.5
Brief Description of BMP: Site Inspection and Enforcement - Village staff currently inspects
construction sites and shuts down proiects that do not meet code.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue existing inspection and code enforcement
pro~oram.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current program
Maintain current pro,ram
Maintain current program
BMP No. E.6
Brief Description of BMP: Retention/Detention Pond Inspections - Village staff currently inspects all
detention/retention facilities twice annually.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current program to inspect retention/detention
ponds twice a year.
Milestones: Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Insepct twice annually
Inspect twice annually
Inspect twice annually
Inspect twice annually
Inspect twice annually
BMP No. F.1
Brief Description of BMP: Develop computerized maintenance tracking program for current public
works maintenance practices such as inspections, street maintenance etc.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Complete computerized program and implement into
normal routine operations.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Collect exisitng materials on maintenance practices bv December 2004
Initiate customized pro~ram development bv December 2005.
Complete proo~ram development by December 2006.
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 17
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. F.1
Brief Description of BMP: Village Employee Training on computerized tracking system
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Training for employees on good housekeeping computerized
tracking program completed within one year of complete program development.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
-Complete training by December 2006.
BMP No. F.2
Brief Description of BMP: Detention Pond Inspection and Cleaning - Current program to inspect twice
annually and after rain event; clean and repair as necessary.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current inspection and cleanin~ program.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current inspection and cleaning program.
Maintain current inspection and cleaning program.
Maintain current inspection and cleaning program.
Maintain current inspection and cleaning program.
Maintain current inspection and cleaning program.
BMP No. F.2
Brief Description of BMP: Outfall Structure Inspection and Repair ~ Current program to inspect twice
annually and after rain event and repair as necessary.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current inspection and maintenance program.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current inspection and maintenance program.
Maintain current inspection and maintenance program.
Maintain current inspection and maintenance program.
Maintain current inspection and maintenance program.
Maintain current inspection and maintenance program.
BMP No. F.2
Brief Description of BMP: Catch Basin/Inlet Cleaning - Current program in which structures are
inspected and cleaned on 7-year rotational cycle and during raod maintenance operations.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current inspection and cleaning practices.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue existing practices
Continue existing practices
Continue existing practices
Continue existing practices
Continue existing practices
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 18
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. F.4
Brief Description of BMP: Public Works Facility Fleet Washing Station - Current washing station
enclosed with triple catch basin connect to sanitary sewer.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current practices.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existinq practice
BMP No. F.4
Brief Description bf BMP: Street Cleaning Materials Disposal - Currently materials placed in a
dumpster that is hauled off the a landfill.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current disposal practices.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current disposal practices.
Maintain current disposal practices.
Maintain current disposal practices.
Maintain current disposal practices.
Maintain current disposal practices.
BMP No. F.4
Brief Description of BMP:
for ultimate disposal
Leaf Collection Disposal - Materials currently taken to EPA transfer station
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current disposal practices.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current disposal practices.
Maintain current disposal I~ractices.
Maintain current disposal practices.
Maintain current disposal practices.
Maintain current disposal practices.
BMP No. F.6
Brief Description of BMP:
covers.
Covered Landscape Material Storage - Materials under permanent
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Continue existing practice.
Milestones: Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Continue existing practice
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this form from being processed and could
result in your application being denied. Page 19
Attachment 3
Part IV. (Continued) Measurable Goals (include shared responsibilities) Proposed to be
Implemented by the MS4
BMP No. F.6
BriefDescriptionofBMP: Street Sweeping - Streets are currentlv swept everv three weeks during
season.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current street sweepin~ schedule.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Current practice - once every three weeks.
Current practice - once every three weeks.
Current practice - once every three weeks.
Current practice - once every three weeks.
Current practice - once every three weeks.
BMP No. F.6
BriefDescriptionofBMP: Contained Hazardous Material Stora~e - All hazardous materials are stored
in sealed containers and used materials are picked up by Safety Clean for recvcling.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current hazardous materials storage practice.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
BMP No. F.6
Brief Description of BMP:
under permanent covers.
Covered Matieral Storage - Materials includin~ salt, ~ravel, and sand are
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current materials coverage practice.
Milestones:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
BMP No. F.6
Brief Description of BMP: Controlled Application of Pesticides and Herbicides by Department of
Agriculture trained and certifed licensed applicators on Village facilities.
Measurable Goal(s), including frequencies: Maintain current practice
Milestones: Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
Year 4:
Year 5:
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Maintain current practice
Information required by this form must be provided to comply with 415 ILCS 5/39 (2000). Failure to do so may prevent this Corm from being processed and could
result in your application being denied, Page 20
NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PHASE 2 COMPLIANCE EFFORTS
APPENDIX 2
Best Management Practices Tables
NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PHASE 2 COMPLIANCE EFFORTS
APPENDIX 3
Storm Sewer Survey Progress Map
NPDES Phase II Storm Sewer Survey
--Progress Map--
III
As of January 2003
Areas Completed (Approx. 37 miles)
Areas to be Surveyed (Approx. 53 miles)
SD
v ,L DRAFT
02/18/03
RESOLUTION NO:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO SIGN A NOTICE OF INTENT
TO JOIN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS NPDES GENERAL PERMIT
WHEREAS, the notice of intent to join the State of Illinois NPDES general permit requires that
the Village of Mount Prospect authorize a representative to sign the notice of intent and
supporting documents; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect designates the Mayor as the authorized
representative of the Village of Mount Prospect to sign documents in conjunction with the notice
of intent and the State of Illinois NPDES general permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do
hereby designate the Mayor of the Village of Mount Prospect to sign the notice of intent to join
the State of Illinois NPDES general permit.
SECTION TWO: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and approval in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of ,2003.
ATTEST:
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
Velma W. Lowe
Village Clerk
DRAFT
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SUMMARY OF PENSION PLANS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
Police and Firefighters
Pension Funds
Retirement and Disability Programs
for Sworn Police and Firefighter
Personnel
Structure
· Single-employer plans
· Defined benefit plans
· Established by State Statute
(40 ILCS 5/3 Police Pension)
(40 ILCS 5/4 Firefighter Pension)
· State Legislature sets benefits
· Locally funded
· Participants not covered by Social
Security
Retirement Benefits
· Annual pension- 2.5% of final
salary for each year of service
· 50% pension at 20 years
· 75% maximum pension (30 Yrs)
· 3% annual increases at age 55
· Transfers to surviving spouse but
no further increases
· Earliest age to collect pension: 50
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 1
Disability Benefits
· Line of Duty: Benefit is the greater of 65% of
salary or the retirement pension the
employee would be eligible for
· Line of Duty disability pensions are tax free
· Non-Line of Duty: Benefit is 50% of salary
· Increases atage 60: 3% of original pension
· Transfers to surviving spouse, no increase
Pension Administration
· Separate boards created to control
and manage pension fund
activities
· Boards review and consider
pension applications
· Boards authorize and approve
expenditures
· Boards set investment policy and
direct treasurer on how to invest
Police Pension Fund
Board
· Two active police officers elected
by active members
· Two members appointed by Mayor
· One beneficiary elected by
beneficiaries
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 2
Firefi.qhters Pension
Fund'Board
· Mayor
· Clerk
· Village Attorney
· Village Treasurer
· Fire Chief
· 3 Firefighters elected by act!ve
membem
· 1 beneficiary elected by
beneficiaries
Pension Fund Financing
· Investment Earnings
· Employee Contdbutions
(Police- 9.91%)
(Firefighters- 8.455%)
· Municipal contributions (tax levy)
Municipal Contributions
· Must be sufficient to meet annual
requirement of fund as determined
by actuary
, Ann~lal requirement is normal
pension cost plus amodizafion of
over/under funding less amounts
received from other sources
· Funds must be fully funded by
2033
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 3
Actuarial Assumptions
· 8% Return on investments
· 5.5% projected salary increases
· 3% post-retirement benefit
increases
· Assets valued at market value
· Entry-age normal actuarial cost
method
· Level of percentage pay
amortization method
Fundin.cl Status-
Police Pension Fund
As of Jan. 1, 2002 Amount
Assets $31,396,220
Accrued Liability $38,213,704
Unfunded Liability $ 6,817,484
Percent Funded 82.2%
2002 Levy $ 876,003
Requirement
Funding S. tatu. s- .
Fire Pension runo
As of Jan. 1, 2002 Amount
Assets $33,085,014
Accrued Liability $39,140,700
Unfunded Liability $ 6,055,686
Percent Funded 84.5%
2002 Levy $ 925,943
Requirement
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 4
Investments Allowed by
Statute
· U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes & Bonds
· U.S. Agency Obligations
· Certificates of Deposit
· Illinois or Illinois municipality bonds
· State of Israel bonds
· Insurance Company G~C's
· Illinois Funds money market
Investments Allowed by
Statute (cont.)
· Insurance Co. separate accts (up
to 10% of portfolio)
· Mutual Funds
· Common and preferred stocks
· Note: Total investment in mutual
funds and individual stocks cannot
exceed 35% of portfolio
Illinois Municipal
Retirement Fund
Retirement and Disability Program for
Non-sworn Full-time and Certain Part-
time Employees
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 5
IMRF Structure
· Agent multiple-employer plan
· Defined benefit plan
· Established by State Statute
· State Legislature sets benefits
· Locally funded
· Participants covered by Social
Security
Retirement Benefits
· Vested at 8 yearn
· 1.66% of salary for each of the first
15 yearn of service
· 2% of salary for each of the next
25 years
· Salary is average of four highest
years in the last tee years
· 35% pension with 20 yearn
· 75% maximum pension (40 years)
Retirement Benefits
(cont.)
· Normal retirement age: 60
· Reduced pension available at 55
· Pension increases by 3% of
original pension each Jan. I
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 6
Disability Benefits
· IMRF pays difference between
Social Security disability benefits
and 50% of your average earnings
· Must have twelve months of
service
· Applies to disabilities exceeding
thirty days
Death Benefits
· Less than one year of service:
Not job related - return of
contributions Job related - one
year's salary plus contributions
· More than one year of service: One
year's salary plus contributions
· More than 8 years of service:
surviving spouse pension plus $3,000
or one year's earnings plus
contributions
IMRF Financing
· Investment earnings
· Employee contributions (4.5%)
· Municipal contributions -
determined by actuarial calculation
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 7
Actuarial Assumptions
· 7.5% return on investments
· 4% projected salary increases,
plus factor for merit/seniority
· 3% post-retirement benefit
increases
· Level of percentage pay
amortization method
· Entry-age normal actuarial cost
method
IMRF Funding Status
As of Dec. 31,2001 Amount
Assets $27,131,116
Accrued Liability $25,575,786
Overfunded Liability $ 3,555,330
Percent Funded 115.1%
2001 Contributions $ 547,578
OVERVIEW - POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FUNDS 8
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
AUGUST 29, 2002
PENSION BOARD OPERATIONS
At the Committee of the Whole meeting of August 13, 2002 I informed the Village Board that our
tax levy requirements for the Police and Firefighters' Pension Funds were going to be increasing
significantly based upon our recent actuarial studies. I stated that large increase is the result of
investment returns for 2001 falling significantly below the 8% investment return utilized by the
actuary.
During the course of the ensuing discussion, Trustee Corcoran requested that I provide the Board
additional information about the operations of the two pension boards. He specifically wanted to
know how investment decisions are made and which consultants are used to assist the boards and
what trustee administers the pension plans.
Composition of Pension Boards
The composition of the two pension boards is established by state statute. The Police Pension
Board is made up of two active police officers elected by active officers, one pensioner elected
amongst the retirees and disabled officers, and two residents appointed bythe Village
President. The Firefighters' Pension Fund is comprised of the Mayor, Village Clerk, Village
Attorney, Village Treasurer, the Fire Chief, three active firefighters elected amongst their active
members, and one pensioner elected by the retirees and disabled firefighters.
Administration of Pension Plans
Unlike corporate pension plans that are oftentimes turned over to a trustee to administer, state
statutes require pension boards to take active roles in the administration of the pension plan.
The board members review all applications for membership in the plan, review and consider all
applications for retirement and disability, and are responsible for all investment decisions. The
treasurer of the municipality is the custodian of the pension assets by statute, but must act
according to the direction of the pension boards. Therefore, municipal pension funds do not
use the services of an independent trustee. The Illinois Pension Code and the Administrative
Rules of the Illinois Department of Insurance are very specific with regard to almost every
aspect of the administration of the pension funds.
Investment Authority and Decision Making
Investments by suburban and downstate police and flrefighter pension funds are limited to
those investments authorized bythe State of Illinois in the Illinois Pension Code. Generally,
PENSION FUND OPERATIONS
AUGUST 29, 2002
Page 2
investments are limited to U.S. treasuryobligations, certificates of deposit, Illinois bonds or
bonds of any Illinois municipality, State of Israel bonds, general and separate accounts of life
insurance companies, U.S. agencyobligations, and the Illinois Treasurer's Investment Pool.
Prior to 1998 pension funds could only invest up to 10% of their assets in stocks, and the
investment had to be through insurance companyseparate accounts. As of January 1, 1998
the Code was amended to allow pension funds with assets of at least $2.5 million to invest up
to 35% of their assets in stocks through mutual funds. Funds with assets of at least $5 million
or more can invest up to 35% of their assets can directly purchase common or preferred stocks
through an investment manager. This is in addition to the 10% in equities allowed through
insurance company separate accounts.
The Pension Code requires pension boards to establish a ~itten investment policy. Both of
our pension boards have adopted such policies. Copies are available for the Village Board if so
requested. The investment policies are very similar to the investment policy approved by our
Village Board for village investments.
State statutes require the pension board members to act as fduciaries in the carrying out of
their duties; Furthermore, the statutes provide that board members be subject to the "Prudent
Expert Rule", which states that investments shall be made with the care, skill, prudence, and
diligence that a prudent person acting in a like capacityand familiar with such matters would
use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character with like aims. The Prudent Expert Rule is
a higher standard than the prudent person rule.
The two pension boards at Mount Prospect have always discussed investment strategy at their
quarterly meetings. All investment activities are reviewed and approved by the pension boards.
For years the finance director was used as the principal advisor to the pension boards on
investment matters. Due to a gro~ing portfolio and the codification of the prudent expert rule,
the two pension boards began to utilize the services of professional bond managers in the early
1990's. Each fund has split its fixed income holdings between two bond managers. In 1998,
when the investment authority of pension funds was expanded to include equities, the pension
boards decided to bring in an independent investment advisor to assist with asset allocation
studies, investment return analysis and investment alternative research.
In 1998, the pension boards decided it would be prudent to increase their equity holdings to the
45% allowed by statute. Due to the volatility of the market, both boards decided to use dollar-
cost averaging and increase their equity holdings over a period of three to four years.
Currently, equities make up approximately 26% of the Police Pension Fund portfolio and
approximately 20% of the Firefighters' Pension Fund portfolio. Both funds have decided to
invest through mutual funds, rather than invest in individual companies.
Investment Managers and Advisors
It so happens that the Police Pension Board and the Firefghters' Pension Board decided to use
the same investment managers and advisors. Following is the names and addresses of those
firms.
ENSION FUND OPERATIONS
AUGUST 29, 2002
Page 3
Investment Advisor:
Fixed Income Managers:
Becker, Burke Associates
221 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60601
Capital Gains, Inc.
6949 W. Jarvis
Niles, IL 60714
Segall Bryant and Hamill
10 South Wacker Drive
Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Conclusions
I hope that this memorandum provides the information Trustee Corcoran was seeking. If not, I
would be happy to provide additional information as requested.
It is unfortunate that the Village's contributions to the Police and Firefghter pension funds are
going to increase this coming year. Investment returns of 2% and 3% have not been the norm
for our two funds. In fact, our funds have regularly placed in the top 5% of all funds with regard
to investment returns. I believe the pension board members are doing an e~cellent job of
overseeing the pension funds and are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. The poor
investment performance of 2001 was not unique to Mount Prospect's t~o pension plans.
Corporate and public pension plans alike are going to be adversely affected by the stock
market tumble. IMRF is alreadywarning municipalities that employer contributions are going to
be increasing substantially over the next few years.
DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DRE/
I:\Corresp\lntl\2002\PENS[CN BOARD OPERATIONS.doc
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION TAX LEVIES
Last Ten Levy Years
i ,LevY : PolicePen~ion % ':' ! :Firefighter· %
year , LevY:. ::' Change Pension : Change
:..: ; . Levy ..
2002 $ 874,653 17.5 % $ 919,676 12.3 %
2001 744,090 5.7 % 818,657 10.4 %
2000 704,214 15.7 % 741,344 24.8 %
1999 608,634 (2.3 )% 594,252 16.3 %
1998 623,271 4.2 % 511,071 4.2 %
1997 597,950 20.9 % 490,409 48.8 %
1996 494,400 14.3 % 329,600 14.3 %
1995 432,600 68.0 % 288,400 12.0 %
1994 257,500 42.8 % 257,500 11.1%
1993 180,250 75.0 % 231,750 350.0%
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS
POLICE PENSION FUND
December 31,2002
Actuarial
Actuarial Accrued
Valuation Actuarial Liability
Date Value of (AAL) Funded
Januar~ 1 Assets Entry Age Ratio
1998 $26,632,406 $27,925,613 95.37%
1999 28,560,329 31,000,360 92.13%
2000 28,700,234 33,235,857 86.35%
2001 31,121,189 35,835,766 86.84%
2002 31,396,220 38,213,704 82.20%
Unfunded
Accrued
Liability
$1,293,207
2,440,031
4,535,623
4,714,577
6,817,484
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS
FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND
December 31, 2002
Actuarial
Actuarial Accrued
Valuation Actuarial Liability
Date Value of (AAL) Funded
January 1 Assets Entry A~le Ratio
1998 $28,984,369 $28,109,876 103.11%
1999 30,780,183 32,607,061 94.40%
2000 30,091,010 34,633,217 86.88%
2001 32,486,604 37,613,473 86.37%
2002 33,085,014 39,140,700 84.50%
Unfunded
(Overfunded)
Accrued
Liability
($874,493)
1,826,878
4,542,207
5,126,869
6,055,686
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ILLiNOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
CONTRIBUTION HISTORY
Last Ten Years
,.... "'.i.::"'~. Cahfi-ibd{idh C0htributi0ni:'::
':.i~:'7'':: .'": ~a~e" ":!:':::/:, .X~'ahht'"::!":!' ' cha~e
2003 4.89% N/A N/A
2002 4.39% $452,098 (17.5)%
2001 5.54% $547,578 (13.5)%
2000 6.70% $632,972 (16.5)%
1999 8.44% $757,650 2.6 %
1998 8.76% $738,225 (0.3)%
1997 9.00% $740,136 6.6 %
1996 9.10% $694,416 5.5 %
1995 9.20% $658,474 (3.5)%
1994 10.00% $682,225 7.1%
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
December 31,2002
Actuarial
Actuarial Accrued
Valuation Actuarial Liability
Date Value of (AAL) Funded
Dec. 31 Assets Entry Age Ratio
1997 $15,952,831 $16,379,604 97.39%
1998 18,402,231 17,354,438 106.04%
1999 22,377,955 20,083,633 111.42%
2000 25,739,316 22,191,651 115.99%
2001 27,131,116 23,575,786 115.08%
Unfunded
(Overfunded)
Accrued
Liability
$426,773
(1,047,793)
(2,294,322)
(3,547,665)
(3,555,330)
Health InsUrance The Year 2003
And Beyond
Village of Motmt Prospect
Health Insurance
Summary
Health Insurance
-- * Issues related to health care crisis
· Annual double digit premlum increases
· Drug costs are 20% to 25% of entire cost of premlums
· Federal Government is not providing a national solution
· Employers are focusing on cost containing strategies
Health and Dental Insurance
· Medical Insurance
· CoreSouree PPO
(~)
First Commonwealth
Active employees and retirees may choose what plan
best meets their needs.
Participation
· Medical Insurance · Dental Program
Program · hldenluity ( 43 )*
· CoreSourcePPO(262)* · HMO(75)'
· HMO IL (134)*
General Healthcare
Terms and Definitions
· PPO - Preferred Provider Organization · Traditional plan allows employee flexibility in
choosing your healthcare provider(s)
· Focus is on diagnosis and treatment of services
· Health Care providers agree to discounted
PPO
Terms and Definitions
-- * Deductible
· Initial cost is assumed by employee, benefit plan
provides coverage after initial cost
-- * Out-of-Pocket
· In Network Provider
· Medical providers agree to discount rates based on
· Usual and Customa~'
· Pricing determined by typical market cost for specific
2
...... General Healthcare
Terms and Definitions
· HMO - Health Maintenance Organization
· Managed care plan
· Ali medical care is managed by Primary Care
Physician (PCP)
· Plan focuses on health prevention services.
· Annual physicals, visioa screenings, cancer
screenings, well baby care, etc.
General Healthcare
Terms and Definitions
· Co-Pay
· Dependent on plan desig~, participant in plan
pays fixed dollar amount for certain products or
The Village of Mount Prospect
PPO Plan Design
__ · Benefits covered at 90% in networkJl0%
employee responsibility
__ · Benefits covered at 70% out-of-network/30%
employee responsibility
* Benefits include major medical, office visits
etc.
-- * Plan does not include a Vision Plan
3
The Village of Mount Prospect
PPO Plan Design
· Out-Of-Pocket Maximum
· Annaal deductible $250/single or $750/family
· Tied to employee's base salary (2% single/4%
famiIy)
· Higher income employees pay higher Out-Of-
Pocket maximum
~ The Village of Mount Prospect
PPO Plan Design
Prescription Co-Pays
$ 9.00- Co-payment per generic RX
$18.00 - Co-payment per brand name RX
The Village of Mount Prospect
~ HMO Illinois Plan Design
· Must use primary care physician (PCP) and
doctors within HMO IL system
· No co-pay or deduct~les for office visits or
hospital service
· Emergency Room co-pay $50
· Vision care included
· Prescription costs:
· $ 3,00 Generic drugs
· $ 8.00 Fommlary brand drugs
· $23.00 Non-formulary bra~d drugs
4
Medical Insurance Actual
Expenses
· Total Medical Insurance Costs
· 7/98-7/99 $1,827,605
· 7/99-7/00 $2,287,231
· 7/00-7/01 $2,326,479
· 7/01-7/02 $2,665,550
· 7/02-7/03* $2,944,136
Intergovernmental Personnel
Benefits Cooperative (IPBC)
· A municipal cooperative
· Similar communities that participate:
· Buffalo Grove, Wheeling Glenv~ew, Rolling
125 - Flex Comp Plan
· IRS reguIations allow employers to create
plans that allow employees to make pre-tax
payroll deductions to cover certain medical
expenses.
· All employees are automatically covered for
annual premium contributions (Single $276;
Family $648)
125 - Flex Comp Plan Cont.
· Employees may also shelter additional salary
to cover the cost of out-of-pocket medical
expenses, not covered by the plan ( i.e.
deductibles, vision and dental)
· Depending on individuaI tax bracket this
could mean a 18 - 32% increase in
purchasing power
Dental Program
* Voluntary program with employee paying
100% of premium
* Out-Of-Pocket expenses are eligible for 125
Plan reimbursement
· Benefits
· Check-ups, cleanings, other services at a
discounted co-pay
National Issues
Facing All Employers
· Cost increases trending at 15% ~ 20% annually
"Employers requiring employees to contribute more
in monthly premium costs
· Healthcare cost solutions have not been available
from Federal government
· Major cost drivers are prescription costs and aging
population (i.e. Baby Boomers)
Health Insurance Benefits To
Retirees
· By state law, retired employees are allowed
to continue participation in the Village's
medical insurance program by paying 100%
of the premium
* State law prohibits reducing medical plan
design benefit levels for retirees ( retirees are
offered the same healthcare plan options as
active employees)
PPO Monthly Premiums
7/2002-7/2003
Single coverage $ 408
Single + one coverage $ 866
Family coverage $1,122
Medicare single coverage $ 274
Two (2) Medicare coverage $ 519
Medicare + single coverage $ 654
HMO Monthly Premiums
7/2002-7/2003
Single coverage $ 244
Family coverage $ 722
Medicare single coverage $ 207
Two (2) Medieare coverage $ 415
Medicare + single coverage $ 451
7
1.!;~'nploycr-spo~sorcd l'~caltl~ i~sttra~cc reacl~cs t~early' two out of' every fierce ,'.\lncricans,
includi,~g active workers, rct'irocs, a~'~d l'l~cir clcpc~det~ts. "l'b provide current i,~formati, o~
abouL thc haLt.rfc of etnl>lo,x.'cr-proxidcd l~calth l>c~el:its, the Kaiser Family' Foundat'io~'~ and
I leatt'l~ Research a~cl l.?7,ducatio~al 'l"rusl' cot~¢luct an animal national s~rvey of employers of
all sizes. 'l.'l~is l~ri. ef su~n~'lqari×cs fi~cli~gs fl'c)t~ t'l'~e 2002 Kaiser/lfl>d.,';q' Survey.
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Bchvec~ spri~g of zc)o, az~d spri~g
2oo2, ~nm~lhly prcini~ms Gr cmpl{')ycr-
spm~sored l~ealtl~ iiist~ra~ce rose
thc seco~d collscctitix'c yom' of &mi>lc-
.
digil pre~nium i~;creascs, and thc lm'~esl
i~mrcasc since 199o. ,,Xx'cr;~gc alum:l] l~rc-
n'~i~n costs mst I.{) S;,o6c. t}~r si~lc
$%o53 i~ ~co~). Pl'c~'~ittz~s i~crcascd
subsla~tiallv Etslcr fl'~:n~ {>x'crall
(~.6~) m~d wage gaines l)~r nm~-s~pcr-
visory xs.'{~r~ers (3.4%). ,-Xx'cra~e rates
increase were sitnilar across firn~ sizes,
i~rh~sh'ics, a~d region,s oi'll~c co~t~lry,
tl~ere was significa~l variability aro~tr~d
the average' 2~% of employees worked
finns w]~crc pre,nlm'ns i~'~crcascd
or less. while
,,,~. of employees worked
~.3 ,, .
for firms wl~ere l.~re~iu~s increased by
more tl~an ~Sg. (I:ix~rrs A an~l B
Of all plan types, hcaltl~ ~nai~'~l. cna~cc
m'gar~izatio~s (H.XlOs)restrain
costly and
pla~s rc~ai~ kl~c ~n{>st CXl)C~six'c.
EXHIBIT A
Average Annual Premium Costs for Covered Workers, $ingte and Family
Coverage, 2002
CONVENTIONAL
HMO
PPO
,~:~ ~, :4' ..... ~' ~ ~ '~'~: ~ .... ~ '*~' ~1,, '~ ~' ' ,~, ~'~ ~, ~
FA
M tLY
POS
ALL PLANS
s~Le ~. '. '¢'.": "31s~,°6°
FAMILY ~.. :~
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Sto,ooo
WORKER CONTRIBUTION
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION
S,,:,,rce: Kaiser/FRET Survev of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits: 200:>
' Estimate is stat;stir, ally different h'om All Plans by coverage type.
THE :(AISER FAMILY FOUNDATION -AND- HEALTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST
II
EXHIBIT 8
Increases in Health Insurance Premiums Compared to Other Indicators, 1988-2oo2
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
2%
O%
,[ [ : ~Z ! 11.0'
120 ' I ' '
! I ~ . .5 8.3' i
!988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Sol,fcc:
i(aiser,'H.¢ET SJrvel/of E:'r'l)lo,'er-SlSC:lsered iDa:th Benefits: 1999. 2000, 20oi, 2oo2; KPMG Survey or
{..q. . :~: ...-~:...:.. h · ". .: .... I.,/:"' .]~.. 'l~ .:.- .:.~ ;,:,..~..c'...~.. r~¢"~.r'~:.:H'.'C~' :9~~.
~¥.:~.2: : '~..:.. ::.[..::.',.~ :'.; '.~.(.."...."...'~.. , i'.,..,. ,, '.,~,e'/i~:,d,:fY.'h'..,. Ir'~.i..:':'~A~::i'.~,'q~ril),
and Medical inflation, z988-2oo~; B~rea~ of Labor Stalistic:s, Seasonally Adjasted Data from [he Current
Employment SLatistics Ssrve~, ~988-2002.
· Estimate is slatistica~lv different flora the previous year shown: t996-t999, t999-2000, 2000-2om, 200~-2002.
Note: Dala on premium iacre.'ises reflec~ Ihe co5~ of hea~th insurance premidms for a family of four.
HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS
MEDICAL INFLATION
OVERALL INFLATION
WORKERS' EARNINGS
This high rate of growfl~ al)pears to have
been driven primarily by rapid i~lt]alion in
spending for healfl'~ care sen'ices. Premim'n
equivalents for sclf-i~tsured plans (lite esti-
mated cosl of health care claims for an
employee whose employer self-insures) -
which arc a reflection 'of growth in trader-
lying health care costs - grew by n.35~ over
thc last' year, or roughly the same rate as
prelniums for insured l)h. ms. This s~ggcsts
that insurers' decisions about premiu~s arc
being influenced more by cost trends tl lair bv
catch-up pricing associated with I'hc nnclcr-
writing cycle.
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS AND
COST-SHARING
Workers are paying more for si~gle coverage
titan they did in 2cot. ()n average, employees
are now paying .5.'38 per ~no~dl'l ~.$4-5-:t- per
),car) for single coverage, a W% increase
from last' year, and $U4 per montll (.%,o84
per ),ear) for family coverage, a ~6% increase
(Exmm'r C). /)espile these large increases,
tl~e percentage ofprcmiurns paid by workers
is statistically uncl~anged over the last two
years, at x6% for single coverage and 27% for
family coverage. However, single employees
are still paying a substantially lower share
than the 2V~, of the premium they were pay-
ing in t996.
l')urii~g lira past year, employers have also
increased patient cost-sharing requirements
in tl~e form of h igller deductibles and ct)pa)=
mexfls. [%r PPO plans (tl~e most common
type of 1)lal~ covering alxmt half of all work-
ers), the average deductible for preferred
providers i~creased 37% to Sz76. 'l'he per-
eentage of workers in HMOs facing a
COl)ayment for outpatient physician sen4ces
rose fi'om 2% last year to n%. Tiered insur-
ance plans, where cost-sharing varies for in-
nehvork providers based on their cost and, in
some cases, tlmir qualily, are used for 5-9%
of covered workers, depending on phm type.
jTHE KAISER FAMILYFOUNDATION ,'..NJ) HEALTH RESEARCtlAND EDUCATIONAL TRUST
Copayme~lts for prescription drugs contimxe
lo creep up, averaging $9 for generics, 5~7
for preferred drugs (brand name drugs with
no generic substitutes), and $26 for non-
preferred drags (brand name drugs with
generic substitutes). Copayments for non-
preferred drugs increased substantially,
from Szt last year to $26 in 2oo2. The use of
three-tier cosl~sharing arrangements hns
nearly doubled over the past two years,
growing from 29% of covered workers in
2000 to 57~ in 2002. Additionally, 28% of
covered workers have two-tier cost sharing.
'Ille rise in employee cosLs is likely to coil-
tinue. Fifty-six percent of large firms (2oo
or l'norc workers) increased tile amoul'lt
that employees paid for health ii'~surance iii
20o2, and 78% sa), that a further increase is
very or somewhat likely next year. :'\bout
one-third of all firms and 42% of large firms
say that they are very or somewMt likely to
increase deductibles next year. x, gqfile the
less competitive labor lnarkct nlav make ii'
easier h)r ernployers to pass along Ibc cost
of health insurance to employees, doing m
may have an adverse impact on a fin'ifs
ability to attract aiKl retain workers. An,o~g
the firms that did not increase the arnotu~t
that emplo)'ees pay, 5% rcporled it was
much easier to attract and rctailt workers i~l
the last year, compared to ~% of firms who
increased eml>lo)'ee costs.
COVERAGE
With a weakened econornv and escalati~g
premium inflation, the brief period of in-
creasing employer coverage - and concomi-
tant drop in the nun'd~er of uninsm'cd
Americans - has come to a close. In 2002.
6x% of all small businesses (3q99 employ-
ees) offered health coverage to their work-
ers, down kom 67% in 2000 (p<oa). Tills
may be evidence of erosion in the nmnbcr
of small firlns offering coverage - we xx'ill
need to watch for this trend ~ext year.
Coverage conlinues to vary s,,fl)sttud!ail.: ·
firrn size: 55% of the smallest companies
(34) workers) offer health insurmlce, but
that rises to 74% for firms with to to 24 work-
ers and 88% for businesses with z5 I'o 49
employees. Nearly all firms with 5o or more
workers offer coverage. Firms with manv
part-lime workers are less likely
health insurance - only 38% of firms with a
high percentage (35% or ~nore) Of lmrl-time
workers offer health coverage to their
employees, compared with 64% of firms
with fewer parbtime workers. Firms Iha['
employ union workers arc very likely
offer coverage {92%) (Em IiBn' D).
However, creel when a t'irnt offers l~c:alt'l~
insurance, ~mt all workers get covered.
firnls that offer coverage, 79% of workc:'s
EXHIBIT C
Average Monthly Worker Contribution for Single and Family Coverage,
1.988-2002
$180
$~60
$140
$~20
$~oo
$8o
$60
$40
$20
So
$8
.5..:;
$34 I~ $28* $30
SINGLE COVERAGE
$150
$138'
$124 $122
$52
FAMI kY COVERAGE
$174'
Source: Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer-Sponsored Healti~ Benefits:
200o, 2o0], 2oo2; KPMG Survey of Employer-Sponso-ed Health
Benefits: z988, ~993, ~996.
' Estimate is statisticaliy differeqt from the previous year shown:
1996-2~0o, 2ooo.2o01, 2001-2(:::o2.
~993
~996
2000
2001
2002
are eligible for coverage, and 84% of those
eligible elect· to take it. h'J firrns offering
coverage, 67% of v,'orkers have jol)-based
l'~caltll insurance tim)ugh tlmir eml)loycrs.
I~.al')idlv increasi~g lxcrniums have gener-
,3 .... .,FC,.::i,JL:;;., t'lmt' employers may move
to new types of health insurance arrange-
me~ds in order to helI) coldrol filtt~re costs.
One such option is a defined contribution
approach -wi;crc, in lhe extreme, employees
are givel~ cash to 1)ur health insurance on
their own ratl~cr then selecting among
plans with whicl~ the employer ~ontracls.
As in l)rcvious years, however, most firms
say tl~ey are ~ltlt likely to move to this
defined contribution approach, with only
6% of firms reporli~ig that it is very likely
and ~7% reporting that it is somewhat likely
that they will move to such an arrangement
in the next five years.
'l'l~c deb:de, t)vcr expanding 'Medicare to
cover prescril)lion drttg benefits continues
ill 2002, calling attention lo enlploycr cover-
age of retirees (whicll accounts for most of
the drag coverage now provided to Medi~
care-age beneficiaries). Of finns offering
retiree health benefits, 31% (and 6o% of
firnls with 5,000 or more workers) irt-
creased tile share of premiums paid by
enrollees. This year, 9% of large firrns
(2oo or more workers) report that they
have eliminated retiree benefits for new
ernployees or for current employees who
have not yet retired; n% of large firms sa)'
that tilex' are ve~' or somewhat likely to do
so over the next two years.
HEALTH PLAN ENROLLMENT
AND CHOICE
PPOs contirme to be the most corumon l)lan
in 2002, enrolling just over half of all
ernployees with health coverage, lIMO
enrollment, which had been falling over the
past' several years, appears to have stabilized.
liMOs cover about 26% of employees with
health insurance Ihis year. Corwentional
(or indemnity) insurance has all but dis-
appeared, enrolling just 5% of employees.
-HE KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION .ANI3. HEALTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST
EXHIBIT D
Percentage of Firms Offerin§ Health Benefits, by Firm Size, 1996-2oo2
99 1OO99 99 99
~°°% 90 st s7 93~'~ 96 96 i '" ~ii: ii
· .:
60' ~':i{ 67*65
2 0 %
-9 WORKERS 10--2/. WORKERS 25-49 WORKERS 50-199 WORKERS ALL SMALL FIRMS ALL LARGE FIRMS
(3-199 WORKERS) (200+ WORKERS)
Source: Kaiser/HRET Survey of Ernp!oyer-Sporsored HeaRh Benefits: 2ooo, 2om, 200).;
KPMG Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits: :996, ~998.
'Estimate is statistically dif'ereqt from d'le previous year sho.vn: ~-996-~.998, ~.998-~ooo, 2ooo-2ooi, 2ool-2oo2.
^Es.'.irnate is s~atistica[ly differe.':t frorn the previous year shown at p · 04: 2ooo-~.oo)..
:' 1996
...... '.
: ,/.'~' 1998
~ ~0oo
~oo~
Most workers v,,iti~ b. ealth coverage
through tl'{cir employers c,,mti,mc i. have
a choice of l~ealth plans, witl~ just under
half having a choice of three or more
plans. PPO coverage conlinucs in 2.:>o2 Io
be the most common l~ealth plan option.
Small firms (3q99 workers) arc nluch less
likeb' to offer workc.'s a cl~oicc of i~call, l~
plans than larger companies - 93g, of all
small firms flint l,'ovidc coverage ofl~r just
one healtl~ plan, compared to 4o~. of larger
businesses.
HEALTH BENEFITS
In goner:ti, larger fi,',~s offer sou,ewlmt
more generous bene.:'its than smaller ~rms,
and lIMO and POS plans tend to ofi~r thc
most comprel~el~sive [)C~lt:fil.s packages.
While most workers experienced no change
itt benefits in 2ooz, for the first time i~ sev-
eral years, the pereentage of covered workers
in firms that report a decrease in the 1.:.vcl of
benefits offered to workers is grouter tha~t
the perce~m~ge 'reporting increases, with
.o% reporting benefit increases and t7%
rel>orli~g benefit reductions. The percentage
of workers in firms reporting decreased levels
of benefits lms been~"~s,ng" in the last several
years, from 7% of all firms in 2ooo to ]7% (ff
all firms in mo~.
OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE
Tl~is War's survey shows ti'mt multiple years
of accelerating premium growfl~ and a
weakened economy may have beDm to
erode the coverage improvements of the
past few years. The survey raises a caution-
arv hole, witl~ fewer small employers
alspearil~g to be offering health benefits
(6Y~)...k maiority of employers (53% of all
firu~s and 65% of large finns with 2o0 or
more employees) report that health insur-
ance is thc benefit flint causes the greatest
cost content, 'a~d employers (6~%) remain
very or somewhat worried that the cost of
health insurance xvill increase fi~stcr than
i]'~ev can afford. These results have held
steady over tl,e last few years. Despite con-
ccrns over increasing costs, hov,,cvcr, less
than ~ of firms report that they are very
likely to stop offering health benefits in thc
near
What seems clear is flint employees are
likely to pay more fi)r health benefits and
health care in the future. This year, 43% of
all firms and 78% of lai'gc finns (zoo or
more workers) report that they are very or
somewhat likely to increase thc amount
that c~nployccs pay in zoo3. Thirty-two per-
cent of all firms and 4z% of large firms
report that they are very or so,newhat likely
to increase deductibles, while 34% of all
firms sa5' they are very of sorncwhat 'likely 1'o
raise employee costs for prcscription drugs.
A slightly higher percentage of all firms
report they are yen..., or somevd'u.tt likely to
increase employee's costs or restrict cligibil-
i~' for coverage if ihe economic downturn
continues or prerniun'~s increase next year'
by 20% or more.
THE KA!SER FAMILY FOUNDAT:ON Al'iD. HEALTH RESEARCH AND EDUCAT{ONAL TRUST
Average Copays for Generic Drugs, Preferred Drugs, and Non-Preferred Drugs, 2000, 2001
and 2002
$30
$25
$20
$1_5 ..... $14
$~o i.~
$5~
· . . ~.~.: .
k: ,.~ ',.::
2000
. .
$16
$26*
$15'
,. . ~./~: '
200!
$20*
$17'
2002
GENERIC
PREFERRED DRUGS
NON-PREFERRED DRUGS
SOURCE:
i(aiser/HRET Survev of Et:~p~oyer-Sponsored Health Benefits: 2ODD, 2ool,
Es.*:mate is statistic:,,lly d:.rferent from previous year by drug tier, 2ooo-2oo~, :2OOl-2OO2.
Generic drugs: a d[ug product t.~at is no longer covered by patent protection and thus may be produced and/or
dlstributed by manv firms.
Preferred drugs: brand narne drugs with no generic substitutes.
Non-preferred drugs: brand name drugs with §eneric substitutes.
Brand name drugs: generally, a drug product that is covered by a patent and is thus manufactured and sold exclusively
by one firm. Cross licensing occasionally occurs, allowing an additiona( firm to market the drug. After the patent expires,
muitipIe firms can ~roduce the drug product, but the brand name or trademark remains with the original manufacturer's
9roduct.
No..e: On average, generic drugs cost $)'.68 in 2ooo, $8.~9 in 2ool, and $$.8o in 2oo2.
THE KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION ..AND. HEALTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, February 27, 2003
7:00 p.m.
Village Hall Building
100 South Emerson Street
2na Floor Conference Room
I Call to Order
II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of January 23, 2003
III Discussion Regarding 2004 Projected Budget Deficit
IV Chairman's Report
V Finance Director's Report
VI Other Business
VII Next Meeting: Thursday, March 20, 2003, 7:00 p.m.
VIII Adjournment
NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs
some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South
Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064.
DRAFT
FINANCE COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
JANUARY 23, 2003
VILLAGE IJaALL BUILDING
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and
Commissioners Charles Bennett, George Busse, Tom Pekins and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Director
of Finance Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative
Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioner Ann Hull arrived and 7:55 and Vince Grochocinski was absent.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The approval of minutes was deferred until later in the meeting when a quorum would be present.
III. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED 2003 WOP. K PLAN
There was a brief discussion regarding the 2003 work plan. Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to
move the March 27~ meeting to March 20~. Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded the motion and the
motion carried. Commissioner George Busse motioned to cancel the meetings scheduled for November
27th and December 25th. Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Following the motions a tentative agenda was created.
IV. DISCUSSION REGARDING 2004 PROJECTED BUDGET DEFICIT
Chairman John Korn began the discussion by mentioning Levy 37, which was mentioned in the newspaper
recently. Chairman Korn stated that Levy 37 is a project that will repair part of the Des Plahies River
system. Mount Prospect and Prospect Heights will share in the cost of repairing the system, and Mount
Prospect' s portion of the costs would be roughly $125,000.
Chairman Korn also mentioned the memo the commissioners received from the Director of Finance
Douglas Ellsworth regarding the financing for a new fire station number 14. Chairman Korn stated that the
commissioners should be aware of the project and should keep it under consideration during the budget
process. There was a brief discussion among the members regarding the construction figures being used.
The members were in agreement that the figures might not be accurate, as the cost of construction has
increased over the last few years. The members would like to have the fire department work up new
figures to see what current construction costs would be.
Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth provided a brief summary of the results of the Park Ridge Survey.
Mr. Ellsworth stated that for expenditures Mount Prospect was ranked third lowest and for revenues fifth
highest.
Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth also summarized a revenue survey he conducted among the
surrounding communities. Mr. Ellsworth stated the revenue survey was designed to obtain information
that is relevant to the Village' s 2004 Budget discussions. Mr. Ellsworth mentioned that the
telecommunication tax rates in the survey reflected the new simplified telecommunications tax. Mr.
Ellsworth explained that the state took the 1% Infrastructure Maintenance Fee and added it to the
telecommunications tax.
Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth presented a copy of the Village' s Five-Year Financial Forecast.
Mr. Ellsworth explained that revenues are increasing at a rate of 2.3 % to 2.7 % per year whereas expenses
are increasing 4.5% - 5.3% per year. The 2% difference between revenues and expenditures is equal to
roughly $700,000 per year in a $35,000,000 general fund budget.
Commissioner George Busse distributed a working document on the 2004 Budget to help the members in
their discussion on the projected deficit.
Chairman John Korn began the discussion by asking if the commission agreed with any of the debt issues
raised by Commissioner Busse. Regarding the rebuilding of the North Fire Station the members agreed
that they would like the fire department to advise if the figure of $1.5 million being used for the past
several years is still a valid figure. Commissioner George Busse stated he felt that the items in the CIP
could be reduced or postponed for a year, especially the Corridor Improvements. The following
summarizes the votes on the various items included in the 2004 Budget discussion.
ISSUES
Voted to Eliminate: Bennett,
Elimination of Vehicle Sticker Busse, Hull, Korn and Pekras. Voted to keep: Smilanic
Voted in Favor: Bennett, Busse Voted to defer: Hull, Pekras
North Fire Dept. Debt Service and Kom and Smilanic
Voted in Favor: Bennett, Pekras Voted Against: Busse, Hull
Southside Resource Center and Smilanic and Korn
Voted in Favor of Funding:
Bennett, Busse, Hull, Korn and
CIP Contribution Pekras Voted Against: Smilanic
The members then discussed the various ways income could be produced through the elimination and/or
reduction of programs or increase in taxes. Two items discussed were the one-year extension of the
vehicle replacement and computer programs. After a brief discussion the members decided that these two
items were no longer viable and wanted to exclude them from their vote. The members discussed the items
from Commissioner Busse' s working document as well as items of interest brought up by the other
members. The following summarizes the votes on the various items that could provide revenues.
NEW REVENUES/PRoDUCT MODIFICATIONS
Voted Against: Hull, Korn,
Establish Refuse User Fee Voted in Favor: Bennett and Pekras and Smilanic
Busse
Indefinitely Postpone Corridor Voted in Favor of Postponing but
Improvements (CIP Offset) not indefinitely: All Voted Against: None
Voted in Favor of Allowing Voted in Favor of Sunset but
Increase Utility Tax and/or Allow Sunset to Remain: Bennett, also in Favor of an Add'l
Sunset Clause to Remain. Busse, Hull and Pekras Increase: Korn and Smilanic
Increase Telecommunication Tax Voted in Favor of Allowing
and/or Allow Sunset Clause to Sunset to Remain and also Voted
Remain. for an Increase: All Voted Against: None
i0% Reduction in Forestry Budget Voted in Favor: All Voted Against: None
Reduce Non Essential Overtime
Expenditures Voted in Favor: All Voted Against: None
Reduce Nun-Municipal Funding
and Non-Essential Community/ Voted in Favor: Bennett, Korn, Voted Against: Busse and
Civic Services by 10%. Pekras and Smilanic Hull
Hiring Freeze Hiring
Replacements on Essential
Positions Only Voted in Favor: Ali Voted Against: None
Increase Property Taxes to Offset
he Elimination of the Vehicle
Sticker
Increase Property Taxes to Balance
the Budget
Voted in Favor: Bennett, Busse,
Hull, Korn and Pekras
Voted in Favor: Bennett, Busse,
Hull, Korn and Pekras
Voted Against: Smilanic
Voted Against: Smilanic
There was a discussion regarding Home Rule Sales Tax. If the tax is increased from ¥t~'o to ~
approximately $1.3 million would be generated. The members decided that this topic should be discussed
further at the February 27, 2003 meeting.
Also upon further discussion of the proposed increase in property taxes to balance the budget the
commission members after realizing that would mean a 21% increase to the tax rate took another vote.
Three members voted in favor and three members voted against the 21% increase.
Since there was now a quorum the members were able to vote on the minutes of January 9, 2003.
Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to approve the minutes of January 9, 2003. Commissioner Ann
Smilanic seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented.
V. CHAIRMAN' S REPORT
Chairman John Korn mentioned that four of the member' s terms were expiring shortly. Mr. Korn stated
he wanted to try to stagger some of the terms. Chairman Korn also stated that Commissioner George
Busse would be leaving the commission at the end of his current term.
Chairman John Korn highlighted the topics discussed at the board meetings that have taken place
recently.
Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked about the General Store rent and wanted to know if the tenants
stilled owed $12,000 in back rent. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the village is receiving the current rent
payments but the tenant still owes the $12,000 from back rent.
VI. FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT
Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth distributed copies of the official statement of the $12,235,00
General Obligation Bond for the Village Hall/Community Center.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
There was nothing to report.
VIII.Next Meeting: February 27, 2003
Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded.
meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2003.
The
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Burkemper
Administrative Assistant
Finance Department
3
MAYOR
Gerald L. Farley
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefert
Richard M. Lohrstoffer
Michaele Skowron
Irvana K. Wilks
Michael A. Zadel
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
Velma W. Lowe
Phone: 847/818-5328
Fax: 847/818-5329
TDD: 847/392-6064
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING LOCATION:
Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center
1000 W. Central Road
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
MEETING DATE & TIME:
Thursday
February 27, 2003
7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2003 MEETING
A. PZ-20-02/1060 W. Northwest Highway/Villas of Sevres/Plat of Resubdivision.
B. PZ-34-02/705-791 E. Rand Road/Rezone & Resubdivide.
C. PZ-41-02/112 N. Eastwood/Ciabattari Residence/Conditional Use (porch).
D. PZ-42-02/1150 W. Northwest Highway/String of Pearls/Conditional Use (daycare).
E. PZ-43 -02/Village of Mount ProspectTText Amendment (Increase stoop size).
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. PZ-44-02 / 201-225 W. Rand Road / Fifth Third Bard< / Conditional Use (drive-thru bank) &
Sign Variation. NOTE: The drive-thru request is Village Board Final, but the sign
request is P&Z final.
B. PZ-01-03 / 1002 Meadow Lane / Tourlis Residence / Conditional Use (Circular Driveway)
and Variation (8-foot fence). NOTE: The driveway is Village Board Final, but the fence
request is P&Z final.
C. PZ-02-03 / 904 Edgewood Lane / Panzarino Residence / Conditional Use (Circular Driveway)
NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
D. PZ-03 -03 / Village of Mount Prospect/Text Amendment (Outdoor Dining regulations).
NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
· PZ-20-02/1060 VK Northwest Highway- Village Board approved 2/4/03.
· PZ-34~02/705-791 E. Rand Road/Rezone & Resubdivide Village Board approved 2/4/03.
PZ-41-02/112 N. Eastwood/porch - Village Board approved 2/4/03.
· PZ-42-02/1150 VK Northwest Highway/daycare -petitioner withdrew request.
· PZ-43-O2/Text Amendment (Increase stoop size) Village Board approved 2/4/03.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some a~commodafi0n to participate, should
contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD g4t47-
392-6064.
MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING OF T}IE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-41-02
Hearing Date: January 23, 2003
PETITIONER:
Andrew Ciabattari
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
112 N. Eastwood
PARCEL NUMBER:
03-34-318-016
PUBLICATION DATE:
January8,2003
REQUEST:
Conditional Use approval for a porch in front yard
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Andrew Ciabattari
Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve
the minutes of the November 21 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The November meeting minutes were approved
5-0 with Joseph Dormelly abstaining from the vote. At 7:51, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-41-02, a request for
Conditional Use approval to construct a front porch, and said the case would be Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner explained that the subject property is located on Eastwood between Thayer and Henry
Streets. She said that it contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The existing home is currently
set back approximately 30-feet from the front lot line, 6-feet from the south side lot line, and 16-feet from the north
side lot line. The petitioner plans to add onto the existing home by extending it to the west, adding on a second story,
and installing a wooden 'wrap-around' porch. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed porch would encroach 5' into the
required front yard, which requires Conditional Use approval. The petitioner modified the proposed project by
eliminating a deck. Therefore, the project meets the 50% lot coverage limitation and complies with zoning regulations.
Ms. Connolly reported the standards for Conditional Uses as listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said that staff found
the proposed porch would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or
public streets and the proposed conditional use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
She said that based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a
recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach 5-feet into the
required front yard for the residence at 112 N. Eastwood Avenue, Case No. PZ-41-02. The Village Board's decision is
final for this case.
Vice Chair Rogers asked the petitioner to detail the project. Andrew Ciabattari, 112 N. Eastwood, was sworn in. He
clarified the Commissioner's questions regarding the driveway width shown on the various exhibits and answered
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-41*02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
questions regarding possible tree preservation in the back yard. The Commissioners noted that the addition would
blend w/th the home and would help update the look of the house.
Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 8:00.
Leo Floros moved to approve a conditional use to allow a porch in the front yard at 112 N. Eastwood, Case No. PZ-4I-
02. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
Motion was approved 6-0.
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz
NAYS: None
At 9:34 p.m., after hearing another case, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Memll Cotten. The motion
was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-42-02
Hearing Date: January 23, 2003
PETITIONER:
Colleen & Michael Moreno
1300 Lama Lane
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1150 W. Northwest Hwy.
PARCEL NUMBER:
03-33-406-011 & 03-33-406-012
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 8, 2003
REQUEST:
Conditional Use (Day Care Center)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Colleen & Michael Moreno
Bob & Barbara Sabaj
Mia Rhee
Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve
the minutes of the November 21 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The November meeting minutes were
approved 5-0, with one abstention by Joseph Donnelly. At 8:00, after hear/ng three cases, Mr. Rogers introduced Case
No. PZ-42-02, a request for Conditional Use approval to operate a child day care facility and said the case would be
Zoning Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, said the subject property is located by the intersection of Northwest Highway and
Evanston. She said that it contains a commercial building with related improvements. The subject property is zoned
B1 Office and is bordered by Multi-Family District, Office, and Single Family. The proposed daycare facility would
be located in the B1 zoning district, Ms. Connolly said that daycare is listed as a conditional use in this district. She
summarized the petitioner's proposal and said that it is a preschool environment for 3, 4 and 5 year old children; the
facility would occupy the east end of the newly constructed building; the maximum capacity is 50 clients. She said
that this number was arrived at using the Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) regulations. However,
enrollment for September 2003 is expected to be 20 children per session; there would be a morning and afternoon
session; when enrollment reaches 30 children, a staggered session schedule would be implemented; each child is
required to be signed in and out by their parent or guardian; and the staff will assign and manage the arrival and
departure times.
Ms. Connolly said the petitioner notes in the application that the 30-minute arrival and departure windows will be
divided into ten-minute intervals. Children will be assigned to one of the arrival and departure intervals. As
enrollment grows, the arrival/departure plan will be adjusted by increasing the number of children scheduled in each
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-42-02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
ten-minute interval. The newly constructed commercial building on the subject property meets ail Village zoning bulk
regulations. In addition, the proposed day care and financial planner, which is the other tenant, meet the Village's
parking requirements. There are 24 spaces on-site, which meets the parking requirement: For the proposed daycare,
the Village requires ! space per' employee plus 1 space per I0 children. Based on a maximum enrollment of 50
children this requires 5 spaces. Also, ~vith a staff of 8 employees, which is based on a class composition of 25 3-year
olds and 25 4&5 year olds, the daycare facility would require a total of 13 parking spaces. The remaining portion of
the building will be occupied by a general office use. She said their parking requirement is based on the square
footage, which is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet office space. Therefore they need 11 parking spaces. Ms. Connolly
said that the daycare's parking requirement and financial planner's parking requirement totaled 24 spaces, which is the
number provided on-site. She said that although the parking situation meets code regulations, Staff has concerns
regarding the drop-off/pick-up. It appears that the underground parking will be adequate for long-term and staff
parking, but may be awkward during high traffic periods. Staff anticipates parents would avoid parking in this area,
prefendng to park along Northwest Highway or Evanston Avenue. Evanston Avenue is the sole access to several
single-family residences, as well as the primary access for the condos on the west side of Evanston Avenue. Because
of the number of driveways along Evanston Avenue, there is little parking space available and the increased traffic
along Evanston Avenue may create traffic congestion problems for the residents in the area.
Ms. Connolly presented staff's expectation that the on street parking available along Northwest Highway may become
a short-term parking lane. She said that since parents are required to accompany their children to the daycare facility,
it is feasible for parents to park on Northwest Highway, walk their child to the daycare center, and sign them in. The
parking turnover rate would be rapid and this 'de-facto' drop-off lane along Northwest Highway could accommodate 8
vehicles, which would help to relieve some of the potential congestion on Evanston. Using the maximum capacity of
50 children per session as the most intense usage scenario: 16 or 17 children would be dropped off evm-y 10-minutes
for 30-minutes. She said that including on-site and on-street parking, 16 vehicles could be accommodated at one time;
however, the design will work if the clients comply with the assigned drop-off/pick-up time.
Ms. Connolly said that the Village's Zoning Ordinance does not have operational requirements for daycare uses.
However, the petitioner is required to follow state regulations, which are enforced by the appropriate state agency. She
said that state regulations pertain to play areas, providing food service, and program content; all of which are based on
the length of the child's stay at the facility.
Ms. Connolly said other departments reviewed the project and found that the interior of the building must be modified
to comply with the National Life Safety Code and the BOCA Building Code for daycare centers. She said that this
might entail installing a fire detection system and modifying a means of exit. Technically this is a building permit
issue, but it is important to note so as to eliminate any potential confusion. Ms. Connolly read the Standards for
Conditional Uses as listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said that the proposed use would not have a detrimental impact
on the public health, safety or general welfare. She said that the use would not adversely affect the character of the
surrounding neighborhood, or utility provision and it would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed location of the use is a concern because Evanston Avenue is a cul-de-
sac. There is only one means of ingress/egress for the parking lot, and while the parking lot complies with Village
Codes, the garage design is tight for a high remover of vehicles. Including on-street parking with the drop-off/pick-up
design would help to alleviate potential congestion on Evanston Avenue.
Ms. Connolly said that the proposed use meets the conditional use standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. However,
the drop-off/pick-up design is a concern because it has the potential to adversely impact the residential neighborhood.
Based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the
Village Board to approve a conditional use for a daycare center at 1150 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-42-02
subject to the following conditions:
1) The petitioner must have staggered start times and drop-off/pick-up times and at no time shall the
maximum number of clients dropping-off/picking up exceed 17 children per 'slot';
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ--42-02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3
2)
3)
4)
5)
The session times (start/end times) shall not significantly deviate from the hours noted in the Petitioner's
attached exhibit titled, "Arrival & Departure Plan";
The Petitioner must enforce the assigned drop-off/pick-up times; noncompliant clients shall have their
contracts with the daycare center ternfmated;
The Petitioner shall not have an 'age- ratio' of students that would require more than 8 staff, i.e. 50 3-year
old children;
The Village reserves the right to review any traffic related matters created by the use and requ'zre any
necessary measures needed to address them.
The Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Michael Moreno was sworn in. He said he resides at 1300 Lama Lane with his wife and five children. He said they
were proposing a pre-school, not day care, at 1150 W. Northwest Highway and would operate with just two sessions
per day, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00. The parents would be assigned a specific ten-minute window
in which to drop-off and pick-up their children. To operate a day care would require and early a.m. start and late p.m.
finish, with the majority of children being dropped-off and picked-up at the same time. He said the State of Illinois
would make pre-school mandatory for all public school attendees in the near future.
Mr. Thomas Olson, 1534 RFD, Long Grove, IL, was sworn in. He is the owner of the building and said the parking at
his building would be adequate for this use.
Barbara Sabaj was sworn in. She said she is the Treasurer of the Northwest Meadows Association, and lives at 213
Evanston. She said that she was speaking for Nancy Fritz, President of the same association, who lives at 103 Mac
Arthur Drive. She said she had read over the proposal for the String of Pearls Program proposal that would be located
on a comer of the Northwest Meadows Subdivision with borders of Evanston/Dale, Northwest Highway, Forest, and
Highland. The neighbors along Evanston asked the subdivision association to review the papers and get involved. Ms.
Sabaj said that questions have also been raised by individuals on Dale and Isabella. Ms. Sabaj read the neighbors'
concerns.
1. Operation of the center is listed as 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.. Reality is that people and traffic will be there from 6:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. as staffreadies for the day and cleans after.
2. Times of arrival and departures: A 30-minute time frame is being proposed. A staggered time schedule is
proposed when the center reaches its maximum numbers, Ms. Sahaj said this is a no-win situation either way. The
proposal is for 50 cars; perhaps 45 if more than one student is in a fanYfly, four times a day or more depending on how
many sessions are set. If the schedule were 2 per day, 9-12, 1-3, it would be more than 200 cars. If a third session
were set for 3-6, there would be 300 cars. Even staggered, these are overwhelming numbers. Blocks of 30 minutes 4
to 6 times a day would interfere with access to a cul-de-sac road with only one entrance/exit which already
accommodates 4 homes and a condominium complex. Staggered times mean that there is constant traffic on a small
street not designed for this traffic load.
3. Ms. Sabaj said traffic numbers are a concern. If cars are half from east and half fi'om the west on Northwest
Highway, without a turn lane, traffic will be backed up from the west as 25 cars wait to enter the cul-de-sac. Ms. Sabaj
said it would be worst at 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. when entry is already difficult. She said that going west, parents would be
backed up turning in and/or using the small parking area directly in front of the building. Ms. Sahaj feels the parents
will impact the adjacent building's parking area as they try to avoid the crunch of traffic and parking and may mm in
on Dale and drive through the parking lot to drop off children.
4. The parking area under the building has limited area for drop off and has no drive though concept. Parents will
need to park in a straight parl(mg spot, not an angle. If there are cars going east in the lot, cars must park before a
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-42-02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4
single car can back out of a spot to exit. She said there is minimal maneuvering space and small children in the area
will create a hazard.
5, The proposal lists 18 spots available. Assuming a minimum of 5 staffpersons, this reduces the availability to only
13 spots for parents. She Said that, at a maximum capacity of 50 students per session, the numbers don't work.
6. Ms. Sabaj questioned planning for a total program. Before/after school programs are being considered. Will these
require minivans owned and parked permanently at the building to transport children to the schools in the area? If
these programs are instituted, then the DCFS requirements for food/outdoor playgrounds/etc, will need to be looked
into in further detail.
7. The proposal is for a September through June calendar year. Ms. Sabaj said it is hard to believe a for-profit
business will pay rent on a building for 2 months and mothball the building. They suggest that summer programs may
be added in the future. Again, the impact continues on the neighborhood.
8. Concerns are also raised regarding the use of the park. Access to the park is down the sidewalks in front of 3
homes. In front of the 4th home, there is no sidewalk so students will need to walk on the street that is the entrance to
the condonYmium parking to access the park. Then they need to walk through the hedges that delineate the property
lines into the park. That park currently has no playground equipment and is not fenced. As proposed for one adult per
5 to 10 toddlers, it is a very large area to supervise safely for students. The fields are designed for baseball fields.
There is also a practice football field that is also used for soccer practice fall and spring seasons. The high school uses
it for their baseball clinics all summer long. If the day care plans to use it on a regular basis, they will need to work out
permit agreements and schedules with the current park district schedules.
9. An additional concern is the refuse pick up schedule. Originally residents were told it would be cans. The increase
of refuse as generated by a preschool is a concern. Will there be dumpsters? Will pick ups be by a truck? How often?
How will it impact the residents? As you can see, there are many issues to be addressed. There will be a definite
impact on the area to have a day care/preschool on the site rather than the office building that was originally zoned and
built. Offices have a smaller impact on the area. There are limited hours of operation: staff entry and exit, individual
clients on a staggered basis. There is limited refuse, mostly paper.
Ms. Sabaj said that, looking at the overall plan, she really doesn't see the conditional use as a preschool being a good
match for the residents in the area, Traffic concerns, parking, and the number of cars when the center reaches its
maximum design, will all have a negative impact. It will be "injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate area". Ms. Sabaj said the Northwest Meadows Homeowners Association is requesting that the Planning
and Zoning Board deny the conditional use request for said property, as the proposed use is contrary to the design of
the building and will have a negative impact on the residents in the immediate area.
Ken Fritz, who lives in the condos adjacent to the subject property, was sworn in. He explained that he had been a
planner with the Village of Mount Prospect six years ago. He said the B1 zoning was designed to be limited to offices
and would allow only offices until some planner had the "bright idea" to allow conditional uses to the various districts.
He said he read the preschool proposal and did not agree that it met the standards to be allowed as a conditional use to
this building that was designed for offices. He presented a petition signed by 33 of the 54-condo unit owners against
the proposal. He said their concerns were the same as Ms. Sabaj's.
Ms. Sylvia Falk was sworn in and said she was another member Of the homeowners association and was there to give
support to the association's objections to the proposal,
Michael Moreno returned to the podium to answer the objections raised by the two speakers. He said they would
adhere to the hours they had proposed, which were not the hours imagined by the speakers who had objected to the
proposal. He also said the drop-offs would be supervised by staff outside of the facility and would not entail the
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ42-02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 5
depicted dressing and undressing of preschoolers and their siblings. He also said they were working with the Park
District for permission to use Meadows Park and the park is not used for soccer and baseball during the hours the pre-
school would use it.
Bob Klebie, 212 N. Evanston, was sworn in and said he shared the concerns of the homeowners association.
Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 9:25.
Leo Floros moved to approve a conditional use to operate a day care/preschool center at 1150 W. Northwest Highway
with the conditions imposed by staff's memo, for Case No. PZ-42-02. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion.
Joseph Donnelly suggested another condition be imposed that food served consist only of snacks, as defined by the
Department of Children and Family Services, and be limited to two per day. This would limit the time children could
stay at the pre-school. Mr. Floros and Mr. Cotten moved to include those conditions in their motion, with the term
"snacks" to be interpreted as defined by DcFs.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
At 9:34 p.m., after hearing another case, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion
was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-43-02
Hearing Date: January 23, 2003
PETITIONER:
Village of Mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson Street
PUBLICATION DATE:
January8,2003
REQUEST:
Text Amendments (stoop size)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve
the minutes of the November 21 meeting, seconded by Mere'ill Cotten. The November meeting minutes were approved
5-0, with one abstention by Joseph Donnelly. At 9:25, after hearing four cases, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-
43-02, a request for Text Amendments to the Village Code, and said the case would be Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, described the requested Text Amendment. She explained that the Planning & Zoning
Commission has previously reviewed requests to allow stoops and stoops with canopies larger than the existing size
limitations listed in the zoning ordinance. As a result of recent inquiries, staff researched whether the Village's
existing regulations regarding stoops needed to be updated. Ms. Connolly said that the Village's current limitations
allow open stoops and canopies that measure no more than 5'x5' to encroach into required yards. Steps and service
walks up to 5 feet in width are also permitted encroachments in required yards and are not included as part of the
overall stoop size. Prior to the adoption of the current regulations, the Village's zoning ordinance did not contain any
limitations with regards to the size of stoops and canopies. She said that since the adoption of the current stoop/canopy
regulations, the Village has received several requests to construct front stoops larger than the 5' x 5' size pcn~itted by
code. Also, staffhas witnessed a trend among homeowners who want to update the front of their houses without doing
an extensive addition. One of the most common ways of accomplishing an 'update' is to install a new front door and
covered entryway. Staffresearched the larger stoop/covered entryway design in more detail, which included obtaining
'industry feedback'. Ms. Connolly presented pictures that illustrated the 'before' and 'after' of installing a new stoop,
front door and windows. The pictures showed how a larger stoop with an unenclosed covered entryway provides
architectural relief and helps update a front facade. She said that a contractor who specializes in this type of home
improvement project provided the pictures.
Miss Connolly said the existing 5-foot width limitation could accommodate a standard front door width, which is
typically 36 inches wide. However, it limits the options for a front door with sidelights, which are windows on either
side of the door, or a double door. She said that staff recommends that the Village's definition of a stoop be modified
to allow a maximum width of 8-feet, while maintaining the existing maximum depth limitation, which is the amount of
the encroachment into the required front yard, of 5-feet. The 8-foot width will allow some design flexibility, but limit
the stoop area to a size that will not negatively impact the neighboring properties or surrounding area. She said that
lanning & Zoning Comrmssion PZ-43-02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
stoops larger than 8-feet wide and/or 5-feet deep would exceed the suggested size limitations and require either a
variation or conditional use approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Village Board.
Ms. Cormolly reported that he Zoning Ordinance lists specifics standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments
and reviewed the standards. She said that the proposal to increase the maximum stoop size permitted to encroach into
the front yard to 5'x 8' would be applicable on a community-wide basis and would not create non-conformities for
existing stoops. The larger width dimension would not adversely affect the character of the community and would not
make the Zoning Code more permissive. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed text amendment maintains the same
scope of encroachment into the front yard, but allows homeowners the design flexibility to make improvements that
have minimal impact on the neighboring properties. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning &
Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a text amendment to Sec. 14.2401,
which contains the definition of a stoop, which reads: "STOOP: A platform at the entrance to a building with
maximum dimensions of five fcct (5') eight feet (8') of width and five feet (5') of depth" for Case No. PZ-43-02. The
Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Merrill Cotten said that if the text amendment were approved, would unenclosed stoops with overhead roofs still come
before the Board. Ms. Connolly said only stoops larger than 8'x5' would come before the Board.
Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 9:30.
Joseph Donnelly moved to approve a text amendment to Section 14.2401 of the Zoning Ordinance to read "STOOP: A
platform at the entrance to a building with maximum dimensions of 5;~c fcct (5') eight feet (8') of width and five feet
(5') of depth", Case No. PZ-43-02. Matt Sledz seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Yonngquist and Sledz
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
At 9:34 p.m., after hearing another case, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion
was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ~20-02
Hearing Date: January 23, 2003
PETITIONER:
Nick Papanicholas, NEPCO Inc.
240 E. Lincoln St.
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1060 W. Northwest Hwy.
PARCEL bi'UMBER:
03-33407-007&03-33-407-008
PUBLICATION DATE:
JanuaryS, 2003
REQUEST:
Plat of Resubdivision - Consolidate to create a one-lot subdivision
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
RobertA. Judge
Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve
the minutes of the November 21 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The November meehng minutes were approved
5-0 with Joseph Donnelly abstaining from the vote. At 7:33, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-20-02, a request for
plat consolidation to create a one-lot subdivision, and said the case would be Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She explained that the site was recently rezoned and granted
conditional use approval to construct townhomes, One of the conditions of the project approval required the petitioner
to consolidate the site to a one-lot subdivision. She said that the subject property is located at the comer of N°rthwest
Highway and Dale Avenue. It is now zoned R2 Attached Single Family and the toWnhomes are under construction.
Ms. Connolly said that the proposed plat of resubdivision seeks to create one lot of record. The plat and new lot
complies with development code requirements and the petitioner is not seeking relief from the Village's development
code or zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the resubdivision for the property located at 1060
W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-20-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 7:40.
There was brief discussion about the progress of the townhome development. Commission members noted that the
plat was a "housekeeping issue" and that the plat was not seeking relief from code regulations. Joseph Donnelly
moved to approve a conditional use to create a one-lot subdivision for the property at 1060 W. Northwest Hwy, Case
No. PZ-20-02. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion.
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-20-02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
UPON ROLL CALL:
Motion was approved 6-0.
AYES: Cotten, Dormelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz
NAYS: None
At 9:34 p.m., after hearing four more cases, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten.
motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
The
Barbara Swiatek, Plann'mg Secretary
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-34-02
Hearing Date: January 23, 2003
PETITIONER:
Dennis Nudo attorney for owners of subject properties
1700 Higgins Road, Suite 650
Des Plaines, IL 60018
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
705-79I E. Rand Road
PARCEL NUMBER:
03-35-300-007
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 8, 2003
REQUEST:
Rezone a portion of the R2 property to B3 and resubdivide it with the B3 lot
(hair salon)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Richard Valentino, attorney for Insignia Homes, LLC
Mark Janeck, Insignia Homes, LLC
Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve
the minutes of the November 2I meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The November meeting minutes were
approved 5-0, with one abstention by Joseph Donnelly. At 7:41, Mx. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-34-02, a request
for rezoning and resubdivision and said the case would be Village Board final.
Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner, said the subject property is located on the west side of Rand Road, at the intersection
of Rand Road and Louis Street. It includes three lots of record that consist of t~vo vacant lots and a commercial lot,
which contains a hair salon and parking lot. She said that the vacant lots were recently rez0ned and granted
conditional use approval to allow the construction of a 20-unit townhome planned unit development. As part of the
project, a parking lot will be constructed to serve the existing commercial use directly north of the townhome
development. In order to construct the parking lot, a portion of the land recently rezoned for townhomes needs to be
rezoned to commercial. Also, the property line has to be changed so the parking lot is consolidated with the existing
commercial property, which is the ha/r salon.
Ms. Connolly presented the site plan for the townhomes that was approved by the Village Board in August 2002. She
said that the parking lot labeled "Outlot A" is part of the land rezoned to R2 Attached Single Family Residence
Planned Unit Development. She said that in order to comply with Village Codes, "Outlot A" must be rezoned from R2
to B3 Community Shopping and that the property line has to be changed so the parking lot is 'merged' with the hair
salon property. Ms. Connolly noted that relief from zoning bulk regulations was granted as part of the original PUD
approval. The proposed rezoning and plat of resubdivision will result in two new lots of record. The plat and new lots
comply with development code requirements and the petitioner is not seeking any relief from Village regulations.
lanning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-34-02
Page 2
Ms. Connolly said that the proposed rezoning was required as part of an earlier project approval granted by the Village
Board. She said that the plat of resubdivision is complete and has been prepared in accordance with the Development
Code requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the mzoning and resubdivision of the Tenuta
Subdivision for the properties located at 705-791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-34-02. The Village Board's decision is
final for this case.
Vice Chairman Rogers asked if the petitioner was in the audience and if they wanted to address the Commission.
Richard Valentino, attorney for Insignia Homes and the petitioner, was sworn in. He said that the proposal to rezone
and resubdivide the properties was required by the Village Board. He said that he would answer any questions from
the Planning & Zoning Commission.
There was a brief discussion among the Commissioners and Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 8:00.
Leo Floros moved to approve rezoning the property as requested at 705-791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-34-02.
Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Yonngquist and Sledz
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
At 9:34 p.m., after hearing another case, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion
was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner