Loading...
2004-08-24 - Finance Committee - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Finance committee Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 08/24/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting The Village of Buffalo Grove Finance Committee convened on Tuesday,August 24, 2004 at the Village Hall, Lower Level Conference Room. Those in attendance were: Elliott Hartstein, Jeff Braiman, DeAnn Glover, Jeff Berman, Bruce Kahn and Steve Trilling. From staff: Bill Balling, Bill Brimm, Ghida Neukirch, Scott Anderson and Ed Schar. The following matters were reviewed: Title 15 Fee Increases (Building Permit Fees): Ghida reviewed the proposed ordinance which would represent the first adjustment to fees since 1997. Overall, the fee structures proposed for all permit activities across the Title equate to an approximate 20% increase. There was a question as to whether the fee increases should be greater since this is the first increase since that date. In response, it was noted that a recommended adjustment should have been made approximately 2 years ago but due to the merger of the building standards authorities, which led to a rewrite of inspection and permit codes, which led to the adoption of recommended changes to permitting and inspection, that recommendation was withheld pending final approval and adoption. Future fee recommendations will reflect analysis on a more frequent basis, typically within a 3-5 year timeline. There was additional comment on whether the fees should reflect"rounding" in certain categories to $5 increments. The consensus was that this should occur and staff was directed to review the current recommendation and adjust accordingly. Staff was also asked to clarify the charge for a Certificate of Occupancy and to what type of permittee it would apply. It was confirmed that the charge would apply to new construction or uses and was not intended to be assessed against current properties that may be involved with a permit process with the Department. Trilling noted that while he believes the fee proposal is acceptable, it is his opinion that the structure, especially as it might apply to commercial type properties, is possibly too low when viewed against comparable communities. In response, staff believes the proposal is fair at this time and over subsequent review periods, the fee structures would more than likely reach a greater level of parity through comparability. After some further discussion, the recommendation was to modify as suggested (rounding) and bring back to the Village Board in final ordinance form for consideration. Title 5 Fee Increases (Business Licenses): Bill Brimm reviewed his memo dated August 3, 2004 which detailed the proposed changes, to be effective with the 2005 renewal cycle. It was noted that fees were last adjusted in 1985 and the proposal would amend and well as simplify the current fee structure. Overall, the increase would equate to approximately $30,000 based on the inventory of current licensees, or by 46.27%. The proposal was acceptable to the Committee although they asked that future changes be suggested on a more frequent basis (other than 20 years). It was noted that the proposal, despite the length of time since last modified, was believed fair, covers most of the costs of administration and inspection and is more than comparable to other communities. Two requests were made to staff: Share the proposal with the Buffalo Grove Chamber and provide a comparable level of fees based on what might be suggested if fees had been adjusted annually since 1985 by the final Consumer Price Index. Title 5 Fee Increase (Liquor Licenses): Scott reviewed his proposal on modifying the current liquor license schedule, which would be the first since 1994. There were some general comments as to the methodology's followed which were explained. Based on a discussion of license parity and value between classes of license, it was suggested that the recommendation for Class A and C licenses be increased to $2,500/annually (compared to $2,300 as suggested). That recommendation was accepted by the Committee. Based on this change, the proposal will be brought forward in ordinance form to the Village Board for consideration. Title 3 Fee Increase (Development Escrow Deposits): Staff reviewed the current issues with the developer deposit escrow in that a recent project review led to extraordinary costs and fees to be incurred by the Village to administer and review matters related to the Village's Sign Code (Title 15). The developer escrow concept was originally codified in 2003 to address a cost recovery procedure for identified expenses incurred by the Village to deal with Zoning Ordinance matters (Title 17). A subsequent iteration of the recovery ordinance was codified in 2004 to address cost recovery issues relative to administering aspects of Title 16 (Development Ordinance). This proposal would amend the escrow ordinance for Sign Code matters. After the review of the August 17th memo, the Committee accepted the recommendation of staff. An ordinance will be brought forward for Village Board consideration. Title 9 Fee Increase (False Alarm Fines): An overview of the ordinance and the methodology behind the changes suggested (adding Fire Service, modifying the penalty amount/frequency)was reviewed. The objective of the proposal is to not increase or even raise revenue; it is to call attention to situations of frequent failure of alarm systems that lead to chronic false alarm deployment of both police and fire personnel and equipment. As a matter of fact, success in the effectiveness of this ordinance would be when income earned is equal to $0. The Committee reviewed several points of the ordinance as recommended. Staff was asked to provide information on where the greatest frequency of false alarm calls may be coming from-residential, commercial, industrial and with businesses, what types within that subset may show a greater frequency of deployment for false alarms. Additional information was requested on the number of systems that are installed in the Village, again broken down by residential and commercial. The Committee endorsed the ordinance as recommended and in that regard, it will be brought back to the Village Board for consideration. Once adopted,the Committee asked that a copy of the ordinance be handed out at the time a permit is approved for a system installation. In addition, an article is to be prepared for the Village News to explain the changes within the ordinance but with a positive perspective to those changes and that the changes are not intended to discourage use of alarm systems but are intended to reduce the frequency of false alarms and to see that such systems are properly maintained. Lastly, the registration will be accompanied with a renewal cover letter that on an annual basis, explains the intent of the ordinance. Title 6 Fee Increases (Animal Impounding): Ghida reviewed her memo of August 23, 2004 regarding a recommendation to increase the animal impounding charges from $15/day to $25/day to reflect the new charges to be assessed by the animal control facilities. This is the first increase since calendar 1997. The increase in fees will enable the Village to pay the daily impound fee as required, and also cover some of the costs that are incurred for animals not retrieved. The Committee supported the recommendation and an ordinance will be submitted to the Village Board for their consideration. Consideration of Title 19 Fees: (School & Park Donations): Bill Brimm reviewed the progress on this issue that has evolved from a past Village Board request. He is working with Bob Pfeil, Greg Summers and Bill Raysa to present a comprehensive series of recommendations to the Title. There will be a review and possible amendment to the amount of land requested from developers set aside for park and recreations purposes. On this, surrounding community values will be reviewed and possibly incorporated into the dedication formula. Secondly, a body of information has been received on updated land values that would be used in terms of calculating cash in lieu of land valuation. Several concepts were suggested which will be reconciled by the working group for a final recommendation. Lastly, the 1983 population and housing density formula will be updated with a 1996 version that has been used as developed by the Illinois School Consulting Service in partnership with Associated Municipal Consultants. As the matter was discussed, Trustee Berman requested that consideration be given to adding the local library districts back into the donations formulas in order to consider their increased service demands that are being observed based on the types of housing being approved in the area (empty-nesters who are major patrons of library services). This matter will be reviewed with the librarians and a recommendation will be incorporated into any amendatory ordinance. Lastly, the issue of residential tear down was reviewed (whether increased bedroom counts should be incorporate into a requirement to collect incremental park and school donations) in addition to the possible impacts due to existing home remodeling/expansion. It was requested that this question be separated from all of the other issues because it is believed that the entire subject of tear down will be a component of the initiated review of the Comprehensive Plan. This request was acceptable to the Committee. Inspection of Buildings and Sites Prior to Issuance of Transfer Stamps The concept of adding an inspectional process for commercial, office and industrial properties was discussed. The recent sale of Plaza Verde West was reviewed where it was noted that certain site specific deficiencies were noted but post closing rather than before when maybe some leverage might have been applied between purchaser and seller to resolve such site matters. The recently initiated notification process was reviewed with the Committee. This is a process whereby an e-mail will be send to several departments when information is received that such properties are to be sold. While we believe this is a viable review technique, using the transfer stamp process could provide additional leverage for the Village to resolve site specific problems. There was concern that the Village would be exposing itself to additional and unnecessary liability by performing certain due diligence activities on behalf a prospective buyer and that is a situation we should not find ourselves in. Further, the Village may find itself as a potential party to litigation based on the perception that inspections were undertaken that might impact the sale of property. After additional discussion, it was the recommendation of the Committee that the Village not get involved in this area, letting the informal contact process noted above to work in place of a hold on any real estate transaction. Consideration on Options for Administrative Control of Public ROW : Bill Balling reviewed his memo of August 13, 2004 on this subject. The options really available are: ignore incursion and nonpermitted use of the parkways; do best to enforce but in a passive mode to remain resident"friendly" in that regard; to enforce to the full extent of how authorized through the court; sell or license municipal real estate for such uses (generally restricted to wider than standard driveway aprons and nonconforming mail boxes). Several issues were raised by the Committee that will be quantified as part of any recommended process: -What is the extent of the problem and what types of conditions exist within the community? -Should some type of variance process be created to permit wider driveways and larger mail boxes? The proper development of standards would be necessary that would consider, but not be limited to, safety, loss of green space, creation of risk, liability, etc.). Any standards must be established in a way that are measurable and objective. -Should existing uses be grandfathered via a variance process? There did appear to be a concensus regarding grandfathering all nonconforming but existing situations though a license. Grandfathering does not preclude the removal of those conditions deemed improper-second monuments, boulders, gravel in place of sod, etc.) - If fees are to be paid,what is fair and equitable and how enforced? Is a fee a one time license or something assessed annually? Is it a "mark" on a property that in some way is managed through the transfer tax process? - It was suggested that a license should be required when applying for a variance. As the issue was discussed, there was concurrence by the Committee to proceed with this concept. Bill noted that his would probably become a work in progress toward concept and approach with a kickoff in the summer of 2005 using interns to survey the conditions throughout the community, build a database and initiate the licensing/fee approach that might be approved. More will be forthcoming from staff on this initiative and authorization to proceed. TMA Lake Cook Road Shuttle Bus Program : The Committee reviewed the near final program description and schedule outlined in Bill Brimm's memo of August 18, 2004. Discussion noted that the Committee, despite the low cost and free service offering to residents, does not believe that the service will be used by residents even to the level that equates financial value to practical value. Also, they note that post construction efforts that did occur on Lake Cook Road, access to the Lake Cook station in Deerfield is no longer problematic and a bus alternative not of assistance to move commuters during the day. To that end,the Committee opted to not participate and asked staff to notify the TMA of that decision. First Quarter (FY 2004-2005) Corporate Fund Performance: Staff reviewed the first quarter FY 2004-2005 performance noting that overall fiscal performance for the Fund appears to be turning around after two + years of challenge. Garage Sale Permit Program: Ghida reviewed her memo of August 24, 2004 on the licensing aspects of the program. The Committee recommended deleting the permit and fee requirement as part of the program. Other Business: Bill Balling discussed the issue of increased exposure that the Village could face by agreeing to financially participate in sanitary sewer service connection collapses that occur on private property. The reasons cited were: -Created a limitless financial exposure, especially in Cook County -The past ordinances and practices of the Village are clear as they apply to the responsibilities of the Village and private property owner relative to maintaining elements of the water and sewer systems -There is no public benefit to spending public funds on private utility matters. -There will always be a conflict between urban forestry programs and sanitary sewer systems. An urban forestry program would need to be compromised to eliminate any risk of root infiltration and if eliminated, the community impacts are severe. -Other elements of public/private utility conflicts would open if sanitary sewer collapse liability was assumed. After discussion,the Committee opted to continue the current policies and practices of the Village in this regard.