City Council Minutes 2012 01-24-12 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,KENDALL COUNTY,ILLINOIS,
HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
800 GAME FARM ROAD ON
TUESDAY,JANUARY 24,2012
Mayor Golinski called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Warren called the roll.
Ward I Gilson Present
Colosimo Present
Ward II Milschewski Present
Kot Present
Ward III Munns Absent(Tried connecting by phone but unavailable)
Funkhouser Present
Ward IV Spears Present
Teeling Present
Also present: City Clerk Warren, City Attorney Orr,City Administrator Olson, Deputy Chief of Police
Hilt,Public Works Director Dhuse, Finance Director Fredrickson, EEI Engineer Freeman, Community
Development Director Barksdale-Noble, Director of Park and Recreation Schraw
QUORUM
A quorum was established.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None.
PRESENTATIONS
Certificate of Recognition for Art Townsend
Mayor Golinski presented a certificate of recognition for Art Townsend as Santa Claus. Mr. Townsend
shared his story of how he became a Santa Claus and he has been serving as Santa for 50 years.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mike Skinner stated the ZBA decided when there was a unanimous decision denying a variance ZBA
would send someone to City Council to explain why it was denied. ZBA is given guidelines to follow in
approving or denying any variance to our City Ordinances and Codes. This was denied for several
reasons. There were three people there in protest of changing this piece of property from single family to
multi-family R2D, and a letter was sent by a resident. ZBA takes into consideration the impact on
surrounding areas. One of the most important criteria looked at is that an R2 zoning requirements,R2,
single family,minimum lot size is 12000 square feet. This lot size is 9,000 square feet less than that,
which is 60% less.The lot width for R21)is 100 foot width. This is 70 square feet,which is 10 feet less
than a single family lot. The home is not compliant. The density for R2D is 4.8 dwellings per square unit
acre as required. He is 200% less than what is required. Everything about the lot is too small for a single
family. What he is asking for is 200%less density, 30%less in the lot width and 60% less in the lot size
for R2D, duplex lot. It is too much for the ZBA to think about approving. The ZBA is extremely bothered
by the fact that the Plan Commission approved this spot zoning. Zoning ordinances were adopted in
Yorkville over the years and they have evolved. At one time, spot zoning was accepted in Yorkville.
Things changed and the City progressed forward. He thinks the Council would be setting a precedent if
they approved this variance to allow a duplex to be built on a non compliant lot for single family. In a lot
of ways this should be looked at as not a duplex but more of an old style two flat.Yorkville has to
eliminate all these different types of housing. Yes it is hard times in the economy right now. In the same
token,the City has to think about the future of Yorkville and that is what the ZBA does. He believes in
approving this that the Council would be looking backwards and not forwards.
Mark Johnson told a story discussing his old friend,the Blackberry Creek dam and how it is hard to say
goodbye. The dam has had a long and wonderful life. It is over 178 years old. As a child, the dam taught
him that even though things may be old, it doesn't mean that they are not still strong and dependable. The
dam is a treasure.It was the first mill dam built in Kendall County in 1834. The dam and mill were
renovated at approximately 1855. This is part of Old Bristol and Yorkville's history. He will miss the dam
when it is gone and wanted to give it some well-deserved honor. He also wanted to comment on how he
was treated by the Patch as it pertains to the story. He commented on the Patch about the dam removal
and the cost of removing it.Not about whether it needed removing or not. Retaliatory comments were
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—January 24,2012—Page 2 of 8
allowed to be printed. The information that is in the City packets is incomplete. After searching different
dates, committee meetings,and City Council meetings, he was left without comprehensive information as
to the final cost of the dam removal. He saw IDNR estimates from 2007 to be 1.5 million and saw another
note stating that IDNR has allocated 2 million reserved for this project. He also noted that this dam
removal will be done in two phases. Phase one is doing some preliminary work diverting the water
upstream. That cost was estimated at$200,000. Phase two will include the work necessary to restore
approximately 1200 feet of Blackberry Creek channel upstream of the dam and removal of the dam. He
was wrong to assume that the dam had to be removed in order to rebuild the bridge. It doesn't and it isn't
going to be. He read that the removal of the dam is one of the very last activities of the project so if for
some unforeseen reason the IDNR no longer had project dollars available the stream system would
basically revert back to pre-project conditions without need for the City to be forced to complete the
work. If so, the YBSD would be forced to address dam safety stability or removal of the dam. He does not
want to stand in the way of the dam removal. If it is a danger to the new bridge or if it is a problem then it
needs to be removed.He questions the need for spending 2 million dollars. If they have to take the dam
out because of the bridge then go ahead and do it and try to do it in an efficient manner, but don't go
spending 2 million dollars of the taxpayer's money on something that doesn't really need to be done.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Bills for Payment -$695,931.43 (CC 2012-07)
2. Water Reports for August-November 2011 (PW 2012-01)
3. Windett Ridge—Call of Performance Bonds—authorize City Clerk to call
Travelers Indemnity Company Bond No. 821878117 in the amount of$142,937.37 and Lexon
Insurance Company Bond No. 1004373 in the amount of$227,700.00(PW 2012-02)
4. IDOT Supplemental Letter of Understanding for IL Route 47 & IL Route 71 Regarding
Upgrade of Existing Traffic Signals with LED Units—authorize Mayor to execute(PW 2012-03)
5. Kendall Marketplace Improvements -Change Order No. 1 —approve a decrease in an amount not
to exceed$3,420.19 and authorize Mayor to execute (PW 2012-08)
6. Bristol Bay Unit 5—Final Acceptance and Bond Reduction—accept public improvements for
watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer,paving, and street lighting as described in the Bill of
Sale for ownership and maintenance; and authorize a reduction to the following bonds:Armor
Insurance Company Bond No. ARM]0354 in an amount not to exceed$184,114.34, Armor
Insurance Company Bond No. ARM10691 in an amount not to exceed$9,707.73, and Safeco
Insurance Company ofAmerica Bond No. 6544064 in an amount not to exceed$21,951.18, all
subject to verification that the developer has no outstanding debt owed to the City for this project
(PW 2012-09)
7. Treasurer's Report for December 2011 (ADM 2012-02)
8. NIMEC Bid for Electric Accounts—authorize City Administrator and Finance Director to
approve low bid and execute contracts for the NIMEC bid cycle ending April 10, 2012 (ADM
2012-05)
9. Audit RFP Vendor Selection—award 5-year contract for auditing services to
Lauterbach &Amen, LLP in a total amount not to exceed$176,360 and authorize City
Administrator or Finance Director to execute engagement letter(ADM 2012-06)
10. Redistricting—Ward Map—approve draft ward map labeled Alternate#2, as presented to the
Administration Committee on January 19, 2012,,for presentation to the public at a public hearing
(ADM 2011-41)
Mayor Golinski entertained a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. So moved by
Alderman Spears; seconded by Alderman Milschewski.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-7 Nays-0
Colosimo-aye, Milschewski-aye, Spears-aye,
Funkhouser-aye, Gilson-aye, Teeling-aye,Kot-aye
REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
Appointment of Building Code Official—Peter Ratos
(CC 2012-08)
Mayor Golinski entertained a motion to approve the appointment of Peter Ratos as building code official.
So moved by Alderman Colosimo; seconded by Alderman Milschewski.
Mayor Golinski stated the City's past code official, Mr. Hardin, took a job in Texas. Peter Ratos, who was
the City's second choice, started with the City last Tuesday. Mayor Golinski decided to choose him rather
than begin new interviews. He was grateful that Mr. Ratos was still available. Mr. Ratos is a licensed
plumber, so the City will no longer have to outsource plumbing inspections. Alderman Spears stated he is
well qualified and believes he will do an excellent job for Yorkville.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-7 Nays-0
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—January 24,2012—Page 3 of 8
Kot-aye, Spears-aye, Colosimo-aye, Funkhouser-aye,
Milschewski-aye, Teeling-aye, Gilson-aye
Blackberry Creek Dam Intergovernmental Agreement
(PW 2012-07)
Mayor Golinski entertained a motion to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement among the state of
Illinois Department of Natural Resources,the United City of Yorkville, and the Yorkville Bristol Sanitary
District for the Blackberry Creek Dam removal and restoration project and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute. So moved by Alderman Teeling; seconded by Alderman Milschewski.
Mayor Golinski stated this was in Public Works committee. There was incorrect language in the
document. It went back to IDNR to have the language removed. IDNR claimed it was never their intent to
have that language so it was removed. IDNR sent a new agreement but it did not go through their legal
department. Now it will be tabled and come back on February 14, 2012.
Alderman Gilson read different parts of the agreement and asked questions. Who completes the dam, if
IDNR decides not to complete it?City Administrator Olson stated anybody or nobody. The City would be
responsible for the YBSD,to complete it if it stopped mid stream. The project can be abandoned with
absolutely no responsibility from anyone to complete it. Alderman Gilson struggles over wasting taxpayer
dollars and if the City goes forward there should be somebody required to complete it. City Administrator
Olson stated the City is at the mercy of the state. Alderman Gilson asked what the precedent is if there is a
disagreement between the City and joint inspection. City Administrator Olson stated litigation or
negotiation. Alderman Gilson asked if there was a fence that has to be removed. Public Works Director
Dhuse stated the fence is on the south side of the road and this project is on the north side. It is not related
to the dam. Alderman Gilson asked if there were any utilities that had to be moved or altered. There were
not. There was discussion among Alderman Gilson, City Administrator Olson,Public Works Director
Dhuse, and EEI Engineer Freeman in regards to how much the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation
will cost the City. There has not been a dollar amount assigned, yet. Once the dam is removed it will be a
natural creek. There might be brush removal from time to time but that would be hard to quantify from a
cost perspective. Alderman Gilson is concerned that the City's responsibilities may be costly. The entire
agreement is structured that IDNR will pay for the project and complete it but they do not want any
jurisdiction over it after that. The maintenance should be very low for our area. Alderman Gilson asked if
the City did any stability or maintenance with the previous dam. City Administrator Olson stated up till 6
months ago the actual ownership of the dam and the surrounding area was still under discussion. The City
has come a long way in a few months. Alderman Gilson asked about the eligibility for the national flood
insurance and the letter said the City will without cost from financial resources seek a letter of Map
revision, LMOR from FEMA to update city flood insurance study and associated master to reflect 100
year flood profile changes resulting in completion of the project. Did we do that at the previous Dam?
City Administrator Olson doesn't recall the last time he saw the FEMA maps. Public Works Director
Dhuse stated since nothing has changed prior to this,there wouldn't have to be a letter of map revision.
EEI Engineer Freeman stated based on the ordinance it states it is the City's responsibility to maintain.
Alderman Gilson said this is something the City is going to have to seek at cost to us. He was curious if
anyone had to do that previously?Public Works Director Dhuse stated there are current maps now and
since it hasn't been changed before it has never had to be revised. City Administrator Olson stated FEMA
maps are sent out every four or five years. EEI Engineer Freeman stated it depends on when they study
the creeks. Unless there are changes to the creek there would be no reason to change those flood plain
maps. Once the dam is removed, water levels are going to drop through that section and it is going to have
a different hydraulic profile for that reason the agreement is stating that it is the City's responsibility to
file with FEMA. Through the design process,they will have all the data that is needed to put with the
application for the letter of map revision to give to FEMA to get the map changed based on the condition
of the dam. Alderman Gilson asked if there is any cost to the City for that. EEI Engineer Freeman stated
that is something the City's engineering department would help with. Alderman Gilson stated he is not
trying to stop the dam. He just wanted the details. He wanted to know the cost to the City for its
involvement in this project.City Administrator Olson stated if the City gets it under the nationwide
permit there is no cost for that. The City estimated it would be about a week for a parks crew to clear
some underbrush near the dam. Then just coordination is needed as the project moves along. Alderman
Gilson stated no additional cost above and beyond that. City Administrator Olson stated the agreement is
written that if the City has control over something or if there is a way that it can partner that they are
allowed to use our equipment. This would be done so the project could be completed as quickly as
possible and save the state money. Once it is completed and the maintenance is turned over to the City.
Yorkville is not anticipating any additional costs.
Alderman Colosimo is for the removal of the dam because it was sold to the City as a safety issue. The
City is building a new bridge and spending millions of dollars doing it and if the dam gives way, it would
destroy this bridge. He understands that and that is why he is ok with removing the dam, however he has
a problem with the state saying it is a public safety issue unless it runs out of money. Is the dam an
endangerment to the bridge which is going to cost the tax payers millions of dollars if it is damaged?If so
he is all for removing it, but if it is not then leave it in. That is where he has a frustration with the state of
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—January 24, 2012—Page 4 of 8
Illinois. Alderman Gilson stated the IDNR said if it is not completed it is just going to revert back to its
original state and there is not going to be a problem. If it is such a danger,how can that be?City
Administrator Olson stated the state has not characterized it to him as an imminent danger. He doesn't
know if they even know that the dam is necessarily failing. Given the age of it, it's potentially suspect
construction statement at the time. There is very expensive public property downstream that they have put
in. That was the justification for removing it. You never know when it is going to go, and if they have
money budgeted in the state for dam removal this is probably one of the better candidates compared to
other places. Alderman Gilson stated he received an email talking about attachments#2 &# 3, which are
substantial, having to do with taxpayer's property rights along the creek and that the City didn't post that
there are some rights changing of the property along that dam removal. Is that anything that the City has
looked into?City Administrator Olson hasn't seen it but is happy to take a look at it. Alderman Gilson
wanted to know if somebody had to have notification of their rights changing. Alderman Spears stated
back then the state was on a big crusade to get rid of all the dams. That was their goal. It was a
maintenance issue with the state. They held a public hearing and the majority of people attending were
trying to save the dam. One man stood up and said to remove it. That got the ball rolling. The state did
everything they could to try to get the dam removed. The City had a sharp engineer that came up with the
design of the four step system. It was just remarkable how the state put a big turn on the necessity of
removing that dam. Now the City has the dam,for step shoot, and canoe shoots. She asked if the state is
trying to trick the City or does Yorkville really need to remove this dam. If it is a public safety issue, then
remove it. She doesn't want to put the new bridge in harm's way,but if the state is following their goal,
then the Council should just leave it in. EEI Engineer Freeman stated the state has not said that it is a
safety issue,but he thinks there is some recognition that this structure is 170 years old. The construction
of that dam, as he understands it, is not very conventional. To be able to assess the long term structural
integrity of the dam is difficult. It is difficult to say how long the dam will be there. The dam is not able to
be structurally evaluated fully and that should cause a level of concern to the City by the YBSD and folks
in that area. There is also an environmental benefit of taking the dam out. If the dam was removed it
would be an opportunity for fish migration further to the north,which would be a positive for the water
shed. It would also improve the water quality having a freer flowing stream there. Mayor Golinski likes
the dam but is concerned that if the City replaces the bridge and the dam failed what the consequences
would be. Alderman Gilson stated that he hates buying into a broken system.
Mark Johnson wanted to comment about the property owners. He knows of three property owners where
their surveys date back a long time ago and their property is tied into the Blackberry Creek. He was only
able to reach one owner who was surprised that the dam was on the agenda. This could have an effect on
what land they own. Someone needs to talk to those land owners. Mayor Golinski stated wouldn't that be
IDNR's responsibility. City Administrator Olson stated IDNR hasn't even started really phase one. This
is the first step. He assumes the land acquisition or property rights would have to be handled at some
point during phase 1 or phase 2 processes when the design gets filled out. Alderman Gilson stated
wouldn't the city want to contact the property owners before it spends money on planning and design. If
they are not willing to cooperate, doesn't that change everything?City Administrator Olson stated he
wouldn't as a City Staff member but as an IDNR staff member, maybe. City Attorney Orr stated the City
has to have the design before the property owners can be told. Mark Johnson stated the preliminary design
is out on the website of the City. City Attorney Orr stated an engineering design is needed. Mark Johnson
stated this definitely shows their property being affected. City Attorney Orr stated she made a note of that
and the City will address it.
Alderman Colosimo made a motion to table; seconded by Alderman Gilson.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-7 Nays-0
Spears-aye, Colosimo-aye, Funkhouser-aye,
Milschewski-aye, Teeling-aye, Gilson-aye, Kot-aye
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT
IDOT Letter of Understanding Regarding the Proposed Widening of Route 34
(PW 2012-04)
A motion was made by Alderman Gilson to approve a letter of understanding between the United City of
Yorkville and IDOT regarding the proposed widening of Route 34 and authorize and Mayor and City
Clerk to execute; seconded by Alderman Milschewski.
Alderman Gilson stated this particular item went into Public Works Committee and there was a lot of
discussion on these letters of understanding and what the state wants from us and what the City doesn't
get back from the state.The state has no funding for this project within their 5 year budget for 2017.This
is a prime example of a broken system. The state hasn't committed to funding this,yet they want
Yorkville to commit to these funds in total of$230,200. He doesn't see why any Council in any City
would commit to a project that,not only has IDOT not committed to, but they haven't found enough
money to fund. He feels the City should say no to this letter of understanding.That was the discussion
that went on in Public Works Committee. Alderman Kot asked if the Council doesn't approve this letter
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—January 24,2012—Page 5 of 8
of understanding, then the City is sending a message to the state that it does not want this to happen. City
Administrator Olson stated yes. Alderman Kot stated the City has the trail in this proposal. He asked if
the City has potential of recapture of those funds on future commercial development to a point where it
might be a significant percentage of what the City owes. City Administrator Olson stated it could be if the
City has a frontage west of Arbor Creek and there is a commercial parcel there. When that commercial
parcel develops they would be required to put in a trail there, so that is something the City could ask them
to reimburse us for having installed it prior to that. Alderman Kot takes a different view than Alderman
Gilson. He agrees the system is broke, but it is the way they play the game. If the City doesn't want to
play the game then it is not going to get things done. His concern is putting a big expenditure off to a
future Council. If the City doesn't plan ahead, nothing is going to get accomplished in Yorkville. If the
economy doesn't rebound they are probably not going to widen the road anyway. This is going to keep
getting pushed off into the future. He thinks the city would be foolish to pass this up, especially in light of
the fact that the City is going to get some money for future development to pay for some of this. He is
going to support this.
Alderman Spears agrees with Alderman Gilson. She would not support this, because of what the state did
to Yorkville in the past. If the state doesn't have it in their five year plan then she doesn't think the City
should plan on working with the state. Also as far as getting rebates from future developers, the way the
direction the city is going right now is it probably would wave that just to get the businesses in. She is
going to vote against this. Alderman Colosimo stated the biggest concern he has is kicking an obligation
of$230,000 to a Council in 2017. That is the problem he sees with these budget request from the state. If
the City has the money and it is useful and the City wants to widen 34 then that is great but the City
doesn't know our 2013 budget. He is not willing to commit $230,000 in 2017. Mayor Golinski agrees
with Alderman Colosimo sentiment, but unfortunately if Yorkville wants IDOT to do a 7.5 million dollar
road project it has to be committed to far in advance. Voting no ensure that Route 34 will not be widened
in Yorkville. Alderman Funkhouser stated $230,000 to push it off is concerning. The City is just now
getting into our five-year budget so you're looking to 2017. If the City doesn't do it, it may never get
done. Yorkville wants the improvement but just doesn't have the funding in place or guarantee it will be
in place.Their request for a letter of commitment is pretty difficult to swallow. This contract does not
give us any numbers as to what it will cost the city if Yorkville has to do changes in the future. He would
like to say he is in favor of moving forward but has a little reservation about costs to the City and not
knowing the future budget. Mayor Golinski asked if the Council had previously approved the design for
phase 1 engineering and when it occurred. City Administrator Olson stated more than a couple of years
ago. Alderman Gilson stated the City is ultimately going to hurt its residents anyway. The budget from
2013 to 2017 looks atrocious. The City will end up taxing and the burden is going to fall on the residents
for all this debt that the City keeps throwing on future administrations. The City is not going to be able to
pay for this and eventually it is going to come out of our resident's pockets. IDOT says they are not sure
if they can afford it, so they are not going to commit to it, so Yorkville should not commit to it either. To
vote for this and keep throwing debt on future years the residents are going to pay for it.
City Administrator Olson wanted to address the point that Alderman Funkhouser made. The sole purpose
of the letter from IDOT is when the time comes to widen the road and the City begins wanting changes,
IDOT can say that the City committed to this prior and had City Council direction. IDOT is fine with
taking items out but due to this letter,the City will have to pay a portion of the cost. City Administrator
Olson stated it would be cheaper for the City to say to put it all in and then pull it out at the last second
instead of the opposite. It is much easier to engineer something out than to engineer something in. EEI
Engineer Freeman stated the City is in phase 2 so they are doing the detailed plans for the project with
hundreds of pages of improvements. If the City is going to go forward then they need to put on those
plans whatever is needed and IDOT is going to engineer around that. If the trail is not going to be there
then the design will be different and the plans need to be completed in that way. When IDOT is actually
ready to go to construction and know what the numbers specifically are then they will come to the City
and the Council will have to make a decision. Should the Council keep the items in and move forward.
Does the City have the money to pay for it or should it be taken out. If the Council takes it out it will be a
certain cost. If the Council decides now and says engineer it without the trails,and five years from now,
the City has the money and wants to put the trails in for they think that is a good part of this project, then
it is going to be more to do that because now reengineering has to be done for the City would be adding a
design rather than deleting a design. Alderman Gilson stated the real concern is the City won't have our
portion of the funding or it will have to change the design based on our funding level. The City doesn't
know what the penalties will be. It is ludicrous for the state to make Yorkville commit to a crystal ball in
2017 when the state can't even commit. EEI Engineer Freeman stated it is related to this 27 million dollar
project and there is a lot of practice throughout the state where they are trying to get money for
transportation or otherwise.The process takes time to get through those phases before they can program
in that money so they need to make decisions. In or out, it is your choice.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-5 Nays-3
Spears-nay, Colosimo-nay, Funkhouser-aye, Milschewski-aye,
Teeling-aye, Gilson-nay, Kot-aye, Golinski-aye
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—January 24,2012—Page 6 of 8
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Ordinance Approving the Rezoning to the R-21)Duplex Two-Family Residence District and
Variances for the Property Located at 312 Walter Street(Claesson Property)
(PC 2011-10 &ZBA 2011-02)
A motion was made by Alderman Funkhouser to approve an ordinance approving the rezoning to the R-
2D duplex two-family residence district and variances for the property located at 312 Walter Street
(Claesson Property) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute; seconded by Alderman
Milschewski.
Alderman Funkhouser stated this went to Plan Commission and they made a favorable recommendation
on this request.Then it went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they made a unanimous negative
recommendation to the Council. Then it came to the Economic Development Committee for review. No
recommendation was made to the Council since a supermajority is needed. A recommendation was not
made, for the Plan Committee figured there could be a better discussion at City Council instead of
recommending just as a committee. Mayor Golinski asked the petitioner to speak at this time.
Robert Claesson, the petitioner at 312 Walter Street, spoke in regards to having this rezoning passed. He
bought this property in 1999 and it was on a street full of duplexes. His intention was to turn it into a
duplex down the road. He did not think it would be a problem. He is not looking at changing this
community. He was told the dimensions on his property aren't accommodating with the variances.None
of the duplexes on his street meet the variances. He doesn't see why he shouldn't be allowed to do what
his neighbors have been doing. He sent out 48 letters to his neighbors within 500 feet. One person
complained and then lobbied his neighbors to get a couple other people to not promote it. Only three
people are against it. If you are going to deny me,he would just like to know why.
Alderman Milschewski stated residents didn't take a single family home and turn them into duplexes.
They were built as duplexes. This home was built as a single family home. A true duplex to her is two
residences under the same roof with two separate entrances and two separate lots. She doesn't see how he
can sell half of it since he is keeping it as one lot. She does not support this. Alderman Colosimo was at
the meeting with ZBA. He asked the petitioner if he was converting the garage space. The Petitioner
stated no. His design has a single garage for each unit. Alderman Colosimo asked how many bedrooms
are in unit one and unit two. The petitioner stated three bedrooms in each unit. Each unit has its own
garage and there is room for two cars behind the garages. There is room for three cars off of the street on
that property. His biggest concern,besides the resident input which is unfavorable, is he doesn't think the
argument of the duplexes on the street holds water. When the duplexes were built, they did conform to the
ordinance at the time. He is not a fan of spot zoning or providing variances. He agrees with Alderman
Milschewski, this is clearly a single family home that would be remade into two units. It is really not a
true duplex. He would strongly encourage the Council to vote no and accept the ZBA's unanimous
recommendation. Alderman Funkhouser stated this area was done as single family and duplexes when
platted.Those home were built that way as either duplex or single family. This is a conversion. That is a
primary difference in this neighborhood. The ZBA did not find anything that supported this. There is no
difference between this that creates this as being an unusual property that would not apply to other
surrounding properties. This is a typical piece that could apply to any other property which does not hold
water in the findings of fact or the zoning board's decision. Therefore this does hold a lot of weight that
they unanimously voted against this. He will not support this and does not feel this is an appropriate
change of zoning and that is where he stands. Alderman Gilson stated he also sat through the ZBA
hearings with Alderman Colosimo and listened to the objections of people in his ward. He feels that the
ZBA's unanimous decision not to support this is acceptable and he will not be supporting this either.
Alderman Teeling stated she is in agreement with everyone else. Those houses were built as duplexes.
Motion failed by a roll call vote. Ayes-0 Nays-7
Spears-nay, Colosimo-nay, Funkhouser-nay,
Milschewski-nay, Teeling-nay, Gilson-nay, Kot-nay
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
PARK BOARD
TIPS/TAPS Cooperative Purchasing System
(CC 2012-09)
Mayor Golinski entertained a motion to approve participation in the Tips/Taps cooperative purchasing
system to purchase a tennis court lighting system for the Raintree Park tennis courts. So moved by
Alderman Colosimo; seconded by Alderman Funkhouser.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—January 24,2012—Page 7 of 8
Alderman Spears asked how long has the firm been in business and did the City obtain any list of
references. Director of Parks and Recreation Schraw gave a brief description of TIPSITAPS.David
Miller, with Muscular Sports Lighting, 1150 Alice Road, West Chicago, IL, stated this program has been
around since 2002. It started in Texas and has expanded throughout different states. It has been in Illinois
for a year. This streamlines the bid process. There is no membership fee for the program.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-7 Nays-0
Colosimo-aye, Funkhouser-aye,Milschewski-aye,
Teeling-aye, Gilson-aye, Kot-aye, Spears-aye
Resolution 2012-02 Approving a Revised Vendors in the Park Policy
(CC 2011-134)
Mayor Golinski entertained a motion to approve a resolution approving a revised vendors in the park
policy and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. So moved by Alderman Milschewski;
seconded by Alderman Kot.
Alderman Gilson asked under the yearly permit fees and the day permit fees,how much have those gone
up. Director of Parks and Recreation Schraw stated 14 years ago the policy was $200 and it has remained
$200 since, so they did take into consideration the comments from the last City Council meeting and they
did keep the nonprofit fee for any party except for Town Square and for-profit they did raise at $100. It is
an approach that Town Square Park nonprofit will be $300 and for-profit will be $400 and Riverfront was
kept at the recommended prices from the previous draft. However for all parks she still felt it was a good
idea to have it at $700 for nonprofit and$1,000 for profit. Alderman Gilson stated so it went from $200 to
$700 to $1000. Director of Parks and Recreation Schraw stated if someone just wanted to be at one park it
would be$200-$300. Alderman Gilson struggles with this. He thinks it is a bad economy. He understands
these fees were put in to play many years ago but he feels it is a bad time to be raising fees on businesses
that are having a hard time trying to make it. As far as not-for-profit and vendors in the park,he just
thinks the City should leave it alone.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-5 Nays-2
Teeling-aye, Gilson-nay, Kot-aye, Spears-nay,
Colosimo-aye, Funkhouser-aye, Milschewski-aye
Resolution 2012-03 Approving a Revised Park Rental and Use Policy
(CC 2011-135)
Mayor Golinski entertained a motion to approve a resolution approving a revised park rental and use
policy and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. So moved by Alderman Colosimo; seconded
by Alderman Funkhouser.
Alderman Colosimo stated category A and B have the exact same prices. He asked if that is the way it is
supposed to be and if so, why have two separate categories. Director of Parks and Recreation Schraw
stated it is to give the different descriptions and to show that they are giving those different groups the
same price. Alderman Colosimo asked if these categories are in order of precedence. City Administrator
Olson stated yes.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-7 Nays-0
Gilson-aye, Kot-aye, Spears-aye, Colosimo-aye,
Funkhouser-aye, Milschewski-aye, Teeling-aye
PLAN COMMISSION
No report.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
No report.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
No report.
CITY CLERK'S REPORT
No report.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
No report.
COMMUNITY& LIAISON REPORT
School Board Meeting
Alderman Funkhouser reported on the school board meeting. They went through their financial planning
five year plan program and showed projections of what they are looking at for the next several years.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—January 24,2012—Page 8 of 8
Their forecast is relatively good for them. They are looking at raises and increases. Their overall
programming sector looked pretty well. It is good to see the school board taking these numbers to heart.
Recreation Committee for Facility Alternatives
On the 18`x'the recreation committee for facility alternatives met. It was the kick off meeting. There will
be another meeting January 30, 2012 where they will be discussing this issue a little more in depth.
Metro West Council of Government Legislative Breakfast
Mayor Golinski attended the Metro West Council of Government Legislative Breakfast. It was attended
by State Representatives Keith Farnham, Michael Fortner, Kay Hatcher, Robert Pritchard,Timothy
Schmitz and State Senators Linda Holmes, Christine Johnson and Chris Lauzen. The 3 main topics of
conversation were protecting municipal revenues, continuing public safety pension reform, and
supporting e commerce sales tax collection. Our elected officials on the state level varied on their answers
but all of them supported all three initiatives. Mayor Golinski was presented with a certificate for
Yorkville's City Administrator Olson acknowledging his outstanding contributions as Kendall County
Municipal Representative 2010-2011.
STAFF REPORT
Build Program
Community Development Director Barksdale-Noble stated since the last City Council meeting she has
had positive responses from buyers and the builder community about the build program. She has a link on
the website about the information and believes it is going to be a good program.
PRESENTATIONS
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Presentation
(CC 2012-10)
City Administrator Olson gave budget presentation# 1 on the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget. He presented on
the lesser known budget funds, TIF funds, SSA's, capital funds, special revenue funds, debt service and
the library. (See attached.)The City is going to roll out the budget,explain, and get clarifications and set
up 2 months of City Council debate and discussion open ended on the budget.The plan is to do this over
3 presentations in City Council. After the presentations there will be a mandated public hearing, which is
schedule on March 13,2012. Our end date for budget approval is April 20, 2012.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Train Derailment
Mayor Golinski was disappointed in Rail Net for not notifying the City of the train derailment. He would
like staff to contact Rail Net to let them know their# 1 priority is the safety of our citizens. Alderman Kot
wants a report from Rail Net on the most recent and previous accident. Mayor Golinski wants to know the
cause of the accident, also.Alderman Colosimo asked if the City reviews its emergency management plan
every year. He would like that on the next Public Safety agenda.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Golinski entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved by Alderman Milschewski;
seconded by Alderman Gilson.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-7 Nays-0
Funkhouser-aye, Milschewski-aye, Teeling-aye,
Gilson-aye, Kot-aye, Spears-aye, Colosimo-aye
Meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
M�tb tivt.�/ice
Beth Warren,
City Clerk, City of Yorkville, Illinois
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEASE PRINT
NAME: SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
V\
V
16 L,_eU t Pi
f
v-
(/lew
SIGNIN
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Public Comment
e-57dg (4 :7a 0 Wjr,4
PLEASE PRINT
NAME: SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
0 l�
SIGNIN
United City of Yorkville
FY 13 Budget Presentation #1
City Council
January 24, 2012 7
4
Budget schedule
Three presentations at City Council
January 24, 2012
February 14, 2012
February 28, 2012
One mandated public hearing
March 13, 2012
City Council must approve budget before
April 30, 2012
Tonight's schedule
TIF
Fox Industrial TIF, Countryside TIF, Downtown
TIF
SSA
Fox Hill and Sunflower Estates
Capital funds and Special Revenue Funds
Municipal Building Impact Fee, Police Capital,
Public Works Capital, Parks Capital, Motor Fuel
Tax, Land-Cash
Debt Service
Library
i
Budget introduction?
Big picture narrative included in
budget memo to City Council
http://www.yorkviIle.i1.us/documents/CCpacketl-24-12-000.pdf
http://www.yorkville.il.us/2012MeetingMinutesAgendasPackets.php
http://www.yorkvi Ile.il.us/depts_fi n_fy_budget.ph p
http://www.yorkviIle.il.us/documents/FY2013ProposedBudget1-20-2012.pdf
1/24/2012
Financing Tax Increment Fund,
Single-purpose funds
Primary revenue is property ta X
increments
Ex• - - • to those
furtherance of - • - • •
z
plan"
Fox Industrial TIF Fund(85)
The Fox Indunrd TIF wo a d in 2001,in order to finance public in@aatrpcmre improv®lenu for the Fox Induamal area.Thies T1F wu cloned out iu fi"ym 2012.
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Adpptd FY2012 Propwd FY2014 "Y 0" F'Y2016 tT2017
AcNd A-1 Budge Pr,ectcd Dudgcf Pmjcctd Rojernd RojeAd Pr jcetd
Rev ue
Texa 27n,ti 7 228,14e - 239,052 - - - - -
1 veahn tE 0 275
7'W71 R 216,722 220,339 359,327 - -
Expeadaares
('onuacnul Services 1,220 1,9" - 5,565 - - - -
Supplw - - 11,236 - - - - -
DebtService 77,793 79,933 - 76,793 - - - - -
()Wtu Finam-mg Ueee 737,533
Total Erpwdk re 79,013 81,922 829,117
Surphu(Defiw) 137,709 146,437 (569,790) - - -
Eadlaa Fuad Ddana 423,351 569,790
Fund Balance
3z00
59
3
1/24/2012
Countryside TIF Fund(87)
The Countryside TIF w anted in February of 2005,with the intent ofwn a-ting a Ihture rcmil deedopmml at Countryside Cent.Thie TIF ie loaned at the northwen aorta of US
Route 34 and IL Route 47.
r)'2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Athgld Fl"2012 Roprcd F1'2014 F5'201f FY2016 F1'2017
A-1 AM.] Buda Rc;ached Buda 'Md R n9d R'Md R'Md
Rev 0e
Taws 6,250 6,172 6,250 4.188 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4.500
InvaunmI Eenw 8,223 3,134 1,000 2.000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Tobl Revenue 14472 9,506 10230 6,188 6.500 6.500 6.500 6,500 6.SOO
E.Peadlluro
CatvacnulServicn 999 1,622 1,400 I'm 1,375 075 1,375 075 1375
Debt Sa ia, 307.868 307,093 306,143 306,143 304,668 302,738 305,523 302,723 304.723
Total Ea ndil4res 708867 736,715 707,347 )07,518 )06,061 )111,11) )06,198 )01,096 706098
Suplae(Defiat) (294,194) (299,209) (297,293) (301,130) (299,543) (297,613) (300798) (297,598) (299,598)
Endia Fund B.Ivna 2471758 2,178350 1.801 80 1077 20 1.577.677 1.280.064 979666 683068 38I470
a 53,606 Fund Balance
S2,aoo
52,x00 i
$0 - __ -_. _ .. ... .. _.._. ........._.._...
61
Downtown TIF Fund(lid
I D-1-T IF wax acad m 20tH,m inch to finance a-ad uer davelopmmt in di:downtown-
hl N12 FY2013
rl'2010 FY2011 Adcprd F1'2013 Roped 17'2014 F1'2015 FY3016 FY2017
Aced Aaud Budga Rojeead Budga P�olected ProjacYd -Z-ad Rojead
R e.ewne
l'axn. 88,5% 73,362 8X,350 67,80, 70,000 70,000 70.000 '0,000 0,00
Inveehnent Eanting. Ito 150 150 150 150 150
Told Revenue 88,330 75,362 88,550 67,957 70,150 70,150 70,150 70,130 70,150
E.peadltum
C-e-1ud S-- 1.832 1,896 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500
C'Ritd Uutla1' 525310 30.000 30.000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
ToW F.spead0urea I,UI 1,8% 576,640 41,500 41300 41,500 11,500 41,500 41300
Saryla.(Defiat) 86,719 73,466 (44 8,290) 26,457 28,650 29,650 28,650 28,650 28,650
E.,11-trod B.I.oa 136.294 209,760 (278,1341 236.217 364.867 193,517 322.167 350,817 379.467
s1a Fund Balance
Sena 1
=o
152m1�
1540x1
4
1/24/2012
YL 3010 IY 101] IY.11 W-1 .1011 rv3011 M6 IY 3Q7
A®Ow Dec0R606 AtlW AaW 9066m Ro1wY6 Propoxd PralaNO R0JeO1d ProJetlld Ra1MN
8300460{O40S8 PRORTJITT T..] S.MU 70Y'NW 66550 7330 64530 67.07 70,OW )0.000 70.000 10.000 70.000
49O00./SL0.15W ISrvi.ST65FVT E:COMF. 130 150 1% 1% ISO 150
Nnvw m5330 73.0 6410 P.M T%— 7". ."" 74130 '4150
e&B94S1.00-S12. AUML'ISTRAMw f1'ES 1.): 1.6% 1,300 LW I.- 1.500 I,kq L- 1300
88-pD-51-00-5166 LEGAL SERVICES - - 10,000 10,000 10.000 IO.W IQ000 10.00 Io,000
SS-QOfi00b60o0 PROIEC[ TS - 14000 la.ao0 10.000 lo.000 Io.00u IoM MW
QO-9 RMM.47T."MS" SIS.NO 91.000 910W W.OW 100W
hpnmlww 11111 1,696 31440 n,SW u,3W nSOO n.5oo u,5ao n!60
W1160M15dlalf 66,719 7J.I66 N14166f 1401'7 14410 14650 346. 1460 14650
61rOB1mrw 13614 104760 CIWJln 314117 166667 390.317 32A167 M.7 173AT
1II166Y X606.111 11.41 S61.X11 6A13!f ?0".Sf91 >?63)M y1.9In 91I.M1�
64
SSA Funds
Subdivision specific SSAs that cover
common due to
defunct homeowners'
Fox Hill
Sunflower
5
1/24/2012
Fox Hill SSA Fund(11)
77dv fund wuv ttawlrJ for We puryax of mvinrmning We ammmn mwa of We Fox Hill Evmm(SSA 2004-201)¢ulrr8tvioo.All moony fm We f die denied Gom pmpmty tuw Iwi.J
rni hmmmwmery in We mhdivuinn.
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Adopted FY2012 P,".d FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
Acme] Ad" Redget P jected Hndget Pjecled P,9.*d Pje,xed ".cad
R.
.e. 19,897 19,894 3,786 3,796 3,786 4,165 4,581 5,039 5,5d1
mvcvhnenl Eanutyry 5
7'olal Rweuue 19,897 19,894 5,786 3,791 3,786 4,163 4,381 3,039 5,343
eePweimrae
C-cecueels-- 4,011 4,1?8 3,804 IJOO 4,500 4,500 4,607 1,603 4,603
Total Expe idhures 4,011 4,178 5,801 4,700 4300 1,500 4,607 4,603 4,607
SivpNe(Deficit) 15,886 15716 (I8) (335) (22) 436 910
Eadi,g fund B,I.... 2,226 17.942 IIJ16 17,433 16,719 16,384 16.362 14790 1-"!t
sm Fund Balance
6ss "
SlD
53
so
Sunflower SSA Fund(12)
Thu fiord wee meeted for We pmp ve ofmdnmininq We wmmmon erne of Ws StmOown Eemw(SSA 2006119)mbdi-i m.All money fm the fiord it derived firm pmperry mxm
IMd on homrownm in We mbdmei..
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Adopted FY2012 P,,q-d FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
Ac" A96W 0u49at Proj.W Dudget Projected Pj ned Projected Pr jecld
Rwwuc
'I'exw 13,871 13,971 7,530 7,530 7,531 8,284 9,113 10,024 11,026
Invemnmt F-mg, 10
Total Rwwue 15,871 13,871 7..V0 7,310 7,531 0.284 9.113 10,014 11,026
Expwdiate
Cnntmcbml Service 8,782 8,136 9,078 7,000 9,986 10,985 10,985 10.985 10,985
Tatal E:DwdOvm ;782 0,136 9,078 7,000 9,986 IONS 10,905 10,963 1490S
Surplue(Deficit) 5,089 5,735 (0718) 540 (2,455) (2,701) (1,872) (961) 41
End1.0".d 11.1- 6,188 11,922 10.900 12.462 10.007 7.306 5.434 4,472 4514
Fund Balance
� sts
3 sto -
ss
67
6
1/24/2012
: Capital F • . •
Special Revenue Funds
Main source of • most
funds • .
Secondary • of
to be restricted to r specific expense
Motor r
Expenses are limited to permanent
capital items
E
Municipal Building Fund(16)
1'ie Sd—pd Budding Fwd.,—d v,main[®n<ziefing City.—d bwUgl .�d to fund I.d agwtinon.d-pn aid—ft- ue..bwkLngr.
F1'2012 rr:013
F1'2010 F1201 1 ABdudA l Pu1g'2v vD.ryn F2U
md _ua P,,-14 d (1:015 I'Y".016 1'1'201-
Projected
Re. u
I.iemen.t Peemity 9.:50 30.^00 250 F000 250 'S. 5,250 5'50
T..]R—... 9,750 20,700 5,250 6,000 5,250 5,250 5,2W 5,250 5,25.
Exp.dnum
-
Ceprtd Outlay - - - - - - - -
11.n Fi,w,wn,1 57,200
I Mal EZpmd K— 57,200
S,TIw(Deficn) (47,450) 20,700 5,210 ti.000 5,250 5.250 5.250 5,250 5,250
E.di.6 Fund Br I.— (607,724) (597,014) (560,474) (591,014) (575,774) (570.524) (.565.274) (560,014) (554,774)
s52o1 Fund Balance
a -- --
155401
A (Sxol
(55eo1-
�56001
156201
Y
7'1 MOM
t
7
1/24/2012
Parks and Recreation Capital Fund(22)
The Park and Recreation Capital fund derive]its revenue from monies mOMed from buildinp pemlib.The revenoe u used t0 puchsse a Wip-t-tial m the maintenance ofpark
lend end open rya.
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Adopted FY2012 W."ad FY2014 FY2015 FY2010 FY2017
A.WW Adaal NndgN Pry6cld Badge( P.,).kl Pn acted .dd PM.t d
Rev ue
Licemn&.Permit 3,300 1,650 11750 1,750 3.250 3,250 3.250 3,250 3,250
Inverbnent Eam.W - 99 80 250 250 250 250 250 250
RNmbaleemmb - -,Soo - 10,702 - - - - -
Mi"laneous 48,573 1,000 900
Total Raemae 51,873 9,249 2,&30 13.602 3.500 3,500 3.500 3,500 3,500
E]Peodit-
CapiWOutlay 10,773 24.658 120,000 30,000 20,000 - -
OtllcrFinmcal 3,500 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Toml Ex udllare] 10,773 24,658 123.500 33,500 22,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Surplar(DcSat) 41,100 (15,409) (120,670) (19,898) (19,000) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Endia Fend Rdaam 66.952 51.443 (76.369) 3150 12.545 13.345 14.545 1 545 16.545
Sim Fund Balance
$50
S
so
($34(
132001
73
rvNlo -1 rvNa rv2mx rc2m3 n2014 rc1013 n2m1 rcNn
�m Iraa190oe Aew AaaA Rad1n Prgmaa noPO,w v1gw4 IAq....n nq.na nq.e.a
P,1,and R-Na,,Caa1W-n
41-1215 C.WCSCARTAL FL[9 V. 1.6]0 1.- 1.330 a,ya ]3]a 3.:50 1- 3,250
-- INVFSTMCx50ARNINUS - 99 250 - 230 2W 2b 250
22-00046-00-4690 REPai-WSI=LANEO(la - ].SOD - IO.A2 - - - - -
22-00048-0O 1 O a`,,md5 K,373 - - - - - -
22{9048-004890 SALSOFFMMMSETS I.- f00
Rnm� 9/b 9.20 ]AU Wait, 490 ,M. ;90 ],SOD 2D22260l 11 I,NTRFF.PAR. 1,700 9,002 INa00 tl000 10000 - - - -
22.2'2600a6oa2 OA8F9ALLF&LUCUN4I-IUN 15.656 - - - - - - -
u2EJ.POOfi060 Lg11PMF.NT 9,OT3 10,1100 - - -
Mw,rbrDM�ldryRY1O13
22-32-9fM-9Y21 TRAN]}LR TURIIILIC M'(N4:S CAPITAL I.SOD ].500 2500 3.300 2500 2300 2,300
PuAARrr poAOn oJ15S O'uP,G ANl4,g
4P-,.. 10,77] 34630 12],90 31,90a 2;90 2x00 2,90 ;90 2500
Rar16n(IMd1) (116091 (1206'10) (19.OSa) (-9.09) ID10 1,100 Ip9 1.19
Ie491r,v 66,Ssi 1I,40 [MA" ]I,Stl 12,Sa5 Is, 14165 1a,- 16,313
a_%.1m r41ux sr.ax 9i rex 55.26r Su.arx xr.ur w3err 613..11
74
8
1/24/2012
Police Capilal fund(20)
The Poheu C6pim1 Fund dawn ve rcvmuc front monies celleetd from budding pem m.The m mue i9 mod W purchme vd iw1w imd q,,pmmt far uu in the operation of the police
depanmmt
FY2012 FY2011
FY2010 FY2011 Adopted FY2012 Proposed FY2014 FY2015 H2016 FY2017
Acmd Actual Budge Pngected Budges P.jecid Proj.wd Ncjecld "ww
Rer u
4 License&Permih 26,563 16,417 16,500 12,000 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500
Finn&Forfeits 10,063 12,611 5,000 9,6w 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650
l--out Faomp 40 50 SO 50 50 50
E MieL11,meo. 5,170 8,900 13,900 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Taal Revenue 41,796 77,928 21,500 35,390 29,200 29,200 29,300 29,200 29,200
1
t Ezpad1t
Commual Service 3,197 9,493 11500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500
Supplin 910 2,500 2,500 2,500 2500 2,500 2500 2,500
Capitol Uudry 3,266 41772 40,000 80,000 45,000 2&000 28,000 28.000 28.000
TOlal F.rpeuditurea 7,361 51,265 54,000 95,000 611,000 43,000 0.7,000 13,11011 43,000
Surplue(De6dt) 34,433 (15,337) (32,500) (59,t1D) (30,600) (13,800) (13,000) (13,800) (13,800)
Eedioy Fund Balaoee 210,294 194,947 134.647 135,97 104,737 90,937 77,137 61,337 09,537
szw Fund Balance
$200
_ e sls0
€ s1o0
sw
so
75
rr w10 VTMI rrHH WY 2 .1 2011 M. rr1.5 .1286 .1217
Amer DmSp"u .18.1 Aar aR41a Mse6 Aeped 1*4� Ault �n R^le'd"6
Paan4'uu1W.b
3D-000-ILODA11i DEVELOPA�M F'FSS 19950 161003 IO.w I;aD M- 103. 1A- 10.500 Io30D
.600.42•.6217 WF.ATNF.R WARNMD SatFN fF.i9 6.M1IJ 4a 60. 6000 6.0. 60. 40. 6,0.
94-00043-00-1315 DO-UL 'Al 6162 - l0. 40. 6.0. 40. 40. 6.00D
-300JJ 16 EI.CCI MW M1 MN fit IT - 6w 610 6% 650 63D 650
M O.A10W]40 9GJa Vpll(7.F.W(%1};94 S.66J 6.- S0. 5.0. SA. S.O. 3,0. 5,0. SA.
t-.045601100 IM'FE7MENr F.Vt:7N(11 40 SD b 50 SO b
2)60008-0040. MISCFLLANE00SNCO 113-0
3.613008604820 SALT p'FIXF3J ASSETS 4I0D 69. r59. 1,000 10. 1.0. 1.0.
Stereos All. 17.02 21.Sro 1659 19}. M. H,20D 29,1. H}.
M-D1- -5162 MR .I-SERVIGE3 ),ISI J,D. L- ;5. ;500 2.5. 2S. ;5. 33.
2}310 51-0 0-519.5 MTS-REPAR AND MAIN.'AN . - 6ASJ 10.0. 10.IpO M- IOU. 10..0 10.0. 1%mo
d]-2..56.005620 (RfRATIMI tITP1.RS - ;500 ;500 25. 2-5. ;500 21. ?f.
M21p54P}5031 L'Il%]LS6 EQL'IAMl7.T 9113 - - - -
3]-2.60.0D6060 LQU @62NT 3}66 IA63
fJ.Y formr nad6v 6u rO,eTw MM,p p AY2013
M-2.60004170 VFNICI.F.t J2.31D 20.0. M.O. 25.0. M. 25.0. 35.0.
Orpnalre 5]94 9.2N 340. 15.0. 60000 nA. geOD U.O. 0,000
"rpuilnatl0 N,aU PS}175 00,5.1 (SS,ay P4a.5 (upo 03A.) ("M 068WF
Fad airs 110.2" 104N1 13494 115,97 104737 10917 77,117 1313- 49,SiT
2R 55.>JSi 363 RN 240.J.9e !.IN III..Mn 111.Mn /!9.An 117- IIi.tlK
76
9
1/24/2012
Public Works Capital Fund(21)
Tfie R1M1lic N'.xkc t',apiml Fwrd daiva�ib revemre from monies rdleded(rrwn blildinp pmmib The revmue it ved m purdl®e®piml itnu_wh u vehkls,egvipn!mt and pryeq
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 A&'Pted FY'2012 M,`7 d F1'2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017,
Acmd AMW BudOd PrjwW Budget "W P"wW PM-M R jwld
Rev b
licbnm&-Pemlib 47,450 25,100 24,500 25,000 31,000 31,000 11,000 31,000 31,000
Chrngw fm Smi- - 4,897 %goo 6,468 20,000 20,000 20,000 ^_0.000 20,000
Inverbnmt EUninpr - - 20 - - - - -
MisceBmrow 558 7,283 - - - - - -
nlh4vFlunSVrgSonreo 3,100 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 trim
1 nml Reveane 48.008 37,280 35,900 34.988 0,500 9500 53,500 53,Sw 53,W
Eapeadil.res
Cnntr 1 Servicai 4,000 49 6,300 6,100 10 500 I l 500 11,500 10,500 IQ500
Supplies - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
C.Pilel Outlet' - 4,000 2,000 2,000 75,000 30,000 30,000 - -
11.,S-- g2291 82,295 82,295 82193 82,295 82,295 8],295 82,293 82,295
T..I E30e.d11um 86,295 86.344 92,595 92,595 169,795 125,75 125,795 94,795 94,795
SWI,,(Defi,,t) (38,287) (49,064) 116.695) (57,607) (116,295) (72,295) (72,295) (41,295) (41,295)
Eodi-n.dBRIurRr 157,807 10&743 45,542 51,136 (65.1M (137,454) (209,749) (251,044) (292.739)
sew, Fund Balance
S0
52w)
153w)
(S.w)
L
77
R 2010 9Y 2011 n2012 ry I FY 200 IT 2014 IT 201! FY 2016 FY 201+
Aaa0e1 Oew404bw Add Adtl baa5 Er4leded R9Prs1d Rolram &grad RMNN PruJrdrd
Pe88r WMu['4WI.N
2160042-006417 ENG�G CAPnT 93E - 6.500 63w cm 4wD 63M
-If-L'R'c".1 d{T MI]
21-0w-12004214 DF.VFl.CIPNFM'ET.F.S 1',- 21,Iw ]A.W ]S.Ow 2J,Y0 21. 24.SM 23.500 91,500
216w42606216 BURUPRWRAM -
21-11 MOWMC MW - 4,197 7,91q 4361 20,Ow At,000 M,Ow M,Ow w'-
Inrrtmrdwvi!badlrw
]I6OO4S604500 IM1NBSTMENT ZARNING3 - ^A - - - - -
)1600480018W MI[CHIJ.AMfA!S ilr'CMIF. 150 1,213
2I6004Y-0W921 TNANSTtR tR(101 PART(a NBC CAPITAL 3.R6 1100 ZM3 ;SOD 25w i,M10
R4navue AM J1JM 31900 349M am 9!00 am SAND 93M
11.211616 0.64 0 3 tlUg.0 PNWRAM - - - - - - -
21-'11-51-0OSIJB F1LMGfEFS - 99 - 2300 40w 6,Ow 4fw 40w 6,Ow
Iwrtmdmnre0 maciwdwid rwuR irrtm.
11-211-51-00.5M2 PR(R3;SSIONAL SBRVICtiS - 1.8w - I,Ow I,Ow -
21.211-3460- 1 R9MA1.a LEASE 's-A4 4.Om 4910 4.Sw 4.100 4_1w I.lw 4.5w
31.3116600.36M (JPF AMG SUI•PLIES - - ZOw Z- 20w ;OOD 20w 2.Ow
21.21160001060 rP10T?Nf - 4,000 Z- ZOw 75,Ow - -
RrElar k'W 4awer
]I-211 6 0 0 0.6 010 VFNKZflS na 3U.Ow w,9DD - -
h68r N'rra6 aaadlq-1L5 Wdlabed
II.211-9Z00.9w0 PRP'1-A- N.937 26,N4 28] 20.]31 10,074 JZ012 32012 32012 3ZO12
N-211-1-as50 A-!iR[ST PAI'MEA'! 51,73tl SS.151 7_011 553011 S;321 303 30.283 K- J01RJ
Crpm9lwc M39S J. Mm 14M 1f1T3 I^- In" 94m ft-
....... Dell (3828') 149,06+1 (.-.4931 (T,481) (114295) 1ZJ901 (MM (41s94 (4139!)
Fw�a ml.oa 197,801 109.10 4156 93X MJ591 (131.451/ 00&149) (29.040 µ91.91 U
IRS Rr% 121 Ma N1RIa 53.1.M -3839% -10057% -166.r4% �6I R9% .tli 30%
78
10
1/24/2012
Motor Fuel Tax Fund(1-5)
7719 MctP,Fw1 Tax fund n..d to maintahl ex miti,and c9nw9ct nex'city o39nd medweyl,alleys and puking lore.The fiend alro pwchww materials wd m the maintenance and
,,I,mb9n ofttwvc facilifiw_
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Adopted FY2012 Plopwd FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
Ac6na1 Actual BudgM Prlactod Budge)
"-.d PM-Wd Pm-.d N..IWad
Rev a
Imwgov9mmmW1 434,263 523,767 511,000 527,319 454,197 455,000 435,000 455,000 455,000
Invw6nmt Eaming9 779 837 1,000 350 350 350 330 350 350
R.u,,, U 38,057 162,580 493,000 - - - - - -
Mucdlaneou9 105 85
(ulvi Retenue 473,203 687,270 1,011,000 527,669 454,547 4SSa50 455,]50 455,150 435150
r:y�emrw.e,
C-aaclual Seri- 7,865 33,316 - - - -
Snppli9v 191,203 227,168 311,60D 311,600 341,960 356,106 321,089 336,964 353,790
Capital Outlay 208,135 95,806 349,400 2714900 231,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900
CPntingeniw (38,685) - - - - - -
Other Finandng Uvee 96,000
1 0101 h.,peadlt- 368,519 452,490 661,000 563,500 573,860 478,006 442,919 458,864 475,690
Suspluv(lhfia) 104,684 234.'W 350,000 (55,831) (119,313) (22,656) 12,361 (3,514) (20140)
E9d1881WRd Balaaa 405,618 640,399 776,755 584,568 465,255 442,599 454960 451.446 431,106
s1,00o Fund Balance
5600
€ 5600
5466
$200 -,
S
52
ry 9110 n 211 ,']013 nI-2 rr 2ou n lm6 Iry 26c
AtmYl 1.6cIP.e Atl0a1 Acnu4 Bu64N NolehO Itopwe6 130f451ed Ralecnd F4olrc1e6 Aol,9nM
SNt�FW iva-15
1.5.041-00.1113 MOTOR FUEL TAX 00.576 123,971 ]51.000 415.4. 113.0. 415.000 415.0. 415,000 411,000
1500041-0O4113 LIST IIIGII 0809711 %.6h 34,674 3.000 79,197 )9,19'1 40.000 40,000 10.000 10,000
gunJ un/IJOI'➢geeaon,
15-00041-00-1173 aLwOIS XJBSNOw RL� ]),123 "1.- 'I],131 -
IS0.4500.1%0 II4VE411N£NT£ARNDIGS 779 017 1.000 730 )50 330 730 J. 750
15-0.46004605 all -(LOIAQ %W PARBINOLOT 111,000 493.000 - - - - -
ISagOJ6-p1-1690 RF.01®-M1,9C£I-LANROII3 %,D37 111. - - -
ISA.40L04850 MI9CF2.LANEWS n1IX161E u, 6.3
R.. maw 60.370 1,/11,600 137,(69 454.7 487. 1W. IM^ 4SUM
15155"-OD-5162 PRCFSSSIUaA1.-= 1,537 - - - - - -
11 ISSd1-06493 011T51DP.RRPAat AM.-.A-
.1 18 SALT 1702" 133.771 330.000 81.000 272..0 %235D 2M.6" WAI1 3.,783
I}If536L0-%19 SANS 5.., 1.2]2 1a- 14000 Am )5.000 ]5."0 ]5.000 %p00
15-I15.1640.56J2 PATC- 13.401 fa,a49 5..0 -
513336-00.W3 1,993 9.x92 10.606 10.6. 11,6. IS8% ISa19 17.0'11
15115•%-00-S6N NOT PATCH 11.011 7,.. I).00D 13,000 14.JOD 13,7]0 I7.J0) 19.0)) At"7
I SISiS6Y0-SNO REPAIR A:DMAP2)£NANCE - '7.128 - - - - - - -
1515546066072 t)OPYSOWNPARI(ING I.OT 42420 -
1SI1340-06"'.) OAa16FARMROADPROIECT %S6 TIA% ISQO. 130.000 110,000 - -
1511566906074 FO%ROADPItOIECT 153.910 11.9]0 - - - - - -
IS11540..4075 RNERAOADa-PROIECS - - 2S.0. - - - - -
511-79 --47E ANSKTN no.4. 121,900 U..9" 131.9. 1-. M.9. 121.9.
15.13176067799 (bATNOENC1:a -
15-ISS-99OD-981) SRANS6FR TO CRY-Y'®BCMRAL %.o0n
.-a- 3f9,119 44.490 461.x. aak- 17),0" MAW 40.1/9 dLK1 M.afO
Sup1aRDOlM) 1046. 3",760 130.000 (MuDn (1.9711) (11,6-30 11761 0 24) 120090)
Faa0lWea¢ QSA16 -299 7[474 104%1 46/265 44 99 -- tlt.- 41.106
)100th /115344 11111. Imld. 'a 91104 101!0`. 95 iP. w634
53
11
1/24/2012
Land Caah Fund(72)
Imn11'Rnh I'undn me d1dI I,-I 0,develq,etn Ilnolrgh 11..o tr l hn „dik,1 161•immW.I,and fume1,.+fj.A Ad n\wt n r+ftwdn,Ir mrulAli5i6i,m..1-d f„r
pmk dmel,>fm v Rnd-1,x1,,!0 m ticr b mM fmThi-is,Nla,mdchSA dnuugh .m funding 1.,m1\•t lhR«,mmunn5'v rtu wli,+n n.•d6 al d I.+x15.•„11 to Ole("tl
F)'2012 8'.013
I Y.'010 1'1'2011 Ad"'I I 01'21112 P1,"p 1 8'2011 1'1'2015 1'1'2016 1'1'?III'
Acmel A-A Bndgg IY,q..W BldA. 11,q-1 P,,,j..d 14njMad 1 qmj d
Res
lulery n'mlmmbl 10.3,13' 12?85 100.000 100.000 400,000 9,000 - 400400 -
Lmd Cadl COnmM1uk.'NU 165,811 132.3" 20.500 20,500 20.500 20,500 3.0
00 200 23.000 21.000
T.1.1 Rn'r 269,148 471,639 120,500 120,500 420,500 116,!00 23.000 427,000 23,000
K:peadim
('g9td 11Nt115- 216,60' 149,790 281.(100 '_8LM 132,000 :13,000 35&850 N.000 11,0110
(Whet Fina,ung IT- 60,119 60.119 mom 20,084
Tow!Espeudlture5 207,036 259,&39 301.081 301,081 132,000 213,000 736,8!0 63,000 13.000
S.P1. {3"908) 211,810 1 N 16 119,416 288.500 (96.500) 1333+850) 360.100 10.000
V:d..L Fund RA,, iMU,125) (388.6251 1312.2311) (269,2041 19.291 (77,20% (411.0") (51,0391 (11,059)
i Fund Balance 1
s:n9
e (s29)1.10 -
1 )
156(ro7
tseool-
1
�7
01'!010 1 2011 91'1012 8'1015 10'3017 11'1011 313015 H'3016 it"201•
4 rsM peaalpllw AnM AeV dd1A R01eee0 -p- A.q-d ngrenl j R j-d
Land C.A.72
ii-11% STAR GR NTS 10733' 12-105 - - - - -
1w1•lq•11'I 0S1 .-T-NSApJE NEADUM'3 IW,OW 400.010
" Wwf IW-11�] GSLADGRA\TRAI TREE 110. - -
.,AOJI-60./1'1 RV GRANT.HO0ONS PART:
nlmwl-X-11^I lL9.A!)GR.S\T-RM1'ERFR()NT(iRAVT - - - - - IOW Inn+
-_./001'0lH'02 WTHSPFRMG AR.AllGW9(A 1111.1.1 11AJ 3121"
-:1u01i1x H"n1 AI=TIIMN CNFIJ: 6-_- 10.1X, 20.000 75.- -1- ".." X1. 2Ul
.,00-I'�nH'01 MAIMRLRR\2'047X3 5y W0 500 5m 210 YM q, 5
^Ift4l-'05 ..-O-aAT 100.9,A1 IW - - - - -
..4'-'06 t'ALEGSWIA
^Aq0-1'+iw'0' RiSiR' R,, e-I
RSnf� SN.1� fUM 016! 118814 AOSW 116_10. y,000 A.I.OW LA00
.'2460-,gMr2Y C.AI.EpW1A -
^7,1u+WA,]I HEARRA\1JCwl c -
^-'7111+.601012 A15131E9 X&3,41241'4615 IO.W4 10- 11.010 IIAW IZOW 13- UWO 11.(2, ITU,O
^.�60.00i0]] ]4LAm1E MEAIX3N'315R\ARDS) -
^•�J�1A.DON,]I N1119TRLNG AIEAIXJNS IA HILLI 15x,019 -
.^7,A1N01P]- 4R:11WR .R T.R&F,TRAa.
-11 N'IR:AT4Y NY ANri NAT4RLTRAIL 15535 2,11 - - - - - -
10106019 IIRIST58.HA1'-VARRA - 0M1,(µ2
-:-7,1wWS61] aRl6TC,L aAI'RE4RJ2u v.Aw: X.67, - - - -
- H5M7;I2S PANR 120000 - -
%"o.p1600 RB3:RFRGNT PARR - 210.010 210.&310
-_.:,.W,n.M/16 (f RA\'U:RFSF.RIT PA A .X000
0mlerMllram mdn,WaA'rorwr
-2'2.17.8104^ OR AN4E RF.SFRST PARR R - - - - - - 141.Aq -
IRAN.M .It.Rpr.rmr R.rnhlmn
^-"SAYL0lN11 iNANSITR TS)OI:Nf:ftAl. N,1l9 nn,449 71,OM X061
5:.�r+11w1.2m..y..er1.11.wd'.F"Ju
4tNWlum 19'•AS0 23DA/9 101.501 JOI.ON 173010 I11.OW M_ 2.000 13.08
9ulinl(Me11 0"I" 11100 MA. f19.A6 310100 (5x_5601 (v1,aq) 360.00. IOA00
11 0aglOte 56tl.A61 0t.0) 012i301 060]00) lull (^.2101 (11'.9) M_ M.0w1
IPe.-• .lN b•r -Il4'04 d9lllt 11.01•. -R... -1/5/w. .5101•.. ±1531•.
P
12
1/24/2012
Debt
Revenues are derived from general
r
• • non-abatement of
property taxes associated with bonds
Expenses are for debt obligations of
the City not - • to the water,.
or •
i
Dettt%crOcc Fund(it)
The F3eh1 Se Fond a,xvw We.wonie.fn paynlem 91'We 2004(wd 2005.4 bm,dr.Tluw.•6.nd,x ruN U 6neuce r wd iniproramve prof ti5.Pi Paly I ere 151iN
I—P1 f.+r Ike 30040 I n.d.which utAil.a().l Fwd Ill,fW.law le Pr,,,ennuul deb Xenia requir mew.
113012 1'1'2013
Il•3010 1'1'2011 .4drynN 1'1'2013 R.pnN 1'1'3014 1'1'2015 F3'3016 8'201•
Actual gaud liedRw R.a.ct.d Nudpw Pw9+4 Pnyeurd gyeaN Pmlwl.d
Nev e
324.179 12)150 326179 32$1'9 129,519 120.000 250.000
t
Li Il P-1. "!�3S 1 025 1.000 1 000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000
6nwvwwiil LanunRS - - 100
- 300 700 300 500
t ryhi�fluancwR S.'ul.tw JS'.'•�I 1'�:IUI 133,-lU IS2.51" �.In+ J.�-n yn,5-o
l.ld Nn.... 199922 430129 427,919 507,167 4127,1,14 3NAN ]]11X79 321976 337.979
F.'Pene il-
.vl6xn.1_1.•n - "50
IMI!, i 48'_4 4_',,A J 42-vIV 42"1)l1 •04.JG' 72N_I-1 .5'9 330.5-9 l3p-1'9
T91.1 F,,pendill Jtz.29J 429,404 429,669 429,669 505,3.10 329,a54 329,954 330,954 336.554
Sulk.lU� -11 1035 f"50) '8.496 (76226) _ ')2' 025
Cedes )—d Il.h,n 7.111 X.611 7,779 tl7.1a1 04)25 4950 10.775 5,791 7,122
6200 Fund Balance
s99 '
a sso
E sJo
$20
W09OL�69
13
1/24/2012
mule )r»n n'»u n'1nx fT»v n'xull n»I} n'»IO n»I-
AImW Itnrrlgµn Ae1rY .UteY 9aEln ReJstvA Rgowd Ro1rtIN Rulnxd Ro}rUa Roµ<IeO
I?rM Hm-lae-J2
f!�(u..lU.pFlpn YNiR'F:RII'1:1V:S•1W!A IJUAU )11.19 )1),)5U 1xaJ'9 J?RI'Y 3?r!Un
1ldnOd!p41!rK RF.C.1P'RIRI:f6_511'ATFRASR)'FR •,4?R LM! � 1.9M I!Mn I,pn .IM IMO I.UMO
J3-np-I!:r4!nr 1\�'(:5T5H:NTI Aµ�1v<tt 3M JUr x�
J3{nwJ9 puf9YUl5 l 1HAAS CMI .LL Il!.UY1
129.dU1 I01,74U I.fM.
HnM MiMI IV-111lPAI
H('l1.111\(1 -
1.{x�d9�p4YR. iHAAV tiH fH(MI I'tl\11UI'Sf1U AI.lI/ ]R.']i
Fw Snx•x_%DSSfmUa opera ke -- — _--_.___ _.__
µeats d».f1x
21 ai'!19 WAV W.- .1.49 UU.e•9 11", ...V9
I.d_O.I 1. PAIIAti A(lT:\TJFk.T IM IN .3
Irmo—u'..I,,,4 I,£1'!nl f
SaoUµeHrrWq
!dloµ]o0.Rpn PRI-\C]ITPAWFIT -
13-1?iuC4p�N0ti1 1\'11:kI;tiT YA\TII�:\T
1e11K•IbU
- iRIVCIR F.PAITIF.\T 9O.mlr 9!.MO 9),OM 9),MO
131:0.81{x.yp!U I\'h;R).'STPAI II 101) MW &110 &1d0 O4J65
leo!{
J! .-1?AF.VM9Jrn PRI\(•IPI.I'PAITff\T 19!,OW M{Mr ?I!.Nn
-30.Rx�UU-8O,.0 IATI:RGTPAI—IT IJ\!"9 116.!'9 1».1]9 139.1'9 111 J'9 11).1]9 IOI.a•9 Y!.!19 34.r1�'9
xanl—
11-11LLPo�Y�BiKK!
1.d?O 9BOM1RO!U 1\TI:RES'TP.—IF.T )_,V
,vr:LLh.vn..I.mAL rx f1 Yrll
h.I foY f.lyrnY]If
I�pe9leit+ dQi.39J Jx9.JW —1 —.1 MU ,Ut9Y RM.W JJe.W —4
-PIW—, •.ale 1125 11b1 'tM 1_1 tt! R) I'm IJl!
FUaE tY,.. •.axe R.av 1,rn R+,u1 tv! saw t9.9 t+e' vv
I1f .u.. f.91!. A9Y. 1. !uY. f11"•. I'f•. .1..
70
Library Funds
Operations
Covers day-to-day
property taxes
Debt Service
Covers bond payments
taxes construction, funded by property
Capital
Covers capital
impact
14
1/24/2012
Funds Library
The Library : • . • has not
endorsed any budget
Property taxes for operations shown
are above the property tax cap for
the library, • represent
Council expected negotiation outcome
between the Library Board and City
Library OF-ions Fund(82)
The Yadvdle PaM,Lib,,)p du the p k ofNe commuviy,Rom pmekool0uapb mrmiry,wiU rm.ro•cpuecean of book.and o31ra mernW.whiA w'i8.eve Ilw
NwvEmW,mOmd and la+aenaW neeb The WbmY band eM euRROive to pmvidl de mnmrmymemv.amml Wrpmmokr lkelweofreedu9
fY2012 f Y2011
FY2010 FY2011 Adr04ed FYW12 Fh p.�al FI'301d FY2013 F17016 FY2017
A-W A-u W00M Pl6je9ad Opdga Ru2ectwl RyeeW Rajened Roj.cld
Revere
Tun 1,18.3,T4 1,252,191 675,00 692,115 707,500 7'15,00 750,000 773,000 800,00
m 0
Imrpavanm 0 19,693 24,410 22,200 22,211 22,200 22,200 2210 22,200 22,200
I.inm.0&Pamir. 11,100 17,630 8,000 6,000 16,250 16,230 16,230 16,230 16,250
4tim.&4'nK a 11,303 11,161 I7,OD0 13,000 13,000 17,000 13,000 11,000 13,000
Chug.Cur S- 18,493 1],11] IJ,ODO 16100 1],000 17.000 17.000 17,000 17.000
Inv..6rwrt Eemirya 1,932 690 250 150 130 150 150 150 150
iteim6uamiml. 6,181 7,]06 7,]87 816" 8,821 9391
.1fixelW.aw 6,113 7,020 5,300 10,700 7,60.0 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600
(>11re 3'urmcin8$OpRW 332.500 732.300 /197tl 11110 16.63] 19.1]8 51.8'12
7pW Revere 1170,809 1.321.00 109,130 1,091.16 83194 053.227 .01.121 90.199 927,465
9rpe.aknra
Sdm� 186,675 501,353 431,000 438,000 110,000 "0,000 140,000 110,000 110,000
Fmefir. 131,192 141,220 154123 137,720 216,862 230,183 .148 260,671 278,081
conOCnW Semrn 152180 18).101 105,100 103,819 10.399 107 87 108113 10,082 109993
SoppIm 161,687 147,10] 29130 33150 ]1,250 ]1130 ]1350 31130 ]1150
Conlmgenaia 4.985 170! 1,000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000
u.d Service 161,050 605,925 - - - - - - -
()tlra FlvncmR 1�.e. 112,500 112,100 1,511
I otaIY pmdlrurn 1,306.060 1,587,713 1,00,275 1.O0J19 797122 M,922 825,212 043,00 0.327
5"1.,(Dcfim) (228,059) (253,669) 9,175 26,60" 35,762 43,406 55,912 67,197 71,138
b:ndI.g Fund B-- 571.002 317.336 2%"5 30.90 379.70 413.111 479.023 516120 613.350
37.89% 19.99% 21.19% 32.19% 17,63% 52.25% 58.03% ".87% 7216%
sr99 Fund Balance
SM
SM
5260
92
15
1/24/2012
-
01 D1+aa1P190 lwdW Aa0�1 PW1tl PlvledM Prolwa R95Med P1YI<aea R01eoa6 Rgane6
I Ibrin OeerelMa
-000-IOU!<twy PR(ARTtN TAXIY-LpJMRI' 6II,6i1 6W,06p 67&p 623,143 -ro0.000 ]25.WD 150.OW �S.UOp BM,IXO
9)AO0-10-00-SO12 PRCP[RN TAXES-FU!f AUUSTWAL ITF - 19,000 ?SOD - - - -
P`UIM04W015 PROPFRN TAXES-OF.PT LAS'NE MI.1M 601,131 - - - - -
-0oD-IIU�JI YBRS(N:AL PRUPERTI'T0.I 5.139
7.211 5.000 5,000 .[000 S.00D 5.000 3.000 3.000
004110 DVELORANTS 1^.19,1 11.2W 1S, .1-20 WIN 11,200 16.2M I6.2W
82-0W43•W4211 Dfl'ELdTD-1T FEES-BOp:3 15.550 8.821 0.0025 0.000 16,250 162525 16.250 16.250 16150
82OWI-IM MYEL(IPMENT5EE5-BC'Y.UINO 15.550 1.825 - - - - - -
P_-OOOd100.JJM LIPRART FAT.R I1,b) 11,161 IJ.000 13,000 I1,M10 It ppp 13.- D.-
s:-00044-004401 LiBRARI"SUBSCRIPfIONCARDB M,'1S0 13.112 B.OW 1;000 11000 12000 12000 Mw :21.-
S20W44004422 CT)W 4553 3.11) 3,339 3,000 O2W 1.000 3.OW 3.000 3,OW
R2-001144UL4N0 MWRAM-1 36 ;00'1 1,000 ;OW ;0W 2000 2000 I=
BS-000.15U1-4300 INVESTM6.11 NINUS 1.952 690 270 IN 1.50 130 150 lb IN
82.000.4600-0610 RLA1D-[MPLOI'6[Dt3 CVN'IRmUTItAr'P - - - - 6.610 1.IJ) 1,636 t.l]I
..143
82JIOM-111 RF.IMP•1.IFF.A'SIIRANCF. 630 65p 6b 650
81.004J6J10.0682 NEIMB-INSURANCE 6.181 - - - - - - -
824g04S-$M RLNTAL WOME 1219 11151 I.SOD ;000 1.500 I.SW 1.500 I,5o0 1500
BL00048U14R24 DIM RF.NTM.IN'COMR - 1,1.11 4.000 1,100 4.100 4,100 1.100 I.IW 1,100
82-0OO�B-0D-0832 MEMURlAL3 3,451 I.tltll - 4.000 2000 2.000 2000 ;OOO 2000 82-00048-W 4850 MISC.ELL -SACCTS - 11
BLOD048-0OJ881 SALE OF BOORS 425 NO
82ODM9-0WWI TRAN'SIER IROJI GENERAL MISS 352300 41,9]8 N140 N.111 19.11E 51,7'2
For IMWry/2.'nryb.111n 0lwnre
Rerat< I31,W 11N,OO I,Y91SB I,OUA9M 6829M -=I 6Y.IS1 fN,199 93 7,4M
824Ro-504N4W10 SALAROiSA,NUWAGES 4866'!5 501.333 '311.000 24),000 NS,Ofq 243,OW 215W0 NS.000 2A3 ppp
824H030.00.5DIa PART-TIME.SV.ARR.S - 1930W In- 193.Om 195.000 1930W 193.000
SS-53O0.$2.4 RET OO,ENi PLANCUNINIBUTIIX9 19,66 31.60'. 4D.M 23500 1A- '3.000 A-
82-0M-534g5214 TICAOOF.RO LION 36,691 J?166 30,000 10.000 na,W M.WO %.000 X000 10.00'
SS.A20-IZU41D6 OROIIP NF.M.TN INL!RANfF. 'ro,W3 ]6.41) 61913 17,310 102.461 111.163 134.481 Ib,9b 130,625
5 3-03032-00.522 2 ORMP LBE INSURANCE 1.240 LW 1.000 115 1.410 1.421 IAM 1.131 I.-
82412 12-5=3 DCNTAL INSURANCE 4,381 3.451 030 6.205 6,26 1.509 5.259 9.055 9,991
0,-i"Oxw wwddsdw FY MII8w�1
B34tA3200.5D1 VISWN INSURANCE 7. "109 - 'AIO 1A NB 933 LOM LI.
823934200.52)0 I1MA@LOYMGM ASURANCE - - - - 4186 4.256 1,316 4,2% 1.286
Cu.vLJun lD r., Find F.
82-02012-00.5251 L1ABB.IT ASI!RANCE 3],493 39,951 42,351 N,B92 41,586
O'BOVAd-6v6NnMPwd-f-
82-0 2054-00-5112 1RAINNO S,---.S 358 919 - - - - -
PLR20.31MMI5 TRAWI.AND LOD- 5N 391 SW 500 W 3W b0 500 3W
82400-54-OU-5123 WBLIC R}1ATIONS 663 112 - -
82-EM-34-0ON36 PUDL1611Q:G 6:ADVGATISAC D IJO 1W IW IW IW IW 1W IW
B2#20�NU1-SMO TF.LF.C(NI3111NIt'ATIO4S S,I% 9,055 S.3W 0.'MI 85025 B,SW B,iW BYq 8,500
93
IY 2010 FY 3011 PY3013 91'3012 12013 N2UIJ FY201S 12016 95'3011
A-1 0-1P800 Att Ad6Y ow" Pn16OM Itop-I Ita(Me6 P841N110 pm m P1016
824120-51-0 11 POS'1'All I3NIWINO 1,1?4 1 ;ODU 2000 1W0 2.OW 1W0 2000 10W
U451611 .1-ANTI SIRIYCR1PT1ONS IB,N 11,290 14,W 14,000 'I'M 14,OW II.WO M-
32-820-3400-M62 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,DW 31,824 29.00D V. D,OW 29.OW 29,OW 29.OW D,OW
82-120.30-00-3166 LEOAL SGRViCE3 2,125 4,115 20025 ;WD 20W 2.000 10W 30W 2.OW
82830.51.00.3168 AVTOMATION 2.4.913 N,%, )O.- 30.000 N.0025 30.000 JO,OW M.OW N.OW
B23ro-SADO-N80 UTII.- It- 11.4& IS.OW I1.- 15.450 16.512 I113M 18111 1-4
mrprm48,
82420-51O0.NB5 ItEMA1lItA5E iVR(.NA� 1N2 L., - - - - - - -
.00.5199 DUO.DINCi-Di:tT.i.(PMf.Nf FEES 16,111 JJ.12?
83 4M-54-00-5195 OUT3mE PEPAOl A11D MAIMENASRE 4?813 L.188 4.000 I.WO I.OW 3.000 1.000 4.000 1.000
82-0.V-NJIO-N% PAITNG Am:I.T FLE3 - - - ]K 139 '49 139 149 749
Pmv1A urbNd EM'r 1.y4rdml arms.4
b2-03U-564b-b10 ObTICESUPPLIES I3,1Y 5'61 I'- 1AW BOW B.OW B.OW S,W 1.OW
B2-030.36-00.MSU 61PP,RATIN(ISLTPI.IES 11,101 6.995 9,OW 9,OW 9,OW 9,OW 90W
tlR-0R0.3bo0.X5 GIJMWTER E(IUIPMENfkS(FTWANE 41]6 1.631
.2-020-56 00.564 0 REPAIR ANDMAMT,-AK- 2506 2.IIb - - - -
82-820-36-00-5611 LIBRARYPROORAAASAG 102131 8. 2.W 20W ;000 20W 2.OW 2.0250 10W 20W
82-330-3600.5616 R Olm RECOONDION 1,11) 9J - - - - - -
P2-BN36A0.480 -I.TPOOR3 80,111 30,.113 - - - - - -
82-891-5600.3681 ,UYE-BClOR3 40125 40,11) - - - - - - -
-0ro1646'45632 RRiP1lbN(E BOORS U,0➢7 111% -
tl2-8R0-MO0.56tl3 AUDIUB(%R:S 0.116 1,526 - - - - - - -
P2-BRIT-56O0.Y,4 CONFAB DISCS AND(ITiF]t MULL ;96.1 2,122 - - - -
82-820-%-025-5685 DVD'S 4,]50 1,715 20W 20W 10025 1000 30W 1W0 ;000
BLB.'N-56-00.1686 BOONS-DEVp.ORMENTI6S 16.6M 9,34) 8.000 0.0W 8,W0 1.OW S,OW 1.W0 1.-
E2-R20.36ULM9R MEMORIALS AND GISTS 1,116 L622 - 4.000 ;00 ;OW ;OW ;OW 2,W0
7.pnr-Idel!--
BLBM56A10.5699 M1-I.LANF.G1!1 BW 2W DII 250 250 2511 250
BI-tl3U-]0.00.]lYY CONfMUENC'B:3 4,965 6.105 I.WO I.OW I.UW 1.- I,OW I,OW I.WO
--1 300.38%W
12-0 48)O M PRACIPLEPAYWW 25 ow 15.000 - - - - - -
12130d}00-W50 ATSRLSTPMSM 520125 319,125 - - - - - - -
bM Bmlm.-1006 B9M
R41SJN-00-8083 PR
TF.RF.S.RF3.E
82A20-010o-W50 Af PAYAfi.NT 61,926 61.8011 - - -I -9900.MO 1AANSI-LIBItARi UP]3T 556.4'65 - -
82-520-9900-9981 IRAN'SFFR TO LO.1R.VtY'd:Vl➢SE[ 3)15W 3335110
RapeJll�u 1,506W 1.521,113 I,OW15 13Mt319 '191.125 gt1S 135,513 M3.1U 160,51
6npleMDlEdq (530.09) (39A419/ 9,115 24-1 IS.- OMB 3.4911 il,lfl '11,126
F-d sw- 551.005 3111)36 3SCUS 34296) 319,106 453.111 45,037 516320 MIN
37.938 I,-. 2IJM 12194 I.'.6h J1.2]4i ]80]5. 61St% 12..
94
16
1/24/2012
Library Debt Service Fund(83)
The IA-y Dell S-i-F-d-,fldee monies fur peymml nfihe 20058 and 2006 tsmds,which ware i.,.d h,firumce mnshncdi,m oM.1 Amy bnilding.
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Adopted FY2012 Propwod FY 20t4 FY2015 FY2015 FY2015
Acmd Attuai Budget 1'roje-led Budget Prolrcfed Pryec6d Pruected PrgMed
Rn
Taxne - - 720,800 718,839 795,488 771,763 766,613 785,238 790,463
Invatmmt Femings - - - 130 300 300 300 300 300
Other Financing Sowcn 1,511
TaWI Rev . 720,800 718,989 797,299 772,063 7611,913 785,538 790,763
Eapeadiw-
DebSenice 20,800 720,800 795,488 771,763 768,613 785$38 790,463
'I owl Eepmdlturea ]50,1100 770,600 7%,46t 777,761 768,61) 785,238 790,467
Smplw(Deficit) - - - (1,811) 1,811 300 300 300 300
Fndme Faed Balanm (1,811) (0) 300 600 900 1,]00
a $2 Fund Balance
>i St
so
fstl
$21
Library Capitnl Fund(84)
The Library Capital Ned dm5ee its mmw Rine monies m0cetad fiorn bmhting pmnits.The m enw is aced f r Libmy building mai nerumm mld monated capital plachwee.
FY2012 FY2013
FY2010 FY2011 Adopted FY m Proposed FY201/ FY2013 FY2016 FY2017
A-I Actual Budge Pmjened Budget ProjeRad P4pjecled Pmjemd Projected
Nn ue
License F Pcrmin - - 8.000 8,000 16,250 16,250 161250 16,250 16,250
Irrveemwnt Ewinge - - 500 100 100 to0 100 100 100
Other Financing Solncn 332,500 332,319
ToW1 R-tt, 341,000 340,619 16,350 16,350 16,350 16,350 16,330
Eap-deem
CapMl Ou0ay - - 4,000 10,965 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
O16s Minarwing 1,sus 332,500 332,300
TaWI RttpendlWm 736,500 347,465 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Sutptw(Deficit) - - 4,500 (2,846) 12,350 12,350 12,350 12,350 12,350
Y:dmc Fbnd nslanae d SII(I (2,846) 9,304 21,054 34,204 46,554 50,904
a $86 Fund Balance
S 560
g $40
E
$70
so
Idol
97
17
1/24/2012
FY 3010 "3011 R 3013 B 3013 F1'30]3 PY 101J FI'3011 I 3016 FY I01-
m+el IMWDOOO -w Aava BNptl ft jJ —p— Roj— -j— —1-. Roj—
Ilb—C,"A Fad
81-00041-00-0214 DC9ELOp5ffi27=5 4000 0.000 16.50 MM 16.250 16,2!0 1650
BIJpW 34M41M1W 1'NVtiS—I lAR Iws 3W 100 100 100 100
nA00.19A "2 TRANBFERF3—L05RAR3'— 332!00 333019
Rero� NI,w Mat 143!0 14ul 143N 14330 10
31JN060-0Ob020 BULLDI%(5S4 SIRUmus 4.000 101905 4,W 4.OW 4.000 4.000 4-
e1-810-99-00.9901 TRANSFER TO GGI.LIAL FV`ID 331!00 3321W -
31p1MRmn a%— BO,d6! 40W 4.0W 40W 40W 4,
8urp.(D.Ba% 4.!W (1d16) 13,1!0 I3JW IIJ50 311. 12J'O
Next presentation
hdlYWOr 0 4.!W q.eds) 21AS4 x104 KSM Y.9O1
O Q%4. OCV% l.in. Qfl9M Si�OP{ JN.33% tl33.10% /1fi3.e;nL II�I00%
February 1
Water
Sewer
Parks and • (operating)
18