Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Park Board Packet 2012 07-12-12
Yorkville Parks & Recreation Department Administration Office - REC Center 202 E Countryside Parkway Yorkville, IL 60560 630-553-4357 Park Board Meeting Agenda City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road 6:00 p.m. July 12, 2012 REVISED: 7/10/12 Call to Order: Roll Call: Ken Koch, Debbie Horaz, Kelly Sedgwick, Seaver Tarulis,Amy Cesich, Mark Dilday, Dan Lane Introduction of Guests, City Officials and Staff: Interim Director of Parks and Recreation—Laura Schraw, Superintendent of Recreation—Tim Evans, Superintendent of Parks—Scott Sleezer, City Council Liaison to Park Board—Diane Teeling, Ward 4 Alderman Public Comment: Presentations: Approval of Minutes: June 14, 2012 June 26, 2012 Bills Review: Bill list* Old Business: REC Center and Adhoc Committee Alternative Facility* New Business: Lightning detectors in parks* Land cash appraisal* Reports: Director's Report Recreation Report Parks Report Additional Business: Executive Session: Adjournment: Next meeting: July 24, 2012 @ 6:30 pm (Bills only) *Items needing Board approval or recommendation Yorkville Parks and Recreation Department City Hall 800 Game Farm Road June 14,2012 at 6:00 p.m. Call to Order: Ken Koch called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Ken Koch-yes; Debbie Horaz -yes; Kelly Sedgwick-yes;Amy Cesich-yes; Dan Lane -yes; Mark Dilday-no; Seaver Tarulis -yes. Introduction of City Officials and Staff: Laura Schraw-Director of Parks and Recreation Scott Sleezer- Superintendent of Parks Tim Evans - Superintendent of Recreation Bart Olson- City Administrator Gary Golinski -Mayor Other Guests: Tony Scott- Kendall County Record Public Comment: None. Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the April 26, 2012 meeting were approved. Motion made by Kelly Sedgwick and seconded by Deb Horaz. The May 10, 2012 minutes were approved. Motion made by Deb Horaz and seconded by Amy Cesich. The May 24, 2012 minutes were approved. Motion made by Kelly Sedgwick and seconded by Amy Cesich. Bill Review: Motion was made to approve the bills list. Motion made by Seaver Tarulis and seconded by Amy Cesich. The bills list was approved by voice vote. The Board reviewed the April and May budget reports. Old Business: 2012 Grant Application -Laura stated there are two different properties to discuss, which will be discussed in executive session. New Business: Baseball Field Maintenance-Ken Koch said there are many a-mails that have been circulated for about a month. Ken said the board members all went and looked at the baseball fields since safety issues were brought up. Ken stated every town he has ever been in the fields look identical to the Yorkville fields. Ken said if this becomes a safety issue, it creates issues for this board, the department, and the city. He said if you feel it is unsafe, do not put your kids on the fields. Ken said he downloaded some examples of safety equipment he showed the board. The board looked at masks and heart guards. Ken said if the child that got hit had a mask on, it would not have hurt his eye area. Ken said in Dixon, they require heart guards to be worn. Ken said the organizations said if they want to push the safety issue, these are some of the things that they can consider. Ken said the other thing the organizations can do is use a wood bat. Ken said the bats are juiced up and made of composite material. Kelly Sedgwick said there have been a lot of studies and the kids should be able to react in time as long as they are paying attention. Dan Lane pointed out that the skill level of the child comes into play too. Mayor Golinski stated he heard the child was hurt by a ball that was hit by a coach. Ken said that all sports have an inherit risk. Ken said the board needs to review their policy about risk. Scott Sleezer said a couple of years ago the city has the opposite circumstances with too much rain. Scott said the city would check the fields and now the youth groups call the fields themselves. Scott said field safety is taken very seriously by the city and there is good equipment and staff. Scott said with this heat and no rain it is a matter of moisture. Scott stated the professional and college teams are being hosed down every couple of hours. The city physically cannot do it. Scott said the fields are hard,but they are smooth and even. Scott said the city's fields have very few lips. Scott said the city looks for the big safety concerns. Scott said 10 years ago the city took the fields back from the youth organizations and the city put thousands of dollars into the fields by adding clay, sodding, getting rid of lips, fixing backstops etc. Scott said lack of rain is what is causing the issue. Scott said some towns are adding liquid chloride on the fields and he said that its a mistake it makes them pack harder and burns skin or eyes. Scott said any complaints he receives he takes it very seriously and unfortunately the fields are hard because mother nature is not giving us rain and two years ago, we had the opposite with too much rain causing issues. Scott said he receives a lot of compliments on fields from others. Ken said there were 95 teams in Yorkville with over 220 games played on these fields and the only complaints I received was for Legion Field, which the city doesn't maintain. Mayor Golinski said the tournament games were 8-14 year old kids and these are high powered teams from all over Chicagoland and not a single complaint about the fields. Mayor Golinski said he asked Mr. Reifstick to attend tonight and he did not. Mayor Golinski said he relies on the professionals that work for the city and not a part time coach who is a banker who coaches a part time team and thinks he knows all about field maintenance. I will not take his advice over the professionals that work for our city. Scott said he has attended seminars and the city is trained on how to maintain fields. Water is what is needed at this time. Ken said the agreements need to be reviewed. Bart Olson said they were reviewed today in preparation for this meeting and the city is fully protected. Mr. Olson said the associations are the ones that take on responsibility for any incidents that might occur. The Board discussed improvements that could be made when funds are available like rolling the outfields and adding a warning track at some fields with fences. The board discussed irrigation improvements suggested in the e-mails and the significant cost involved in that. Scott said he has yet to see irrigated infields. Scott said the staff spends the same amount of time on all the fields in the city. Dan Lane said he has lived here for two years and he has seen all the fields and he said they are outstanding. Dan stated he also spoke with some of the managers and Mr. Reifsteck is not speaking for all of the managers because they don't agree. Ken said when this was made a safety issue, the board had to take this seriously. Deb said the staff goes above and beyond. Ken asked what the next action will be. Bart Olson said he can read the minutes from this meeting and let him know the city feels the fields are safe and it is at your discretion to play on them. Scott stated that the organization would like to use the city equipment to maintain the fields. The board said that is not going to happen and not possible. Scott said the city staff works extremely hard to take care of the parks and fields and to say the city is not doing their job is unfair. Ken said for the immediate future this issue will be handled by staff. Skate park Proposal- The board discussed different skate parks in different communities and what they are made out of Laura said a resident of Yorkville approached the city about fund-raising to put in a skate park in Yorkville. Laura said one location discussed was Bristol Bay 65. Kelly suggested a place where kids can ride bikes or walk to it. Scott said several of the city parks already have grind rails and different skate elements kids can use. Scott said most other communities are putting them in visible locations. Scott said he and Laura have tried to incorporate several skate elements into several parks so that kids can get a taste of it. Laura suggested Raintree Park B or Hiding Spot Park. Laura said all the city has room for is a big bowl. If the city wants a large skate park, it has to be master planned. The board discussed if the resident will be able to raise the money and the city will base what element is put in on how much money he raises. Based on what he raises, the city could budget for some of it too. Scott said he would like to have one located on the south side of town. Scott said the city could help construct it. The board discussed the location and decided on Raintree B as a good location for the stake park. A motion was made to proceed with fundraising for a skate park. A motion was made by Amy Cesich and seconded by Dan Lane. Motion approved by voice. Waiver of Fees Request- Laura said the Push for the Path organization requested a waiver of fee for Town Square Park for a fundraiser. Laura said the fee is $25.00. Ken said he would rather say no to the waiver and he will pay the $25.00 as a donation to their organization. Ken said the board wants to stick to not waiving fees for anyone. Ken stated he also worries that those that are against the path will think the city is helping get the path in. The board doesn't want things to become political and the board has not been waiving fees anymore because it was becoming too common. Laura asked if the city is not going to support Push for the Path on anything then. Laura pointed out this will not be the last request from them. Laura said the city is already supporting this and the board needs to decide if they are going to support them or not because Push for the Path is directly for the city. Scott said a survey was done years ago and one of the things the community wanted was bike paths. Tim said maybe at the next Park Board meeting the board needs to discuss how the board will handle this in the future. The board discussed paying the fee out of their pockets and then the fee doesn't have to be waived and then the board is supporting the cause. Amy said that the fees are for everyone and it is dangerous to say that if we don't give them a waiver we are not supporting them. She said that is not the case, so because we support this group for these events then they can use a park for a set price. Amy said she wants to keep things fair for everyone that wants to use the park. Laura said this is directly for something for the city. Amy said maybe we need to change the rules that if it benefits the city with infrastructure the parks can be used. Scott said if the Push for the Path doesn't raise the money, the city has to pay the difference. Amy said the reason the fees are there is to cover the staff costs to clean up etc. Laura said she will let them know it is on a case to case basis and the board understands that it is working for the city. Tim said this needs to be handled carefully because then they might want a booth at Hometown Days or use the REC Center. Ken asked the board to approve a motion for Push for the Path on their request for this first event and the board will have further discussion on future events. Ken Koch-yes; Deb Horaz -present; Kelly Sedgwick-yes; Seaver Tarulis -no;Amy Cesich-yes; Dan Lane -yes. Motion was approved. Park Vendor Application-Ken said the request is for Lottie's Lemonade. Tim stated she is a farmers market vendor and she just wants to stay later. Motion to approve the vendor application was approved. Motion made by Kelly Sedgwick and seconded by Deb Horaz. Reports: Directors Report-Laura said the parking lot at Riverfront Park will not be in before the festival because there is a disagreement with the contractor. City Council did put on the consent agenda the Riverfront Park application so the city is reapplying. REC Report-Tim said Chamber Night is coming up and he said the city could use extra help with this event and the city gets the money from the wristbands. He said on July 14th the city really needs help with selling beer, wristbands and maybe hot dogs for the Ribs on the River. Tim said the city will also need help at Hometown Days. Tim said that John was made full-time a couple weeks ago. Tim said Shay is going to work more with the child development program. Tim said he feels it is important to attend the meetings on the REC Center to give our opinion. Tim said a lot of the issues have been solved and we need to make sure that we are getting the right information out to the residents. Amy said we need to let residents know purchasing this building will not increase their taxes. Amy said a lot of residents are misinformed. Deb said the residents need to see it is not costing them more money. Tim said the partnership being discussed will end up costing more. Parks Report- Scott said the Cub Scouts planted some day lilies at Raintree B and it has been tough with the weather keeping them watered. Scott said the construction at Raintree B is continuing and the hope is to be laying brick by the end of the month. Scott said on September 15th, The Day of Giving, Cross Lutheran Church has 500 kids coming to Kendall County to help and the city will use them to help in the park. Scott said the city is looking at some other projects they could help with. Scott said that the city set up the Memorial Day Services held in the park. Suspend Regular Meeting to go Into Executive Session: The Regular meeting was suspended to go into executive session at 7:53 p.m. Motion made by Deb Horaz and seconded by Amy Cesich. Regular Meeting Called to Order: The Regular Meeting resumed at 8:18 p.m. Ken Koch made a motion to approve the 2012 OSLAD Acquisition Grant for the Evergreen Farm Project. Motion made by Amy Cesich and seconded by Deb Horaz. Ken Koch-yes; Deb Horaz -yes; Kelly Sedgwick-yes;Amy Cesich- yes; Dan Lane -yes. Additional Business: None. Adiournment• There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Motion was made by Seaver Tarulis and seconded by Deb Horaz . Minutes Respectfully Submitted by, Lisa Godwin Yorkville Parks and Recreation Department City Hall 800 Game Farm Road June 26, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. Call to Order: Ken Koch called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Ken Koch-yes, Deb Horaz -yes, Kelly Sedgwick-no, Seaver Tarulis -yes,Amy Cesich - no, Mark Dilday-no, Dan Lane -yes Introduction of City Officials and Staff: Laura Schraw-Interim Director of Parks and recreation Tim Evans - Superintendent of Recreation Scott Sleezer- Superintendent of Parks Diane Teeling- City Council Liaison to Park Board Public Comment: None. Presentations: None. Bills Review: Bills List - Dan Lane asked about the alcohol order for Euclid beverage for Ribs on the River. Tim said the city has to buy kegs and Mike's Hard Lemonade. Ken asked how they determine the quantity. Tim said he got 20 kegs, but Scott pointed out that the city gets money back for the ones that they don't tap. Dan asked if the city runs the tent and profits come to the city. Tim said that is correct. Deb asked about the Vermont Systems. Tim told her that is the computer software for the REC Center classes. Tim said there is a yearly fee for maintenance for upgrades and questions. Deb asked about pitching rubbers. Scott said there are temporary mounds that need to be pounded in and beat on, so the rubber can get destroyed and the nails come through, so the city has to replace them. The bills list was approved. Motion made by Dan Lane and seconded by Seaver Tarulis. Old Business: OSLAD Grant-Application-Laura said this is back on the agenda because Deb requested the item and she checked with Ken about placing on here regarding the OSLAD Grant debarment. Laura said the city didn't get the grant this year, so when we apply for the next grant cycle one of the questions was will that grant be disqualified if the city gets debarred. They said no. If the City withdraws before the presentations in October we will not get debarred. If it is after those presentations we will get debarred if the land is sold or if we cannot come to an agreement to purchase. The reasoning is that we are taking the funds will from someone else. Laura said after that, the city can't apply after two years. Deb said she is concerned if the property sells. Laura said if it sells between now and October, we are okay. Laura said if the city presents and the property sells in December, the city is debarred for two years. Laura said a holding company could purchase it and hold it for the city. Laura said an agreement can be written that the state is okay with that states we are committed to buying. Laura said nothing can be officially signed or sold until after January 1 st because it has to be in the same year as the application. Laura said if the city doesn't apply right now, it has six months to get something like an agreement in place stating the property won't sell to anyone else. The state said if the city applies they need to be committed to this piece of property, if we are going for the grant. The board asked how much the property costs. Laura said around $415,000 or under, depending on what the owner will sell it for. Laura said he lost a lot on work he did for the city for his Special Use Application and he would like to recoup the costs. Laura said there could be a shortage the city has to make up. Laura said it is a gamble. Laura asked the board if they want to go ahead and apply. Deb asked if there are other things that could put us in jeopardy for. Laura said as far as she knows, the land and water conservation fund, there are a list of grants,possibly the recreational trails program. Deb asked if it is worth the gamble. Laura said if the recreational trails program grant is on there, the city can't apply for it as a match to Kennedy Road if we get debarred. Ken said this is the second time in a row the city has been denied. Scott said one is a development grant and one is an acquisition grant. Laura said she talked to the grant administrator about it and she thought the application was very strong for Riverfront Park. She thinks the city should apply again. Deb asked what is the staff recommendation on this. Scott said to go for it. Deb said she is willing to gamble. Scott said the city is in for a development grant for Riverfront already and for Clark Woods and if the city is turned down, the city would be barred for 2013 and 2014 and can reapply in 2015. Scott said the city can apply for multiple grants, if the city gets barred in 2015, the city could apply again. Ken said the city doesn't have the cash to purchase it, so the city has to have the grant to purchase it. Laura said it does include the recreational trail. Laura said the city can only pull out if the property sells before October and before that if it sells we are debarred. Laura said she is more apprehensive than Scott and she feels like we need to be fully committed. Scott said land prices are as low as they have ever been. Scott said maybe the grant coordinator should look at this. Ken said the owner will not like this situation either. Laura said the owner said he has someone interested now. Deb asked if the city can buy it on payments. Ken asked where that money will come from. Deb said in our budget. Ken said that will never get past council. Tim pointed out part of the surplus is already gone with a new hire. Scott said that will be known after the audit. Scott said with the undecided REC Center, not a good idea. Laura said the city can't just pull out, only if the property sells. The board discussed the prices and how much more the city could pay. Laura said it has to be open within a year and the development plan has to be finished within five years. Laura said the plan includes a dog park, amphitheater, open space etc. The board discussed their thoughts. Dan asked how Laura feels. Laura said there are other ones that will be stronger than ours. Laura said the chances of additional open space are pretty slim. Scott said if we don't get it and we don't back out no harm. Laura said what if they award that one and not Riverfront that could happen. Deb said at least we get something. Ken said maybe the city should wait. Laura said they are due again by July 1 st next year. Deb asked if Corlands will hold that property for the city that could be used as the match. Laura said she can tell the council from what she sees the board is apprehensive about it and not sure if it is a top priority. Deb said what if the city gets skipped on Riverfront too. Laura said this year there is $172,000 in residual funds. Deb asked if the city can use that towards the purchase. Scott said no, but it could be used as a match. Ken said if the board wants Riverfront and we want the grant for the bike trail, we should leave it at that. Laura said council can make the ultimate decision. Laura asked the City engineer [Brad Sanderson] about the construction timeline and being debarred will not affect the recreational trails grant application for Kennedy Road. Laura asked for the board's decision. Deb said go for it. Ken said I guess it can't hurt. Dan said yes. Seaver said yes. Scott said the city can still negotiate with the new owner if the property gets sold. Additional Business: None. Adiournment: Motion to adjourn made by Deb Horaz and seconded by Dan Lane. Meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Minutes Respectfully Submitted by, Lisa Godwin DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208959 AMERFITN AMERICAN FITNESS WHOLESALERS 58352 06/13/12 01 FITNESS DRINKS 80-800-56-00-5607 289.40 INVOICE TOTAL: 289.40 * CHECK TOTAL: 289.40 208960 AQUAPURE AQUA PURE ENTERPRISES, INC. 79414 06/09/12 01 CHEMICALS 80-800-56-00-5640 442.18 INVOICE TOTAL: 442.18 * 79868 06/22/12 01 CHEMICALS 80-800-56-00-5640 212.09 INVOICE TOTAL: 212.09 * CHECK TOTAL: 654.27 208961 BANCAMER BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 012141765-P 06/22/12 01 COPIER LEASE 79-795-54-00-5485 178.00 02 COPIER LEASE 80-800-54-00-5485 198.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 376.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 376.00 208962 BPAMOCO BP AMOCO OIL COMPANY 34702525-P 06/24/12 01 GASOLINE 79-795-56-00-5695 212.94 INVOICE TOTAL: 212.94 * CHECK TOTAL: 212.94 208963 CALLONE UNITED COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 1010-7980-0000-0612P 06/15/12 01 REC CENTER MONTHLY CHARGES 80-800-54-00-5440 236.45 02 PARKS MONTHLY CHARGES 79-790-54-00-5440 35.62 DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208963 CALLONE UNITED COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 1010-7980-0000-0612P 06/15/12 03 RECREATION MONTHLY CHARGES 79-795-54-00-5440 52.56 INVOICE TOTAL: 324.63 * CHECK TOTAL: 324.63 208964 COMED COMMONWEALTH EDISON 1613010022-0612 06/18/12 01 BALLFIELDS 79-795-54-00-5480 568.68 INVOICE TOTAL: 568.68 * CHECK TOTAL: 568.68 208965 GODWINL LISA R. GODWIN 061412 06/25/12 01 JUNE 14TH MEETING MINUTES 79-795-54-00-5462 99.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 99.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 99.00 208966 GOLDMEDA GOLD MEDAL PRODUCTS 244030 06/20/12 01 BRIDGE PARK CONCESSION 79-795-56-00-5607 760.71 02 SUPPLIES ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 760.71 * 244032 06/20/12 01 BEECHER CONCESSION SUPPLIES 79-795-56-00-5607 678.68 INVOICE TOTAL: 678.68 * 244552 06/27/12 01 KENNEDY ROAD CONCESSION 79-795-56-00-5607 323.86 02 SUPPLIES ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 323.86 * CHECK TOTAL: 1, 763.25 208967 GRAINCO GRAINCO FS., INC. DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208967 GRAINCO GRAINCO FS., INC. 2084 05/23/12 01 5 GALLONS RAZOR PRO 79-790-56-00-5640 106.10 INVOICE TOTAL: 106.10 * 2285 05/30/12 01 TIRES 79-790-56-00-5640 134.65 INVOICE TOTAL: 134.65 * 2309 05/31/12 01 GASOLINE 79-790-56-00-5640 36.36 INVOICE TOTAL: 36.36 * CHECK TOTAL: 277.11 208968 HAAKEL LAURA SCHRAW 070112 07/01/12 01 JUNE 2012 MOBILE EMAIL 79-795-54-00-5440 22.50 02 REIMBURSEMENT ** COMMENT ** 03 JUNE 2012 MOBILE EMAIL 79-790-54-00-5440 22.50 04 REIMBURSEMENT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 45.00 CHECK TOTAL: 45.00 208969 HAGEMAJO JOHN HAGEMAN 070112 07/01/12 01 MOBILE EMAIL REIMBURSEMENT FOR 79-795-54-00-5440 37.50 02 JUNE 2012 ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 37.50 * CHECK TOTAL: 37.50 208970 HAYDENS HAYDEN'S 00100549 05/31/12 01 ADULT PITCHERS RUBBERS 79-790-56-00-5640 93.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 93.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 93.00 DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208971 HOLMANE EDDIE A. HOLMAN 062112 06/21/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 105.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 105.00 * 062612 06/26/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 70.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 70.00 * 062812 06/28/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 315.00 208972 HORNERR RYAN HORNER 070112 07/01/12 01 JUNE 2012 MOBILE EMAIL 79-790-54-00-5440 45.00 02 REIMBURSEMENT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 45.00 CHECK TOTAL: 45.00 208973 HOULEA ANTHONY HOULE 070112 07/01/12 01 JUNE 2012 MOBILE EMAIL 79-790-54-00-5440 45.00 02 REIMBURSEMENT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 45.00 CHECK TOTAL: 45.00 208974 HUTHM MARK A. HUTH 061912 06/19/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 CHECK TOTAL: 140.00 208975 ILPD4811 ILLINOIS STATE POLICE DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208975 ILPD4811 ILLINOIS STATE POLICE 062612-PR 06/26/12 01 BACKGROUND CHECKS 80-800-54-00-5462 63.00 02 BACKGROUND CHECKS 79-790-54-00-5462 31.50 INVOICE TOTAL: 94.50 * CHECK TOTAL: 94.50 208976 KEITHD DENNIS KEITH 062612 06/26/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 140.00 208977 KINDERMU KINDERMUSIK KM062012 06/16/12 01 CLASS INSTRUCTION 79-795-54-00-5462 136.20 INVOICE TOTAL: 136.20 * CHECK TOTAL: 136.20 208978 MENLAND MENARDS - YORKVILLE 86486 05/31/12 01 STRIPING PAINT 79-790-56-00-5620 7.84 INVOICE TOTAL: 7.84 * 86820 06/01/12 01 MARKING PAINT 79-790-56-00-5620 7.08 INVOICE TOTAL: 7.08 * 88179 06/05/12 01 FLEX HOSE, HOSE CLAMPS, INSERT 79-790-56-00-5640 38.39 02 TEE ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 38.39 * 88388 06/06/12 01 TAMPER, BELT, QUICK LINKS, 79-790-56-00-5640 97.89 02 PAINT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 97.89 * DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208978 MENLAND MENARDS - YORKVILLE 88694 06/07/12 01 ANTIFREEZE 79-790-56-00-5640 13.98 INVOICE TOTAL: 13.98 * 89958 06/11/12 01 CPVC COUPLING, FEMALE ADAPTER 79-790-56-00-5640 0.98 INVOICE TOTAL: 0.98 * 89968 06/11/12 01 CPVC COUPLING, FEMALE ADAPTER, 79-790-56-00-5620 0.89 02 HOSE BARB ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 0.89 * 90057 06/11/12 01 LINE REEL, PENCIL SHARPENER, 79-790-56-00-5630 12.45 02 POLY RAFTER SQUARE, PENCILS ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 12.45 * 90320 06/12/12 01 STOPS RUST SPRAY PAINT 79-790-56-00-5640 16.91 INVOICE TOTAL: 16.91 * 91106 06/15/12 01 WEED SPRAYER 79-790-56-00-5630 19.92 INVOICE TOTAL: 19.92 * 91236 06/15/12 01 MERCHANDISE RETURN CREDIT 79-790-56-00-5640 -11.64 INVOICE TOTAL: -11.64 * 91242 06/15/12 01 PROPANE CYLINDER, HEX HEAD, 79-790-56-00-5630 13.60 02 DRILL BITS ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 13.60 * 91261 06/15/12 01 PAINT 79-790-56-00-5640 7.59 INVOICE TOTAL: 7.59 * 92071 06/18/12 01 HOSES 79-790-56-00-5620 74.97 INVOICE TOTAL: 74.97 * 92098 06/18/12 01 HOSE CLAMP, BUSHING, NIPPLE, 79-790-56-00-5640 15.95 DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208978 MENLAND MENARDS - YORKVILLE 92098 06/18/12 02 HOSE BARB ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 15.95 * 92113 06/18/12 01 BRASS ELBOW 79-790-56-00-5640 4.19 INVOICE TOTAL: 4.19 * 92986 06/21/12 01 DUCT TAPE 79-790-56-00-5620 2.79 INVOICE TOTAL: 2.79 * CHECK TOTAL: 323.78 208979 MJELECT MJ ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC. 1128665-00 06/21/12 01 KEYLESS LAMPHOLDER, BULBS 80-800-56-00-5640 158.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 158.00 * 1128700-00 06/22/12 01 LAMP 80-800-56-00-5640 27.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 27.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 185.00 208980 MORRICKB BRUCE MORRICK 061912 06/19/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 * 062112 06/21/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 105.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 105.00 * 062812 06/28/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 385.00 208981 MUNNSM MUNNS, MARTY DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208981 MUNNSM MUNNS, MARTY 061912 06/19/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 CHECK TOTAL: 140.00 208982 NANCO NANCO SALES COMPANY, INC. 7321 06/21/12 01 PAPER TOWEL, TISSUE 79-795-56-00-5607 133.44 02 GARBAGE BAGS 80-800-56-00-5640 44.25 INVOICE TOTAL: 177.69 CHECK TOTAL: 177.69 208983 NEGRER RYAN NEGRE 070112 07/01/12 01 JUNE 2012 MOBILE EMAIL 80-800-54-00-5440 45.00 02 REIMBURSEMENT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 45.00 CHECK TOTAL: 45.00 208984 NEXTEL NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 837900513-124-P 06/21/12 01 PARKS MONTHLY CHARGES 79-790-54-00-5440 145.74 02 RECREATION MONTHLY CHARGES 79-795-54-00-5440 72.87 INVOICE TOTAL: 218.61 CHECK TOTAL: 218.61 208985 OLEARYC CYNTHIA O'LEARY SOFTBALL 1ST-12 06/20/12 01 OFFICIALS ASSIGNING FEE FOR 79-795-54-00-5462 505.00 02 GAMES ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 505.00 CHECK TOTAL: 505.00 DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208986 PEPSI PEPSI-COLA GENERAL BOTTLE 23179007 06/19/12 01 WATER, GATORADE, POP 79-795-56-00-5607 389.64 INVOICE TOTAL: 389.64 * 26624710 06/19/12 01 POP, GATORADE, WATER 79-795-56-00-5607 296.04 INVOICE TOTAL: 296.04 * 32665566 06/15/12 01 POP, WATER, GATORADE 80-800-56-00-5607 297.70 INVOICE TOTAL: 297.70 * 35329213 06/26/12 01 POP, WATER, GATORADE 79-795-56-00-5607 270.90 INVOICE TOTAL: 270.90 * CHECK TOTAL: 1,254.28 208987 PESOLA PESOLA MEDIA GROUP 10142 06/27/12 01 BAGGAPALOOZA BANNER 79-795-56-00-5602 321.75 INVOICE TOTAL: 321.75 * CHECK TOTAL: 321.75 208988 PITBOW PITNEY BOWES 5336185-JN12 06/13/12 01 MARCH 30, 2012 - JUNE 30, 2012 79-795-54-00-5452 147.00 02 RENTAL CHARGES ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 147.00 CHECK TOTAL: 147.00 208989 R0001040 COBBLESTONE RESTAURANTS, INC. 061112 06/11/12 01 TICKET REIMBURSEMENT FOR MUSIC 79-795-56-00-5606 213.50 02 UNDER THE STARS ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 213.50 CHECK TOTAL: 213.50 DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208990 R0001049 ANDREA PARR 122814 06/21/12 01 REFUND FOR FARMER'S MARKET 79-795-54-00-5496 40.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 40.00 CHECK TOTAL: 40.00 208991 R0001050 JENNIFER SCOTT 122558 06/18/12 01 CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND DUE 79-795-54-00-5496 140.00 02 TO LOW ENROLLMENT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 CHECK TOTAL: 140.00 208992 REINDERS REINDERS, INC. 1385358-00 05/29/12 01 SPRING TINE 79-790-56-00-5640 121.95 INVOICE TOTAL: 121.95 * 1386228-00 06/05/12 01 ACTUATOR 79-790-56-00-5640 535.91 INVOICE TOTAL: 535.91 * CHECK TOTAL: 657.86 208993 RISKEYBU LINDSEY HUMMELL 1101-062512 06/25/12 01 T-SHIRTS 80-800-56-00-5606 168.75 02 T-SHIRTS 79-795-56-00-5606 430.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 598.75 * CHECK TOTAL: 598.75 208994 ROBINSOT TRACY ROBINSON 062112 06/21/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 105.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 105.00 * DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208994 ROBINSOT TRACY ROBINSON 062812 06/28/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 CHECK TOTAL: 245.00 208995 ROSBOROS SHAY ROSBOROUGH 070112 07/01/12 01 JUNE 2012 MOBILE EMAIL 79-795-54-00-5440 45.00 02 REIMBURSEMENT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 45.00 CHECK TOTAL: 45.00 208996 SCANIOV VINCENT J. SCANIO 062612 06/26/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 70.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 70.00 CHECK TOTAL: 70.00 208997 SLEEZERS SLEEZER, SCOTT 070112 07/01/12 01 JUNE 2012 MOBILE EMAIL 79-790-54-00-5440 45.00 02 REIMBURSEMENT ** COMMENT ** INVOICE TOTAL: 45.00 CHECK TOTAL: 45.00 208998 VISA VISA 062612-PR 06/26/12 01 GROUP POWER MONTHLY LICENSE, 80-800-56-00-5606 345.00 02 HEADPHONE SET ** COMMENT ** 03 MONTHLY CABLE, PIZZA FOR CAMP 79-795-56-00-5620 108.60 04 LUNCH ** COMMENT ** DATE: 07/03/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12 TIME: 08:57:23 CHECK REGISTER PRG ID: AP215000.WOW CHECK DATE: 07/12/12 CHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE INVOICE ITEM NUMBER DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # ITEM AMT 208998 VISA VISA 062612-PR 06/26/12 05 MONTHLY CABLE 80-800-56-00-5620 465.56 INVOICE TOTAL: 919.16 * CHECK TOTAL: 919.16 208999 VISA VISA 062612C-PR 06/26/12 01 FILTERS 80-800-56-00-5640 52.74 INVOICE TOTAL: 52.74 * CHECK TOTAL: 52.74 209000 WALKCUST WALKER CUSTOM HOMES, INC. YPD 08/12 06/21/12 01 AUGUST 2012 LEASE PAYMENT 80-800-54-00-5485 19,000.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 19,000.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 19,000.00 209001 WALMART WALMART COMMUNITY 061612-P 06/16/12 01 BUNS, WATER, AIR FRESHNER, 79-795-56-00-5607 136.85 02 SNACKS ** COMMENT ** 03 PRESCHOOL SNACKS 79-795-56-00-5606 75.85 INVOICE TOTAL: 212.70 * CHECK TOTAL: 212.70 209002 WOZNYR RONALD V. WOZNY 062612 06/26/12 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 140.00 INVOICE TOTAL: 140.00 * CHECK TOTAL: 140.00 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: 31, 739.30 Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number 1P WWVA-E Parks ❑ Recreation ❑ pnRKC a REcRmT1uN Director ■ City Administrator ■ Tracking Number D Legal ❑ Human Resources ❑ Police ❑ Park Board Agenda Item Tracking Document Title: REC Center and Adhoc Facility Discussion Agenda Date: July 12, 2012 Synopsis: Discussion on the Adhoc Committee meeting discussion and direction to City Council. Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: 2/23/12 Action Taken: Report from Ald. Funkhouser Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Action Requested: Recommendation for City Council. Submitted by: Laura Schraw Parks & Recreation Name Department Agenda Item Notes: The Adhoc Committee met on July 9, 2012. The outcome of that meeting was to place a non- binding referendum on the City Council agenda for$3-5 million dollars to build a new facility with the YMCA. Staff is seeking a recommendation to provide to City Council. c►ry0 Memorandum EST. 1ss6 To: Yorkville Park Board From: Laura Schraw, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation t X11 CC: Tim Evans, Superintendent of Recreation �� C° r� , �4 Scott Sleezer, Superintendent of Parks MMAC—1 <LE Date: July 10, 2012 Subject: REC Center and Adhoc Committee Alternative Facility The Adhoc Committee met on Monday, July 9th. This agenda item was added so that Park Board has the ability to discuss and provide a formal recommendation to City Council prior to their vote on July 24th on adding a non-binding referendum to the November ballot asking if the City should issue general obligation bonds to construct a new facility with the YMCA. Staff's recommendation is that the Park Board discuss the following: 1) Partnership on a new facility with the YMCA 2) The Adhoc Committee's previous findings 3) Park District 4) Park Board/City Council joint meeting P F / 14 ° � \ E _ 2 2 \ LA 2 c \ 2 n E o f 2 / W W 0 C 0 A \ $ \ \ _ o c — M u = e .0 ° § / � ° = 2 / >- c Q \ E 0 C > 41 / C@ G c E k bD % E = 2 7 0 0 _ _ r- = F Ln / k / 4-- \ 0 K ) k — E ' � 5 = - © E � o ° . E > _ % o = u 3 £ ' 3 w u to m k % a mI Ln u 2 -0 m r Qj § c k 2 « T § § 7 Q G c O 2 � § § 2 _ Q g -0 O c 2 i k e ° 7 0 . Cal / R E e / E 0 — 2 $ > 2 E o 'D c c k m � E ' _ E § 0 dj § f � » k 5f 15 \ Lu j 3 z / a 2 cc \ 4A m Q) > — S 0 e ED 4h w \ CL d § \ ■ e © L k O 2 U0 Am k . kf a m , w pe -0 = n _ ■ u & o > c E 0 \ C 2 % 2 : � 2 / k c = 2 k ■ ' s ° K . 5 E ƒ / \ U o Cr k Ln � Lu 2 § u � IV / \ 3 k 0 / CL � c @ « W q > _ \ o \ I � k k \ x r 8 / u \ o o Q m u 41 7 a c o t 2 « - c � , o � - 2 g 2 at 2 g ? $ f m 0 § u \ 3 } u } \ k CC -j 2 2 0 � a I \ 2 Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number 1P WWVA-E Parks ■ Recreation ❑ pnRKC a REcRmT1uN Director ■ City Administrator ■ Tracking Number D Legal ❑ Human Resources ❑ Police ■ Park Board Agenda Item Tracking Document Title: Lightning Detectors Agenda Date: July 12, 2012 Synopsis: Estimates for lightning detectors are attached, specifically one for Bridge Park. Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Action Requested: Recommendation for which facilities should receive a lightning detector or an upgrade to the system. Submitted by: Laura Schraw Parks & Recreation Name Department Agenda Item Notes: This agenda item was requested by Mayor Golinski. Lightning detectors are covered by a public safety line item and will not be taken out of the Parks &Recreation budget. The Police Department felt that Parks & Recreation should handle this agenda item since the detectors are often located in our parks. This will also be on the COW agenda for discussion on July 10th and th Park Board's recommendation will be given to CC on July 24 c►ry0 Memorandum EST. 1ss6 To: Yorkville Park Board From: Laura Schraw, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation t X11 CC: Tim Evans, Superintendent of Recreation �� Scott Sleezer, Superintendent of Parks <LE r° Date: June 29, 2012 Subject: Lightning Detectors Summary It has been requested that a lightning detector be installed at Bridge Park. Estimates are provided from ThorGuard, who has supplied our other lightning detectors and monitoring systems in town. ThorGuard lightning detection system measures the energy in the air to detect when the conditions are conducive to lightning. Product information is attached. Location Currently the City has a lightning detector at City Hall that is the home station. From that station, the signals are sent to the remote sensors at Riverfront and Circle Center. Staff received estimates for a variety of situations. At this time, the school has not notified staff if they would be participating in cost-sharing for the detectors at their facilities. The only location that is not listed below that would also be appropriate to consider is Raintree Park B. This park is the location of 4 tennis courts and is directly adjacent to the Middle School. The price would be a base station cost, and if the school wanted a remote horn or strobe one could be located there for an additional cost. Cost Estimates received were for a variety of locations/stations/remote sensors: Option 1 Bristol Bay Base Station $11,870 Remote Horn $3,900 Installation $4,500 $20,270 Option 2 Grande Reserve Base Station $11,870 Remote Horn @ Bridge $3,900 Remote Strobe @ Park $3,150 Installation $4,750 $23,670 Option 3 Bridge Park Base Station $12,195* Bristol Bay Park $3,900 Stepping Stones Park $3,900 Installation $4,000 $23,995 *The signal has to be transmitted further so it costs an additional $250 extra for a 12W transmitter. Upgrade of current system The current equipment is on AM and interference can occur. The cost to upgrade the existing system with FM radio equipment is as follows: 12 watt transmitter $750 Receiver $500 Base antenna kit $100 Receiver antenna kit $85 (2 needed) Total $1,520 Recommendation Staff recommends that Option 3 of Bridge Park base station and Bristol Bay Park/Stepping Stones Park remote signals would be beneficial in that we would cover the baseball fields at Bridge and 6 soccer fields/1 baseball field at Bristol Bay, as well as two schools. In addition, another station at Raintree Park B would be beneficial for our 4 lighted tennis courts and ballfield at this facility, as well as the Middle School. An upgrade to our existing system by transferring from an AM station to an FM station(City Hall/Riverfront/Circle Center School) would also guarantee that it would not malfunction due to interference. The total cost for the items recommended above are as follows: Option 3 (Bridge Base station with 2 remote transmitters): $23,995 Base station at Raintree Park B: $15,870 Upgrade to current system: $1,520 $41,385** **Installation prices may vary. Laura Schraw,ASLA June 28,2012 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville,Illinois 60506 Reference: Thor Guard Lightning Warning Systems. The following equipment is recommended for the park and school locations discussed this week. EQUIPMENT PRICE BASE STATION Bristol Bay Elementary School L 75R Computer Console and Sensor,THOR PCX Software*** $7,695.00 VOTBDFM5B Base Driver,5 Watt Transmitter/Horn Cluster/ Communication Cable&RF Antenna $3,500.00 Line Conditioner UPS(Uninterruptible Power Supply)* $ 250.00 Internal LED Strobe Light* $ 175.00 External Led Strobe Light* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $11,870.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida EQUIPMENT PRICE REMOTE HORNS Park At Bristol Bay VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External LED Strobe Light Assembly* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $3,900.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida INSTALLATION COST Approximate $ 4,500.00 Based on normal installs in similar locations. The facility is responsible for supplying and installing a 6"x 6"x 20'wood pole for the remote unit if an appropriate building is not available.Only after a building inspection can an accurate fee be determined. Page 2. EQUIPMENT PRICE BASE STATION Grande Reserve School L 75R Computer Console and Sensor/THOR PCX Software *** $ 7,695.00 VOTBDFM513 Base Driver 5 Watt Transmitter/Horn Cluster/ Communication Cable/FM Antenna Kit $ 3,500.00 Line Conditioner UPS(Uninterruptible Power Supply) * $ 250.00 Internal LED Strobe Light* $ 175.00 External LED Strobe Light* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $11,870.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida EQUIPMENT PRICE REMOTE HORNS Bridge Park VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External Strobe Light Assembly* $ 250.00 REMOTE STROBE Stepping Stone Park VOTRCNHFMS Remote Receiver/Strobe Light/ 12 Volt solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,150.00 (Small park close to school would hear horns,strobe for visual to alert people coming into park after horns have sounded.) EQUIPMENT COST,REMOTES $ 7,050.00 Freight Charges FOB Sunrise,Florida INSTALLATION COST Approximate $ 4,750.00 Based on normal installs in similar locations.The facility is responsible for supplying and installing a 6"x 6"x 20'wood pole for the remote unit if an appropriate building is not available.Only after a building inspection can an accurate fee be determined. *** * Located under optional items on the price list. The systems located at the schools can be upgraded to GENS systems. Guardian Emergency Notification.In an emergency lock down the system can give a different distinct audible tone notifying those out doors to go to designated areas.This is a one minute audible,strobes are turned on.They flash until given a signal to turn off. Page 3. OPTION 2 During our meeting it was mentioned you where not sure as to how much the schools would contribute to this project.I'm giving a second option for you to consider if they do not participate. EQUIPMENT PRICE BASE STATION Bridge Park L 75R Computer Console and Sensor,THOR PCX Software *** $ 7,695.00 VOTBDFMI2B Base Driver, 12 Watt Transmitter/Horn Cluster Communication Cable&RE Antenna $ 4,000.00 Line Conditioner UPS(Uninterruptible Power Supply) * $ 250.00 External LED Strobe Light Assembly $ 250.00 BRISTOL BAY PARK VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External LED Strobe Light* $ 250.00 STEPPING STONES PARK VOTRCFMS Remote Receiver/Horn Cluster/ 12 Volt Solar Charged/ Antenna Kit $ 3,650.00 External LED Strobe Light* $ 250.00 EQUIPMENT COST $19,995.00 INSTALLATION COST Approximate $ 4,000.00 An inspection of the building is required. The facility is responsible for supplying and installing a 6"x 6"x 20'wood pole for each remote if an appropriate location is not available. Upgrade to existing system with FM radio equipment. 12 Watt Transmitter is$750. Each Receiver is$500.Base antenna kit is$100.Receiver antenna kit$85.00 each. To view our new applications for Thor Guard users go to www.thorguard.com click on software at the top and view 6 new features. Please call if you have any questions.Thank you for having an interest in THOR Guard. Regards, Walt Wynarczyk Territory Manager HOR __ GUARD, INC. April 17,2012 integrated Lightning Prediction and Waming Systems Ms. Laura Schraw United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60140 Dear Ms. Schraw: Thank you for requesting information on THOR GUARD integrated lightning prediction and warning systems. We manufacture these systems in southern Florida as we have for more than 30 years, and stand alone in offering the world's only true lightning PREDICTION system. No company has been manufacturing lightning warning systems for as long as THOR GUARD and no other system can approach our safety record. THOR GUARD uses a highly sophisticated sensor and computer to measure and analyze the electrostatic field in the atmosphere. Lightning originates within this field,thus allowing THOR GUARD to make calculations predicting its occurrence, even though there may be no visible evidence of lightning. Only THOR GUARD can provide advance warning of a first strike or the very dangerous side and back strikes. Unlike THOR GUARD, lightning "detection" systems require the occurrence of an actual lightning strike before a warning is given. According to the Severe Storms Laboratories in Norman, OK, 85% of all deaths and injuries occur away from a storm cell, so reacting to a strike which has already occurred within 5 to 10 miles is frequently too late! THOR GUARD's PREDICTION capability also minimizes false alarms without the use of filters, a significant departure from even the best detection systems, all of which are prone to unnecessary and costly shutdowns! THOR GUARD is the only stand-alone lightning warning device used by the USGA, AJGA, LPGA and the PGA of America Junior Series. We are the choice of Froward County, Hamilton County, OH, Park Ridge, IL, Orange County, FL, Paramus, NJ, Lewis, TX, Centennial Olympic Park, GA, Northern Virginia Regional Parks and more than 1,000 other city parks and municipalities in the United States. The flexibility of our system allows the client to choose the amount of advance warning time considered necessary for students, family and friends to proceed to a safe location. Couple our PREDICTION capability with a Voice of THOR horn/strobe light warning system or our one-piece THORGUARDIAN,you have a true,automatic advance warning package second to none! Responding to the call for an emergency notification system for schools and parks, THOR GUARD has introduced its Guardian Emergency Notification System (GENS). Available as a stand-alone device or built into our lightning prediction systems,the GENS will issue a one or two minute horn blast(very different than our lightning alerts)and facilitate email messaging instructions through our THOR PCX software. Already in use at many schools like University of Miami, the GENS will make your area safer with ease of use and efficient messaging. While single- purpose emergency systems cost considerably more than THOR GUARD, a cost-effective THOR GUARD/GENS system can be used every day for lightning prediction and the GENS accessed if you ever need more! THOR GUARD has provided accurate and dependable lightning protection for a broad base of clients since 1974. This represents literally hundreds of millions of hours of safe operations for clients that range from the U.S. Government, airlines, state and local agencies, the explosives industry, and schools, to a variety of recreational users.It is THOR GUARD's unique ability to PREDICT lightning that continues to make a reliably safe difference. Ms. Schraw, if you would like to take the next step towards a safer facility, contact me at Extension 104, or your local sales representative, Walt Wynarczyk, at(708)989-8273. Sincerely, Robert M. Dugan President 1193 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway . Sunrise, Florida 33323 . Tel: (954) 835-0900 . Fax: (954) 835-0808 www.thorguard.com I N N 0 V A T 1 0 N S Lightning Prediction InstantBths One year afftter er the deadly bolt struck John Scott Wade,the new system was installed and dedi- cated in his memory.Ironically, less than two hours after the ded- ication of the system,on June 20 1 of this year,the warning alarm was activated at Hinklev Park, B Y S T E V E N K M E Y E R interrupting organized baseball and volleyball games.Baseball officials and park district stab ALITI LE MORETHt1N ONE Bring all parks,schools and play- cleared the fields and courts as year ago,a tragic acci- T ing Fields. instructed.Ten minutes later, dent occurred on a soccer no= lightning stuck the middle of the field at Northeast Park in the # _ Decisions and Dollars baseball diamond, knocking out Park Ridge Recreation and Park _ Matters of zones,times of opera- a light pole and an irrigation District.After a short rain delay Novo tion,testing, noise levels and system.One boy who cleared the in the game,the skies started Master Alarm Control (MAC) installation procedures needed to baseball diamond said he felt the clearing and a referee decided to be worked out.The special pro- lightning from where he sought resume play.A rogue lightening jects technician for the parks shelter. bolt—some called it a"bolt out department became the district Had the warning signal not of the blue"--struck a young and in the air.Lightning is created liaison and worked on coordinat- been activated,had the system man named John Scott Wade. within the earth's invisible electro- ing installation. not been operational,would CPR and quick medical atten- static atmosphere.The charges, tion couldn't save him. which are invisible to the naked Four groups,the Park Ridge eye,always build prior to lightning Recreation and Park District, occurrences.When conditions Nnety-seven Youth Baseball,Indian Scours indicate that lightning is probable, and the Park Ridge Rotary Club a signal is sent to horns which percent of the time when the alarm system is formed a committee in an effort sound an eight-to-I2-minute to minimize lightening-related warning to clear the area and seek activated, lightning is visible within 15 injuries.Research on available shelter.Ninety-seven percent of the lightning detection and predic- time when the alarm system is acti- tion systems led them to a vated,lightning is visible within 15 to 30 minutes. system used at the Atlanta to 30 minutes.Other times light- Olympic Games and on golf ning is extremely probable.An all- The system would cover 18 there have been another tragic courses nationwide. clear signal announces when it's park and school sites in three f event?Three people were injured safe to return to the area. zones.The committee decided and one killed by lightning that Citywide Protection Although the company had the system should be operational night in the Chicago area. Committee members quickly con- never taken on a project of this from 8 a.m, to 11 p.m.on a Thankfully,due to the foresight curred that the Thor Guard system magnitude,Park Ridge agreed to daily basis from April to Novem- and planning of the committee was the best solution for Park be the first to test a city- ber,with horns and systems to be and the generous donations from Ridge.'fhesystem consists of wide lightning predic- tested monthly during the opera- the community, no one in Park sensors that mrI:,tre =. lion system tional period. Ridge was injured. electrostatic cov- The committee also began charges at Fund raising efforts to cover the Steven It: director of'ahe ground projected cost of$55,000.Sup- Park Ridge Recreation and Park levri - pQrt for the system was citywide. District in Park Ridge,Ill. Donations came from youth and adult sports teams,school dis- _ triers and 11TOs,service -W = �,,1 organizations,local tj hospitals,the x United Way and the z City itself. Remote bore cluster. N0V LM BF R1 ❑ L1' Lr1BF. R 1117 PUBLIC RISK 29 � I I LFl~■rl � Mfl Bolts From the Blue Some form of lightning prediction or detection Is better than none, experts say. Robert Esmail didn't know what hit him.One second,the 48-year-old was walking with his friend Steve Plutz on Elgin, Ill.'s Wing Park Golf Course; the next, he was abruptly thrown back by a deadly bolt of lightning. No bright flash. No sharp crack. Amazingly, Esmail remained conscious during the entire June 2 episode and later told the Chicago Tribune that the strike felt like a blow to the chest from either a base- ball bat or a linebacker. The bolt entered his right hip, where it left a three-inch-long "red and raw" mark, and exited his body via his foot.Plutz,who also was struck,died two days later from injuries to his brain, heart and Iungs. "It doesn't always take a tragedy to get officials to move; unfortunately, it takes a tragedy and a lawsuit," says Bob The incident, which occurred on city-owned property, Dugan, president of Sunrise, Fla.-based Thor Guard, the prompted Elgin municipal leaders to reconfigure their only manufacturer currently producing a lightning pre- priorities and move the planned installation of lightning diction system that identifies electrostatic energy condi- prediction systems to the top of their to-do list. By mid- tions conducive to lightning activity and emits an instant July, the city council approved spending $65,000 for warning. According to Dugan, facility operators are lightning prediction devices at The Highlands and Wing Park golf courses,as well as popular Lords Park. "A long often under the false impression that if they don't have blast signals that people should take cover. A series of any sort of protection, they can't be sued in the event of shorter blasts signals an all-clear," parks and recreation a strike. But the suits keep coming, and so do the dam- director Randy Reopelle told the Tribune. "We're going ages. "Most of those suits are settled out of court in favor to have to implement an education program to train peo- of the plaintiff," he says. "Relying on the ?act of God' ple how to react." defense doesn't work." I Lightning education has been a goal of outdoor sports Lightning, weather's most dangerous and frequently and recreation administrators for the past decade, ever encountered hazard, caused almost 500 deaths in the since Park Ridge, Ill., located 27 miles from Elgin, United States between 1995 and 2004--but fewer annu- became the first community in the country to introduce al fatalities have been reported in recent years,according lightning prediction technology to parks in 1997. That to the National Weather Service and the National initial $49,000 investment came after 20-year-old Scott Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By compari- Wade was struck by lightning while officiating a youth son, lightning struck and killed more than 3,235 individ- soccer game. uals between 1959 and 1994. Nowhere is lightning more prone to strike in the United The Georgia High School Association recently mandat States than Florida, which the U.S. National Lightning ed that all 402 member schools provide at least handheld Detection Network lists as having the most lightning devices for all outdoor activities during the 2006-07 flashes per square mile. That's one reason why Brevard school year, and some principals and athletic directors Public Schools in Viera, Fla., spent a reported $350,000 have upgraded to permanent systems instead. Schools during the summer to install lightning prediction systems were asked to determine how many handheld units they at all middle schools, high schools and athletic fields in needed(typically at least two or three)and find their own the district-17 sites in all. funding sources, says Gary Phillips, the GHSA's assis- Meanwhile, on the other side of Florida's Lake tant executive director. The association also purchased Okeechobee, the Broward County Parks and Recreation 14 handheld devices for use by its staffers at state tour- Division installed lightning prediction devices at six naments and other events. parks in 2005 and dedicated more than$92,000 to install systems at seven additional parks this year.The county is Phillips says the idea to equip schools with some sort of no stranger to lightning-related fatalities:On July 20,3 8- protection stems from the 2004 boys'state track and field year-old Edward Hidalgo was riding an ATV in the championships at Jefferson High School. When nasty Everglades when he became the ninth person since 1993 storms moved in that May weekend, lightning struck a to be felled by a lightning bolt within Broward County's transformer that exploded into a ball of fire and plum- borders. And the Broward County School District—fol- meted to the ground, injuring several spectators and lowing the October 2005 death of 15-year-old Monarch burning the hair off one coach's arm. "Here we were, High School junior varsity football player Schaffner asking schools to host all of these tournaments and out- Noel as his team took shelter during a game delay—was door activities, but we weren't helping them prepare for among the first organizations in the nation to subscribe sudden weather changes," Phillips says. "We needed to to Weatherbug?, a provider of live Iocal weather condi- do that. It's a minor imposition that in the end will make tions via the Internet and mobile communications venues safer for everybody." devices. It's not too early for facility operators to begin thinking Although grant money from various sources can be about next spring and how best to arm themselves—and applied to the purchase of a lightning prediction system, the individuals responsible for overseeing athletic and which generally sells for between $6,000 and $9,000, recreation events—against Mother Nature's electrical Weatherbug and similar services such as WeatherData? whims. Some form of detection or prediction is better provide some degree of protection for schools and other than none,experts say, because today's systems can alert organizations unable to make major financial commit- people in charge of games, practices and other outdoor ments to weather safety. Plus, unlike lightning-specific recreation activities to lightning threats not visible to the i equipment,the latter services alert subscribers to all vari- human eye.As Dugan warns, "Just because you don't see eties of pending weather emergencies—from blizzards to lightning doesn't mean it's safe." tornadoes. Just ask Robert Esmail. Other lower-cost alternatives are handheld lightning detection devices such as SkyScan? and ThunderBolt?, Michael Popke which range in price from around $100 to $500 each. Whereas lightning prediction systems assess atmospher- ic conditions likely to produce future lightning strikes within a given area, handheld detection units pinpoint where lightning strikes have occurred within a predeter- mined radius and estimate their range, approach speed, time of arrival and severity. HOR THORGUARDIAN ._'' UARDa INC. LIGHTNING PREDICTION SYSTEM The THORGUARDIAN is the first,totally integrated advance warning system for lightning. The sensor continuously monitors the atmosphere's electrostatic energy as far away as 15 miles and evaluates the potential for lightning within an area approximately 2 miles in radius. When the system determines a hazardous condition, the air-horns and strobe light -- provide necessary alerts. As a leader in lightning prediction, THOR GUARD has advanced its state of the art lightning prediction 1 technology by the development of its propriety L125 prediction computer. The entire system can be easily installed outdoors as a single unit, or the control box can be located HOR3wutUUn' separately.Under normal conditions,the air horns have a range of approximately 700 yards, in a 360' pattern. An external status LED indicates THORGUARDIAN is operational. FEATURES • THOR GUARD L125 lightning prediction computer. • LCD provides immediate lightning/ system status. • Sensor, Strobe, Air-horns, Mtg. Bar & Tripod included. • • User - hours of operation, selectable by day. • 12 selectable ranges permits desired sensitivity. • Designed for continuous unattended operation. !: I • Automatic system status ensures timer opetation • Automatic notification, both visual and audible, of "RED - ALERT" and "ALL - CLEAR" conditions. • Strobe light that remains on during "RED ALERT". • AC Power 0 20V) or Optional Solar Power. • RS232 port (DB9) allows interface to users computer providing data forTHOR GUARD's THORPCX(Optional) *W visual display and storm storage software. • Audible notification for low battery or test failure. • High performance long life rechargeable battery. ■ ■ SELECTED SPECIFICATIONS Models: THORGUARDIAN Power Requirement: Voltage: 120 Volts VAC,60 Hz,Single Phase Power: .25A,30 Watts »Optional Solar Power Using 40 Watt Panel } Power Supply. Wall Mounted Transformer, 120V,60 Hz Safety Requirements: UL,CSA,VDE Power Cord: UL,CSA,SJT 6 Ft.Grounded Hyperstatic AC Protection:Circuit Breaker/Switch Sensor Enclosure Control Box: Dimensions: 13"W x 6 112"D x 15 114"H Safety Requirements: UL,CSA,Type 4X Material:Sealed Gray Fiberglass Enclosure Weight:26 Lbs. Model L 125 THOR GUARD: Dimensions: 7.325"W x 6"D x 1.5'H Power: 12V DC(Supplied by System Battery) Safety Requirements: FCC Part, 15 Class B Hyperstatic Sensor. Dimensions:4'W x 13"H Weight: 2 Lbs. (Excluded Cable) Construction: PVC-Sealed Mounting: 1" Diameter Pipe VOT Horn Sensor Cable: West Penn 5992 (Optional Plenum Cable) 318" Dia. Double Shielded Triaxial with Teflon Core Standard Lengths Available 75ft., 125ft., 150 ft. (200 ft.Max. Length) VOT Air Horn Cluster. Dimensions: 19"W x 14.5"H Material: Fiberglass; Dome& Horn Mounting Plate Weight: 13 Lbs. (Excludes Cable) Cable: General Cable 234600 12AWG(UL)Type TC-ER Sound Output: 11 3d® 1 Oft., 700 Yard Radius,Typical Coverage Power: 12VDC,(Supplied By System Battery) TX Strobe Light: Manufacture:Whelen 51 Series(UL) Listed _T Dimensions:3.90"H x 5.2" Dia. _ Light Output: LED High Intensity Multi-Flash,Amber = - Cable:West Penn AQ224, 18AWG 2-Conductor Length:Standard 12 ft.,40 ft.(Additional Lengths Available) Weight: 1 Lb. LED Strobe (Specifications&features subject to change without notice) Light THOR GUARD, Inc. 1193 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Sunrise, FL 33323 Tel (954) 835-0900 (888) 571-1212 Fax (954) 835-0808 E-mail: sales@thorguard.com www.thorguard.com REV 11.1 Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number wwvua Parks ❑ ARecreation ❑ PARrC&?MERF+TION Director ❑ City Administrator El Tracking Number augi Legal ❑ Human Resources ❑6aWXM, ,01 Police ❑ Park Board Agenda Item Tracking Document Title: Land Cash Appraisal Agenda Date: July 12, 2012 Synopsis: The land cash valuation from the appraiser has been completed and the report and revised value is attached. Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: 11/17/11 Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority (if necessary that action is taken) Action Requested: Item for discussion. Staff will relay discussion from the COW meeting verbally at the Park Board meeting and if a vote is necessary. Submitted by: Laura Schraw Parks & Recreation Name Department Agenda Item Notes: The packet information given to the Committee of the Whole for the July 10, 2012 meeting is attached. z a Memorandum J -n EST. - _ 1836 To: Committee of the Whole -�-_- From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Laura Schraw, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator �At E �`,. Date: June 29, 2012 Subject: Land Cash Study Update (2012) Analysis Background Over the past several months, as part of staff's ongoing research and discussion of potential reductions in impact fees to spur the stalled development within the City, it was requested by the Economic Development Committee that the current land-cash ordinance be reviewed to see if it is consistent with current real estate market trends. As you know, the City's land-cash ordinance establishes the fair-market value for any parcel of residential land as a means of determining the per acre fee for cash-in-lieu of school and park land donations. Currently, Yorkville's land-cash value is $101,000 per acre for a residential development. The land-cash value has not been re-evaluated since its most recent amendment in 2006–during the height of the housing boom. While the City of Yorkville's current land-cash value is comparable to other local municipalities which range between $80,000/acre on the low end and upwards to nearly $323,600/acre, several developers have approached the City in revisiting this impact fee in hopes of reducing the valuation to allow previously planned and platted developments to be resold at a price more in-line with those of un-entitled properties. Although other communities, such as Plainfield and Oswego, have preliminarily discussed revising their "Land-Cash Donation" requirements, no community has formally revised or reduced its acre-valuation in response to stimulate development. Per the direction of the Economic Development Committee in March 2012, staff engaged the firm of David W. Phillips & Company to prepare the attached land valuation study on their opinion of fair-market value for a typical improved acre of residential land within the City of Yorkville based upon current market conditions for determining the cash contribution for new development. Land vs. Cash The first Land-Cash ordinance was adopted in 1977 with a valuation of$15,000/acre. It was subsequently revised over the next several years beginning in 1990 to $25,000/acre; then in 1996 to $45,000/acre; 2003 to $58,000/acre; 2004 to $73,500/acre; 2005 to $80,000/acre and most recently in 2006 to a value of $101,000/acre. The "fair market value" for each of these ordinances was determined by an appraiser, and is based on a development's future impact on services demanded by the population generated. This figure is derived from calculating the number of bedrooms (1, 2, 3, etc.) and house type (single family, multi family, duplex, townhome) proposed in the residential development. For every 1,000 residents generated by the development, the developer is required to donate either ten(10) acres of land and/or$101,000 in cash per acre. Should a developer feel the established valuation is not commensurate with the current local market, the Land-Cash Ordinance makes the following provision...... the developer shall submit an appraisal showing the `fair market value" of such improved land in the area of his development or other evidence thereof and final determination of said 'fair market value"per acre of such improved land shall be made by the City Council based upon such information submitted by the subdivider or developer and from other sources which may be submitted to the City Council by the School District or others." This re-evaluation would have to occur on a case-by-case basis, and to staff's knowledge has not been done. Most of the developers have opted to use fee/ordinance locks as part of their annexation agreement negations to ensure impacts such as land-cash remains consistent over the course of the project's build out. The impact of these "fee/ordinance locks" are discussed further later in this memorandum. Recap of Study The attached report, entitled "Land Valuation Study For: Cash Contribution in-Lieu-of Site Dedication United City of Yorkville, Illinois" as of May 1, 2012 prepared by David W. Phillips & Company, provides an opinion of appraisal for a residential improved parcel with a value of$30,000 per acre. This represents a $71,000 per acre reduction or approximately a 70% decrease per acre in land-cash value. This valuation is based upon local demographic considerations; comparison of recent land sales and real estate activity near and within the City of Yorkville over the last several years; potential development density based upon trends of previously approved and constructed developments; and pertinent city codes and ordinances (i.e., zoning ordinances, comprehensive plan, subdivision control ordinance). The general scope of the report focuses on estimating"what a typical purchaser would pay for representative acreage in the planning area" (Phillips & Company, 2012). The assumption of the valuation is that the property is fully entitled, zoned and platted, with no off- site improvements needed. The property also has street frontage and adequate access to all public utilities, either on-site or at the property line, per the requirements of the park site standards (Ord. No. 2009-50). The major assumptions used by the appraiser in rendering the opinion of land-cash value presumed 1.50 to 2.0 dwellings units to be constructed per gross acre of land predominately single- family detached residential in nature with the prevailing thought that there is likely to be greater demand for this type of land use when market conditions improve. Comparable sales used to assist in the evaluation are detailed in the report and include the following recently sold properties: DEVELOPMENT AREA PLANNED/PLATTED OVERALL SALE SALE (ACRE) NUMBER OF LOTS DENSITY PRICE PRICE/ACRE D Construction Property ±48.88 76 1.55 du/Ac $414,800 $8,486/Ac (Fox&Pavilion Rd.) Grande Reserve ±877.00 2,212 2.35 du/Ac $10,800,000 $12,315/Ac Hunt Club West ±51.67 58 1.12 du/Ac $645,875 $12,500/Ac (Oswego) Blackberry Woods ±59.51 105 1.92 du/Ac $1,647,500 $27,684/Ac 3663 Plainfield Road ±82.00 (Oswego Township) 1.62 du/Ac $1,194,870 $14,572/Ac SWQ Naperville Road & 127 1h ST. (Plainfield) ±128.47 162 1.26 du/Ac $2,100,000 $16,346/Ac East Side of Ridge Road, SE of Plainfield ±125.72 -- 5.5 du/Ac $2,350,000 $18,692/Ac Road(Plainfield) NEC Dickson& Galena ±114.078 319 2.796 du/Ac $1,532,520 $13,434/Ac Roads (Montgomery) The preceding developments illustrated how the entitlement status, potential density, quality of the improvements to a property and its location affect the sales prices. Taking these factors along with those major assumptions and demographic conditions into consideration, the appraiser adjusted his opinion of valuation to reflect the most reasonable expected price for an acre of improved land within the City of Yorkville as of May 1, 2012 being$30,000.00. Practical Impact Below is staff's evaluation of the practical impacts of readjusting the current land cash valuation downward with emphasis placed on existing annexation agreement provisions and outstanding parkland obligations of the City. Existing Developments A spreadsheet is attached with an analysis of the current land cash values and where they stand per development. The following are highlights from the attached spreadsheet: • 12 developments have an expired fee lock,but have not yet started any part of development of the property. • 4 developments that have increased to the current land cash value only have 21 lots remaining (between all 4 developments). • 7 developments have fee locks and would not be affected by any change in land cash (any development whose fee lock is not expired could amend their annexation agreement to adopt the new land-cash value). Land cash fees paid by new developments fund park construction throughout the City. In most cases, the funds collected from a specific development fund the park in that development. However, in some cases, the funds will be used in another area of town. For example, Riemenscheider Park, which is part of the Menards development, was already paid for by an OSLAD grant. The $277,240 due at the time of the R-3 plat by Menards will help to fund a community park in another location. In developments that are already platted, the City will not have the option to take additional land in lieu of cash and in some cases might lose the funds that were allocated by Park Board during the development review and directive process to develop parks. The largest impact from revising the land-cash value is on developments that were planned with large tracks of homes and a large neighborhood or community park that the City remains obligated to develop. The park designs for these developments were often given to the developer/builder to display at their sales office and typically included a playground, sitting areas, a sports field or multi-purpose space, a shelter and landscaping. Construction costs have continued to rise, and the cost to build a park has not been reduced even with the current economic climate. The Park Board selectively took land or cash to meet the needs of park facilities per the Master Plan, but also fund park development through these funds. The board planned to fund park development with land-cash funds, and requested at time of development to have the land cash fees paid up front to guarantee the money was collected. Future Developments The potential reduction in land cash fees would not change the Master Plan for park locations and development in Yorkville. However, to give up 5 acres of land to receive $150,000 to develop a playground and sitting area would not be the best value for the City. In the future, the vast majority of developments would more than likely be requested to donate land that is approved and acceptable for a park per our Park Development Standards and the Master Plan. Staff Comments Several options are available to the City Council with regard to the recent land valuation appraisal and information provided in staff s memorandum. They are detailed as follows: 1. Adopt the Revised Land Valuation — this option would require adoption of the land cash valuation from the current $101,000.00 per acre of improved land to $30,000.00 per acre of improved land, as presented in the attached appraisal,. • Pros — This revised land cash valuation would benefit all residential developments regardless of fee locks and reflect the current trend in property value as of May 1, 2012, potentially spurring new interest in development of unfinished subdivisions in Yorkville. • Cons—Yorkville would be the first community within the area to reduce its land cash value. Further, this drastic decrease in cash value would inure to all residential developments regardless of fee locks and reduce the amount of funds available to the City to meet its parkland obligations. This option may prove difficult to administer, as it would require the recalibration of the land-cash valuation for every development with the potential for multiple Land-Cash contribution valuations within the same development 2. Partial Reduction with Subsequent Re-evaluation — this option would allow the City Council to reduce the land cash value to a level less than the current amount but not as low as proposed by the recent appraisal. Staff recommends a revised evaluation of$65,000.00 with the requirement to revisit the land cash value in 2 years. • Pros — This partial reduction in land cash valuation would address the downturn in property values and assist in the City meeting its previous obligations.. • Cons—same as those cons presented under"Adopt the Revised Land Valuation". 3. Development Based Approach — this option proposes that each development is considered on a case-by-case basis for a consideration in reduction of Land-Cash Donation whereby the developer provides their own study of the land value based upon comparable sales and other physical attributes of similarly undeveloped/developed land (location, current infrastructure, topography, size). This approach is also consistent with the language of the original Land- Cash Ordinance adopted in 1977. • Pros — This option would allow each developer to undertake the upfront cost of funding an appraisal for their respective property and provide specific data to consider when evaluating the requested Land-Cash Donation reduction. • Cons - This will require each development to amend their annexation and/or development agreements individually and potentially have a great disparity in land-cash valuations for various developments throughout the City. 4. No change — this option proposes to keep the "Fair Market Value" at its present $101,000/acre amount. • Pros — This option requires no recalculation to Land-Cash Donations of current or future developments, or amendments to already approved annexation agreements. • Cons — May potentially prolong the stall in development entitled property within the City. The Park Board will be evaluating the land cash appraisal on Thursday, July 12th. It is staff's assumption that they will be requesting additional information prior to making a recommendation, as well as hearing the City Council's discussion on the appraisal value and directive to staff. Taking this into consideration, staff would like to request that no formal recommendation is made at the July 24th City Council meeting so that Park Board has additional time to request additional information, evaluate information provided, listen to City Council's comments, and then provide their opinion at their meeting in August or September. LAND VALUATION STUDY FOR: Cash Contribution in-Lieu-of Site Dedication United City of Yorkville,Illinois AS OF: May 1, 2012 BY: David W. Phillips&Company PREPARED FOR: Ms. Laura K. Schraw Interim Director of Parks and Recreation United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 DAVID W. PHILLIPS AND COMPANY REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS May 21,20112 Ms. Laura K. Schraw Interim Director of Parks and Recreation United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 Re: Land Valuation Study Cash Contribution in-Lieu-of Site Dedication United City of Yorkville, Illinois Dear Ms. Schraw: As you requested, we have prepared a Land Valuation Study in connection with the United City of Yorkville pertaining to Cash Contributions in-Lieu-of Site Dedication for new developments. The purpose of this Study is to provide our opinion of the fair market value for a typical improved acre of residential land within the boundaries of the Yorkville Parks Department. Our fair market wholesale value conclusion for a typical improved acre of residential land within the boundaries of the United City of Yorkville is as follows: $30,000 per acre THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE The above value is based on market conditions prevailing as of May 1, 2012. The value is subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in the report. 1601 BOND STREET . SUITE 208 . NAPERVILLE,IL 60563 . 630/357-8900 . FAX 630/357-8998 The following report describes the geographic area that is the subject of this study, sets forth the premises of the study, presents the data considered and communicates the analyses and reasoning leading to our value conclusion. Respectfully submitted, DAVID W. PHILLIPS &COMPANY Timothy J. Sullivan,MAI, SRA State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.000278 Expires September 30, 2013 12707-SUM TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE TitlePage................................................................................................................................................i Letterof Transmittal..............................................................................................................................ii Tableof Contents..................................................................................................................................iii Certificationof Value............................................................................................................................ 1 PREMISES OF THE APPRAISAL Assumptions and Limiting Conditions..................................................................................................2 Definition of Market Value; Property Rights Appraised .....................................................................5 Scope, Purpose and Intended Use of the Appraisal..............................................................................6 Overviewof Our Assignment...............................................................................................................7 Definition of Improved Acreage...........................................................................................................8 AreaDescription....................................................................................................................................9 MarketConditions...............................................................................................................................12 VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPROVED ACREAGE Valuation Analysis Introduction.........................................................................................................15 Residential Acreage Land Sales..........................................................................................................16 Market Data Analysis and Value Conclusions ...................................................................................25 SupplementalAnalysis........................................................................................................................29 ADDENDUM Excerpts from Ordinance 2009-50 Site Dedication Standards Qualifications of the Appraiser 1 CERTIFICATION The undersigned do hereby certify that,to the best of our knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions,and are our personal,unbiased professional analyses,opinions,and conclusions. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Based on our experience and knowledge with these property types, we are in compliance with the Competency Provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, Timothy J. Sullivan has completed the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this certification. Timothy J. Sullivan,MAI, SRA State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.000278 Expires September 30,2013 2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for the legal description provided or for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report. 2. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances unless otherwise stated in this report. 3. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless otherwise stated in this report. 4. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 5. Any sketch in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Maps and exhibits found in this report are provided for reader reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report.No survey has been made for the purpose of this report. 6. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report. 7. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for the accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 8. It is assumed that this property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this appraisal report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental, or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimates contained in this report are based. 3 10. It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report. 11. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the Appraiser. The Appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The Appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. Any comment by the appraiser that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such substances should not be taken as confirmation of the presence of hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a qualified expert in the field of environmental assessment. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The appraiser's value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in the report. No responsibility is assumed for any environmental conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The appraiser's descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made during the appraisal process. 12. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 13. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the submitted plans and specifications. 14. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider non- compliance with the requirements of the ADA in estimating the value of the property,unless otherwise stated in the scope of this report. 15. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event, only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 4 16. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 17. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal of the property in question, unless arrangements for such testimony have previously been made. 5 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE Market Value is defined in Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), as well as the Federal Register 12 CFR Part 722 (Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines), as follows: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale." This definition is compatible with the definition of market value in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition,2010,p. 122,by the Appraisal Institute. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The subject property has been appraised as if owned in fee simple, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and special assessments. Fee Simple Estate is defined as "Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat." (Source: Appraisal Institute, Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Addition, 2010,p. 78.) 6 SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL The scope of the appraisal assignment defines the extent to which data is collected, confirmed and reported. In that regard,the scope of this appraisal has involved the following: 1. Collection of all necessary and pertinent factual data regarding the subject community,using public and private records. 2. Review regional, community and neighborhood factors and trends. 3. Extensive research, through various sources, to collect pertinent market data for the Sales Comparison Approach to value. Generally, at a minimum,the sales were confirmed through public records. In most instances, additional verification was made by a party to the transaction, i.e. buyer or seller, attorney,broker, etc. 4. Review and analysis of the market data in order to arrive at opinions of value by this approach. 5. Preparation of our findings into a Summary Appraisal Report, prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of an appraisal performed under Standard 1. PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to provide our opinion of the fair market wholesale value for a typical improved acre of residential land within the boundaries of the United City of Yorkville. The intended use of this appraisal is to assist our client in determining the appropriate payments or fees in-lieu-of a land donation for new developments within the parks department geographic area. 7 OVERVIEW OF OUR ASSIGNMENT The United City of Yorkville is contemplating updating its ordinance that addresses requirements for new developments to dedicate park land to provide for the needs of the new population of these developments. In certain instances, it may not be practical for a developer to donate land, for a variety of reasons. In these instances, the ordinance has a provision to accept a cash contribution or derivative in lieu of actual land donations. In order to provide a fair basis for this cash contribution, estimation of a fair market value for representative improved acreage must be made. The focus of our assignment is to estimate what a typical purchaser would pay for representative acreage in the planning area. We assume the acreage is zoned,platted and improved, meaning no off-site improvements are required. Improved acreage means having street frontage and utilities at the property line (or actually into the site) offering immediate development capacity. We also assume the site is graded. Further,we assume the representative acreage has no extraordinary site features - either beneficial or detrimental to the development. It should be reiterated that our assignment does not involve a valuation of a specific subject property per se. Rather, it reflects what a representative purchaser would pay for acreage as defined above. One important factor with regards to defining representative residential acreage requires us to make certain assumptions relating to density. In order to do this, we have considered developments approved in the planning area over the last several years. We have also taken into account areas likely to be developed. We have reviewed the Yorkville Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Control Ordinance. Most developbale land is designated as Suburban or Estate for future land use. Based on our research, we believe the most likely density of representative residential acreage will be within a range of 1.50 to 2.0 units per gross acre. We recognize that some acreage may be developed with a higher density multi-family residential project,but that the vast majority will likely be single family residential in nature. To reiterate, a review of the comprehensive plan indicates that the majority of land suitable for redevelopment is slated for lower density use (Suburban or Estate). While there may be pressure to develop certain areas as buffer townhouse or condo style projects, detached single family development is more likely. In fact, there are numerous instances throughout the greater metropolitan area where developers are seeking (or have sought) to downzone previously higher density zoned land to single family detached zoning. The prevailing thought is that there is likely to be greater demand for single family detached residences when market conditions improve. 8 DEFINITION OF IMPROVED ACREAGE We have considered the requirements of park site dedications. These are clearly spelled out in City Ordinance No. 2009-50. They generally require sites to be improved. By this definition, sites are to be graded and include topsoil. They are to be serviced by appropriate drainage and erosion controls. Utilities are to be brought into the site. They are to include two street frontages with a minimum of 450 feet and the street improvements such as curbs, gutters and are to be in place. Excerpts from this ordinance can be found in the addenda. The above is the basis for our valuation. We have been further instructed to assume the land is legally zoned and platted. This essentially reflects what the particular district/department would have to pay for a site in the condition described above. 9 AREA DESCRIPTION Location The area in the study is the United City of Yorkville. The city is situated in the north central portion of Kendall County and is located +/- 50 miles southwest of downtown Chicago. Nearby communities include Montgomery and Oswego to the northeast;Plano to the west, and Sugar Grove to north. Unincorporated areas of Kendall County are immediately adjacent to Yorkville in all directions. These are primarily undeveloped land areas with potential for future annexation to the city. A significant natural asset is the Fox River which generally flows east to west through the city. Yorkville was incorporated in 1887. It is the county seat. Population and Housing Characteristics According to the U S Census, Yorkville had a population in 2010 of 16,921. This represented a 173% increase over the 2000 Census estimate of 6,189. The 2000 estimate represented a 58% increase over the 1990 population of 3,925. Yorkville had enjoyed steady growth during the early and middle years of the previous decade and was one of the fastest growing communities in one of the fastest growing counties in the country. Due to oversupply of residential properties, new construction is down significantly in the last four plus years. The census indicated that there were 6,353 total housing units of which 5,912 units were occupied. The 2010 census figures indicate the median household income was estimated at $82,007 and the median age was estimated to be 32.4 years. The average household size was reported as 2.84 persons. The average family size was reported as 3.11 persons. Yorkville is inhabited primarily by single family homeowners. Most homes have been built within the past 20 years and are situated in well planned tract subdivisions. Until the slowdown in the real estate market, extensive residential development had been taking place throughout the city. According to the multiple listing service, single family home prices ranged from $50,000 to $840,000 over the past 12 months. The average detached single-family home selling price is reported in the multiple listing service at$211,956 over the last 12 months. There are a number of multi-family developments located in town. Most apartments are found in 2 to 6 unit buildings scattered throughout town. Condominium and townhouses typically range in price from about $16,000 to $274,000, with an average selling price of$75,211 over the past 12 months as reported in the multiple listing service. 10 Commerce and Industry Yorkville has a relatively small downtown shopping district located along Bridge Street (Route 47) and the Fox River. Many of the older storefronts have been refurbished in recent years. The greatest concentration of commercial development is found near the intersection of Routes 34 and 47. This intersection is billed as the busiest in Kendall County. A Menard's anchors the northeast quadrant. In addition to the home improvement store, several outlots have been and are currently under development on the 269 acre total tract. The southeast quadrant features a new Jewel Foods Store anchored shopping center. Heading west on Route 34 are numerous new commercial ventures including the regional Kendall Marketplace with such major retailers as Target Superstore, Kohl's and Home Depot. Major shopping needs are further served by the Fox Valley Mall area in Aurora. There is a large Caterpillar Tractor plant located northeast of Yorkville near Montgomery. This plant employs over 3,200 people. There are industrial areas in the north and south end of town. Major employers include Wrigley- Amurol Confections and Boombah. The latter recently opened a 265,000 square foot facility on 21 acres. Being the county seat, there are a number of government offices in Yorkville, as well. Many of these are new, modern structures. Transportation Transportation is predominantly by private automobile. The East-West Tollway (Interstate 88) is located + 9 miles north of town. The tollway provides convenient access to Chicago and surrounding suburban communities. Interstate 55 is located about 11 miles from Yorkville with Interstate 80 being about 19 miles away. Other major access routes in the area include Route 34, Route 30, Route 71, and Route 47. Commuter train service is available via the Burlington Northern Railroad in Aurora. Aurora Airport is located +8 miles northwest of town. O'Hare International Airport is approximately 50 miles northeast and is easily accessible via the Illinois Tollway System. Also,Midway Airport is about 43 miles away from the city. Community FacilitiesNillage Services The community is served by Yorkville Community Unit School District 115. The average ACT score for Yorkville High School was above the statewide average. Places of worship of numerous denominations can be found within Yorkville or in nearby towns. There is a rescue squad and 911 service in the city. Rush-Copley Hospital is located ten miles northeast of town and several medical clinics also serve the area. We do note that Rush-Copley has a clinic and emergency room in Yorkville. The local park board administers numerous acres of parks and various other recreational facilities. The 38,000 square foot REC center houses an indoor track, lap pool,whirlpool, open gym and fitness equipment. Numerous classes are offered here. Nearby recreational facilities include 11 Silver Springs State Park and the Hoover Outdoor Education Center, a 406 acre facility operated by the Kendall County Forest Preserve. The Fox Valley Family YMCA, which is located just outside Yorkville, also sponsors a number of programs. Yorkville is home to Raging Waves which is the largest water amusement park in the state. The city's well water supply and treatment facility has significant excess capacity. Wastewater treatment facilities are provided by Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District by means of a secondary plant. Wastewater treatment facilities are also provided by the Fox Metro Sanitary District which has ample capacity. Electricity is provided by Commonwealth Edison; natural gas by the Northern Illinois Gas Company; and telephone service is provided by AT&T. Comcast is the cable provider. Yorkville provides full-time police protection. Fire protection is provided by f the Bristol-Kendall Fire Protection Department which covers the city and outlying areas. 12 MARKET CONDITIONS The real estate market is currently in a down cycle. Property values have been declining and demand has stalled, resulting in longer marketing times. This is due in part to the persistent sluggish national economy. High unemployment continues to persist. Supply far outweighs demand at this time. The exact time period as to when the real estate market will improve is unknown and opinions vary significantly among different professionals that are involved in the local and general real estate market. The present credit crunch has exacerbated the conditions. Project feasibility has diminished if it exists at all. Vastly insufficient returns, if any, do not provide the necessary incentive to attract and maintain a developer's interest. New development typically does not justify construction costs. Based on numerous conversations with market participants - such as brokers, developers, lenders and municipal officials, - the limited activity that is seen is for owner users or speculative investors. The latter typically require ample discounts due to the uncertainty and risk of when market conditions will improve. Continued reports in the media state statistics citing the re-pricing that is taking place and the increased marketing times. Some respondents refer to market conditions as a malaise with prices being in a freefall. Also, there is a significant inventory of surplus land, condominiums and houses in the Yorkville market area. Interviews with local brokers report that negotiations presently taking place reflect that buyers do not see improvement in demand any time in the near future. Accordingly, prices reflect the lengthier anticipated holding periods. Also, most lenders we talk to report more planned "workouts" for builders and developers struggling with cash flow. This situation is likely to put additional pressure on re-pricing currently taking place. This could come in the form of additional foreclosures. Many lenders took mortgaged land back from developers and builders in the last several years. Some of these lenders intended to hold these properties in their portfolios until improvement in market conditions. When this never materialized, they tired of the holding costs and many properties came on the market. In some improved subdivisions, holding costs could come in the form of not only real estate taxes but also association dues. For raw land, at least the properties could be farmed and continue to be assessed as farmland with their lower taxes. Many property owners are drowning in debt, lenders are not significantly lending and for many real estate investors, property income flows are declining. There is an unprecedented avoidance of risk. We believe that financial institutions will continue to be pressured into moving bad loans off balance sheets, using auctions to speed up the process. The current real estate market is changing and the economic recession we thought we had in early 2008 has turned out to be much deeper and longer and has inflicted much more damage to the commercial and residential real estate industries than anyone expected. 13 The overall real estate market is not likely to recover until the unemployment rate decreases significantly. According to the Illinois Department of Employment Security, Illinois had an unemployment rate as of March 2012 of 8.8%, which is down significantly from the March 2011 rate of 9.3%. Kendall County had an unemployment rate as of March 2012 of 8.3%, which is down slightly from the March 2011 rate of 8.5%. The following table summarizes pricing levels for single family detached residences in the Yorkville market over the last several years. The data was taken from the local multiple listing service. NUMBER OF YEAR SINGLE- AVERAGE AVERAGE MARKETING FAMILY SELLING PRICE TIME SALES 2007 234 $309,513 166 days 2008 203 $293,744 217 days 2009 206 $240,157 196 days 2010 260 $211,967 190 days 2011 211 $230,084 196 days 2012-4 54 $205,508 186 days months The overall price decline for single-family detached residences in Yorkville from 2007 through 2011 was about 25%. Like many communities, Yorkville appears to have a high percentage of foreclosure and short sale transactions relative to total sales of single-family homes. This trend has had a negative effect on values. There are currently 153 active single-family listings in Yorkville with an average marketing time of 199 days. The asking prices range from $40,800 to $1,299,000 with an average asking price of about$296,000 and a median price of$253,000. 14 Also, the amount of permit activity has dropped off significantly in Yorkville and nearby areas. SOCDS building permits database reports the following new construction building permit activity for the Yorkville, Oswego and Kendall County as a whole: Single Family Housing Unit Building Permits Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012-3 months Yorkville 413 158 64 42 43 13 Oswego 434 149 136 116 112 24 Kendall County 1,061 349 217 171 169 39 We have considered data presented by such firms as Metrostudy. This data generally indicates that the greater Yorkville area has significant inventory of developed lots and that absorption has been extremely slowed. This factor has put downward pressure on lot values as well as raw acreage values. We were provided sales figures for several ongoing single family developments in Yorkville by Metrostudy. These reflect house/lot packages. These absorption rates are tempered by the fact that sales within these developments began from 2002 thru 2007, which were more favorable real estate markets. Current absorption is lower within these developments. This is true not only of the Yorkville market area but also the metropolitan area as well. Some key statistics found in the first quarter data supplied by Metrostudy indicates that there are currently 2,137 vacant developed lots and 20,768 future lots in the Yorkville planning jurisdiction based on approved plats, potential annexations, etc. This could translate into a 20 year supply or higher. The vast majority of this actual and potential supply is slated for single family detached product. 15 VALUATION ANALYSIS In order to estimate the value of the representative acreage, we have utilized the Sales Comparison Approach. This is the primary and most recognized method utilized in valuing vacant land. In the Sales Comparison Approach, market value is estimated by comparing the subject property to similar properties that have recently sold, are listed for sale or are under contract. A major premise of the Sales Comparison Approach is that the market value of a property is directly related to the prices of comparable, competitive properties. This approach focuses on similarities and differences among properties that affect value. Adjustments for differences are made to the price of each comparable property to make the comparables similar to the subject on the effective date of the value estimate. The basic steps involved in the application of this approach are as follows: 1. Conduct research to obtain information on sales transactions, listings and pending offers for properties that are similar to the subject in terms of characteristics such as property type, date of sale, zoning,highest and best use, size and location. 2. Verify the information by confirming that the data obtained are factually accurate and that the transactions reflect arm's length considerations. 3. Analyze the data on the basis of a common and relevant unit of comparison, such as price per square foot or price per acre. 4. Compare the sale properties with the subject and adjust the sale price of each comparable for all significant differences that have an effect on value. 5. Summarize the analysis of the data and estimate a final value conclusion. The sales on the following pages were selected as the most comparable in order to arrive at a Market Value for the representative acreage. Pertinent data is presented for each sale property and is followed by an analysis of the sales and final conclusions regarding the value of representative acreage of improved residential land. 16 LAND SALE NO. 1 Evergreen Farm Estates SEC&NEC Fox Road and Pavillion Road(as extended) Kendall Township Yorkville PIN: 05-06-100-102 et. al Lot Size: 48.88 acres Zoning: R-2, One Family Residence District Planned No. of Lots: 76 (Concept) Density: 1.55 lots per acre Utilities: Require extensions Date of Sale: December 2011 Sale Price: $414,800 Sale Terms: Cash to seller Grantor: PB OREO LLC Grantee: Brandon Road Properties LLC Document Number: Not reported Sale Price per Acre: $8,486 Sale Price per Lot: $5,458 Comments: Bank owned property which consists of two parcels bisected by Fox Road. The northerly portion backs to railroad tracks. This was purchased as an investment. Parcel approved for subdivision but would have significant off-site improvement costs including utility recapture. 17 LAND SALE NO. 2 Grande Reserve Yorkville Bristol Township PIN(s): 01-36-201-013 Lot Size: ±877 acres (as reported by the buyer) Zoning: R-2, One Family Residence District PUD Planned No. of Units: 2,212 Density: 2.35 units per acre- Overall project Utilities: Immediately available (with most installed) Date of Sale: February 2012 Sale Price: $10,800,000 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Bank of America Corporation Grantee: Avanti Properties Group. Document Numbers: R2012-059613 Sale Price per Acre: $12,315 Sale Price per Lot: N/A Comments: This sale involved the remaining land area of the Grande Reserve master planned community. The entire project included approximately 1,127 acres. The total number of units planned was 2,650 - which was to be comprised of mostly single family detached residences. The total project density was to be 2.35 units per acre. This includes acres of stormwater management, open space and trails. Portions of the project had been sold to different builders in the mid 2000s. This sale land acquisition was sold by the foreclosing lender. A significant portion of the land acquired in this transaction included finished lots. 18 LAND SALE NO. 3 Hunt Club West— West Side of Minkler Road Oswego Bristol Township PIN(s): 02-25-300-008 and 02-25-400-002 Lot Size: 51.67 Acres Zoning: R-2, Single Family Residence District Planned No. of Lots: 58 Density: 1.12 lots per acre Utilities: Immediately available Date of Sale: March 2012 Sale Price: $645,875 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Hovsite Hunt Club LLC Grantee: Donald J. Harriman Document Number: R2012-00005989 Sale Price per Acre: $12,500 Sale Price per Lot: $11,136 Comments: This was part of a former Town and Country (Pinnacle Corporation) approved project. Land area includes an 11.3 acre stormwater management site and a 2.3 acre site. A number of annexation and infrastructure fees had been prepaid and credits exist for tap on fees. Asking price was $15,000 per acre. 19 LAND SALE NO. 4 Blackberry Woods Lots along Carly Circle et. al. Bristol Township Yorkville PIN(s): 02-29-123-015 et.al. Lot Size: 59.51 acres Zoning: R2 - One Family Residential Planned No. of Lots: 105 Density: 1.92 lots per acre project wide Utilities: Immediately available and some installed Date of Sale: June 2010 Sale Price: $1,647,500 Sale Tends: Cash to Seller, Grantor: Castle Bank N.A.. Grantee: Crestview Builders Document Number: 2010-00010916 Sale Price per Acre: $27,684 Sale Price per Lot: $15,690 Comments: This transaction involved the remaining unsold lots in the Blackberry Woods subdivision. About 62% of the lots were fully improved with the remainder platted but requiring the streets to be improved. It was sold on the basis of price per lot rather than price per acre. In fact, we have not been able to verify if the reported acreage is correct in Costar reporting service. We note that the majority of this property(100 lots)is back on the market with an asking price of$18,000 per lot. 20 LAND SALE NO. 5 3663 Plainfield Road Oswego Township Oswego P.O. PIN(s): 03-28-100-008 and 03-28-200-007. Lot Size: +/- 82 Acres Zoning: Agricultural Planned No. of Lots: 133 engineered Density: 1.62 lots per acre Utilities: Require extension Date of Sale: December 2011 Sale Price: $1,194,870 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Melrose Holdings LLC Grantee: Brandon Road Properties LLC Document Number: 2012-00000679 Sale Price per Acre: $14,572 Sale Price per Lot: $8,984 Comments: This is a trapezoid shaped parcel adjacent to the village but not annexed. Reportedly, a concept plan was in place for 133 single family homesites. It appears that Morgan Creek traverses the southern portion of the property. 21 LAND SALE NO. 6 SWQ Naperville Road and 127"'Street Wheatland Township Plainfield PIN: 01-35-100-007 et. al. Lot Size: ±128.47 acres Zoning: R-1 Village Planned No. of Lots: 162 Density: 1.26 units per acre Utilities: At lot line Date of Sale: June 2011 Sale Price: $2,100,000 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Wheatland Bank and Trust Co. Grantee: Riverstone Plainfield LLC Document Number: 2011-60787 Sale Price per Acre: $16,346 Sale Price per Lot: $12,963 Comments: This was sold by a foreclosing bank. It is an irregularly shaped parcel which is within the corporate limits and had received preliminary approval for 162 SFRs to be known as Riverstone. The Dupage River bisects parcel and the parcel has about 40%flood plain. 22 LAND SALE NO. 7 East side of Ridge Road, southeast of Plainfield Road Na-Au-Say Township Plainfield PIN(s): 06-01-400-002 Lot Size: 125.72 acres Zoning: R-1 Planned No. of Lots: See below Density: 5.5 units per acre potential Utilities: Require Extension Date of Sale: March 2011 Sale Price: $2,350,000 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: First Midwest Bank Grantee: S and E Investments LLC Series 5 Document Number: 2011-00007133 Sale Price per Acre: $18,692 Sale Price per Lot: N/A Comments: This is an irregularly shaped parcel which is mostly level. Significant building improvements with one being used for an Head Start facility. The improvements offer contributory value on an interim basis. No flood plain. Seller was a foreclosing lender. 23 LAND SALE NO. 8 NEC Dickson and Galena Roads Bristol Township Montgomery PIN(s): 02-11-151-002 and 02-10-251-004 Lot Size: 114.078 acres Zoning: R-3 and R5B PUD Planned No. of Lots: 319 including some townhouses Density: 2.796 units per acre Utilities: Available Date of Sale: December 2011 Sale Price: $1,532,520 Sale Terms: Cash to Seller Grantor: Jericho Holdings LLC Grantee: Dickson Galena LLC Document Number: 2012-00000184 Sale Price per Acre: $13,434 Sale Price per Lot: $4,804 Comments: This parcel was sold by a builder who had previously obtained annexation and preliminary approval for 319 units. The site plan included 21 acres of open space as well as a donation of 25 acres to the forest preserve. Utilities are at the perimeter of the parcel but would have to be extended. 24 COMPARABLE ACREAGE LAND SALES MAP S ar G ve Hur lsl Ora f3rdst yf 64 r aT! $$ er — +,�{f o 3p KAN �r ^ DU83 ,{ Mgntgomery Hd 31 a ontgoM 29 Y a 24 t 1 ........ { ......................... 25 ......................• = 34 30 95t St rte' f x Nape iglu L I N 0 5 03rd St Stepping 04th St_ 13 ones Park r 9A 59 67 St- C. F g Park t _ ristol +' 14 1p �� —Oswegh W 1 1th St 11t St m. . 84 J v 6k Purcell Park ppY�� v 4 e 47 REP� D, ALL WILL 7 c n �,neide ark _— T C' v 4 4- �' Simo s Rd 12 h St• W 127t W 1 th St G r Melmon Lyn f i'1 Walker's Grove 22 Tot Park orkville 71 5th St r' J 69 ,126 ''> I Plairtfeld W Lockport Rd LLLnght G and P 1988-2010 Mcrosoft Corporation andlor is suppliers.A ri hts reserved. 126 25 MARKET DATA ANALYSIS AND VALUE CONCLUSIONS The preceding acreage sales have been analyzed and adjusted for varying features. Adjustments are made to the comparables to reflect what we feel would represent standard acreage with no outstanding parcel features. As stated before, Yorkville is a growing community with ample developable land remaining. It is surrounded by significant agricultural lands which offer potential development. Some of the sales cited are from outside Yorkville but are used here as supplementary data to support our value conclusion. These additional sales are comparable because they are generally in the same sub-market and appeal to the same potential buyers. It is important to note that extremely soft demand for residential lots has eliminated many potential builder buyers. Increasingly, buyers of land are investors taking advantage of relatively low prices compared to several years ago. In all cases, locational differences have been accounted for. We have attempted to cite sales in the last few years as they are considered most indicative of current market conditions. Older sales would have to be adjusted downward because of continued evidence of declining prices. Additionally, a key factor taken into account is the degree of the "improved" nature of the comparables. To the best of our knowledge, the reported acreage sizes of the comparables are net of any exterior street rights-of-way. The primary sales selected are summarized as follows: Sale No. Location No. Date of Sale Density— Sale Price per Sale Price per Acres Lots/Acre Acre Lot 1 Yorkville 48.88 December 2011 1.55 $8,486 $5,458 2 Yorkville 877 February 2012 2.27 $12,315 N/A 3 Oswego 51.67 March 2012 1.12 $12,500 $11,136 4 Yorkville 59.51 June 2010 1.62 $27,684 $15,690 5 Oswego PO 82 December 2011 1.62 $14,572 $8,984 6 Plainfield 128.47 June 2011 1.26 $16,346 $12,963 7 Plainfield 125.72 March 2011 N/A $18,692 N/A 8 Montgomery 114.078 1 December 2011 2.78 $13,434 $4.804 Most of the comparables involved some off-site costs. This is usually either in the form of extension of utilities to the perimeter of the site or road improvements to the existing street frontage. With most of the comparables, it is difficult to discern the breakdown of these type costs. However, we have reviewed a number of Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost opinions from proposed 26 subdivisions with which we are familiar. These generally range from$65,000 to $90,000 per acre. It is important to note that much of this is dated because little activity has taken place in recent years. However, the costs referenced above typically include installation of new streets and extension of utilities into the new streets. This total cost range has the majority of expenditures allocated to items that a developer dedicating a site would not be responsible for. In other words, only a small portion of the cost range is typically for"off-site"costs. We have analyzed the above referenced data and have allocated costs associated with installing curbs and gutters and grading. We have also referred to the Marshall Valuation Service, which is a nationally published cost manual utilizing data compiled by appraisers, estimators, and statisticians. The vast majority of sellers are lenders or troubled developers. While in stable market conditions this factor might require a "conditions of sale" adjustment, it does not hold true when it represents the predominant market activity. An interesting note is that agricultural or farmland prices are nearing or equal to speculative development land prices. Sale 1 is one of the local sales. It is more raw in nature than what we are considering as representative improved acreage. In other words, it is not improved to the same degree as what would be required under the dedication ordinance, i.e. as having utilities immediately available. It is adjusted considerably upward. Sale 2 is the largest sale cited. It is more regional in scope. While an upward adjustment is required for its massive size, this is partially offset by the fact that most of the lots are improved. The overall adjustment is upward. Sale 3 is a recent sale which is annexed and zoned but it requires an upward adjustment for its less finished condition. The net adjustment is upward. Sale 4 is the oldest sale cited. It is cited primarily because it is in the heart of the city. It requires a downward date of sale adjustment because of continued depreciation in land prices over the last two years. It sold in a stronger market. We reiterate that the 100 of the lots are back on the market at a higher asking price per lot and per acre. The majority of the lots are finished. Sale 5's overall location is considered slightly superior and a downward adjustment is required. It is adjusted upward for the added expense of utility extension. Also, it appears to be affected by some flood plain. The net adjustment is upward. Sale 6 is located in Plainfield and a downward location adjustment is warranted. This is more than offset by the reported flood plain. The river offers a view amenity. It is adjusted upward for the higher costs of utility extension. The net adjustment is upward. 27 Sale 7 is unincorporated but adjacent to the Village of Plainfield. It is not platted. The comprehensive plan shows this area as potential mid density residential. The configuration and topography of this parcel would likely result in a higher density than what we believe is representative. A downward adjustment is required for the contributory value of the existing building improvements. It is adjusted upward for the lack of adjacent utilities. A net upward adjustment is warranted. Sale 8 is a parcel with a greater density than what we have opined as representative. It is adjusted downward for this factor. It is adjusted upward for its required site improvement costs. The overall adjustment is upward. Summary The preceding sales range in sale price from $8,486 to $27,684 per acre. The lower end of the range is represented by less improved acreage. The upper end of the range is represented by sales in superior locations or having greater improvements. The preceding acreage sales have been analyzed and adjusted as noted above. After making this analysis, and taking into account current supply/demand conditions for residential land and all other pertinent factors, we are of the opinion that the market value of representative residential improved acreage, as defined, is $30,000 per acre. This is above the range of the sales but is considered appropriate based on our previous analysis and especially taking into account the defmition of the improved acreage (and its related cost to deliver such a property). Value per Lot Anal It should be noted that our valuation of $30,000 per acre reflects a value range of $15,000 to $20,000 per lot, based on our estimated representative density of 1.5 to 2.0 lots per acre. This value per lot range is above the parameters indicated by the comparable sales. The price per lot unit of comparison is typically very meaningful during stable market because a developer is usually more concerned with how many lots are possible,the potential sale price of the lots and/or homes and the profit potential per lot. In today's unstable market conditions, entitlements do not carry the weight that they once did. The price per acre is given primary emphasis in this assignment because it would be speculative to assume a specific density. Nevertheless, density is a pertinent factor and it has been given consideration in our price per acre analysis. However, it is not the only factor that affects single family land values. All pertinent elements of comparison have been taken into account. 28 Supplemental Analysis—Price per acre indicated by individual lot prices. We have also considered the sale of individual lots in the Yorkville area. The range of indicated sale prices per acre is $14,250 to $125,389. This is a very wide range but should be expected in unstable market conditions. The top end of the range is represented by the oldest sale cited. Prices have declined since this sale occurred. Many of these following sales are in well and septic areas. Thus, while improved for a residential structure, they do not meet the criterion of improved acreage as defined in this assignment. The smaller lots within the corporate limits do meet this criterion but are considerably smaller than the subject. Thus, they would be adjusted downward for this size differential. SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE LOT SALES Indicated Sale Indicated Sale Sale Sale S/F Acre Price per Sale Price No. Location Date Price Size Size S/F per Acre Comments 1979 Meadowlake Relatively standard lot 1 Country Hills Feb-12 $14,000 12,150 0.279 $1.15 $50,193 sold by foreclosing lender. Standard lot. Initial asking 362 Westwind price of$26,000, reduced 2 Briarwood Dec-11 $8,500 17,500 0.402 $0.49 $21,158 to$9,500. Standard lot. Reported 3 Lot 124 Country Hills Jul-11 $23,000 9,600 0.220 $2.40 $104,363 exercise of option. Lot 46 Audrey Lane Standard lot, well and 4 Rosehill Mar-12 $25,000 30,000 0.689 $0.83 $36,300 septic area. Golf course community, well and septic required. Allows walkout, backs to 7451 Fairway- golf course. Reported 5 Whitetail Ridge Mar-12 $34,000 33,000 0.758 $1.03 $44,880 short sale. Foreclosure sale of of in area of well and septic Lot 23 Tanglewood sites. Elevated lot 6 Trail Jan-12 $14,250 43,560 1.000 $0.33 $14,250 overlooks valley. Lot 43 Danielle Fields of Farm Short sale of lot in well 7 Colony May-12 $27,000 43,560 1.000 $0.62 $27,000 and septic area. Older sale of an infill lot. 461 Omaha Drive Bank owned -foreclosure. 8 Heartland Circle Jul-10 $30,000 10,422 0.239 $2.88 $125,389 75'foot frontage. 29 Also considered is an April 2012 sale of 14 improved lots along Cryder Way in the Grande Reserve planned unit development. Each lot is reportedly about one quarter acre, or 11,200 square feet. This bulk lot purchase sold for$70,000, or$5,000 per lot. The sale price per acre was $19,444. This was a bank owned property originally listed for sale at$98,000. The analysis of individual lots compared to acreage should not be construed as directly comparable. Nonetheless, we believe certain parallels exist and the analysis offers support for our conclusion found on Page 27. EXCERPTS FROM ORDINANCE 2009-50 IE 4: PARK-IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS A. lark Design:The following erittraa are considered desirable traits for a park to be acceptable to the United Cite of Yorkville, I. Size: Park size shall nwet the requirements of the Park Department Master Plan,and the approval of the Park Board. Plan must also be appraved per City Stoffcomment. 2. Location: Park loralion shall he close to the geographic center rf the population served,or as approved by the Park Board. 3. School/Park Site:Turk and school property located in the;none development may be Ideated and developed in the best interest of Wth parties, 4_ Service Area:Shall serve residential areas w khin one-half(!/3)mile radius from pedestrian barriers_A pedestrian barrier is defined as: a. Any street presently classified or planned by the United City ofYurkvitic, Kendall County,or State of 1 IIinois as major arterial street or highway, K Any street with speed limits over 34 miles per Imur. c, Collector streets with an average daily traffic count exceeding;3501 cars and stop sites or stop lights further than cone-half mile (�i)mile apart. d. Railroad tracks. e. Natural barriers. f. Lana use barriers. 5, Dimensions: Parrs shall havca minimum dimension of 450 feet on all sides if(lie acreage of the park allows. 6. Strut Frontagc: Street frontage shall be the full length ofthe park on a minimum of two of its sides,Said streets shall be local or collector streets within the nei "rhood.Additional access lots provided shall be a minimum of forty(40')feet in width.Where a school site is adjacent to a park site the schoaI site can be comidered as one or the two requited sttM frontages, Reasons f€trstrr<et frontage inc ltodc: a. Enhanced security and visibility. b. tin-stet parkin;availabi lily. c. Encourages users to access the park through trail for sidewalk connections. d. Encourages neighborhood to take ctrr`ncrship and responsibility for their park, 7. Adjoining Developments: Whenever pos-sible,the dedicated parcel shall he combined with dedications from adjoin ing developmvcnts. - It- B. liming of Dedication and Acceptanee:All requirements staled herein for acceptance:of th-e site shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City- 1, Final grading a. The City encourages, whenever possible.that at the time rough,grading,anti placement of topsoil is completed ern the first residential structure ufa particular unit development,the park site(s)should also be completed and ready for grading and seeding or sod diag. b. The City will veH6—that all requirerntiats have been met and tear site is rea-dy far Turf. Final acceptance of the site is determinate on the condition of the turFas stated herein these requirements. c. In cams or more than one park site.or I!near parkways.the developer shall determine a scheduk of completion with the approval of the City, I Boundaries: The developer shall be required to install permtGywrn metal bnundary markers at each corner or the pmrk site.Markers shall lac(if typicaI rederall style aluminum wwker four(4")inches in diameter that can be placed on top cif ti rebftr. 3. Natural State:The City tw the option to require conveyance of areas designated to be- maintained in a natural:slate prkwto commencement of any site work.A separate site-specific plat of conveyance shall be prepared and submitted prior to issuance of any permits.The developer is responsible for securing all areas to be conveyed in a natural state with temporary fencing From the time the areas are platted to conveyance of the remainder of the site. 4. Environmental Assessment: For all lands to be dedicated to the Civv.the developer shall provide a minimum of Phase I Environmental nssessme..r, produced by a recognized consultant_This assessment shall check for hidden,or Lm'1%_110 4'n enAronmental factors including.but not limited to,buried or cep at onwated sails and aquifers.underground storage tanks.and dump riles. C. Utilities: Unless otherwise authorized by the City,each park site shall he fully unproved with water.sanitary sewer.storm sewer.and electric service to a locatlon specified and approved by the City. I, At the time of installation of public improvements in the subdivision or planned unit de-,vlopment.The IocWon shall be approved by the City=and shown*n,the approved engineerling plans. 2, The site shall be free of all private prdeits,wotydpiles.saving sets,strap pump discharge plpts.and other items that give the impression that a portion of the site is part of the adjacent property.No sump primps shat I discharge directly onto the site. unless connected to a catch basin on the site irapproved by local authorities and the -12- United City pfYorkviIIt.No private utilities.water.sewer.or drainage lines shall be located on City property. Any overflow path Roust be approved by City Staff. 3- 'No blanket Public UIHity Drainage Eas inent.including storm sewer and overland st+prmwater mm—kagern!ent*can be located through or across a future park site.The park site cannot function as a slonri water control facility unless the site is a Jetention basin that is to be conveyed to the City or the developer is given City approval, 4- Per!rnetereas ment.s area allowed by Staffapprnval- D- Topsoil 1. Suitable materiel-. a. Topsoil shall be a loamy mixture SUS @A Loam.Sandy Loam.or Silty Loam soil) with an arg;anic+content between five(Plj) percent and ten.(M)percent. At least 44 mast pass the 2.00 nnrn(No, 10)sieve and the pH must be bctliv n, 5-0 and 9.0.from the``A horizon-of local sail profiles.Topsoil shall be capably ofsmpparting die Scruninatign of vcgetaWn, It shall not contain toxic suhsullwes harmfu9 to plant growth. b. Topsoil shall be typical of the locality of the wont. tilled to the sati5factien rXd city.free from large rc-lets.sticks.wends.brush.subsoil.clay lumps.or staiies larger th a one(l") inch in diameter or other litter and waste products. c. Subbase for paved surfaces(asphalt courls.paths,etc.)shall be clay that nets the requirements of Section 204 ol`the Standard SpecifiCations. It shall be free from topsoil.organic artattcr(rGot&tree stumps,ctc.)" nicks larger than three W)inches in size.and building debris. ?. Unsuitable material-, a. For paved areas, the soil i cannot be highly organic soil;contain topsoil.ructs.tree stunnps.vegetable matter.trash,and debris. b- Any unsuitable material found on the site must be rcinoved from the site and legally dispest l of. 3. Topsoil resprrading,: a. Topsail shall be spread to a Rninimum depth of six(67)inches across all lawns. clay and embankment filled areas.constructed berms.sledding hills,excavated areas.and aver backf'iJ led areas of all other construction. . t3. b. All irregularities or depressions in the surface clue to weathering or other causes ill be filled or leveled out be Fore the topsoil ;placed. All topsoil finish grades will provide positive drainage over all areas covered. c. IFthe existing surface has become hardened or crusted, it shall be tusked of raked (broken up)to provide a bond betw,°eeii the surface&nd the topsail to be applied. 4. soil stockpile, C=ontractor shall not stockpi le any topsoil or outer sail materials ern the park site without written authorization frprn the City- E. Grading/Filling I. All park areas small maintain a minimum stripe of two(2%)percent,or two(I.-)feet ii, 100 Feet, and a maximum slope of three L3 )percent.or three (Y)feet in 100 feet. The developer steal I submit gradiol;p law to the City for rc view during the geed ing approv4I process. ?. Drainage Wiles may be located on private propetty.either in the,yards of residential units that border the park or in homeowners association piroperty. 11w park site Should have a uniform slope from one end of the property 10 another. 3. There shall be absolutely no burying permitted of site debris-construction debris of rubbish.or any other excrancous nutter on the pant site(s),}areas to receive approved rill shall receive clean 1i11,free of large boulders.concrete.or other debris. The park site may not be used as a borrow pit. #. At a I I tunes during construction.the developer sh€tlI take appropriate precautions and prevent the d1schar&v aWor Clumping of hazardous wastes,liquid or solid.from his or other's operations car, :any sites within the development.including those to be dedicated to the Cily, Uc;ll Police and Fire;Dv+partrnents shall bi notified of any temporary stage of hw:ard ous materials duTing construction. 5, BivirCrnmental Assessrneiit- For al[ lar,els to be dedicated to the+City.the DeveIoper shall provide a minimum of Phases l Grivirarirnental Assessment.produced by a recognized eonsultont,This assessment shall check.For hidden.or unkripwri envirorroinentab/rectors including. but not limited to,buried or contaminated soils and aquifers. undM-round storage tanks.,and dump sites.. 6. An as-built of the final grading ofthe site is required upon completion,This includes The submittal of an AutoCAD druwir u in digital Format with grades shown in orrc t l') fact intervals within 60 days car a i.%ritten request by the City. F. Turf Grass . ra- QUALIFICATIONS OF TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN,MAI,SRA EXPERIENCE Real Estate Appraiser since 1978. President and owner of DAVID W. PHILLIPS & COMPANY, specializing in the appraisal of multi-family, commercial, industrial, and special use properties. Previous employment included Vice-President with Purcell & Phillips Appraisal Corporation, 1982 to 1991; Staff Appraiser, R. J. Schmitt and Associates, Inc., Real Estate Appraisers/Consultants, 1978 to 1982. EDUCATION University of Illinois at Urbana, Bachelor of Arts Degree in Finance, 1978. Specialized courses and seminars in real estate analysis and valuation include: University of Illinois Principles of Real Estate and Urban Economics Real Estate Investment and Analysis Real Estate Evaluation and Appraisal Appraisal Institute: Introduction to Appraising Real Property Principles of Income Property Appraising Narrative Report Writing Seminar Applied Residential Property Appraising Evaluating Residential Construction Capitalization Theory and Techniques,Parts A and B Standards of Professional Practice Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation Valuation Analysis and Report Writing Condemnation Appraising: Principles and Applications Various seminars sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, the Illinois Coalition of Appraisal Professionals, and other real estate organizations. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS Member-Appraisal Institute -MAI designation awarded in 2000, SRA designation awarded in 1989. State Certified Real Estate Appraiser- State of Illinois Certificate No. 553.000278; Expires September 30, 2013 Registered Real Estate Broker- State of Illinois Land-Cash Donation Ordinance Survey Summary-Report of Findings Spring 2009 4m Ww �j x Prepared by: Office of Recreation and Park Resources Dina Izenstark and Robin Hall TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION....................................................................................3 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................6 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................25 APPENDIX........................................................................................................................26 2 INTRODUCTION The Office of Recreation and Park Resources (ORPR) at the University of Illinois conducted a survey on Land Dedication Ordinances in order to update the previous study conducted in June 2003 by Dr. Ted Flickinger and John Comerio for the Illinois Association of Park Districts. The purpose of the survey was to gain up-to-date information that would help assist agencies, communities and counties that are considering an ordinance gain valuable knowledge based on the experiences shared by the respondents as well as assist agencies with an adopted land cash donation ordinance to better understand how their ordinance compares to others. This report is broken up into two sections. The first section is background information that discusses the importance of Land Dedication Ordinances and provides a history of how they have developed. The second section describes the survey we conducted including the data collection, analysis, and discussions/conclusions. We truly appreciate all of the feedback and information that agencies provided us in order to make this report. If you have any question, comments, or suggestions please contact Robin Hall or Dina Izenstark at the ORPR. The contact information is listed below. Office of Recreation and Park Resources 104 Huff Hall 1206 S. Fourth St. Champaign, IL 61820 217/333-4410 http://www.ofpr.uiuc.edu/ 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION "City parks and open spaces improve our physical and psychological health, strengthen our communities, and make our cities and neighborhoods more attractive to live and work" (Sherer, 2003,p.6). Research has illustrated that parks and open spaces provide a number of benefits to community members both directly and indirectly. Recent studies have found park use directly benefits individuals psychologically, socially, and physically as it decreased stress, fostered social interaction and increased physical activity (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Godbey et al., 1998; Kweon, 1998). In addition, parks indirectly improved individuals quality of life through the numerous environmental benefits provided to an area including reduced noise pollution, regulated microclimate, and improved air quality (Bolund &Hunhammar, 1999). As open land continues to be developed it is increasingly important to preserve and protect open spaces in the community. In order to maintain the high quality of life that parks and open spaces provide for present and future residents without raising taxes, cities can enact a Land Cash Donation Ordinance (also know as Land Dedication Ordinance) which allows communities to preserve open space for public parks and schools (Bernard &Nance, 1996). A Land Cash Donation Ordinance is a law enacted by a municipal body(that could state), "...any developer building within the city limits or 1.5 miles of the city line and seeking to annex to the city, as a condition of being granted zoning approval, had to dedicate land (in amounts to be determined by formula) to the school district and to the park district for new school sites and parks (Bernard&Nance, 1996, p.1)". The first agency to establish a land-cash donation ordinance was the Naperville Park District in 1972. In 2008, 95 agencies reported having adopted a land-cash donation ordinance within their community or county in the state of Illinois (Flickinger & Comerio, 2003; Hall, Huang, & Izenstark, 2008). Land-cash donation ordinances provide life long benefits to a community as many agencies have reported their value in developing parks, meeting the needs of the community, providing resources for capital improvements, and much more (Flickinger & Comerio, 2003). The amount of land that the developer donates is dependent upon terms set forth in the ordinance adopted by the city. The National Recreation and Park Association recommend that 10 acres of land is donated per 1,000 residents (Monson, 2006). In the cases in which it is impossible for the developer to donate land they are required to provide cash in lieu of land. The net worth of land is different among each town and city. However, in 2008 the Office of Recreation and Park Resources and IDNR conducted a survey and found 95 agencies adopted a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance and of the agencies that had a required amount of land developers were required to donate, 35% of agencies required 10 acres, 19% of agencies required 5.5 acres, and six agencies required 15 acres to be donated per 1000 residents in the population. Additionally, the average amount of dollars developers donated varied greatly from community to community and within different regions of the state. Please see attached appendix in order to get a better idea of the number of acres per dollar amount that land-cash donation ordinances 4 required developers to provide agencies (Flickinger& Comerio, 2003; Hall, Huang, & Izenstark, 2008). Agencies that have adopted a land-cash donation ordinance have provided many suggestions to other agencies considering adopting an ordinance. Some of the most common suggestions include: 1) land values should be regularly updated to ensure adequate funds are supplied to help meet parks and recreation demands of the community, 2) active use land is only acceptable which does not account for detention/retention land for credit, and 3) that park agency officials should be involved with the city in the planning process. One example, of a county taking advantage of these suggestions is in Kendall County. In 2001, Kendall County updated their counties land-cash ordinance from $45,000 per acre to $98,000 per acre (Scott, 2005). This means, if a developer wants to contribute cash to a taxing body instead of donating land they are required to contribute $98,000 per acre. Additionally, their previous ordinance required that developers donate "high and dry" land or land that isn't considered floodplain or wetlands, so the district can use it as park or forest preserve land. The new ordinance does not consider land in a flood plain worthy as a creditable land donation unless the district deems it valuable to them for some future project, such as a trail system (Scott, 2005, p.1). Overall, these findings clearly illustrate the importance of land-cash donation ordinances in preserving the quality of life in the community for a number of park and recreation agencies. 5 METHODOLOGY In Spring 2009, the Office of Recreation and Park Resources conducted a survey of 98 selected agencies that had previously indicated the adoption of a land dedication ordinance based on records from the IAPD. Using survey monkey, 98 agencies received an e-mail asking them to participate in the Land Dedication Ordinance survey on-line. Initially 41 agencies had responded to the survey. A follow-up e-mail was sent to all participants who had not yet responded resulting in 17 more agencies that participated in the survey. There were a total of 58 agencies that participated in the survey resulting in a 59% response rate. A complete list of the 58 agencies that had participated in the survey is included in the Appendix along with an updated chart of the 98 selected agencies that had previously indicated from past surveys the adoption of a Land Dedication Ordinance. A copy of the questionnaire is attached to the next page followed by an analysis of each survey question based on participant's results. 6 SURVEY Please take a few moments to answer the following questions; your input is most appreciated. 1. Does your agency still have a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance currently in place? la. If Yes, what year was it enacted? When was the last time it was updated? What was the result of the update? 2. Based on the ordinance, what acreage amount are developers required to donate per 1000 residents? 3. What is the total acreage of land your agency has accumulated as a direct result of this policy? 4. Based on the ordinance, what dollar amount are developers required to donate in lieu of an acre of land? 5. Does your agency figure the cost of land or the cost of land plus improvements in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of? 6. Is your ordinance geared toward neighborhood parks, community or regional parks? 7. Do you have any trouble receiving city money or cooperation? 8. Please identify any limitations or conditions of the ordinance that impact your agency? 9. Do you have any suggestions for agencies considering a land-cash donation ordinance? 10. Please explain the value and benefits of the land-cash donation ordinance to your agency. 11. Would you like us to e-mail you a copy of the final report? 12. If you have a copy of your ordinance or any other supplemental information that you believe will assist us or other agencies please e-mail us a copy at rrhall @illinois.edu or send it to: ORPR-University of Illinois 104 Huff Hall 1206 S. Fourth St. Champaign, IL 61820 7 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Question 1. Does your agency still have a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance currently in place? Fifty-eight organizations (59% response rate) responded to the survey indicating that their agency still had an active land dedication ordinance in their community. Question la. If Yes, what year was it enacted? When was the last time it was updated? What was the result of the update? Thirty-five organizations (61%) indicated when the land dedication was enacted while Sixty- three percent of the sample (n=36 agencies) indicated the last time the ordinance was updated. Results of the update entailed an increase in acreage, value of an acre of land, and/or an adjustment of fees. See below for respondent's responses. Increase in Money for Development • Increase in the fair market value of land for determining contributions in lieu of park land dedications from $205,000 (from 2004 revision) to $239,000 and to maintain the estimated cost of subdivision improvements per acre at$45,000 for a combined total of $284,000 • An increase to the amount... • Adjustment on the fee • An increase from$234,400 per acre to $323,600 per acre • Increased to $100,000 per acre, from$75,000 • To adjust land prices to market levels • An increase of 6% in the value of an acre of land to a total of$87,000 per acre • In 2008, the cash in lieu of land requirement was increased from 185,000 to 240,500 an acre for land located in the city. Outside the city, it is 175,000 per acre • Adjusted the cash value if cash in lieu of land • Increase "fair market value" of land • Increase of cash donation amount by $20,000 per acre but none of it is passed on the Park District. It is kept by the village • Donation is based on price land sold for • As a result of community being mostly built-out, land in lieu of was eliminated in favor of a process that better considered property in subdivisions. Now, cash only and dollar amounts were updated to per unit vs. per acre and revised to reflect current building trends (i.e., town homes, multi-family units) • An increase in the value of an acre of land • More specific guidelines and cost per acre 8 Results of Agencies most recent Land Dedication Ordinance Updates (Continued) Increase in Land and Amount of Money per Acre • Additional funds per size of the development • Increased acreage and cash contributions • Increase in cash value for land in lieu of land Increase in the amount of land to be donated more controls on what District would accept, or expect with the donation • Increased dollar per acre and land donation per person • Change in acreage requirement, update per acre $$ in lieu of amount, per acre initial improvements fee and population density table • Re-assessment of Land Values • 10 acres per 1,000 residents with a cash value of$110,000 per acre • Increase in the value per acre, increase in numbers of acres/1000 population as well as the inclusion of several other conditional requirements the developer is obligated to follow • Increase in fees and acreage • Increased acre value • Increase to acreage and land value 9 2. Based on the ordinance, what acreage amount are developers required to donate per 1000 residents? Thirty-nine agencies (67.4%)responded to this question and three of those responses were invalid. The majority of the sample indicated the required acreage was 10 acres per 1000 residents (17 agencies; 43.5%) or 15 acres per 1000 residents (5 agencies; 12.8%) per 1000 residents. Figure 1 indicates the respondents supplied acreage amounts from the survey. Figure 1. Sample Results of Acreage Amount Developers are Required to Donate per 1000 Residents v—_ 38 15 acres 13% Other 34% ❑ 15 acres ❑ 10 acres ❑5.5 acres El Other 5.5 acres 10 acres 45% 8% From the population of agencies that have land dedication ordinances according to IAPD records (n=98), the majority of agencies reported 10 acres per 1000 residents (40 agencies; 40%). Eleven out of the 99 agencies results were considered invalid due to outliers and/or results that were not available. Figure 2 indicates respondents supplied acreage amounts from all agencies that have reported having a Land Dedication Ordinance according to IAPD records. 10 Figure 2. Population Results Developers are Required to Donate per 1000 Residents N=99 15 acres Invalid Results 6% Other(7-15 12% acres) 15% Other(1-6.5 10 acres acres) 42% 9% 5-5.5 acres 16% 3. What is the total acreage of land your agency has accumulated as a direct result of this policy? Of the 36 respondents (62%) that answered this question there was a wide range of responses. 13 respondents indicated they did not know the total acreage of land that had been accumulated as a direct result of the Land Dedication Ordinance. The lowest number of acres that was accrued was .65 (Pleasant Dale Park District) while the highest number of areas accrued was 1,048 (Naperville Park District). A relationship between length of time since Land Dedication was enacted and number of acres accrued appeared to exist among many agencies. Please see Table 2 in the Appendix for exact figures among each agency. 4. Based on the ordinance,what dollar amount are developers required to donate in lieu of an acre of land? The dollar amount developers are required to donate in lieu of an acre of land severely differed among the agencies. Thirty-six respondents (62%) answered the question with a range of dollar amounts from$20,000 to $323,600. See Table 1 for exact figures among each agency. The answers to questions 1-4 from respondents are located in Table 1 on the next page. This chart illustrates the 99 agencies that had previously or currently indicated they had a land- dedication ordinance along with the year it was enacted, the year the ordinance was updated, the acreage amount developers are required to donate per 1000 residents, the dollar amount developers are required to donate in lieu of an acre of land, and the total acreage of land the agency has accumulated as a direct result of their Land Dedication Ordinance. 11 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served 1 Arlington Heights Park District 1982 n/a 10 165,000 78000 Cook Aurora,Community Development(City) 1969(Last update n/a 10 71,608 175,952 Kane,DuPage, 2 4/2008) Kendall,Will Bartlett Park District 1976 n/a 10 250,000 41000 Cook,Dupage, 3 Kane Batavia Park District 1971 2000 10 100,000 27000 Kane 4 5 Beecher(Village) 1999 n/a 5 60,000 4108 Will Belvidere Park District 1989 2007 6.5 84,313 in County 32000 Boone 6 120,000 in City 7 Bloomingdale Park District 1994 No update 5.5 65,000/acre 24000 DuPage Bloomington Parks and Recreation 1987 n/a 10 Acres Market Value 75000 McLean 8 Department Bolingbrook Park District 1970s 2004 10 $160000 Total of which 71000 Will only$70,000 is given to the park district 9 Boone County Conservation District Originally in the n/a It varies This also varies depending 41786 Boone late 1980's by the on which entity's County ordinance is in place 10 11 Buffalo Grove Park District 1981 n/a 10 175,000 43700 Lake, Cook 12 Butterfield Park District 2006 n/a 5.5 350,000 10000 DuPage 13 Byron Park District 2001 2007 5 84,000 10000 Ogle 14 Carol Stream Park District 1980's n/a 4 125,000 47000 DuPage 15 Cary Park District Prior to 1994 n/a 10 150000 26252 McHenry 16 Channahon Park District March 2005 n/a 9 50000 17000 Will 17 Crete Park District 1991 n/a 5.5 n/a 7200 Will 18 Crystal Lake Park District Revised in 2005 n/a 10 135,000 58000 McHenry 19 Deerfield Park District 1993 Hasn't been 15 175,000 18500 Lake,Cook 20 Deer Park(Village) 2003 n/a 10 98,000 3100 Lake,Cook DeKalb County Forest Preserve District 2006 n/a 10 Present Land Prices 100,000 DeKalb 21 8,00012,000/acre 22 DeKalb Park District 2000 2007 11.5 100,000 45000 DeKalb 23 Downers Grove Park District 1975 n/a 10 110000 50000 DuPage 12 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served Dundee Township Park District Unclear original 2007 10 110,000 53200 Kane date but prior to 24 1992 Edwardsville Parks and Recreation 2000 n/a 10%Of land for 12,500 25000 Madison Department green space must be included new 25 developments Elgin Parks and Recreation Department 1998 Value of an acre 10 87,000 104000 Kane of land updated 26 each year Elmhurst Park District 1993 2006 10.62 1,250 single family; 1,000 44000 DuPage town home;900 multi- 27 family Fox Valley Park District 1972-Aurora n/a 10 103000 220000 Kane,DuPage, 28 Kendall,Will 29 Frankfort Park District 2006 Revised n/a 10 130,000 16500 Will 30 Frankfort Square Park District 1997 2006 10 80,000 17000 Will 31 Genoa Township Park District 2003 n/a 10 105,000 7000 DeKalb 32 Glen Ellyn Park District 1979 2007 5.5 300,000 34000 DuPage Glendale Heights Park and Recreation 1959 1996 10 75,000 32400 DuPage 33 Department Glenview Park District Pre-1990 n/a 1 acre per 10,000 $40K per acre(The Glen) 57179 Cook &$400K per acre(all other locations) 34 35 Grayslake Community Park District 1991 2005 15 100,000 23000 Lake 36 Gurnee Park District 1979 n/a 10 100000 34170 Lake 37 Hanover Park Park District 1982 2004 10 Value of project land 32600 Cook,DuPage Highland Park,Park District of 12/9/03 n/a N/A N/A;Land contributions 31365 Lake Intergovernmental in lieu of development Impact Fee impact fee option 38 Agreement Hinsdale Park and Recreation Department 1999 2004 15 Cash equal to fair market 18000 DuPage,Cook value of the 15 acres plus 39 fees Homer Glen(Village) Adopted in 2001; n/a l Iacres/thousand 100,000/acre 25000 Will 40 amended in 2006 13 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served 41 Homewood-Flossmoor Park District 1998 n/a 1 n/a 30000 Cook 42 Illiopolis Township 7/1/1981 n/a n/a 120 982 Sangamon 43 Itasca Park District n/a n/a 0.1 2,00,000 9200 Dupage Joliet Park District 1998 n/a 7.5 for every 333 86,586 Will 44 lots/units 145,000 Kane County Forest Preserve District 05/10/1994 n/a 10.00(1.25/school Based on"fair market 450000 Kane park; 1.00 value"-$80,000 per acre neighborhood park; 1.25 district-wide or play field;2.00 community-wide recreation park; and,4.50 County- wide forest 45 reserve) 46 Kendall County Forest Preserve District 1978 2006 10 110,554 96818 Kendall 47 Lake Bluff Park District Revised 2004 n/a 10 540,000 8000 Lake Lake Forest Parks&Recreation Unknown n/a 39588 15,668 per dwelling unit 20681 Lake 48 Department Lake in the Hills Parks&Recreation n/a n/a 10 n/a 29195 McHenry 49 Department Lake Villa(Village) Updated n/a 15 80,000 8602 Lake 50 10/23/2002 Lake Zurich Park and Recreation n/a 2005 15 Varies per unit size 18500 Lake Department Attached and Detached Single family/low and high density apts) 51 Lan-Oak Park District n/a n/a 5 Fair market of the 27000 Cook unimproved gross average 52 Lemont Park District 1995 2007 10 150,000 18700 Cook,DuPage, 53 Will 54 Lindenhurst Park District 1993 n/a 10 110000 15000 Lake 55 Lisle Park District 1999 n/a 5.5 varies 32000 DuPage Lockport Township Park District n/a 2004 10 Depends on school district 70000 Will that property is in. Ranges from$32,000 per 56 acre to$125,000 per acre 14 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served 57 Manhattan Park District 2001 n/a 10.89 70000 9500 Will 58 Manteno(Village) 2005 n/a 8.8 40000 8200 Kankakee Matteson Parks and Recreation n/a n/a n/a n/a 17000 Cook 59 Department McHenry Parks and Recreation 1970 Original; n/a 15 107,586 24493 McHenry 60 Department 2007 revision Medinah Park District We operate within n/a all 3 are 5.5 Varies among 9300 DuPage 61 3 jurisdictions jurisdictions 62 Morton Grove Park District 1988 n/a 10 n/a 23000 Cook 63 Mount Prospect Park District Unknown n/a 9.16 3257(17,000,000/522) 57000 Cook Mundelein Park and Recreation District Unknown n/a ***$1,500 per n/a 36000 Lake 64 resident 65 Naperville Park District 1972 2007 8.6 323,600 142000 Dupage,Will 66 New Lenox Community Park District 1997-1998 n/a 1000 110000 58000 Will Normal Parks and Recreation Department 1975 n/a 10 acres 45,000;Depends on 50519 McLean 67 Development 68 Northbrook Park District 1998 n/a 5 $500000 32000 Cook Oakbrook Terrace Park District 1997 Hasn't been 5.5 125000+$31000(cost of 3000 DuPage 69 improvement) O'Fallon Parks and Recreation 2003 2007 6 1002 per lot 26000 St.Clair 70 Department Orland Park Recreation and Parks 1991 1996 Fair market 7 134,689 60000 Cook Department value and in 2008 for code 71 section Oswegoland Park District 1990 n/a 10 118,976 increasing 4% 35000 Kendall,Will 72 each Jan. 1 73 Ottawa Recreation Department 2006 n/a n/a n/a 18500 La Salle Palatine Park District 1977 2006 9.18 not including 135,000 83000 Cook 74 school acres Park Forest Recreation and Parks 1976 2005 10 30,000 for land plus 23462 Cook/Will Department 10,000 for initial 75 improvement Peoria Park District(Pleasure Driveway& 1972 n/a 1 $56/42/35 per 135000 Peoria Park District) single/attached/departmetn 76 77 Plainfield Township Park District 1988 n/a 10 139725 110000 Will,Kendall 15 Table 1. Community Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County # Served Pleasant Dale Park District 1985(with Burr 2005 5.5 Ridge only) $239,000 + cost of subdivision improvements per acre at $45,000 for a combined total of 78 $284,000 79 Rolling Meadows Park District n/a n/a n/a n/a 26000 Cook 80 Romeoville Recreation Department 1995 2004 10 70000 37000 Will 81 Roscoe(Village) 1992 n/a 7 93,997 9652 Winnebago Roselle Park District May-05 n/a 5.5 No less than 23000 DuPage 82 $175,000/Acre 83 Round Lake Area Park District 2003 n/a 15 80000 50000 Lake Saint Charles Park District 1989 2008 10 240,500 and 175,000 for 46000 Kane gq outside the city Schaumburg Park District Village Of n/a n/a $150 to$300 per unit 76000 Cook Schaumbrug 85 Ordinance South Elgin Parks&Recreation 1997 1999 10.5 20,000 22000 Kane 86 Department 87 Spring Grove(Village) n/a n/a N/A 30,000 4978 McHenry 88 Streamwood Park District n/a n/a 10A/1000 83,000.00/A 36500 Cook 89 Streator(City) 2006 n/a 5.5 34,800 14200 La Salle 90 Sugar Grove Park District 1995 n/a 10 80,000 11000 Kane Sycamore Park District 1995 2008 11.5 community 122000 14900 Dekalb Park 1.5 91 neighborhood Park 92 Vernon Hills Park District 1980's n/a 10 190,000 24000 Lake Warrenville Park District n/a 2006 10 261000 14000 DuPage 93 Wauconda Park District Recently updated n/a 15 100000 13000 Lake 94 in 2006 95 Waukegan Park District 1989 n/a 10 n/a 93500 Lake 96 West Chicago Park District 1995 n/a 10 230,000 33000 DuPage 97 Westmont Park District 1999 updated n/a 4 125,000 25000 DuPage 98 Wheaton Park District 2001 n/a 5.5 150000 61500 DuPage Yorkville Parks and Recreation 1996 n/a 10 102000 16000 Kendall 99 Department 16 Question 5. Does your agency figure the cost of land or the cost of land plus improvements in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of? Thirty-five agencies (60.3%) responded to this question. Eighteen indicated the agency figures only the cost of land in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of while seven agencies indicated they calculate the cost of land plus improvements. Nine agencies indicated that it was not up to the agency but determined by the City, village, or the school district while four respondents indicated no response available. Figure 3. Calculation of the Dollar Amount for Cash in Lieu of? Other 24% Cost of Land 49% I None 8% Cost of Land Plus Improvements 19% Additional Comments • From the agreement, "The cash contribution in-lieu-of-land shall be based on the "fair market value" of the acres of land in the development. It has been determined that the present "fair market value" of such improved land in and surrounding the Village is ..." • Land—we have a Real estate transfer Tax that helps in development of the park space • Park Districts have no legal authority to assess impact fees such as these. The authority comes from the municipality. Therefore our village sets the cash equivalent. It's based on the cost per acre • Fair market value of an acre of land in the area improved • Cost of land only for this figure. Another fee is charged for park development • Through annexation agreements we also require a capital impact fee to assist with development costs • Land only, but cash can be used for improvements if a neighborhood park already exists • It is a Village Ordinance and they negotiate with developers on our behalf • No. Ordinance only provides for acquisition, not development • No, it is calculated by the City of Oakbrook Terrace • Villages determine this. One village does both Calculated by the school district 17 Question 6. Is your ordinance geared toward neighborhood parks, community or regional parks? Of the 36 respondents who answered this question 72% (n=26) indicated their ordinance was geared toward both neighborhood and community parks. Twenty-two percent (n=8) reported the ordinance was geared toward only neighborhood parks. Five percent(n=2)indicated the ordinance was not geared toward parks but instead the organization was given cash donations for redevelopment because the community itself was mostly built out. Figure 4. Land Dedication Ordinances Utilization Towards Parks Neighborhood Cash ED Both Neighborhood and Parks 6 nation Community Parks 21% ■Neighborhood Parks ❑Cash Donation Both Neighborhood and Community Parks 73% 18 Question 7. Do you have any trouble receiving city money or cooperation? Of the 36 respondents who answered this question the majority indicated they had no trouble with receiving city money or cooperation (77%, n=28). The most common reasons for not having any trouble receiving city money or cooperation was because the organization was part of the city or village as a Parks and Recreation Department. Among the organizations that did have trouble reasons that were stated included: • On occasion. We would have liked it reviewed and updated more often • The first writing of the ordinance was a very long process that lasted over two years but updates have been very easy • The ordinance does not provide an adequate amount of funding for land acquisition • It was never received until the ordinance was enacted. We lost out on many land/cash opportunities • Some times the villages are so accommodating to the developer that full donation in land, which must be high and dry, is not always an option • We only collect fees and land donations for new development within the unincorporated areas of the County. Each municipality has its own donations requirements and not all of our communities have park districts. The cities do not collect on our behalf • The money is received from the developer. The city will not issue permits until proof of payment is presented • We cover three municipalities, each is different. One municipality has a recreation department that receives the donation negating the Park District from receiving anything. Another will not pass a land/cash ordinance. The third is very cooperative • City before 2006 took all the land cash funds for city parks. Now the funds and land are to go to park district. We are pretty much land locked now though • They believe it is their money and they can give it or keep it based on their needs in a particular area • No. Developer donations come to the Park District after the development is totally completed. 19 Question 8. Please identify any limitations or conditions of the ordinance that impact your agency? A total of 33 agencies (56% response rate) answered this question. Seven indicated that they did not have any limitations to identify. The limitations of 25 agencies that had responses are listed below and vary across a number of different issues mainly relating to not having full control over spending the money in relation to where they have determined the greatest need for the money. Appropriation of Money • All funds must be spent on capital outdoor improvement in the Village of Burr Ridge within 3 years of when we receive it. Since our district encompasses multiple cities, if we need the money for a park outside the Village boundaries, we have to petition to use it there • The village doesn't pass along the full amount of cash collected. They keep the lions share • The Village has a provision that they can put 1/3 of the money in an open space and wetland maintenance fund it they so determine the need • The Village negotiates on our behalf as well as the other taxing bodies • The city and or county enforce it at their discretion • Villages have the final say on what we will get. For the most part they listen to us, but they still want the development • All funds go to City. We must ask them in writing and state what project will be funded. City administrator approves • We do not control it Issues with Ordinance • Limitations are dictated by village ordinance • Be sure to update the ordinance regularly. It is easy to fall behind on land values • Part of our park district is located in an unincorporated area of Oakbrook Terrace. If the development is with the city limits, our ordinance requires us to purchase land within the city limits rather than in an unincorporated area • Ordinance does not provide an adequate amount of funding to provide present or future open space/park/recreation space • Age restricted communities are not clearly identified in the ordinance. Credit for private open space is not clearly defined. We have spent a large amount of money in legal fees related to these two issues Issues with Value of Land and/or Money Received • Open space is not the problem. Development and improvements are difficult • Value not keeping pace with inflation • The Park District does not believe the village dollar amount fairly reflects the price of an 20 • They can receive up to 50% credit for providing open space or neighborhood owned park to the neighborhood. It's usually small space that is not used much by residents • Quality and location of land donations • Our community is very built up, and very few opportunities for further development exist Additional Limitations • Assisted Living • If the land/development is already annexed, and there is a repurposing to residential we do not see any donation. We are impacted by population, but do not get land/resources to service this population • We are largely land locked and relatively land rich, so receive mostly cash for small and infill development • Parks and Recreation department is a part of the Village acre of ground in Palatine. Some parcels in Palatine are now priced at$750,000 per acre • The ordinance does not really have a benefit to my agency as we do not receive the benefit from the ordinance. The Forest Preserve District and School Districts are the primary beneficiaries. In some select instances a Park District might benefit, but more times than not the open space components goes to the county Forest Preserve District. Any limitations would affect the benefiting district and not my department. The use of the funds is limited to the purchase of land and or the construction of facilities (buildings, additions, on site improvements)that directly benefit the school (or open space areas and parks) that service the population within the subdivisions from which the funds were generated. Under the statutes governing their use, if the funds are not expended within ten years from the date on which they were paid or collected, the districts must return them • It is actually a City Ordinance adopted on behalf of the Park District. We have no limitations now, however could realize some if relations between the City and Park District were to sour. • Not being updated on a regular basis is a limitation, and we are basically a land-locked community. 21 Question 9. Do you have any suggestions for agencies considering a land-cash donation ordinance to your agency? Thirty-one agencies (53.4%) offered suggestions for agencies who are considering adopting a land-cash donation ordinance. Most advice pertained to maintaining a relationship with municipal officials, finance, and/or land. Relationship with Municipal Officials • Make sure you have a good working arrangement with the city/village. Everyone must work together or it won't work well • The city officials need to see a value for open space. With the economy, many are willing to be more forgiving in order to cater to developers • Work with your City/village, get as much as you can but make it reasonable for the developer so they do not have disincentive doing business. In land locked communities get cash. Do not take unwanted land as it likely has a problem for future development. • Try to be included as early in the planning process as possible and give the Planning Commission and City Council and County Board members copies of your Park Master Plan and Land Acquisition Plans • Work with village/city in regards to notifying developer of cash in lieu ordinance as well as collecting developer contributions • Yes, survey other surrounding districts. Get involved with the village and the developer during the initial planning process • Educate elected officials that create the ordinance on how this will benefit their community • Work very closely with your city when developing the ordinance and recruit their assistance and commitment to the tenants of the ordinance. Financial Advice • Take part land and part cash for development if funding is an issue • Make it as expensive as it would be allowed by your Board • If you need the land, get it. If not take the money to maintain the parks existing • Such an ordinance is a great tool for any Park and Recreation Dept. Allows capital money to go towards development rather than just acquisition • Make sure you conduct population generation studies and an analysis of land costs and acreage requirements of the benefiting districts so that the population/acreage ratios correlate directly to the impacts you are trying to offset • Develop a good relationship with your city council and city staff. GO for at least $ 261,000 per acre Land Advice • Do not include the value of wetlands or storm water management areas in your valuations. Don't accept the developer's wasteland as your open space donation • Make sure it specifies the quality of land to be donated, no credit for wetlands • I would recommend getting 10 acres per 1,000 22 • Develop a park plan to guide development 2. Review ordinance periodically • Make sure it is set up to provide acreage/1000 and that it provides both acquisition and development funding. Also, the land provided should not be the development outlets, gullies and stream buffers (undevelopable land under your present code). If the land is undevelopable for residential development, it probably is not very good land for any park use/development either • Set requirements high to start with. It's harder to amend the ordinance later • Make sure you have the ability to choose land or cash. Do not accept sub-par land (i.e. detention) • Make sure an accurate current land value is used and the ordinance needs to be either updated annually automatically through an agreed upon acceptable formula or at the minimum be adjusted every 5 years to reflect currently land value Additional Suggestions • Remove credit for private open space from your ordinance, since it is difficult to quantify. Add demographic tables for age-restricted communities. • Do it! • Should have one if any potential of developments • It's a must, even if you do not have a lot of development going on • Do it before the growth • Do your homework and be aware of any new developments early on when they are being proposed to the county or city. Green space may be incorporated within the development much easier in the early stages and prior to permitting. Too late and you end up with unusable land or cash • Have something • No recreation agency should be without one • Make it mandatory that Park Agency controls whether cash or land and that money must be turned over within the same Quarter it is collected • Do not hesitate. Get an ordinance in place and do not be shy about thinking out of the box when inserting your requests for developers. 23 Question 10. Please explain the value and benefits of the land-cash donation ordinance to your agency? Thirty-four respondents (60%)provided valuable input on what some of the major benefits of having a land-cash donation ordinance is to their agency. The responses were categorized into three sub-dimensions: land, money for development, and additional suggestions. Land • The ordinance has allowed the Park District to add parks in the event of a land donation or accumulate cash for land purchases over the years. This has extended the capabilities of the District to delivery quality recreational services • The ability to provide more neighborhood parks and amenities at fewer costs to the village/department • It provides open space simultaneously with the development of the community • Without it we would not be able to continue to provide parks and facilities to our growing community • We have parks in every neighborhood that might not otherwise be there. • Best way to expand parks at no cost to the taxpayer. We have received more that a two million in cash which has been parlayed with OSLAD grants • It is the only way to obtain park land in new subdivisions for development. We may negotiate taking dry bottom detention areas in exchange for additional cash for development • As a result of this ordinance, 15 parks are available for public use. Cash given has assisted in the development of many park areas • We have received 43 acres of park land in neighborhoods and hundred's of thousands of dollars for purchases of land • Helps to balance the impact of development. In the 1970's and early 80's, it was a good way to acquire park land • The ordinance has been a valuable tool in obtaining land/or cash that can be used to satisfy the open space needs of new neighborhoods quicker than they may have been satisfied without the ordinance • The ordinance has allowed our district to obtain land through out town that we would not have been able to buy with our limited funds • Guarantees parkland for everyone forever • It may help us save some green space that is the last undeveloped land within our community and provide a natural setting and buffer for residents as well as ensure that the ecosystems are not completely disturbed. It also provides "teeth" legally that developers will have to put aside a portion for parks and recreation • The ordinance supplements our Capital Improvement Fund, which has been severely impacted by tax cap legislation. It has allowed us to place parks in newer parts of our territory without impacting traditional Capital Improvement funds. Money for Development • The money brought in by this fund has enabled us to provide multiple park improvements (resurface tennis courts, resurface basketball courts, refurbish baseball fields, install 24 baseball field lights, resurface walking paths, install aerators in our ponds, install a new playground, etc.) • Land that we wouldn't normally have received, cash for projects on small pieces of land, etc. • Cash to make improvements and use with OSLAD grants • We are a small agency with a limited budget and are unable to provide capital dollars to purchase land or make improvements • We aver received significant dollars and hope to receive more • Monetary contributions have allowed for improvements in park(s) near the development • The present fee structure does not provide an adequate amount to be of any benefit • We have the ability to make big improvements when we get the donations • A fair and equitable way for new developers to pay their fair share of additional burdens • Much needed development capital that can be leveraged for OSLAD funding. Can only be used for the area and park site in question as interpreted by our Village. Additional Suggestions • The ordinance does not really have a benefit to my agency as none of the revenue generated goes into a general fund or other sources that would directly benefit this department. All monies collected go to the affected districts that can then use the funds to purchase land or construct improvements to benefit the residents of the developments from which the funds were generated • Recognizes the potential impact to the agency on services • While it has not produced large amounts of land or money, having the concept in place is important • Gives us flexibility • It is essential for our ability to serve the new residents • Per unit methodology works well in a built-out community that experiences resubdivisions rather than new development • Benefits are not to agency but to community • Only feasible way to include park systems through the community • We have received approximately 75,000 over a two year period 25 REFERENCES Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., & Cohen, D.A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health a conceptual model.American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 28, 159-168. Bernard, M. &Nance, E. (1996). Land Cash Donation Ordinances Naperville Revisited and Today. Preserving Public Land. Retrieved http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1996/ip960539.html. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293-301. Flickinger, T., &Comerio, J., (2003). Illinois Association of Park Districts Land-Cash Donation Ordinance Survey Summary, Unpublished report, Illinois Association of Park Districts, Springfield IL. Godbey, G., Roy, M., Payne, L., & Orsega-Smith, E. (1998). The Relation between Health and Use of Local Parks. National Recreation Foundation. Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W.C., &Wiley, A. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment Behavior, 30, 832-858. Monson, M. (2006, Jan 13). Required land gifts for parks criticized. The News-Gazette. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from www.news-gazette.com. Sherer, P. (2003). The benefits of parks: Why Americans needs more city parks and open space. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from The Trust for Public Land Web site: http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/parks_for_people_Ju12005.pdf. Scott, T. (2005). Updated Kendall land-cash law approved measure more than doubles developer cost for cash contributions. Ledger-Sentinel. 6/23/2005. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from Ledger-Sentinel Web site: http://www.ledgersentinel.com/article.asp?a=4138. 26 APPENDIX Figure 5. Number of Cities within each County that have a Land Dedication Ordinance 25 23 21 20 +_r 16 C) 1 O 5 Q) 10 9 � 4 6 5 Z 5 - - 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ono � o ��e ago moo ate\ ��o 5 �o G Oo`� JQ ,� �.�� �o� �. 5 �a� 4V County 27 Table 2. Agencies that Responded to the Survey Agencies That Responded to the Survey Total Acres Accrued from Ordinance Arlington Heights Park District n/a Batavia Park District 150 of the current 358 they own Belvidere Park District 43 Bloomingdale Park District n/a Bolingbrook Park District 700 Boone County Conservation District n/a Buffalo Grove Park District n/a Byron Park District 1 Cary Park District n/a Channahon Park District n/a Deerfield Park District None DeKalb Park District n/a Downers Grove Park District n/a Dundee Township Park District 40 Elgin Parks and Recreation Department n/a Elmhurst Park District n/a Frankfort Park District 42 Genoa Township Park District n/a Glen Ellyn Park District n/a Glendale Heights (Village) n/a Glenview Park District n/a Grayslake Community Park District 180 Hanover Park Park District n/a Hinsdale Park and Recreation Department n/a Homewood-Flossmoor Park District n/a Joliet Park District 57 acres Kane County Forest Preserve District n/a Lake Zurich Park and Recreation Dept. n/a Lan-Oak Park District less than 2 Lemont Park District 14.5 Lindenhurst Park District n/a Lockport Township Park District 100+ Manteno (Village) n/a Matteson Parks and Recreation Department n/a McHenry Parks and Recreation Department n/a Mount Prospect Park District n/a Mundelein Park and Recreation District n/a Naperville Park District 1048 Oakbrook Terrace Park District n/a O'Fallon Parks and Recreation Department 10 Orland Park Recreation and Parks Department 150 Oswe oland Park District n/a Palatine Park District 37.5 Park Forest Recreation and Parks Department less than 5 Peoria Park District 25 Pleasant Dale Park District 0.65 Romeoville Recreation Department 184.5 28 Round Lake Area Park District 200 Saint Charles Park District 125 Schaumberg Park District n/a South Elgin Parks and Recreation Dept. 250 Spring Grove (Village) n/a Sycamore Park District 300+ Vernon Hills Park District n/a Warrenville Park District 0 Wauconda Park District n/a Westmont Park District n/a Wheaton Park District n/a 29