The URL can be used to link to this page

Administration Packet 2011 09-15-11 o United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road EST. '� 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 -e. i Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Cou* �? SCE AGENDA ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: August 18, 2011 New Business: 1. ADM 2011-45 Monthly Budget Report for August 2011 2. ADM 2011-46 Monthly Treasurer's Report for August 2011 3. ADM 2011-47 Cash Statement for July 2011 4. ADM 2011-48 Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Report 5. ADM 2011-49 Residential Electric Consolidation 6. ADM 2011-50 Downtown TIF Budget Amendment Old Business: 1. ADM 2011-43 City Services Survey 2. ADM 2011-24 Procedural Ordinance Additional Business: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:00 PM City Hall Conference Room --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. August 18, 2011 ❑ Approved ❑ As presented ❑ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ADM 2011-45 Monthly Budget Report for August 2011 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ADM 2011-46 Monthly Treasurer's Report for August 2011 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. ADM 2011-47 Cash Statement for July 2011 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. ADM 2011-48 Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Report ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. ADM 2011-49 Residential Electric Consolidation ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. ADM 2011-50 Downtown TIF Budget Amendment ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda`? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ADM 2011-43 City Services Survey ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ADM 2011-24 Procedural Ordinance ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number 2 i o J a T Legal ❑ Minutes Finance ❑ EST. 1 � 1836 Engineer ❑ Tracking Number y City Administrator ❑ °^Y `O Public Works ❑ dal Cou^ty El`E Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Minutes of the Administration Committee—August 18, 2011 Meeting and Date: Administration Committee 9/15/11 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Committee Approval Submitted by: Minute Taker Name Department Agenda Item Notes: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Thursday, August 18, 2011 City Hall Conference Room COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Alderman Spears, Chair Alderman Colosimo Alderman Munns OTHER CITY OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Administrator Bart Olson Treasurer Bill Powell .. Finance Director Rob Fredrickson HR Manager Meghan Ostreko .. Mayor Golinski CITIZENS: The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. Citizen Comments: As there were no citizens present, there were no citizen comments. Minutes for Correction/Approval: July 21, 2011`"`' Chair Spears had several grammatical and structural corrections that will be forwarded to staff for correction. The minutes will be presented at the next meeting for approval. New Business: 1. ADM 2011 —37 Monthly Budget Report for July 2011 Following a brief discussion regarding the dollar figure associated with the Liability Insurance, Administrator Olson discussed an upcoming future expense in Professional Services. The Police server needs to be replaced and the City server is at 95% capacity. The replacement of these servers creates a need for software and other equipment upgrades costing between $40,000 and $60,000. Though this amount is not reflected in the IT budget,there is contingency money available for these upgrades. Once the final details are completed, the proposal will be submitted to Council for approval. At this time, the Committee altered the agenda to address item 4 on the agenda. 1 4. ADM 2011 —40 Employee Manual Revision The current Employee Manual was approved in 2004, and since that time, there have been various policy revisions as well as multiple personnel policy amendments. In its current state, the Employee Manual is incomplete and inefficient as it lacks clear standards for personnel practices and fails to address many labor laws. Staff has been working on a revised Employee Manual over the past several years by researching other municipalities' manuals, studying labor laws and discussing past experiences and practices. Many of the revisions are relatively minor, made to provide clarification on some issues or to provide information where there previously was none. Other minor revisions include relieving the Mayor of some of the day-to-day duties and shifting that burden to the City Administrator. ;u w/m/d ............. There are also several areas of change that will have a much larger impact and will be a shift from current practices. The following areas require some extra attention and discussion: Part-Time Employees (Section 1.4.4)— Staff is proposing removing the requirement that part-time employees must receive City Council approval to work more than 1,000 per year. Employees expected to work more than 1,000 hour must be enrolled in IMRF. This should be approved by the budget process rather than on an individual basis. In IMRF benefits can be covered by the budget than no additional authorization should be required. The Committee agreed with this provision as the Council still maintains budgetary control. Administrator Olson stated that additional provisions could be added that would prevent transferring of part-time positions between departments and possibly designated specifically the positions that are IMRF eligible. Drug Free Work Place Policy (Section 3.3 & 3.4)— Staff is proposing expanding this section to provide much more detail into our drug testing policies and practices. Separate (but similar) policies for DOT (those holding a CDL license) and non-DOT employees. Up for consideration is random testing for non-DOT employees, which is not something we currently do (it is required for DOT employees), and offering a last chance work agreement for employees testing positive for drugs and/or alcohol. The Committee requested that staff determine which employees are DOT qualified. Additionally, the Committee disagreed with the suggestion to eliminate the zero-tolerance policy. Information Systems Use Policy(Section 4.4 &4.5) —The former IT Specialist drafted an updated and expanded policy in regards to computer and internet use and monitoring, as well as email use and retention and electronic records retention. One specific change is allowing limited personal internet 2 use during break or non-work times in recognition that this is a currently accepted practice (examples: checking personal email or shopping online during lunch). Administrator Olson informed the Committee that there had been a couple of recent cases that have defined internet usage as similar to phone usage. The Committee felt assured that with filters, a firewall and limited tracking, this policy change would be appropriate. Grievances (Section 5.3) — Staff is proposing implementing a three-step process for filing a grievance and shortening the time frames in which a grievance must be presented and responded to. The proposed process would require a grievance to be filed within two days of an incident (currently 15 days) with the maximum time frame for resolving the grievance being 23 working days (Currently 81 calendar days). The Committee agreed with this proposal. Work Related Injuries (Section 7.5) Staff is proposing a more descriptive section regarding Worker's Compensation to provide employees with more description on the process. Also proposed is a requirement for transitional duty(light duty) in which employees released by a doctor to light duty are required to report to work when there is light duty work available. This is not something we currently practice. The Committee discussed the need for a light duty provision to encourage employees to get back to their regular jobs. They agreed with the proposed revisions. Vacation Leave (Section 7.1) —There are two major changes proposed in regards to vacation time. The first is allowing a limited amount of vacation time (40 hours) to be used after six months of employment as opposed to one year. The Committee requested staff consider the possibility of PTO (paid time off), which would allow employees to use their time as they earn it. However, if PTO is not an option, they agreed with this revision. The second change is increasing the amount of vacation time for exempt employees in recognition for the long hours that the employees work. The Committee felt that there should be different tiers for exempt and non-exempt employees. Sick Leave (Section 7.3) —Proposed changes include allowing sick leave for doctor/dental/vision appointments and to care for a sick family member. Also proposed is a requirement for doctor's verification if an employee uses 3 or more consecutive days of sick leave and disciplinary action for excess use of sick leave without medical verification. Again, the Committee felt that the creation of PTO would eliminate the need for this provision; however, absent that, they agreed with the revision. Employee Termination and Exit Process—This would be a brand new section as our current Employee Manual only has one paragraph addressing only layoffs (section 2.4). This section would also address retirement and 3 voluntary resignation, provide for an exit interview and detail benefits payouts and medical benefits continuation. Hiring Policy(Section 2.1) —The hiring policy in the 2004 employee manual was amended in 2006 (Resolution 2006-77). That policy will be included in the revised manual with some minor changes. New hires will continue to be subject to budget approval. A section on job description creation is also proposed. This section will give job description approval authority to the City Administrator and Mayor. Salary ranges will continue to be approved by the city Council. Staff assured the Committee that further updates would be made, and that a redline copy would be provided to the Committee and Council before a final document is created. At this time, the Committee returned to the regular order of the agenda 2. ADM 2011 —38 Treasurer's Report for July 2011 Treasurer Powell reported that the beginning fund balance was $1,172,613; the July revenues at $930,085; July expenses of$1,123,592, and an end balance of$8,846,126. Finance Director Frederickson stated the auditors had completed their review and he was waiting on their final report. The Committee agreed to move this item to the Council's consent agenda. 3. ADM 2011 —39 Cash Statement for June 2011 The Committee accepted this as an informational item. 5. ADM 2011 —41 Amusement Tax This item was requested by Alderwoman Spears at the July 26, 2011 City Council meeting. This item was last discussed by the City Council on October 26, 2010. The discussion at that meeting was to repeal the 3% amusement tax in total, which failed by a 5-4 vote. Staff strongly recommends leaving the amusement tax in place as the businesses that provide amusements have a unique good or service that do not generate sales taxes, and often the amusements are a greater burden on City resources than other businesses. Also, the largest majority of amusement taxes come from Raging Waves, which itself has a customer base that is primarily non-Yorkville residents meaning that most of the amusement tax is being paid by non-residents. Finally, the City no longer receives a portion of the admissions tax, which means the amusement tax is the only revenue other than property tax being received by the City from Raging Waves. 4 The Amusement Tax Ordinance imposes a 3% amusement tax on all amusement and amusement devices in the City. The ordinance defines amusement devices as "all mechanical devices of entertainment and games of skill or amusement...including: video games, arcade games, billiards and pool tables, pinball games, virtual reality games and computerized games." In short, amusement devices are arcade games and other arcade-like devices. Amusements are defined as "all participatory, spectator, exhibitive diversions and entertainments...including: theatrical, dramatic, musical or spectacular performance; motion picture show; flower, poultry or animal show; carnival; amusement park rides; animal acts; circuses, rodeos, athletic contests and sports or games..." In short, amusements are anything that can be rented to take to a party, and any ticket you would pay to see a movie, play, or sporting event. The ordinance requires the amusement to be collected from the user of the amusement, not from the business profiting from the amusement. The business must only collect the tax and remit it to the City every month, with provisions to delay payment if the amount of amusement tax collected is minimal. The amusement tax does not apply to non-profit and governmental entities. The yearly budgetary impact of repealing the amusement tax is $134,000 in FY 13 and likely to increase substantially each year going forward. Most of the amusement tax will be generated by Raging Waves, which has had significant increases in the amount of tickets sold each year, and of which more than 50% of their revenues are derived from people from outside of Yorkville. With Raging Waves potential growth in the future,the impact of repeal of the amusement tax could be two to three times the current amount. Finally, with the partial repeal of the admissions tax for Raging Waves (done at City Council on July 26th), a repeal of the amusement tax would leave not City tax revenue form ticket sales at Raging Waves. From a larger perspective, it is doubtful the city will be able to afford Route 47 construction and River Road bridge construction if the amusement tax is repealed. Some of the more unique amusements in the City create issues for staff that are much more time intensive than other businesses. For example, Raging Waves is one of the largest tourist attractions in the immediate area. On any given day, there are close to 1,000 cars and 3,000 visitors to the park. While Raging Waves has been particularly good at providing security on their property, there are impacts on City services associated with the crowds that are far beyond most other businesses in the City. Another smaller example is Parfection Park. Due to its use, we take more complaints about the businesses than most other businesses in that area. In the past year alone, we have had dozens of conversations with the management at the facility, the owner, and the surrounding residents about various issues at the Park. While the business owner has been diligent in reducing those complaints, it still takes staff time to resolve the complaints. Without the amusement tax, there is no revenue generated in the facility other than property tax. While Raging Waves and 5 Parfection Park pay property taxes to the City, the ratio of services provided to taxes received is much higher than other businesses in the City(if the amusement tax is factored out of the comparison). Again, the amusements that are taxed under the amusement tax do not have sales taxes put upon them. So, if the amusement tax is repealed those uses will generate no tax revenue for the City. The Committee agreed that based upon the information provided by staff, there was no need to move forward with any changes to the Amusement Tax. 6. ADM 2011 —42 Training and Conferences-Discussion Staff is asking for reaffirmation from the Administration Committee that professional development opportunities, which are budgeted for FY 12, may be completed, and presentation of a potential option for the IML conference. As part of FY 12 budget approval, there was money appropriated in each department for training and conferences. Some of the training and conferences will meet requirements for job certifications and professional standards, and others will be for general education and training as items come up. Before expenses for airline tickets, hotel rooms, management seminars, etc. show up on the bill list, staff wanted to reaffirm the City Council's commitment to professional development for staff. In many cases, City staff has not attended professional conferences and seminars for the past four years. While we will always make every attempt to stay current on best practices and procedures through other methods, there is no quicker way to educate an employee by sending them to a national or state conference and immersing them in professional development seminars for a continuous 48 or 72 hours. An example of a requirement for mandatory certification is the Illinois Parks and Recreation Association State Conference for Superintendent of Recreation Tim Evans and Recreation Coordinator Shay Rosborough. This conference is held in Chicago each year and is the largest Parks and Recreation conference held in the Midwest. Both employees have a CPRP certification; which is required by their job description that obligates them a certain amount of professional development each year. They can both satisfy an entire year's worth of professional development standards over a three-day period. The cost is $600 per person. An example of a requirement for non-mandatory certification is the International City/County Management Conference for City Administrator Bart Olson. This is the largest city management conference in the country and this year it is being held in Milwaukee. Administrator Olson has a"credential manager candidate" certification through ICMA, which is the industry standard for city managers. The CM-candidate certification is not required but is something that undertaken voluntarily in order to demonstrate 6 commitment to ongoing education. The City benefits from this certification both in the knowledge obtained and showing residents the commitment to run a professional and efficient organization. The four-day conference can satisfy an entire year's worth of professional development. Since it is being held in Milwaukee, it is cheaper to attend this year than in following years. The last ICMA conference attended by the City Administrator was in 2007. The cost for this conference would be approximately$1,450, $650 in fees and $800 hotel expenses). Some of the general training that is not tied to certifications includes the Payroll seminar for Accounting Clerks, the Advanced Governmental Accounting Seminar for the Finance Director, and the Document retention Policy Seminar for the Clerk's office. Additionally, the IML conference is professional development for elected officials. While the City Council removed funding for the IML Conference, there is a potential that the costs of registration for each elected official covered through a donation to the City. Travel and lodging costs would have to be borne by each individual. Specific seminars at the IML Conference that would be beneficial to each official include 1) Municipal Participation in Environmental Clean-up and Remediation; 2) Repositioning and Negotiating Land Use Issues;3) Pension Reform; 4) New Life for Trouble Subdivisions; 5) Effective Performance Measurements for Local Government; 6) Privatization, Shared Services, and Mutual Aid Agreements; 7) Hitting the Target: How to Develop and Implement a Successful Retail Recruitment Strategy for Your Community; 8) Preventing Violence Against Public Officials: Stop the Insanity Before in Begins; 9) Strategies, Practices & Technologies of Electronic Government; 10) Managing Critical Performance and Employment Issues with High Level Municipal Employees; 11) The Nuts and Bolts of Community Surveying; 12) Home Rule vs. Non-Home Rule: The Pros and Cons of Each; and 13) Best Practices and Budgeting Techniques for the "New Normal". The Committee agreed that the proposed training for staff, as it has been budgeted, should be implemented. Additionally, the Committee agreed that is would be appropriate that at a minimum, the Mayor attend the IML conference,but that it would be beneficial for all members to attend. Additionally, the Committee agreed that it would not be appropriate to accept donations to cover the expenses for the Alderman. It was agreed that the City would provide funding for the registration and one night's lodging for each Alderman. It was up to each individual Alderman to determine if they would attend. 7. ADM 2011 —43 City Services Survey Over the past several months, different committees have discussed gathering public input on different City topics. Just last month, at both Administration and public Works committee meetings, the committee members suggested that 7 a survey be conducted in the near future. During the brief discussion at the Administration Committee about how to conduct the survey, the committee members ruled out a mailed survey, due to cost and administrative difficulty. The last time a comprehensive survey was conducted by the city was in 2007/2008, for Parks and Recreation services. At that time, the City paid Northern Illinois University $10,000 to do create the survey and then execute the survey through mail and telephone. There are several online survey websites that would fit our needs. Staff will do further research to pick a particular vendor, but all can be done for less than $500 in subscription costs. With a web survey, we are able to assign each water billing customer a random password, which will allow the customer to log into the survey website and conduct the survey. This guarantees we are only hearing from each household once. Specific arrangements at the Library and City Hall could be made for those without internet access,by printing on the utility bill hours of computer availability at both locations. By studying surveys completed in other cities, and by doing online research on proper question phrasing, I am confident we can create a survey, which yields reliable, valid data. However, I do not have an estimate for when a survey could be completed, until we have a better idea of the types of topics we want to include within the survey. Staff has brain stormed several topics that can be discussed by the Committee. The Committee reviewed the questions proposed by staff. It was determined that the focus of the questions needed to focus on safety issues as well as infrastructure (i.e. roads) and should be limited to no more than 25. Additionally, it was proposed that provisions be made for those residents who do not pay water bills (i.e. renters). Old Business: 1. ADM 2011 —34 Home Rule—Discussion There was no additional information and the Committee agreed to remove this item from Old Business. z ADM 2011 —36 Library Impact Fee Ordinance Alderman Colosimo reported that he had spoken to the Library Board and they agreed to reduce the impact fee by$100 as long as other governmental entities were also willing to make the same reduction. Additionally, the Library would be given full access to the remaining $400 of the impact fee. Additionally, although the Library Board understood the Committees concern regarding the number of staff, they stated that many of these positions were 8 part-time and required flexible scheduling. Additionally, they did were already in the process of reviewing the need for four janitorial staff members. There was further discussion regarding the need for the School Board to be on board with this change and a suggestion that Council member act as liaison to the school board. 3. ADM 2011 —39 Residential Solid Waste Franchise Agreement The next step in this process is the creation of an RFP, which must be approved by City Council prior to being sent to vendors. The draft RFP will either be presented at the meeting. This agenda is being brought back in case anyone received new feedback from residents about the service, or if any of the Alderman had questions about the RFP or the service. The Committee determined that an RFP was appropriate because Waste Management has been making contact with the City stating their desire to bid for this contract. The committee reiterated the importance of ensuring that the same service residents currently received would be part of the RFP. Additionally, the RFP needed to include quotes with the recyclables revenue being returned to the City as well as without the revenue stream. 4. ADM 2011 —24 Procedural Ordinance This item was last discussed at the May Administration Committee meeting. At that meeting, the Committee asked staff to take certain components of the City's repealed governing ordinance and recommend them for inclusion in a new procedural ordinance. Pending committee direction, the following items will be formatted into an ordinance for a future committee meeting, or presentation to the City Council. For City Council meetings, 1) meetings shall be regularly scheduled to convene on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month at 7:00pm in the City Hall Council Chambers; 2) City Council meetings shall be generally conducted according to a formatted agenda template; 3) no ordinance or resolution shall be voted on at a City Council meeting unless the item to be voted on has been presented in its final form to the Corporate Authorities at least four days prior to the vote; 4) no application presented during a public hearing shall be voted on during the same City Council meeting in which that public hearing is held unless a super majority of the Council votes otherwise; 5) City Council meeting agenda items may be added by the Mayor, consent of four(4) aldermen, or direction from a committee; and 6) the Mayor shall preside over City Council meeting as the Chairman, unless the Mayor is unavailable, at which time the Mayor Pro-Tem, shall preside. In regards to the provision as to how the Mayor Pro-tem is nominated and voted upon, staff agreed to review Roberts Rules of Order for guidance. For the Committees, a)the Mayor shall be a non-voting member of all standing committees;b) the Mayor shall select committee members every two years; c) the Mayor shall 9 select committee chairmen and vice-chairmen; d) any alderman may add any agenda item to any committee agenda; e) Committee Chairs may select liaisons to other organizations and boards provided that the other organizations by-laws may govern the selection of the liaison; f) the four committees shall be Public Works, Public Safety; Administration and Economic Development; g) each Committee shall be presided over by its chairman, or in the absence of the Chair, the vice chairman; h) Committee meetings may be canceled by the Chairman of the committee if there is not a quorum of the members present, or there are no agenda items which require action by a committee; and i) when moving items from the committee agenda to a City Council agenda, the committee shall make a recommendation whether that item should be on consent agenda or the committee's report. If on the committee's report,the committee shall make a recommendation whether the item is up for the first reading, or is on the City Council agenda for action. Following this discussion, Mayor Golinski stated the following Vice Chairs for each of the Committees: Public Safety will be Alderman Kot, Economic Development will be Alderman Funkhouser, Public Works will be Alderman Milschewski, and Admin will be Alderman Gilson. Additional Business: Alderman Colosimo asked upon upgrading the video recordings of Council meetings on the website. Administrator Olson stated that the hosting site determined whether or not the recordings were continuous. Alderman Munns asked when the new ward maps would be available. Administrator Olson stated examples will be provided next month and finalized by the end of the year. Mayor Golinski informed the Committee that the County voted down KenCom. Treasurer Powell stated that the audit of the Police Pensions was almost completed and expected a report within 30 days. There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 9:1Opm. Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: Kristia Leyendecker, Minute Taker 10 c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ NB #1 II Finance ■ EST. , � 1836 Engineer ❑ Tracking Number y City Administrator ■ Consultant ❑ ADM 2011-45 dal County El`E Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Budget Report for August 2011 Meeting and Date: Administration Committee 9/15/11 Synopsis: August budget report and income statement. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Discussion Submitted by: Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Agenda Item Notes: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 31,2011 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL IACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget GENERAL FUND REVENUES 01-000-40-00-4000 PROPERTY TAXES-CORPORATE LEVY 366,362 754,059 28,630 281,365 1,430,416 2,290,964 62.44% 01-000-40-00-4010 PROPERTY TAXES-POLICE PENSION 57,847 119,062 4,521 44,426 225,856 375,000 60.23% 01-000-40-00-4012 PROPERTY TAXES-FOX INDUSTRIAL - - - - - - 0.00% 01-000-40-00-4030 MUNICIPAL SALES TAX 169,093 210,574 209,931 225,479 815,076 2,550,000 31.96% 01-000-40-00-4040 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX - 136,433 - - 136,433 591,600 23.06% 01-000-40-00-4041 NATURAL GAS UTILITY TAX - 102,673 - - 102,673 290,700 35.32% 01-000-40-00-4043 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 42,899 40,525 46,298 42,738 172,462 535,500 32.21% 01-000-40-00-4045 CABLE FRANCHISE FEES 56,358 - - 57,242 113,600 204,000 55.69% 01-000-40-00-4050 HOTEL TAX 2,934 4,014 6,018 5,900 18,866 30,600 61.65% 01-000-40-00-4060 AMUSEMENT TAX 181 252 780 90,372 91,585 134,000 68.35% 01-000-40-00-4065 ADMISSIONS TAX - - - - - 190,000 0.00% 01-000-40-00-4070 BUSINESS DISTRICT TAX 18,453 25,565 23,787 24,471 92,276 300,000 30.76% 01-000-40-00-4075 AUTO RENTAL TAX 687 909 800 651 3,047 7,140 42.68% 01-000-40-00-4080 PARA-MUTUEL TAX 2,733 3,793 - 1,811 8,337 15,000 55.58% 01-000-41-00-4100 STATE INCOME TAX - 142,890 193,873 156,645 493,408 1,340,000 36.82% 01-000-41-00-4105 LOCAL USE TAX 19,635 21,844 20,408 19,884 81,771 210,000 38.94% 01-000-41-00-4110 ROAD&BRIDGE TAX 28,104 54,363 2,193 22,098 106,758 164,296 64.98% 01-000-41-00-4120 PERSONAL PROPERTY REPL TAX 3,033 - 2,114 529 5,676 13,000 43.66% 01-000-41-00-4160 FEDERAL GRANTS 176 - - 5,447 5,623 9,200 61.12% 01-000-41-00-4170 STATE GRANTS 3,876 - - 1,650 5,526 - 0.00% 01-000-41-00-4182 MISC INTERGOVERNMENTAL - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 01-000-42-00-4200 LIQUOR LICENSE 1,010 938 1,325 245 3,518 40,000 8.80% 01-000-42-00-4205 OTHER LICENSES 623 194 269 10 1,096 3,000 36.52% 01-000-42-00-4210 BUILDING PERMITS 21,392 9,423 12,536 9,503 52,855 122,400 43.18% 01-000-42-00-4220 FILING FEES - - - - - 250 0.00% 01-000-43-00-4310 TRAFFIC FINES 14,457 6,470 4,875 5,495 31,296 95,000 32.94% 01-000-43-00-4320 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION 1,816 1,791 1,625 2,445 7,677 30,000 25.59% 01-000-43-00-4325 POLICE TOWS 8,000 7,500 5,000 5,500 26,000 90,000 28.89% 01-000-44-00-4400 GARBAGE SURCHARGE 124 203,755 98 205,203 409,180 1,175,000 34.82% 01-000-44-00-4405 COLLECTION FEE-YBSD - - - - - 123,932 0.00% 01-000-44-00-4412 SERVICE CHARGE-LIBRARY - - - - - - 0.00% 01-000-44-00-4414 OTHER SERVICES - - - - - - 0.00% 01-000-44-00-4417 REIMB.-MISCELLANEOUS - - - - - - 0.00% 01-000-44-00-4474 POLICE SPECIAL DETAIL - 350 - - 350 5,000 7.00% 01-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 3 89 301 310 703 2,000 35.16% 01-000-46-00-4601 REIMB -LEGAL EXPENSES 6,032 1,043 1,140 1,090 9,306 12,000 77.55% 1 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 01-000-46-00-4650 REIMB -TRAFFIC SIGNAL - - - - - 15,000 0.00% 01-000-46-00-4668 REIMB -COBRA CONTRIBUTIONS - 2,362 3,934 - 6,296 20,000 31.48% 01-000-46-00-4669 REIMB -RETIREE CONTRIBUTIONS 3,475 4,429 4,428 4,428 16,759 50,000 33.52% 01-000-46-00-4670 REIMB -EMP INS CONTRIBUTIONS 8,166 8,023 7,408 7,498 31,094 190,000 16.37% 01-000-46-00-4671 REIMB -LIFE INSURANCE 325 320 280 270 1,196 4,800 24.91% 01-000-46-00-4672 REIMB -LIBRARY INSURANCE 7,657 7,227 7,934 - 22,817 - 0.00% 01-000-46-00-4680 REIMB -LIABILITY INSURANCE - 706 22,083 508 23,297 5,000 465.93% 01-000-46-00-4681 REIMB -WORKERS COMP 18,853 - - - 18,853 - 0.00% 01-000-46-00-4685 REIMB -CABLE CONSORTIUM 19,505 - - - 19,505 40,000 48.76% 01-000-46-00-4690 REIMB -MISCELLANEOUS 311 513 283 1,952 3,059 4,000 76.47% 01-000-48-00-4820 RENTAL INCOME 1,100 545 630 655 2,930 9,000 32.56% 01-000-48-00-4821 BAD DEBT RECOVERY - - - - - - 0.00% 01-000-48-00-4845 DONANTIONS 50 - - - 50 2,000 2.50% 01-000-48-00-4850 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 105 191 - 1,693 1,988 5,000 39.77% 01-000-49-00-4951 TRANSFER FROM WATER 7,655 7,655 7,655 7,655 30,621 91,863 33.33% 01-000-49-00-4952 TRANSFER FROM SEWER 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 27,682 83,045 33.33% 01-000-49-00-4972 TRANSFER FROM LAND CASH 1,674 1,674 1,674 1,674 6,695 20,084 1 33.33% TOTAL REVENUES: GENERAL FUND 901,625 1,889,074 629,750 1,243,761 4,664,211 11,491,374 40.59% ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES 01-110-50-00-5001 SALARIES -MAYOR 860 925 860 825 3,470 11,000 31.55% 01-110-50-00-5002 SALARIES -LIQUOR COMM 83 83 83 83 333 1,000 33.34% 01-110-50-00-5003 SALARIES -CITY CLERK 777 742 642 742 2,902 9,000 32.24% 01-110-50-00-5004 SALARIES -CITY TREASURER 500 500 400 500 1,900 6,500 29.23% 01-110-50-00-5005 SALARIES -ALDERMAN 4,175 4,200 4,145 4,000 16,520 50,320 32.83% 01-110-50-00-5010 SALARIES -ADMINISTRATION 14,330 14,537 18,100 18,100 65,066 195,000 33.37% 01-110-50-00-5020 OVERTIME - - 113 119 232 575 40.41% 01-110-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUITION 1,735 1,843 2,187 2,184 7,949 25,000 31.80% 01-110-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 1,434 1,446 1,690 1,692 6,262 20,106 31.15% 01-110-54-00-5410 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT - - - - - - 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - 339 25 - 364 3,000 12.13% 01-110-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - - 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5423 PUBLIC RELATIONS - - - - - 150 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - 6 - 10 16 2,000 0.78% 01-110-54-00-5430 PRINTING&DUPLICATION - 292 753 - 1,045 6,750 15.49% 01-110-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 596 1,052 1,062 2,710 21,200 12.78% 01-110-54-00-5451 CODIFICATION - - - - - 8,000 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - 142 3,197 (579) 2,761 14,000 19.72% 01-110-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 2,210 2,051 1,878 6,139 11,000 55.81% 01-110-54-00-5473 KENDALL COUNTY PARATRANSIT - - - - - 30,000 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5474 1 SENIOR SERVICE FUNDING - - I - I - - I - 1 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5477 IBUILDING INSPECTIONS - - 1 (280) - (280) - 1 0.00% 2 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 01-110-54-00-5480 UTILITIES - 764 657 612 2,034 28,000 7.26% 01-110-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 143 143 143 143 572 - 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5487 SPONSORSHIPS - - - - - - 0.00% 01-110-54-00-5488 OFFICE CLEANING - - 1,196 1,196 2,392 14,400 16.61% 01-110-54-00-5490 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,384 6,174 230 592 8,380 16,600 50.48% 01-110-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL - - - - - - 0.00% 01-110-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES 70 2,295 166 191 2,722 15,000 18.15% 01-110-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT - - - - - - 0.00% 01-110-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 850 0.00% 01-110-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - 100 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:ADMINISTRATION 25,492 37,236 37,412 33,350 133,489 489,551 27.27% FINANCE EXPENDITURES 01-120-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 12,812 13,604 12,812 12,812 52,041 175,000 29.74% 01-120-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTIO 1,233 1,308 1,233 1,247 5,020 17,500 28.69% 01-120-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 967 1,028 974 985 3,954 13,005 30.40% 01-120-52-00-5216 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE 150 (150) - - - - 0.00% 01-120-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 01-120-54-00-5414 AUDITING SERVICES - - 2,000 12,000 14,000 45,000 31.11% 01-120-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - 1,000 0.00% 01-120-54-00-5430 PRINTING&DUPLICATING - - - - - 500 0.00% 01-120-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 45 45 45 135 600 22.50% 01-120-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - - - 107 107 500 21.39% 01-120-54-00-5460 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS 80 - 35 - 115 850 13.53% 01-120-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,847 1,945 56 290 4,138 42,000 9.85% 01-120-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 143 1,892 1,156 420 3,611 15,000 24.07% 01-120-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - 1,800 0.00% 01-120-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 343 128 136 607 2,500 24.28% 01-120-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIPMENT - - - - - 250 0.00% 01-120-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 2,500 0.00% 01-120-56-00-5640 IREPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - 500 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:FINANCE 17,232 20,015 18,438 28,043 83,729 320,505 26.12% COMMUNITY RELATIONS EXPENDITURES 01-130-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES - - - - - - 0.00% 01-130-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION - - - - - - 0.00% 01-130-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - 333 - - 333 333 100.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES: COMMUNITY RELATIONS - 333 - - 333 333 100.00% ENGINEERING EXPENDITURES 01-150-50-00-5010 ISALARIES &WAGES 12,929 1 55,188 1 10,006 1 78,123 1 172,000 1 45.42% 01-150-50-00-5020 JOVERTIME - I - I - I - - 1 500 1 0.00% 3 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 01-150-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTIO 1,230 5,248 952 - 7,430 16,500 45.03% 01-150-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 960 4,193 765 - 5,918 13,236 44.71% 01-150-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - 2,250 0.00% 01-150-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - 400 0.00% 01-150-54-00-5430 PRINTING&DUPLICATING 38 139 - 177 1,500 11.79% 01-150-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 104 103 - 207 2,200 9.39% 01-150-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - - - 23 23 500 4.50% 01-150-54-00-5460 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS - - - - 1,200 0.00% 01-150-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 508 1,098 98 1,704 32,550 5.23% 01-150-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 137 137 137 137 546 - 0.00% 01-150-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 27 - - 27 1,500 1.81% 01-150-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL - - - - - 100 0.00% 01-150-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 7 - - 7 1,000 0.70% 01-150-56-00-5622 ENGINEERING SUPPLIES - - - - - 1,500 0.00% 01-150-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT - - - - - 500 0.00% 01-150-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 4,550 0.00% 01-150-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - 1,000 0.00% 01-150-56-00-5645 IBOOKS &PUBLICATIONS - - - i - - 150 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:ENGINEERING 15,255 65,450 1 13,1991 257 94,161 253,136 37.20% POLICE EXPENDITURES 01-210-50-00-5010 SALARIES -POLICE OFFICERS 87,672 95,900 85,295 78,245 347,112 1,250,000 27.77% 01-210-50-00-5012 SALARIES-LIEUT/SERGEANTS/CHIEF 44,835 49,174 51,592 46,735 192,336 610,000 31.53% 01-210-50-00-5013 SALARIES -POLICE CLERKS 11,204 15,227 7,747 8,715 42,892 120,000 35.74% 01-210-50-00-5014 SALARIES -CROSSING GUARD 1,110 583 - - 1,693 20,000 8.46% 01-210-50-00-5015 PART-TIME SALARIES 6,068 3,090 4,155 2,990 16,304 39,000 41.80% 01-210-50-00-5017 CADET PROGRAM 875 1,375 1,247 1,231 4,727 13,500 35.02% 01-210-50-00-5020 OVERTIME 6,970 6,898 12,214 6,859 32,941 75,000 43.92% 01-210-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTIO 1,075 1,417 624 742 3,858 15,900 24.26% 01-210-52-00-5213 EMPLOYER CONTRI-POL PEN 57,847 119,062 4,521 44,426 225,856 375,000 60.23% 01-210-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 11,692 12,762 11,978 10,642 47,074 170,000 27.69% 01-210-52-00-5216 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE 250 (250) - - - - 0.00% 01-210-54-00-5410 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT - - - - - 2,800 0.00% 01-210-54-00-5411 POLICE COMMISSION 563 - - 581 1,144 15,000 7.62% 01-210-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES 50 920 150 (230) 890 12,000 7.42% 01-210-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING 183 1,264 83 946 2,477 10,000 24.77% 01-210-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - - - 11 11 200 5.60% 01-210-54-00-5430 PRINTING&DUPLICATING - 87 143 120 351 4,500 7.80% 01-210-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 1,757 1,748 1,931 5,436 36,500 14.89% 01-210-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 11 81 26 259 377 3,000 12.58% 01-210-54-00-5457 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING - - - - - - 0.00% 01-210-54-00-5460 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS 90 80 (20) 210 360 1,350 26.67% 4 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 01-210-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 35 598 1,034 1,667 4,000 41.68% 01-210-54-00-5466 LEGAL SERVICES - - - - - 10,000 0.00% 01-210-54-00-5467 ADMIN ADJ-HEARING OFFICER 325 1,400 2,260 975 4,960 15,000 33.07% 01-210-54-00-5469 NEW WORLD LIVE SCAN - - - - - 15,000 0.00% 01-210-54-00-5472 KENDALL CO.JUVE PROBATION - - - - - 3,000 0.00% 01-210-54-00-5484 MTD-ALERTS FEE 3,330 - - - 3,330 6,660 50.00% 01-210-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 277 - 75 75 427 - 0.00% 01-210-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 1,125 2,537 2,810 2,610 9,083 51,000 17.81% 01-210-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL 375 - 1,290 611 2,276 10,000 22.76% 01-210-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 91 196 245 532 4,000 13.31% 01-210-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES 13 837 148 621 1,618 8,000 20.23% 01-210-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - 55 55 7,000 0.79% 01-210-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 1,554 - 576 2,130 12,250 17.39% 01-210-56-00-5669 GREAT PROGRAM - - - - - 3,000 0.00% 01-210-56-00-5670 COMMUNITY RELATIONS - - - - - 500 0.00% 01-210-56-00-5673 NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH - - - - - 1,531 0.00% 01-210-56-00-5674 CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY - - - - - 1,839 0.00% 01-210-56-00-5678 COMPLIANCE CHECKS - - - - - 500 0.00% 01-210-56-00-5690 SUPPLIES -GRANT REIMBURSABLE - 69 - - 69 4,200 1.65% 01-210-56-00-5695 GASOLINE - 7,814 7,028 7,473 22,315 85,000 26.25% 01-210-56-00-5696 AMMUNITION - - - - - 2,000 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:POLICE 235,940 323,765 195,906 218,690 974,301 3,018,230 32.28% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES 01-220-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 17,750 26,622 11,148 8,690 64,210 240,000 26.75% 01-220-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTIO 1,688 2,532 1,060 826 6,106 27,275 22.39% 01-220-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 1,279 1,958 831 643 4,710 17,260 27.29% 01-220-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - - 1,200 0.00% 01-220-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - 700 0.00% 01-220-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - - - 64 64 150 42.40% 01-220-54-00-5430 PRINTING&DUPLICATING - 38 60 - 98 1,500 6.50% 01-220-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 109 108 112 330 1,500 21.98% 01-220-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - - - 63 63 500 12.53% 01-220-54-00-5459 INSPECTIONS - 680 - 7,061 7,741 20,000 38.71% 01-220-54-00-5460 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS - 422 453 - 875 1,500 58.33% 01-220-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - - 562 562 6,000 9.37% 01-220-54-00-5466 LEGAL SERVICES - 101 44 846 992 6,400 15.49% 01-220-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 137 137 137 137 546 - 0.00% 01-220-54-00-5486 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - - - - - 45,000 0.00% 01-220-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 16 - - 16 500 3.17% 01-220-56-00-5620 1 OPERATING SUPPLIES - - 79 - 79 3,000 2.64% 01-220-56-00-5630 1 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT - - - - - 125 5 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 01-220-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 2,500 0.00% 01-220-56-00-5645 BOOKS &PUBLICATIONS - - - - 500 0.00% 01-220-56-00-5690 SUPPLIES -GRANT REIMBURSABLE - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES: COMMUNITY DEVELP m 20,854 32,614 13,920 19,003 86,390 375,610 23.00% PUBLIC WORKS-STREET OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES 01-410-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 18,990 19,377 19,377 19,377 77,120 270,000 28.56% 01-410-50-00-5020 OVERTIME - - - 71 71 15,000 0.47% 01-410-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,806 1,843 1,843 1,849 7,341 30,000 24.47% 01-410-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 1,408 1,438 1,438 1,443 5,727 23,500 24.37% 01-410-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 01-410-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 198 196 205 599 4,020 14.91% 01-410-54-00-5455 MOSQUITO CONTROL - 6,500 - - 6,500 7,000 92.86% 01-410-54-00-5458 TREE&STUMP REMOVAL - 400 - 2,275 2,675 10,000 26.75% 01-410-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 84 46 20 150 1,000 15.02% 01-410-54-00-5480 UTILITIES - 5,199 6,868 6,988 19,055 80,000 23.82% 01-410-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 33 540 33 33 639 1,000 63.89% 01-410-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 275 - 845 1,119 30,000 3.73% 01-410-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL 93 144 174 259 670 5,000 13.40% 01-410-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES 34 1,632 1,564 949 4,179 9,500 43.99% 01-410-56-00-5626 HANGING BASKETS - 1,832 209 - 2,041 2,000 102.06% 01-410-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT 64 (64) - - - 1,750 0.00% 01-410-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 2,780 1,251 2,192 6,223 36,500 17.05% 01-410-56-00-5656 PROPERTY&BUILDING MAINT 66 1,238 664 2,471 4,438 30,000 14.79% 01-410-56-00-5695 GASOLINE - 2,886 1,279 2,914 7,078 33,600 21.07% 01-410-60-00-6040 IN-TOWN ROAD PROGRAM - - - 734 734 - 0.00% 01-410-60-00-6041 1 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION - - - - 1 4,000 0.00% TOTAL EXP:PUBLIC WORKS-STREET OPS 22,494 46,299 34,940 42,626 146,360 595,870 24.56% 6 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL IACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget PW-HEALTH&SANITATION EXPENDITURES 01-540-54-00-5442 GARBAGE SERVICES 100,361 - 200,660 301,021 1,195,000 25.19% 01-540-54-00-5443 LEAF PICKUP - - 600 - 600 6,000 10.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:PW HEALTH&SAN - 100,361 600 200,660 301,621 1201,000 25.11% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES EXPENDITURES 01-640-50-00-5092 POLICE SPECIAL DETAIL WAGES - 350 - - 350 5,000 7.00% 01-640-52-00-5216 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE 201,872 113,613 97,253 97,135 509,873 1,204,000 42.35% 01-640-52-00-5222 GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 1,275 1,237 1,252 1,035 4,799 26,000 18.46% 01-640-52-00-5223 DENTAL&VISION INSURANCE 15,474 9,695 7,432 8,431 41,032 114,000 35.99% 01-640-52-00-5224 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE - - - - - 150 0.00% 01-640-52-00-5230 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 12,508 - 18,762 - 31,269 60,000 52.12% 01-640-52-00-5231 LIABILITY INSURANCE 49,629 53,504 10,470 10,470 124,073 339,200 36.58% 01-640-54-00-5456 CORPORTATE COUNSEL - 11,046 8,493 9,889 29,427 130,000 22.64% 01-640-54-00-5461 LITIGATION COUNSEL - 65 10,719 10,750 21,533 60,000 35.89% 01-640-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 450 5,843 - 2,160 8,453 50,000 16.91% 01-640-54-00-5463 SPECIAL COUNSEL - 135 5,785 - 5,920 25,000 23.68% 01-640-54-00-5475 CABLE CONSORTIUM FEE - - - 19,039 19,039 85,000 22.40% 01-640-54-00-5479 COMMUNITY RELATIONS - - 440 - 440 - 0.00% 01-640-54-00-5481 MARKETING-HOTEL TAX - - 3,612 5,416 9,028 27,540 32.78% 01-640-54-00-5491 CITY PROPERTY TAX REBATE - - - - - 1,050 0.00% 01-640-54-00-5492 SALES TAX REBATE - - - 322,505 322,505 900,000 35.83% 01-640-54-00-5493 BUSINESS DISTRICT REBATE - - 23,787 24,471 48,258 300,000 16.09% 01-640-54-00-5494 ADMISSIONS TAX REBATE - - - - - 114,000 0.00% 01-640-54-00-5499 BAD DEBT - - - - - 1,250 0.00% 01-640-56-00-5625 REIMBURSEABLE REPAIRS - - - - - 5,000 0.00% 01-640-70-00-7799 CONTINGENCIES - - - - - 64,617 0.00% 01-640-99-00-9923 TRANSFER TO CITY WIDE CAPITAL 10,417 10,417 10,417 10,417 41,667 125,000 33.33% 01-640-99-00-9942 TRANSFER TO DEBT SERVICE 8,645 8,645 8,645 8,645 34,580 103,740 33.33% 01-640-99-00-9979 TRANSFER TO PARK&RECREATION 61,059 61,059 61,059 61,059 244,237 732,710 33.33% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:ADMIN SERVICES 361,328 275,608 268,125 591,423 1,496,484 4,473,257 33.45% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 901,625 1,889,074 629,750 1,243,761 4,664,211 11,491,374 40.59% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 698,595 901,680 582,540 1,134,052 3,316,868 10,727,492 30.92% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 203,030 987,394 47,210 109,709 1,347,343 763,882 FOX HILL SSA REVENUES 11-000-40-00-4011 1PROPERTY TAXES-FOX HILL SSA 599 1,272 64 576 2,511 3,786 66.33% 11-000-45-00-4500 JINVESTMENT EARNINGS - 0 0 om 1 - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:FOX HILL SSA 599 1,273 64 577 2,512 3,786 66.35% 7 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL IACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget FOX HILL SSA EXPENDITURES 11-111-54-00-5495 1 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 614 1 767 1 6140 1,994 1 3,804 1 52.43% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 599 1,273 64 577 2,512 3,786 66.35% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES - 614 767 614 1,994 3,804 52.43% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 599 659 (703) (37) 518 (18) SUNFLOWER SSA REVENUES 12-000-40-00-4012 1PROPERTY TAXES-SUNFLOWER SS 1,362 2,284 118 1,391 5,155 7,530 68.46% 12-000-45-00-4500 1INVESTMENT EARNINGS - 0 1 1 2 - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES: SUNFLOWER SSA 1,362 2,284 119 1,392 5,157 7,530 68.4901- SUNFLOWER SSA EXPENDITURES 12-112-54-00-5495 1 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 1,3091 650 1 1,3090 3,268 1 9,078 1 36.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 1,362 2,284 119 1,392 5,157 7,530 68.49% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES - 1,309 650 1,309 3,268 9,078 36.00% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 1,362 975 (531) 83 1,889 (1,548) MOTOR FUEL TAX REVENUES 15-000-41-00-4112 MOTOR FUEL TAX 34,752 34,093 31,723 36,973 137,542 355,000 38.74% 15-000-41-00-4113 MFT HIGH GROWTH - - - - - 20,000 0.00% 15-000-41-00-4172 ILLINOIS JOBS NOW PROCEEDS - - - 73,122 73,122 142,000 51.49% 15-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 29 28 24 25 106 1,000 10.59% 15-000-46-00-4605 REIMB-OLD JAIL,/DWTWN PARKING - - - - - 493,000 0.00% 15-000-46-00-4690 IREIMB -MISCELLANEOUS - - - - - - 0.00% 15-000-48-00-4850 IMISCELLANEOUS INCOME - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:MOTOR FUEL TAX 34,781 34,122 31,747 110,120 210,770 1,011,000 20.85% MOTOR FUEL TAX EXPENDITURES 15-155-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 0.00% 15-155-56-00-5618 SALT - - - - - 220,000 0.00% 15-155-56-00-5619 SIGNS - - 1,426 1,966 3,392 18,000 18.85% 15-155-56-00-5632 PATCHING - - - - - 50,000 0.00% 15-155-56-00-5633 COLD PATCH - - - - - 10,600 0.00% 15-155-56-00-5634 HOT PATCH - 1,728 2,729 3,044 7,501 13,000 57.70% 15-155-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 0.00% 15-155-60-00-6072 DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT - - - - - 55,000 0.00% 15-155-60-00-6073 GAME FARM ROAD PROJECT 28,200 - 6,400 - 34,600 150,000 23.07% 8 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 15-155-60-00-6074 FOX ROAD PROJECT - - - - - - 0.00% 15-155-60-00-6075 RIVER ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT - - - - - 25,000 0.00% 15-155-60-00-6079 ROUTE 47 EXPANSION - - - - - 119,400 0.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 34,781 34,122 31,747 110,120 210,770 1,011,000 20.85% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 28,200 1,728 10,555 5,010 45,493 661,000 6.88% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 6,581 32,393 21,192 105,110 165,277 350,000 MUNICIPAL BUILDING REVENUES 16-000-42-00-4214 DEVELOPMENT FEES 1,050 300 750 300 2,400 5,250 45.71% 16-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1,050 300 750 300 2,400 5,250 45.71% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 1,050 300 750 300 2,400 5,250 45.71% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES - - - - - - FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 1,050 300 750 300 2,400 1 5,250 POLICE CAPITAL REVENUES 20-000-42-00-4214 DEVELOPMENT FEES 1,800 300 1,500 450 4,050 10,500 38.57% 20-000-42-00-4217 WEATHER WARNING SIREN FEES - - - - - 6,000 0.00% 20-000-43-00-4315 DUI FINES 1,127 323 261 136 1,847 - 0.00% 20-000-43-00-4316 ELECTRONIC CITATION FEE - - 54 60 114 - 0.00% 20-000-43-00-4340 IMPOUND FEES - 184 - - 184 5,000 3.68% 20-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS - - - - - - 0.00% 20-000-48-00-4845 DONANTIONS - - - - - - 0.00% 20-000-48-00-4850 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - - - - - - 0.00% 20-000-48-00-4880 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 1,200 - - - 1,200 - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:POLICE CAPITAL 4,1271 807 1,815 646 7,395 21,500 34.40% POLICE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 20-200-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9.5 - - - 95 1,500 6.33% 20-200-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - 10,000 0.00% 20-200-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES - - - - - 2,500 0.00% 20-200-56-00-5621 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIPMENT - - - - - - 0.00% 20-200-60-00-6060 EQUIPMENT - - - - - 20,000 1 0.00% 20-200-60-00-6070 IVEHICLES - - - - - 20,000 1 0.00% 9 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget TOTAL FUND REVENUES 4,127 807 1,815 646 7,395 21,500 34.40% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 95 - - - 95 54,000 0.18% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 4,032 807 1 1,8151 646 7,300 (32,500) PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL REVENUES 21-000-42-00-4214 DEVELOPMENT FEES 4,400 900 3,500 1,150 9,950 24,500 40.61% 21-000-44-00-4418 MOWING INCOME 419 3,430 2,193 713 6,755 7,900 85.51% 21-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS - - - - - - 0.00% 21-000-48-00-4850 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - - - - - - 0.00% 21-000-48-00-4880 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS - I - I - I - - I - 1 0.00% 21-000-49-00-4922 JTSFR FROM PARK&REC CAPITAL 292 1 292 1 292 1 2920 1,1671 3,500 1 33.33% TOTAL REVENUES:PW CAPITAL REVENUES 5,111 4,621 5,984 2,155 17,872 35,900 49.78% PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 21-211-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 980 - 294 1,274 1,800 70.78% 21-211-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE - - - - - 4,500 0.00% 21-211-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 21-211-60-00-6060 EQUIPMENT - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 21-211-60-00-6070 VEHICLES - - - - - - 0.00% 21-211-92-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-PW BUILDING 4,587 2,312 2,324 2,336 11,558 28,254 40.91% 21-211-92-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-PW BUILDING 9,129 4,546 4,534 4,522 22,731 54,041 42.06% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 5,111 4,621 5,984 2,155 17,872 35,900 49.78% _ TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 13,716 7,838 6,858 7,152 35,564 92,595 38.41% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) (8,605) (3,216) (873) (4,997) (17,691) (56,695) PARK&RECREATION CAPITAL REVENUES 22-000-42-00-4215 PARKS CAPITAL FEES 250 - - 500 750 1,750 42.86% 22-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 7 7 7 9 28 80 35.60% 22-000-46-00-4690 REIMBURSEMENT-MISC - - - - - - 0.00% 22-000-48-00-4845 DONATIONS - - - - - - 0.00% 22-000-48-00-4880 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS - - - 900 900 1,000 90.00% TOTAL REVENUES:PARK&RECREATION CAPITAL 257 7 7 1,4090 1,678 2,830 1 59.31% PARK&RECREATION CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 22-222-60-00-6012 CRAWFORD PARK TRAIL - - - - - - 0.00% 22-222-60-00-6035 RAINTREE PARK - - - - - 120.000 0.00% 22-222-60-00-6042 BASEBALL FIELD CONSTRUCTION - - - - - - 0.00% 22-222-60-00-6060 EQUIPMENT - - - - - - 0.00% 22-222-99-00-9921 TRANSFER TO PW CAPITAL 292 292 292 292 1,167 3,500 33.33% 10 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL IACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget TOTAL FUND REVENUES 257 7 7 1,409 1,678 2,830 59.31% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 292 292 292 292 1,167 123,500 0.94% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) (35) (285) (285) 1,117 512 (120,670) CITY-WIDE CAPITAL REVENUES 23-000-41-00-4170 STATE GRANTS - - - - - 231,000 0.00% 23-000-42-00-4210 BUILDING PERMITS - - - - - 17,600 0.00% 23-000-42-00-4213 ENGINEERING CAPITAL FEES 500 - 500 100 1,100 3,000 36.67% 23-000-42-00-4214 DEVELOPMENT FEES - 85 - 700 785 20,000 3.93% 23-000-42-00-4222 ROAD CONTRIBUTION FEE 4,000 - 6,000 - 10,000 20,000 50.00% 23-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 2 2 2 3 10 - 0.00% 23-000-46-00-4690 REIMB -MISCELLANEOUS 4,469 3,560 - 1,549 9,578 - 0.00% 23-000-48-00-4880 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS - - - - - - 0.00% 23-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL 10,417 10,417 10,417 10,417 41,667 125,000 33.33% TOTAL REVENUES: CITY-WIDE CAPITAL 19,388 14,064 16,919 12,769 63,140 416,600 15.16% CITY-WIDE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 23-230-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 0.00% 23-230-60-00-6041 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION - - - - - - 0.00% 23-230-60-00-6070 VEHICLES - - - - - 4,000 0.00% 23-230-60-00-6078 PALMER COURT - - - - - - 0.00% 23-230-60-00-6092 SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROJECT I - I - - I - - 1 231,000 0.00% 23-230-97-00-8000 1 PRINCIPLE PMT-CLARK PRPTY 125,000 - - I - 0 125,000 125,000 100.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 19,388 14,064 16,919 12,769 63,140 416,600 15.16% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 125,000 - - - 125,000 360,000 34.72% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) (105,612) 14,064 16,919 12,769 (61,860) 56,600 DEBT SERVICE REVENUES 42-000-40-00-4006 PROPERTY TAXES-2005A BOND 51,906 106,836 4,056 39,864 202,662 324,179 62.52% 42-000-42-00-4208 RECAPTURE FEES-WATER&SEWE 200 50 125 50 425 - 0.00% 42-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS - 11 39 40 91 - 0.00% 42-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL 8,645 8,645 8,645 8,645 34,580 103,740 33.33% TOTAL REVENUES:DEBT SERVICE 60,751 115,542 12,866 48,599 237,758 427,919 55.56% DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES 42-420-54-00-5498 PAYING AGENT FEES - - - 1 3750 375 1 750 1 49.93% 42-420-81-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2004C - - - - - 95,000 0.00% 42-420-81-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2004C - 4,370 - - 4,370 8,740 50.00% 11 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 42-420-82-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2005A - - - - - 195,000 0.00% 42-420-82-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2005A 64,589 - - 64,589 129,179 50.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 60,751 115,542 12,866 48,599 237,758 427,919 55.56% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES - 68,959 - 375 69,334 428,669 16.17% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 60,751 46,583 12,866 48,225 168,424 (750) WATER FUND REVENUES 51-000-40-00-4007 PROPERTY TAXES-2007A BOND 21,434 44,117 1,675 16,461 83,687 133,866 62.52% 51-000-44-00-4424 WATER SALES 3,611 287,381 2,266 331,018 624,276 1,674,750 37.28% 51-000-44-00-4425 BULK WATER SALES - 950 - - 950 500 190.00% 51-000-44-00-4430 WATER METER SALES 3,405 780 2,235 875 7,295 25,000 29.18% 51-000-44-00-4440 WATER INFASTRUCTURE FEE 305 115,440 137 115,635 231,517 600,000 38.59% 51-000-44-00-4450 WATER CONNECTION FEE 16,710 7,400 10,640 5,030 39,780 125,000 31.82% 51-000-44-00-4473 RECAPTURE FEES - - - - - - 0.00% 51-000-45-00-4500 INTEREST INCOME - 5 16 17 38 2,000 1.88% 51-000-46-00-4690 REIMB -MISCELLANEOUS - - - - - - 0.00% 51-000-48-00-4821 BAD DEBT RECOVERY - - - - - - 0.00% 51-000-48-00-4822 RENTAL INCOME-WATER TOWER 311 2,524 2,524 2,524 7,883 50,000 15.77% 51-000-48-00-4850 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - - - - - - 0.00% 51-000-49-00-4952 TRANSFER FROM SEWER 6,989 6,989 6,989 6,989 27,954 83,863 33.33% 51-000-49-00-4998 1 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS - - - - - - 0.00% 51-000-49-00-4999 IDEVELOPER DONATIONS - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:WATER FUND 52,764 465,585 26,483 478,549 1,023,380 2,694,979 37.97% WATER OPERATIONS EXPENSES 51-510-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 26,985 27,920 27,335 26,064 108,303 365,000 29.67% 51-510-50-00-5020 OVERTIME - - 95 22 118 12,000 0.98% 51-510-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTIO 2,566 2,655 2,609 2,481 10,311 37,500 27.50% 51-510-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 1,984 2,055 2,018 1,915 7,971 28,200 28.27% 51-510-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - 330 330 2,000 16.50% 51-510-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - 1,600 0.00% 51-510-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - - 934 - 934 1,000 93.35% 51-510-54-00-5429 WATER SAMPLES 4,236 - - 33 4,269 14,000 30.49% 51-510-54-00-5430 PRINTING&DUPLICATING - - - - - 2,500 0.00% 51-510-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 1,453 1,446 1,495 4,395 24,500 17.94% 51-510-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - 3,226 583 2,760 6,568 22,000 29.86% 51-510-54-00-5460 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS - 435 - - 435 1,250 34.82% 51-510-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 783 1,460 1,650 3,893 6,000 64.88% 51-510-54-00-5466 ILEGAL SERVICES - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 51-510-54-00-5480 JUTILITIES - 11,508 1 23,852 1 23,444 58,803 304,500 19.31% 12 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 51-510-54-00-5483 JULIE SERVICES - 1,780 - - 1,780 3,500 50.87% 51-510-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 33 33 37 33 136 1,000 13.62% 51-510-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 485 - 181 666 10,000 6.66% 51-510-54-00-5499 BAD DEBT - - - - - 6,000 0.00% 51-510-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL 93 255 174 259 782 5,000 15.64% 51-510-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES - 793 2,563 1,969 5,326 20,500 25.98% 51-510-56-00-5625 REIMBURSABLE REPAIRS - - - - - - 0.00% 51-510-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT 64 (64) - - - 2,000 0.00% 51-510-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 1,600 0.00% 51-510-56-00-5638 TREATMENT FACILITY SUPPLIES 20 16,563 17,190 28,518 62,291 240,000 25.95% 51-510-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 59 3,335 3 - 3,397 9,500 35.76% 51-510-56-00-5664 METERS &PARTS 1,452 465 439 2,326 4,682 46,000 10.18% 51-510-56-00-5695 GASOLINE - 2,886 1,278 2,914 7,078 35,700 19.83% 51-510-60-00-6079 ROUTE 47 EXPANSION - - - - - 96,000 0.00% 51-510-65-00-6500 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE - - - - - - 0.00% 51-510-66-00-6600 AMMORTIZATION EXPENSE - - - - - - 0.00% 51-510-75-00-7502 GRANDE RESERVE COURT ORDER 22,989 22,989 22,989 22,989 91,955 275,868 33.33% 51-510-83-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2007A - - - - - 10,000 0.00% 51-510-83-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2007A - 61,933 - - 61,933 123,866 50.00% 51-510-85-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PMT-2002 CAP APPREC 285,000 - - - 285,000 285,000 100.00% 51-510-86-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PMT-2003 DEBT CERT - - - - - - 0.00% 51-510-86-00-8050 INTEREST PMT-2003 DEBT CERT - 16,575 - - 16,575 33,150 50.00% 51-510-87-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2006A - - - - - 70,000 0.00% 51-510-87-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2006A - 44,253 - - 44,253 88,506 50.00% 51-510-88-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2005C - - - - - 90,000 0.00% 51-510-88-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2005C - 38,863 - - 38,863 77,725 50.00% 51-510-89-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-IEPA 156300 - - - 42,534 42,534 85,600 49.69% 51-510-89-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-IEPA 156300 - - - 19,981 19,981 39,430 50.67% 51-510-99-00-9901 TRANSFER TO GENERAL 7,655 7,655 7,655 7,655 30,621 91,863 33.33% TOTAL FUND REVENUES _ 52,764 465,585 26,483 478,549 1,023,380 2,694,979 37.97% TOTAL FUND EXPENSES 353,135 268,835 112,659 189,554 924,182 2,571,858 35.93% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) (300,370) 196,750 (86,177) 288,995 99,198 123,121 SEWER FUND REVENUES 52-000-40-00-4009 PROPERTY TAXES-2004B BOND 41,414 85,240 3,236 31,806 161,697 258,650 62.52% 52-000-40-00-4013 PROPERTY TAXES-2005D BOND 221,914 456,751 17,342 170,429 866,435 1,385,950 62.52% 52-000-40-00-4014 PROPERTY TAXES-2008 BOND 17,627 36,281 1,378 13,538 68,823 110,090 62.52% 52-000-44-00-4435 SEWER MAINTENANCE FEES 184 123,655 79 123,755 247,673 714,000 34.69% 52-000-44-00-4455 ISW CONNECTION FEES-OPS 800 1 400 1 600 1 200 2,000 5,000 40.00% 52-000-44-00-4456 SW CONNECTION FEES-CAPITAL 7,200 3,600 1 5,400 1 1,800 N 18,0001 30,000 1 60.00% 13 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 52-000-44-00-4457 SW CONNECTION FEES-ROB ROY 294,000 - - - 294,000 600,000 49.00% 52-000-44-00-4460 SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE FEES - - - - - 0.00% 52-000-44-00-4465 RIVER CROSSING FEES - - - - - - 0.00% 52-000-45-00-4500 INTEREST INCOME 97 159 342 350 949 1.800 52.71% 52-000-46-00-4690 REIMB -MISCELLANEOUS 155 - - - 155 - 0.00% 52-000-48-00-4821 BAD DEBT RECOVERY - - - - - - 0.00% 52-000-48-00-4850 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - - - - - - 0.00% 52-000-49-00-4998 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS - - - - - - 0.00% 52-000-49-00-4999 DEVELOPER DONATIONS - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES: SEWER FUND 583,392 706,086 28,377 341,878 1659 732 3,105,490 53.45% SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSES 52-520-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 18,877 30,792 18,877 14,258 82,804 256,000 32.35% 52-520-50-00-5020 OVERTIME 76 - - 49 125 2,000 6.23% 52-520-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONRTRIBUTION 1,802 2,928 1,795 1,361 7,886 25,000 31.55% 52-520-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 1,391 2,297 1,401 1,051 6,140 20,230 30.35% 52-520-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - - 500 0.00% 52-520-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - 500 0.00% 52-520-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 129 127 133 389 1,800 21.64% 52-520-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 45 237 46 328 5,000 6.57% 52-520-54-00-5480 UTILITIES - 1,331 1,278 1,322 3,931 40,000 9.83% 52-520-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 33 33 33 33 132 1,000 13.20% 52-520-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - 243 243 4,000 6.07% 52-520-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL 93 144 174 259 670 2,500 26.80% 52-520-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 44 - - 44 2,000 2.19% 52-520-56-00-5613 LIFT STATION MAINTENANCE - 702 1,000 2,241 3,943 15,000 26.29% 52-520-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES - 425 558 806 1,788 4,500 39.74% 52-520-56-00-5625 REIMBURSABLE REPAIRS - - - - - - 0.00% 52-520-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT 64 462 - - 526 2,500 21.05% 52-520-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 1,200 0.00% 52-520-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 119 905 1 1,024 25,000 4.10% 52-520-56-00-5695 GASOLINE - 2,886 1,278 2,914 7,078 27,300 25.93% 52-520-56-00-5699 BAD DEBT - - - - - 1,500 0.00% 52-520-60-00-6079 ROUTE 47 EXPANSION - - - - - 24,600 0.00% 52-520-65-00-6500 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE - - - - - - 0.00% 52-520-66-00-6600 AMMORTIZATION EXPENSE - - - - - - 0.00% 52-520-75-00-7500 LENNAR-RAINTREE SWR RECAP 30,996 - - - 30,996 30,996 100.00% 52-520-84-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2004B - - - - - 160,000 0.00% 52-520-84-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2004B - 49,325 - - 49,325 98,650 50.00% 52-520-90-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2003IRRB - - - - - 95,000 0.00% 52-520-90-00-8050 1 INTEREST PAYMENT-2003IRRB - - 35,071 - 35,071 70,143 50.00% 52-520-91-00-8000 1 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2004A - - - - - 170,000 0.00% 14 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 52-520-91-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2004A - 12,046 - - 12,046 24,093 50.00% 52-520-93-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2005D - - - - - 1,000,000 0.00% 52-520-93-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2005D - 192,975 - 192,975 385,950 50.00% 52-520-94-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2008 REF - - - - - 0.00% 52-520-94-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2008 REF - 55,045 - 55,045 110,090 50.00% 52-520-95-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-IEPA 01300 - - 18,155 18,155 36,635 49.56% 52-520-95-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-IEPA 01300 - - 1,335 - 1,335 2,344 56.96% 52-520-96-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-IEPA 115300 - - - 42,883 42,883 86,329 49.67% 52-520-96-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-IEPA 115300 - - - 10,642 10,642 20,721 51.36% 52-520-99-00-9901 1 TRANSFER TO GENERAL 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 27,682 83,045 33.33% 52-520-99-00-9952 ITRANSFER TO WATER 6,989 6,989 6,989 6,989 27,954 83,863 33.33% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 583,392 706,086 28,377 341,878 1,659,732 3,105,490 53.45% TOTAL FUND EXPENSES 67,241 365,636 96,134 92,152 621,163 2,919,989 21.27% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 516,151 340,449 (67,757) 249,726 1,038,570 185,501 LAND CASH REVENUES 72-000-41-00-4170 STATE GRANTS - - - - - 400.000 0.00% 72-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4700 WHITE OAK UNIT 1 &2 - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4701 WHITE OAK UNIT 3 &4 - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4702 WHISPERING MEADOWS (K HILL) 312,655 - - - 312,655 - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4703 AUTUMN CREEK 3,077 - 2,051 1,026 6,153 20,000 30.77% 72-000-47-00-4704 BLACKBERRY WOODS - - - - - 500 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4705 BRISTOL BAY - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4706 CALEDONIA - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4707 RIVER'S EDGE - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4708 COUNTRY HILLS - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4709 BRIARWOOD - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4710 FOXFIELD II PARK - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4711 FOX HIGHLANDS - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4712 GREENBRIAR - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4713 PRESTWICK - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4714 HEARTLAND CIRCLE - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4715 KYLN'S RIDGE - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4716 MONTALBANO HOMES - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4717 PRAIRIE GARDEN - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4718 SUNFLOWER - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4719 VILLAS AT THE PRESERVE - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4720 WOODWORTH - - - - - - 0.00% 72-000-47-00-4721 WIL,DWOOD - - - - - - 0.00% 15 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget TOTAL REVENUES:LAND CASH 315,732 - 2,051 1,026 318,809 420,500 1 75.82% LAND CASH EXPENDITURES 72-720-60-00-6029 CALEDONIA - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-60-00-6031 HEARTLAND CIRCLE - - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-60-00-6032 MOSIER HOLDING COSTS - - - 11,000 11,000 11,000 100.00% 72-720-60-00-6036 RAINTREE VILLAGE 78,878 3,173 54,417 49,658 186,127 270,000 68.94% 72-720-60-00-6037 GRANDE RESERVE BIKE TRAIL - - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-60-00-6038 WHEATON WOODS NATURE TRAIL - - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-60-00-6039 BRISTOL BAY-PARK A - - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-60-00-6043 BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL PARK - - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-60-00-6044 HOPKINS PARK - - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-60-00-6045 1 RIVERFRONT PARK - - - - - - 0.00% 72-720-99-00-9901 ITRANSFER TO GENERAL 1,674 1,674 1,674 1,6740 6,695 20,084 33.33% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 315,732 - 2,051 1,026 318,809 420,500 75.82% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 80,552 4,847 56,091 62,331 203,821 301,084 67.70% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 235,180 (4,847) (54,040) (61,306)M 114,9871 119,416 PARK&RECREATION REVENUES 79-000-41-00-4182 MISC INTERGOVERNMENTAL - - - - - - 0.00% 79-000-44-00-4402 SPECIAL EVENTS - 1,320 20 - 1,340 - 0.00% 79-000-44-00-4403 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 5,557 3,653 400 6,089 15,699 - 0.00% 79-000-44-00-4404 ATHLETICS AND FITNESS 18,466 12,412 29,027 7,343 67,248 - 0.00% 79-000-44-00-4440 PROGRAM FEES 26,232 3,125 3,092 495 32,944 180,000 18.30% 79-000-44-00-4441 CONCESSION REVENUE 14,297 16,042 3,906 613 34,858 30,000 116.19% 79-000-44-00-4443 HOMETOWN DAYS 4,250 350 3,660 12,242 20,502 135,000 15.19% 79-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 14 16 11 10 50 300 16.82% 79-000-46-00-4680 REIMB -LIABILITY INSURANCE - - - - - - 0.00% 79-000-46-00-4690 REIMB -MISCELLANEOUS 2,916 70 - 350 3,336 - 0.00% 79-000-48-00-4820 RENTAL INCOME 38,944 400 1,250 (300) 40,294 86,000 46.85% 79-000-48-00-4825 FACILITY AND PARK RENTALS 14,374 6,681 (215) 1,026 21,866 - 0.00% 79-000-48-00-4846 SPONSORSHIPS/DONANTIONS 490 200 - 804 1,494 11,200 13.34% 79-000-48-00-4850 IMISCELLANEOUS INCOME 18 486 1,375 180 2,059 500 411.80% 79-000-49-00-4901 ITRANSFER FROM GENERAL 61,059 61,059 61,059 61,059 244,237 732,710 33.33% TOTAL REVENUES:PARK&RECREATION 186,617 105,814 103,585 89,910 485,926 1,175,710 41.33% PARKS DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 79-790-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 28,371 27,641 27,664 28,899 112,576 370,000 30.43% 79-790-50-00-5015 PART-TIME SALARIES 763 4,309 4,698 4,204 13,974 17,000 82.20% 79-790-50-00-5020 OVERTIME - - - - - 3,000 0.00% 16 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 79-790-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTIO 2,698 2,629 2,631 2,763 10,720 37,730 28.41% 79-790-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 2,164 2,379 2,411 2,479 9,433 30,000 31.44% 79-790-52-00-5216 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE - - - 150 150 - 0.00% 79-790-52-00-5625 REIMBURSABLE REPAIRS - - - - - - 0.00% 79-790-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - 100 - - 100 2,600 3.85% 79-790-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING I - - - - - 750 0.00% 79-790-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 323 251 261 835 3,780 22.10% 79-790-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - 49 - 49 4,500 1.09% 79-790-54-00-5466 LEGAL SERVICES - - 555 416 971 4,000 24.28% 79-790-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 178 178 25 320 701 2,500 28.05% 79-790-56-00-5460 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS - - - - - - 0.00% 79-790-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL - 336 317 155 808 4,100 19.71% 79-790-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 47 - - 47 300 15.64% 79-790-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES - 3,417 604 309 4,330 22,500 19.25% 79-790-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT - - 10 34 43 2,250 1.93% 79-790-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWA - - - - - 500 0.00% 79-790-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 11,588 6,051 1,075 18,7141 48,000 38.99% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:PARKS DEPT 34,174 r 52,947 45,267 41,064 173,452 553,510 31.34% RECREATION DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 79-795-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 14,458 16,152 14,692 14,692 59,992 190,000 31.57% 79-795-50-00-5015 PART-TIME SALARIES 1,406 637 1,773 1,360 5,176 25,000 20.71% 79-795-50-00-5020 OVERTIME - - - - - 300 0.00% 79-795-50-00-5045 CONCESSION WAGES 2,868 3,059 2,522 - 8,448 12,500 67.58% 79-795-50-00-5046 PRE-SCHOOL WAGES 3,410 1,557 13 10 4,990 25,000 19.96% 79-795-50-00-5052 INSTRUCTORS WAGES 1,195 2,182 2,115 1,004 6,496 25,000 25.98% 79-795-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,768 1,939 1,712 1,547 6,966 22,000 31.67% 79-795-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 1,763 1,794 1,563 1,242 6,363 20,000 31.81% 79-795-52-00-5216 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE - - - (150) (150) - 0.00% 79-795-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 79-795-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - 1,000 0.00% 79-795-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - - - 8,289 8,289 27,000 30.70% 79-795-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 253 251 224 728 4,300 16.94% 79-795-54-00-5447 SCHOLARSHIPS - - - - - 1,000 0.00% 79-795-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - - 177 800 977 8,000 12.21% 79-795-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,278 5,479 18,245 6,521 32,522 47,000 69.20% 79-795-54-00-5480 UTILITIES - 1,811 1,014 965 3,790 22,000 17.23% 79-795-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE - - 25 - 25 4,500 0.56% 79-795-54-00-5490 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS - - - - - 1,500 0.00% 79-795-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - 1,000 0.00% 79-795-54-00-5496 1 PROGRAM REFUNDS 480 1 1,005 1,452 1,380 4,317 7,000 61.67% 79-795-56-00-5600 IWEARING APPAREL 0 - I - - I - m - - 17 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 79-795-56-00-5602 HOMETOWN DAYS SUPPLIES 1,629 - 34,015 19,098 54,742 100,000 54.74% 79-795-56-00-5606 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 2,500 2,797 2,359 851 8,507 55,000 15.47% 79-795-56-00-5607 CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,561 4,882 4,832 215 11,491 18,000 63.84% 79-795-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES 120 70 - 158 349 3,000 11.62% 79-795-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES 966 1,121 244 969 3,300 5,500 60.00% 79-795-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS &EQUIPMENT - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 79-795-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 500 0.00% 79-795-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 34 - 71 106 2,000 5.28% 79-795-56-00-5645 BOOKS &PUBLICATIONS - - - - - 100 0.00% 79-795-56-00-5690 SUPPLIES -GRANT REIMBURSABLE - - - - - 500 0.00% 79-795-56-00-5695 IGASOLINE - 44 81 84 209 3,000 6.98% TOTAL EXPENDITURES:RECREATION DEPT 36,402 44,816 87,084 59,330 227,633 635,700 35.81% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 186,617 105,814 103,585 89,910 485,926 1,175,710 41.33% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 70,576 97,763 132,351 100,394 401,085 1,189,210 33.73% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 116,040 8,051 (28,766) (10,484) 84,841 (13,500) RECREATION CENTER REVENUES 80-000-44-00-4440 PROGRAM FEES 7,814 4,553 2,680 9,804 24,851 125,000 19.88% 80-000-44-00-4441 CONCESSION REVENUE 975 900 813 868 3,555 12,500 28.44% 80-000-44-00-4444 MEMBERSHIP FEES 42,167 41,211 36,594 36,404 156,376 410,000 38.14% 80-000-44-00-4445 GUEST FEES 580 723 776 518 2,597 3,500 74.20% 80-000-44-00-4446 SWIM CLASS FEES 5,577 6,106 2,744 2,472 16,899 35,000 48.28% 80-000-44-00-4447 PERSONAL TRAINING FEES 336 816 308 1,044 2,504 15,000 16.69% 80-000-44-00-4448 TANNING SESSION FEES 575 129 160 108 972 2,500 38.88% 80-000-45-00-4500 INTEREST INCOME - - - - - - 0.00% 80-000-48-00-4820 RENTAL INCOME 6 31 299 174 510 5,000 10.19% 80-000-48-00-4845 IDONANTIONS 230 1 - 1 2950 525 1 2,000 1 26.25% 18 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 80-000-48-00-4850 IMISCELLANEOUS INCOME 37 1 32 1 5 17 90 500 18.00% TOTAL REVENUES:RECREATION CTR REVENUES 58,296 54,501 44,378 51,704 208,879 611,000 34.19% RECREATION CENTER EXPENSES 80-800-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 2,631 4,509 2,000 2,000 11,140 34,200 32.57% 80-800-50-00-5015 PART-TIME SALARIES 7,934 8,337 6,533 6,872 29,675 98,000 30.28% 80-800-50-00-5020 OVERTIME - - - - - 500 0.00% 80-800-50-00-5046 PRE-SCHOOL WAGES 4,092 105 86 148 4,430 35,000 12.66% 80-800-50-00-5052 INSTRUCTORS WAGES 3,555 4,350 4,488 5,394 17,788 65,000 27.37% 80-800-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,043 956 562 504 3,065 10,000 30.65% 80-800-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 1,382 1,318 1,003 1,107 4,809 17,708 27.16% 80-800-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - - - 0.00% 80-800-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - 200 0.00% 80-800-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - - - - - 1,500 0.00% 80-800-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 394 358 363 1,115 3,600 30.98% 80-800-54-00-5447 SCHOLARSHIPS - - - - - 900 0.00% 80-800-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - - - - - 600 0.00% 80-800-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 853 3,090 1,553 1,064 6,561 17,700 37.07% 80-800-54-00-5480 UTILITIES - 3,746 3,657 5,388 12,791 49,000 26.10% 80-800-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE 36,198 18,198 19,050 18,698 92,144 226,500 40.68% 80-800-54-00-5490 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS - - - 114 114 200 57.20% 80-800-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - 361 376 737 21,200 3.48% 80-800-54-00-5496 PROGRAM REFUNDS 318 664 434 693 2,109 5,500 38.34% 80-800-54-00-5497 PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT 30,751 - 30,751 - 61,503 53,680 114.57% 80-800-56-00-5600 WEARING APPAREL - - - - - - 0.00% 80-800-56-00-5606 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 37 611 1,307 307 2,262 17,000 13.30% 80-800-56-00-5607 CONCESSION SUPPLIES - 889 468 879 2,236 6,300 35.49% 80-800-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 37 46 158 241 2,600 9.25% 80-800-56-00-5620 OPERATING SUPPLIES 287 270 1,330 296 2,183 6,200 35.21% 80-800-56-00-5630 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIPMENT - - - - - 6,300 0.00% 80-800-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - 1,000 0.00% 80-800-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - 362 327 1,068 1,757 11,000 15.98% 80-800-56-00-5645 BOOKS &PUBLICATIONS - - I - I - - 1 50 1 0.00% 80-800-56-00-5695 IGASOLINE - 44 1 81 1 84 209 1 300 1 69.81% _ TOTAL FUND REVENUES 58,296 54,501 44,378 51,704 208,879 611,000 34.19% TOTAL FUND EXPENSES 89,079 47,882 74,394 45,514 256,869 691,738 37.13% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) (30,783) 6,620 (30,016) 6,190 (47,990) (80,738) 19 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL 1ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 L June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget LIBRARY OPERATIONS REVENUES 82-000-40-00-4005 PROPERTY TAXES-LIBRARY 108,835 221,702 9,030 83,169 422,735 675,000 62.63% 82-000-41-00-4120 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX - 755 - - 755 5,000 15.10% 82-000-41-00-4170 STATE GRANTS - - - - - 17,200 0.00% 82-000-42-00-4211 DEVELOPMENT FEES-BOOKS 875 - - 2,175 3,050 8,000 38.13% 82-000-43-00-4330 LIBRARY FINES 1,397 1,377 1,053 1,310 5,137 13,000 39.51% 82-000-44-00-4401 LIBRARY SUBSCRIPTION CARDS 1,306 1,234 627 1,313 4,480 8,000 55.99% 82-000-44-00-4422 COPY FEES 320 332 347 263 1,262 3,000 42.05% 82-000-44-00-4440 PROGRAM FEES 20 23 - 20 63 2,000 3.15% 82-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 1 15 15 17 48 250 19.26% 82-000-46-00-4682 REIMBURSEMENT-INSURANCE - - - - - - 0.00% 82-000-46-00-4690 REIMBURSEMENT-MISCELLANEOU - - - - - - 0.00% 82-000-48-00-4820 RENTAL INCOME 111 140 185 320 756 1,500 50.40% 82-000-48-00-4824 DVD RENTAL INCOME 441 601 458 560 2,060 4,000 51.49% 82-000-48-00-4832 MEMORIALS 1,000 400 - 1,120 2,520 - 0.00% 82-000-48-00-4850 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 7 40 72 62 181 - 0.00% 82-000-48-00-4881 SALE OF BOOKS - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:LIBRARY 114,312 226,619 11,786 90,329 443,045 736,950 60.12% LIBRARY OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES 82-820-50-00-5010 SALARIES &WAGES 18,661 19,302 18,707 18,707 75,376 241,000 31.28% 82-820-50-00-5015 PART-TIME SALARIES 16,163 14,802 14,474 15,031 60,470 193,000 31.33% 82-820-52-00-5212 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,775 1,836 1,779 1,779 7,168 22,500 31.86% 82-820-52-00-5214 FICA CONTRIBUTION 2,608 2,553 2,483 2,525 10,170 40,000 25.43% 82-820-52-00-5216 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE - 7,295 7,295 - 14,590 87,975 16.58% 82-820-52-00-5222 GROUP LIFE INSURANCE - 63 63 - 127 1,000 12.67% 82-820-52-00-5223 DENTAL&VISION INSURANCE - 575 575 - 1,151 6,950 16.56% 82-820-54-00-5412 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-54-00-5415 TRAVEL&LODGING - - - - - 500 0.00% 82-820-54-00-5423 PUBLIC RELATIONS - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-54-00-5426 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING - - - - - 100 0.00% 82-820-54-00-5440 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 694 705 699 2,097 8,500 24.67% 82-820-54-00-5452 POSTAGE&SHIPPING - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 82-820-54-00-5460 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS - - - (234) (234) 14,000 -1.67% 82-820-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 1,746 1,960 2,444 6,151 29,000 21.21% 82-820-54-00-5466 LEGAL SERVICES - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 82-820-54-00-5468 AUTOMATION - - 7 4,247 4,255 30,000 14.18% 82-820-54-00-5480 UTILITIES - - 582 276 858 15,000 5.72% 82-820-54-00-5485 RENTAL&LEASE PURCHASE - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-54-00-5495 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE - - - - - 4,000 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5610 OFFICE SUPPLIES - 1,053 - - 1,053 8,000 13.16% 82-820-56-00-5620 1 OPERATING SUPPLIES - 631 1 579 1 1,2101 9,000 1 13.45% 20 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget 82-820-56-00-5635 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5640 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE i - - - - i - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5671 LIBRARY PROGRAMMING - 162 8 - 170 2,000 8.51% 82-820-56-00-5676 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5680 ADULT BOOKS - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5681 JUVENILE BOOKS - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5682 REFERENCE BOOKS - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5683 AUDIO BOOKS - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5684 COMPACT DISCS &OTHER MUSIC - - - - - - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5685 DVD'S - - - - - 2,000 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5686 BOOKS-DEVELOPMENT FEES - - 143 - 143 8,000 1.79% 82-820-56-00-5698 MEMORIALS &GIFTS - - 453 485 938 - 0.00% 82-820-56-00-5699 MISCELLANEOUS - - 38 - 38 250 15.29% 82-820-70-00-7799 CONTINGENCIES - - - 30 30 1,000 3.00% 82-820-99-00-9984 ITRANSFER TO LIBRARY DVLP - - - 1 332,5190 332,519 332,500 100.01% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 114,312 226,619 11,786 90,329 443,045 736,950 60.12% 71- 1 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 39,207 50,713 49,851 378,509 518,279 1,060,275 48.88% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 75,105 175,906 (38,065) (288,180) (75,234) (323,325) LIBRARY DEBT SERVICE REVENUES 83-000-40-00-4015 1 PROPERTY TAXES 115,416 237,557 8,894 88,627 450,495 720,800 62.50% 83-000-45-00-4500 1INVESTMENT EARNINGS - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:LIBRARY DEBT SERVICE 115,416 237,557 8,894 88,627 450,495 720,800 62.50% LIBRARY DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES 83-830-83-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2005B - - - - - 175,000 0.00% 83-830-83-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2005B - 158,063 - - 158,063 316,125 50.00% 83-830-84-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2006 - - - - - 175,000 0.00% 83-830-84-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2006 - 27,338 - - 27,338 54,675 50.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 115,416 237,557 8,894 88,627 450,495 720,800 0.00% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES - 185,400 - - 185,400 720,800 0.00% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 115,416 52,157 8,894 88,627 265,095 - 21 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL IACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUES 84-000-42-00-4212 DEVELOPMENT FEES 875 - 2,175 3,050 8,000 38.13% 84-000-45-00-4500 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 13 12 13 14 53 500 10.52% 84-000-49-00-4982 TRANSFER FROM LIBRARY OPS - - 332,519 332,519 332,500 100.01% TOTAL REVENUES:LIBRARY DVLP FEES 888 12 13 334,708 335,621 341,000 148.65% LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES 84-840-60-00-6020 IBUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES - 3,130 - 0 3,1301 4,000 1 78.25% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 888 12 13 334,708 335,621 341,000 0.00% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES - 3,130 - - 3,130 4,000 0.00% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 888 (3,118) 13 334,708 332,491 337,000 FOX INDUSTRIAL TIF REVENUES 85-000-40-00-4085 1PROPERTY TAXES-FOX INDUS TI 22,114 111,327 6,311 9,005 148,758 - 0.00% 85-000-45-00-4500 JINVESTMENT EARNINGS - 9 33 35 77 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:FOX INDUSTRIAL TIF 22,114 111,336 6,344 9,040 148,834 0.00% FOX INDUSTRIAL TIF EXPENDITURES 85-850-54-00-5420 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES - 214 - 907 1,121 0.00% 85-850-98-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2002 - - - - - - 0.00% 85-850-98-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2002 3,391 - - - 3,391 - 0.00% 85-850-99-00-9999 TRANSFER OUT - - - - - - 0.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 22,114 111,336 6,344 9,040 148,834 - 0.00% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 3,391 214 - 907 4,512 FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 18,723 111,122 6,344 8,133 144,322 - COUNTRYSIDE TIF REVENUES 87-000-40-00-4087 1PROPERTY TAXES-CNTRYSDE TIF - - - - - 6,250 0.00% 87-000-45-00-4500 1 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 36 105 288 288 717 4,000 17.92% TOTAL REVENUES: COUNTRYSIDE TIF 36 105 288 288 717 10,250 17.92% COUNTRYSIDE TIF EXPENDITURES 87-870-54-00-5420 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES - 93 - - 93 1,000 9.25% 87-870-54-00-5498 PAYING AGENT FEES - - - - - 400 0.00% 87-870-80-00-8000 PRINCIPLE PAYMENT-2005 - - - - - 175,000 0.00% 87-870-80-00-8050 INTEREST PAYMENT-2005 65,571 - - - 65,571 131,143 50.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES m 361 1051 2881 288 E 7171 1 6.99% 22 ACTUALS BY MONTH(Cash Basis) Year-to-Date ANNUAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION May-11 June-11 July-11 August-11 Totals BUDGET %of Budget TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 65,571 93 1 - - 65,664 307,543 21.35% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) (65,535)1 13 1 288 1 288 (64,947) (297,293) DOWNTOWN TIF REVENUES 88-000-40-00-4088 1PROPERTY TAXES-DOWNTOWN TIF 4,450 38,640 1,232 923 45,245 88,550 51.10% 88-000-45-00-4500 JINVESTMENT EARNINGS - 3 11 11 24 - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES:DOWNTOWN TIF 4,450 38,643 1,242 934 45,269 88,550 51.12% DOWNTOWN TIF EXPENDITURES 88-880-54-00-5420 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES - 879 370 555 1,804 1,500 120.25% 88-880-54-00-5462 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - - - - - 0.00% 88-880-60-00-6079 ROUTE 47 EXPANSION - - - - - 515,340 0.00% TOTAL FUND REVENUES 4,450 38,643 1,242 934 45,269 88,550 51.12% TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES - 879 370 555 1,804 516,840 0.35% FUND SURPLUS(DEFICIT) 4,450 37,764 872 379 43,465 (428,290) 23 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS For the Period Ending August 31,2011* %of August YTD YTD to FY 2012 Actual Actual Budget Budget GENERAL FUND(01) Revenues Local Taxes Property Taxes 325,791 1,656,271 62.1% 2,665,964 Municipal Sales Tax 225,479 815,076 32.0% 2,550,000 Non-Home Rule Sales Tax - - 0.0% - Electric Utility Tax - 136,433 23.1% 591,600 Natural Gas Tax - 102,673 35.3% 290,700 Telephone Utility Tax 42,738 172,462 32.2% 535,500 Cable Franchise Fees 57,242 113,600 55.7% 204,000 Hotel Tax 5,900 18,866 61.7% 30,600 Amusement Tax 90,372 91,585 68.3% 134,000 Admissions Tax - - 0.0% 190,000 Business District Tax 24,471 92,276 30.8% 300,000 Auto Rental Tax 651 3,047 42.7% 7,140 Para Mutuel Tax 1,811 8,337 55.6% 15,000 Total Taxes 774,455 3,210,626 42.7% 7,514,504 Intergovernmental State Income Tax 156,645 493,408 36.8% 1,340,000 Local Use Tax 19,884 81,771 38.9% 210,000 Road&Bridge Tax 22,098 106,758 65.0% 164,296 Personal Property Replacement Tax 529 5,676 43.7% 13,000 Other Intergovernmental 7,097 11,149 99.5% 11,200 Total Intergovernmental 206,253 698,763 40.2% 1,738,496 Licenses and Permits Liquor Licenses 245 3,518 8.8% 40,000 Building Permits 9,503 52,855 43.2% 122,400 Other Permits/Licenses 10 1,096 33.7% 3,250 Total Licenses&Permits 9,758 57,469 34.7% 165,650 Fines and Forfeits Traffic Fines 5,495 31,296 32.9% 95,000 Administrative Adjudication 2,445 7,677 25.6% 30,000 Police Tows 5,500 26,000 28.9% 90,000 Total Fines and Forfeits 13,440 64,973 30.2% 215,000 Charges for Services Garbage Surcharge 205,203 409,180 34.8% 1,175,000 Collection Fee-YBSD - - 0.0% 123,932 Other Services - 350 7.0% 5,000 Total Charges for Services 205,203 409,530 31.4% 1,303,932 Investment Earnings 310 703 35.2% 2,000 Reimb/Miscellaneous/Other Financing Sources Reimb-Legal Expenses 1,090 9,306 77.5% 12,000 Reimb-Health Ins Contributions 12,196 78,163 29.5% 264,800 Other Reimbursements 2,459 64,714 101.1% 64,000 Rental Income 655 2,930 32.6% 9,000 Miscellaneous Income 1,693 2,038 29.1% 7,000 Transfers In 16,249 64,997 33.3% 194,992 Total Miscellaneous 34,342 222,148 40.3% 551,792 Total Revenues and Transfers 1,243,761 4,664,212 40.6% 11,491,374 24 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS For the Period Ending August 31,2011* %of August YTD YTD to FY 2012 Actual Actual Budget Budget GENERAL FUND(01) Expenditures Administration 33,350 133,489 27.3% 489,551 Salaries 24,369 90,424 33.1% 273,395 Benefits 3,876 14,211 31.5% 45,106 Contractual Services 4,914 26,132 16.8% 155,100 Supplies 191 2,722 17.1% 15,950 Finance 28,043 83,729 26.1% 320,505 Salaries 12,812 52,041 29.7% 175,000 Benefits 2,232 8,975 29.4% 30,505 Contractual Services 12,862 22,106 20.2% 109,250 Supplies 136 607 10.6% 5,750 Community Relations - 333 100.0% 333 Salaries - - 0.0% 0 Benefits - - 0.0% 0 Contractual Services - 333 100.0% 333 Supplies - - 0.0% 0 Engineering 257 94,161 37.2% 253.136 Salaries - 78,123 45.3% 172,500 Benefits - 13,348 44.9% 29,736 Contractual Services 257 2,683 6.4% 42,100 Supplies - 7 0.1% 8,800 Police 218,690 974,301 32.3% 3.018,230 Salaries 137,916 605,064 29.5% 2,052,500 Overtime 6,859 32,941 43.9% 75,000 Benefits 55,810 276,787 49.3% 560,900 Contractual Services 8,524 30,513 16.1% 190,010 Supplies 9,582 28,996 20.7% 139,820 Community Development 19,003 86,390 23.0% 375,610 Salaries 8,690 64,210 26.8% 240,000 Benefits 1,469 10,816 24.3% 44,535 Contractual Services 8,844 11,269 13.3% 84,450 Supplies - 95 1.4% 6,625 PW-Street Ops&Sanitation 243,286 447,980 24.9% 1,796,870 Salaries 19,377 77,120 28.6% 270,000 Overtime 71 71 0.5% 15,000 Benefits 3,293 13,068 24.4% 53,500 Contractual Services 211,026 332,358 24.9% 1,336,020 Supplies 8,786 24,630 20.8% 118,350 Capital Outlay 734 734 18.3% 4,000 Administrative Services 591,423 1,496,484 33.5% 4,473,257 Salaries - 350 7.0% 5,000 Benefits 117,071 711,047 40.8% 1,743,350 Contractual Services 394,231 464,604 27.4% 1,693,840 Supplies - - 0.0% 5,000 Contingencies - - 0.0% 64,617 Transfers Out 80,121 320,483 33.3% 961,450 Total Expenditures and Transfers 1,134,052 3,316,868 30.9% 10,727,492 Variance 109,709 1,347,344 763,882 * August represents 33%of the fiscal year 25 c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ NB #2 II Finance ■ EST. , � 1836 Engineer ❑ Tracking Number y City Administrator ❑ Consultant ❑ ADM 2011-46 dal County El`E Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Treasurer's Report for August 2011 Meeting and Date: Administration Committee 9/15/11 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Agenda Item Notes: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE TREASURER'S REPORT-for the period ended August 31,2011 Cash Basis %of %of Projected BGN Fund Revenues YTD Expenses YTD Ending Fund Balance August Revenues YTD Revenues Budget Budget August Expenses YTD Expenses Budget Budget Balance General Fund 01-General (271,900) 1.243,761 4,664,212 11,491,374 41% 1,134,052 3,316,868 10,727,492 31% 1,075,444 Special Revenue Funds 15-Motor Fuel Tax 640,399 110,120 210,770 1,011,000 21% 5,010 45,493 661,000 7% 805,676 79-Parks and Recreation 231,558 89,910 485,927 1,175,710 41% 100,394 401,085 1,189,210 34% 316,400 72-Land Cash (388,625) 1,026 318,809 420,500 76% 62,331 203,821 301,084 68% (273,637) 85-Fox Industrial TIF 569,790 9,040 148,834 - 0% 907 4,512 - 0% 714,112 87-Countryside TIF 2,178,550 288 717 10,250 7% - 65,664 307,543 21% 2,113,603 88-Downtown TIF 209,760 934 45,269 88,550 51% 555 1,804 516,840 0% 253,226 11-Fox Hill SSA 17,942 577 2,512 3,786 66% 614 1,994 3,804 52% 18,460 12-Sunflower SSA 11,922 1,392 5,157 7,530 68% 1,309 3,268 9,078 36% 13,812 Debt Service Fund 42-Debt Service 8,653 48,599 237,758 427,919 56% 375 69,334 428,669 16% 177,077 Capital Funds 16-Municipal Building (587,024) 300 2,400 5,250 46% - - - - (584,624) 22-Park and Recreation Capital 51,443 1,409 1,678 2,830 59% 292 1,167 123,500 1% 51,955 20-Police Capital 194,947 646 7,395 21,500 34% - 95 54,000 0% 202,247 21-Public Works Capital 108,743 2,155 17,872 35,900 50% 7,152 35,564 92,595 38% 91,051 23-City-Wide Capital 652 12,769 63,140 416,600 15% - 125,000 360,000 35% (61,208) Enterprise Funds* 51-Water 695,723 478,549 1,023,380 2,694,979 38% 189,554 924,182 2,571,858 36% 794,921 52-Sewer 2,377,831 341,878 1,659,732 3,105,490 53% 92,152 621,163 2,919,989 21% 3,416,401 80-Recreation Center (195,087) 51,704 208,879 611,000 34% 45,513 256,869 691,738 37% (243,077) Library Funds 82-Library Operations 317,336 90,329 443,046 736,950 60% 378,509 518,279 1,060,275 49% 242,103 83-Library Debt Service - 88,627 450,495 720,800 62% - 185,400 720,800 26% 265,095 84-Library Development Fees - 334,708 335,621 341,000 98% - 3,130 4,000 78% 332,491 Total Funds 6,172,614 2,908,720 10,333,603 23,328,918 44% 2,018,718 6,784,690 22,743,475 30% 9,721,527 As Treasurer of the United City of Yorkville,I hereby attest,to the best of my knowledge,that the information contained in this Treasurer's Report is accurate as of the date detailed herein. Further information is available in the Finance Department. William Powell,Treasurer Prepared by the Finance Department *Fund Balance Equivalent c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ NB #3 II Finance ■ EST. , � 1836 Engineer ❑ Tracking Number y City Administrator ■ Consultant ❑ ADM 2011-47 dal County El`E Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Cash Statements for July 2011 Meeting and Date: Administration Committee 9/15/11 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Agenda Item Notes: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CASH AND INVESTMENT SUMMARY-as of July 31,2011 CASH Cash-Operations Cash-Special Purpose IL Funds IL Funds Operation Aurora Special Purpose Grand Old Second Castle E-Pay Corp Acct IMET Totals Old Second Castle Earthmovers Totals Totals General Fund 01-General (1,878,933) 2,923 0 1,234,314 (641,696) 2,098 35,537 123 37,757 (603,939) Special Revenue Funds 15-Motor Fuel Tax - - - - 661,414 - 661,414 661,414 72-Land Cash (524,884) - (524,884) - - (524,884) 85-Fox Industrial TIF 566,184 139,794 705,979 - - - 705,979 87-Countryside TIF 17,335 1,161,472 1,178,807 934,507 - - 934,507 2,113,315 88-Downtown TIF 208,511 44,335 252,846 - - 252,846 11-Fox Hill SSA 16,562 1,936 18,497 - - 18,497 12-Sunflower SSA 9,963 3,765 13,728 13,728 Debt Service Fund 42-Debt Service (33,996) 162,849 128,853 128,853 Capital Funds 16-Municipal Building (584,924) - (584,924) (584,924) 20-Police Capital 199,152 - 199,152 199,152 21-Public Works Capital 92,851 - 92,851 - - 92,851 23-City-Wide Capital (74,003) - (74,003) 55,778 55,778 (18,225) Enterprise Funds 51-Water 218,512 4,469 67,247 290,228 - - 290,228 52-Sewer 1,972,540 1,569 1,130,558 3,104,667 3,104,667 Agency Funds 90-Developer Escrow 146,652 - - 146,652 - - - 146,652 95-Escrow Deposit 172,920 6,319 - 179,239 - - - - 179,239 Total City Funds 524,442 15,280 0 3,946,270 4,485,992 936,605 752,729 123 1,689,456 6,175,448 Distribution% 8.49% 0.25% 0.00% 63.90% 15.17% 12.19% 0.00% Library Funds 82-Library Operations 207,039 - - - 207,039 332,519 - - 332,519 539,558 83-Library Debt Service 176,468 176,468 - - 176,468 84-Library Develp Fees (3,130) - (3,130) 913 - 913 (2,217) Totals 380,377 - - 380,377 333,432 333,432 713,809 Distribution% 38.37% 61.63% Park and Recreation Funds 79-Parks and Recreation - 382,966 - 382,966 - - 25 25 382,991 22-Park&Rec Capital 50,719 - 50,719 - 158,404 158,404 209,123 80-Recreation Center (243,864) - (243,864) - - - - (243,864) Totals 189,821 - 189,821 - 158,404 25 158,429 348,250 Distribution% 54.51% 45.49% 0.01% c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ NB #4 II Finance ■ EST. , � 1836 Engineer ❑ Tracking Number y City Administrator ■ Consultant ❑ ADM 2011-48 dal County El`E Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Report Meeting and Date: Administration Committee 9/15/11 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Discussion Submitted by: Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Agenda Item Notes: United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 GENERAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Taxes 01-000-40-00-4000 REAL ESTATE TAXES 2,450,000 2,521,570 71,570 103% 01-000-40-00-4001 TOWN ROAD/BRIDGE TAX 160,000 164,296 4,296 103% 01-000-40-00-4030 MUNICIPAL SALES TAX 2,440,000 2,569,233 129,233 105% Municipal Utility Tax 01-000-40-00-4040 MUNICIPAL UTILITY TAX 565,000 605,833 40,833 107% 01-000-40-00-4041 UTILITY TAX-NICOR 396,000 268,166 (127,834) 68% 01-000-40-00-4042 UTILITY TAX-CABLE TV 190,000 228,452 38,452 120% 01-000-40-00-4043 UTILITY TAX-TELEPHONE 600,000 514,189 (85,811) 86% 01-000-40-00-4050 HOTELTAX 20,000 38,198 18,198 191% Admissions&Amusement Tax 01-000-40-00-3994 ADMISSIONS TAX 112,964 181,744 68,780 161% 01-000-40-00-3997 AMUSEMENT TAX 162,964 319 (162,645) 0% 01-000-40-00-4045 AUTO RENTAL TAX 3,421 8,298 4,877 243% 01-000-40-00-4044 BUSINESS DISTRICT TAX 150,000 289,015 139,015 193% 01-000-40-00-4080 PARA MUTUEL TAX - 5,131 5,131 0% TOTAL TAXES 7,250,349 7,394,444 144,095 102% Intergovernmental 01-000-40-00-4020 STATE INCOME TAX 1,300,000 1,315,321 15,321 101% 01-000-40-00-4010 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX 20,000 16,394 (3,606) 82% 01-000-40-00-4032 STATE USE TAX 237,063 240,047 2,984 101% Grants 01-000-45-00-4505 COPS GRANT-VESTS - 1,875 1,875 0% 01-000-45-00-4507 FEDERAL GRANTS 11,412 11,412 0% 01-000-45-00-4508 STATE GRANTS - 15,630 15,630 0% 01-000-45-00-4511 POLICE-STATE TOBACCO GRANT 1,803 1,870 67 104% 01-000-45-00-4515 ENERGY&RECYCLING GRANT - 5,307 5,307 0% 01-000-45-00-4525 FULL CIRCLE GRANT - 17,442 17,442 0% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,558,866 1,625,299 66,433 104% Charges for Service 01-000-42-00-4206 GARBAGE SURCHARGE 1,050,000 1,177,995 127,995 112% 01-000-42-00-4208 COLLECTION FEE-YBSD 121,503 116,087 (5,416) 96% 01-000-42-00-4288 MOWING INCOME - 3,960 3,960 0% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE 1,171,503 1,298,042 126,539 111% Licenses,Permits and Fees 01-000-42-00-4210 DEVELOPMENT FEES 80,000 73,350 (6,650) 92% 01-000-41-00-4100 LIQUOR LICENSE 30,000 38,903 8,903 130% 01-000-41-00-4101 OTHER LICENSES 4,500 2,670 (1,830) 59% 01-000-41-00-4110 BUILDING PERMITS 205,000 126,829 (78,171) 62% 01-000-42-00-4205 FILING FEES 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 01-000-42-00-4207 ZONING VARIANCE FEES 170 - (170) 0% TOTAL LICENSES,PERMITS AND FEES 322,670 241,752 (80,918) 75% Fines and Forfeits 01-000-43-00-4310 TRAFFIC FINES 151,275 95,289 (55,986) 63% 01-000-43-00-4320 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION 50,000 25,457 (24,543) 51% 01-000-43-00-4325 POLICE TOWS 181,275 80,490 (100,785) 44% TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITS 382,550 201,236 (181,314) 53% 1 GENERAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget Investment Income 01-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 3,000 1,759 (1,241) 59% Other Revenues 01-000-44-00-4415 REIMB FOR LEGAL EXPENSES 150,000 46,951 (103,049) 31% 01-000-44-00-4416 REIMB FOR THE LIBRARY 40,582 - (40,582) 0% 01-000-44-00-4412 INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS - 35,711 35,711 0% Health Insurance 01-000-40-00-3993 EMPLOY CONTRIB HEALTH REIMB 168,318 193,147 24,829 115% 01-000-40-00-3995 COBRA INS REIMB - 21,675 21,675 0% 01-000-40-00-3996 RETIREE INS REIMB - 39,671 39,671 0% Other 01-000-42-00-4287 DEVELOPER SIGN REIMBURSEMENT 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 01-000-44-00-4411 REIMBURSEMENTS-POLICE PROTECTN 3,300 4,190 890 127% 01-000-44-00-4417 MISC.REIMBURSEMENTS - 63,680 63,680 0% 01-000-44-00-4414 WORKERS COMP REIMB 22,207 22,207 0% 01-000-44-00-4421 LIFE INSURANCE REIMB 4,789 4,789 0% 01-000-45-00-4504 TRAFFIC SIGNAL REVENUE 14,925 33,067 18,142 222% 01-000-45-00-4510 CABLE CONSORTIUM FEES - 19,505 19,505 0% Donations 01-000-44-00-4401 DARE DONATIONS 20 25 5 125% 01-000-44-00-4404 HANGING BASKET DONATIONS 2,000 2,759 759 138% Miscellaneous Income 01-000-42-00-4285 BEECHER LEASE AGREEMENT 12,000 4,000 (8,000) 33% 01-000-42-00-4286 BEECHER RENTALS 2,000 1,600 (400) 80% 01-000-44-00-4407 HOLIDAY UNDER THE STARS 9,585 - (9,585) 0% 01-000-44-00-4419 POLICE SPECIAL DETAIL - 4,431 4,431 0% 01-000-44-00-4490 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 1,000 9,628 8,628 963% 01-000-45-00-4506 MISC INTEGOVERNMENTAL - 2,196 2,196 0% 01-000-44-00-4499 BAD DEBT RECOVERY - 10,849 10,849 0% TOTAL OTHER REVENUES 408,730 520,082 111,352 127% TOTAL REVENUES 11,097,668 11,282,616 184,948 102% General Government Administration 01-110-50-00-5100 SALARIES-MAYOR 11,310 10,700 (610) 95% 01-110-50-00-5101 SALARIES-CITY CLERK 8,980 9,305 325 104% 01-110-50-00-5102 SALARIES-CITY TREASURER 6,500 6,105 (395) 94% 01-110-50-00-5103 SALARIES-ALDERMAN 50,320 52,455 2,135 104% 01-110-50-00-5104 SALARIES-LIQUOR COMMISSIONER 1,000 1,167 167 117% 01-110-50-00-5106 SALARIES-ADMINISTRATIVE 202,242 239,314 37,072 118% 01-110-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 575 223 (352) 39% 01-110-61-00-5300 SPECIAL COUNSEL 65,000 59,394 (5,606) 91% 01-110-61-00-5302 CORPORATE COUNCIL 130,000 117,960 (12,040) 91% 01-110-61-00-5303 LITIGATION COUNCIL 90,000 87,544 (2,456) 97% 01-110-61-00-5311 CODIFICATION 8,000 4,159 (3,841) 52% 01-110-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,000 6,594 (1,406) 82% 01-110-62-00-5404 CABLE CONSORTIUM FEE 50,000 75,262 25,262 151% 01-110-62-00-5406 OFFICE CLEANING 14,400 13,124 (1,276) 91% 01-110-62-00-5410 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0% 01-110-62-00-5436 TELEPHONE 20,000 11,315 (8,685) 57% 01-110-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,200 1,205 5 100% 01-110-62-00-5439 TELEPHONE SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE 3,000 2,945 (55) 98% 01-110-64-00-5600 DUES 12,450 11,533 (917) 93% 01-110-64-00-5601 ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE DUES 1,200 1,179 (21) 98% 01-110-64-00-5603 SUBSCRIPTIONS 100 160 60 160% 01-110-64-00-5605 TRAVEL/MEALS/LODGING 1,000 790 (210) 79% 01-110-64-00-5607 PUBLIC RELATIONS 150 55 (95) 37% 01-110-64-00-5611 KENDALL COUNTY PARATRANSIT 30,000 27,553 (2,447) 92% 01-110-64-00-5612 SENIOR SERVICE FUNDING 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 2 GENERAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget 01-110-65-00-5800 CONTINGENCIES 10,000 75,000 65,000 750% 01-110-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,000 4,251 (3,749) 53% 01-110-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 7,000 4,461 (2,539) 64% 01-110-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 14,000 8,055 (5,945) 58% 01-110-65-00-5809 PRINTING&COPYING 6,750 8,081 1,331 120% 01-110-65-00-5810 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING 2,000 655 (1,345) 33% 01-110-72-00-6500 IMRFPARTICIPANTS 27,153 26,574 (579) 98% 01-110-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 26,463 22,375 (4,088) 85% 01-110-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 850 1,944 1,094 229% 01-110-75-00-7003 OFFICE EQUIPMENT - 608 608 0% 01-110-78-00-9002 NICOR GAS 31,000 21,735 (9,265) 70% TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 853,743 913,780 60,037 107% Finance 01-120-50-00-5106 SALARIES-FINANCE 259,690 201,586 (58,104) 78% 01-120-50-00-5202 BENEFITS-UNEMPLOY.COMP.TAX 38,000 77,786 39,786 205% 01-120-50-00-5203 BENEFITS-HEALTH INSURANCE 1,156,090 1,185,928 29,838 103% 01-120-50-00-5204 BENEFITS-GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 28,240 24,060 (4,180) 85% 01-120-50-00-5205 BENEFITS-DENTAL/VISION ASST 100,880 99,350 (1,530) 98% 01-120-61-00-5304 AUDIT FEES&EXPENSES 57,700 43,500 (14,200) 75% 01-120-61-00-5310 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 4,000 2,425 (1,575) 61% 01-120-62-00-5400 INSURANCE-LIABILITY&PROP. 344,129 325,906 (18,223) 95% 01-120-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28,000 18,803 (9,197) 67% 01-120-62-00-5410 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,800 838 (962) 47% 01-120-62-00-5411 MAINTENANCE-COMPUTERS 500 - (500) 0% 01-120-62-00-5412 MAINTENANCE-PHOTOCOPIERS 27,000 18,028 (8,972) 67% 01-120-62-00-5437 ACCTG SYSTEM SERVICE FEE 15,000 10,728 (4,272) 72% 01-120-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,010 633 (377) 63% 01-120-64-00-5600 DUES 1,600 750 (850) 47% 01-120-64-00-5603 SUBSCRIPTIONS/BOOKS 250 152 (98) 61% 01-120-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,000 488 (1,512) 24% 01-120-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 3,500 1,032 (2,468) 29% 01-120-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 2,500 474 (2,026) 19% 01-120-65-00-5809 PRINTING&COPYING 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 01-120-65-00-5844 MARKETING-HOTEL TAX 20,000 33,255 13,255 166% 01-120-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 25,190 18,759 (6,431) 74% O1-120-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 29,070 15,326 (13,744) 53% 01-120-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 5,000 1,761 (3,239) 35% 01-120-75-00-7003 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 250 - (250) 0% 01-120-78-00-9001 CITY TAX REBATE 1,050 812 (238) 77% 01-120-78-00-9003 SALES TAX REBATE 620,000 863,793 243,793 139% 01-120-78-00-9004 BUSINESS DISTRICT REBATE 150,000 283,777 133,777 189% 01-120-78-00-9013 ADMISSIONS TAX REBATE 63,000 99,959 36,959 159% 01-120-78-00-9099 BAD DEBT - 91,278 91,278 0% TOTAL FINANCE 2,986,449 3,421,187 434,738 115% Community Relations 01-130-50-00-5106 SALARIES-PUBLIC RELATIONS 63,750 63,359 (391) 99% 01-130-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,800 3,475 (1,325) 72% 01-130-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 540 279 (261) 52% 01-130-64-00-5603 SUBSCRIPTIONS&BOOKS 100 - (100) 0% 01-130-64-00-5607 PUBLIC RELATIONS 1,750 - (1,750) 0% 01-130-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 750 130 (620) 17% 01-130-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 3,500 1,630 (1,870) 47% 01-130-65-00-5809 PRINTING&COPYING 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 01-130-65-00-5810 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING 7,500 5,977 (1,523) 80% 01-130-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 6,184 4,004 (2,180) 65% 01-130-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 4,877 3,935 (942) 81% 01-130-78-00-9010 COMMUNITY EVENTS 6,000 526 (5,475) 9% 01-130-78-00-9013 HOLIDAY UNDER THE STARS 9,585 - (9,585) 0% TOTAL COMMUNITYRELATIONS 110,336 83,315 (27,021) 76% 3 GENERAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget Engineering 01-150-50-00-5107 SALARIES-ENGINEERING 263,233 235,552 (27,681) 89% 01-150-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 500 87 (413) 17% 01-150-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30,000 4,578 (25,422) 15% 01-150-62-00-5403 FEES 2,550 1,000 (1,550) 39% 01-150-62-00-5409 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES 1,500 1,303 (197) 87% 01-150-62-00-5410 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIP 500 - (500) 0% 01-150-62-00-5411 MAINTENANCE-COMPUTERS 500 (500) 0% 01-150-62-00-5421 WEARING APPAREL 100 - (100) 0% 01-150-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 3,000 1,340 (1,660) 45% 01-150-64-00-5600 DUES 1,000 428 (572) 43% 01-150-64-00-5616 BOOKS&PUBLICATIONS 130 126 (4) 97% O1-150-65-00-5801 ENGINEERING SUPPLIES 2,000 928 (1,072) 46% 01-150-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,250 1,006 (244) 80% 01-150-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 500 257 (243) 51% 01-150-65-00-5809 PRINTING&COPYING 1,500 1,116 (384) 74% 01-150-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 25,582 21,727 (3,855) 85% 01-150-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 20,176 17,409 (2,767) 86% 01-150-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE 3,300 2,627 (673) 80% 01-150-75-00-7003 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 500 - (500) 0% 01-150-78-00-9015 ENERGY&RECYCLING GRANT - 5,307 5,307 0% TOTAL ENGINEERING 357,821 294,791 (63,030) 82% TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 4,308,349 4,713,073 404,724 109% Public Safety Police Department 01-210-50-00-5107 SALARIES-POLICE 1,316,326 1,167,964 (148,362) 89% 01-210-50-00-5131 SALARIES-CHIEF/LT./SERGT. 673,166 660,249 (12,917) 98% 01-210-50-00-5134 SALARIES-CROSSING GUARD 25,000 17,381 (7,619) 70% 01-210-50-00-5135 SALARIES-POLICE CLERKS 212,386 156,502 (55,884) 74% 01-210-50-00-5136 SALARIES-PART TIME 39,000 30,604 (8,396) 78% 01-210-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 60,000 61,250 1,250 102% 01-210-50-00-5200 CADET PROGRAM 13,500 12,045 (1,455) 89% 01-210-50-00-5205 OVERTIME-GRANT REIMB - 21,337 21,337 0% O1-210-50-00-5206 POLICE SPECIAL DETAIL - 4,432 4,432 0% 01-210-61-00-5300 LEGAL SERVICES 20,000 - (20,000) 0% 01-210-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 722 722 0% 01-210-62-00-5408 MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT 9,750 6,286 (3,464) 64% 01-210-62-00-5409 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES 47,000 43,648 (3,352) 93% 01-210-62-00-5411 MAINTENANCE-COMPUTERS 2,500 272 (2,228) 11% 01-210-62-00-5412 MAINTENANCE-K9 1,000 11 (989) 1% 01-210-62-00-5414 WEATHER WARNING SIREN MAINT 4,000 3,513 (487) 88% 01-210-62-00-5421 WEARING APPAREL 10,000 10,586 586 106% 01-210-62-00-5422 COPS GRANT IV-VESTS 4,200 5,460 1,260 130% 01-210-62-00-5432 KENDALL CO.JUVENILE PROBATION 3,000 2,683 (317) 89% 01-210-62-00-5436 TELEPHONE 21,500 9,499 (12,001) 44% 01-210-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 17,920 12,644 (5,276) 71% 01-210-62-00-5441 MTD-ALERTS FEE 5,150 6,660 1,510 129% 01-210-62-00-5442 NEW WORLD LIVE SCAN 15,000 10,281 (4,719) 69% 01-210-62-00-5443 ADMIN ADJUDICATION CONTRACTUAL 15,000 16,863 1,863 112% O1-210-64-00-5600 DUES 1,000 1,115 115 112% 01-210-64-00-5603 SUBSCRIPTIONS 350 - (350) 0% 01-210-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCE 8,025 8,554 529 107% 01-210-64-00-5605 TRAVEL EXPENSES 6,575 1,873 (4,702) 28% 01-210-64-00-5606 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 500 391 (109) 78% 01-210-64-00-5607 POLICE COMMISSION 7,000 3,677 (3,323) 53% 01-210-64-00-5608 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 2,800 1,808 (992) 65% 01-210-64-00-5610 GUN RANGE FEES 500 - (500) 0% 01-210-64-00-5611 SRT FEE 3,500 3,500 - 100% 01-210-64-00-5612 NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH 1,500 - (1,500) 0% 01-210-64-00-5613 CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY 1,839 (1,839) 0% 01-210-64-00-5615 COMPLIANCE CHECKS 500 - (500) 0% 01-210-64-00-5616 DARE PROGRAM 3,000 2,629 (371) 88% 01-210-65-00-5801 SUPPLIES-GRANT REIMB - 106 106 0% 01-210-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,000 2,933 (67) 98% 4 GENERAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget 01-210-65-00-5803 EVIDENCE TECH SUPPLIES 1,000 995 (5) 99% 01-210-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 8,500 6,066 (2,434) 71% 01-210-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 3,000 986 (2,014) 33% 01-210-65-00-5809 PRINTING&COPYING 4,500 2,923 (1,577) 65% 01-210-65-00-5810 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING 100 86 (14) 86% 01-210-65-00-5812 GASOLINE 80,000 70,080 (9,920) 88% 01-210-65-00-5813 AMMUNITION 2,000 1,995 (5) 100% 01-210-65-00-5814 ADMIN ADJUDICATION OPERATING 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 01-210-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 24,385 14,455 (9,930) 59% 01-210-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 178,962 157,082 (21,880) 88% 01-210-72-00-6502 POLICE PENSION 325,000 336,075 11,075 103% 01-210-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 7,000 5,032 (1,968) 72% TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT 3,190,934 2,883,253 (307,681) 90% TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 3,190,934 2,883,253 (307,681) 90% Community Development Building and Zoning 01-220-50-00-5107 SALARIES-PLANNING&DEV. 287,132 269,607 (17,525) 94% 01-220-54-00-5430 PRINTING&DUPLICATING - - 0% 01-220-61-00-5300 LEGAL SERVICES 8,000 1,777 (6,223) 22% 01-220-61-00-5314 INSPECTIONS 25,000 17,387 (7,613) 70% 01-220-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,000 1,738 (11,262) 13% 01-220-62-00-5432 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 45,000 45,000 - 100% 01-220-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,500 1,318 (182) 88% 01-220-64-00-5600 DUES 1,500 1,016 (484) 68% 01-220-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCES 200 115 (85) 58% 01-220-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 500 469 (31) 94% 01-220-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 3,500 712 (2,788) 20% 01-220-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 1,000 230 (770) 23% 01-220-65-00-5809 PRINTING&COPYING 1,300 1,062 (238) 82% 01-220-65-00-5810 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING 150 87 (63) 58% 01-220-65-00-5814 BOOKS&MAPS 500 493 (7) 99% 01-220-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 27,851 24,175 (3,676) 87% 01-220-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 21,966 19,586 (2,380) 89% 01-220-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 7,955 2,171 (5,784) 27% 01-220-75-00-7003 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 125 - (125) 0% 01-220-78-00-9016 FULL CIRCLE GRANT - 8,348 8,348 0% TOTAL BUILDING AND ZONING 446,179 395,291 (50,888) 89% TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 446,179 395,291 (50,888) 89% Public Works Street Operations 01-410-50-00-5107 SALARIES-STREETS 243,472 285,143 41,671 117% 01-410-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 28,000 10,784 (17,216) 39% 01-410-61-00-5314 INSPECTIONS&LICENSES 700 470 (230) 67% 01-410-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000 695 (305) 70% 01-410-62-00-5408 MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT 10,000 9,226 (774) 92% 01-410-62-00-5409 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES 25,000 22,110 (2,890) 88% 01-410-62-00-5414 MAINTENANCE-TRAFFIC SIGNALS 15,000 36,568 21,568 244% 01-410-62-00-5415 MAINTENANCE-STREET LIGHTS 9,000 25,011 16,011 278% 01-410-62-00-5416 MAINTENANCE PROPERTY 30,000 13,672 (16,328) 46% 01-410-62-00-5420 MAINTENANCE-STORM SEWER 5,000 5,473 473 109% 01-410-62-00-5421 WEARING APPAREL 4,200 2,386 (1,814) 57% 01-410-62-00-5434 RENTAL-EQUIPMENT 1,000 176 (824) 18% 01-410-62-00-5435 ELECTRICITY 75,000 89,784 14,784 120% 01-410-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 4,020 2,053 (1,967) 51% 01-410-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCES 2,000 180 (1,820) 9% 01-410-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 10,000 3,375 (6,625) 34% 01-410-65-00-5812 GASOLINE 32,000 29,350 (2,650) 92% 01-410-65-00-5815 HAND TOOLS 1,000 1,380 380 138% 01-410-65-00-5817 GRAVEL 1,500 427 (1,073) 28% 01-410-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 26,332 27,424 1,092 104% 01-410-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 20,768 22,091 1,323 106% 5 GENERAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget 01-410-75-00-4404 HANGING BASKETS 2,000 2,048 48 102% 01-410-75-00-5418 MOSQUITO CONTROL 15,000 6,500 (8,500) 43% 01-410-75-00-7004 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 500 516 16 103% 01-410-75-00-7101 IN TOWN ROAD PROGRAM 40,232 - (40,232) 0% 01-410-75-00-7102 TREE&STUMP REMOVAL 10,000 8,300 (1,700) 83% 01-410-75-00-7103 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 4,000 1,225 (2,775) 31% TOTAL STREET OPERATIONS 616,724 606,368 (10,356) 98% Health&Sanitation 01-540-62-00-5442 GARBAGE SERVICES 1,140,000 1,177,611 37,611 103% 01-540-62-00-5443 LEAF PICKUP 6,000 4,560 (1,440) 76% TOTAL HEALTH AND SANITATION 1,146,000 1,182,171 36,171 103% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 1,762,724 1,788,539 25,815 101% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,708,186 9,780,155 71,969 101% EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 1,389,482 1,502,461 112,979 108% Other Financing Sources(Uses) Transfers In 01-000-49-00-4902 REPAY OF PARK&REC LOAN 100,000 - (100,000) 0% 01-000-49-00-4915 TRANSFER FROM WATER OPERATIONS 91,863 91,863 100% 01-000-49-00-4920 TRANSFER FROM SEWER MAINT. 83,045 83,045 100% 01-000-49-00-4935 TRANSFER FROM LAND CASH 60,449 60,449 100% Transfers Out 01-110-99-00-9970 TRANSFER TO CW CAPITAL(LAND) (125,000) (125,000) - 100% 01-110-99-00-9975 TRANSFER TO CW CAPITAL (37,500) (10,484) 27,016 28% 01-120-99-00-9940 TRANSFER TO PARK&RECREATION (951,890) (951,890) - 100% 01-120-99-00-9941 TRANSFER TO PARK&REC-LOAN (100,000) 100,000 0% 01-120-99-00-9942 TRANSFER TO POLICE CAPITAL (25,000) 25,000 0% 01-120-99-00-9965 TRANSFER TO DEBT SERVICE (429,404) (429,404) - 100% TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) (1,333,437) (1,281,421) 52,016 96% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 56,045 221,039 164,994 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR (492,939) (492,939) FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR (436,894) (271,900) 164,994 6 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 LIBRARY FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Property Taxes 82-000-40-00-3992 LIBRARY BOND PROP.TAX 605,924 604,131 (1,793) 100% 82-000-40-00-4000 REAL ESTATE TAXES 650,000 648,060 (1,940) 100% TOTAL TAXES 1,255,924 1,252,191 (3,733) 100% Other Taxes 82-000-40-00-4010 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX 5,000 7,217 2,217 144% Licenses,Permits and Fees 82-000-42-00-4270 PROGRAM FEES - 36 36 0% 82-000-42-00-4211 DEVELOPMENT FEES-BUILDING 20,000 8,825 (11,175) 44% 82-000-42-00-4215 DEVELOPMENT FEES-BOOKS 20,000 8,825 (11,175) 44% 82-000-42-00-4260 COPY FEES 3,000 3,339 339 111% 82-000-42-00-4261 LIBRARY SUBSCRIPTION CARDS 15,000 13,742 (1,259) 92% 82-000-42-00-4262 EXAM PROCTORING - 55 55 0% TOTAL LICENSES,PERMITS AND FEES 58,000 34,822 (23,178) 60% Fines 82-000-43-00-4330 LIBRARY FINES 9,000 14,161 5,161 157% Investment Income 82-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 10,000 694 (9,306) 7% Contributions 82-000-44-00-4450 MEMORIALS 3,000 1,883 (1,117) 63% Grants 82-000-45-00-4560 LIBRARY PER CAPITA GRANT 17,500 17,193 (307) 98% Other Revenue Rental Income 82-000-42-00-4286 DVD RENTAL INCOME - 4,131 4,131 0% 82-000-42-00-4287 LIBRARY BLDG RENTAL 1,000 1,454 454 145% 82-000-44-00-4432 SALE OF BOOKS 500 300 (200) 60% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 1,500 5,885 4,385 392% TOTAL REVENUE 1,359,924 1,334,046 (25,878) 98% EXPENDITURES 82-000-50-00-5107 SALARIES-LIBRARY 650,000 501,353 (148,647) 77% 82-000-50-00-5203 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE 70,000 76,487 6,487 109% 82-000-50-00-5204 GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 2,000 1,200 (800) 60% 82-000-50-00-5205 DENTAL&VISION ASSISTANCE 6,000 6,159 159 103% 82-000-61-00-5322 BONDING 5,000 3,222 (1,778) 64% 82-000-61-00-5323 ATTORNEY 10,000 4,175 (5,825) 42% 82-000-62-00-5401 CONTRACT SERVICES 40,000 28,602 (11,398) 72% 82-000-62-00-5407 MAINTENANCE-BLDG/JANITORIAL 30,000 22,188 (7,812) 74% 82-000-62-00-5410 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIPMENT 20,000 2,180 (17,821) 11% 82-000-62-00-5412 MAINTENANCE-PHOTOCOPIER 15,000 1,007 (13,993) 7% 82-000-62-00-5435 ELECTRICITY 8,000 - (8,000) 0% 82-000-62-00-5436 TELEPHONE 8,000 9,055 1,055 113% 82-000-62-00-5437 NICOR GAS 40,000 11,484 (28,516) 29% 82-000-62-00-5438 DATABASE 15,000 3,888 (11,112) 26% 82-000-64-00-5603 SUBSCRIPTIONS 15,000 7,402 (7,598) 49% 7 LIBRARY FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget 82-000-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCES 5,000 949 (4,051) 19% 82-000-64-00-5607 PUBLIC RELATIONS 2,000 112 (1,888) 6% 82-000-64-00-5616 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION 4,000 93 (3,907) 2% 82-000-65-00-5800 CONTINGENCIES 144,561 6,705 (137,856) 5% 82-000-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 15,000 5,049 (9,951) 34% 82-000-65-00-5806 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 15,000 3,736 (11,264) 25% 82-000-65-00-5807 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 20,000 6,995 (13,005) 35% 82-000-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 2,500 2,104 (396) 84% 82-000-65-00-5810 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING 2,000 130 (1,870) 7% 82-000-65-00-5826 MILEAGE 1,000 593 (407) 59% 82-000-65-00-5832 VIDEOS 25,000 7,715 (17,285) 31% 82-000-65-00-5834 LIBRARY PROGRAMMING 20,000 8,172 (11,828) 41% 82-000-65-00-5835 LIBRARY BOARD EXPENSES 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 82-000-65-00-5836 BOOKS-ADULT 50,000 30,312 (19,688) 61% 82-000-65-00-5837 BOOKS-JUVENILE 50,000 40,713 (9,287) 81% 82-000-65-00-5838 BOOKS-AUDIO 30,000 9,526 (20,474) 32% 82-000-65-00-5839 BOOKS-REFERENCE 35,000 11,394 (23,606) 33% 82-000-65-00-5840 BOOKS-DEVELOPMENT FEE 20,000 9,343 (10,657) 47% 82-000-65-00-5841 MEMORIALS/GIFTS 3,000 1,622 (1,378) 54% 82-000-65-00-5842 BLDG-DEVELOPMENT FEES 20,000 33,423 13,423 167% 82-000-65-00-5843 CD'S/MUSIC 15,000 2,122 (12,878) 14% 82-000-65-00-5844 MEETING ROOM 1,000 800 (200) 80% 82-000-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICPANTS 22,000 21,607 (393) 98% 82-000-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 55,000 37,766 (17,234) 69% 82-000-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT&SOFTWARE 20,000 7,637 (12,363) 38% 82-000-75-00-7003 AUTOMATION 40,000 48,567 8,567 121% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,553,061 975,587 (577,474) 63% Capital Outlay 82-000-75-00-7703 BUILDING EXPANSION - 6,200 6,200 0% Debt Service 82-000-66-00-6012 2005B LIBRARY BOND 394,125 394,125 - 100% 82-000-66-00-6014 2006 LIBRARY BOND 211,800 211,800 - 100% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 605,925 605,925 100% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,158,986 1,587,712 (571,274) 74% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (799,062) (253,666) 545,396 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 571,002 571,002 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR (228,060) 317,336 545,396 8 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 FOX HILL SSA FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES 11-000-40-00-4002 FOX HILL LEVY 19,463 19,894 431 102% EXPENDITURES 11-000-65-00-5416 MAINTENANCE COMMON GROUNDS 3,458 4,178 720 121% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 16,005 15,716 (289) FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 2,226 2,226 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 18,231 17,942 (289) 9 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 SUNFLOWER SSA FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUE 12-000-40-00-4002 SUNFLOWER LEVY 13,112 13,871 759 106% EXPENDITURES 12-000-65-00-5416 MAINTENANCE COMMON GROUNDS 8,253 8,137 (116) 99% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 4,859 5,734 875 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 6,188 6,188 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 11,047 11,922 875 10 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget Intergovernmental 15-000-40-00-4060 MOTOR FUEL TAX ALLOTMENTS 355,000 425,971 70,971 120% 15-000-40-00-4065 MFT HIGH GROWTH - 24,674 24,674 0% 15-000-44-00-4480 ILLINOIS JOBS NOW - 73,122 73,122 0% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 355,000 523,767 168,767 148% Investment Income 15-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 1,000 839 (161) 84% Grant Revenue 15-000-44-00-4403 DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT-OLD JAIL - 151,000 151,000 0% Other Revenue 15-000-44-00-4401 GAME FARM ROAD DESIGN 6,978 6,978 0% 15-000-44-00-4402 FOX ROAD 4,602 4,602 0% 15-000-44-00-4490 MISC.INCOME 84 84 0% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE - 11,664 11,664 0% TOTAL REVENUES 356,000 687,271 331,271 193% EXPENDITURES Contractual Services 15-000-65-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 2,587 2,587 0% 15-000-65-00-5402 OUTSIDE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 30,929 30,929 0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 33,516 33,516 0% Supplies 15-000-65-00-5818 SALT 204,000 132,777 (71,223) 65% 15-000-75-00-7007 SIGNS 18,000 1,232 (16,768) 7% 15-000-75-00-7009 PATCHING 50,000 52,481 2,481 105% 15-000-75-00-7108 GAME FARM HOUSE DEMO 20,000 - (20,000) 0% 15-000-75-00-7110 COLD PATCH 10,600 9,892 (708) 93% 15-000-75-00-7111 HOT PATCH 13,000 7,658 (5,342) 59% TOTAL SUPPLIES 315,600 204,040 (111,560) 65% Capital Outlay 15-000-75-00-7106 GAME FARM SURVEYING - 6,456 6,456 0% 15-000-75-00-7118 RT 34&SYCAMORE TRAFFIC SGNL 30,000 - (30,000) 0% 15-000-75-00-7119 GAME FARM ROW 130,000 25,000 (105,000) 19% 15-000-75-00-7120 FOX ROAD - 21,930 21,930 0% 15-000-75-00-7123 GUARDRAIL REPAIRS 23,128 23,128 0% 15-000-75-00-7124 DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT - 42,420 42,420 0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 160,000 118,934 (41,066) 74% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 475,600 356,490 (119,110) 75% EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (119,600) 330,781 450,381 Other Financing Sources(Uses) 15-000-75-00-9923 TRANSFER TO CITY WIDE CAPITAL (96,000) (96,000) 0% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (119,600) 234,781 354,381 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 405,618 405,618 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 286,018 640,399 354,381 11 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 LAND CASH FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Licenses,Permits and Fees 72-000-47-00-4738 AUTUMN CREEK 22,000 18,460 (3,540) 84% 72-000-47-00-4752 BRISTOL BAY LAND CASH - 100,000 100,000 0% 72-000-47-00-4749 BLACKBERRY WOODS - 568 568 0% 72-000-47-00-4737 CALEDONIA 38,000 - (38,000) 0% 72-000-47-00-4712 RIVER'S EDGE - 671 671 0% TOTAL LICENSES,PERMITS&FEES 60,000 119,699 59,699 199% Grants 72-000-47-00-4704 OSLAND GRANT-WHISPERING MEAD 320,000 - (320,000) 0% 72-000-47-00-4706 WHEATON WOODS GRANT 30,000 42,285 12,285 141% 72-000-47-00-4734 WHISPERING MEADOWS(K.HILL) 3,000 312,655 309,655 10422% TOTAL GRANTS 353,000 354,940 1,940 101% TOTAL REVENUES 413,000 474,639 61,639 115% EXPENDITURES 72-000-75-00-7326 MOSIER HOLDING COSTS 10,000 10,000 - 100% 72-000-75-00-7333 RAINTREE VILLAGE 495,000 88,175 (406,825) 18% 72-000-75-00-7336 WHEATON WOODS NATURE TRL - 2,133 2,133 0% 72-000-75-00-7337 BRISTOL BAY PARK A 100,000 85,062 (14,938) 85% 72-000-75-00-7339 BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL PARK - 14,020 14,020 0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 605,000 199,390 (405,610) 33% EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (192,000) 275,249 467,249 Other Financing Sources(Uses) 72-000-99-00-9901 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND (60,449) (60,449) - 100% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (252,449) 214,800 467,249 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR (603,425) (603,425) FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR (855,874) (388,625) 467,249 12 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Charges for Services 79-000-42-00-4270 FEES FOR PROGRAMS 225,000 189,890 (35,110) 84% 79-000-42-00-4280 CONCESSIONS/ALL SALE ITEMS 30,000 31,072 1,072 104% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 255,000 220,962 (34,038) 188% Investment Income 79-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 500 301 (199) 60% Contributions 79-000-44-00-4400 DONATIONS 14,000 6,745 (7,255) 48% 79-000-44-00-4404 TREE DONATIONS 600 700 100 117% TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 14,600 7,445 (7,155) 51 Grants 79-000-45-00-4550 YOUTH SERVICES GRANT 500 - (500) 0% Other Revenue Rental Income 79-000-42-00-4286 RENTAL INCOME - 2,975 2,975 0% 79-000-42-00-4287 PARK RENTAL INCOME 15,000 19,496 4,496 130% 79-000-42-00-4288 GOLF OUTING REVENUE 9,000 - (9,000) 0% 79-000-42-00-4295 MISC RETAIL 3,500 - (3,500) 0% 79-000-42-00-4291 HOMETOWN DAYS 130,000 137,142 7,142 105% 79-000-44-00-4412 INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS - 7,329 7,329 0% 79-000-44-00-4490 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - 19,722 19,722 0% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 157,500 186,663 29,163 119% TOTAL REVENUE 428,100 415,371 (12,729) 97% EXPENDITURES Park Operations 79-610-50-00-5107 SALARIES-PARKS 350,026 355,091 5,065 101% 79-610-50-00-5136 SALARIES-PART-TIME 17,000 15,969 (1,031) 94% 79-610-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 4,000 439 (3,561) 11% 79-610-62-00-5405 PARK CONTRACTUAL 2,000 3,323 1,323 166% 79-610-62-00-5408 MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT 14,000 17,143 3,143 122% 79-610-62-00-5417 MAINTENANCE-PARKS 34,000 27,088 (6,912) 80% 79-610-62-00-5421 WEARING APPAREL 4,100 4,031 (69) 98% 79-610-62-00-5434 RENTAL-EQUIPMENT 2,500 188 (2,312) 8% 79-610-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 4,200 1,802 (2,398) 43% 79-610-62-00-5445 LEGAL EXPENSES 4,000 1,749 (2,251) 44% 79-610-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCE 1,500 309 (1,191) 21% 79-610-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 300 152 (148) 51% 79-610-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 20,000 10,400 (9,600) 52% 79-610-65-00-5815 HAND TOOLS 1,750 1,785 35 102% 79-610-65-00-5824 CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS 1,000 359 (641) 36% 79-610-65-00-5825 PUBLIC DECORATION 500 - (500) 0% 79-610-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 33,953 32,914 (1,039) 97% 79-610-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 28,383 27,503 (880) 97% 79-610-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 500 - (500) 0% 79-610-75-00-7003 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 500 - (500) 0% 79-610-75-00-7701 FLOWERS/TREES 500 473 (27) 95% TOTAL PARK OPERATIONS 524,712 500,718 (23,994) 95% 13 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget Recreation Operations 79-650-50-00-5107 SALARIES-RECREATION 368,532 248,541 (119,991) 67% 79-650-50-00-5108 CONCESSION STAFF 10,000 9,021 (979) 90% 79-650-50-00-5109 SALARIES-PRE SCHOOL 20,000 23,085 3,085 115% 79-650-50-00-5136 SALARIES-PART TIME 22,080 12,708 (9,372) 58% 79-650-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 300 - (300) 0% 79-650-50-00-5150 SALARIES-INSTRUCTOR 16,000 22,657 6,657 142% 79-650-50-00-5155 SALARIES-RECORDING SECRETARY 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 79-650-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50,000 49,076 (924) 98% 79-650-62-00-5408 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 2,000 412 (1,588) 21% 79-650-62-00-5409 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES 1,000 1,387 387 139% 79-650-62-00-5410 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIPMENT 3,500 2,459 (1,041) 70% 79-650-62-00-5426 YOUTH SERVICES GRANT EXPENSES 500 - (500) 0% 79-650-62-00-5435 ELECTRICITY 22,000 21,229 (771) 96% 79-650-62-00-5437 TELEPHONEANTERNET 1,300 3,556 2,256 274% 79-650-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 3,000 1,961 (1,039) 65% 79-650-62-00-5445 PORTABLE TOILETS 4,500 3,750 (750) 83% 79-650-62-00-5603 PUBLISHING/ADVERTISING 27,000 27,872 872 103% 79-650-62-00-5605 BOOKS/PUBLICATIONS 100 - (100) 0% 79-650-64-00-5600 DUES 1,500 482 (1,018) 32% 79-650-64-00-5604 TRAINING AND CONFERENCES 500 680 180 136% 79-650-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,000 2,466 (534) 82% 79-650-65-00-5803 PROGRAM EXPENSES 53,600 47,154 (6,446) 88% 79-650-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 1,000 388 (612) 39% 79-650-65-00-5805 RECREATION EQUIPMENT 2,000 283 (1,717) 14% 79-650-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 8,000 7,006 (994) 88% 79-650-65-00-5812 GASOLINE 3,000 1,626 (1,374) 54% 79-650-65-00-5826 MILEAGE 300 - (300) 0% 79-650-65-00-5827 GOLF OUTING EXPENSES 6,000 - (6,000) 0% 79-650-65-00-5828 CONCESSIONS 18,000 17,834 (166) 99% 79-650-65-00-5833 HOMETOWN DAYS EXPENSES 100,000 99,903 (97) 100% 79-650-65-00-5840 SCHOLARSHIPS 1,000 221 (779) 22% 79-650-65-00-5841 PROGRAM REFUND 7,000 3,082 (3,918) 44% 79-650-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 41,537 24,798 (16,739) 60% 79-650-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 30,351 23,899 (6,452) 79% 79-650-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 2,600 2,600 - 100% 79-650-78-00-9010 MISC RETAIL 3,000 - (3,000) 0% TOTAL RECREATION 837,200 660,136 (177,064) 79% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,361,912 1,160,854 (201,058) 85% EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (933,812) (745,483) 188,329 Other Financing Sources(Uses) Transfers In 79-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND/REC 430,974 430,974 - 100% 79-000-49-00-4902 TRANSFER IN FROM GF-LOAN 100,000 - (100,000) 0% 79-000-49-00-4903 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND/PKS 520,916 520,916 - 100% Transfers Out 79-650-99-00-9941 REPAYMENT OF GF LOAN (100,000) - 100,000 0% TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) 951,890 951,890 - 100% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 18,078 206,407 188,329 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 25,151 25,151 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 43,229 231,558 188,329 14 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 FOX INDUSTRIAL TIF FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Property Taxes 85-000-40-00-4090 TIF REVENUES 216,677 228,346 11,669 105% Investment Income 85-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 50 15 (35) 30% TOTAL REVENUES 216,727 228,361 11,634 105% EXPENDITURES 85-000-78-00-9007 ADMINISTRATION FEES 500 1,989 1,489 398% Debt Service 85-000-66-00-6021 FOX IND BOND-PRINCIPAL PMT 70,000 70,000 - 100% 85-000-66-00-6022 FOX IND BOND-INT PAYMENT 9,933 9,933 - 0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 80,433 81,922 1,489 102% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 136,294 146,439 10,145 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 423,351 423,351 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 559,645 569,790 10,145 15 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 COUNTRYSIDE TIF FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Property Taxes 87-000-40-00-4090 TIF REVENUES 6,250 6,372 122 102% Investment Income 87-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 6,104 3,135 (2,969) 51% TOTAL REVENUES 12,354 9,507 (2,847) 77% EXPENDITURES 87-000-78-00-9007 ADMINISTRATION FEES 1,000 1,622 622 162% Debt Service 87-000-66-00-6022 BOND-INT PAYMENT 307,093 307,093 - 100% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 308,093 308,715 622 100% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (295,739) (299,208) (3,469) FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 2,477,758 2,477,758 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 2,182,019 2,178,550 (3,469) 16 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 DOWNTOWN TIF FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES 88-000-40-00-4090 TIF REVENUES 88,550 75,362 (13,188) 85% EXPENDITURES 88-000-78-00-9007 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 1,500 1,896 396 126% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 87,050 73,466 (13,584) FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 136,294 136,294 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 223,344 209,760 (13,584) 17 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 DEBT SERVICE FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Licenses,Permits and Fees 42-000-44-00-4440 RECAPTURE-WATER/SEWER - 1,025 1,025 0% EXPENDITURES Debt Service 42-000-66-00-6071 $650K ROAD IMPROV PROG PRINC 107,825 107,825 - 100% 42-000-66-00-6075 $3.825M IN TOWN ROAD PRINC 321,579 321,579 - 100% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 429,404 429,404 - 100% Other Financing Sources(Uses) Transfers In 42-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 429,404 429,404 - 100% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) - 1,025 1,025 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 7,628 7,628 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 7,628 8,653 1,025 18 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 MUNICIPAL BUILDING FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Licenses,Permits and Fees 16-000-42-00-4211 DEVELOPMENT FEES-BUILDING 55,000 20,700 (34,300) 38% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 55,000 20,700 (34,300) FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR (607,724) (607,724) FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR (552,724) (587,024) (34,300) 19 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 POLICE CAPITAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Licenses,Permits and Fees 20-000-42-00-4212 DEV FEES-POLICE 25,000 16,009 (8,991) 64% 20-000-44-00-4406 WEATHER WARNING SIREN FEES 6,000 407 (5,593) 7% TOTAL LICENSES,PERMITS&FEES 31,000 16,416 (14,584) 53% Fines and Forfeits 20-000-44-00-4403 DUI FINES - 6,462 6,462 0% 20-000-44-00-4407 ELECTRONIC CITATION FEES - 122 122 0% 20-000-44-00-4440 SEIZED VEHICLES 5,000 6,028 1,028 121% TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITS 5,000 12,612 7,612 252% Other Revenue 20-000-44-00-4431 SALE OF POLICE SQUADS 1,000 8,900 7,900 890% TOTAL REVENUES 37,000 37,928 928 103% EXPENDITURES Public Safety Contractual Services 20-000-65-00-5840 SEIZED VEHICLES 1,500 3,060 1,560 204% Capital Outlay Police Equipment 20-000-75-00-7001 EQUIPMENT 40,000 1,462 (38,538) 4% 20-000-75-00-7002 K-9 EQUIPMENT 2,500 - (2,500) 0% 20-000-75-00-7005 VEHICLES 40,000 42,310 2,310 106% 20-000-75-00-7006 CAR BUILD OUT 20,000 6,433 (13,567) 32% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 104,000 53,265 (50,735) 51% EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (67,000) (15,337) 51,663 Other Financing Sources(Uses) Transfers In 20-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 25,000 (25,000) 0% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (42,000) (15,337) 26,663 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 210,284 210,284 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 168,284 194,947 26,663 20 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Licenses,Permits and Fees 21-000-42-00-4213 DEVELOPMENT FEES-PUBLIC WORKS 35,000 25,100 (9,900) 72% Other Revenue 21-000-42-00-4288 MOWING INCOME - 4,897 4,897 0% 21-000-44-00-4430 SALE OF EQUIPMENT - - 0% 21-000-44-00-4490 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - 7,283 7,283 0% TOTAL REVENUE 35,000 37,280 2,280 107% EXPENDITURES Public Works Contractual Services 21-000-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 49 49 0% Supplies 21-000-75-00-7107 TRUCK ACCESSORIES 5,000 (5,000) 0% Capital Outlay Public Works Equipment 21-000-75-00-7005 VEHICLES 46,000 - (46,000) 0% 21-000-75-00-7015 SKIDSTEER UPGRADE 4,000 4,000 - 100% Debt Service Public Works Building 21-000-75-00-7110 PW BUILDING PAYMENT 84,000 82,295 (1,705) 98% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 139,000 86,344 (52,656) 62% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (104,000) (49,064) 54,936 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 157,807 157,807 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR 53,807 108,743 54,936 21 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES 22-000-42-00-4216 PARKS CAPITAL FEE 2,500 1,650 (850) 66% 22-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME - 99 99 0% Other Revenue 22-000-42-00-4217 PARK CAPITAL DONATIONS - - - 0% 22-000-42-00-4218 BASEBALL FIELD CONSTRUCT 15,000 (15,000) 0% 22-000-44-00-4430 SALE OF VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT - - - 0% 22-000-44-00-4490 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - 7,500 7,500 0% TOTAL REVENUE 17,500 9,249 (8,251) 53% EXPENDITURES 22-610-75-00-7010 RAINTREE PARK 158,135 9,002 (149,133) 6% 22-610-75-00-7011 BASEBALL FIELD CONSTRUCT 15,000 15,656 656 104% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 173,135 24,658 (148,477) 14% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (155,635) (15,409) 140,226 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR 66,852 66,852 FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR (88,783) 51,443 140,226 22 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures-Budgeted and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 CITY WIDE CAPITAL FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget REVENUES Licenses,Permits and Fees 23-000-42-00-4211 ENGINEERING CAPITAL FEE 4,000 3,100 (900) 78% 23-000-40-00-3996 ROAD CONTRIBUTION 24,000 22,000 (2,000) 92% TOTAL LICENSES,PERMITS AND FEES 28,000 25,100 (2,900) 90% Investment Income 23-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME - 19 19 0% Grants 23-000-45-00-4501 SAFE RT TO SCHOOL(DESIGN) 46,200 - (46,200) 0% 23-000-45-00-4502 SAFE RT TO SCHOOL(CONST) 184,800 - (184,800) 0% 23-000-45-00-4508 STATE GRANTS - 64,000 64,000 0% TOTAL GRANTS 231,000 64,000 (167,000) 28% Other Revenue 23-000-44-00-4417 MISC.REIMBURSEMENTS - 1,200 1,200 0% TOTAL REVENUE 259,000 90,319 (168,681) 35% EXPENDITURES General Government 23-000-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 5,740 5,740 0% Capital Outlay 23-000-75-00-7005 VEHICLES 4,000 - (4,000) 0% 23-000-75-00-7103 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT 37,500 10,484 (27,016) 28% 23-000-75-00-7111 PARKWAY TREE PLANTING 25,000 - (25,000) 0% 23-000-75-00-7112 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT RVRFRNT 50,000 - (50,000) 0% 23-000-75-00-7113 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 46,200 - (46,200) 0% 23-000-75-00-7114 SAFE RTS TO SCHOOL(CONS) 184,800 - (184,800) 0% 23-000-75-00-7116 TOWN SQUARE PARK 25,000 - (25,000) 0% 23-000-75-00-7117 FAXON ROAD ROW 85,000 - (85,000) 0% 23-000-75-00-7119 OLD JAIL - 161,549 161,549 0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 457,500 172,033 (285,467) 38% Debt Service 23-000-75-00-7101 RON CLARK PROPERTY 125,000 125,000 100% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 582,500 302,773 (279,727) 52% EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (323,500) (212,454) 111,046 Other Financing Sources(Uses) Transfers In 23-000-49-00-4901 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 162,500 135,484 (27,016) 83% 23-000-49-00-4915 TRANSFER FROM MFT - 96,000 96,000 0% TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 162,500 231,484 68,984 142% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (161,000) 19,030 180,030 FUND BALANCE-BEGINNING OF YEAR (18,378) (18,378) FUND BALANCE-END OF YEAR (179,378) 652 180,030 23 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues,Expenses and Changes in Net Assets-Budget and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 SEWER FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services 52-000-42-00-4250 SEWER MAINTENANCE FEES 580,000 731,743 151,743 126% Other Revenue 52-000-44-00-4412 INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS - 1,197 1,197 0% 52-000-44-00-4417 REIMBURSEMENTS 3,379 3,379 0% 52-000-42-00-4221 RIVER CROSSING FEES 239 239 0% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE - 4,815 4,815 0% TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 580,000 736,558 156,558 127% OPERATING EXPENSES 52-000-50-00-5108 SALARIES-SEWER OP. 256,296 257,610 1,314 101% 52-000-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 7,500 448 (7,052) 6% 52-000-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,500 4,022 (478) 89% 52-000-62-00-5408 MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT 5,000 2,973 (2,027) 59% 52-000-62-00-5409 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES 4,000 4,908 908 123% 52-000-62-00-5419 MAINTENANCE-SANITARY SEWER 20,000 7,981 (12,019) 40% 52-000-62-00-5421 WEARING APPAREL 2,500 1,830 (670) 73% 52-000-62-00-5422 LIFT STATION MAINTENANCE 15,000 10,370 (4,630) 69% 52-000-62-00-5434 RENTAL-EQUIPMENT 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 52-000-62-00-5435 ELECTRICITY 30,000 21,071 (8,929) 70% 52-000-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,800 1,399 (401) 78% 52-000-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCES 500 - (500) 0% 52-000-64-00-5605 TRAVEL/MEALS/LODGING 500 (500) 0% 52-000-65-00-5800 CONTINGENCIES - - - 0% 52-000-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,800 1,072 (728) 60% 52-000-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES - - - 0% 52-000-65-00-5805 SHOP SUPPLIES 2,500 1,891 (609) 76% 52-000-65-00-5812 GASOLINE 26,000 28,692 2,692 110% 52-000-65-00-5815 HAND TOOLS 1,000 133 (867) 13% 52-000-65-00-5817 GRAVEL 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 52-000-65-00-5823 SEWER CHEMICALS - - - 0% 52-000-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 21,949 24,018 2,069 109% 52-000-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 20,230 18,864 (1,366) 93% 52-000-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 1,000 879 (121) 88% 52-000-75-00-7003 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 500 5 (495) 1% 52-000-75-00-7004 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 1,000 1,216 216 122% 52-000-78-00-9099 BAD DEBT - 15,859 15,859 0% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 426,575 405,241 (21,334) 95% Depreciation 52-000-66-00-8500 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE - 427,322 427,322 0% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 426,575 832,563 405,988 195% OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) 153,425 (96,005) (249,430) 24 SEWER FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Connection Fees 52-000-42-00-4251 SW CONNNECTION FEES-OPS 25,000 4,000 (21,000) 16% 52-200-42-00-4220 SW CONNECTION FEES-CAPITAL 175,000 38,000 (137,000) 22% 52-200-48-00-4803 CONNECTION FEES-ROB ROY 100,000 698,000 598,000 698% TOTAL CONNECTION FEES 300,000 740,000 440,000 247% Investment Income 52-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 1,800 1,517 (283) 84% Amortization Expense 52-000-66-00-8800 AMMORTIZATION EXPENSE - (28,103) (28,103) 0% Interest Expense 52-000-66-00-8200 INTEREST EXPENSE (39,360) (39,360) 0% 52-200-66-00-6003 2003A IRBB INTEREST PMT-BRUELL (163,653) (73,653) 90,001 45% 52-200-66-00-6004 2003A IRBB PRINC.PMT-BRUELL - 0% 52-200-66-00-6008 2004B PRINCIPAL PMT-CNTRYSIDE (258,300) (103,300) 155,000 40% 52-200-66-00-6011 2004A PRINCIPAL PMT-COMED/HYD. (188,572) (28,573) 159,999 15% 52-200-66-00-6016 2005D INTEREST PMT-ROB ROY (537,541) (385,950) 151,591 72% 52-200-66-00-6017 2005C 2M ALT REV (82,850) 82,850 0% 52-200-66-00-6018 2008 DEBT SERVICE (110,090) (110,090) 0% 52-200-66-00-6050 IEPA LOAN L17-013000 PRINC PMT (38,980) (3,623) 35,357 9% 52-200-66-00-6055 IEPA LOAN L17-115300 P&I PMT (107,051) (22,944) 84,107 21% 52-200-66-00-6059 2007A BOND (133,866) 133,866 0% TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE (1,510,813) (767,493) 743,320 51% TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUE(EXPENSES) (1,209,013) (54,079) 1,154,934 4% INCOME(LOSS)BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS&TRANSFERS (1,055,588) (150,084) 905,504 Other Financing Sources(Uses) Contributions-Capital Assets 52-000-44-00-4035 DEVELOPER DONATIONS 171,170 171,170 0% Transfers Out 52-000-99-00-9901 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND (83,045) (83,045) - 100% 52-200-99-00-9951 TRANSFER TO WATER (82,850) (82,850) 0% TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) (83,045) 5,275 88,320 -6% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,138,633) (144,809) 993,824 NET ASSETS-BEGINNING OF YEAR 16,883,090 16,883,090 NET ASSETS-END OF YEAR 15,744,457 16,738,281 993,824 25 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues,Expenses and Changes in Net Assets-Budget and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 WATER FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services 51-000-42-00-4240 BULK WATER SALES 2,000 882 (1,118) 44% 51-000-42-00-4241 WATER SALES 1,286,250 1,698,753 412,503 132% 51-000-42-00-4242 WATER METER SALES 32,000 22,040 (9,960) 69% 51-000-42-00-4243 LEASE REVENUE-H2O TOWER 29,000 32,038 3,038 110% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,349,250 1,753,713 404,463 130% Other Revenues 51-000-44-00-4417 REIMBURSEMENTS - 4,318 4,318 0% 51-000-44-00-4499 BAD DEBT RECOVERY 4,437 4,437 0% TOTAL OTHER REVENUES - 8,755 8,755 - TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 1,349,250 1,762,468 413,218 131% Operating Expenses 51-000-50-00-5107 SALARIES-WATER OP. 358,702 364,251 5,549 102% 51-000-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 15,000 3,945 (11,055) 26% 51-000-61-00-5300 LEGAL SERVICES - - 0% 51-000-61-00-5303 JULIE SERVICE 6,000 2,422 (3,578) 40% 51-000-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,000 5,236 (764) 87% 51-000-62-00-5407 TREATMENT FACILITIES O&M 230,000 245,521 15,521 107% 51-000-62-00-5408 MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT 8,000 995 (7,005) 12% 51-000-62-00-5409 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES 9,000 3,855 (5,145) 43% 51-000-62-00-5411 MAINTENANCE-COMPUTERS 500 - (500) 0% 51-000-62-00-5421 WEARING APPAREL 3,500 2,206 (1,294) 63% 51-000-62-00-5434 RENTAL-EQUIPMENT 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 51-000-62-00-5435 ELECTRICITY 290,000 262,977 (27,023) 91% 51-000-62-00-5436 TELEPHONE 22,000 13,434 (8,566) 61% 51-000-62-00-5438 CELLULAR TELEPHONE 3,300 2,164 (1,136) 66% 51-000-64-00-5600 DUES 1,000 842 (158) 84% 51-000-64-00-5603 SUBSCRIPTIONS 250 57 (193) 23% 51-000-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCES 1,600 1,842 242 115% 51-000-64-00-5605 TRAVEL EXPENSES 1,600 390 (1,210) 24% 51-000-65-00-5800 CONTINGENCIES - - 0% 51-000-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 32,500 19,777 (12,723) 61% 51-000-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 22,000 16,716 (5,284) 76% 51-000-65-00-5809 PRINTING&COPYING 2,500 1,164 (1,336) 47% 51-000-65-00-5810 PUBLISHING&ADVERTISING 500 934 434 187% 51-000-65-00-5812 GASOLINE 34,000 30,008 (3,992) 88% 51-000-65-00-5815 HAND TOOLS 1,000 146 (854) 15% 51-000-65-00-5817 GRAVEL 2,000 1,690 (310) 85% 51-000-65-00-5820 CHEMICALS - - - 0% 51-000-65-00-5821 CATHODIC PROTECTION - - 0% 51-000-65-00-5822 WATER SAMPLES 14,000 10,265 (3,735) 73% 51-000-72-00-6500 IMRF PARTICIPANTS 31,017 34,330 3,313 111% 51-000-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY&MEDICARE 28,588 26,890 (1,698) 94% 51-000-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 1,200 338 (862) 28% 51-000-75-00-7004 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 1,000 266 (734) 27% 51-000-75-00-7506 METER READERS - - - 0% 51-000-75-00-7507 HYDRANT REPLACEMENT 6,000 1,362 (4,638) 23% 51-000-75-00-7508 METERS&PARTS 40,000 30,773 (9,227) 77% 51-000-75-00-7509 ELECTRICITY MONITOR - - - 0% 51-000-78-00-9099 BAD DEBT - 10,424 10,424 0% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1,173,757 1,095,220 (78,537) 93% 26 WATER FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget Improvements 51-200-61-00-5300 LEGAL SERVICES 2,000 (2,000) 0% 51-200-62-00-5464 GRANDE RESERVE COURT ORDER 269,856 (269,856) 0% TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 271,856 - (271,856) 0% Depreciation Expense 51-000-66-00-8500 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE - 777,189 777,189 0% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1,445,613 1,872,409 426,796 130% OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) (96,363) (109,941) (13,578) Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Connection Fees 51-200-42-00-4220 CONNECTION FEES 190,000 96,140 (93,860) 51% Improvement Expansion Fee 51-200-42-00-4250 IMPROVEMENT EXPANSION FEE 580,104 685,188 105,084 118% Investment Income 51-000-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 1,800 1,517 (283) 84% 51-200-46-00-4600 INVESTMENT INCOME 1,200 371 (829) 31% TOTAL INVESTMENT INCOME 3,000 1,888 (1,112) 63% Amortization Expense 51-000-66-00-8800 AMMORTIZATION EXPENSE - (91,873) (91,873) 0% Interest Expense 51-000-66-00-8200 INTEREST EXPENSE - (33,668) (33,668) 0% 51-200-66-00-6007 RADIUM COMPLIANCE BOND - (33,150) (33,150) 0% 51-200-66-00-6041 IEPA L17-156300 PRINCIPAL PMT (125,031) (41,531) 83,500 33% 51-200-66-00-6042 IEPA L17-156300 INTEREST PMT - - - 0% 51-200-66-00-6056 2006A REFUND.INTEREST PMT-WTR - - - 0% 51-200-66-00-6057 2006A REFUND.PRINCIPAL PMT-WTR (161,307) (91,306) 70,001 57% 51-200-66-00-6058 2002 PRINCIPAL PMT-NORTH WTR (215,000) (27,200) 187,800 13% 51-200-66-00-6059 2007A REFUNDING P&I PMT (124,266) (124,266) 0% 51-200-66-00-6072 2005C INTEREST PMT-$2M - - 0% 51-200-66-00-6073 2005C PRINCIPAL PMT-$2M (83,863) (80,700) 3,163 96% TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE (585,201) (431,821) 153,380 74% TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUE(EXPENSES) 187,903 259,521 71,618 138% INCOME(LOSS)BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS&TRANSFERS 91,540 149,580 58,040 Other Financing Sources(Uses) Contributions-Capital Assets 51-000-44-00-4035 DEVELOPER DONATIONS - 70,174 70,174 0% Transfers In 51-000-49-00-4952 TRANSFER FROM SEWER - 82,850 82,850 0% Transfers Out 51-000-99-00-9901 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND (91,863) (91,863) - 100% TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) (91,863) 61,161 153,024 -67% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (323) 210,741 211,064 NET ASSETS-BEGINNING OF YEAR 19,308,639 19,308,639 NET ASSETS-END OF YEAR 19,308,316 19,519,380 211,064 27 United City of Yorkville Schedule of Revenues,Expenses and Changes in Net Assets-Budget and Actual For the Year Ended April 30,2011 RECREATION CENTER FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services 80-000-42-00-4200 MEMBERSHIP FEES 410,000 418,685 8,685 102% 80-000-42-00-4210 GUEST FEES 3,500 7,072 3,572 202% 80-000-42-00-4220 SWIM CLASS 35,000 27,013 (7,988) 77% 80-000-42-00-4230 PERSONAL TRAINING FEES 15,000 8,055 (6,945) 54% 80-000-42-00-4240 TANNING SESSIONS 2,500 2,072 (428) 83% 80-000-42-00-4270 FEES FOR PROGRAMS 125,000 130,565 5,565 104% 80-000-42-00-4280 CONCESSIONS 12,000 14,692 2,692 122% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE 603,000 608,154 5,154 101% Other Revenue 80-000-42-00-4286 RENTAL INCOME 3,000 7,103 4,103 237% 80-000-44-00-4400 DONATIONS/SPONSORSHIP 2,000 3,170 1,170 159% 80-000-45-00-4550 GRANTS/SCHOLARSHIPS 500 - (500) 0% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 5,500 10,273 4,773 187% TOTAL REVENUES 608,500 618,427 9,927 102% OPERATING EXPENSES 80-000-50-00-5107 SALARIES-REC CENTER 33,543 34,332 789 102% 80-000-50-00-5109 SALARIES-PRESCHOOL 35,000 38,362 3,362 110% 80-000-50-00-5136 SALARIES-PART TIME 98,000 96,666 (1,334) 99% 80-000-50-00-5137 SALARIES-OVERTIME 500 - (500) 0% 80-000-50-00-5150 SALARIES-INSTRUCTORS 65,000 56,418 (8,582) 87% 80-000-62-00-5401 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,000 30,795 15,795 205% 80-000-62-00-5408 MAINTENANCE-SUPPLIES 11,000 9,768 (1,232) 89% 80-000-62-00-5410 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIP. 4,500 3,204 (1,296) 71% 80-000-62-00-5416 MAINTENANCE-GENERAL 16,000 9,313 (6,687) 58% 80-000-62-00-5426 GRANTS 500 - (500) 0% 80-000-62-00-5430 TOWEL RENTAL 1,500 1,527 27 102% 80-000-62-00-5431 POOL REPAIR 5,000 4,314 (686) 86% 80-000-62-00-5432 LEASE PAYMENT 216,000 215,000 (1,000) 100% 80-000-62-00-5433 LICENSES/PERMITS 700 350 (350) 50% 80-000-62-00-5434 POOL SUPPLIES 3,200 3,346 146 105% 80-000-62-00-5435 ELECTRICITY 28,000 41,456 13,456 148% 80-000-62-00-5437 TELEPHONE/INTERNET/CABLE 1,750 4,012 2,262 229% 80-000-62-00-5438 CELLULAR PHONE 600 367 (233) 61% 80-000-62-00-5439 PROPERTY TAX 53,000 53,680 680 101% 80-000-62-00-5440 SECURITY 500 180 (320) 36% 80-000-62-00-5603 PUBLISHING/ADVERTISING 1,500 732 (768) 49% 80-000-62-00-5605 BOOKS/PUBLICATION 50 - (50) 0% 80-000-64-00-5600 DUES 200 - (200) 0% 80-000-64-00-5604 TRAINING&CONFERENCES - - - 0% 80-000-64-00-5605 TRAVEL EXPENSES - - - 0% 80-000-65-00-5802 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,600 1,730 (870) 67% 80-000-65-00-5803 PROGRAM EXPENSES 17,000 11,676 (5,324) 69% 80-000-65-00-5804 OPERATING SUPPLIES 3,000 1,198 (1,802) 40% 80-000-65-00-5805 RECREATION EQUIPMENT 6,000 5,320 (680) 89% 80-000-65-00-5808 POSTAGE&SHIPPING 600 - (600) 0% 80-000-65-00-5812 GASOLINE 300 - (300) 0% 80-000-65-00-5826 MILEAGE 200 - (200) 0% 80-000-65-00-5828 CONCESSIONS EXPENSES 6,000 10,029 4,029 167% 80-000-65-00-5840 SCHOLARSHIPS 400 389 (11) 97% 80-000-65-00-5841 PROGRAM REFUNDS 4,000 7,049 3,049 176% 80-000-65-00-5842 MEMBERSHIP REFUNDS 1,500 1,424 (76) 95% 80-000-72-00-6500 IMRF 10,000 11,607 1,607 116% 28 RECREATION CENTER FUND Variance from Percentage FY 2011 FY 2011 Budget of Budget Actual Over(Under) Budget 80-000-72-00-6501 SOCIAL SECURITY 17,658 17,132 (526) 97% 80-000-75-00-7002 COMPUTER EQUIP&SOFTWARE 3,200 3,180 (20) 99% 80-000-75-00-7003 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 300 - (300) 0% 80-000-75-00-7500 PHONE SYSTEM 200 - (200) 0% 80-000-78-00-9002 NICOR 11,000 13,661 2,661 124% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 675,001 688,218 13,217 102% OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) (66,501) (69,791) (3,290) Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Other Income 80-000-78-00-9010 MISC RETAIL (300) - 300 0% 80-000-42-00-4295 MISC RETAIL 500 1,593 1,093 319% TOTAL OTHER INCOME 200 1,593 1,393 797% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (66,301) (68,198) (1,897) NET ASSETS-BEGINNING OF YEAR (128,887) (128,887) NET ASSETS-END OF YEAR (195,188) (197,085) (1,897) 29 c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number ii J� a 0-0 Legal ❑ NB # 5 II Finance ❑ EST. , � 1836 Engineer ❑ Tracking Number y City Administrator ❑ Consultant ❑ ADM 2011-49 dal County El`E Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Residential Electric Consolidation Meeting and Date: Administration Committee—09/15/11 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Agenda Item Notes: MUNICIPAL AGGREGATION Municipal aggregation is the easiest and safest method for a municipality to reduce your residents' Commonwealth Edison bills. Municipal aggregation allows local governments to bundle — or aggregate — residential and small commercial retail electric accounts and seek bids for a lower cost source of power, similar to how municipalities negotiate contracts for waste disposal or cable television. Illinois Public Act 096-0176 gives municipalities the authority to bring your residents and small businesses together to buy electricity as a group and negotiate price of the electric supply on the group's behalf. All eligible residents and small businesses are automatically enrolled. Those who don't want to participate can "opt-out" of the program. This aggregation program can only be implemented when the voters approve a referendum in a primary or general election. The next available election will be held in March of 2012. After a ballot issue is approved, NIMEC would solicit bids for the municipality's aggregated load. These bid rates would be compared to ComEd's rates and the municipality would only move forward if the new supplier's rate is favorable. If no savings could be realized, the municipality has the option of making no change and continuing to purchase power with ComEd. Whether the municipality moves the residents' load or not, residents would continue to call ComEd in the event of a service disruption. And ComEd would continue to send the residents their monthly bills. Municipalities must pass an ordinance by the end of this year to place the referendum on the upcoming March 2012 ballot. After the ballot, two public hearings would be held before going to bid in early June. Residents could expect to see their bills lowered by the end of summer. NIMEC NORTHERN ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC COLLABORATIVE BANDING TOGETHER TO DRIVE DOWN PRICING MUNICIPAL AGGREGATION FAQ Q: What are the benefits of aggregation? A:The most important benefit is the opportunity for Village residents and small business operators to save money. Q: Are all residents obligated to participate? A: No. Any account holder may opt out of the program after the bidder is chosen, and pay the rate ComEd charges to accounts not participating in the aggregation program. Q: What does opt out mean? A: All residential and small commercial electricity users will be included in the customer base unless they affirmatively choose not to participate. The opportunity to opt out will be available to customers after the bids are received and the electric rate and identity of the supplier are made known to customers. Q: What is Corn Ed's role in this program? A: ComEd distributes electricity, but does not generate it. ComEd is only responsible for infrastructure, like power lines that bring electricity into homes and businesses, responding to outages and billing. ComEd will continue to bill customers for power generation and individual electric usage regardless of the supplier of that electricity. ComEd is indifferent to the aggregation program, as it does not impact them financially. Q: If my power goes out—will I need to call the company providing the power? A: No. ComEd is responsible for ensuring that electricity flows through its network to all homes and businesses in the Village. Aggregation would not change how ComEd responds to outages. Q: If I participate, will I get two bills—one from ComEd for delivering the power and another from a company that provides it? A: No. ComEd will remain responsible for billing for all power, regardless of the supplier. The only change would be the name of the power provider on the bill's power generation item line. Q: Will our franchise accounts at ComEd be affected? A: There will be no change to your franchise accounts; they will continue to be free service. Q: Will our village's municipal utility tax be affected? A: No. The utility tax is charged against usage, not dollar charges. NIMEC NORTHERN ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC COLLABORATIVE. BANDING TOGETHER TO DRIVE DOWN PRICING NIM NORTHERN ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC COLLABORATIVE Summer 2011 BANDING TOGETHER TO DRIVE DOWN PRICING POWER TO THE PEOPLE VOL 2 RESIDENTS'ENERGY COSTS TO DROP 20-25 Eight NIMEC municipalities competitive bids. remaining 5 NIMEC have lowered the cost of villages will be going to bid electric energy for all of Recent changes in the this summer. their residents and small Illinois legislature have businesses by 20-25%. made municipal Currently residents in This was made possible aggregation possible. Illinois are being solicited through the municipal Municipalities can now by power companies to aggregation initiative. seek bids from power move their individual suppliers to see if they can accounts. Direct mail, Residents will see their beat the ComEd rate. radio and billboard ComEd bills drop$975 to advertising are being used $200 per year. And they The eight communities are Crest Hill, Fox River Grove, by power companies to will not have to do anything solicit individual accounts. to realize these savings. Glenwood, Harvard, New Lenox, Sugar Grove, To date 83,000 residential Commonwealth Edison will Elburn and North Aurora. accounts have individually continue to deliver the moved their accounts to power, bill monthly and NIMEC has partnered with these new suppliers. repair any power Rock River Energy 00 interruptions. The only Services (RRES) to help The 8 NIMEC members difference will be lower communities take M04 consist of 45,000 power costs. advantage of the lower residential accounts. rates. Of the 19 towns in Therefore, our first 8 Total savings for these northern Illinois that have villages have increased the communities will be passed their referendums, number of residents $8,000,000 per year. NIMEC and RRES are leaving ComEd by 50%. These eight communities working with 15. 44 Additionally, the savings passed referendums in To date, 10 villages have through our municipal April of this year. The locked in lower rates with aggregation process are referendums were competitive suppliers. double those that necessary to allow the NIMEC and RRES have residents can obtain municipalities to seek consulted with all 10. The individually. 4117 CHERRY CREEK LANE, SUITE 250, PROSPECT HEIGHTS,IL 60070 .. fax: 847-392-9303 111 ' s t • clearance :,��% Collaborative, a firm that consults with local governments that want to negotiate bulk purchases. 'We leverage it to make it look bike we're not just 100 smaller deals,but one big deal." Alternative electric suppliers that have popped up recently began offering rates to individuals that are below ComEd's,but they're not negotiable. The law,passed in 2009, allows local governments to negotiate below those rates. In Fulton!s case,the city contracted with FirstEnergy Solutions to supply electricity for its residents and small businesses through July 2014. Residents automatically were signed on, although Russell said a handful of residents declined "out of loyalty to ComEd." As part of the deal, Fulton also snagged a one-time grant of$13,000 from FirstEnergy,based in Akron, Ohio. FirstEnergy is among a number of alternative suppliers competing for municipal aggregation contracts. With the deal, ComEd is still in charge of the electric lines, is the company to call if the lights go out and continues to read residents' meters and send monthly bills. But the electricity comes from deals that alternative suppliers End on the open electricity market. The Illinois Power Agency does the same dealing for ComEd a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corp.,which serves about 3.8 million customers across northern Illinois but must follow stricter rules because ComEd is a regulated utility. In addition to Illinois, California., Ohio, Massachusetts,New Jersey and Rhode Island allow community aggregation. Both major Illinois utilities support the concept. "Competitively bid municipal aggregation service, if properly structured, can be a way for residential customers to join together to take advantages of competitive electricity markets and save money,"said Judith Rader, an Exelon spokeswoman. ComEd doesn't make its money off the electricity it supplies. It passes along to customers the rate it pays to obtain the electricity from suppliers. ComEd makes its money delivering the electricity, charging consumers even if they switch to another supplier. Shawn Marshall,vice chair of the Maria Energy Authority,which operates California's first aggregation program, said large utilities in that state weren't pleased when the program began. 'They're not thrilled,"Marshall said. "It opens the market, stimulates competition and over time lets consumers' rates go down." In Ohio, where aggregation began in the 1990s, more than 350 programs negotiate bulk electric rates on behalf of 2 million customers, roughly one-sixth the state's population, according to a study prepared by Marshall. The Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council, consisting of 118 member cities serving more than 600,000 customers in northeast Ohio, will save about$28 million next year as a result of the programs. Anthony Rodriguez, spokesman for the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, a residential-utility consumer advocacy group, said consumers have saved money because of aggregation. But he noted that bulk purchases of natural gas,which is aggregated in Ohio but not Illinois, have had some hiccups. 'They were good deals when these municipalities signed them because the prices of natural gas were astronomical, especially after(Hurricane)Katrina.. But as prices went down, they were wrapped into these rates that customers were upset over because they were actually paying more money than they would be paying under the utility." Mark Pruitt, director of the Illinois Power Agency,which procures electricity for Illinois, said towns should be careful not to sign long-tern contracts that could lock in rates that look cheap now but that might not be as attractive in 2013. That's when several expensive long-term contracts wrapped into ComEd's rates are set to expire. "Hopefully,they're getting good advice,"Pruitt said. The Village of Oak Park is one of 20 local governments that have passed referendums allowing them to negotiate on behalf of their residents, according to the Illinois Commerce Commission. Upward of 50 cities are expected to buy into the concept in Illinois within a year, said John Kelly, deputy director of Oak Brook-based Galvin Electricity Initiative Inc., a consumer advocacy group founded by former Motorola chief Bob Galvin. Oak Park resident Mary Chris Jaklevic hopes the suburb can broker a deal that will give her a greener mix of electricity. Jaklevic would Ike more of her power coming from wind and solar and less from fossil fuel sources. I think a lot of people feel that way that they want more control over where their power comes from,"she said. iwernau&tribune.com Twitter @littlewern Copyright©2011, Chicago Tribune c/Ty Reviewed By: J� O� Legal Agenda Item Number a Finance NB #6 EST. , 1836 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 4 �l � � � Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development ❑ Police ❑ ADM 2011-50 ALE Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Downtown TIF budget amendment Meeting and Date: Administration— September 15, 2011 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: .��0 Co.y o Memorandum "' To: Administration Committee EST. �Z 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator -4 ` CC: O C u p Date: September 9, 2011 CountY Seat �� Kentla11COUnty �� Subject: Downtown TIF budget amendment �AL Summary Request for a new budget line-item in the Downtown TIF fund titled "Project Costs"with $20,000 of budgeted funds for expenses related to negotiating TIF agreements and for minor rehab work on public buildings. Request for new line-item During the past several months, the City has had discussions with various potential developers and current downtown property owners about TIF incentives. Often, these discussions result in a conversation with Attorney Orr by a staff member or the current of future property owner. Attorney Orr's billed time is either then coded to the "Administration Fees" line-item in the Downtown TIF budget or the City's corporate counsel budget line-item. In order to properly track budgeted expenses, a new line-item should be created in the downtown TIF budget titled "project costs" and $20,000 should be appropriated into the line-item. This way, when the City entertains pre-concept plan discussions with a developer or property owner, we can code the legal expense out of this line-item and have an accurate idea of the cost of negotiating agreements in the future. Other minor expenses in the downtown TIF district would be able to be authorized by staff out of this line item as well. For instance, the old post office needs some minor rehab work to replace and upgrade the failing and outdated HVAC system. This cost (less than $10,000) could be authorized by staff and coded out of the downtown TIF instead of coming out a line- item in the general fund. c/Ty Reviewed By: J� O� Legal El Agenda Item Number a Finance ❑ OB #1 EST. , 1836 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development F1 da K°n1G°""ty Police ❑ ADM 2011-43 ALE Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: City service survey Meeting and Date: Administration— September 15, 2011 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: August 2011 Action Taken: Discussion Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Direction and feedback on survey questions Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Co.y o Memorandum "' To: Administration Committee EST. �Z 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator .4 ` CC: O C u p Date: September 9, 2011 CountY Seat Subject: Citizen service survey Summary Review of two comprehensive service surveys conducted by other municipalities and review of draft questions for Yorkville's survey, based on feedback from the Administration Committee. Background At the last meeting, the Administration Committee asked staff to create some draft questions for the survey. Those draft questions are below. The structure of the draft questions is primarily based off of Naperville's 2006 service survey(attached), with a few questions from Clarendon Hills' 2007 service survey(attached). For the draft questions, I felt that a 5-point scale for varying degrees of satisfaction was the best survey method to gauge the opinion of residents on our services. This scale is typically called a "Likert scale" and is one of the most common survey structures. The physical layout of these questions will be similar to what is used in the Naperville survey, and will be drafted after the committee endorses the questions below. For some of the other questions, a simple check box or open-ended text box would be provided. Although the Committee did not discuss gathering demographic data in the survey, I feel it is vital to our future use of the survey results. Demographics will allow us to verify that we have feedback from different age groups, genders, ethnicities, and property ownership groups. For instance, if we see that no one responded to the survey in the age groups 50-59, 60-69 and 70+, we would know that additional survey outreach methods would be needed. Also, demographic data may yield useful information for certain questions. For instance, there may be correlation between a survey respondent's age and a perception of the police services in the community. If we can draw out those correlations, we may be able to tailor our services or communication about our services to better fit the community. Proposed survey questions 1) Please rate each City service on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied". (don't know is the sixth option) a. Quality of police services b. Maintenance of streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure c. City communication with public (not from elected officials) d. Communication with your elected officials e. Quality of customer service (any department) f. Flow of traffic / congestion management g. Quality of stormwater management system h. Quality of water services i. Quality of wastewater services j. Quality of refuse, recycling, and yardwaste collection services k. Quality of parks 1. Quantity of parks provided m. Quality of recreation programming offered n. Quantity of recreation classes offered o. Quality of special events offered p. Quality of customer service during building inspections q. Quality of property maintenance services (weeds, unsafe buildings, etc.) 2) Which three of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from City leaders over the next two years? a. (Check three boxes— same list as above) 3) Approximately 10 cents of each property tax dollar you pay goes to the City. The City's portion of property tax pays for the following services: Police, Public Works (street maintenance, snow plowing), Building, Zoning, Planning, Finance, Administration, and Parks and Recreation. The remaining 90 cents goes to the Library, County, Township, School District, Community College, Fire Protection, and Forest Preservation. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied". (don't know is the sixth option) a. Value you receive for City tax dollars and fees b. Image of the City c. Quality of City services d. Quality of life in the City 4) What do you consider to be the major assets and advantages of living in Yorkville? (check all that apply) a. Schools b. Location c. Shopping d. Transportation e. Housing Quality f. Housing Costs g. Residential Neighborhoods h. Friendliness of residents i. Recreational amenities 5) Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied". (don't know is the sixth option) a. Visibility of police in your neighborhood b. Visibility of police in retail areas c. Efforts to prevent major crime d. Enforce traffic laws on major streets e. Enforce traffic laws in your neighborhood f. How quickly police respond g. Quality of non-enforcement services 6) Which three of the public safety items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from City leaders over the next two years? a. (Check three boxes— same list as above) 7) Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied". (don't know is the sixth option) a. Maintenance of major City streets(examples) b. Maintenance of neighborhood streets (examples) c. Maintenance of City sidewalks d. Maintenance of street signs e. Maintenance of City street lighting f. Snow removal on major streets g. Snow removal on neighborhood streets h. Mowing and trimming along major streets i. Cleanliness of streets and other public areas 8) Which three of the public works items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from City leaders over the next two years? a. (Check three boxes— same list as above) 9) Which of the following are/were your primary sources of information about City issues, services, and events? (check all that apply) a. City newsletter(discontinued) b. Website (includes audio /video files of City meetings) c. City facebook page d. City twitter account e. Utility bill inserts f. Govt Access TV (FVTV) g. Articles in local newspapers and websites h. Contact with elected officials i. Other 10)Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied". (don't know is the sixth option) a. Efforts to keep you informed about issues b. Quality of government access TV station c. Quality of website d. Quality of City facebook page e. Quality of City twitter account f Quality of City newsletter(discontinued) 11)Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied". (don't know is the sixth option) a. Hometown Days b. Holiday Under the Stars c. Music Under the Stars d. National Night Out e. Go Green Environmental Fair f. Share and Care Recycle Day g. 5k runs (Tax Dodge, Chili Chase, etc.) 12)Do you support City involvement of special events, if they do not run a profit to the City? a. Background—Hometown Days runs a profit, Holiday Under the Stars is break- even, Music Under the Stars is run at a loss b. (Check box- yes or no) 13)Which type of businesses or industry would you like to see in Yorkville? a. IE - more shopping opportunities, more office developments, more manufacturing areas b. (Open-ended) 14)Which specific companies would you like to see open up a retail store in Yorkville? a. (Open-ended) 15) If the location of the REC Center were to change, would you still be a member of the REC Center? a. Yes b. No c. Not a member of the REC Center 16)What suggestions do you have to improve the quality of life in Yorkville? a. (Open-ended) 17)Demographics a. How many years have you lived at your current residence? i. (Fill in the blank) b. Which City and State did you live in prior to moving to Yorkville? If you have lived here your entire life, please write "lifelong resident"or similar. i. (Fill in the blank) c. Do you own or rent your current residence? i. (Check box—rent or own) d. How many persons in your household, counting yourself, are in the following age groups? i. Underage 10 ii. 10-19 iii. 20-29 iv. 30-39 v. 40-49 vi. 50-59 vii. 60-69 viii. 70 and over e. Which is your age group? i. Under age 10 ii. 10-19 iii. 20-29 iv. 30-39 v. 40-49 vi. 50-59 vii. 60-69 viii. 70 and over f. Which of the following best describes your race/ ethnicity? i. White/Caucasian ii. African American/Black iii. Asian/Pacific Islander iv. Native American/Eskimo v. Mixed Race vi. Other g. What is your gender? i. Male ii. Female 2006 DirectionFinder(k) Final Report d y F � 1 conducted for The City of Naperville, Illinois by ETC Institute 725 West Frontier Olathe, Kansas 66061 (913) 829-1215 May 2006 Contents ExecutiveSummary...................................................................... 1 Section 1: Charts and Graphs....................................................... 5 Section 2: Benchmarking Data .................................................. 26 Section3: GIS Maps .................................................................. 33 Section 4: Importance-Satisfaction Analysis ............................. 78 Section 5: Tabular Data ............................................................. 89 Section 6: Survey Instrument................................................... 131 Appendices (Published Separately) Appendix A: Crosstabs by Race and Hispanic Ancestry Appendix B: Crosstabs by Gender and Years of Residency Appendix C: Crosstabs by Home Ownership, Use of the Downtown Train Station, and Disability Status Appendix D: Demographic Profile of Residents Who Support Expanded Public Transportation Services on Q19 Appendix E: Customer Service Ratings (Q30b-d) by Department 2006 DirectionFinder® Survey Executive Summary Purpose and Methodology ETC Institute administered a survey to residents of the City of Naperville during the spring of 2006. The purpose of the survey was to assess satisfaction with the quality of City services and to gather input about priorities for the community. A seven-page survey was mailed to a random sample of 2,500 households in the City of Naperville. Approximately seven days after the surveys were mailed, residents who received the survey were contacted by phone. Those who indicated that they had not returned the survey were given the option of completing it by phone or on the Internet. Of the households that received a survey, 482 completed the survey by phone, 804 returned it by mail, and 49 completed Locations of Households that Responded to the Survey the survey on the Internet for a total of _� 1335 completed surveys (53% response rate). The results for the random sample of 1335 households �.e have a 95% level of confidence with a + precision of at least+/- 2.8%. In order to better understand how well services are being delivered by the City, ETC ' Institute geocoded the home address of respondents to the survey. The map to '�; • w• the right shows the physical distribution of survey respondents based on the location of their home. •. • The percentage of "don't know" ��; • . •••+s�, responses has been excluded from "»• 4, } '•�� '• many of the graphs shown in this �..�, report to facilitate valid comparisons of the results from Naperville with the . +U i results from other communities in the DirectionFinder® database. Since the • • number of "don't know" responses often reflects the utilization and awareness of city services, the City of Naperville,Illinois "don't „ vey percentage of don t know responses 2006DirectionFinder®Sur ETC Institute (May 2006) 1 has been provided in the tabular data section of this report. When the"don't know"responses have been excluded, the text of this report will indicate that the responses have been excluded with the phrase "who had an opinion". This report contains: ➢ a summary of the methodology for administering the survey and major findings ➢ charts showing the overall results for most questions on the survey ➢ benchmarking data that shows how the results for Naperville compare to other cities ➢ GIS maps that show the results of selected questions as maps of the City ➢ importance-satisfaction analysis ➢ tables that show the results for each question on the survey ➢ a copy of the survey instrument. Crosstabulations that show the results for different demographic groups in the City based are provided in a separate appendix. Major Findings ➢ Overall Satisfaction with the Ouality of Life in Naperville. Residents of Naperville were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the overall quality of life in the city than residents in other U.S. cities. Ninety-four percent (94%) of those surveyed who had an opinion were satisfied(ratings of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale)with the overall quality of life in Naperville compared to a national average of 77%. ➢ Overall Satisfaction with Maior City Services Ninety-three percent (93%) of those surveyed who had an opinion (ratings of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) were satisfied with the quality of fire and emergency medical services; 88% were satisfied with trash/recycling/yardwaste services, and 88% were satisfied with the quality of City water utility services. Residents were least satisfied with the management of traffic flow(30%). ➢ Services that residents thought should receive the most increase in emphasis over the next two years. The areas that residents thought should receive the most increase in emphasis from the City of Naperville over the next two years were: (1) management of traffic flow in the City, (2) maintenance of streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure, and (3) emergency preparedness services. ➢ Compared to other communities, residents of Naperville generally think they receive good value for their local taxes. Sixty-eight percent(68%) of the residents surveyed who had an opinion indicated that they were satisfied with the overall value they receive for their City taxes, which was significantly higher than the national average of 47%. ETC Institute (May 2006) 2 ➢ Public Safety. Most residents of Naperville indicated that they feel safe in the City. Ninety- eight percent (98%) of the residents surveyed who had an opinion indicated that they felt safe (ratings of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) in their neighborhood during the day compared to a national average of 87%. Ninety-one percent (91%) indicated they felt safe in their neighborhood at night compared to a national average of 73%, and 80% indicated they felt safe in City parks compared to a national average of 47%. • Police Services. Eighty-one percent (81%) of those surveyed who had an opinion were satisfied with the response time of police to emergencies; 75%were satisfied with the City's efforts to prevent crime, and 66%were satisfied with the enforcement of traffic laws on major city streets. Residents were least satisfied with the enforcement of traffic laws on neighborhood streets (51%). The police service that residents felt should receive the most emphasis over the next two years was the prevention of crime in the City. • Fire and Other Emergency Services. Ninety-one percent(91%) of those surveyed, who had an opinion, were satisfied with the response time of fire and emergency medical personnel; 90%were satisfied with the quality of local fire protection, and 82% were satisfied with the response time of fire personnel to non-emergencies. Residents were least satisfied with the carbon monoxide/smoke detector investigation program (56%). Preparedness for crisis/disasters was the emergency service that residents felt should receive the most increases in emphasis over the next two years. ➢ Public Works and Engineering. Eighty-eight percent(88%) of those surveyed, who had an opinion, were satisfied with snow removal on major City streets; 87%were satisfied with the cleanliness of streets and other public areas, and 88% were satisfied with the maintenance and preservation of downtown. Residents were least satisfied with the maintenance of City sidewalks (70%). The public works service that residents felt should receive the most increase in emphasis over the next two years was the maintenance of city streets. ➢ Transportation. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the residents surveyed who had an opinion were satisfied(rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale)with the ease of traveling from their home to regional roadways, and 49%were satisfied with traffic signal coordination on major City streets. Residents were least satisfied with the ease of north/south travel in the City(26%). The transportation issue that residents felt should receive the most increase in emphasis over the next two years was the ease of north/south travel in the City. ➢ Public Information. Eighty-two percent (82%) of those surveyed, who had an opinion, were satisfied with the City's newsletter, Bridges; 72% of those surveyed were satisfied with the City's efforts to inform them about local issues, and 68% were satisfied with the City's website. Residents were least satisfied with the City's public access television station (49%). ETC Institute (May 2006) 3 ➢ Waste Disposal Services. Ninety-one percent (91%) of those surveyed, who had an opinion, were satisfied with curbside recycling; 91% were also satisfied with residential trash collection, and 73% were satisfied with leaf/yardwaste/brush removal services. Residents were least satisfied with the City's household hazardous waste disposal program (53%). The waste disposal service that residents felt should receive the most increase in emphasis over the next two years was the City's hazardous waste disposal program. ➢ Electrical Utility Services. Ninety-three percent (93%) of those surveyed, who had an opinion, were satisfied with reliability of electrical services; 84% were satisfied with the accuracy of their electrical bill, and 78% were satisfied with the City's efforts to restore power after an unplanned outage. Residents were least satisfied with City efforts to repair yards after electrical improvements are completed(55%). The electrical utility service that residents felt should receive the most increase in emphasis over the next two years involved improvements to the City's ability to restore power after an unplanned outage. ➢ Water/Wastewater Utility Services.Ninety-seven percent (97%) of those surveyed, who had an opinion, were satisfied with reliability of water services; 85%were satisfied with the water pressure in their home, and 82% were satisfied with the accuracy of their water bill. Residents were least satisfied with City efforts to repair yards after water/wastewater improvements are completed(55%) The water/wastewater service that residents felt should receive the most increase in emphasis over the next two years involved improvements to the taste/odor of drinking water. Other Findings. ➢ Teardown Development. Residents were mixed in their perceptions about how well the City has managed teardown development. Thirty percent (30%) of the residents surveyed were satisfied with the City's efforts to manage the teardown development in the City; 30% were dissatisfied, 25% gave a neutral rating, and 15% did not have an opinion. ➢ Sources of Information about City Issues. Seventy-two percent(72%) of those surveyed indicated that their primary source of information about city issues came from the City's newsletter; 66%indicated that articles in local newspapers were one of their primary sources of information about city issues. ➢ On-line Service Requests. Eighty-one percent(81%) of the residents surveyed indicated that they would be interested in submitting a service request over the City website; 78% indicated that they would be interested in downloading applications for city permits. ➢ Contact with City Employees. Forty-seven percent (47%) of the residents surveyed indicated that they had called or visited the City with a question or complaint over the past year. Of those who had contacted they City, 84%thought City employees were courteous and polite, and 76% indicated that city employees gave prompt, accurate, and complete answers. ETC Institute (May 2006) 4 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Section 1 : Charts and Graphs ETC Institute (May 2006) 5 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 01 . Overall Satisfaction With City Services by Major Category by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Quality of fire/emergency medical services 50% 431239% Trash/recycling/yardwaste services 39% 49%Quality of City water utility services 30% 58%Electrical utility services 32% 55%Quality of police services 36% 50%Quality of City wastewater utility services 28% 58%Effectiveness of City communication with public 26% 53%Customer service from City employees 27% 50%Efforts of the City for emergency preparedness 30% 47% Maintenance of streets/sidewalks/infrastructure 22% 54% 1 16% Quality of City's stormwater management system 18% 1 49% 249/o 10% Flow of traffic/congestion in Naperville °/ 25% 27% 43% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Satisfied(5) c3Satisfied(4) ONeutral(3) I•Dissatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q2. City Issues That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Flow of traffic/congestion in Naperville 79% Maintenance of streets/sidewalks/infrastructure 40% Efforts of the City for emergency preparedness 29°to Quality of police services 20% Quality of City's stormwater management system 17% Trash/recycling/yardwaste services 155% Effectiveness of City communication with public 1$% Quality of fire/emergency medical services 12% Electrical utility services Customer service from City employees 7% Quality of City water utility services 6% Quality of City wastewater utility services 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1St Choice D2nd Choice 03rd Choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 6 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q3. How Safe Residents Feel by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) In your neighborhood during the day 69% 29% In downtown Naperville 41% 50% 9 0/01 In your neighborhood at night 39% 52% 8%° In commercial/retail areas 29% 54% 16% In parks in the City 23% 57% 19% ° At the downtown train station 21% 52% 25% ° At the Rt.59 train station 15% 40% 39% 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Safe(5) OSafe(4) 1--]Neutral(3) OUnsafe(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q4. General Perceptions of the City of Naperville by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Satisfaction with the Image of the City 59% 35% °/ Satisfaction with the Quality of life 50% 44% Overall Satisfaction with City services 32% 58% 9% Satisfaction with the Value of City taxes 17% 51% 22% 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Satisfied(5) OSatisfied(4) ONeutral(3) OUnsatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 7 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q5. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Police Services by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Police response time to emergencies 34% 47% 16% City efforts to prevent crime 23% 52% 22% ° Enforcing traffic laws on major City streets 16% 50% 20% 15% Non-enforcement services,e.g.lockouts... 19% 45% 32% X Animal control services 17% 42% 32% 9% Visibility of police in retail areas 12% 45% 34% 9% Visibility of police in your neighborhood 13% 42% 29% 16% Enforcing traffic laws on neighborhood streets 12% 39% 23% 1 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% =Very Satisfied(5) =Satisfied(4) =Neutral(3) =Unsatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q6. Police Services That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices City efforts to prevent crime 43% Visibility of police in your neighborhood 42% Enforcing traffic laws on neighborhood streets 38% Enforcing traffic laws on major City streets 36j Vo Visibility of police in retail areas 33% Police response time to emergencies 23% Non-enforcement services,e.g.lockouts... 17% Animal control services 9% 0% 20% 40% 1111111111111st choice =2nd choice 11111111113rd choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 8 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q7. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Fire and Other Emergency Services by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Fire/emergency medical response time 47% 44% 9% Quality of local fire protection 37% 53% 10% Fire personnel response time to non-emergencies 35% 47% 18% o Fire safety education programs 32% 47% 20% 1 City efforts have prepared for disaster/crisis 17% 46% 32% ei City's fire inspection program 19% 41% 37% Carbon monoxide/smoke detector investigation prog. 16% 40% 38% s% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Satisfied(5) OSatisfied(4) Neutral(3) E]Unsatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q8. Fire and Other Emergency Services That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices City efforts have prepared for disaster/crisis 54% Fire/emergency medical response time 39% Quality of local fire protection 29% Fire safety education programs 24% Carbon monoxide/smoke detector investigation pr g. 22% City's fire inspection program 17% Fire personnel response time to non-emergencies 12 94 0% 20% 40% 60% 1 st choice 02nd choice M3rd choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 9 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q9. Satisfaction with the City's Efforts to Manage Teardown Development in the City? by percentage of respondents Neutral Satisfied 25% 21% __________Very Satisfied 9% Dissatisfied 19% Don't know Very Dissatisfied 15% 11% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q10. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Public Works and Engineering by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Snow removal on major City streets 53% 7%. Cleanliness of streets/other public areas 31% 56% 10% Maintenance/preservation of downtown 41% 47% Maintenance of street signs 21% 63% 13% ° Maintenance of City street lighting 21% 60% 13% 5% Mowing/trimming along City streets 23% 57% 15% 5% Maintenance of major City streets 17% 61% 14% % City's tree planting program 24% 50% r 2 %% 5% Street/curb/lighting improvements in new devel. 20% 54% 23% Maintenance of neighborhood streets 15% 56% 17% 12% Snow removal on neighborhood streets 22% 48% Maintenance of City sidewalks 14% 56% 20% 1 t°% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Satisfied(5) OSatisfied(4) ONeutral(3) WDissatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 10 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q11 . Public Works and Engineering Issues That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Maintenance of major City streets 41% Maintenance of neighborhood streets 8% Snow removal on neighborhood streets 25% Maintenance/preservation of downtown 24% Maintenance of City sidewalks 23% Cleanliness of streets/other public areas 22% City's tree planting program 1 rj°4 Maintenance of City street lighting 14% Snow removal on major City streets 12% Street/curb/lighting improvements in new devel. 8% Mowing/trimming along City streets 8% Maintenance of street signs rj% 0% 20% 40% 111111111111st choice 02nd choice m3rd choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q12. Primary Sources of Information about City Issues, Services, and Events by percentage of respondents(multiple choices possible) City newsletter,Bridges 72 0/b Articles in local newspapers 66% Utility bills inserts 48% City Notes in Naperville Sun 31 City website 25% Government access station 7% Other 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 11 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q13. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Public Information by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) City's resident newsletter,Bridges 23% 59% 17% 1 City efforts to inform about local issues 160/6 56% City's Web site 15% 53% 29% P City's government access television station TI./. 43% 40% 6% City's public access television station 9% 40% 43% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Satisfied(5) OSatisfied(4) ONeutral(3) ODissatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q14. How often do you watch the following cable television access stations? by percentage of respondents Q14a. Government access channel Q14b. Public access channel A few times per month 77% A few times per month A few times a year 76% A few times a year At least once a week 28 27% 11% At least once a week _Almost daily Almost daily 7 Not IV&Ided Not IV6Vided 1% 2% Never Never 43% 47% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 12 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q15. What types of programs do you watch on the cable television access stations? by percentage of respondents who watch cable access channels(multiple answers possible) Message board 34% Municipal meetings 31 Special event/parades 26% General interest prog. 21% Media event coverage 12% School board meetings 11% 0% 20% 40% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q16. How likely would you be to use the following services if they were provided on the City's Web site? by percentage of respondents(excluding don't knows) Submit a service request to report problems 48% 33% 10°/ for Download app.for permit/service to mail back 45% 33% 1 1%F Submit an application for permit/service online 46% 32% 11% 12% Check crime statistics near an address 38% 34% 14% 14 Pay fees and/or fines for licenses/permits 32% 36% 16% View video about City service Q% 44% 27% 20 View video of City council meetings °/ 24% 36% 34% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very likely(4) oSomewhat likely(3) oUnlikely(2) oVery Unlikely(1) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 13 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q17. Do you think the City keeps residents adequately informed about street/lane closures that are associated with street improvements and other infrastructure projects? by percentage of respondents Yes 73% Not provided 6% No 21% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q18. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Transportation by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Ease of traveling from home to regional roadways 9% 45% 24% 22% Traffic signal coordination on major streets 1% 42% 24% 27% City efforts to minimize speeding in neighborhoods s% 37% 23% 31% Ease of east/west travel in City % 37% 31% 29% Availability of bicycle lanes 7% 24% 36% 34% Availability of public transportation services s% 24% 35% 35% Ease of north/south travel in City ° 23% 21% 53% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Satisfied(5) OSatisfied(4) ONeutral(3) ODissatisfied(112) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 14 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q19. Transportation Issues That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Ease of north/south travel in City 69% Ease of east/west travel in City 45% Traffic signal coordination on major streets 33°,/o City efforts to minimize speeding in neighborhoods 320, Availability of public transportation services 30% Availability of bicycle lanes 25% Ease of traveling from home to regional roadways 23% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 St choice 02nd choice m3rd choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q20. City Billing Options - Awareness and Potential Use by percentage of respondents 64% Bank drafting 1 8% 61% Budget billing 27% 58% eBill 37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Aware =Would use option Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 15 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q21 . Do you think you have adequate access to city services, such as police, bill payment sites, utility services and information about city meetings in the area where you live? by percentage of respondents Yes 89% Not provided 2% No 9% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,II) Q22. Respondents who read the Popular Annual Financial Report issued in November 2005 by percentage of respondents Q22a. If yes, then are you interested in continuing to receive this information? Did not read report Read report Yes 59% j 39% 93% NO provided No 2% 6% Not provided 2% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 16 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q23. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Waste Disposal Services by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Curbside recycling 47% 44% 5% i Residential trash collection 45% 46% 5%4% Leaf,yardwaste/brush removal 30% 43% 15% 12% City garbage cart program 36% 31% 25% ei Household hazardous waste disposal 18% 35% 27% 21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Satisfied(5) Matisfied(4) ONeutral(3) 0Dissatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q24. Waste Disposal Issues That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by Major Category by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices Household hazardous waste disposal 44% Leaf,yardwaste/brush removal 40% Residential trash collection 30% Curbside recycling 27% City garbage cart program 10% 0% 20% 40% M1stchoice =2nd choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 17 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q21 . Awareness of the City's Renewable Energy Program by percentage of respondents Aware 46% Not sure 2% Not aware 53% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q25a. Would you be willing to pay a small additional fee to participate in the Renewable Energy Program? by percentage of respondents who were aware of the program If yes, how much per month would you pay? $2-$4.99 per month 12% No _ Yes $5 per month $1 or less per month 58% 8% 66% 31% More than$10 2% --- ------ $10 per month Don't know $649 per month 18 3% 3% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 18 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q26. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Electrical Utility Services by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Reliability of electrical service 47% 46% 6%91 Accuracy of electric bill 33% 51% 14% 0 City restoration of power after unplanned outage 25% 53% 18% Value you receive for electrical utility rates 21% 53% 22% Customer service from utility field employees 24% 48% 25% ° City informing of planned service disruptions 190/0 42% 32% 7% Repair of yards after electrical improvements 15% 40% 28% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overy Satisfied(5) OSatisfied(4) ONeutral(3) ODissatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q27. Electrical Utility Issues That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices City restoration of power after unplanned outage 43% Reliability of electrical service 41% Value you receive for electrical utility rates 34% City informing of planned service disruptions 27% Repair of yards after electrical improvements 27% Accuracy of electric bill 1I8% Customer service from utility field employees 13% 0% 20% 40% 1St choice 02nd choice M3rd choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 19 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q28. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Water/Wastewater Utility Services by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) Reliability of water service 49% 48% i Water pressure in your home 37% 48% Accuracy of water bill 30% 52% 17% Value received for water/wastewater utility rates 22% 53% 22% Efforts to minimize wastewater facility odor 25% 49% 22% Customer service from field employees 26% 48% 24% Taste/odor of drinking water 26% 47% 17% 10% Efforts to prevent home wastewater backups 27% 46% City informing of planned water service disruption 24% 44% 289/ Repair of yards after water/wastewater improv. 179/6 40% 31% 13 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Satisfied(5) OSatisfied(4) ONeutral(3) ODissatisfied(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q29. Water/Wastewater Issues That Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Taste/odor of drinking water 35% Reliability of water service 32% Efforts to prevent home wastewater backups 26% Water pressure in your home 23% Value received for water/wastewater utility rates 22% Repair of yards after water/wastewater improv. 16 Efforts to minimize wastewater facility odor 149% City informing of planned water service disruption 13% Accuracy of water bill 12% Customer service from field employees 59% 0% 20% 40% 1111111111111st choice 2nd choice 11111111113rd choice Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 20 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q30. Have you ever called or visited the City with a question, problem or complaint during the past year? by percentage of respondents Yes Q30a. If Yes, which department did you contact No a7% most recently? 53 0 o Police 24% Public works 21% Electrical utility 13% Tra sportation/engineering/planning devel. 11% Water/wastewater utility Finance-Customer Service 8%1 City clerk's office City manager's office 2% Fire 2% Community relations 2% Mayor/City Council 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q30b-d. Agreement with Statements About the Quality of Service Received from City Employees by Those Who DID Contact the City by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) They were courteous/polite 46% 38% 10% 7% They gave prompt/accurate/complete answers 41% 35% 10% 14% There was a timely follow-up to inquiry 37% 29% 12% 21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ®Strongly agree(5) OAgree(4) ONeutral(3) ODisagree(1/2) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 21 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q31 . Demographics: How Many Years Have You Lived at Your Current Residence? by percentage of respondents 3-5 years 19% Under 3 years 14% 6-10 years 26% 31+years 4% 21-30 years 9% 11-15 ears y 16-20 years 16% 12% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q32. Demographics: Do You Own or Rent Your Current Residence? by percentage of respondents Own 95% Rent 5% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 22 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q33. Demographics: Have you visited the Rt. 59 or downtown train station in Naperville during the past year? by percentage of respondents No 37% Not provided 3% Yes 60% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,II) Q34. Demographics: Ages of Household Occupants by percentage of all persons in the households surveyed Ages 10-19 16% Underage 10 17% Ages 20-34 14% 65 and older 7% Ages 55-64 12% Ages 35-54 35% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 23 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q35. Demographics: The Best Description of the Race/Ethnicity of Respondent by percentage of respondents White/Caucasian 87% Asian/Pacific Islander 9% Other 4% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q36. Demographics: Are members of your household of Spanish, Hispanic or Latino heritage? by percentage of respondents Not provided No 2% 94% Yes 4% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 24 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q37. Demographics: Respondents Gender by percentage of respondents Female 53% I Male 47% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) Q38. Demographics: Do you, or does someone in your household, have a disability as recognized in the Americans with Disabilities Act? by percentage of respondents No Not provided 9300 1% Yes 6% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(May 2006-Naperville,IL) ETC Institute (May 2006) 25 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Section 2: Benchmarks ETC Institute (May 2006) 26 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey DirectionFinder® Survey Year 2006 Benchmarking Summary Report Overview ETC Institute's DirectionFinder program was originally developed in 1999 to help community leaders across the United States use statistically valid community survey data as a tool for making better decisions. Since November 1999, the survey has been administered in more than 125 cities and counties in 22 states. Most participating communities conduct the survey on an annual or biennial basis. This report contains benchmarking data from two sources: (1) a national survey that was administered by ETC Institute during September 2004 to a random sample of 2,000 residents in the continental United States and(2) survey results from 30 medium-sized cities (population of 20,000 to 199,999) where the DirectionFinder® survey was administered between April 2004 and March 2006. The national survey results were used as the basis for the mean performance ratings that are shown in this report. The results from individual cities were used as the basis for developing the range of performance that is shown in this report for specific types of services. The 30 cities included in the performance ranges that are shown in this report are listed below: • Arlington, Virginia • Manhattan, Kansas • Auburn, Alabama • Naperville, Illinois • Ballwin, Missouri • Olathe, Kansas • Blue Springs, Missouri • Overland Park, Kansas • Bridgeport, Connecticut • Peoria, Arizona • Burbank, California • Prairie Village, Kansas • Casper, Wyoming • Palm Desert, California • Columbia, Missouri • Provo, Utah • East Providence, Rhode Island • San Bernardino, California • Greenville, South Carolina • Shoreline, Washington • Independence, Missouri • Sioux Falls, South Dakota • Kansas City, Kansas • Tamarac, Florida • Lawrence, Kansas • Westland, Michigan • Lee's Summit, Missouri • West Des Moines, Iowa • Lenexa, Kansas • Yuma, Arizona ETC Institute (May 2006) 27 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Interpreting the Charts The charts on the following pages provide comparisons for several items that were rated on the survey. The horizontal bars show the range of satisfaction among residents in the communities that have participated in the DirectionFinder® Survey during the past two years. The lowest and highest satisfaction ratings are listed to the left and right of each bar. The actual ratings for Naperville are listed to the far right of the charts. When the value is underlined, the ratings for the City of Naperville were in the top quartile (or top 25%) of all cities in the United States. Some of the areas where the City of Naperville rated in the Top 25% included the following: • Customer service by city employees • City water utility services • Maintenance of city streets and infrastructure • City communication/efforts to keep residents informed • Stormwater management • Cleanliness of city streets and public areas • Mowing along city streets • Maintenance of major city streets • Street lighting • Snow removal on major city streets • Maintenance of sidewalks • Preservation of Downtown • Maintenance of street signs • Efforts to prevent crime The City of Naperville only rated below average in two areas: (1) the visibility of police in neighborhoods and(2) traffic flow/congestion management. The yellow dot on each bar shows how the results for Naperville compare to the national average, which is shown as a vertical dash in the middle of each horizontal bar. If the yellow dot is located to the right of the vertical dash, the City of Naperville rated above the national average. If the yellow dot is located to the left of the vertical dash, the City of Naperville rated below the national average. ETC Institute (May 2006) 28 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey National Benchmarks Note: The benchmarking data contained in this report is protected intellectual property. Any reproduction of the benchmarking information in this report by persons or organizations not directly affiliated with the City of Naperville, Illinois is not authorized without written consent from ETC Institute. Overall Satisfaction with Various Attributes Naperville vs. the U.S Avg. by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was"very satisfied"and 1 was"very dissatisfied"(excluding don't knows) 68% Value received for your local tax dollars 47% 94 6 Overall image of your community 70% 94 o Quality of life in the community 90% Quality of city services 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Naperville OU.S. Source. ETC Institute DirectionFinder NationalBenchmarkinQData-All Communities ETC Institute (May 2006) 29 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey How Safe Residents Feel in Their Community Naperville vs. the U.S Average by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was"very safe"and 1 was"very unsafe"(excluding don't knows) 8% In my neighborhood during the day 87% 91% In my neighborhood at night 73° 80% In parks in the city 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Naperville DU.S. Source: ETClnstituteDirectionFinder NationalBenchmarkinaData-All Comm unities Overall Satisfaction With City Services 2006 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) underlined items rated in top 25% of all U.S. Cities O Naperville Police services 62% 5% 86% Overall quality of customer service 42% 89% 77% City water utility services 46% 8°0 88% Maintenance of city streets/buildings/infrast 19% 82% 76% Traffic flow/congestion management 21% 67°/p 30% Effectiveness of communication with the public 21% 80% 79% Stormwater management 2% 7 % 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder ETC Institute (May 2006) 30 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with City Communications 2006 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) underlined items rated in top 25% of all U.S. Cities O Naperville Efforts to keep residents informed 0% 77% 72% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH Source. ETC Institute DirectionFinder Satisfaction with Public Works/Engineering Services 2006 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) underlined items rated in top 25% of all U.S. Cities O Naperville Overall cleanliness of City streets/public areas 2% 89% 87% Mowing along city streets 138% 82% 80% Maintenance of major City Streets 21%I 82% 78% City street lighting 440 81% 81% Snow removal on major streets 43o/d 880 8891- Maintenance of street signs 5p% 9 % 84% Maintenance of City sidewalks 18% 70/0 78% Mai ntenancelpreservation of downtown 230/ 80 88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder ETC Institute (May 2006) 31 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with Public Safety 2006 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding don't knows) O Naperville Overall quality of local fire protection 77%*2 7% 90% How quickly police respond 61% 93% 81% The City's overall efforts to prevent crime 5p% 84% 75% Visibility of police in neighborhoods 429% 82% 55% Enforcement of traffic laws on major city streets 50% 80% 66% Visibility of police in retail areas 40% 74% 57% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder ETC Institute (May 2006) 32 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Section 3: GIS Maps ETC Institute (May 2006) 33 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Interpreting the Maps The maps on the following pages show the mean ratings for several questions by Census Block Group within the city limits of Naperville. If all Census Block Groups on a map are the same color, then most residents in the community generally feel the same about that issue. When reading the maps, please use the following color scheme as a guide: • D • ' shades indicate POSITIVE ratings. Shades of blue generally indicate satisfaction with a service. • OFF-WHITE/LIGHT YELLOW shades indicate NEUTRAL ratings. Shades of neutral generally indicate that residents thought the quality of service delivery is adequate. • • ' • shades indicate NEGATIVE ratings. Shades of orange/red generally indicate dissatisfaction with a service. ETC Institute (May 2006) 34 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Locations of survey respondents ' ° 00 • 53 0 0 gig � e° ° © ° o 5 ° � - ° � ,4 . [} 34 ID • 0 0 6f®® 0 • (° ° a � 0 • •• et °m °(g6° • Q�o(OD i 09 �P o .... ............_.._ ..... .w------- - O O 0 ®•U/ Q •*• °C) C ° • Q • �C7 (9 ! ° ° � &goo O • 5s °° 0 Q ° City of Naperville, Illinois 2006 DirectionFinder® Survey ETC Institute (May 2006) 35 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Police services (Qla) r 53 59 34 + -----------------------------------............ ............. ------------------ ............. ................... .............. -------------------- . ....... LEGEND it 1.00 to 1.00 �$ Mean Satisfaction r—u I ,x.80 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 – very dissatisfied �4. 0 t0 5.00 5 = very satisfied Other Note:"Other"areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 36 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Customer Service Provided by the City (Qlf) r ; ..- moo 53 ti 59 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 37 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Quality of the City's Stormwater Management System(Qlh) 53 59 �+s,t ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 38 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Water Utility Services (Qli) 5fi �{ _ 53 ti .t A59 �Ys,t S ...... ..... ....... ............... ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 39 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Wastewater Utility Services (Q1j) 33 .t A59 �Ys,t S ...... ..... ....... ............... ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 40 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Electrical Utility Services (Qlk) r 56 J 53 ti 59 ----.... LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 41 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey How Safe Residents Feel in Their Neighborhood During the Day (Q3a) 4 53 ti .t 59 34 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4. 0 1 = very dissatisfied ' S =very satisfied 4.24 to 5.04 -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 42 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey How Safe Resident Feel in Their Neighborhood At Night (Q3b) 53 59 34 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 43 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Overall Satisfaction with the Value Received for City Taxes and Fees (Q4a) 53 y 59 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 44 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Overall Satisfaction with the Quality of All City Services (Q4c) 5fi 53 ti t A59 ■ . ...... _. 1 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 45 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Visibility of Police in Neighborhoods (Q5a) / 53 .t 59 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - -- Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.24 to 5.04 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 46 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Enforcement of Traffic Laws in Neighborhoods (Q5e) 53 59 34 — 11 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction F u 11. 0 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.24 to 5.04 5 =very satisfied 4 ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 47 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with How Quickly Police Respond (Q5f) 53 59 s,t _._ AL — — . --....,. E ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 48 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Local Fire Protection (Q7b) 5fi 53 S 59 31 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 49 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with How Quickly Fire and Emergency Personnel Respond (Q7c) 53 ti .t 59 34 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 50 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the City's Efforts to Manage Teardown Development (Q9) 53 4 59 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 5a Mean Satisfaction F 11.80 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point - -- Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 51 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Maintenance of MAJOR City Streets (Q10a) fix w- ..... ... .......... . ..... .................. ----------- ................ ......... ........................-------------------................ .................. ...... LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction F 11.80 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 = very satisfied Other Note"Other"areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville, Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFinder(k) Survey merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 52 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Maintenance of NEIGHBORHOOD Streets (Q10b) / 53 .t 59 �+s,t ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 53 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Maintenance of City Sidewalks (Q10c) 5fi - 33 ti 't 59 - �+s,t ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction 01.80 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 © 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 =very dissatisfied -4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 54 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Maintenance of City Street Lighting (Q10e) 1 � 53 ti .t 59 �+s,t ............. . _-....... ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 55 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Maintenance and Preservation of Downtown Naperville (Q10f) 53 ti .t 59 st LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4. 0 1 = very dissatisfied 5 =very satisfied 4.20 to 5.04 -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 56 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with Snow Removal on MAJOR Streets (Q10g) 5fi - 33 ti 59 s,t j ,^ LEGEND 1.00 t0 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 =very dissatisfied �4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 57 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with Snow Removal on NEIGHBORHOOD Streets (Q10h) 53 t 59 �+s,t ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 58 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Cleanliness of City Streets and other Pubic Areas (Q10j) - zf 53 ti AL 59 ................ ...................... ----------------------------------------------------- --- LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 59 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Timeliness of Improvements/ in Areas with New Development (Q10k) 53 ti 59 �+s,t ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 60 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Ease of North/South Travel in the City (Q18a) 53 59 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 t0 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 61 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Ease of East/West Travel in the City (Q18b) 53 ti 59 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction u 1.00 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied 4 -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 62 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Availability of Bicycle Lanes (Q18f) 53 59 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction F u 11. 0 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.24 to 5.04 5 =very satisfied 4 ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 63 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Availability of Public Transportation (Q18g) 5fi i — i 59 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction F u 11. 0 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4.24 to 5.04 5 =very satisfied 4 ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 64 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with Residential Trash Collection Services (Q23a) 5fi - 53 ti .t 59 st71 ...... ,^ LEGEND 1.00 t0 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied �4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 65 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with Curbside Recycling Services (Q23b) 53 ti .t A59 s, 7 ... ........ . ------------------ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 66 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the City's Garbage Cart Program (Q23c) 5fi 53 ti .t A59 �Ys,t ----- . ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 -- 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 67 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with Leaf, Yardwaste, and Brush Removal Services (Q23d) 1 s3 's A59 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 t0 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 — 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 t0 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 68 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the City's Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program (Q23e) M � _ 5fi t, 53 S A59 �34. ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u --- 0 .so to x.40 Scale Where: 0 3.40 to 4.20 — 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 4 t04 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 69 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Reliability of Electrical Service (Q26a) 5fi 4 53 ti .t 59 37 ....,... LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 70 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with How Well the City Keeps the Public Informed About Power Disruptions (Q26c) M 53 1 A59 �^ �fS4 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u --- Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 — 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 4 t04 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 71 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with How Quickly the City Restores Power After Outages (Q26e) h, 4 r 53 S A59 �f 31 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u --- 0 .so to x.40 Scale Where: 0 3.40 to 4.20 — 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 4 t04 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 72 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the City's Efforts to Repair Yards or Landscaping After Electrical Work is Completed (Q26f) ti S A59 �fS4 ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u --- Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 — 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 4 t04 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 73 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the Reliability of Water Service (Q28a) 53 ti .t 59 34 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 1 = very dissatisfied 4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 74 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with Water Pressure in Homes (Q28b) 53 ti .t 59 st ,^ LEGEND 1.00 to 1.00 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u - - Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 i 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 75 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the City's Efforts to Minimize Odor from Treatment Facilities (Q28g) d E53 od A59 34 oil; ,^ LEGEND 1.00 t0 1 Mean Satisfaction r- 11. 0 to .60 Rating on a 5-Point u Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 — 1 = very dissatisfied 4.20 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- ® Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 76 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Satisfaction with the City's Efforts to Repair Yards or Landscaping After Water/Sewer Work Is Completed (Q28h) 6fi — i 53 ti l A59 LEGEND 1.00 to 1.80 �- � Mean Satisfaction CJ U 1. 0 to 2.60 Rating on a 5-Point Scale Where: 0 2.60 to 3.40 0 3.40 to 4.20 i - 1 = very dissatisfied �4. 0 to 5.00 5 =very satisfied -- Other Note:"Other'areas did not contain enough respondents to show statistically significant results. City of Naperville Illinois Shading reflects the mean rating for all respondents by Census Block Group* 2006 DirectionFin der® Survey (*merged as needed based on respondent distribution) ETC Institute (May 2006) 77 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Section 4: Importance-Satisfaction Analysis ETC Institute (May 2006) 78 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 2006 Importance-Satisfaction Analysis Naperville, Illinois Overview Today, city and county officials have limited resources which need to be targeted to activities that are of the most benefit to their citizens. Two of the most important criteria for decision making are (1) to target resources toward services of the highest importance to citizens; and (2) to target resources toward those services where citizens are the least satisfied. The Importance-Satisfaction (IS) rating is a unique tool that allows public officials to better understand both of these highly important decision making criteria for the services their city or county provides. The Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that cities and counties will maximize overall citizen satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those service categories where the level of satisfaction is relatively low and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high. Methodology The rating is calculated by summing the percentage of responses for items selected as the first, second or third most important services for the City to emphasize over the next two years, or in the case of waste disposal, the first or second choices. This sum is then multiplied by 1 minus the percentage of respondents that indicated they were positively satisfied with the City's performance in the related area (the sum of the ratings of 4 and 5 on a 5-point scale excluding "don't knows"). "Don't know" responses are excluded from the calculation to ensure that the satisfaction ratings among service categories are comparable. [IS=Importance x (1-Satisfaction)]. Example of the Calculation. Respondents were asked to identify which city service they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Seventeen percent(17%)of the residents surveyed selected the quality of stormwater management as one of their top three choices. The combined sum of 17% ranked the quality of stormwater management as the fifth most important City service to emphasize over the next two years. With regard to satisfaction, the quality of stormwater management ranked eleventh overall with 67%. The I-S rating for the qualit�ofstormwater management was calculated by multiplying the sum of the most important percentages by 1 minus the sum of the satisfaction percentages. In this example, 17% was multiplied by 33% (1-0.67). This calculation yielded an I-S rating of 0.0561, which was ranked fourth out of 12 city service categories. ETC Institute (May 2006) 79 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey The maximum rating is 1.00 and would be achieved when 100%of the respondents select an activity as one of their top choices to emphasize over the next two years and 0% indicate that they are positively satisfied with the delivery of the service. The lowest rating is 0.00 and could be achieved under either one of the following two situations: • if 100% of the respondents were positively satisfied with the delivery of the service • if none(0%)of the respondents selected the service as one of the three most important areas for the City to emphasize over the next two years. Interpreting the Ratings Ratings that are greater than or equal to 0.20 identify areas that should receive significantly more emphasis over the next two years. Ratings from.10 to .20 identify service areas that should receive increased emphasis. Ratings less than .10 should generally continue to receive the current level of emphasis, but may require more emphasis in specific areas. • Definitely Increase Emphasis (IS>=0.20) • Increase Current Emphasis (0.10<=IS<0.20) • Maintain Current Emphasis (IS<0.10) The following page contains the I-S ratings for the City of Naperville, Illinois. ETC Institute (May 2006) 80 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 OVERALL Most Most Importance- Important Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service % Rank % Rank Rating Rank Very High Priority(IS>.20) Flow of traffic/congestion in Naperville 79% 1 30% 12 0.5530 1 Medium Priority(IS<,10) Maintenance of streets/sidewalks/infrastructure 40% 2 76% 10 0.0960 2 Efforts of the City for emergency preparedness 29% 3 77% 9 0.0667 3 Quality of City's stormwater management system 17% 5 67% 11 0.0561 4 Effectiveness of City communication with public 15% 7 79% 7 0.0315 5 Quality of police services 20% 4 86% 5 0.0280 6 Trash/recycling/yardwaste services 15% 6 88% 2 0.0180 7 Customer service from City employees 7% 10 77% 8 0.0161 8 Electrical utility services 11% 9 87% 4 0.0143 9 Quality of fire/emergency medical services 12% 8 93% 1 0.0084 10 Quality of City water utility services 6% 11 88% 3 0.0072 11 Quality of City wastewater utility services 3% 12 86% 6 0.0042 1 12 Note: The I-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important"%by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't knows.' Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and"1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 81 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 Police Most Most Importance- Important Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service % Rank % Rank Rating Rank High Priority(IS.10-.20) Visibility of police in your neighborhood 42% 2 55% 7 0.1890 1 Enforcing traffic laws on neighborhood streets 38% 3 51% 8 0.1862 2 Visibility of police in retail areas 33% 5 57% 6 0.1419 3 Enforcing traffic laws on major City streets 36% 4 66% 3 0.1224 4 City efforts to prevent crime 43% 1 75% 2 0.1075 5 Medium Priority(IS<A0) Non-enforcement services,e.g.lockouts... 17% 7 64% 4 0.0612 6 Police response time to emergencies 23% 6 81% 1 0.0437 7 Animal control services 9% 8 59% 5 0.0369 8 Note: The 1-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" %by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't knows.' Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and"1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 82 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 Fire and Other Emergency Services Most Most Importance- Important Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service % Rank % Rank Rating Rank Hioh Priority(IS.10-.20) City efforts have prepared for disaster/crisis 54% 1 63% 5 0.1998 1 Medium Priority(IS<.10) Carbon monoxide/smoke detector investigation prog. 22% 5 56% 7 0.0968 2 City's fire inspection program 17% 6 60% 6 0.0680 3 Fire safety education programs 24% 4 79% 4 0.0504 4 Fire/emergency medical response time 39% 2 91% 1 0.0351 5 Quality of local fire protection 29% 3 90% 2 0.0290 6 Fire personnel response time to non-emergencies 12% 7 82% 3 0.0216 7 Note: The I-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" %by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't knows.' Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and"1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 83 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 Public Works and Engineering Most Most Importance- Importa Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service rlt% Rank % Rank Rating Rank High Priority(IS.10-.20) Maintenance of neighborhood streets 38% 2 71% 10 0.1102 1 Medium Priority(IS<.101 Maintenance of major City streets 41% 1 78% 7 0.0902 2 Snow removal on neighborhood streets 25% 3 70% 11 0.0750 3 Maintenance of City sidewalks 23% 5 70% 12 0.0690 4 City's tree planting program 15% 7 74% 8 0.0390 5 Maintenance/preservation of downtown 24% 4 88% 3 0.0288 6 Cleanliness of streets/other public areas 22% 6 87% 2 0.0286 7 Maintenance of City street lighting 14% 8 81% 5 0.0266 8 Street/curb/lighting improvements in new de 8% 10 74% 9 0.0208 9 Mowing/trimming along City streets 8% 11 80% 6 0.0160 10 Snow removal on major City streets 12% 9 88% 1 0.0144 11 Maintenance of street signs 5% 12 84% 4 0.0080 12 Note: The 1-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" %by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't knows.' Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and"1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 84 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 Transportation Most Most Importance- Important Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service % Rank % Rank Rating Rank Very High Priority(IS>.20) Ease of north/south travel in City 69% 1 26% 7 0.5106 1 Ease of east/west travel in City 45% 2 41% 4 0.2655 2 Availability of public transportation services 30% 5 29% 6 0.2130 3 High Priority(IS.10-.20) City efforts to minimize speeding in neighborhoods 32% 4 46% 3 0.1728 4 Availability of bicycle lanes 25% 6 31% 5 0.1725 5 Traffic signal coordination on major streets 33% 3 49% 2 0.1683 6 Ease of traveling from home to regional roadways 23% 7 54% 1 0.1058 7 Medium Priority(IS<.10) Note: The PS Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" %by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't knows.' Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and"1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 85 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 Waste Disposal Most Most Importance- Important Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service % Rank % Rank Rating Rank Very High Priority(IS>.20) Household hazardous waste disposal 44% 1 53% 5 0.2068 1 High Priority(IS.10-.20) Leaf,yardwaste/brush removal 40% 2 73% 3 0.1080 2 Medium Priority(IS<A0) City garbage cart program 10% 5 67% 4 0.0330 3 Residential trash collection 30% 3 91% 2 0.0270 4 Curbside recycling 27% 4 91% 1 0.0243 5 Note: The 1-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" %by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't I Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and"1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 86 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 Electrical Utility Service Most Most Importance- Important Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service % Rank % Rank Rating Rank High Priority(IS.10-.20) Repair of yards after electrical improvements 27% 5 55% 7 0.1215 1 City informing of planned service disruptions 27% 4 61% 6 0.1053 2 Medium Priority(IS<.10) City restoration of power after unplanned outage 43% 1 78% 3 0.0946 3 Value you receive for electrical utility rates 34% 3 74% 4 0.0884 4 Customer service from utility field employees 13% 7 72% 5 0.0364 5 Accuracy of electric bill 18% 6 84% 2 0.0288 6 Reliability of electrical service 41% 2 93% 1 0.0287 7 Medium Priority(IS<.10) Note: The I-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" %by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't knows.' Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and"1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 87 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Importance-Satisfaction Rating City of Naperville - 2006 Water/Waste Water Utility Most Most Importance- Important Important Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfactio I-S Rating Category of Service % Rank % Rank n Rating Rank Medium Priority(IS<.10) Taste/odor of drinking water 35% 1 73% 7 0.0945 1 Efforts to prevent home wastewater backups 26% 3 73% 8 0.0702 2 Repair of yards after water/wastewater improv. 16% 6 57% 10 0.0688 3 Value received for water/wastewater utility rates 22% 5 75% 4 0.0550 4 City informing of planned water service disruptions 13% 8 68% 9 0.0416 5 Efforts to minimize wastewater facility odor 14% 7 74% 5 0.0364 6 Water pressure in your home 23% 4 85% 2 0.0345 7 Accuracy of water bill 12% 9 82% 3 0.0216 8 Customer service from field employees 5% 10 74% 6 0.0130 9 Reliability of water service 32% 2 96% 1 0.0128 1 10 Note: The I-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" %by(1-'Satisfaction'%) Most Important%: The"Most Important"percentage represents the sum of the first,second,and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. Satisfaction %: The"Satisfaction"percentage represents the sum of the ratings"4"and"5"excluding'don't Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with"5"being very satisfied and 1"being very dissatisfied. ©2006 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute ETC Institute (May 2006) 88 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Section S: Tabular Data ETC Institute (May 2006) 89 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 01. Wor categories of services provided by the City of Naperville are listed below. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Qla Quality of police services 0.7% 2.8% 10.0% 46.9% 33.4% 6.1% Qlb Quality fire & emergency medical services 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 37.0% 42.8% 14.1% Q 1 c Efforts for Emergency Preparedness 0.0% 0.5% 15.2% 31.8% 20.0% 32.4% Q 1 d Maintenance streets/ sidewalks/infrastructure 1.0% 7.2% 15.7% 53.6% 21.5% 1.0% Q 1 e Effectiveness communication with public 0.5% 3.0% 16.9% 51.6% 25.2% 2.8% Q 1 f Quality of customer service you receive 0.7% 3.7% 16.8% 45.6% 24.6% 8.6% Q 1 g Flow of traffic & congestion management 10.6% 32.4% 26.6% 25.1% 4.9% 0.5% Q 1 h Quality stormwater management system 1.7% 7.0% 21.5% 44.0% 15.8% 10.0% Qli Quality of water utility services 0.1% 1.5% 9.8% 55.4% 28.7% 4.5% Q 1 j Quality of wastewater utility services 0.1% 0.7% 12.6% 52.8% 25.7% 8.1% Qlk Electrical utility services 0.2% 1.6% 11.4% 53.6% 31.1% 2.2% Q 11 Trash, recycling&yardwaste services 0.8% 3.3% 7.6% 48.6% 38.3% 1.4% ETC Institute (May 2006) 90 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 01. Malor categories of services provided by the City of Naperville are listed below. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q1 a Quality of police services 0.8% 3.0% 10.6% 50.0% 35.6% Q 1 b Quality fire & emergency medical services 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 43.1% 49.9% Q 1 c Efforts for Emergency Preparedness 0.0% 0.8% 22.5% 47.1% 29.6% Q 1 d Maintenance streets/sidewalks/ infrastructure 1.1% 7.3% 15.9% 54.1% 21.7% Q 1 e Effectiveness communication with public 0.5% 3.1% 17.3% 53.1% 25.9% Q If Quality of customer service you receive 0.7% 4.1% 18.4% 49.9% 26.9% Q 1 g Flow of traffic & congestion management 10.6% 32.5% 26.7% 25.2% 4.9% Qlh Quality stormwater management system 1.9% 7.7% 23.9% 48.9% 17.6% Qli Quality of water utility services 0.2% 1.6% 10.3% 58.0% 30.0% Q1j Quality of wastewater utility services 0.2% 0.7% 13.7% 57.5% 28.0% Qlk Electrical utility services 0.2% 1.6% 11.6% 54.7% 31.8% Q11 Trash, recycling & yardwaste services 0.8% 3.3% 7.7% 49.3% 38.8% ETC Institute (May 2006) 91 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 02. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q2 1st Number Percent A=Police services 104 7.8 % B=Fire & emergency medical sery 25 1.9 % C=Emergency Preparedness 83 6.2 % D=Streets/sidewalks/infrastructure 91 6.8 % E=Communication with public 27 2.0 % F=Customer service receive 21 1.6 % G=Flow of traffic 772 57.8 % H=Stormwater management 53 4.0 % I=Water utility services 5 0.4 % J=Wastewater utility services 4 0.3 % K=Electrical utility services 27 2.0 % L=Trash/recycling/yardwaste sery 29 2.2 % Z=None chosen 94 7.0 % Total 1335 100.0 % 02. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q2 2nd Number Percent A=Police services 67 5.0 % B=Fire & emergency medical sery 78 5.8 % C=Emergency Preparedness 166 12.4 % D=Streets/sidewalks/infrastructure 277 20.7 % E=Communication with public 72 5.4 % F=Customer service receive 30 2.2 % G=Flow of traffic 188 14.1 % H=Stormwater management 95 7.1 % I=Water utility services 31 2.3 % J=Wastewater utility services 9 0.7 % K=Electrical utility services 48 3.6 % L=Trash/recycling/yardwaste sery 78 5.8 % Z=None chosen 196 14.7 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 92 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q2. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q2 3rd Number Percent A=Police services 89 6.7 % B=Fire & emergency medical sery 57 4.3 % C=Emergency Preparedness 143 10.7 % D=Streets/sidewalks/infrastructure 167 12.5 % E=Communication with public 99 7.4 % F=Customer service receive 39 2.9 % G=Flow of traffic 95 7.1 % H=Stormwater management 80 6.0 % I=Water utility services 38 2.8 % J=Wastewater utility services 24 1.8 % K=Electrical utility services 69 5.2 % L=Trash/recycling/yardwaste sery 98 7.3 % Z=None chosen 337 25.2 % Total 1335 100.0 % 02. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (all three selections) Q2 Sum of Top 3 Number Percent A=Police services 260 19.5 % B =Fire & emergency medical sery 160 12.0 % C =Emergency Preparedness 392 29.4 % D = Streets/sidewalks/infrastructure 535 40.1 % E= Communication with public 198 14.8 % F= Customer service receive 90 6.7 % G=Flow of traffic 1055 79.0 % H= Stormwater management 228 17.1 % I=Water utility services 74 5.5 % J=Wastewater utility services 37 2.8 % K=Electrical utility services 144 10.8 % L= Trash/recycling/yardwaste sery 205 15.4 % Z=None chosen 94 7.0 % Total 3472 ETC Institute (May 2006) 93 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 03. PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very safe" and 1 means "very unsafe," please rate how safe you feel in the following situations: (N=1335) Very Don't unsafe Unsafe Neutral Safe Very safe know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q3a In your neighborhood during the day 0.0% 0.7% 1.9% 28.5% 68.5% 0.3% Q3b In your neighborhood at night 0.1% 1.8% 7.7% 51.3% 38.6% 0.5% Q3c In downtown Naperville 0.2% 0.5% 8.4% 49.1% 39.8% 2.0% Q3d In commercial and retail areas 0.0% 1.3% 15.7% 53.0% 28.3% 1.7% Q3e At the Rt 59 train station 0.3% 2.5% 16.9% 17.2% 6.3% 56.9% Q3f At the downtown train station 0.1% 1.7% 17.6% 35.9% 14.4% 30.3% Q3g In parks in the city 0.1% 1.3% 17.3% 52.9% 21.9% 6.4% Q3. PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very safe" and 1 means "very unsafe," please rate how safe you feel in the following situations: Very unsafe Unsafe Neutral Safe Very safe 1 2 3 4 5 Q3a In your neighborhood during the day 0.0% 0.7% 2.0% 28.6% 68.7% Q3b In your neighborhood at night 0.1% 1.8% 7.8% 51.6% 38.8% Q3c In downtown Naperville 0.2% 0.5% 8.6% 50.1% 40.6% Q3d In commercial and retail areas 0.0% 1.4% 15.9% 53.9% 28.8% Q3e At the Rt 59 train station 0.7% 5.9% 39.1% 39.8% 14.6% Q3f At the downtown train station 0.1% 2.5% 25.3% 51.5% 20.6% Q3g In parks in the city 0.2% 1.4% 18.5% 56.5% 23.4% ETC Institute (May 2006) 94 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 04. Some items that may influence your perception of the City of Naperville are listed below. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q4a Value you receive for tax dollars & fees 1.5% 8.2% 21.6% 50.4% 16.3% 1.9% Q4b Image of the city 0.0% 1.4% 4.3% 34.9% 58.7% 0.6% Q4c Quality of city services 0.2% 0.7% 8.8% 57.3% 31.8% 1.0% Q4d Quality of life in the city 0.1% 1.0% 4.9% 43.8% 49.4% 0.7% 04. Some items that may influence your perception of the City of Naperville are listed below. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q4a Value you receive for tax dollars & fees 1.5% 8.4% 22.0% 51.4% 16.7% Q4b Image of the city 0.0% 1.4% 4.4% 35.1% 59.1% Q4c Quality of city services 0.2% 0.8% 8.9% 57.9% 32.2% Q4d Quality of life in the city 0.2% 1.0% 5.0% 44.1% 49.8% ETC Institute (May 2006) 95 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 05. POLICE. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q5a Visibility of police in your neighborhood 1.6% 13.9% 28.5% 40.9% 13.0% 2.1% Q5b Visibility of police in retail areas 0.8% 7.6% 32.5% 42.5% 11.5% 5.1% Q5c Efforts to prevent crime 0.4% 2.6% 19.8% 46.6% 21.0% 9.5% Q5d Enforce traffic laws on major streets 3.7% 10.6% 19.3% 48.3% 15.4% 2.7% Q5e Enforce traffic laws in your neighborhood 7.4% 17.6% 22.4% 37.2% 12.0% 3.4% Q5f How quickly police respond 1.0% 1.1% 11.1% 33.0% 24.0% 29.7% Q5g Quality of non-enforcement services 0.4% 1.8% 18.1% 25.5% 10.5% 43.7% Q5h Animal control services 1.5% 4.3% 20.7% 27.6% 11.4% 34.5% ETC Institute (May 2006) 96 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 1 1 / 05. POLICE. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q5a Visibility of police in your neighborhood 1.7% 14.2% 29.1% 41.8% 13.2% Q5b Visibility of police in retail areas 0.9% 8.0% 34.3% 44.8% 12.2% Q5c Efforts to prevent crime 0.5% 2.9% 21.9% 51.5% 23.3% Q5d Enforce traffic laws on major streets 3.8% 10.9% 19.9% 49.7% 15.9% Q5e Enforce traffic laws in your neighborhood 7.7% 18.2% 23.2% 38.5% 12.4% Q5f How quickly police respond 1.5% 1.6% 15.8% 46.9% 34.2% Q5g Quality of non-enforcement services 0.7% 3.2% 32.2% 45.3% 18.6% Q5h Animal control services 2.3% 6.6% 31.7% 42.1% 17.4% ETC Institute (May 2006) 97 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 06. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q6 1st Number Percent A=Visibility of police-neighborhood 238 17.8 % B=Visibility of police in retail areas 110 8.2 % C=Efforts to prevent crime 248 18.6 % D=Enforce traffic laws on major st 192 14.4 % E=Enforce traffic laws-neighborhood 201 15.1 % F=Police respond to emergencies 81 6.1 % G=Non-enforcement services 64 4.8 % H=Animal control services 41 3.1 % Z=None chosen 160 12.0 % Total 1335 100.0 % 06. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q6 2nd Number Percent A=Visibility of police-neighborhood 155 11.6 % B=Visibility of police in retail areas 176 13.2 % C=Efforts to prevent crime 165 12.4 % D=Enforce traffic laws on major st 155 11.6 % E=Enforce traffic laws-neighborhood 211 15.8 % F=Police respond to emergencies 132 9.9 % G=Non-enforcement services 63 4.7 % H=Animal control services 26 1.9 % Z=None chosen 252 18.9 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 98 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 06. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q6 3rd Number Percent A=Visibility of police-neighborhood 167 12.5 % B=Visibility of police in retail areas 150 11.2 % C=Efforts to prevent crime 158 11.8 % D=Enforce traffic laws on major st 128 9.6 % E=Enforce traffic laws-neighborhood 96 7.2 % F=Police respond to emergencies 90 6.7 % G=Non-enforcement services 100 7.5 % H=Animal control services 58 4.3 % Z=None chosen 388 29.1 % Total 1335 100.0 % 06. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (all three selections) Q6 Sum of Top 3 Number Percent A=Visibility of police-neighborhood 560 41.9 % B =Visibility of police in retail areas 436 32.7 % C =Efforts to prevent crime 571 42.8 % D =Enforce traffic laws on major st 475 35.6 % E=Enforce traffic laws-neighborhood 508 38.1 % F=Police respond to emergencies 303 22.7 % G=Non-enforcement services 227 17.0 % H=Animal control services 125 9.4 % Z=None chosen 160 12.0 % Total 3365 ETC Institute (May 2006) 99 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 07. FIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q7a Efforts to ensure prepared for disaster 0.4% 2.6% 20.3% 29.4% 10.5% 36.8% Q7b Quality of local fire protection 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 45.1% 31.5% 15.2% Q7c How quickly fire & emergency respond 0.0% 0.3% 6.3% 31.8% 34.0% 27.6% Q7d How quickly fire respond to non-emergencies 0.1% 0.1% 10.3% 27.2% 20.4% 41.9% Q7e City fire safety education programs 0.1% 0.5% 13.9% 33.1% 22.7% 29.7% Q7f Carbon monoxide & smoke detector programs 0.4% 2.7% 19.3% 20.0% 8.2% 49.4% Q7g Fire inspection program 0.3% 1.3% 16.6% 18.4% 8.8% 54.6% ETC Institute (May 2006) 100 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q7. FIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q7a Efforts to ensure prepared for disaster 0.7% 4.1% 32.1% 46.4% 16.6% Q7b Quality of local fire protection 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 53.2% 37.2% Q7c How quickly fire & emergency respond 0.0% 0.4% 8.7% 44.0% 46.9% Q7d How quickly fire respond to non- emergencies 0.1% 0.1% 17.8% 46.8% 35.2% Q7e City fire safety education programs 0.1% 0.7% 19.7% 47.1% 32.3% Q7f Carbon monoxide & smoke detector programs 0.7% 5.3% 38.2% 39.5% 16.3% Q7g Fire inspection program 0.7% 3.0% 36.5% 40.6% 19.3% ETC Institute (May 2006) 101 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 08. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q8 1st emphasis Number Percent A=Ensure prepared for disaster 493 36.9 % B=Quality of fire protection 100 7.5 % C=Fire respond in emergency 166 12.4 % D=Fire respond in non-emergency 20 1.5 % E=Fire safety education programs 56 4.2 % F=Carbon monoxide investigation 85 6.4 % G=Fire inspection program 37 2.8 % Z=None chosen 378 28.3 % Total 1335 100.0 % Q8. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q8 2nd Number Percent A=Ensure prepared for disaster 108 8.1 % B=Quality of fire protection 164 12.3 % C=Fire respond in emergency 239 17.9 % D=Fire respond in non-emergency 51 3.8 % E=Fire safety education programs 108 8.1 % F=Carbon monoxide investigation 118 8.8 % G=Fire inspection program 76 5.7 % Z=None chosen 471 35.3 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 102 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 08. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q8 3rd Number Percent A=Ensure prepared for disaster 118 8.8 % B=Quality of fire protection 117 8.8 % C=Fire respond in emergency 120 9.0 % D=Fire respond in non-emergency 83 6.2 % E=Fire safety education programs 154 11.5 % F=Carbon monoxide investigation 96 7.2 % G=Fire inspection program 111 8.3 % Z=None chosen 536 40.1 % Total 1335 100.0 % 08. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (all three selections) Q8 Sum of Top 3 Number Percent A=Ensure prepared for disaster 719 53.9 % B = Quality of fire protection 381 28.5 % C =Fire respond in emergency 525 39.3 % D =Fire respond in non-emergency 154 11.5 % E=Fire safety education programs 318 23.8 % F= Carbon monoxide investigation 299 22.4 % G=Fire inspection program 224 16.8 % Z=None chosen 378 28.3 % Total 2998 ETC Institute (May 2006) 103 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 09. How satisfied are you with the City of Naperville's efforts to manage teardown development in the city? (teardown development involves the construction of newer homes on older home sites.) Q9 Efforts to manage teardown development Number Percent 1=Very dissatisfied 147 11.0 % 2=Dissatisfied 251 18.8 % 3=Neutral 336 25.2 % 4=Satisfied 283 21.2 % 5=Very satisfied 124 9.3 % 9=Don't know 194 14.5 % Total 1335 100.0 % 010. PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING. For each of the following,please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q10a Maintenance of major city streets 1.0% 6.7% 14.2% 59.9% 16.8% 1.3% Q l Ob Maintenance of neighborhood streets 1.3% 10.2% 17.0% 55.1% 14.9% 1.4% Q l Oc Maintenance of city sidewalks 1.4% 8.8% 19.3% 55.0% 13.5% 1.9% Q10d Maintenance of street signs 0.2% 2.0% 13.0% 61.6% 20.5% 2.7% Q l Oe Maintenance of city street lighting 0.8% 4.5% 12.8% 59.0% 20.9% 1.9% Q l Of Maintenance &preservation of downtown 1.3% 3.1% 8.1% 45.4% 39.4% 2.7% Q l Og Snow removal on major streets 0.7% 3.7% 7.3% 52.7% 34.4% 1.2% Q l Oh Snow removal on neighborhood streets 3.9% 11.2% 14.4% 46.7% 22.0% 1.8% Q l Oi Mowing & trimming along streets 0.9% 3.4% 14.7% 55.4% 22.2% 3.3% Q l Oj Cleanliness of streets & other public areas 0.3% 2.2% 9.9% 55.4% 30.9% 1.3% Q10k Timeliness of improvements- new develop 0.2% 2.1% 15.7% 37.4% 13.7% 30.9% Q101 Tree planting program 0.7% 3.6% 17.3% 41.2% 20.2% 17.0% ETC Institute (May 2006) 104 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 010. PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING. For each of the following,please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q10a Maintenance of major city streets 1.1% 6.8% 14.4% 60.7% 17.0% Q10b Maintenance of neighborhood streets 1.4% 10.3% 17.2% 55.9% 15.1% Q10c Maintenance of city sidewalks 1.5% 9.0% 19.7% 56.1% 13.8% Q10d Maintenance of street signs 0.2% 2.1% 13.3% 63.3% 21.1% Q10e Maintenance of city street lighting 0.8% 4.6% 13.1% 60.2% 21.3% Q10fMaintenance &preservation of downtown 1.3% 3.2% 8.3% 46.7% 40.5% Q10g Snow removal on major streets 0.7% 3.7% 7.4% 53.4% 34.8% Q l Oh Snow removal on neighborhood streets 4.0% 11.4% 14.6% 47.6% 22.4% Q10i Mowing & trimming along streets 0.9% 3.6% 15.2% 57.3% 23.0% Q l Oj Cleanliness of streets & other public areas 0.3% 2.3% 10.0% 56.1% 31.3% Q10k Timeliness of improvements-new develop 0.3% 3.0% 22.7% 54.1% 19.8% Q101 Tree planting program 0.8% 4.3% 20.8% 49.6% 24.4% ETC Institute (May 2006) 105 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 011. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q 11 1 st emphasis Number Percent A=Maintenance of major streets 337 25.2 % B=Maintenance-neighborhood sts 160 12.0 % C=Maintenance of sidewalks 87 6.5 % D=Maintenance of street signs 13 1.0 % E=Maintenance of street lighting 58 4.3 % F=Maintain/preserve downtown 131 9.8 % G=Snow removal on major streets 49 3.7 % H=Snow removal-neighborhood sts 140 10.5 % I=Mowing &trimming along streets 28 2.1 % J=Cleanliness-streets/other areas 59 4.4 % K=Timeliness of improvements 17 1.3 % L=Tree planting program 68 5.1 % Z=None chosen 188 14.1 % Total 1335 100.0 % 011. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q1 I 2nd Number Percent A=Maintenance of major streets 115 8.6 % B=Maintenance-neighborhood sts 248 18.6 % C=Maintenance of sidewalks 101 7.6 % D=Maintenance of street signs 17 1.3 % E=Maintenance of street lighting 63 4.7 % F=Maintain/preserve downtown 100 7.5 % G=Snow removal on major streets 62 4.6 % H=Snow removal-neighborhood sts 122 9.1 % I=Mowing &trimming along streets 42 3.1 % J=Cleanliness-streets/other areas 108 8.1 % K=Timeliness of improvements 31 2.3 % L=Tree planting program 43 3.2 % Z=None chosen 283 21.2 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 106 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 011.Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q113rd Number Percent A=Maintenance of major streets 98 7.3 % B=Maintenance-neighborhood sts 97 7.3 % C=Maintenance of sidewalks 123 9.2 % D=Maintenance of street signs 37 2.8 % E=Maintenance of street lighting 66 4.9 % F=Maintain/preserve downtown 86 6.4 % G=Snow removal on major streets 54 4.0 % H=Snow removal-neighborhood sts 76 5.7 % I=Mowing &trimming along streets 32 2.4 % J=Cleanliness-streets/other areas 125 9.4 % K=Timeliness of improvements 62 4.6 % L=Tree planting program 85 6.4 % Z=None chosen 394 29.5 % Total 1335 100.0 % 011.Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (all three selections) Q11 Sum of Top 3 Number Percent A=Maintenance of major streets 550 41.2 % B =Maintenance-neighborhood sts 505 37.8 % C=Maintenance of sidewalks 311 23.3 % D =Maintenance of street signs 67 5.0 % E=Maintenance of street lighting 187 14.0 % F=Maintain/preserve downtown 317 23.7 % G= Snow removal on major streets 165 12.4 % H= Snow removal-neighborhood sts 338 25.3 % I=Mowing &trimming along streets 102 7.6 % J= Cleanliness-streets/other areas 292 21.9 % K=Timeliness of improvements 110 8.2 % L=Tree planting program 196 14.7 % Z=None chosen 188 14.1 % Total 3328 ETC Institute (May 2006) 107 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 012. Which of the following are your primary sources of information about city issues, services, and events? Q12 Primary sources of information Number Percent 1 =Newsletter, Bridges 957 71.7 % 2 =Web site 338 25.3 % 3 =Utility bill inserts 637 47.7 % 4 =Government access station 232 17.4 % 5 =Articles in local newspapers 880 65.9 % 6 = City Notes column 416 31.2 % 7 =Other 75 5.6 % 9 =Not provided 31 2.3 % Total 3566 Q12. Other: Q 12 Other Number Percent BPAC COMMITTEE= 1 1.4 % CHANNEL 17= 1 1.4 % CHICAGO TRIBUNE= 4 5.4 % CITY BOARD MEETINGS= 1 1.4 % CITY COUNCILMAN= 1 1.4 % CITY MAGAZINE= 1 1.4 % CO-WORKERS= 1 1.4 % CONVERSATION= 1 1.4 % COUNCIL MEETINGS= 1 1.4 % DAILY HEARLD= 1 1.4 % DAILY HEARLD= 1 1.4 % DIRECT MAIL= 1 1.4 % E-MAIL= 2 2.7 % FLYERS= 1 1.4 % FRIENDS= 3 4.1 % FRIENDS THAT WORK FOR CITY= 1 1.4 % FRIENDS-NEIGHBORS= 1 1.4 % GLANCER= 2 2.7 % HEARLD= 1 1.4 % HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION= 2 2.7 % HOMEOWNERS GROUP-ECHO= 1 1.4 % INFO AT THE LIBRARIES= 1 1.4 % INTERNET MISC NEWS= 1 1.4 % MAIL= 1 1.4 % MESSAGE FROM MAYOR= 1 1.4 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 108 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 012. Other (Continued): Q12 Other Number Percent MY SPOUSE= 1 1.4 % NAPERVILLE CALENDAR= 1 1.4 % NAPERVILLE MAGAZINE= 3 4.1 % NAPERVILLE MAGS= 1 1.4 % NAPERVILLE NEWSLETTER= 1 1.4 % NAPERVILLE SUN= 1 1.4 % NAPERVILLE SUN DAILY= 1 1.4 % NAPERVILLE SUN WEBSITE= 1 1.4 % NEIGHBOR DISCUSSION= 1 1.4 % NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN EMAILS= 1 1.4 % NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSLETTER= 1 1.4 % NEIGHBORS= 3 4.1 % NEW IN PERSON= 1 1.4 % NEWS= 1 1.4 % OBSERVATION= 1 1.4 % OTHER RESIDENTS= 1 1.4 % PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT= 1 1.4 % PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS= 1 1.4 % PHONE= 1 1.4 % POLICE DEPT= 1 1.4 % POSITIVELY NAPERVILLE= 1 1.4 % SANDY ROBINSON= 1 1.4 % SUBDIVISION NEWSLETTER= 1 1.4 % SUN WEBSITE= 1 1.4 % TALKING TO PEOPLE= 1 1.4 % TRIBUNE= 1 1.4 % TRIBUNE METRO= 1 1.4 % TV= 1 1.4 % TV-GOSSIP= 1 1.4 % WHAO NEWSLETTER= 1 1.4 % WHITE EAGLE'S EAGLE EYE= 1 1.4 % WORD OF MOUTH= 6 8.1 % Total 74 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 109 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 013. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q13a Efforts to keep you informed about issues 0.4% 5.0% 21.9% 53.8% 15.7% 3.2% Q 13b Quality of government access TV station 0.7% 3.1% 25.0% 26.7% 6.9% 37.5% Q13c Quality of public access TV station 0.9% 4.1% 25.8% 23.6% 5.2% 40.3% Q13d Quality of web site 0.2% 1.9% 19.7% 36.3% 10.4% 31.5% Q 13 e Quality of resident newsletter, Bridges 0.1% 0.7% 15.3% 52.0% 20.2% 11.7% 013. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q13a Efforts to keep you informed about issues 0.4% 5.2% 22.7% 55.6% 16.2% Q13b Quality of government access TV station 1.1% 5.0% 40.0% 42.8% 11.0% Q13c Quality of public access TV station 1.5% 6.9% 43.3% 39.5% 8.8% Q13d Quality of web site 0.3% 2.7% 28.8% 53.0% 15.2% Q13e Quality of resident newsletter, Bridges 0.1% 0.8% 17.3% 58.9% 22.9% ETC Institute (May 2006) 110 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 014. How often do you watch the following cable television access stations? Q14a Watch GOVERNMENT access channel Number Percent 1=Almost daily 17 1.3 % 2=At least once per week 146 10.9 % 3=Few times per month 232 17.4 % 4=Few times/year 354 26.5 % 5=Never 570 42.7 % 9=Not provided 16 1.2 % Total 1335 100.0 % Q14. How often do you watch the following cable television access stations? Q 14b Watch PUBLIC access channel Number Percent 1=Almost daily 15 1.1 % 2=At least once per week 88 6.6 % 3=Few times per month 213 16.0 % 4=Few times/year 372 27.9 % 5=Never 624 46.7 % 9=Not provided 23 1.7 % Total 1335 100.0 % If they watched government or public access channels: 015. What types of programming do you watch on these channels? (multiple responses) Q15 Types of programming Number Percent 1 =Municipal meetings 415 31.1 % 2 =Media event coverage 153 11.5 % 3 =General interest programs 280 21.0 % 4 =Message board 451 33.8 % 5 = Special event/parade coverage 350 26.2 % 6 = School board meetings 149 11.2 % 9 =Not provided 510 38.2 % Total 2308 ETC Institute (May 2006) 111 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 016. Please rate how likely you would be to use the following services if they were provided on the city's Web site? (N=1335) Very Somewhat Don't unlikely Unlikely likely Very likely know 1 2 3 4 9 Q16a Check crime statistics near an address 12.4% 13.1% 30.6% 34.8% 9.1% Q16b View video of city council meetings 30.8% 32.4% 21.9% 5.8% 9.1% Q16c View video about city service 17.9% 24.7% 40.7% 8.5% 8.2% Q16d Pay fees/fines for licenses &permits 15.4% 14.6% 32.2% 28.6% 9.2% Q16e Submit service request or report problem 8.8% 9.0% 30.8% 44.8% 6.6% Q16f Download&print application for permit 9.8% 10.3% 30.5% 41.0% 8.5% Q 16g Submit application for permit or service 10.5% 9.7% 29.4% 41.9% 8.5% 016. Please rate how likely you would be to use the following services if they were provided on the city's Web site? Very Somewhat unlikely Unlikely likely Very likely 1 2 3 4 Q16a Check crime statistics near an address 13.7% 14.4% 33.7% 38.2% Q16b View video of city council meetings 33.9% 35.7% 24.1% 6.3% Q16c View video about city service 19.5% 26.9% 44.4% 9.2% Q16d Pay fees/fines for licenses &permits 16.9% 16.1% 35.5% 31.5% Q16e Submit service request or report problem 9.5% 9.6% 33.0% 48.0% Q16f Download &print application for permit 10.7% 11.2% 33.3% 44.8% Q 16g Submit application for permit or service 11.5% 10.6% 32.2% 45.8% ETC Institute (May 2006) 112 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 017. Do you think the city keeps residents adequately informed about street and lane closures that are associated with street improvements and other infrastructure projects? Q 17 Keeps residents informed about closures Number Percent 1=Yes 979 73.3 % 2=No 281 21.0 % 9=Don't know 75 5.6 % Total 1335 100.0 % 018. TRANSPORTATION. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q18a Ease of north/south travel 15.9% 36.5% 21.1% 22.5% 2.5% 1.5% Q 18b Ease of east/west travel 7.1% 21.1% 29.9% 35.8% 3.4% 2.6% Q18c Ease traveling home to regional roads 5.9% 15.7% 23.0% 44.5% 8.8% 2.1% Q18d Traffic signal coordination 7.3% 19.4% 23.4% 41.2% 6.6% 2.2% Q18e Efforts to minimize speeding 9.9% 20.2% 21.7% 35.6% 8.6% 4.0% Q18f Availability of bicycle lanes 8.1% 19.3% 29.2% 19.2% 5.8% 18.5% Q18g Availability of public transportation 8.8% 18.4% 27.6% 19.1% 4.2% 21.8% ETC Institute (May 2006) 113 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Q18. TRANSPORTATION. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q18a Ease of north/south travel 16.1% 37.0% 21.4% 22.8% 2.6% Q18b Ease of east/west travel 7.3% 21.7% 30.7% 36.8% 3.5% Q 18c Ease traveling home to regional roads 6.0% 16.1% 23.5% 45.4% 9.0% Ql8d Traffic signal coordination 7.4% 19.8% 23.9% 42.1% 6.7% Q 18e Efforts to minimize speeding 10.3% 21.1% 22.6% 37.1% 9.0% Q 18f Availability of bicycle lanes 9.9% 23.6% 35.8% 23.5% 7.1% Q18g Availability of public transportation 11.3% 23.6% 35.3% 24.4% 5.4% Q19. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q19 1st Number Percent A=Ease of north/south travel 583 43.7 % B=Ease of east/west travel 72 5.4 % C=Ease travel home-regional roads 35 2.6 % D=Traffic signal coordination 106 7.9 % E=Efforts to minimize speeding 184 13.8 % F=Availability of bicycle lanes 73 5.5 % G=Availability of public transport 170 12.7 % Z=None chosen 112 8.4 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 114 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 019. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q19 2nd Number Percent A=Ease of north/south travel 225 16.9 % B=Ease of east/west travel 358 26.8 % C=Ease travel home-regional roads 89 6.7 % D=Traffic signal coordination 143 10.7 % E=Efforts to minimize speeding 111 8.3 % F=Availability of bicycle lanes 123 9.2 % G=Availability of public transport 100 7.5 % Z=None chosen 186 13.9 % Total 1335 100.0 % 019. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q19 3rd Number Percent A=Ease of north/south travel 106 7.9 % B=Ease of east/west travel 165 12.4 % C=Ease travel home-regional roads 176 13.2 % D=Traffic signal coordination 185 13.9 % E=Efforts to minimize speeding 128 9.6 % F=Availability of bicycle lanes 133 10.0 % G=Availability of public transport 134 10.0 % Z=None chosen 308 23.1 % Total 1335 100.0 % 019. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (all three selections) Q19 Sum of Top 3 Number Percent A=Ease of north/south travel 914 68.5 % B =Ease of east/west travel 595 44.6 % C =Ease travel home-regional roads 300 22.5 % D =Traffic signal coordination 434 32.5 % E=Efforts to minimize speeding 423 31.7 % F=Availability of bicycle lanes 329 24.6 % G=Availability of public transport 404 30.3 % Z=None chosen 112 8.4 % Total 3511 ETC Institute (May 2006) 115 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 020. The City of Naperville has several utility billing options available to residents. For each of the options listed below, please indicate whether you were aware that the option is available before receiving this survey and whether you would be interested in using the option? (N=1335) Yes No 1 2 Q20a Bank drafting 64.4% 35.6% Q20b Budget billing 60.5% 39.5% Q20c eBill 58.1% 41.9% 020. Would You Use This Option? (N=1335) Yes No 1 2 Q20a-Bank drafting 38.2% 61.8% Q20b-Budget billing 27.2% 72.8% Q20c-eBill 37.1% 62.9% 021. Do you think you have adequate access to city services, such as police, bill payment sites, utility services, and information about city meetings in the area where you live? Q21 Access to city services Number Percent 1=Yes 1194 89.4 % 2=No 118 8.8 % 9=Don't know 23 1.7 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 116 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 022. In November 2005, the city issued the Popular Annual Financial Report to all residents, which provides information on the financial state of the city. Did you read the report? Q22 Read Popular Annual Financial Report Number Percent 1=Yes 524 39.3 % 2=No 789 59.1 % 9=Don't know 22 1.6 % Total 1335 100.0 % IF YES to Q22 022a. Are you interested in continuing to receive this information from the city? Q22a Interesting in continuing to receive Number Percent 1=Yes 486 92.7 % 2=No 29 5.5 % 9=Don't know 9 1.7 % Total 524 100.0 % 023. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and I means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q23a Residential trash collection services 1.1% 2.7% 4.9% 45.2% 43.7% 2.2% Q23b Curbside recycling services 1.1% 2.3% 4.9% 42.9% 46.0% 2.8% Q23c City garbage cart program 2.6% 4.9% 21.0% 26.0% 30.5% 15.1% Q23d Leaf yardwaste &brush removal services 2.2% 9.4% 14.2% 40.4% 27.7% 6.1% Q23e Household hazardous waste disposal svc 3.9% 12.7% 21.5% 27.7% 14.0% 20.1% ETC Institute (May 2006) 117 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 023. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q23a Residential trash collection services 1.1% 2.8% 5.1% 46.3% 44.8% Q23b Curbside recycling services 1.2% 2.4% 5.0% 44.1% 47.3% Q23c City garbage cart program 3.1% 5.7% 24.7% 30.6% 35.9% Q23d Leaf yardwaste &brush removal services 2.3% 10.0% 15.1% 43.1% 29.5% Q23e Household hazardous waste disposal Svc 4.9% 15.9% 26.9% 34.7% 17.5% 024. Which TWO of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q24 1 st Number Percent A=Residential trash collection svc 273 20.4 % B=Curbside recycling services 117 8.8 % C=Garbage cart program 61 4.6 % D=Leaf, yardwaste & brush removal svc 294 22.0 % E=Household hazardous waste svc 345 25.8 % Z=None chosen 245 18.4 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 118 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 024. Which TWO of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q24 2nd Number Percent A=Residential trash collection svc 127 9.5 % B=Curbside recycling services 237 17.8 % C=Garbage cart program 78 5.8 % D=Leaf, yardwaste & brush removal svc 241 18.1 % E=Household hazardous waste svc 242 18.1 % Z=None chosen 410 30.7 % Total 1335 100.0 % 024. Which TWO of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (both selections) Q24 Sum of Top 2 Choices Number Percent A= Residential trash collection svc 400 30.0 % B = Curbside recycling services 354 26.5 % C = Garbage cart program 139 10.4 % D = Leaf, yardwaste & brush removal svc 535 40.1 % E=Household hazardous waste svc 587 44.0 % Z=None chosen 245 18.4 % Total 2260 025. Are you aware the city offers a Renewable Energy Program,which is a program that allows you to support electricity generated from natural resources (wind, solar and water)? Q25 Aware of Renewable Energy Program Number Percent 1=Yes 608 45.5 % 2=No 707 53.0 % 9=Don't know 20 1.5 % Total 1335 100.0 % IF YES to Q25 Q25a. Would you be willing to pay a small additional fee to participate in the Renewable Energy Program? (The current optional minimum contribution is $5/month.) Q25a Willing to pay fee to participate Number Percent 1=Yes 191 31.4 % 2=No 398 65.5 % 9=Not provided 19 3.1 % Total 608 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 119 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey O25a. If so, how much extra per month would you pay? Q25A Amount Number Percent 1=$1 or less 13 7.7 % 2=$2 14 8.3 % 3=$3 - $4.99 6 3.6 % 5=$5 97 57.7 % 9=$6 - $9 5 3.0 % 10=$10 30 17.9 % 11=More than $10 3 1.8 % Total 168 100% Minimum= $0 Maximum= $25 Mean= $5.59 Median= $5.00 026. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q26a Reliability of electrical service 0.1% 1.8% 5.6% 44.8% 45.8% 1.9% Q26b Accuracy of your electric bill 0.5% 1.9% 12.7% 46.6% 29.7% 8.7% Q26c How well keep informed about disruption 0.5% 4.9% 25.1% 33.4% 15.2% 20.8% Q26d Quality of customer service 0.4% 1.5% 18.0% 33.9% 17.4% 28.9% Q26e How quickly restores power after outage 0.6% 2.8% 14.8% 43.9% 21.0% 16.8% Q26f Efforts to repair yards or landscaping 2.8% 8.2% 18.4% 25.7% 10.0% 34.9% Q26g Value receive for electrical utility 0.6% 2.9% 21.0% 50.6% 20.4% 4.3% ETC Institute (May 2006) 120 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 026. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q26a Reliability of electrical service 0.2% 1.8% 5.7% 45.6% 46.7% Q26b Accuracy of your electric bill 0.6% 2.1% 13.9% 51.0% 32.5% Q26c How well keep informed about disruption 0.7% 6.2% 31.7% 42.2% 19.2% Q26d Quality of customer service 0.5% 2.1% 25.3% 47.6% 24.4% Q26e How quickly restores power after outage 0.7% 3.4% 17.8% 52.7% 25.3% Q26f Efforts to repair yards or landscaping 4.3% 12.5% 28.3% 39.5% 15.4% Q26g Value receive for electrical utility 0.6% 3.1% 22.0% 52.9% 21.4% 027. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q27 1st Number Percent A=Reliability of electrical service 333 24.9 % B=Accuracy of electric bill 56 4.2 % C=Keeps informed about disruptions 137 10.3 % D=Customer service 21 1.6 % E=How quickly restores power 160 12.0 % F=Efforts to repair yards 122 9.1 % G=Value receive for rates 173 13.0 % Z=None chosen 333 24.9 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 121 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 027. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q27 2nd Number Percent A=Reliability of electrical service 125 9.4 % B=Accuracy of electric bill 111 8.3 % C=Keeps informed about disruptions 116 8.7 % D=Customer service 88 6.6 % E=How quickly restores power 240 18.0 % F=Efforts to repair yards 111 8.3 % G=Value receive for rates 112 8.4 % Z=None chosen 432 32.4 % Total 1335 100.0 % 027. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q27 3rd Number Percent A=Reliability of electrical service 83 6.2 % B=Accuracy of electric bill 75 5.6 % C=Keeps informed about disruptions 111 8.3 % D=Customer service 59 4.4 % E=How quickly restores power 168 12.6 % F=Efforts to repair yards 125 9.4 % G=Value receive for rates 168 12.6 % Z=None chosen 546 40.9 % Total 1335 100.0 % 027. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (all three selections) Q27 Sum of Top 3 Choices Number Percent A=Reliability of electrical service 541 40.5 % B =Accuracy of electric bill 242 18.1 % C =Keeps informed about disruptions 364 27.3 % D = Customer service 168 12.6 % E=How quickly restores power 568 42.5 % F=Efforts to repair yards 358 26.8 % G=Value receive for rates 453 33.9 % Z=None chosen 333 24.9 % Total 3027 ETC Institute (May 2006) 122 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 028. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (N=1335) Very Very Don't Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q28a Reliability of water service 0.0% 0.3% 3.5% 46.7% 47.6% 1.9% Q28b Water pressure in your home 0.5% 5.8% 8.2% 47.4% 36.3% 1.6% Q28c Accuracy of water bill 0.6% 1.4% 14.4% 44.9% 25.8% 12.8% Q28d Keeps informed about disruptions 0.4% 2.7% 19.7% 30.9% 17.2% 29.0% Q28e Taste/odor of drinking water 1.7% 7.8% 16.7% 45.9% 25.2% 2.6% Q28f Efforts to prevent backups 0.9% 2.5% 16.2% 32.3% 19.0% 29.1% Q28g Efforts to minimize odor from facilities 0.4% 1.9% 16.0% 35.3% 18.1% 28.4% Q28h Efforts to repair yards or landscaping 2.1% 6.0% 19.0% 24.8% 10.3% 37.8% Q28i Value receive for water utility 0.5% 2.2% 21.0% 49.7% 20.5% 6.1% Q28j Customer service from field employees 0.4% 0.9% 15.3% 31.2% 16.9% 35.4% ETC Institute (May 2006) 123 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 1 11 1 028. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." (excluding don't know) (N=1335) Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Q28a Reliability of water service 0.0% 0.3% 3.6% 47.6% 48.5% Q28b Water pressure in your home 0.5% 5.9% 8.4% 48.2% 36.9% Q28c Accuracy of water bill 0.7% 1.6% 16.5% 51.5% 29.6% Q28d Keeps informed about disruptions 0.6% 3.8% 27.7% 43.6% 24.3% Q28e Taste/odor of drinking water 1.8% 8.0% 17.2% 47.2% 25.9% Q28f Efforts to prevent backups 1.3% 3.6% 22.8% 45.5% 26.8% Q28g Efforts to minimize odor from facilities 0.5% 2.6% 22.3% 49.3% 25.3% Q28h Efforts to repair yards or landscaping 3.4% 9.6% 30.6% 39.8% 16.6% Q28i Value receive for water utility 0.6% 2.4% 22.3% 52.9% 21.9% Q28j Customer service from field employees 0.6% 1.4% 23.6% 48.3% 26.1% 029. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q29 1st Number Percent A=Reliability of water service 262 19.6 % B=Water pressure in your home 100 7.5 % C=Accuracy of bill 37 2.8 % D=Keep informed about disruptions 72 5.4 % E=Taste/odor of drinking water 195 14.6 % F=Prevent backups in home 111 8.3 % G=Minimize odor from facilities 28 2.1 % H=Repair yards or landscaping 79 5.9 % I=Value receive for rates 86 6.4 % J=Customer service 11 0.8 % Z=None chosen 354 26.5 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 124 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 029. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q29 2nd Number Percent A=Reliability of water service 93 7.0 % B=Water pressure in your home 137 10.3 % C=Accuracy of bill 56 4.2 % D=Keep informed about disruptions 51 3.8 % E=Taste/odor of drinking water 171 12.8 % F=Prevent backups in home 122 9.1 % G=Minimize odor from facilities 80 6.0 % H=Repair yards or landscaping 52 3.9 % I=Value receive for rates 88 6.6 % J=Customer service 15 1.1 % Z=None chosen 470 35.2 % Total 1335 100.0 % 029. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? Q29 3rd Number Percent A=Reliability of water service 66 4.9 % B=Water pressure in your home 70 5.2 % C=Accuracy of bill 61 4.6 % D=Keep informed about disruptions 47 3.5 % E=Taste/odor of drinking water 107 8.0 % F=Prevent backups in home 112 8.4 % G=Minimize odor from facilities 72 5.4 % H=Repair yards or landscaping 79 5.9 % I=Value receive for rates 126 9.4 % J=Customer service 39 2.9 % Z=None chosen 556 41.6 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 125 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 029. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? (all three selections) Q29 Sum of Top 3 Number Percent A= Reliability of water service 421 31.5 % B = Water pressure in your home 307 23.0 % C=Accuracy of bill 154 11.5 % D = Keep informed about disruptions 170 12.7 % E= Taste/odor of drinking water 473 35.4 % F = Prevent backups in home 345 25.8 % G= Minimize odor from facilities 180 13.5 % H = Repair yards or landscaping 210 15.7 % I=Value receive for rates 300 22.5 % J= Customer service 65 4.9 % Z=None chosen 354 26.5 % Total 2979 030. Have you called or visited the city with a question, problem, or complaint during the past year? Q30 Visited city Number Percent 1=Yes 630 47.2 % 2=No 697 52.2 % 9=Don't remember 8 0.6 % Total 1335 100.0 % IF YES to Q30 030a. Which department did you contact most recently? Q30a Department contacted Number Percent 01=Police 154 24.4 % 02=Fire 13 2.1 % 03=Public Works 132 21.0 % 04=Water/Wastewater Utility 56 8.9 % 05=Electric Utility 82 13.0 % 06=Finance-Customer Service/Cashiers 48 7.6 % 07=City Clerk's Office 32 5.1 % 08=Mayor/City Council 11 1.7 % 09=Transport/Engineer/Plan/Develop 67 10.6 % 10=City Manager's Office 15 2.4 % 11=Community Relations 13 2.1 % 99=Not provided 7 1.1 % Total 630 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 126 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 030b-d. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the quality of service you received from city employees in the department you listed above by circling the corresponding number below. (N=630) Strongly Strongly Don't disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree know 1 2 3 4 5 9 Q30b They were courteous &polite 2.2% 4.3% 9.4% 37.1% 45.1% 1.9% Q30c Gave prompt accurate & complete answers 4.9% 8.9% 9.8% 34.6% 39.7% 2.1% Q30d Timely follow-up to inquiry 9.0% 10.2% 11.3% 26.5% 34.0% 9.0% 030b-d. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the quality of service you received from city employees in the department you listed above by circling the corresponding number below. (excluding don't know) (N=630) Strongly Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree 1 2 3 4 5 Q30b They were courteous &polite 2.3% 4.4% 9.5% 37.9% 46.0% Q30c Gave prompt accurate & complete answers 5.0% 9.1% 10.0% 35.3% 40.5% Q30d Timely follow-up to inquiry 9.9% 11.2% 12.4% 29.1% 37.3% ETC Institute (May 2006) 127 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 031. Approximately how many years have you lived at your current residence? Q31 Years lived at current residence Number Percent Under 3 180 13.6 % 3to5 257 19.4 % 6 to 10 347 26.2 % 11 to 15 212 16.0 % 16 to 20 157 11.8 % 21 to 30 120 9.1 % 31+ 52 3.9 % Total 1325 100.0 % 032. Do you own or rent your current residence? Q32 Own or rent residence Number Percent 1=Own 1260 94.4 % 2=Rent 71 5.3 % 9=Not provided 4 0.3 % Total 1335 100.0 % Q33. Have you visited the Rt. 59 or downtown train station in Naperville during the past year? Q33 Visited train station Number Percent 1=Yes 796 59.6 % 2=No 498 37.3 % 9=Don't Remember 41 3.1 % Total 1335 100.0 % 034. How many persons in your household (counting yourself), are in each of the following age groups? Mean Total Sum Under age 10 0.53 1335 701 Ages 10-19 0.49 1335 660 Ages 20-34 0.43 1335 574 Ages 35-54 1.10 1335 1468 Ages 55-64 0.36 1335 475 Ages 65+ 0.22 1335 288 ETC Institute (May 2006) 128 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 035. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? Q35 Race/ethnicity Number Percent 1 = White/Caucasian 1167 87.4 % 2 = African American/Black 22 1.6 % 3 =Asian/Pacific Islander 124 9.3 % 4 =Native American/Eskimo 4 0.3 % 5 = Mixed Race 7 0.5 % 6 = Other 4 0.3 % 9 =Not provided 19 1.4 % Total 1347 035. Other: Q35 Other Number Percent HISPANIC= 1 33.3 % MEXICAN= 2 66.7 % Total 3 100.0 % Q36. Are you or other members of your household of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino heritage? Q36 Of Spanish Hispanic or Latino heritage Number Percent 1=Yes 51 3.8 % 2=No 1257 94.2 % 9=Not provided 27 2.0 % Total 1335 100.0 % 037. What is your tender? Q37 Gender Number Percent I=Male 622 46.6 % 2=Female 713 53.4 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 129 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey 038. Do you, or does someone in your household, have a disability as recognized in the Americans with Disabilities Act? Q38 Anyone have disability Number Percent 1=Yes 80 6.0 % 2=No 1241 93.0 % 9=Not provided 14 1.0 % Total 1335 100.0 % ETC Institute (May 2006) 130 2006 Naperville DirectionFinder Survey Section 6: Survov Instrument ETC Institute (May 2006) 131 City of Naperville 400 S.Eagle Street P.O. Box 3020 Le Naperville,IL 60566-7020 Phone 630.420.6111 Naperville FAX 630.420.4100 www.naperville.il.us March 2006 Dear Naperville Resident, The City of Naperville is requesting your help and a few minutes of your time! You have been chosen to participate in a survey designed to gather resident opinions and feedback on city programs and services. The information requested in this survey will be used to improve and expand existing programs and determine future needs of residents in the City of Naperville. We greatly appreciate your time. We realize that this survey takes some time to complete,but every question is important. The time you invest in this survey will influence decisions made about the city's future. Please return your completed survey in the next week using the postage-paid envelope provided. The survey data will be compiled and analyzed by ETC Institute,which is one of the nation's leading firms in the field of local governmental research. They will present the results to the city later this spring. Individual responses to the survey will remain confidential. You may also participate in the survey online by going to www.napervillesurvey.com. Please contact Alison Murphy at the City of Naperville at (630) 420-6043 if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your participation. Sincerely, 9"0111 Peter Burchard City Manager 2006 City of Naperville Community Survey Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. Your input is an important part of the city's on-going effort to identify and respond to resident concerns. If you have questions, please call Alison Murphy at (630) 420-6043. 1. Major categories of services provided by the City of Naperville are listed below. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied."Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A. Overall quality of police services 5 4 3 2 1 9 B Overall quality of fire and emergency 5 4 3 2 1 9 medical services C Overall efforts of the city for 5 4 3 2 1 9 Emergency Preparedness D Overall maintenance of city streets, 5 4 3 2 1 9 sidewalks and infrastructure E Overall effectiveness of city 5 4 3 2 1 9 communication with the public F Overall quality of customer service 5 4 3 2 1 9 you receive from city employees G Overall flow of traffic and congestion 5 4 3 2 1 9 management on streets in the city H Overall quality of the city's 5 4 3 2 1 9 stormwater management system 1. Overall quality of city water utility 5 4 3 2 1 9 services J. Overall quality of city wastewater 5 4 3 2 1 9 utility services K. City electrical utility services 5 4 3 2 1 9 L. Trash, recycling, and yardwaste 5 4 3 2 1 9 services 2. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 1 above]. 1 st: 2na: 3ra: 3. PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very safe" and 1 means "very unsafe," please rate how safe you feel in the f Ilowing situations: How safe do you feel: Very Safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very Unsafe Don't Know A. In your neighborhood during the day 5 4 3 2 1 9 B. In your neighborhood at night 5 4 3 2 1 9 C. In downtown Naperville 5 4 3 2 1 9 D. In commercial and retail areas 5 4 3 2 1 9 E. At the Rt. 59 train station 5 4 3 2 1 9 F. At the downtown train station 5 4 3 2 1 9 G. In parks in the city 5 4 3 2 1 9 2 4. Some items that may influence your perception of the City of Naperville are listed below. Please rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means " ery dissatisfied."Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A Overall value that you receive for 5 4 3 2 1 9 our city tax dollars and fees B. Overall image of the city 5 4 3 2 1 9 C. Overall quality of city services 5 4 3 2 1 9 D. Overall quality of life in the city 5 4 3 2 1 9 5. POLICE. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "ve dissatisfied." Very Dont Very , How Satisfied are you with: Sat s ed Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A The visibility of police in your 5 4 3 2 1 9 neighborhood B. The visibility of police in retail areas 5 4 3 2 1 9 C. City efforts to prevent crime 5 4 3 2 1 9 D Enforcement of local traffic laws on 5 4 3 2 1 9 major city streets E Enforcement of local traffic laws on 5 4 3 2 1 9 streets in your neighborhood F How quickly police respond to 5 4 3 2 1 9 emergencies Quality of non-enforcement services, G. such as lockouts, youth, social and 5 4 3 2 1 9 elderly services H. Animal control services 5 4 3 2 1 9 6. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 5 above.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: 7. FIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means ery dissatisfied."Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A City efforts to ensure the community 5 4 3 2 1 9 is prepared for a disaster or crisis B. Overall quality of local fire protection 5 4 3 2 1 9 How quickly fire and emergency C. medical personnel respond to 5 4 3 2 1 9 emergencies D How quickly fire personnel respond 5 4 3 2 1 9 to non-emergencies E City fire safety education programs, 5 4 3 2 1 9 including school-based programs F Carbon monoxide and smoke 5 4 3 2 1 9 detector investigation programs G. The city's fire inspection program 5 4 3 2 1 9 8. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 7 above.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: 3 COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 9. How satisfied are you with the City of Naperville's efforts to manage teardown development in the city? (teardown development involves the construction of newer homes on older home sites.) (5) Very satisfied (2) Dissatisfied (4) Satisfied (1) Very dissatisfied (3) Neutral (9) Don't know 10. PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied."Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A. Maintenance of major city streets 5 4 3 2 1 9 B. Maintenance of neighborhood streets 5 4 3 2 1 9 C. Maintenance of city sidewalks 5 4 3 2 1 9 D. Maintenance of street signs 5 4 3 2 1 9 E. Maintenance of city street lighting 5 4 3 2 1 9 F Maintenance and preservation of 5 4 3 2 1 9 downtown Naperville G.1 Snow removal on major city streets 5 4 3 2 1 9 H. Snow removal on neighborhood streets 5 4 3 2 1 9 I. Mowing & trimming along city streets 5 4 3 2 1 9 J. Overall cleanliness of city streets and 5 4 3 2 1 9 other public areas K Timeliness of street, curb, and lighting 5 4 3 2 1 9 improvements in new developments L. City's tree planting program 5 4 3 2 1 9 11. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 10 above.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: PUBLIC INFORMATION 12. Which of the following are your primary sources of information about city issues, services, and events? (Check all that apply.) (1) The city newsletter, Bridges (5) Articles in local newspapers (2) The city's Web site, www.naperville.il.us (6) The "City Notes" column in the Friday (3) Utility bill inserts Naperville Sun newspaper (4) Government access station (7) Other: (Ch 6-WOW or Ch 10-Comcast) 13. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Sat s ed Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A City efforts to keep you informed 5 4 3 2 1 9 about local issues The quality of the city's government B. access television station (Ch 6-WOW 5 4 3 2 1 9 & Ch 10-Comcast The quality of the city's public access C. television station NCTV- Ch. 17 5 4 3 2 1 9 D. The quality of the city's Web site 5 4 3 2 1 9 E The quality of the city's resident 5 4 3 2 1 9 newsletter, Bridges 4 14. How often do you watch the following cable television access stations? a. Government Access Channel (Ch. 6/10): (1) Almost daily (3) A few times per month _(5) Never (2) At least once per week (4) Only a few times/year b. Public Access Channel (NCTV— 17): (1) Almost daily (3) A few times per month (5) Never (2) At least once per week (4) Only a few times/year 15. What types of programming do you watch on these channels? (Check all that apply) (1) Municipal meetings (4) Message board (2) Media event coverage (5) Special event/parade coverage (3) General interest programs (6) School board meetings 16. Please rate how likely you would be to use the following services if they were provided on the city's Web site? How likely would you use the city's Web site to: Very Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Don't Likely Likely Know A. Check crime statistics near an address 4 3 2 1 9 B. View a video of city council meetings 4 3 2 1 9 C. View a video about a city service 4 3 2 1 9 D. Pay fees and/or fines for licenses and permits 4 3 2 1 9 E Submit a service request to report problems, 4 3 2 1 9 such as a pothole or street light repair F Download and print an application for a permit 4 3 2 1 9 or service to return by mail G Submit an application for a permit or service 4 3 2 1 9 online 17. Do you think the city keeps residents adequately informed about street and lane closures that are associated with street improvements and other infrastructure projects? (1) Yes (2) No 18. TRANSPORTATION. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "ve dissatisfied." Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A Ease of north/south travel in 5 4 3 2 1 9 Naperville B. Ease of east/west travel in Naperville 5 4 3 2 1 9 C Ease of traveling from your home to 5 4 3 2 1 9 regional roadways D Traffic signal coordination on major 5 4 3 2 1 9 city streets E City efforts to minimize speeding 5 4 3 2 1 9 in neighborhoods F. Availability of bicycle lanes 5 4 3 2 1 9 G Availability of public transportation 5 4 3 2 1 9 Services in Naperville 19. Which THREE of the items listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 18 above.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: 5 FINANCE 20. The City of Naperville has several utility billing options available to residents. For each of the options listed below, please indicate whether you were aware that the option is available before receiving this survey and whether you would be interested in using the option? Option Were You Aware? Would You Use This Option? (A) Bank Drafting ................YES ....... NO .......................................... YES........NO (B) Budget Billing.................YES ....... NO ..........................................YES........NO (C) eBill................................YES ....... NO .......................................... YES........NO 21. Do you think you have adequate access to city services, such as police, bill payment sites, utility services, and information about city meetings in the area where you live? (1) Yes (2) No 22. In November 2005, the city issued the Popular Annual Financial Report to all residents, which provides information on the financial state of the city. Did you read the report? (1) Yes (2) No 22a. If YES to 22: Are you interested in continuing to receive this information from the city? (1) Yes (2) No WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES 23. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Sat s ed Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A. Residential trash collection services 5 4 3 2 1 9 B. Curbside recycling services 5 4 3 2 1 9 C. City garbage cart program 5 4 3 2 1 9 D Leaf, yardwaste and brush removal 5 4 3 2 1 9 services [Ej Household hazardous waste disposal 5 4 3 2 1 9 service for motor oil, paint, etc. 24. Which TWO of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 23 above.] 1 st: 2"a: ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES 25. Are you aware the city offers a Renewable Energy Program, which is a program that allows you to support electricity generated from natural resources (wind, solar and water)? (1) Yes — go to 25a (2) No — go to 26 25a. Would you be willing to pay a small additional fee to participate in the Renewable Energy Program? (The current optional minimum contribution is $5/month.) (1) Yes: If so, how much extra per month would you pay? $ per month (2) No 6 26. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Sat s ed Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A. Reliability of electrical service 5 4 3 2 1 9 B. The accuracy of your electric bill 5 4 3 2 1 9 How well the city keeps you informed C. about planned disruptions to your 5 4 3 2 1 9 service D Quality of customer service from 5 4 3 2 1 9 electric utility field employees E How quickly the city restores power 5 4 3 2 1 9 after an unplanned outage City efforts to repair yards or restore F. landscaping following the completion 5 4 3 2 1 9 of electricals stem improvements G Overall value that you receive for 5 4 3 2 1 9 electrical utility rates 27. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 26 above.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: WATER/WASTEWATER UTILITY SERVICES 28. For each of the following, please rate your satisfaction with each item on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." Very Don't Very How Satisfied are you with: Sat s ed Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know A. The reliability of your water service 5 4 3 2 1 9 B. Water pressure in your home 5 4 3 2 1 9 C. The accuracy of your water bill 5 4 3 2 1 9 How well the city keeps you informed D. about planned disruptions to your 5 4 3 2 1 9 water service E. Taste/odor of your drinking water 5 4 3 2 1 9 F City efforts to prevent backups from 5 4 3 2 1 9 wastewater in your home G City efforts to minimize the odor from 5 4 3 2 1 9 wastewater treatment facilities City efforts to repair yards or restore H landscaping following the completion 5 4 3 2 1 9 of water/wastewater utility improvements Overall value that you receive for water 5 4 3 2 1 9 and wastewater utility rates J. Quality of customer service from field 5 4 3 2 1 9 employees 29. Which THREE of the services listed above do you think should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next two years? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question 28 above.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: 7 CUSTOMER SERVICE 30. Have you called or visited the city with a question, problem, or complaint during the past year? (1) Yes [answer Question 30a-d] (2) No [go to Question 31] 30a. [Only if YES to Q#30] Which department did you contact most recently? (01) Police (07) City Clerk's Office (02) Fire (08) Mayor/City Council (03) Public Works (09) Transportation/Engineering/Planning/ (04) Water/Wastewater Utility Development (05) Electric Utility (10) City Manager's Office (06) Finance — Customer Service/Cashiers (11) Community Relations 30b-d. [Only if"YES" to Question 30] Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the quality of service you received from city employees in the department you listed above by circling the correspo ding number below. Behavior of Employees Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Don't Agree Disagree Know b. They were courteous and polite 5 4 3 2 1 9 C. They gave prompt, accurate, and 5 4 3 2 1 9 complete answers to questions d There was a timely follow-up to 5 4 3 2 1 9 your inquiry DEMOGRAPHICS 31. Approximately how many years have you lived at your current residence? years 32. Do you own or rent your current residence? (1) Own (2) Rent 33. Have you visited the Rt. 59 or downtown train station in Naperville during the past year? YES NO 34. How many persons in your household (counting yourself), are in each of the following age groups? Underage 10 Ages 20-34 Ages 55-64 Ages 10-19 Ages 35-54 Ages 65+ 35. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? (1) White/Caucasian (4) Native American/Eskimo (2) African American/Black (5) Mixed Race (3) Asian/Pacific Islander (6) Other 36. Are you or other members of your household of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino heritage? YES NO 37. What is your gender? MALE FEMALE 38. Do you, or does someone in your household, have a disability as recognized in the Americans with Disabilities Act? (1) Yes (2) No This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time! If you have any further comments, please e-mail the city at info @naperville.il.us. Please Return Your Completed Survey in the Enclosed Postage Paid Envelope Addressed to: ETC Institute, 725 W. Frontier Circle, Olathe, KS 66061 Individual responses to the survey will remain confidential. The information printed on the sticker to the right will ONLY be used to help identify which areas of the city are having difficulties with city services. If your address is not correct, please provide the correct information. 8 F� Village of Clarendon Hills V 7 �CLARENDON HIL J� 1924 1 NORTH PROSPECT AVENUE CLARENDON HILLS, ILLINOIS 60514-1292 �l6NrEER Co TEL(630) 323-3500 FAX(630) 323-3512 TDD (630) 323-1325 E-MAIL: admin @village.clarendon-hills.il.us Clarendon Hills 2007 Community Needs Survey Analysis Attached, please find the results of the third annual Clarendon Hills Community Needs Survey. The survey was developed as a method for evaluating Village services and obtaining feedback from residents each year. Questions on the 2007 survey asked what the Village is doing well and where the Village needs to improve. Specifically, questions were targeted towards village departments, the central business district, miscellaneous village services, quality of life, and demographics. This narrative analysis combines the answers of the respondents to portray a statistically accurate picture of resident opinions. The results of the survey are presented as follows: Narrative Analysis................................................................ p. 1-12 Survey Participation and Statistical Information.................. p. 2 Highlights and Significant Findings................................... p. 3-4 Village Departments........................................................ p. 5-10 Other Village Services............................................ p. 11-13 Quality of Life............................................................... p. 14 Demographics................................................................ p. 15 Survey Results...................................................................... p. 16-24 Open-Ended Responses...................................................... p. 25-26 1 Survey Participation and Statistical Information The 2007 Community Needs Survey was randomly distributed to 1,000 Clarendon Hills households. A total of 341 surveys were returned and thus a response rate of 34.1% was achieved. Survey participation was structured so that both single-family and multi-family households would be accurately represented. In Clarendon Hills, 30.7% of households are multi- family and 69.3% are single-family. Therefore, 307 surveys were randomly distributed to multi- family households and 693 surveys were randomly distributed to single-family households. Of the 341 surveys returned, 81.8% were from single-family households and 18.2% were from multi-family households. This overrepresentation of single-family households is primarily due to a large number of vacancies amongst rental properties. For the basis of distinguishing where survey respondents live in Clarendon Hills, the survey separated the Village into four separate geographical areas. These areas were labeled as the following: 1) North of Chicago Avenue 2) North of Burlington Northern Railroad and South of Chicago Avenue 3) South of Burlington Northern Railroad and North of 55th Street 4) South of 55th Street The chart below illustrates the percentage of households and the percentage of survey respondents in each area of the Village. Aside from South of 55th Street, respondents accurately represent the distribution of households in Clarendon Hills. A high number of multi-family households South of 55th Street could have led to the underrepresentation of households in this area since similar results were produced for the 2005 and 2006 survey. % of Households % of Respondents Area of the Village in Area in Area N. of Chicago Ave. 15.9% 14.3% N. of BNSF Railroad and S. of Chicago Ave. 33.8% 35.1% S. of BNSF Railroad and N. of 55th St. 32.4% 33.0% S. of 55t St. 17.9% 12.6% For some questions in which items are rated on a four-point or five-point scale, an overall mean was taken. Mean scores are interpreted as follows: Four-Point Scale Five-Point Scale 1-1.75 ="excellent(extremely satisfied)" 1-1.80=" strongly agree(much better)" 1.76-2.5 ="good(very satisfied)" 1.81-2.60="agree(somewhat better)" 2.51-3.25 ="fair(somewhat satisfied)" 2.61-3.40="no opinion(about the same)" 3.26-4.0="poor(not satisfied)" 3.41 —4.20="disagree (somewhat worse)" 4.21-5.0="strongly disagree (much worse)" A valid percentage was also used on specific questions. This percentage excludes blank and "no opinion" responses. A valid percentage more accurately assess responses for questions that do not apply to all respondents. Questions that were analyzed with a valid percentage are denoted by an asterisk(*). 2 Highlights and Significant Findings Quality of Life For the third year in a row, nearly all respondents rated the overall quality of life in Clarendon Hills as good or excellent (95.0%)! In addition, a mean score taken on a five-point scale shows that respondents believe the quality of life is about the same as it was ten years 2007 0mal'tY of Life ago. Multiple questions throughout Poo- Don't Know/No the survey indicate respondents' Fair 0.0% Opinion satisfaction with the location, 2.6% 0.3% Ni 0.3% schools, residents, and safety of the Village. In fact, 95.3% of respondents reported that they feel Good Excellent 42.6% -- safe and secure in their 54.2% neighborhood! Fire Service Tax Due to a decrease in the number of paid-on-call ("volunteer") firefighter/paramedics in the Village, the 2007 survey asked whether respondents would support a tax increase to hire additional fire personnel. Results indicate that 33.6% of respondents would support a tax increase and 21.6% of respondents would not support a tax increase. Nearly a third of respondents (28.4%) do not know or do not have an opinion about the tax increase. The results of this question crosstabulated by area of residence are located below. As shown, greatest support for the tax increase is the area of the Village between the railroad and 55th Street. Least support for the tax is the area of the Village south of 55th Street. Tax Increase for Fire Personnel ■Yes ❑No p Don't Know/No Opinion 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% - 430 46.5% .9/0 41.6% 40.0% 31.7/0 0 35.4% 31.3/o 0 34.4%-34.4% 28.7% 29.7% 30.0% 24.4% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% North of Chicago Ave. North of Railroad/South of South of Railroad/North of South of 55th St. Chicago Ave. 55th St. 3 Central Business District Although respondents appreciate the quality of life in Clarendon Hills, the number of respondents who are satisfied with downtown Clarendon Hills has decreased since 2005. The chart below illustrates the declining percentage of respondents who are extremely or very satisfied with the range and quality of shopping choices, availability of parking, and condition of buildings in downtown Clarendon Hills. As shown, satisfaction with these areas of the downtown has decreased between 4.7% and 14.3% since 2005. Downtown Clarendon Hills 2005-2007 ■2005 0 2006 v 2007 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% a d H 70.0% w m y 60.0% a� 50.0% ° /o 40.0% 36.3% 34.7% w 30.0% 282% 28.9% 29.4% 29.5% X W18.Y/o 20.8% 20.0% 43.5% 8.1 8.8% % 10.0% 0.0% Range of Shopping Choices Quality of Shopping Availability of Parking Condition of Buildings 4 Village Departments Police Department • In the last 3 years, the majority of respondents (57.9%) have had contact with the Police Department. Results indicate that most respondents have had contact with an officer (40.4%) or dispatch (26.3%). Moreover, this contact most often took place in a non-emergency situation (38.3%). The chart below indicates the percentage of respondents who rated the Police Department services as good or excellent. Adequacy of Police Department Services 2005 - 2007 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% m 70.0% v 60.0% X W 50.0% 0 0 40.0% 0 V' 30.0% 0 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Community Sergeant/ Officer Attitude Dispatch Records Service Officer Police Officer Deputy Prosecutor Investigator &Behavior Chief/Chief ■2005 91.2% 93.2% 91.3% 85.1% 85.9% 93.1% 85.7% ■2006 93.6% 87.8% 90.2% 82.4% 87.5% 86.4% 78.2% ■2007 91.2% 88.2% 88.5% 85.1% 83.0% 69.20% 86.3% 87.7% • Based upon contact with the Police Department, a mean score calculated on a four-point scale determined the adequacy of service provided by dispatch, records staff, community service officer, and sergeant/ deputy chief/ chief as "excellent." Moreover, officer attitude and behavior and non-emergency and emergency response times were rated as "excellent." The adequacy of service provided by the investigator and prosecutor were rated as "good." Police Department Response Times Percent Rated as Excellent 2005-2007 100.0% 80.0% 70.7% 59.4% 67.3% 60.0% 51.9% A- 50.0% 40.0% 46.2% 20.0% tNon-emergency-*�Emegergency 0.0% 2005 2006 2007 5 • Most respondents believe that the level of speed enforcement(69.9%) and the level of parking enforcement (73.1%) is adequate for the Village of Clarendon Hills. However, when provided with the choices of excessive, adequate, and insufficient, 17.3% or respondents believe that speed enforcement is insufficient and 15.2%believe that parking enforcement is excessive. • When responses were crosstabulated with location of residence in 2005, only 60.3% of households north of Chicago Avenue were satisfied with speed enforcement in the Village. This year, 81.3% of respondents north of Chicago Avenue are satisfied with the level of speed enforcement. • For the most part, awareness of Police educational and outreach programs has increased since 2005. The percentage of respondents that are aware of Vacation House Watch, DARE, Neighborhood Crime Watch, SMART Radar Trailer, Home Security Checks, Crime Watch Alert, and Operation Life Saver has increased by 20.6%, 17.8%, 17.6%, 12.9%, 8.2%, 5.9%, and 4.0% respectively. Awareness of the DARE School Program, Vacation House Watch, and Neighborhood Crime Watch was the greatest with 76.6%, 48.5%, and 46.5%. • Most respondents learned about the programs offered by the Police Department through the Village's Trustee Topics newsletter (40.9%) or through family and friends (18.7%). As in 2006, Vacation House Watch at 3.8% is the program respondents are most interested in learning more about. • Services provided by the Police Department were surveyed regardless of whether the respondent had been in contact with the Police in the last 3 years. Mean scores ranging between 1.92 and 2.00 on a four-point scale indicate that respondents are "very satisfied" with department performance, competence of employees, officer attitude and behavior, and safety and security in the Village. Fire Department • In the last 3 years, only 27.5% of respondents have had contact with the Fire Department. Contact with a firefighter,paramedics/EMTs, 911 dispatch, and fire personnel at the station ranged between 9.9- 13.2%. Responses indicate that contact most frequently took place during a non- emergency situation (13.5%), an emergency situation (13.2%), or a visit to the Fire Department (12.6.%). Adequacy of Fire Department Services 2005-2007 100.0% 80.0% a� w 60.0% L 0 -a40.0%- 0 0 20.0% 0.0% Dispatch Firefighter Paramedic/EMT Fire Personnel at Attitude&Behavior Station ■2005 96.1% 97.5% 94.3% 98.2% 96.6% ■2006 97.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ■2007 94.0% 98.4% 96.6% 96.1% 98.6% 6 • Of all respondents who had contact with the Fire Department, 94% or more ranked the adequacy of service provided by dispatch, firefighters, paramedics/EMT, fire personnel at the fire station, and firefighter/EMT attitude as good or excellent. The chart on the previous page indicates the percentage of respondents who rated the Fire Department services as good or excellent. • On a four-point scale, emergency and non-emergency response times were also categorized as "excellent." As shown below, the percentage of respondents who classified emergency and non- emergency response times as good or excellent has increased since 2005. Fire Department Response Times Percent Rated as Excellent 2005-2007 100.0% 79.4% 88.9% 80.0% 71.8% W _m� 75.6% 60.0/o 0 66.7% 76.4% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Non-emergency tEmegergency 2005 2006 2007 • A majority of respondents are aware of the Fire Department Open House (67.5%), Fire Prevention Week and Education at Schools (58.2%), and Block Party Attendance (56.1%). Awareness of Home Safety Inspections, Fire Station Tours, and Fire Prevention Week has increased 9.6%, 7.5%, and 7.0%respectively since 2005. • Similar to police programs, most respondents learned about fire outreach and education programs through the Village newsletter Trustee Topics (39.5%). In addition, 14.3% learned of these programs from a family member of friend. As in 2006, CPR Training at 2.9% is the program respondents are most interested in leaning more about. • Services provided by the Fire Department were surveyed regardless of whether a respondent had been in contact with the department in the last 3 years. For the second year in a row, mean scores ranging between 1.57 and 1.75 on a four-point scale indicate that respondents are "extremely satisfied" with Department Performance, Fire Protection Service, Fire Inspection of Commercial Buildings, Education on Fire Prevention, and Firefighter/ EMT Attitude and Behavior. In addition, respondents indicated that they are "very satisfied" with Blood Pressure Screenings and CPR Classes. Finance Department • For the third year in a row, the majority of respondents feel they receive a fair level of service for their property tax dollars (58.5%). If the Village were to require an increase in services, most would prefer to pay for these services through user fees as their first choice (44.7%), sales tax as their second choice (31.6%), and property tax as their last choice (35.7%). These results mimic those of the 2005 and 2006 survey although the percentages have changed slightly. The graph on the following page illustrates the first choice preferences of respondents from 2005 to 2007. As shown, the differential between property tax and user fees has decreased from 41.2% in 2005 to 23.9% in 2007. 7 Tax Increase Preference: 1st Choice 2005-2007 Property Tax Sales Tax 4 User Fees 100.0% 80.0% 55.0% 60.0% O 48.3% O 44.7% 40.0% 23.0% 22.0% 24.6% 20.0% 13.8% V.89/ 20.8% o 0.0% 2005 2006 2007 • Similar to 2005, the majority of respondents conduct routine business with the Village through the mail (51.5%) but many conduct business in person (35.7%). Since 2005, there has been a 2.9% increase in the number of respondents who make payments using direct debit(20.5%). • When asked, a majority of respondents indicated that they would not be interested in making payments online for a small convenience fee (58.8%). Moreover, a majority of respondents indicated that they would not be interested in making payments by credit card for a small convenience fee (64.6%). • For the third year in a row, most respondents find the service at the Village Hall to be good or excellent(60.2%). Public Works Department • Services provided by the Public Works Department have been rated consistently high since 2005. Below, see the graphs that reflect the percentages for street maintenance, snow plowing, storm water maintenance, and streetscape maintenance. Street Maintenance Snow Plowing 2005-2007 2005- 2007 100% I 100% 21.0% 21.6% 80% 20.7% 80% 39.7% 40.9% 60% 60% 40%-,""` 0% 48.3% 53.3% 53.5% 40% 46.8% 20% 20% 0% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 FE ❑Excellent ■Good ■Excellent 8 Storm Water Maintenance Streetscape Maintenance 2005 -2007 2005-2007 100% 100% 19.2% 17.3% � 18.4% 25.7% 26.0% 29.4% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40%-1X 0% 46.3% 50.7% 45.9% 40% / 48.6% 48.0% 51.8% 20% 20% 0% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 ■Good ■Excellent ■Good ■Excellent • Since 2005, the percentage of respondents who believe that the condition of street and road conditions are good or excellent has increased 8% to 71%. • In 2005, most respondents believed sidewalks in the Village were generally in good condition (80.6%). However, when given the scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor in 2006, 63% of respondents rated the sidewalks as being in good or excellent condition. In 2007, this percentage increased to 68.8%. • Similar to 2005 and 2006, approximately half (49.1%) of respondents want to continue snow removal services in the central business district. However, it is important to note that similar to the last two years, 27.5% of respondents have no opinion on this issue. Comments placed throughout the survey indicate that some respondents may not have knowledge about alternate courses of action for this service. • As in 2005 and 2006, approximately 80% of respondents are aware that Flag Creek Water Reclamation District (formally Hinsdale Sanitary District) owns and operates the sanitary sewers. Since 2006, the percentage of respondents who stated that they have had a sanitary sewer backup in the last two years increased from 8.7% to 14.9%. Of the 14.9% who have had a backup, most reported having one (6.7%) or two (1.2%). • This year, 74.9% of respondents indicated that they are satisfied with the scope and level of beautification projects throughout the Village. Similar to 2006, the majority (50.6%) of respondents would like to see additional beautification improvements in the Village. Of those respondents who wish to see additional beautification efforts taken by the Village, 39.2% would like to see enhancements at key entrances into the Village, 38.9%would like to see beautification along the south side of the tracks, and 32.7% would like to see enhancements at the commuter station. 9 Building and Zoning/ Code Enforcement • Since 2006, the percentage of respondents who indicated that the Village provides adequate information about when a building permit is required increased 10.9% to 40.6%. Many respondents (32.7%) do not know or have no opinion about when a building permit is required. • As in 2005 and 2006, roughly 40% of respondents have applied for a building permit from the Village and most were for home improvement projects (23.1%). Of those respondents who have applied for a permit, half(50.2%) of respondents reported that they did not know whether they were given adequate instructions and information to successfully obtain the permit and complete the work. This high percentage is related to the fact that frequently contractors and not homeowners apply for the necessary permits. Most respondents who were involved in the permit process indicated that they were given adequate instructions and information (42.2% vs. 7.6%). • Only 2.0% or 7 respondents have applied for a case to be heard before the zoning board of appeals. When asked whether those who have applied for a case were provided with adequate information about the zoning process, 4 respondents said that they were provided with adequate information and 42 said that they were not provided with adequate information. Since more than 7 respondents answered follow-up question #52, the results are inaccurate and must be dismissed. Nevertheless, most respondents (48.8%) indicated in a separate question that the Village sufficiently publicizes zoning cases. • As in 2005 and 2006, most residents believe that the new single-family homes being constructed are too tall (46.2%), too large (51.2%), and do not leave enough green space on lots (61.7%). Most of respondents who wish to change building regulations recommend reducing or limiting FAR (floor area ratio) or size of the home (12.9%). Other ideas mentioned were to reduce or limit height (6.2%), increase green space (5.3%), strengthen code enforcement (4.4%), and increase setbacks (3.8%). • The figure below illustrates the percentage of respondents who indicated that code enforcement in the Village is good or excellent. As shown, satisfaction with code enforcement measures has increased slightly since 2006. However, enforcement of weeds, storage of junk, and construction and site maintenance has received consistently low marks since 2005. Code Enforcement 2005-2007 100.0% 80.0% m x 60.0% W 0 m40.0%- - 0 0 �e 20.0% 0.0% Weeds Vehicle Parking Garbage Storage of Junk Construction&Site Maintenance ■2005 44.0% 65.2% 72.9% 46.3% 41.0% ■2006 38.6% 60.3% 60.9% 44.7% 32.0% ■2007 42.6% 65.2% 66.7% 44.1% 39.2% 10 Other Village Services Central Business District • For the third year in a row, the percentage of respondents who are somewhat satisfied or not satisfied with the central business district has steadily increased. For instance, as in 2005 and 2006, more than 80% of respondents are somewhat or not satisfied with the range of shopping choices in the downtown. In addition, 72.2% of respondents are somewhat or not satisfied with the quality of shopping downtown. The graph below indicates the percentage of respondents who are somewhat or not satisfied with the central business district. Central Business District 2005- 2007 100.0% 90.0% a 80.0% Aft m 70.0% 0 60.0% Z o 50.0% W 3 40.0% E 30.0% O y 20.0% 0 10.0% 0.0% Range of Shopping Quality of Shopping Availability of Parking Condition of Buildings ■2005 81.6% 66.5% 58.8% 49.9% ■2006 82.4% 71.1% 57.0% 59.6% ■2007 85.3% 72.2% 64.9% 61.9% • Growing discontent with the downtown has ultimately resulted in a low percentage of respondents who patron the downtown on a regular basis. Moreover, since 2006, the percentage of respondents who shop in the downtown Clarendon Hills 1 to 2 times a week or more (46.7%) has decreased 7.8%. Downtown redevelopment efforts have Frequency of Shopping been implemented to improve Downtown Clarendon Hills the shopping, condition of Never shop Missing: buildings' and availability of downtown: 3 or more times Less than once 3.8% 3.2% a week: parking in the downtown so a month: 17.8% that more residents will 12.9% patronize the central business district in the future. The pie graph illustrates the percentage of respondents who shop on 12 6m /ontn: 1 to 2 times a downtown Clarendon Hills. - week: 2 to 3 times per 28.9% month: 20.8% ll Heritage Hall • Since 2005, there has been a significant increase (16.8%) of respondents that support the creation of Heritage Hall. Moreover, similar to 2005 and 2006, 21.1% indicated that they do not know if they support the project. The graph below indicates the support for Heritage Hall. Support for Heritage Hall 2005-2007 ■2005 ■2006 ■2007 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 54.4% 60.0% 50.0% 43.6% 0 37.6% 35.0% ° 30.4% 24.1% 30.0% 21.6% 21.7% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Yes No Don't Know • This year, the survey inquired about what types of programs respondents would be most interested in attending at Heritage Hall. Below is a graph of the responses. Heritage Hall Programs Fine Arts 33.6% Literature 26.0% Music 1 41.8% Performing Arts 39.5% Local History 48.8% National History 27.5% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Village Events • As in 2005 and 2006, more than 60% of respondents have attended Dancin' in the Street and Daisy Days one or more times in the past two years. Attendance at the Christmas Walk has dropped by 5.2% since 2005 and 46.5% of respondents have attended the Christmas Walk at least one time in the last 2 years. • When asked what other events, festivals, or activities respondents would attend if they were held in Clarendon Hills, most respondents indicated they would attend an art of craft fair(10.6%), more or different concerts (5.9%), or a food festival (4.1%). 12 Communication • As indicated on the 2006 survey, most respondents read the Trustee Topics newsletter every month for Village information (86.8%) and only 1.8% of respondents have never read the newsletter. Moreover, 85.5% of respondents rated the overall quality of the newsletter as good or excellent. A small percentage (11.4%) of respondents would like to receive an emailed version of the Trustee Topics newsletter every month. • Far less respondents visit the Village website or watch the Village's cable television station for Village information. Many respondents never visit the website (58.5%) or do not have access to the Internet at their home (8.8%). Most respondents who have visited the website (20.2%) rated the overall quality of the website as good. • Similar to the Village website, 50.3% of respondents never watch the Village's cable television station and 17.0% do not have cable television at home. Smoking Ban • When asked the question, "Assuming no legislation is passed by the State of Illinois or DuPage County, do you think the Clarendon Hills Village Board should pass an ordinance further restricting smoking in public places including restaurants and bars," 63.7% of respondents indicated that the Village Board should pass this ordinance. Since the distribution of this survey, the State of Illinois has passed such legislation. Refuse Service • Most respondents (79.2%) indicated that the refuse collectors have never missed picking up their garbage on a scheduled pick-up day. However, 12.0% indicated that the refuse collectors have missed their garbage or recycling or more times. • The majority of respondents (54.1%) indicated that the refuse collectors had never spilled or scattered their garbage or recycling. However, 37.4% of respondents indicated that the refuse collectors have spilled or scattered their garbage or recycling 1 or more times. The pie graph below illustrates this percentage. Frequency of Garbage Scattered or Spilled By Refuse Collectors Don't know/ 5 or more times: missing: 7.0% 8.5% 3-4 times: Never spilled: 7.0% 54.1% 1-2 times: 23.4% 13 Quality of Life • Approximately 95% of respondents rated the overall quality of life in Clarendon Hills as good or better! Furthermore, a mean score based on a five-point scale, characterized the quality of life today as compared to 10 years ago as about the same. Respondents had a variety of ideas for improving the quality of life in Clarendon Hills. For the third year in a row, obtaining more and better businesses was cited most frequently (14.7%). • When respondents were asked open-endedly what 3 things they like best about Clarendon Hills, the top response for the third year in a row was convenient location (37.5%). People and residents (30.2%) and the small size and feeling of the Village (29.0%) were listed as the second and third best-liked quality. The results of a follow-up, closed-ended question asking for the major advantages of living in Clarendon Hills are illustrated below. Major Advantages of Clarendon Hills 2005-2007 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Schools Location Shopping Transportation Housing Quality Residential Friendliness of Recreational Neighborhoods Residents Amenities ■2005 75.7% 87.5% 8.41/6 59.3% 58.31/6 75.4% 65.2% 22.3% ■2006 72.7% 85.3% 10.8% 66.1% 54.30/6 68.0% 61.40/6 23.9% ■2007 73.7% 86.3% 10.8% 61.1% 59.1% 76.9% 62.6% 26.9% • When respondents were asked open-endedly what 3 things they like least about Clarendon Hills, the top 3 responses were the lack of shopping and restaurants (30.2%), high and increasing taxes and fees (16.4%), and teardowns and the construction associated with them (15.5%). The results of a follow-up, closed-ended question asking for the major disadvantages of living in Clarendon Hills are illustrated below. Major Disadvantages of Clarendon Hills 2005-2007 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Traffic Problems Street Conditions Recreational Amentities Housing Costs Distance of Employer 2005 24.8% 17.6% 11.8% 47.1% 6.1% 0 2006 23.9% 18.4% 13.1% 44.1% 3.4% ■2007 14.9% 8.5% 9.9% 45.6% 6.1% 14 Demographics In order to determine whether respondents of the community needs survey accurately represent the citizens of Clarendon Hills, the demographic information of respondents was compared to demographic information compiled by the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau. • 66.1% of respondents were between the ages of 20 and 59 and 31% of respondents were 60 years of age and older. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of Clarendon Hills residents between the age 20 and 59 is 77.3% and the percentage of residents 60 years and over is 22.7%. Therefore, as in 2005 and 2006, people 60 and older are slightly overrepresented in this survey(or responded in greater numbers). • Taking the category "four or more persons per household" to equate to four, the average number of persons per household that responded to the survey was 2.62. This is comparable to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 figure of 2.65. • Results indicate that respondents as well as their spouses work throughout the Chicago Metropolitan Area. For the third year in a row, Chicago was most frequently cited as a place of work for respondents (13.7%) and spouses (14.0%). • 81.8% of respondents reside in a single-family home and 80.6% own the home. In addition, 18.2% of respondents live in a multi-family home and only 2.5% are rental properties. Since 69.3% of surveys were distributed to single-family homes and 30.7% were distributed to multi- family households, residents of single-family homes were more likely to return the survey and are therefore slightly overrepresented in the results. Vacancies in multi-family households can help to explain some of the underrepresentation of multi-family households. • For the third year in a row, the median income bracket of respondents was $100,000 - $150,000. This is slightly higher than the median income of $84,795 reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. Thus, households with larger combined incomes may have been more likely to respond to the survey. However, this finding may be connected to the vacancies of multi-family households and inflation in the cost of housing that has occurred since the 2000 U.S. Census. • As in 2005 and 2006, most respondents have resided in Clarendon Hills for 6 or more years (69.3%) and of these respondents, 44.5% of respondents have been here 16 years or more. 15 Clarendon Hills 2007 Community Needs Survey For each question, indicate your response by placing an "X" in the appropriate box. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Do you feel safe and secure in your neighborhood? 5. If yes,with whom have you had contact with? Yes 95.3% No 2.9% Dispatch 26.3% Records Staff 8.8% 2. Taking into consideration the last three years,what is your Community Service Officer 8.8% perception of the level of crime in Clarendon Hills? Police Officer 40.4% Has it increased,decreased,or remained the same? Sergeant/Deputy Chief/Chief 11.7% Increased 14.3% Investigator 2.6% Decreased 4.1% Remained the same 75.4% 6. What contact have you had with the Police Department over the past three years? (Check all that apply.) 3. Please respond whether you agree or disagree with the Emergency Situation 8.8% following statements. (Check one for each item.) Non-emergency Situation 38.3% Visited Police Department 26.3% Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Requested Services 12.9% The police patrols in Traffic Violation 9.9% my neighborhood 12.0% 63.5% 7.9% 12.6% 1.8% Police Department Programs 3.8% are satisfactory. Other 3.5% Traffic enforcement meets the needs of 7.* Please mark a response to each of the following aspects 10.2% 63.2% 5.6% 16.7% 2.9% regarding our contact with the Police Department over the the community. g g Y p last three years. (If you have not had contact with the The Police give Police in a particular area,please leave blank.) proper attention to 10.2% 50.6% 31.9% 4.4% 2.0". Adequacy of Service: Excellent Good Fair Poor minor crimes. Provided by Dispatch 58.1% 33.1% 5.6% 3.2% The Police are providing Provided by Records ° ° ° appropriate Staff 43.1% 45.1% 7.8% 3.9% community 21.9% 49.4% 24.0% 2.3% .9 education and outreach programs. Provided by Community 50.0% 38.5% 9.6% 1.9% Service Officer Clarendon Hills police officers treat Provided by Police o 0 0 0 p 29.2% 50.3% 11.7% 5.3% 1. '? Officer 53.2/0 31.9/0 9.2/0 5.7/o people with respect. Provided by Sergeant/ 60.4% 22.6% 5.7% 11.3% Clarendon Hills Deputy Chief/Chief police officers are respected by the 26.0% 56.7% 11.7% 2.3% 9 Provided by Prosecutor 23.1% 46.2% 15.4% 15.4% community. Provided by Investigator 31.8% 54.5% 9.1% 4.5% 4. Have you had contact with the Police Department in the past Officer Attitude and ° ° o 0 three years?(If no,skip to question#8.) Behavior 50.8% 36.9% 7.7% 4.6/o Yes 57.9% No 35.1% Response Time: Excellent Good Fair Poor Emergency 67.3% 25.5% 5.5% 1.8% Non-emergency 50.0% 42.5% 4.5% 3.0% 16 8. In your opinion,the level of speed enforcement by the Police 13. The Police Department regularly communicates prevention Department is: information on domestic violence,identity theft,child abuse, internet crime,etc. in the Village newsletter and on the Village Excessive 6.1% Adequate 69.9% Insufficient 17.3% website.How helpful has this information been? 9. In your opinion,the level of parking enforcement by the Police Very Helpful 19.3% Department is: Somewhat Helpful 29.5% Excessive 15.2% Adequate 73.1% Insufficient 6.7% Not Helpful 2.3% No Opinion 26.0% 10. Please mark the Police programs with which you are aware. 14. If you are a parent,are you receiving enough information about alcohol/drug use trends and prevention strategies? Citizen's Police Academy 27.5% Operation Life Saver 13.2% Yes 20.8% No 10.8% Not applicable 44.2% DARE School Program 76.6% 15. If you are a parent,would you call a youth officer to your home Neighborhood Crime Watch 46.5% to help you start a dialogue with your teen on drug use,risky Vacation House Watch 48.5% behavior,or unsafe driving? Home Security Checks 20.5% Crime Watch Alert 12.3% Yes 14.6% No 16.7% Not applicable 44.2% Senior Reassurance Program 12.0% SMART-Radar Trailer 29.5% 16. Overall,with respect to the services provided by the Police Department,I am: Extremely Very Somewhat Not No 11. How did you learn about the education and outreach programs Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Opinio n sponsored by the Police Department? Department 15.2% 44.4% 10.8% 2.3% 6.4°/� Performance At Police Dept. 2.0% Other 19.4% Village Website 4.7% - School 10.3% Competence of 16.7% 43.3% 9.9% .6% 8.8% Employees Family or Friend 18.7% -Newspaper 4.4% Trustee Topics 40.9% Officer Attitude ° and Behavior 19.6% 38.0% 10.5% 4.4% 7.0% Village TV Channel 6 1.5% 12. Please indicate if you are interested in learning more about the Safety/Security 18.1% 44.4% 11.1% 2.3% 2.6% programs listed in question#10. Note the program(s)of in Village interest and include your name and address below or contact Chief Patrick Anderson at 323-2153 for more information. 17. The Police Department relies heavily upon volunteers for administrative support.If you are interested in becoming a Program(s)of interest volunteer,please include your name and telephone number below or contact Chief Patrick Anderson directly at 323-2153. Name Name Address Phone# FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. Have you had contact with the Fire Department in the past 19. If yes,with whom have you had contact with? three years?(If no,skip to question#22.) Yes 27.5% No 65.8% 9-1-1 Dispatch 10.2% Paramedic/EMT 11.7% Firefighter 13.2% Fire Personnel at Station 9.9% 17 20. What contact have you had with the Fire Department over 23. How did you learn about the education and outreach programs the past three years?(Check all that apply.) sponsored by the Fire Department? Emergency Situation-Ambulance/Fire etc. 13.2% At Fire Dept. 8.5% Other 16.7% Non-emergency Situation 13.5% Village Website 3.8% - School 8.5% Visited Fire Department 12.6% Family/Friend 14.3% -Newspaper 2.9% Requested Services 4.7% Trustee Topics 39.5% - Sign/Banner 1.5% Inspection Services 2.9% Village TV Channel 6 1.2% Fire Department Programs 3.8% Block Party 10.8% 24. Please indicate if you are interested in learning more about the Other .9% programs listed in question#22. Note the program(s)of interest and include your name and address below or contact Chief Brian Leahy at 654-1414 for more information. 21.* Please mark a response to each of the following aspects Program(s)of interest regarding your contact with the Fire Department over the Name past three years. (If you have not had contact with the Fire Department in a particular case,please leave blank.) Address Adequacy of Service: Excellent Good Fair Poor 25. Overall,with respect to the services provided by the Fire Provided by Dispatch 77.3% 16.7% 4.5% I.�"4, Department,I am: Extremely Very Somewhat Not No Provided by Firefighter 82.0% 16.4% 1.6% - Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied OOninion Department 27.8% 37.4% 3.8% - 17.3% Provided by Performance Paramedic/EMT 84.5% 12.1% 1.7% 1.7% Fire Protection 23.1% 36.5% 4.7% .3% 18.4% Services Provided by Fire 68.6% 27.5% 2.0% 10 Personnel at Station Fire Inspection of Commercial 9.9% 18.7% 2.3% - 46.8% Buildings Firefighter/EMT 84.1% 14.5% 1.4% Attihicle and Behavior Education Fire Prevention 20.5% 30.1% 4.7% - 25.4% Response Time: Excellent Good Fair Poor Blood Pressure Emergency 88.9% 7.4% 3.7% Screenings& 12.3% 21.1% 2.9% .3% 39.8% CPR Classes Non-emergency 75.6% 24.4% - Firefighter/ EMT Attitude 28.4% 26.3% 2.9% .3% 25.1% and Behavior 26. The Fire Department relies heavily upon local paid-on-call 22. Please mark the Fire programs with which you are aware. ("volunteer")firefighter/paramedics.Over the years,the number of volunteers has significantly decreased.In order to maintain Fire Department Open House 67.5% minimum service levels and appropriate response times,would Fire Prevention Week/Education at Schools 58.2% you support a tax increase for additional personnel? Fire Station Tours 47.1 Yes 33.6% No 21.6% Don't Know/No Opinion 28.4% Home Fire Safety Inspections 17.0% 27. If you are interested in becoming a paid-on-call(volunteer) Block Party Attendance 56.1% firefighter/paramedic,please include your name and telephone Blood Pressure Screening 17.0% number below or contact Chief Brian Leahy at 654-1414. CPR Training 21.6% Name Fire Safety Trailer at Functions&Schools 26.0% Phone# 18 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Approximately twelve cents($.12)of every property tax dollar you pay goes to the Village.The Village's portion of property tax pays for the following services:Police,Fire,Public Works(street maintenance,snow removal,etc.),Building,Zoning,Planning,and Finance.The remaining$.88 of your property tax dollar goes to the Township,County,Grade and High School Districts,College of DuPage,Library,and Park District. 28. Do you feel you receive a fair level of service for the 31. Many municipalities offer the payment of utility bills by credit or property tax dollars you pay to the Village of Clarendon debit card for a small convenience fee.If the Village were to Hills? offer payment by credit and debit card,would you utilize this service? Yes 58.5% No 19.0% Don't Know/No Opinion 15.8% Yes 16.7% No 64.6% Don't Know/No Opinion 14.6% 29. How do you conduct routine business with the Village? 32. If the Village were to require an increase in revenue to sustain Check all that apply. (example:payment of water bills) Village services(e.g. fire services),how would you prefer to pay?(Please rank your order of preference with"1"being your Mail 51.5% Drop Box 22.5% first choice.) Direct Debit 20.5% Other 3.8% 1"Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice In Person 35.7% -Online Banking 3.2% Property Tax 20.8% 14.3%% 35.7% User Fees 44.7% 18.4% 13.2% Sales Tax 24.6% 31.6% 13.2% 30. Many municipalities offer online payments of utility bills for a 33. How would you rate the front desk service at the Village Hall? small convenience fee.If the Village were to offer online payments for water services in the future,would you utilize this Excellent 25.4% service? Good 34.8% Fair 8.8% Yes 19.6% No 58.8% Don't Know/No Opinion 18.4% Poor 1.8% Don't Know/No Opinion 27.2% PUBLIC WORKS 34. How would you rate the quality of the following services 36. Do you know that the Flagg Creek Water Reclamation District provided by Public Works? (formally Hinsdale Sanitary District)owns and operates the Excellent Good Fair Poor sanitary sewers? Street Maintenance 21.6% 53.5% 14.9% 5.011 Yes 80.4% No 17.3% Snow Plowing 42.1% 47.7% 6.4% .6°o 37. Have you had sanitary sewer backups in the last two years? Storm Water Maintenance 17.3% 45.9% 19.3% 9.6% Yes 14.9% No 78.4% Don't Know 4.1% Streetscape(flowers, If yes,number of backups during the last two years: banners,entry signage, 26.0% 51.8% 13.5% 4.1 1 2 3 4 parkway trees) 6.7% 2.6% 1.2% .3% 35. How would you rate the condition of street and road surfaces 38. How many times during the past year have you been without in the Village? drinking water for more than two hours? Excellent 15.2% None 72.8% Good 55.8% Once 14.6% Fair 20.8% Twice 3.2% Poor 4.7% Three or more .6% Don't Know/No Opinion .6% Don't Know 6.1% 19 39. The Village currently provides parkway tree trimming on a 43. Would you like to see additional beautification improvements? six-year rotational basis.Do you consider this amount: Yes 50.6% No 39.2% Excessive 1.2% Adequate 77.2% If yes,where of the following areas would you like to see Insufficient 19.0% additional beautification? Yes No 40. How would you rate the condition of sidewalks in the Village? Burlington Commuter Station 39.2% 9.4% East of Commuter Station along the 32.7% 13.2% Excellent 13.5% south side of the tracks Good 55.3% Enhancements at key entrances to the ° o Fair 24.0% Village(55th St.,Ogden,Chicago) 38.9/0 10.8/o Poor 3.8% Other 9.1% - Don't Know/No Opinion 1.8% -Blue Lake 1.5% - -Downtown 1.5% - 44. The Village has entered into an agreement to lease the former water treatment building at Ann&Sheridan to the Historical 41. Since the Village has limited staff,it currently contracts out Society for 99 years.The goal of this lease is to create a snow removal services for sidewalks in the central business historical center called Heritage Hall that will display historical district at a cost of approximately$30,000 per year. Should the Village items,create local programming,and have additional Village continue this service? meeting space for the community. Do you support this project to establish Heritage Hall? Yes 49.1% No 20.5% Don't Know/No Opinion 27.5% Yes 54.4% No 21.6% Don't Know 21.1% 42. Over the past five years,the Village has undertaken 45. Heritage Hall has been proposed as a venue for educational beautification projects throughout the community including programming.Which of the following types of programs would triangles,entryways,and projects in the downtown area. you attend at Heritage Hall?Check all that apply. Are you satisfied with the scope and level of these projects? National History 27.5% Music 41.8% Yes 74.9% No 14.6% Don't Know/No Opinion 7.9% Local History 48.8% Literature 26.0% Performing Arts 39.5% Fine Arts 33.6% BUILDING& ZONING/CODE ENFORCEMENT 46. The Village requires building permits for most types of home 48.* If you did apply for a permit,were adequate instructions improvement projects.In your opinion,is adequate information and information given to you to successfully obtain the about when a building permit is required available to residents? permit and complete the work? Yes 40.6% No 21.3% Don't Know/No Opinion 32.7% Yes 42.2% No 7.6% Don't Know/No Opinion 50.2% 47. Have you applied for a permit to construct any of the 49. How do you feel about the new single-family homes built following?(Check all that apply) under the current zoning provisions? Home Improvement 23.1% Agree Disagree Don't Know Driveway 10.2% The houses are too tall 46.2% 30.7% 12.9% New Residence 5.6% The houses are too large 51.2% 26.9% 14.3% (floor area) Other 1.2% There is not enough green o 0 0 space left on lots 61.7/0 23. /0 1 12. /o 0 20 50. What changes to the regulations on home construction 53. The Village publicizes zoning cases through the Village would you recommend? newsletter,mailings to surrounding residences,and posted notices at the Village Hall. Does this process provide sufficient notice on zoning cases? See Attachment Yes 48.8% No 12.3% Don't Know/No Opinion 31.9% 54. How well do you believe the following regulatory ordinances are enforced? 51. Have you applied for a case to be heard before the zoning Don't board of appeals? Excellent Good Fair Poor Know Weeds 5.8% 36.8% 15.2% 11.4% 24.3% Yes 2.0% No 92.1% Vehicle 13.7% 51.5% 11.1% 8.8% 9.4% Parking 52.* If you have applied for a case to be heard before the zoning Garbage 12.6% 54.1% 11.1% 6.7% 10.2% board of appeals,were adequate information and instructions provided to fulfill the necessary requirements of the application Storage of 7.0% 37.1% 16.1% 6.1% 26.6% process? Yes 2.7% No 28.0% Don't Know/No Opinion 69.3% Construction and Site 5.6% 33.6% 24.9% 17.0% 14.0% Maintenance CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (downtown Clarendon Hills) 55. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the central 57. Have you attended any of the following downtown Clarendon business district? Hills events in the past two years? Extremely Very Somewhat Not No Event 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Opinion Range of Daisy Days 12.6% 31.6% 26.6% .3% .9% .6% shopping 6% 8.2% 40.9% 44.4% 2.9% (June) choices Dancin' in the Streets 10.5% 25.7% 10.5% 5.3% 4.7% 18.6% Quality of Concerts shopping 1.8% 19.0% 42.1% 30.1% 4.4% (Summer) Christmas Availability of Walk 19.6% 31.6% 14.3% .3% - 3% parking 3.2% 25.7% 40.6% 24.3% 2.9% December 58. What types of events,festivals,or activities would you Condition of buildings 3.2% 26.3% 48.2% 13.7% 5.3% attend if they were held in downtown Clarendon Hills? 56. How often do you shop in downtown Clarendon Hills? Art and/or Craft Fair 10.6% Family/Teen Event 1.8% 3 or more times a week 17.8% More/Different 5.9% Farmer's Market 1.8% 1 to 2 times a week 28.9% Concerts 2 to 3 times per month 20.8% Food Festival 4.1% Flea Market/Antique 1.8% Once per month 12.6% Show Less than once per month 12.9% Carnival/Fair 2.4% Oktoberfest 1.5% Never shop downtown 3.8% No Change/ 2.4% Sidewalk Sale/ 1.5% Adequate As Is Business Promotion 21 OTHER VILLAGE SERVICES 59. The Village distributes the monthly newsletter Trustee Topics. 64. The Village operates an information page on cable television How frequently do you read this newsletter? channel 6.How frequently do you use this resource for Village information? Every Month 86.8% Sometimes 9.9% Daily 2.0% Never 1.8% Weekly 6.4% Monthly 19.0% 60. If you have read the Trustee Topics newsletter,how would you Never watch channel 6 50.3% rate the overall quality of the newsletter? Do not have cable television 17.0% Excellent 30.7% Good 54.4% 65. Assuming no legislation is passed by the State of Illinois or DuPage County,do you think the Clarendon Hills Village Fair 10.2% Board should pass an ordinance further restricting smoking in Poor - public places including restaurants and bars? Don't Know/No Opinion 1.8% Yes 63.7% No 25.1% Don't Know/No Opinion 9.1% 61. Would like to receive an emailed version of Trustee Topics in addition to the monthly mailing.If yes,please include your email address below or contact the Village at 323-3500 x22. 66. In the past year,did the refuse collectors ever miss picking up your garbage or recycling on the scheduled pick-up day? Yes 11.4% If yes,how many times would you say this has occurred? No,never missed 79.2% 62. The Village operates a Village website at Yes, 1-2 times 10.5% www.clarendon-hill.il.us.How frequently do you visit the Yes,3-4 times 1.5% website? Yes,5+times - Daily - Don't Know 6.1% Weekly 1.8% Monthly 22.5% Never visit website 58.5% 67. In the past year,did the refuse collectors ever spill or scatter Do not have access to the internet 8.8% garbage or recycling?If yes,how many times would you say this has occurred? 63. If you have visited the Village's website,how would you rate the overall quality of the site? No,never spilled 54.1% Excellent 2.0% Yes, 1-2 times 23.4% Good 20.2% Yes,3-4 times 7.0% Fair 9.9% Yes,5+times 7.0% Don't Know 5.8% Poor .9% Don't Know/No Opinion 25.7% 22 QUALITY OF LIFE 68. Taking all things into consideration,how would you rate 72. What suggestions do you have to improve the quality of life your overall quality of life in Clarendon Hills? in Clarendon Hills? Excellent 53.2% More/Better 14.7% Decrease Traffic 3.5% Businesses Good 41.8% Improve Park District 4.7% Decrease Building 3.2% Fair 2.6% Programs/Services Construction Poor - Downtown 3.5% Other: See Attachment Don't Know/No Opinion .3% Redevelopment 69. How would you rate the quality of life in Clarendon Hills 73. What do you consider to be the major assets and advantages today as compared to ten years ago? of living in Clarendon Hills?(Check all that apply.) Much Better 9.1% Schools 73.7% Somewhat Better 22.2% Location 83.6% About the Same 33.9% Shopping 10.8% o Somewhat Worse 12.6% Transportation 61.1% Much Worse 1.2% Housing Quality 59.1% Residential Neighborhoods 76.9% 70. What three things do you like best about living in Friendliness of Residents 62.6% Clarendon Hills? Recreational Amenities 26.9% Other 2.1% Convenient Location 37.5% Schools 26.4% 74. What do you consider to be major disadvantages of living in Friendly People 30.2% Safety 20.2% Clarendon Hills?(Check all that apply.) Small Size/Feeling 29.0% Other: See Attachment Traffic Problems 14.9% Street Conditions 8.5% Recreational Amenities 9.9% Housing Costs 45.6% 71. What three things do you like least about living in Distance of Employer 6.1% Clarendon Hills? Shopping 46.2% Other 20.2% 0-Taxes Lack of Commerce 30.2% Traffic Problems 10.3% -Lack of Commerce 2.4% High/Increasing Taxes 16.4% Lack of Curbs 4.7% -Train(traffic,station,etc.) 1.8% Teardowns/Construction 15.5% Other: See Attachment -Parking 1.5% -Teardowns/Construction 1.5% DEMOGRAPHICS (Information for statistical purposes only) 75. Check the box that best describes your age. 76. How many people currently live in your household? Under 20 - 50-59 23.7% One 21.1% 20-29 2.9% 60-69 14.6% Two 28.1% 30-39 15.5% 70 and over 16.4% Three 14.9% 40-49 24.0% Four or more 33.0% 23 77. Please indicate the cities where you and your spouse are 80. What is your combined household income? employed(if applicable). Respondent Spouse Under$25,000 1.8% Chicago 13.7% Chicago 14.0% $25,000 to$49,999 9.6% Retired 8.5% Retired 4.4% $50,000 to$74,999 10.8% Clarendon Hills 6.7% Clarendon Hills 4.1% $75,000 to$99,999 9.6% Hinsdale 5.8% Oak Brook 2.6% Oak Brook 4.1% Hinsdale 1.5% $100,000 to$149,999 18.1% Downers Grove 2.9% $150,000 and over 30.7% 78. Please indicate the type of home in which you currently live and whether you own or rent. 81. Please indicate the geographic area that most accurately Own Rent describes where you reside in the Village. Single-Family 80.6% 1.2% Apartment - 2.5/o o North of Chicago Avenue 14.3% Condominium 8.6% _ North of Burlington Northern Railroad 35.1% Townhome 7.1% _ Tracks and South of Chicago Avenue South of Burlington Northern Railroad o Tracks and North of 55th Street 33.0/o 79. How long have you been a resident of Clarendon Hills? South of 55th Street 12.6% Less than one year 3.8% 82. Would you like a copy of the results of this survey?If yes, 1-5 years 22.5% please provide your name and address at the end of the survey 6-10 years 14.0% so we can send you a copy.Your name will be kept separate 11-15 years 10.8% from the tabulated results. Results will also be posted to the 16-20 years 8.5% Village's website and on file at Clarendon Hills Public Library. More than 20 years 36.0% Yes 31.6% No 38.6% Suggestions/Comments: See Attachment 24 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES 50. What changes to the regulations on home construction would you recommend? Reduce or Limit 12.9% Better Drainage/Flooding 2.9% FAR/Home Size Control Reduce or Limit Height 6.2% Eliminate Fire Sprinkler 1.8% Re uirement Increase Green Space 5.3% Support for Neighbors/Give 1.8% Notice of Construction Better Enforcement of Rules 4.4% Better Clean Up of Sites 1.5% Increase Green Space 3.8% Regulate Appearance/ 1.5% Duplication of Homes 70. What three things do you like best about living in Clarendon Hills? (Many respondents listed more than three things.) Convenient Location(Train, 37.5% Downtown Clarendon Hills 4.7% Hwys., Shopping) People/Friends/Neighbors 30.2% My Neighborhood 4.4% Small Town/Community Size 29.0% Easy to Walk Places/ 4.1% or Feeling Close to Town School 26.4% Village Services/Staff 3.9% Safety 20.2% CH Businesses 3.2% Quiet/Peaceful 10.6% Family Oriented 2.6% Appearance (Attractive, Clean) 9.0% Streets (Winding, Condition) 2.6% Housing/Property Quality 6.2% Village Festivals 2.4% Trees/Greenery 5.3% My Home 2.1% Parks/Pools 5.0% Property Values 1.5% 25 71. What three things do you like least about living in Clarendon Hills? (Many respondents listed more than three things.) Lack of Shopping/Restaurants 30.2% Police Department 3.5% High/Increasing Taxes & 16.4% Village Officials/Politics/Staff 3.5% Fees Teardowns/Housing 15.5% Access into/out of the Village 2.9% Construction Traffic (congestion, speeding, 10.3% Changing/Loss of Charm 2.4% noise) Lack of Curbs 4.7% Parks District Offerings 2.4% Parking 4.1% Loss of Green Space 2.1% 4.1% Street Conditions 2.1% People/Residents/Neighbors Downtown 3.8% Lack of Diversity 1.8% Housing Costs/Lack or 3.8% Lack of Street Lighting 1.8% Affordable Housing Train 3.8% Schools 1.8% Water/Drainage Management 3.8% Animal Concerns 1.5% 72. What suggestions do you have to improve the quality of life in Clarendon Hills? Need More and Better 14.7% Better Code Enforcement 2.4% Businesses Improve Park District 4.7% Better Police Enforcement 2.1% Programs/ Services Downtown Redevelopment/ 3.5% Lower/Maintain Property 2.1% Renovations Taxes Traffic Control 3.5% Access/Traffic Flow from 1.8% Ogden Avenue Decrease Building 3.2% Curbs 1.5% Construction Improve Stormwater/Drainage 2.9% Management 26 c/Ty Reviewed By: J� O� Legal El Agenda Item Number a Finance ❑ OB #2 EST. , 1836 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development F1 da K°n1G°""ty Police ❑ ADM 2011-24 ALE Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Procedural ordinance Meeting and Date: Administration— September 15, 2011 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: August 2011 Action Taken: Discussion Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Discussion of ordinance sections Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 00 Memorandum To: Administration Committee EST. 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator co CC: .y� p fth. Date: September 8, 2011 QW* Subject: Procedural Ordinance LLE '► This item was last discussed by the Administration Committee in August. The two sections of the procedural ordinance, with the requested changes from the Committee in track changes format, are below. 1) City Council meetings: a. City Council Meetings shall be regularly scheduled to convene on the 2nd and 4" Tuesday's of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. b. City Council Meetings shall be generally conducted according to the agenda template attached hereto (most recent template will be attached). c. No application presented during a public hearing shall be voted on during the same City Council meeting in which that public hearing is held. This provision may be waived by a supermajority of the City Council. d. City Council meeting agenda items may be added by the Mayor, consent of four (4) aldermen, or direction from a committee. e. The Mayor shall preside over City Council meeting as the Chairman, unless the Mayor is unavailable, at which time the Mayor-Pro-Tem shall preside. f. The City Council shall appoint the Mayor Pro Tem at the first City Council meeting each May. The appointment shall occur by calling for open nominations at the meeting, and then a roll call votes on the nominations. 2) Committees: a. The Mayor shall be a non-voting member of all standing committees. b. The Mayor shall select committee rosters at the first City Council meeting in May following a municipal consolidated election (i.e. every two years). c. Committee rosters may be switched by mutual, unanimous consent of the aldermen trading seats and the Mayor. d. The Mayor shall select committee chairmen and vice-chairmen. e. Any alderman may add any agenda item to any committee agenda. f. Chairmen shall select liaisons to other organizations and boards by any means they deem necessary, provided that the other organizations by-laws may govern the selection of the liaison. g. The four committees shall be: i. Public Works ii. Public Safety iii. Administration iv. Economic Development h. Each committee shall be presided over by its chairman, or in the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman. i. Committee meetings may be cancelled by the Chairman of the committee if there is a not a quorum of the members present, or there are no agenda items which require action by a committee. j. When moving items from the committee agenda to a City Council agenda, the committee shall make a recommendation whether that item should be on consent agenda or the committee's report. If on the committee's report, the committee shall make a recommendation whether the item is up for first reading, or is on the City Council agenda for action.