The URL can be used to link to this page

Park Board Minutes 2002 04-08-02 (2) UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PARK BOARD MEETING Minutes of April 8, 2002 Meeting Held at 7:00 p.mJBeecher Center . Attendees: Dave Cathey Art Prochaska (arrived 7:07 p.m.) Eric Dhuse Chris Rollins Paul James Rose Spears (arrived 7:07 p.m.) Ken Koch Sue Swithin Dan Kramer (arrived 8:00 p.m.) Bill Wedge Traci Pleckham(arrived 8:15 p.m.) Budget: Art Prochaska: I talked with both Eric and Sue and they felt that they could make those purchases in this fiscal year that was budgeted for next year, which would free up those dollars to be brought back into finance, which would allow for the benefit package or the other full-time person you are talking about, and also allows for some extra funds that would go into contingency. Actually they also so we are looking at contingency up to $34,000 which is still less than the 1% of the whole budget and feels more comfortable with that than the$1,600 for the whole entire city. Now, what you end up with is ... and I did talk with Dan about this, being he is not here I am assuming he will be here later. He told me he would either be here earlier or later, so he is not here now ... he is coming. With the capital purchases, I asked him what happens if these guys are not ready to purchase something? What happens if they are not ready to make these purchases yet? And, Dan said what you can do is go ahead and transfer the dollars into the Capital Fund that would have been transferred into next year, because with capital funds you can carry dollars over because it is for Capital purchases. You can still do that, free up the dollar put it into the Capital Fund. If for some reason you can't get the invoices regulated (?) within the next couple of weeks you can still get in and it would work into next year's budget. What would end up happening is by doing that if you look at the transfer for Parks and Rec you will see that there is a slight decrease in that ...but what has happened is those dollars are being spent out of this year's budget. No dollars are being taken away, they are being spent on this year's budget, and then, what that allows us to do, if you look at the finance you will see that the dollars are there in the group health insurance, life insurance, dental, vision, and the dollars necessary for the 10-month slot for the Program Director. So that would now be in the budget so that would be available to make that full-time position. Also, by doing this now, your contingency for the recreation department is now $7,800 and Eric gets to get an aerator, too. So all the equipment that is going to be bought everything that is proposed to be purchased can be purchased the employee that is to be hired can be hired and we are able to put together a budget that works and balances. 1 Traci can probably give you more details on it that I can, but I think it is pretty self- explanatory. Sue Swithin: Do you know why under the rev_ised budget, 2001-2002 .... the one you are talking about now, my capital is doubled? I only had capital expenditures of about $9,000 earmarked for next year, which would ... Art Prochaska: I think what they did was there was some reserve sitting in recreation, they probably put it over there so it would not get lost. Otherwise, if it just stays in reserve, it would go away. The only way it would stay in the Rec Department at all ... in the Parks and Rec at all ... is it would have to go in Capital. So if you are not going to have that carry over,that number may change a little bit. Sue Swithin: And to be honest with you, this was handed to me this morning and I need to look at next year, the new employees and stuff, I need to make sure that all the items are right, I was real conservative. I want to make sure that all the monitors are included and all the.PCs and stuff ... I might have cut back and now that there is a little extra I might what to ... Art Prochaska: Well, if it is there. Sue Swithin: I might have to tweak this a little bit more. Art Prochaska: The end result is that you have a balanced budget that allows . Sue Swithin: Okay. I mean there is more money here than I need. Art Prochaska: Well, okay, I'll ..... (laughter). Chris Rollins: Needless to say, that is good news, Art and we are happy to hear it. I am sure all of us would have a few less gray hairs if we had this news earlier. But better now then never. You may not know this, and I could always ask Traci, but I am curious to know for future reference, how we would go about estimating these things for future. Art Prochaska: Well, we are going to be doing something a little different for the upcoming year. And Sue was at the last staff meeting that I had, what I have asked all the staff ... all the departments heads ... what we will be doing next year, I have asked them to put together a list of things they think they may want that are not on the budget this year. I think what we are going to find is in the upcoming years, at least in the near future, with the new economic development going on ... it is kind of hard to gauge that, and we are always going to be on the conservative side so there is a good change that by the end of the year there may be additional revenue. And what I have asked, it will then go to Rose's Administration Committee is that every Department Head come up with a list and that is to be submitted to the Administration Committee. The Administration Committee will then set the priority, and what we will do is that will now be the priority if there were extra dollars, and it could be purchasing things, it could be hiring somebody, I think we were talking about Engineering needs somebody, it could be whatever a 2 Department Head feels are their ... I would say, at least pick three things that they, consider a priority if dollars were available. And what we are going to do is then, the Council will prioritize that, and as those dollars become available that will happen. Now, 'if somebody comes up in the middle of the year and says "Gee, I just want to buy something", what we are going to do, is the policy now will be that goes on the bottom of the list somewhere unless they can somehow convince the Council that it is a matter of urgency to purchase. Otherwise, the list that is established will be the list that any extra dollars are spent. That is how it will work. And that way we all know early on in the year we know where the list is ... we know where different things are ... we know how it is going to affect operations. That is the goal. It is to have this list put together and once it is there,that would be the list of choice. So, does that answer your question, Chris? Chris Rollins: Well, my question was pertaining more to ... when we have line items in the budget, and we clearly ... you know, we are at now at 92% of our fiscal year, and we can see that these line items are not likely to be fully consumed, how are we to estimate those carryovers? I am just looking at, for instance, when we look at the Park side of the budget, we had a couple of things that weren't ... I mean unless we had a rat going along here for April 30th. You know, things like overtime, where we only had 33% of it consumed. Early on, when you first started talking about the budget, the question did come up "What happens then with the left over dollars"? I don't think we really got an answer to that, so I don't think we counted on anything that wasn't consumed in the budget as being available. But, it sounds like it is. Art Prochaska: Well, it's at the pleasure of the Council as far as that goes, because it is, again, operational dollars ... basically,by state statute. Chris Rollins: They return to General Funds? Art Prochaska: They return to the General Funds. That is why over the years, we established Capital Funds for every department, because that allows every department to put aside dollars earmarked for something they want to carryover because by statute the only dollars you can really carry over have to be used for Capital expenditure; otherwise, they just go to build up the General Fund base. In order to expend those funds would take an act of City Council . Chris Rollins: By the General Fund tax base, would those types of dollars be available for things like budgetary contingency? If the Council wanted to use those funds ... Art Prochaska: The thing is there has to be ... our auditors are recommending that there also be a cushion that be kept in the General Funds for Operating, actually right now, we are probably on the low side of that. We do have a few dollars there. Again, as the City is growing, and as the budget itself is growing, that is one of the things we have to do is look at also increasing those backup funds so in the event we do have ... like last year, we were barely able to get through it but with the 911 thing, we lost money last year. A lot of funds got cut. We had to do some moving around, too. What we don't want to do is use up that whole cushion. I think Traci might be able to answer it better than I can. I believe they talk about adding three months surplus on hand so that if something happens, you have three months worth to cover bills. 3 Chris Rollins: Okay, so unspent line items, surplus line items would go back into General Funds, and they would be available for the use of the City as long as Council shows the use of the dollar. Art Prochaska: What we are going to try to do, again,is determine before the end of the year, what dollars we want to go back into the General Fund, and the rest would be spent on the priority list. Sue Swithin: Lisa, those number are wrong, unless the amounts have changed. The numbers I thought you had me write down for the last meeting for the Office.Manager which, I know they want a change of language, how much were you suggesting? I though we were at $30,017 and $30,640. I am on page 1 of 4 on the one that Art just gave us. I thought that Lisa's numbers were $30,017 and then ... and then, Art I thought you were just saying now that the Program Supervisor would still stay for 10 months. It says 12 up there, does she mean 10? Art Prochaska: No,the 10 months is programmed for the Sue Swithin: Yea, that other number is correct. The Program Supervisor is correct, but the other one is not set up at 12 months. I thought Lisa gave me $30,017. Lisa: Did that include the raise? It was a merit. Sue Swithin: Well, would you not want to include that? And do you know if Traci did included, in all of these, or at least in mine since I have been here the longevity, stipend and all of that, all of those numbers? Art Prochaska: I believe that is in the finance side. You will have to ask her on that. Sue Swithin: For future, I don't know how Eric does it, but we need to all get to consistency for every department, either it is all going all equal out of finance ... what I personally recommend. Or it is pulled out of every department's budget. Because I ask every year I ask Kim, "Should I take it out, or does finance take it out?". I think just for, you know, a question to you, it would not be a bad idea to get Traci to get a final answer on that, who is in charge of taking out longevity and all that stuff. Art Prochaska: I believe that is all out of Finance. Sue Swithin: Okay, I personally think that would be a nice way for a Department Head not to worry about that. But almost let Traci work with Kim who is in charge of the Human Resource. Art Prochaska: It just has to be known who has longevity ... because that needs to be .... Sue Swithin: Yea. Then just have a pool. That would be so much easier on the Department Heads, knowing that that's been taken care of. Now, when you, then when Council looks at true salaries, they know they are looking at true salaries, not all of this extra stuff thrown in. That can get very snakey(?) for everybody's sake. 4 Lisa Scherer: Yes, the Office Manager was $28,787. That's what I've got. And then the program supervisor I had at base $30,640, you take that and divide it by 10 months it should come out right. Sue Swithin: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Art Prochaska: She said they used the used the memo that you had ... Sue Swithin: Okay, so then you added it in ... Lisa Scherer: Well, we done the base for the year and then we added ... well, it should be in. It is confusing. Sue Swithin: Well, do you want me to double check with Traci to make sure all of that is covered in the final budget? Art Prochaska: She should be here, so you will be able to ask her. I think that as far as longevity that it is .... Sue Swithin: Well, sick days, vacation days, all of that has to be added to mine. Eric, do you pull that out of yours? Eric Dhuse: It is in the Park's salary on mine. Sue S Mthin: So you did pull it out, Eric? Eric Dhuse: Kim did. It is not a separate line item. Sue Swithin: Kim did, so you still tagged it in your salaries. Eric Dhuse: yes, I believe when the salaries got set up it included sick time and ..... Sue Swithin: I mean I recommend that is a huge thing to be consistent. That would be great so I would know which way to go for all of us. That is always an issue every year.. And again, that is so easy for Traci to work with Kim because Kim has longevity on people, she knows vacation days, sick days, buyouts, she has ... it is much easier to have them work that out than us. Lisa Scherer: So Eric, nothing has changed from your area except you are getting your aerator. Chris Rollins: Okay, do we want to table further discussion on budget until Traci arrives so we can go on to some of the other business on the agenda and move on so we don't have too long a meeting tonight? Is there anything else you want to discuss on the budget right now, Art? Art Prochaska: Well,probably the best thing to do is wait for Traci. 5 Recreational Reports: Chris Rollins: Well, we are going to table discussion on the budget for right now and let's go ahead with Recreation reports. Sue Swithin: Oh, I just have my typical monthly report and you have my annual report ... no, you don't have it I guess. Do you want that now or do you want that later? I will give it to you now. Let me find it. And I just have a couple of other items on the side. (Sue passed out copies of the annual report; however, she was short several copies). We can discuss it later tonight we don't need to go over it now. So ... And then you did receive a March 2002 separate numbers. You got that in your packet. This is just, I know it is lengthy, sorry I didn't have it ready by Friday, but it is so lengthy it took forever. This is again, what I submit every year to explain basically what large items took place recreation, park wise, administration, my professional education, facility, management issues, and then on the end, the back page, my ideas and goals just to get you started thinking for next year. But, of course, I would like my goals to match what you feel your goals are. I put new hires and even the director ... those things might even change. Anyway, if there is any questions, I know, it is fast reading, I think we will bring it up later in executive session for review. Chris Rollins: Is that the annual report? Sue Swithin: Yes. Skate Park: Sue Swithin: The only other thing Chris, that I would like to mention is that I have received a call from him again today, is well I have been meeting with, well just one meeting with Brent in regards to the skate park because as of this season, come October that is the end of the lease and he started a discussion about his own property and his own business and what he might want to do with it. And Chris and I ... he asked us to meet for lunch one day to discuss ideas of his property, whether that would be a feasible piece of land for a pool idea. We could still have the skate park there in operation we would, take down he driving range because you can't hit balls into the pool, but the batting cage would stay up ... he is thinking he would still own the batting cages, maybe expand the cages ... but he is willing to work out the land negotiation. And just an idea if this is a feasible piece of property for a pool. And , this is literally totally out and open for discussion. Bill Wedge: What is the total acreage? Sue Swithin: 5 ... 6 ... Ken Koch: Actually I think it is more than that. It is near some adjacent property. 6 Art: Has he ever talked money? Not audible ... several discussions conducted simultaneously. Sue Swithin: He is talking a-lease idea. We would lease and we would not need to purchase, we would lease the land. And he knows that we not be able to come up with the money on time. But he would be more than willing to work with the bank situation or lease situation and slowly purchase this property. But again, it is very open, very new ... and I told him I would keep him abreast of the situation in our dialog. Begin a concept if this is the place for a pool. I know we first talked about being awful for kids to get to the skate park. I would not even think of this as an option if we would not increase some kind of a trail front and trail in back and go to Greenbriar and pick up the trail access in the back. And I think there is an easement, Eric, for a possible future road for the city behind that property anyway. Correct? There is water easement and a road in Greenbriar that stub, that's open lot, that is an easement right there ... Art Prochaska: It's actually not his property,though, it is the property to the north end of the ... Sue Swithin: Oh, is it? That other little piece... he also encourages the property ... Lisa Scherer: Is that the farmer's property? Chris Rollins: Yes. he did mention that, and indicated as far as he knew, that individual did not have any plans to develop the vacant land there anytime soon and that he might be interested in keeping it open, or mostly open land so there is a possibility. Primarily his discussions were just at the table to see if we had any interest in doing anything recreational with the land as perhaps a lease offering through him. And if we did, he would enter into discussions with. Art Prochaska: Sue, is there a way, can use the grant stuff for it? Sue Swithin: Oh, sure. Land acquisition. Art Prochaska: Can we do a lease with it? Sue Swithin: I'll look into that. Dan Kramer: That is long term. Sue Swithin: I will look into that. I want to think so. I want to think so. I'll look into that. Art Prochaska: That might be an opportunity to find some funding to help out with that. Lisa Scherer: Dan, what do they mean by long term ... how long? Five years? Ten years? Dan Kramer: Lisa, I think it is 10 years. There may be certain facilities for five, but I am pretty sure it is at least 10. 7 Sue Swithin: It might be five with the option to buy, too. The other thing, too is there is an easement between the skate park and the miniature golf and enough room for concrete or asphalt for outdoor basketball use. I look at it as a central area that could have a lot of activities for kids;if we can get them there. If we can get safely get them there on their bikes. Bill Wedge: Have you considered the size of the parking lot? Sue Swithin: True, we would have to increase the parking lot. Right now I was asked to take pictures of the existing pool property, where that is at, this property and possibly this could be all null and void ... but even ... Eric, who is the guy, the property owner by Prairie Park that is being divided now and that might be an issue. I took pictures and Burback (sp?) of Wisconsin is willing to at least look at the pictures and sites and at least give us an opinion on what is feasible in putting the pools in any of the settings. And then they would learn where the main roads are and they would give us their opinion. Lisa Scherer: That is the one company that already came here and .... Chris Rollins: We already approached them subsequent to our meeting with the Lions Club and other people to see if there is any way of doing anything with the current pool site. Whether they thought it was feasible to do any thing with that. Art Prochaska: So they will give you an idea on that. Sue Swithin: They will. I will tell them what the main roads are ... and arteries. And how kids can get there or not. Biking or not. You know, lay out a map of the town and let them figure it out. My concern is either way whatever we do with the pool, at some point soon, we gotta give Bret an answer if he wanting to sell something out. Are we going to be able to lease, so we have to keep him in the picture as of October. Tell him what we want to do. Lisa Scherer: Well you can let him know that we are definitely interested in it. That is for sure. Sue Swithin: Okay, so that is the pool situation. I'll keeping thinking of those properties, I will get pictures sent out and I will let you know what response I get and go from there. Wyndham Subdivision: Sue Swithin: And the other thing is, so I don't forget, I received a call again today. I know Eric is going to attend this meeting so he might be able to pass on the information on behalf of the Park Board. Wyndham called me this morning saying they are meeting this Thursday at 11:00 to go over the plans again. 1 think ... Eric, right? ... that this is the latest that we received to. He wants ... Mike Shoppe, wants to make sure that the property that the Park Board's wishes are included in this new one, so and I know that at some point that it was recommended by Eric and someone else, maybe Mike Shoppe, not to accept these little green spaces out here, because you don't want to mow them. You don't want to maintain this little strip. 8 Eric Dhuse: No, we don't want to maintain that whole strip. Sue Swithin: So we need to say "No, we don't want the strip ... we don't want to maintain it so that" ... and I know you want to have clarified what is really wet detention. I think it is important to find out again. (Sue holds up map). Where is South? Okay, here is South there is the school. What is the school board's wishes again, ask Dr. Engler where are they going to put it, what size, and how much park space. I think inevitable, I think I was talking to Tony this morning, whether it is an elementary or middle school we are still going to need soccer fields and ballparks. Now, if the school can use them, Great. If we can all use them, fantastic ... I think if we can really pick up the game what our needs are what we need in our community for that ... but the biggest thing ... I'll make one more point and I'll be quiet. I think we had Eric kind of pencil out where you thought you want this recreational trail to start from here and how to get to this without using the streets. We want to get the kids off the streets and use the trails. So,we need to make sure Thursday, that you are working with the developer on Thursday showing them, first hand, on where you would like that to go, and get their opinion on where can it go. So I cannot make it, my daughter is having surgery so I have go be with her. This Thursday. So maybe now share your wishes again, draw on this, give it to Eric if he is going to attend this meeting or a Board representative be there. Chris Rollins: I don't know yet, I will try. Paul James: On the Hartland and the North Gate, you put together a memo of recommendations and submitted them, is that something you want to do for Highlands ... Because just looking at this I think this is very good. It is real clear, and I think it is something you pass on and what your comments are. Do you have a recommendation for this meeting? Sue Swithin: I don't remember putting it in writing. Paul James: Didn't you do a recommendation for this,new one? Chris Rollins: Well, no we don't. At our last juncture, what we did was look at this map and as Sue is pointing out, we talked about the possibility of trying to bring a green border to connect what we were hoping was going to be a space large enough for a trail head park to the larger park's pool site and we tried to do that in a way that had minimum number of interruptions of street crossings and that sort of thing with Eric. We done it pretty informally, that was the general jest of what we are trying to do. I think then what we were hoping would happen is it would go back to the developer to see if it was possible. What is was going to mean is that they were going to have to reorganize the lots to make that. So for me or in order for us to make a recommendation, I guess we kinda need to know whether there is willingness there to rearrange lots to make that happen. Sue Swithin: And then we were going to reduce this parcel to give them more lots. Right, Eric? Is that right? 9 Chris Rollins: In order to do that, then we would have to take out some lots and add the trail. What we were hoping for Paul, is by the time we got everything moved around, the guy wasn't going to lose any lots. We were going to sort of redistribute where the open space was and where some home sites were so we can get a quarter there instead of just having one large park separated by a whole bunch of streets and have another large park. Art Prochaska: If I could make a recommendation to the Board, when you do things like that, because Eric then takes that determination. It doesn't hurt that you vote,just so that if he goes on and talks to someone, there is a record that this was the consensus of the Board and he was given clear direction. You know, at this point, I understand that you can't make a formal ... you know, if you decide to accept it or not, but what you can do is get some ideas ... recommendations to go with this. That's probably what you need to do. Lisa Scherer: Is it helpful for them at all, I mean it is hard for us to get solid recommendations that are going to be set in stone ... but to give them an idea, to say,you know to say we are trying to get the kids off the streets to get them to from point A to point B without any... Art Prochaska: Well, I mean to say that you need a trail from here to there depending on how the streets run,with a minimum of amount of street crossings ... Lisa Scherer: I just would leave it at that. Sue Swithin: If you hit the bullet points tonight, I could just bullet it one, two, three and Eric can take it Thursday. And maybe the bullet being that there is trail entrance and access from all ,trolley line. Chris Rollins: Yea. I think we have a consensus of the direction we want to take with it. What we were not knowing is how much change could take place engineering wise in some of those areas to make some of that happen, but certainly, yea, I think conceptionally is that we knew what we wanted to see. Yes, we can commence them to get this started to make a recommendation. So if that would be helpful, I think we could at least include those bullets. We know that the trail head is one aspect of it, because this property is along the trolley trail and we do need some sort of trail head parkway, if possible, for people to gain access to that. So that is one issue. The park land adjacent to .the school site is the other issue. And, then, the third one is a connecting quarter and how we might arrange to that to have a minimum of street crossings. Looking at this drawing, again, I don't know how much of this stuff has changed, Eric. But, looking at this one, there were, you know, there were a couple of streets that were sort of almost boulevard- like streets where they've got green space on either side. We were trying to access whether or not we could run along that, where there was already some existing easement, thereby reduce the number of lots that would be impacted. Or, whether it would be just making more sense to go in a straight shot and take some of these lots out of the middle and run a straight quarter through there and then replace that with homes on either side of this where we would not need that park space anymore. That is basically it. Lisa Scherer: Yea. That was it. 10 Chris Rollins: So that is probably as much as we can do in the way of correction tonight unless someone's got something else they want to add. Sue Swithin: You know what I think is critical along that southern edge of the park property, is that we ask for a trail east and west for all future growth. (cannot identify speaker): You are talking about the Davidson when we were taking some ... Sue Swithin: Yea. If we don't have any easement there we won't be able to connect .. Art Prochaska: Well that the trolley trail goes into that property, so that you have a trail that goes in there. So you have that connection. Sue Swithin: Oh, all right. Eric Dhuse: So with the bullets there, I will take it and say this is the direction they would like to see. Lisa Scherer: so what are the ten things. Chris Rollins: trail head. Sue Swithin: What did we say about lake detention. Eric Dhuse: We don't want to take any of those little strips. It would be difficult to MOW. Chris Rollins: Right, we did not want to see any of those narrow strips along the Right, those parts of little strips that are along here are just not easy to mow. Okay, so there is the wet detention. The question about the strips that we don't want to take, there is the trail head access that we do want to keep and there is substituting of this ... what is that? Yea, substituting that football shaped parcel. Parcel 7 .. it is substituting that for some sort of linear trail that goes from the trail head to the Parcel 13, Parcel 14, the school and park site. Substituting parcel 7 for a linear trail that runs from ... let's just use their descriptions. Okay, from parcel 6 to parcel 13, parcel 14, school/park site. And, I guess we can put in there do that with a minimum of street crossings. We want to accomplish that with a minimum number of street crossings. Art Prochaska: It is all in the idea of being creative so they can figure it out. Chris Rollins: Yes. And our goal there by telling them we want to substitute that for the linear trail easement is that, as far as we are concerned they are free to substitute that open space where any lots would have been lost. They can be free to substitute those lots into this parcel 7 area to reclaim any lots that would be lost. Right, we would not have any of that. We would have just this trail area and a big park and a linear trail that would follow the street or something all the way over there. Lisa Scherer: Now should we vote on that? 11 Art Prochaska: I think so. Eric can then take it there and say this is the consensus of the Board. Chris Rollins: What don't we take a vote. Do I have a motion to make recommendations for PC-218 Wyndham Subdivision as per our previous discussions concerning the trail head issue,wet detention issue and green quarter issues? Ken Koch: I make that motion. Chris Roollins: Ken Koch makes the motion, do I have a second. Bill Wedge: Second. Chris Rollins: Bill. Motions are made and seconded and all in favor. (all members voted "aye'). Any opposed? (none) Bill Wedge: Eric, where is that meeting? Eric Dhuse: It is over at City Hall Bill Wedge: 11:00 Thursday morning? Eric Dhuse: Actually, Planning Council actually starts at 9:30. Chris Rollins: Okay. So we are going to discuss the annual report later. And we want to move on to Park Report. Also, Eric I have an item for you to. Eric Dhuse: Yes, I know. (Chris passed papers to Eric) Chris Rollins: Is there anything else in the Park report? Riverfront Fence: Eric Dhuse: For the park report we have a two bids, so far, for the fence for the riverfront building for the handicap rail. One from Johnson Welding and one from O'Malley. So far O'Malley is the low bid. And we are waiting for the weather to break to finish the landscaping. Sue Swithin: Eric did you get the work order for the dirt, seed and little strips? Eric Dhuse: Yes, I did. Sue Swithin: thank you. Greenbriar Pond: Lisa Scherer: I have a questions for Parks. Has Greenbriar Pond been accepted? 12 Eric Dhuse: It has been accepted. Dan told me that it is okay to use that land cash for Mike Shoppe's services. Dan Kramer: Sure, for improvements. Lisa Scherer: We do not have any plans yet, right? It is just for design, right? Eric Dhuse: Yes. This will give us a design criteria. Paul James: Once you know the final estimate, does it have to come back here for approval? Eric Dhuse: Oh, absolutely. City Liaison Report: Chris Rollins: Okay. Paul, do you have a City Liaison report? Paul James: Yes. Two items. The first was Greenbriar Pond. We did accept that. The second one is regarding several memos you put out for the Board on recommendations you prepared on these developments. Have you received any feedback from the Planning Commission on any recommendations that you made? Art Prochaska: It has not gotten to the plat stage to the Planning Commission which is where they would normally look at these. The only thing that they have been discussing at this point is annexation. Dan Kramer: Northgate ... just annexation; and, Hartland basically annexation and zoning. They want it residential, but they are not even close to the performance issues, yet. Paul James: The point is, I guess, I thought these were really good recommendations written down like this. I am curious to see, once they go through if we get any feedback and see how it goes. Lisa Scherer: One of the things that you should know is that we had voted at the last meeting we had some residents here that were interested in what is going on. They wanted to know what is going on with all of the developments coming in. They don't hear it at a lot of these meetings. So, we are posting it outside as for an update. You know, they change. You know, this is what we propose. Art Prochaska: Just for clarification, they should know every time there is a recommendation by the Park Board it is always discussed at the Planning Commission. Again, I think the thing you can remind people the process is when the time comes to be discussed, they are a part of the planning process that is when they are actually looking at the planning, and when they get to that point those are always asked. And with Mike Shoppe working with them, Mike Shoppe is always there also. 13 Lisa Scherer: I think it is important for us to get the feedback from them. We just need to hear that. Will that be a feasible option or is that ... if that's the case, then we are going to have to work on something else. We just need to hear that. Art Prochaska: The way the process works is everybody is recommending to City Council so that any point if your recommendations are, actually the council also gets a copy of those recommendations so everybody has a copy of those recommendation. So the Plan Commission works on those recommendations and makes another recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council could now work with everybody's recommendations. Sometimes they all fall in line and sometimes they .... (end of tape) , ,Chris Rollins: Another thing we can, so if someone does want to know what the Board does recommend for any of the subdivisions development would be able to know what we have recommended. Lisa Scherer: I think it makes sense. That we are in a state of growth right now and there are a lot of people coming in and with Hartland 2, there is a lot of residents , I think ... so, I think it makes sense to ... Art Prochaska: Well, again, for your information, that sheet of paper that you have on the recommendations ... unless you have voted on it,they are a public contractor ... Attorney Kramer: Yes. They can come and ask for that sheet ... Lisa Scherer: But what I think they are asking for ... they don't know where to ask ... or how to ask ... they know ... Art Prochaska: That is where that as a City, we all have to focus. That is the job of the City Clerk ... to have those records and to make them available to the public. By statute, the Clerk has to make them available to the public. If anybody is ever looking for a document, and that is even a memo ...we have gone through this with Dan ... if a memo gets put out, and it can go to all of you as a closed document and that is fine ... but the minute it is talked about at a public meeting, the memo becomes a public document and any one can request a copy of it. So, every document that has been voted on, talked about, or discussed in any way becomes a public document and that is why it is important to get the document over to the City Clerk's office. That is the one place in the City where people can go and get documentation, whether it be minutes or a recommendation ... or whatever ... they can go to the Clerk's office and get that document. That is suppose to be the central distribution point. Am I correct, Dan? Attorney Kramer: You are absolutely right. Chris Rollins: Okay, Paul, do you have anything else for us? Paul James: Yea, one more item. During the Administration/Park Board Meetings we have put together over the last couple of months, and at the last City Council ... or the Committee of the Whole meeting ... we decided we were going to make it more of an Ad 14 Hoc Committee ... something where the Administration,Committee is there. Rose and I volunteered on our end to do this thing, and we are asking that on the Park and Rec's side if you would go ahead and pick two people and the four of us would sit down and hash out some of the issues. Art Prochaska: Actually, I also will be on the Committee... and David has volunteered. Paul James: Yea. David has volunteered ... Lisa Scherer: I would. Art Prochaska: What I am looking to do with the Committee is to ascertain what procedures and policies we need to have in place to get things moving more smoothly. So that everybody is aware of how things are happening. Again, we did this a couple of years ago with the library. It is not the same situation, but it is similar. I think a lot of times ... I think it is just a misunderstanding because everybody has a different interpretation. So, if we get things put down and see where everybody is agreeable with the procedures and policies are going to be. For example,we are always going to have the insurance and longevity come out of the Finance. But, then if that is going to happen, there has to be procedures that in the event that you want to hire another full-time person there has to be a forewarning be given so that the Finance Department can make sure that there are dollars set aside for those ... I mean, we need to make sure that the policies and procedures are in place and they re similar, again, because we do have an employee policy manual that we are bound to as a City; and, al employees of the City are bound to that employee manual ... I mean we can't be varying off that for a few employees of the City. Paul James: We don't think these meetings will go on forever, we are figuring maybe 2 of three months or until we can identify all of the ... and it is something I think, that once we get the people, we can figure out how many times we need to meet, and where and all that ... Ken Koch: Will the Committee Meeting be during the day or in the evening? Paul James: In the evening. Ken Koch: I think that in the end this will be the best solution. Lisa Scherer: Oh, and we agree. We know we have to think about the future. Art Prochaska: And with the growth and such, for the community, it is going to be more of a plus. Sue Swithin: I think it cold work both ways, too. I think you will find that even on the City side with this issue among the (inaudible) , too, to figure it out as we all grow. I think maybe, personally to decide inaudible ... the Board, or even the Council may be,the best,ASAP. Work in-house first, and then work the way ... Art Prochaska: _((inaudible) 15 Chris Rollins: Well, Paul, we thank you and Rose for volunteering for that. We have had dialog with Administration that has been very helpful. There are just a couple of things that I would like to mention, that are my concern. One is that the Park Board functions as a we are sensitive about issues and that is how we move forward ... so, I would hate to see the formation of any sort of committee that became, some how, shorthand for reaching the sensitivity about issues because I don't think that would be helpful. We all want to be constructive and move forward. If a survey could be focused and fair about issues, I think that would be a great thing, as long as those issues are being brought back to the Board as a whole and we are able to discuss it and put it into policy, and reach a consensus on that would be a good think. The other thing I want to mention, in just my own application, maybe Dan you can help me out with this one. In reading through ... because it has come up as an issue ... Art has mentioned it several times and I want to make sure I knew exactly where we stood on it ... is the issue of the Open Meetings Act for this Board. My understanding of our communications of about being able to meet are that we could not have a majority of a quorum of our members meet together without declaring a public meeting of our Board. The majority of a quorum of our members is actually two people. So that puts us at a distinct disadvantage if we are trying to do anything, and if two of us need to be meeting in the same room, and it may be good for Art to change the number of Board members for starters. And I know you mentioned that as a possibility, Art. It may be a good reason to look at that. Being it is extremely difficult for us given that strict limitation on the number of people from our Board that can meet. Attorney Kramer: We ran into that same thing as a City Council before we went so heavily to the C.O.W., Committee of the Whole system. Where it use to be, years ago, we had a lot of committees of three and we ran into just as you are saying Chris ... as a matter of fact, that they got their very own law called the Committee of Two Rule under -the Open Meetings Act as you have probably seen in some of the published literature. And it does,just what Chris is saying, it literally disenfranchises you. It means that, you know, if you are out in the park grounds and talk to each other about something, you are violating the Open Meetings Act because you are a committee of two — and, two means the majority of a quorum, so you are in trouble. So I think expanding the Park Board may be a good option there. Chris Rollins: Should we at least make sure we have enough members for that so we don't have this impact. I am personally a radical as all, I'll suffer the class misdemeanor for meeting in the ballpark. I know we do need to look at that, and perhaps make the decisions about future makeup of the Board, so we can accommodate them. I think it is a very good idea, and'I think we do need some sort of mechanism for ongoing dialogue. Attorney Kramer: Well, if you have to operate under that Committee of Two Rule, what happens is you become totally , that you always act as a whole Board and you can't delegate things out ... maybe somebody doesn't have a particular interest in parks as we grow; and, somebody has more of an interest in recreational programs ... it has no use to exclude that member from your Board and say they can't act on that Board. You can get better people, if they can follow their interest. So, I agree. Chris Rollins: So we are kinda stuck there. Ken Koch: So e-mail and things like that mean the same thing? 16 Attorney Kramer: Absolutely! If you have an organized e-mail tree, it would be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Bill Wedge: What if we are not discussing official business at all? Attorney Kramer: Just discuss the Cubs and Sox when you are with each other. Art Prochaska: I think the time is right for this, because I know over the years it has been asked many, many times by former Park Board members ... they would ask,-and by statute it simply was not allowed. I think five was the maximum, now they do allow up to nine, which opens that up ... and not worry about when two people meet on the street and are talking,they are not breaking the law. Bill Wedge: Does that mean meeting in our back yard? Chirs Rollins: I think that is probably a matter of personal discretion of the Board, too. What may be the idea number ... but, I know that we do need to look at the possibility of increasing the Board membership would be a good thing for us for that reason ...for daily operations. Art Prochaska: What I see the Ad Hoc Committee doing is looking at all of these policies and procedures and that they should each be going back to their respective groups, and at that point in time there will be some discussion and they can go back as representatives of that group and have that discussion. Lisa Scherer: I think that eventually that group will come up with a document and bring it to this Board first and say "this one is great", and we pass it on to City Council for approval. Art Prochaska: Or bring it to both simultaneously. I agree. I think that the thing that we need is clarification. Again, I think there is so many different interpretations of what happens, and sometimes emotions get beyond logic and really ... like I said the other night at City Council ... I don't believe that there is anybody on any of our Boards, that they are not working in what they feel is at the best interest of our City. And the good thing is that we have so many people, and we can get different ideas. We can get different points of view. That is the whole point of having people on Boards ... because they can have different points of view. We have eight people on Council, we have nine people on the Library Board ... hopefully, we can increase this Board so we can get different points of view.. And I think it is a good step in the right direction and we can develop a feeling of cooperation, and, hopefully it will increase support so it ultimately would be a good step to take. Budget (continued): Chris Rollins: Thank you. I see that Traci is here, would everybody like to revisit the proposed budget? Sue Swithin: Longevity, vacation, sick time, etc ... is that taken out of Finance and not on our end? 17 Traci Pleckham: That should be in for the second budget. Art Prochaska: If you think about that, it makes sense. The salary should be in there with vacation and sick time because when you re gone,you get your regular salary. Sue Swithin: I mean ... but at the end of the year, buyouts, sick days, etc.? Traci Pleckham: When I did the revised budget, I used the salary information I was given by the Board and I don't think Lisa put it in there. Lisa Scherer: No. Sue Swithin: I think you said you were waiting for those numbers from Traci ... Lisa Scherer: That's right. Traci, when I met with Tony and you that day and we had talked salaries, you said you didn't even go into that area. Traci Pleckham: Right. And then the memo I got was after the fact. The memo I got on 4/6/02 was after the fact. After we met. Lisa Scherer: Right. Traci Pleckham: I'm not sure where that number came from, the prior number was including the longevity ... and the cost of living ... I want to say 3-1/2 percent. Sue Swithin: I had that broken down because I got the ... (INAUDIBLE ... Everyone discussing budget at once) Sue Swithin: Is the Capital ... Traci, it almost went double on my end. Is that a ... Art Prochaska: Is that the credit that extra 50 ... 450 ... you talked to me about that probably would go for Capital so it would not get lost. Traci Pleckham: What year is that? Sue Swithin: It would have been what I was going to spend this year, but I turned it all over into next year and now we are taking it out of this year. I think my total.was about $9,000. Now, I can spend$18,000? Traci Pleckham: Right. $11,300 is what I have this current fiscal and then I had $7,400 into fiscal for 2002/2003 which is actually for this year. Art Prochaska: You see, whatever is left of that bottom line, that can be carried over. If you are not able to find a use for that, you need to let her know so that when she does the budget, she could put it in correctly. Sue Swithin: Alright. 18 Traci Pleckham: It sounded like almost everything that was on the next fiscal year was buyable ... put it into Capital and you can carry over. Chris Rollins: So, Traci, the amount that we had in here that was shown as proposed budget for merit increases, does that get folded into the actual dollars? Or, what ever happened to that? Traci Pleckham: The merit was taken out, and that was based on the salary information ... the memo I got from the Board. Chris Rollins: Okay, so ... instead of being a separate line item? Traci Pleckham: We need to revisit the Rec supervisor's salary. You have to look at it as a whole ... with the comp and with the merit,to make sure it is all included. Sue Swithin: Actually, $1,230 or ... Lisa Scherer: No. I did that. (Board continues to reach budget line items) Sue Swithin: And, also on merit ... I don't have any merit there for ... it has zeroed out again. Traci Pleckham: That would be because of being part-time. Art Prochaska: That would not be merit ... that would be for any salary you gave her. We did not give merit to part-time employees. Traci Pleckham: Right. Lisa Scherer: Okay. I just checked my math. My math was actually right. It was $28,077. (Inaudible ... members speaking simultaneously) Chris Rollins: Traci, I just have another general question. What happens ... line item on the Parks side of the budget where we have a City share of IMRF where we budgeted over $5,000 for that and we have only used _ percent of that? I mean we are almost through the fiscal year, what happens to the additional funds if they are not used? Art Prochaska: What I think we need to do is, first of all, find out from Kim, because that amount is based on those salaries ... all that means is that Kim has not made that as a line item. Traci Pleckham: That is right. She did not record March or April Sue Swithin: Even if they come up short, there is surplus, you are stating that can't be transferred over? 19 Art Prochaska: Well, what happens is ... it doesn't get carried over. The IMRF is based on salary ... what will happen if there is access there ... unless you've ... Chris Rollins: See, that would be one of those things just essentially what I was trying to figure out when we have items like this, we have salaries, overtime, part-time salaries we don't get those ledger numbers back ... we're not real close to them when we re at 90% of the fiscal year we are only at 33%, 56%, 57% of budget ... it would seem we would end up showing large surpluses at the end of the year. I am just trying to determine how we might. get better estimating. I mean, Eric always has this issue because we don't know how much overtime will be used or how many hours re going to be used. It is really hard to estimate that. With the rains we have now, we can't get to mow. If summer goes on like this, we have to mow around the clock ... they will have to mow by headlights, they will use up time. This year's budget will already be over and next year's budget will start. I am trying to figure out, when we get to the end of a budget year if we see that we are not close and we are running fairly large on budget surpluses, how would I take that into account for next year's budgetT I mean that we are going to have to budget with a fair cushion, not to suggest that the budget numbers are bad ... I am just trying to figure out how we got to surplus budgets at the end and make sure that those dollars don't get overrun somehow when formulating on what is actually available in the budget for next year. Art Prochaska: Well, what will happen though, too, is we are growing as a City, as the number of employees we hire grows and actually what is in the budget for this year will justify the levy for next year because IMRF is something you levy for that is how to justify that. What we see, again, we are always very conservative. My guess would be we spend more on IMRF than what we levied for. The point is, if that helps justify the levy for the next year, that's why you probably won't see a change a whole lot on that because we have already accepted. We only do our budget recommendation once, and that is in the middle of the year. Sue Swithin: Would a new employee have the opportunity to buy out sick days at the end of the year? Art Prochaska: We were just talking about that. I am not sure. It is also the question of vacation. You have to be here a year. There would be that extra year. We can verify that. Make sure we verify that through the Employee Manual. Traci Pleckham: I think not. Chris Rollins: All right. It sounds like we are wrapping up our budget ... then are we still needing to revise some of these numbers for vacation, sick, merit? Lisa Scherer: Yea. $1,230 and $2,970. Art Prochaska: We're not sure. And that is a small adjustment that can be made. I don't want to hold the budget up. Again, we are one week late on this getting to the City Council. Are you going to try to look at some kind of little reserve for Eric, too? Traci Pleckham: Yes. 20 Sue Swithin: I hear you are going to be discussing this Thursday night? Do you need a Park Board member to be there, too? Rose Spears: You are all welcome to come. I have a question, when you were working the budget, the City Council did create an ordinance to keep the COLA at 3.5 percent and merit at 1.5 increase for current employees because of the tight budget this year. Lisa Scherer: Oh, yea. I think that what we were looking at was a specific job ... what we did was we polled some of the areas. I went to NIU and pulled up some of the names on their boards, and used that number, based on salary, and then we also poled different areas comparable ... like Rochelle and further north ... but we took the average and we are below that ... because to replace that person, as this town grows, and I talked to one of the professors about it and he said, yea you are kinda on the lower end but (inaudible) Rose Spears: The City is currently conducting a survey, based on comparable population and revenue. Lisa Scherer: We did not pick the number out of a hat. We did go get it and definitely improved it to 3.5. We knew that there was ... Chris Rollins: Right. I think, Rose, one of the things that we are kinda struggling with a little bit here is that we had made a decision over a year ago to reorganize Parks and Recreation and what we were trying to get away from was, sort of what had been for lack of better words ... the traditional structure that sort of grew up organically to manage Parks and Recreation. We were trying to move to a more professional structure, and one that we knew had job descriptions that closely match what you would find in any other Park and Rec Department ... and other park district ... and other park ... So, rather than calling things what we thought we should call them, we thought that we would look at descriptions that were for Park and Rec professionals, try to figure out how would have a . structure with a director and superintendent in the Park area and the Recreation area and make sure that what we were doing was to make an appropriate adjustment for those professional positions. It got characterized as a raise. I wish it hadn't because I think it was part of the issue. We were looking at it as quote, unquote, a raise, we were looking at it as really as a salary adjustment to reflect what we knew to be the professional positions that we were trying to staff. And, if we were to staff that position with a person with experience, with the person currently in it, what would the salary for that position be? And that is really what we were trying to come from. We understood that anyone getting an increase over 3.5 percent is something that nobody wanted to see happen just from a standpoint of the budgetary practice. So we did not want to be obstinate and say that we just wanted to pay that person a lot more ... forget about that 3.5 percent. That was really not the issue. What we wanted to do is make sure that we understood a professional staffing for Parks and Recreation ... what kind of salaries would commensurate with that staffing situation. Now, we got there, we got to those ranges. Now the individual would have two out of three pieces in place. Hopefully, in short, we will be hiring a Director and we will hire that person into a salary that we think is in that appropriate range. We want to have a Superintendent of Rec and Parks that would also fall into those ranges. So that is kinds of the background on it and I know for anybody to be in a position where it looks like gee, everyone else is being held to a certain range, but, you know, one person is the exception ... that is not what we have meant to happen ... 21 - wanted t ha 's for u e d 1 we really want o have happen i s to get our minds set an our dollars adjusted to thinking about these as professional staff positions ... and what they would be in any other park and rec organization would ... Rose Spears: Are you talking about new hires or are you talking about the current employees, Sue or Eric or someone like that? Chris Rollins: Well, I am talking about Sue ... because Sue's position changed. We re- organized the department and her official position changed. So that's what we were trying to accomplish ... by making the changes, they were not just cosmetic, we were really trying to make it as such so that we have people in positions that have specific responsibilities, specific job titles, job descriptions that go with them ... and pay them accordingly to that. Rose Spears: Well the problem is that we have a couple of similar situations on the City side as well. For example, Liz ... her position changed ... but, she is forced to go with a 3.5% increase because that was the ordinance set by City Council ... and, I would like to add that Parks and Recreation personnel, whether Eric or Sue, or anyone else would be allowed to get 10% or whatever percent ... the other City employees have a maximum increase by 5% ... Attorney Kramer: You are going to have to keep all the non-collective bargaining within the range of that ordinance of 3.5% with 1.5% merit range. So, in other words, I think you have a range you can add. You don't have to be at the bottom, you don't have to be at the top. You can leave it up to the bodies to give the discretion as to where they pass that out. But, again, I mean we have to keep that in mind with the Employee Manual. We have, I don't want to say perfectly, we have our non-collective bargaining as well as our collective bargaining people ... we try to keep that equitable, so we did not run into a problem with departments coming back and saying you gave another department this and you kept us down to 3.5 or whatever ... so as long as you've got that range and you stay within that range,that is fine ... With the merit and the COLA. Rose Spears: Because otherwise I am sure that we would have employees within City Hall that would complain. Attorney Kramer: And they would have good reason to ... absolutely! Rose Spears: Dan, also as far as the job descriptions ... should they be in compliance and similar to positions that we have in the City? I know that the City Council votes to approve the job descriptions ... but qualifications? If we are requiring a secretary at City .Hall to type at a speed of 55 words per minute,the same should apply, correct? Attorney Kramer: That should be the same in all departments. Obviously, by necessity, you would have different management descriptions over here in Parks. But, if they are similar positions you want to keep them the same, I agree. Rose Spears: Also, the job descriptions are going to be coming the Administration Committee for review. We have to keep everything in compliance, because we have to be equal on all sides. If you are going to give same or equal salaries they are going to have to have equal education and qualifications. And we try to keep them standard, too. 22 We do survey other areas and keep the requirements the same for say, an office manager, and for the secretaries ... secretary I, secretary II, clerical, whatever, just so you know where we are coming from. We can't be unfair to one group. We are trying to keep everybody the same. Art Prochaska: I think one of the things we started working on a couple of years ago ... Rose, I think at your direction at that point, was to make sure the job descriptions were in the same format. You could look at one or another and figure our what you are looking for if they are all in the same format it would make it much easier as you go across the City. Like I said the other night at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, is I understand that, for example, the Rec Department is going to have job descriptions that are unique to the Rec Department. There are going to be some job descriptions that are unique to the Police Department, the Public Works Department ... Those things will happen. In the support positions, those are the ones that we need to make sure that the positions are the same ... library, city hall. A clerical person that does clerical work, I think those are the ones that you are talking about, Rose. Making sure that they all fall into that, first of all, I don't know if you are the one that brought it up ... we don't want to get into a situation .. we don't want people leaving one department to work at another department because they get a little different salary, because they should all be the same level because it is the same job. If it is a different job,then it is a different job. Sue Swithin: I would like to say the Board has not approved the job descriptions I gave to you. After they approve them, I will give them to you. Rose Spears: When I receive them, they will come to the Administration Committee on Thursday. Sue Swithin: If I could re-address the salary issue. I think what has happened, last year there was major adjustments taken by the Board, and the year before there was adjustments ... and I think I brought to the recollection of the Park Board that even that process that took place this fiscal year showed that they were not equitable ... they were not fair adjustments. And, I think at some point those could be looked at and recognized, and exceptions made. And be recognized period! (inaudible) information is as we are growing and getting very professional ... letting professional staff people on board, having an outside firm doing a full evaluation and critique of all these professional positions, so it is out of your hands ... and, it is done. It is a very fair and equitable way of doing this and not dealing with this stuff anymore. It is being done and needs to be done for many years. We market value and make sure it is all equitable within the City's budget. That'is where I am coming from the survey and data that was asked of me to get ... A perfect example, earlier this year a staff member took another position because it paid more. Rose Spears: That will happen no matter where you go, Sue. Sue Swithin: Then I think there are exceptions that can be made. Again, maybe, because it had been arranged, other than the maximum salary. And, I think you should support this next year instead of this fiscal year instead of other people that are hired that are looking at other ranges, too, of other positions knowing they might get a raise in order to be market available. 23 Rose Spears: The City Council did spend numerous months creating salary ranges and different surveys and tried to keep it fair ... Art Prochaska: We did have an outside source ... Rose Spears: Yes. We had an outside source look at it and we did spend a lot of money and time on that. There are some employees in City Hall right now that feel we are not being very competitive or whatever ... that they need more money. However, they are not including the benefits they are receiving that you don't receive at other companies. Where can people go and pay only one dollar for insurance? You know, it is just something that is totally unheard of anymore. This is another Administration Committee issue that is up right now for renewal. I mean, you have to consider that part because as the City grows we will be expending more and more money into benefits the employees are receiving as well as the salaries and everything else. If we make an exception right now ... it is something that really can't be done. If you do it for one person, you are going to have someone in another department request an adjustment ... we are going to have somebody on the Police side and, remember, we are going to have to work with the union as well. We can't make any exceptions. This is an ordinance that we have passed. It would be the same if someone parked his car on his grass on the side of his house. We are not going to say "okay, this particular individual has lived in Yorkville for 50 years, so he doesn't have to abide by this new ordinance We can't do that. When we pass an ordinance, it is for everybody. Art Prochaska: Can I make a suggestion? Perhaps this would be also one of the things at Ad Hoc that we look at for the Parks side to find out what it may be to adjust that salary ... whatever that salary needs to be. Again, one of the things we did find out ... I'll give you a perfect example, was the Economic Development Corporation. The dollar amount that we originally set for what we thought we were going to get ... I mean, we had a lot of people apply, but they were just looking at .dollar amounts way above what we had originally proposed. So, I could understand to make that point is very good. We may find out very soon that if we were going to hire a Parks & Rec Director that may be true. So those are the things that may be looked at, but T think the idea of going to the committee structure and making that recommendation out of that, would also ... again, I am thinking getting us to the comfort level ... getting it discussed and saying this is what we need to do ... here is how we have to do it. Again, we are not looking at this group to be a "forever" group ... we are hoping that within the next couple of months we are going to have this all taken care o£ So, if I could throw a compromise out on the table that may be the compromise and say as we are going through this ... I suggest too, we also look at the Parks personnel, we look at the Recreation personnel and that could be one of those ... Chris Rollins: I think that is a good suggestion, Art. I understand exactly where you are coming from Rose ... and, I am a person that believes that standardization of things is also good, you know, to the extent that they can be accomplished. The difficult thing, perhaps, for us as a Board here, is that we have a situation that we have not hired a full- time employee in six years. It has been a long time before we addressed any sort of increases in staff that were anyway significant, and, you know, we have found that we have gotten ourselves at the end of the road and what we can do that way, and needing to 24 (END OF TAPE) Chris Rollins: ... going from really having one full-time professional person trying to have three in a relatively short amount of time. So for us this is a big time exceptional situation as we have gone for so long with out really doing much in the way of changing our staffing so I would beg your patience on that and that you will be willing to kinda of hear our case cause I think we can make a pretty good one as to what we are trying to accomplish. Like the old story of making sausage, it is not pretty while it is going on, but, hopefully at the end of the process we all have something we can be happy with ... so, that's kinds the perspective I have as a long time Board member; it has gone for a long time, probably needing to make a number changes and not stepping up to the plate and making them unfortunately we got to the point now where things are pretty substantial. It is not god ... that's just kinda the way it's happened. I would like to kinda wrap up on the budget so we are saying that we need an adjustment of some $4,000 on the salary line items? Art Prochaska: Well it could be "up to" ... Lisa Scherer: Right ... up to$4,000. Chris Rollins: Okay. What's the most expedient course for us to get that resolved? Because I know we are coming up on budget deadline time. Traci Pleckham: Can I just ask one question? On your contingency line item—originally when we did all the numbers and put the salary range that was requested it was about 2.7% locked in --which is higher than we usually are running and lower than currently what the General Fund is at right now ... General Fund is about $34,000 so it is just over. We are at right about 1%. So I don't know if there is room in the Contingency to work with any of the line items in the salary section, or not — I just wanted to throw that out. Looks like last year it was $670—so I would ... Sue Swithin: So you are asking to find more money in there? Art: You can use some of that contingency in ... Traci Pleckham: We can use some of it and I think it would be a comfort level to the Board members ... Sue Swithin: I would say use some of it in Capital because ... Traci Pleckham: There is nothing in Capital, right now ... in the revised ... next fiscal. Art Prochaska: Well, you see that would be carryover and you can't take it out ... you can't take it back to Operations. Attorney Dan Kramer: I think you are wise to preserve. I agree with both of them, the Capital ... don't touch that. 25 Chris Rollins: Just out of curiosity, why do we show a contingency in the Rec's side, but we didn't on the Park's side? Traci Pleckham: It was what I received from them, from Eric., So that is what Art suggested, to look and see if we can find some Contingency there. Usually one percent is Contingency and that is what the City has been running even in the past and I am thinking it would make some sense to look at those dollars and can you tweak it a little bid, I don't know ... that's my question. Sue Swithin: Could you really look at mine, too. I know that I stretched ... really stretched when we talked earlier on the Revenue side. I would like to be able to sleep at night knowing that I could bring enough Revenue to support$120,000 in my budget. Traci Pleckham: We just want to make sure your line items are in order ... we don't want to make something decrease in an expense item ... we just want to make the budget work. We want to make sure your budget is working ... Art Prochaska: I look at it this way, if you I am just going to cut to the chase ... if you're looking at using that Contingency to make up for the , so the thing is what they are saying is the maximum would be $4,200 or whatever, it should be less than that ... so at the very least you will still have $3,700 or almost $3,800 in Contingency which is still well over I% of the budget. Lisa Scherer: I have no problem with that. I have no problem with that. Chris Rollins: Yes. Do we have a Board consensus here that it is okay to live with the reduced Contingency? Anybody ... anybody ... speak up now. Sue Swithin: That's fine. Lisa Scherer: I mean the last budget I had concerning that Hitchock clause I ... okay,this is a public meeting (laughter) ... Chris Rollins: Okay, so ... Sue Swithin: Are we okay with the Land Cash we haven't talked about that too much today. Is it okay Traci, Art, Eric? Yea? New Business: Art Prochaska: I would like to bring that up. Can I bring up a subject, I know Dan and I talked about this ... it is a subject that has come up and I would like to discuss it with the Park Board. I have actually been given some direction by the City Council ... so I would like to have some input from you guys also. You know, up to the Jewel, there is some apartments that they according to a court decree they can built ... remember I told you there was one half acre or some little corner there that was designated for parks. Well one of the things that the people doing the apartments are asking... they actually are allowed, I believe,, up to 148 apartment units and I think right now they said they are somewhere in the 130's is the best they can get ... they have a garage, plus they want to 26 put in a clubhouse, a pool and a tot lot there for their private use. One of the questions they have asked is if they are allowed to use that half acre that was going to be the park, would that be alright if we were to get them to pay the full amount of land cash? I mean, what would happen is you would end up having a tot to tot lot there for their residents, but still ... If everybody remembers, it is where McHugh Road splits ... that little corner. So, the question that got posed, is with them doing the layout, in order for them to get their clubhouse and their pool ... in fact, a couple of the Aldermen asked if there was a possibility of using that publicly ... they are a little skeptical of it because of liability issue and such ... if they are able to use that piece of property, would that be an acceptable trade if they were to pay their full amount of land cash that they owe to Parks? Chris Rollins: I don't see why not. My recollection of what was brought to us was just an oddly shaped tot lot park anyway. That was all there going be room for there. I guess, this is not much of a concern, I think the only possible concern I can think of is that as Tong as they are building their own tot park, that would be good. The only other facility that would be available to them would be Prairie Park. Eric Dhuse: Heartland Park. But you would have to cross the street to get to it. Art Prochaska: That is my thought,too. They are going to go ahead and put in some kind of a small tot park and a pool and all of that stuff for the residents,they are combining some of those things that they need and, if I had your permission as a Board to make a recommendation, or whatever you want to call it, and work with the City's recommendation is to work with them on negotiating a design, because one of the things that they have asked the City is the fact that they want to get a bond that they wanted to use. The Council then said was well;we want to have some say as what the design of it. So one of the questions that came up is, "Would there be an interest from the Park Board if we were able to still get land cash?" Lisa Scherer: I don't see a problem with that. Chris Rollins: Do we have any objections on that. I don't think so, Art because we all knew it wasn't going to be much of a park, anyway. Art Prochaska: I don't know, for sure what those amounts would be because the amounts per unit are not set yet. We don't know what that is going to be. And there would be some negotiation there. I will be happy to come back when I get some numbers and I would know what it would end up being. Chris Rollins: It would be the land that is south of Jewel. It actually would be the multi- unit. I am just trying to remember what all is going on there. It is an intention to put a turn lane along the east west street there, too. Right? I am just asking ... At the time I think the only issue why we kinda held out to put any small park there was because we knew the street was going to get widened. Eric Dhuse: The temporary street on Market Place ... 27 Chris Rollins: Traffic issues, trying to have it somewhere where it wasn't going to impacted by traffic. (additional discussion by Board members on proposed park continued) Art Prochaska: So can we proceed with that? Again, it would be best if you go ahead and vote on it. Chris Rollins: Okay. I will entertain a motion to the effect that we change our plan for ... that actually is part of Art Prochaska: No, it is actually Inland's Development. I would say the corner of McHugh and Market Place. Chris Rollins: Okay. I will entertain a motion that we will revise our plan to reflect accepting a land cash contribution instead of a tot lot park. Motion taken and seconded. (Approval was unanimous) Chris Rollins: Okay. So are you looking for anything from us for this budget, tonight? Something for approval, or ... Art Prochaska: We are going to move forward based on basically what was talked about. Any of those changes will then be taken on the Contingency and it will be revised as per what longevity or whatever is needed and, of course, wit the City ordinance I got. Rose Spears: Do we need a recommendation from the Board? Chris: Alright. Do you want a recommendation that we are in agreement with the budget as it now stands with the exception of a maximum of $4,200 to be taken from Contingency line item. Do I have a motion to that effect. Ken Koch: Yes, sir. Chris: Thank you, Mr. Koch. Do I have a second? Seconded by: Bill Wedge. Chris: Do we need to take roll call ... (roll call was taken—approval was unanimous). Chris Rollins: It was unanimous, we approve the budget as it stands with the exception of the maximum of$4,200 to be taken from Contingency. Chris Rollins: There is one matter, actually while we have Dan here and this might be a good time to discuss this. I will take it out of the order of business and we can talk about it now since it would be good to ... I have passed on to all of you, I have an extra copy to pass that down to Dan. In looking over the web site, I know that you all, in your spare time I know that you have so much of it as Park and Rec. Board members ... I know in your spare time that you are reading your IPRA literature and wondering about the things that pertain to the Illinois Open Meetings Act there has been an alert here. I 28 checked on the website, and what the Illinois Department of Recs Association has done is made a recommendation about a use of a form for the Illinois Open Meetings Act compliance. What you have is, unfortunately it got stapled out of order ... what you see on the second page there is actually a form that they recommend using. And, you will see it is pretty basic ... it has a name of... for our unit of government, it will be Park and Rec Board, the date and time of the meeting, names of all the members who are present. Then it asks you to be specific about what exceptions we are citing for our reasons for holding a closed session. And it also asks for a general description of the subject matter that was discussed ... and then there is a place for verification, the signature of the presiding officer. Now, in addition to that, the other ... what you see on the front of the other pages, there is long list of exceptions of reasons why it may be necessary to go in closed sessions for a meeting. Some of these things clearly don't pertain to our board. What I would look at, maybe, a little of guidance from you Dan how we eventually draft some language for the use of this form, because what the IPRA is recommending is that you actually have a policy. One side you have this form and the other side you list exceptions. So on the front side of this form you say we're citing exception one and .we're talking about a person's salary. So that is kinda of how I would like for us to be able to start to use the forms. Some of the things like "student disciplinary case", or something like that clearly doesn't apply to us. Ali, informant sources in a criminal investigation I figure doesn't apply to us ... this one I don't know ... "the establishment of reserves or settlement of claims as provided to Local Government or Governmental Employees Tort Community Act, if otherwise at this position of the claim or the potential claim might be predigests of the reviewer discussion of the claim loss or risk management information"records that advise. Attorney Dan Kramer: Rarely that would apply to you guys ... Chris Rollins: It is probably something that we should leave on there ... Attorney Kramer: Yes. It truly is, because you could have something like that with the gymnastics program for instance, that our Illinois Risk Management coordinator comes down and talks to you and does a study, so that one could apply. Chris Rollins: Okay. That item will remain. (Chris continued to read the items that would not apply to their list of exceptions.) So I think anyway, what boils down to is there were about nine of these 23 that had just the amount of base that we should include — so I think we can get down to a list of abut 14 that could be line items on the back side of the form. So, whenever we elect to do a meeting in closed session, we will use the form, we will cite the appropriate exception on the back on the front of the form and then actually use this as our record for the closed sessions Attorney Dan Kramer: I don't have any problem with that. It serves as a good claimer. The thing you have to constantly be aware of is that the legislature ... they play with that Act constantly. Any time a legislator in his district has anybody complain about something, they will play with just one or two words. It is amazing how they can change some of the exceptions. The one thing we try to do in terms of a policy decision of the City is we rarely have had an emergency executive session, I mean we just generally have kind of known, so we have been good about doing the 48 hours notice to the press. So, that is all that I would ask you to do is to try and comply with that spirit. Unless it is very, very clear that you need to be in executive session, I mean our State's Attorney, the 29 enforcing officer for this county will always tell you to gear towards the liberal conception to go open as often as you can. If it is truly something there that you feel it is essential to go into closed session, stay in open meeting. We don't have tons of it at the City Council level in the 18 years that I have been the City Attorney. I bet that 80 to 90% have been a personnel issue. And just as you were saying, Chris, it is most often when it is hiring, firing or discussing salary of a particular employee ... collective bargaining, about once every three years. Actually, real estate is probably the next most often used one by us, where we have discussed a site for a park acquisition, city hall ... but the minute we have decided yea, we are going to go and get that site and sign a contract, or, if we simply have said you know what, we are just not interested in that property we release those minutes right away after we made that public. Just always remember it is real prejudice towards open meetings in Illinois. The State's Attorney has been very fair about this. The only time, unfortunately, he took it past ... it was just before the school board election in Oswego, frankly, I thought it was a very borderline one. It was where they got down to where they had three candidates that they were seriously interested in as superintendent, and they did something as nocuous as discuss ranges of those three candidates because of different education and experience level. And he filed a complaint and said that that should have been an open meeting because you didn't say "What's Rose's salary gonna he?" It was "We are going to discuss a range for any of the candidates; and, frankly, it had a rather drastic outcome on the school board election over there it was unfortunate that the only litigation one we have had in the County in the last four years so he said very, even candidate, you know one group —they didn't observe it, under the law we want to complain about it — he didn't fine anybody or anything. He said "I am just asking that you make the minutes public". They said "No problem in making them public, we just thought we were protecting the three individuals." Sue Swithin: So at what point in the year, Dan, is it fiscal? :.. April? ... that you have to go back and review the executive sessions? Attorney Kramer: Oh, that is a real good question, Sue. There is a state law now that you are suppose to do it twice during the year, and it doesn't say it's gotta be at the mid- point— but I would again, as a policy for the Board, it would be a nice policy if it said it would be your April or your September meeting, or whatever. Rose Spears: We review them twice a year. We just reviewed them in January and we will review them again in June. Attorney Kramer: It doesn't say you have to review them fiscal year. You just have to do it twice a year. That is a very good point, Sue. Particularly here we were talking perhaps about site acquisition those could be released, you know, if the deal grows and goes public--those can be released to the public ... Sue Swithin: Now to hold these minutes, can the secretary of-our Board legally be able hold these minutes in her home? Attorney Kramer: Actually, they would be held by the clerk and you could review them all at once. So you could pick them up and bring them back there. Art Prochaska: Sue, what you normally do is you put them in an envelope, you seal it, write executive session minutes, the date. Now, they should review them, correct? 30 Chris Rollins: To review them would be a time where we can look at those and determine whether they would stay sealed or not. Attorney Kramer: And literally you would go into executive session to review them because, again, probably your biggest area will be on hiring or performance evaluations and those I would almost always recommend to stay sealed,to be honest with you. Art Prochaska: Let me ask a question, now. The City Council will be doing that when we have executive session. Then, next week whenever those minutes are ready, the clerk has people come in individually, read them and sign off that they read them, that they accept them. Then seal the envelope again. Attorney Kramer: Yes. I was actually talking about when you are actually doing your review to determine if you were going to release them or not. Chris Rollins: We need to build a whole procedure around holding closed sessions, and I was hoping to accomplished tonight is we at least provisionally adopt and use this form. We should start using it and see if we need to make any modifications. Attorney Kramer: Yes. Feel free. If you know you are going to have one a week down the road or you know something just came up and you're going to have it -- what they do at the City is they fax stuff over to the office — and I love the fax because no matter where I am running, I can look at those and call somebody and say"Yea, that looks good, or use a little different words." The City Clerk session at the Illinois Municipal League said, I don't know why they told them this, one of our employees came back, one of our Deputy Clerks said they told us to put just blanked on every one of our agendas "executive session". They want is to put on pending litigation and the language, you know the paragraph with staffing, the employee hiring, firing and disciplining. And to me that is a total subversion of what it is intended to me. If you are going to have a closed meeting, sure you tell the press ... not just a matter of course. If you don't have any ... Chris Rollins: Believe it or not, that is one of the things that IPRA is also suggesting that you have as an agenda item on every agenda that a topic that you have closed session ... Now you are in a position where you have to keep some kind of record did we or did we not have a closed session—how would we know that if we examine our agenda prior to a meeting, because that item appears only to find that we may have held meeting while there wasn't any executive sessions. I guess organizations are recommending that kind of thing is that, so that, I guess their feeling is so that people are aware there is a possibility that you may hold a closed session and not to spring it on the public they may have some surprise, you know, that you have on your agenda that if you elected at the meeting to not have it, I guess that seems more .... but professional organizations are recommending it. Attorney Kramer: I realize that. I don't ... Chris Rollins: So, it's one of those things, too, where I think we have to, you know, make exact decisions about what we are going to do in our organization. 31 Art Prochaska: In our policy, too, we have had a couple, from time to time, where it was on the agenda that we used as a form, which was there by mistake, but typically we do not put it on there unless we are actually going to have an executive session. Attorney Kramer: You may have seen in the newspaper, The Beacon News has done a pretty good job in the last month or two, that there was a decision that came down, I believe it was in the Fourth District Appellate Court, that a number of villages reported, you know that we have been advised and we have to be real careful on this. And they talked like it was the newest Open Meetings Act decision in the world, and I thought it was absolutely the most basic thing in the world and the court case simply said, "You can't vote on any item of substance that is not an agenda item." Well, that is what the Open Meetings Act has always read. It if is an important enough item that you know going in that you are going to vote on, it has to be an agenda item. I mean, I just thought it is just telling you the obvious ... but if you saw that, there wasn't any huge change in the words in the Act ... it was just the court saying, "yea, we really meant it". Chris Rollins: The IPRA focused very heavily on the documentation part of this. The use this form ... that seems to be our big concern about making sure there is a standard practice for documenting a typical executive closed session so that — that is something I think will help us so we won't have to revise .... Attorney Kramer: No. I think that is fine. Paul James: Do you have to go over only items that are on the agenda? Attorney Kramer: If it is an item of substance. If it is a motion to adjourn and that happens not to be on the agenda, that is not a problem. Or, if you had a water line emergency — with Pubilc Works, that happens all the time, you know they only break at night when it is the coldest ... and you have to go over the estimated amount or the authorized amount to get someone to work at four in the morning. Those are fine, Paul But if it is a major item like Heartland Subdivision, fairly controversial, we couldn't say" Well, you know, there is no body else here tonight so let's vote tonight ... tonight is a good night to do the final vote." Paul James: The recommendation they made tonight regarding the budget.... That's okay? Attorney Kramer: Yes, because, again, you got budget on there. So anything to do with the budget is fair game. The other thing, they talked about master plan, you know, things like that ...those are all fine. I mean it can be related I am not saying that you can anticipate, tonight for instance, the budget -- you could have not anticipated switching from contingency to covering salaries. That is a perfect example. But the idea was, the budget was on. If the budget wasn't on there tonight, youshouldn't be talking about that substantive without letting the press or public know"hey,this is the money night". Art Prochaska: It is getting rather late, and I just wanted to let you know it is Eric's anniversary tonight. Lisa Scherer: It is. Why are you still here? 32 Chris Rollins: You should have spoke up. You should have said something. I gave you your form back. We talked about the Riverfront building, the manhole, the Hartland playground, we talked about all that stuff. Yea. Unless anyone else has any business for Eric, let's let him get out of here. (Eric departs meeting Attorney Kramer: Yea. I am fine with the form, Chris. I think it is a good idea. Chris Rollins: Okay. Unless there is any strong objection, I would like for us to at least conditionally adopt the use of the form. I think it.will be required eventually, so I think we are going to have to put together a procedure as part of our ... Lisa Scherer: Can we use it temporarily until we get it into a policy? Attorney Kramer: Sure. Chris Rollins: When we develop our policies, we will need to include that. Lisa Scherer: Use it for now until we have our procedures ... Art Prochaska: You should probably talk to Jackie at the office, and I know she has a form for signature sheets when you come in to look at the minutes, you sign it,just for the record that you have review them before you release them. Lisa Scherer: Then I will make a motion to temporarily adopt it until we finalize our policy and procedures. Bill Wedge: Seconded the motion. Chris Rollins: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to temporarily the Illinois Open Meeting Act's Closed Meeting Certification form until such time we fully develop any written policy for any closed meeting. All in favor? (unanimous vote in favor). Chris Rollins: Anyone opposed? Unanimous. Okay. Sue Swithin: I would recommend we table the short term, long term item to the next meeting or we are not going to have any recording secretary anymore. Chris Rollins: That is a good recommendation. I am just trying to figure out if there is anything else under the old category that we need to see to tonight. Do we need to approve this policy for the lightening protection system? Sue Swithin: We did that already. Chris Rollins: Okay. So this is just our copy for the record? Lisa Scherer: I do have a question for Dan., I'm sorry. It is something that goes back to the budget again. I know we were talking about it the last time. For me, it is just for 33 clarification. I mean, I don't know. So, we did this budget tonight, we had good ideas, and, on Thursday the City Council is going to look it all over again,right? Rose Spears: Administration Committee is going to look at it on Thursday. Lisa Scherer: And, say they don't like that we have $5,000 in our pool district research fund. So, what happens then? What ... what ... Attorney Kramer: Well, they don't ... again it's somewhat of an awkward fit because the legislature doesn't give the best guidance in the world. But my view is you, again, as an independent board, says that this is our best judgment about what we should do with our budget. The Council always has discretion, they cannot approve it; but, I don't think they can line item veto out. In other words,I think ... Lisa Scherer: Can they disapprove and blanket it? Attorney Kramer: They approve the budget ... or let's say seven of the Aldermen felt really strongly about that$5,000 that should not be in. They can always vote no — and when you vote no, you always have as a prerogative, as a City Council member or County Board.Member or any type of legislative body could say the reason I voted was because I really don't like that $5,000. I was fine with every thing else, and if the Park Board sees fit to enter the budget back with that item out we would approve the budget. Lisa Scherer: And, if we decide not to. Ifthe Park Board says, "No, we are leaving that $5,000 in."? Attorney Kramer: Then technically the budget is not approved. Well, all I am saying is they cannot veto it—line item veto it -- by saying, "We vote yes except we won't let you spend that $5,000. They either have to approve it or reject the budget with suggestions Lisa Scherer: And it would be, when they reject the budget, it is just our budget ... or is it like ... snowballing into the City budget? Attorney Kramer: No. It does not necessarily snowball into the whole City budget. Art Prochaska: Because there is a fund amount in your funds. If they freeze the budget, your funds would be frozen. Attorney Kramer. Right. The other thing they can't do, let's say your budget is a million dollars — but, and you've got that money and you have budgeted that—the Council, let's say that somebody else comes in and says "Boy, we sure would like to see a water park over here." They could always budget more than that out of the City General Fund . They can say "Now Park Board, you've got you budget back and we are improving your budget ... or, we want to actually approve more. We are going to give you this particular fund, but want you to use it for the water park plan and not just throw it into your General Fund. Chris Rollins: Dan, this whole budget has an interesting implication for us, because needless to say, it is never our goal to find ourselves in conflict with City Council. 34 Attorney Kramer: Absolutely. Chris Rollins: What we are hoping to do here, I will not speak for all the other Board Members, but I will speak for myself What I am hoping to do here is to represent the hope and interest of the community as they observe parks and recreation and our goals are not necessarily narrow. If you look at the big picture, the Parks and Recs picture, and particularly when it comes to budgeting, the budget process for us has been excruciating this year. I mean I just don't know any other way to put it—it has been very stressful for our entire Park Board and it has caused more than a few sleepless nights for me. One of the big concerns I think, that we have is now understanding how our sort of realm of authority as a Board is to try to figure out how to not keep going through the hot coals, 1 would like a path around them ... so, I guess two things occur to me. One is that as you are expressing there shouldn't be some sort of line item veto power of the budget, then I am wondering why we can't agree on what a general transfer is and then this Board gets on with figuring out how to make the best use of that. Because, that sort of is what it would be if we were doing a levy, we would be getting an earmark fund and we would be doing that ... but as you pointed it out, I think it's always going to be possible that even if we were to go to a levy, we would have levy dollars and there might be reasons, good reasons for the City to also be making some sort of transfer, above and beyond the levy. But it really is a difficult question for the Board that brings a lot of tension, I think, because the feeling is always going to be there is that "Gee, we feel like we are fairly close to the Park and Rec budget --- and at least for me, we started working on this budget back in December, and for us ... we are always trying to look at sorts the total picture, you know, we are in a position where we do generate some revenue, we do have land cash coming in and then we do have the City transfer and we are always trying to balance that ... sharpen that picture. But, I am wondering if there isn't some way for us to reach some sort of common ground so we don't go through what we went through this year and have it come down to what's seems to me to be very, very specific kinds of concern on the part of Council that don't have that much of an impact on the general amount for transfer, that we never talked about huge differences in the transfer—it's been a relatively small sums of money, but there seems to be a lot of conflict and tension over it. Art Prochaska: May I? I think again, that is what this Ad Hoc Committee is suppose to do. They will address some of those things, because, again this is what we found tonight and we found in the last few weeks where the Park Board has made a decision on the or whatever ... in fact, under the Parks budget that are not the Recreation budget. And those areas do need to be dealt with because that is something'the City Council has to look at it. That issue is an issue of policies the City policies ... and the question, the biggest problem, if you want to look at, that I have heard from the City Council side — not everyone, but what I have heard is if the City Council who is the corporate authority of the City, puts together policies ... policies for everyone in the City, does this Board have the right to say "we don't want to follow that policy, we are going provide a different policy. That becomes the issue that comes, again, with some of the ordinances and the policies that are passed by the City Council. The employee policies are in place for all employees. So, I think, again, as we put this group together we will- go through those steps, we will look at how each one is affected — by a group and what decisions can be made and how that will affect the other side. I think we will be able to work out those issues and get to the point where there shouldn't be this conflict anymore. As we said, there will be dollars put into the budget and Council will be sure because 35 they know that their policies and procedures are being followed that are useful for what they are doing, and the Park Board will be comfortable, because by following those procedures and policies, the Council is not going to challenge that because they are already following an accepted policy or procedure, and, hopefully; next year we won't have this ... Attorney Kramer: And I know that the forecasting is never going to be exact. But having Tracy full time for us at the City —that's a benefit, because in the past, you know I have seen it grow from basically when I first moved to the city, Eldon Madden, Lou Ann Erickson — that was the City staff, and J.T. So, there were not a lot of people — you know, half again, the size of the City that we are now, it was 2,500 people—that was a lot of people for a staff of three people. Now we have a person tracking money all the time, so that should help a little bit better in forecasting the revenue side, plus that percentage where I think you talked about you only half way through the IMRF and 90% through fiscal year. That's a flag for Traci and you guys as well. You know, something is wrong there, either there has been something that hasn't been paid for the last quarter or we have way, way over estimated thinking we were going to get more full-time people —there is dramatically something wrong with that number. I think, don't feel bad about being an advocate, because I am sure you don't. Because we get that, and that is the nice part about getting different views. The Plan Commission has, I am sure, radically different views about zoning sometimes and they say what's wrong with our mayor or city council. Because they just get to look at the pretty colors on the drawings and say "Boy, we really like this here." -The major and council has to balance budgets and say do we get this if we don't get Jewel, if we don't get roof tops. The Plan Commission gets yelled at by their neighbors approving residential subdivision, but we don't get a Jewel if we don't get the roof tops to support it. So, yea, you are right—you can be an advocate. The level of services is going to be demanded to be uplifted here as far as in recreation, and again, hopefully, we are going to get more dollars for that, and my guess is the same thing for public works because we need enough money to work with. We understand that there is some creative tensions all the time in all of our groups. David Cathey: I have a question. Attorney Kramer: Sure, Dave. David Cathey: The money that we are using ... can, without policies and procedures ... I really need an answer, I am really confused. Without a policy, I don't see how, we could allow money to be up to approve individual's salaries ... without policies and procedures, and I expect this group stands alone. Attorney Kramer: You are absolutely right. Policies and procedures, we talked about that many times. That is important for both of us. We are feeling out way through as a City Council that the Park Board is growing as well. But, yes, you need policies and procedures so you know exactly what lines are drawn and you know exactly what you can do and they know what they should do and what they turned over and . David Cathey: You are saying right now? Attorney Kramer: Right. 36 David Cathey: What happens? Are we the ultimate authority --- the five of us here on the Board or does the City... Attorney Kramer: The authority, the ultimate authority is always going to be the City Council because they got the ability, no matter if even you set a policy and procedure, unless they totally delegate in an ordinance they will never approve your budget again — no matter what you give them, they still have to always vote and approve the budget. Like the library ... again, the library statute, the way they are set up within the City—it is a much more detailed statute, as I jokingly said one night when had a committee meeting at city hall is that they must have a better lobbyer or more of them, because there is much more institutionalized than the state statute. Your ordinance now—the legislation where the library was 20 years ago it said a City can create a library board and delegate —now what is says is "here is what City Council may or may not do". And the library board is much more self-autonomous by state legislation — probably where you are going with park districts as well. But, you know,all we can do is mellow our way through until we get those policies in place; and, hopefully that the Ad Hoc Committee is quick in that. Art Prochaska: It seems that Dan's answer the Park's question. My question to you then is that, "Does City policy takes precedence, ultimately?" Attorney Kramer: Yes. Until you put something else in place. If there is something there,you are right. David Cathey: So this Board now follows the policies in place. Attorney Kramer: Yes. Following City Policy, and that is good, David. Chris Rollins: I mean it is not fun. It is the ... ah, Attorney Kramer: The necessary evil. Chris Rollins: Yea, it is necessary and I think, as I am sure our City Council members find --- it is impossible to have a policy for every thing. The problems have to happen as you go along and the need arises for it. So it's a problem to be predicative about every policy I need ... It does, it does seem like for us, at least in so far as the ordinance goes ... the state statute goes ... the intent seems to be pretty clear is the reason we have a Board like this is for it to manage the budget, manages personnel, City Council doesn't have to'do that sort of stuff. Right, City Council has delegated that responsibility to this Board. There is ... where it really ... I guess where the rubber meets the road, it ends up being a significant thing for us for instance, when the City Council takes a line item, a budget item and decides, gee, we are not happy with your line item, we just don't (END OF TAPE) Chris Rollins: Well over a year now, we are still making progress in that direction. I think when we do finally get those things in place, I think a lot of things will change for us, organization wise, anyway. 37 Art Prochaska: I think as the person that probably has been on the council longer than everybody sitting here — other than Valerie who was a reporter covering the City, but when you talk about the changes and sometimes they are hard to see and know when I look back at what,the Park—actually it was not the Park & Recreation Board—it was the Recreation Board ... was when I first came on the Council, and you think that the Rec. Department use to pay rent for the Beecher Building — and you didn't even know about the parks because nobody knew that they existed. And the whole idea of equipment — Sue, you remember the first time when first built Prairie Park — and Prairie Park everybody was so afraid, remember, they didn't want it to be too much because they did not want to be gaudy or too costly, or whatever ... and we went through a big thing. If we just watch the evolution of what is happening now, and sure the county is growing as We are seeing. We are going to get to the point of where we will stay, but I think the other thing too is that the statute has changed over the past few years, too, which makes a big difference too on how things run. So that is going to work with the City or with the Park Board to determine how things work a little closer together. I think if we get the committee together we will get these things worked out. I think we're there. I think we are very, very close to being there now. I personally have seen such a large difference in the past 9 years it just seems to keep growing. We are to a point that, I think once the new policies and procedures are set up, I think, Chris that will talk away a lot of those fears — and Dave, I think it will take away a lot of your fears, if we get those procedures put in place. Now, does that mean that they can never be changed? No, because in another year you can get a whole new group of aldermen that will come through with a whole different set of ideas and,you know,that is just part of our policy. Bill, I understand, you think you're volunteers and you get a lot of crap ... but you know what, there is a lot of volunteers in this town and they all get a lot. They have chosen to be in a position to do these things and try to help our community and we are all trying to work ... and like I say, sometimes I have found that a lot of times the emotion gets going and if you stop and take a step back you will say you know we both really are trying to work in the same direction, it is just that we are coming at it in a sort of different way. Let's sit down and get our ideas together so we can start going in the same direction together instead of opposing. I think we are getting there, I really do. Lisa Scherer: My concern is we are going to get all these groups of moms ... we already have a Jewel, the moms are going to shop —the dads, too, if the moms forget things and we are going to have a lot to do because we are understaffed. And I think it is very important that we try to provide recreation—not just for the kids, but for the parents, for the seniors, as well. We have a good program here but if we don't have the staff to take care of it — what's going to happen is all of those rooftops are going to go to Oswego, they are going to go to Fox Valley Park District and we are going to get this reputation that there is nothing to do here. Art Prochaska: Well I think Sue and I had some of that conversation after the Committee of the Whole when I did talk to the Council about the fact that we are going to have to realize that the Rec Department is going to have to grow just like the Police Department ... just like the Public Works Department ... just like all of the other departments. And Sue and I were talking about that tonight, is that what we may try to do is to determine, and maybe through the Recreation Department, the Parks Department, or through some kind of committee that can determine how will this work ... what are the flags? What are 38 the flags for the next person? Is it going to be the population growth, is going to be programs? You know, how is that going to work? Once,that is established, we should be able to go down the road and say "boom, we hit another flag, it is time to get another ... whether it's park people because we have so many acres, we need another park person; or, recreation because you're going to run more programs... or we have so many more people signed up in programs. Lisa Scherer: I think the Parks and Recreation Department is a huge P. R. group for the town, because when young families come here, primarily that is what we are getting and that is what we want - they are longer term residents,hopefully. Art Prochaska: You are not saying anything about older people (laughter). Lisa Scherer: No, they are here. Bill Wedge: I am putting my house up for sale next week(laughter). Chris Rollins: More than that, IPRA says now that the expenditure ratio between providing programs for kids and providing police enforcement is 7 to 1 ... so that for every one dollar that you could be spending on programs for kids to do something — if they don't have things to do, you are going to spend seven on Police to have enforcement to prevent mischief and vandalism and all sorts of other things. And that, to me, is a pretty telling statistic. You know, we don't certainly have as well a developed recreation system in our community as what we would all like to see —but we have to grow to get there. So one of the first things that has to happen is you have to have structure in place ... you have to have framework in order to build support a good system. I mean we will be talking about it more later tonight when we get to the annual report. There is no shortage of ideas from the community or the people about what they would like to see offered in the way of recreational programs. We have plenty of feedback, that always comes back to us. Lisa Scherer: I just want the city to use the Parks and Rec. Department as a nice little benefit for our town. We are a great P.R place. We can show them what our town can do and where they can go - this part, that part — instead of just moving around, and I think that the prettier we make it, the better it is for our town. More people will want to come and will want to be here as a quality lace to live. So I just want to see ... in Sue we of q tY P J � g a person that definitely works to get things done. She cares about Rec. and she is going to put in the extra miles ... and she does. And I think that is not very common, so we have a base ... we have a-good base, we just need to have it grown, to make sure that grows with the town's Chris Rollins: So, with that our fellow Council colleagues, we are not crazy ... there is method to our madness -- we have what we think is a systematic approach to try to make improvements in the area of Parks and Rec. It starts with organization and the framework to build on. We've been at it a long time—we're going from the talking to the doing part right now. It seems as though we have created more issues, but I think we're all willing to work and certainly work with City Council and try to make the best of the growing pains ... but it is certainly something we all feel strongly about or we would not remain on the Board. I think one of the things, certainly as I have learned is that we have people of pretty tough stuff on this Board — we have gone from one meeting a month to two — 39 even more than two, sometimes—and people are willing to step up to the plate and put in the time and really get what is important for us as a Board. 'And one of the issues has been reorganization and trying to get accountability-that hasn't changed for a long time. We have all been right there focused on that. And we have had our share of differences perhaps about strategy in getting it accomplished, but I think everybody's vision would like to see the Board accomplish this is the same. And, it is long, hard work. It takes patience to get it done. Art Prochaska: One of the main things to do.is to get the community involved. Get the community to buy into the programs. Make them feel like they're adding something to this. Lisa Scherer: They are. Art Prochaska: Well, people in our community are going to have to feel that way. They are going to have to feel that they are a part of the programs, whether they are working, volunteering, coaching, whatever it is ... they are going to have to have a feeling they are also a part of it — there is an ability to have them feed off into the Board — Just as the citizens of Yorkville have to be able to think they have feed off the City Council by their recommendations and ideas through their aldermen and the mayor so as long as we see that it will become more and more important. As there are more and more people out there, and maybe a larger Board is going to do that too and work with some of the ideas that have been put out over the years — different projects, different programs, and hopefully we will be able to see that happen. As long as we keep that attitude and the people of the city see that attitude,that line of direction will be positive. Chris: I don't see any items in "Old Business category" that can't be tabled in the interest of the evaluation business that we have. David Cathey: There are two items we should discuss. (Attorney Kramer departed meeting David Cathey: Are the questions for the job posting ready? Chris Rollins: I have the job posting. This can be posted. This again was a question I had of what the policy was for posting the job. I don't see any reason, unless City Council feels otherwise that we can't circulate it to all department heads and ask them to post the position. Dave Cathey: The other one was we want two members to serve on the committee with Rose and Paul Chris Rollins: I understand that Dave has volunteered and Lisa has volunteered. Lisa Scherer: Ken has also volunteered. Chris,I thought you also volunteered. We got four volunteers. Bill will, too. See, we now have five. We can be a Democratic process can choose ... we can vote ... we can do whatever. 40 Chris Rollins: It will be my preference to decline to participate in that I would rather see someone else on the Board do that. I don't know, how do you guys want to go about it. Put names in a hat? Lisa Scherer: We can do that. Let's put names in a hat and have just pull out two. Let's do that. Ken Koch: Are you meeting in the evening, or during the day? Paul James: In the evening. Chris: Another possibility is that we could adopt some sort of rotating membership so that everybody gets an opportunity to serve. It might. Art Prochaska: I think on an Ad Hoc committee you would want to keep the same people on there. All members spoke.at once — and disagreed. Stated too much catching up during next meetings, etc. It was agreed two names would be picked and they would attend the meetings. The four volunteers' names were placed in Bill Wedge's hat. Valerie Burd drew two names from a hat. Bill Wedge and Lisa Scherer's names were picked. Chris Rollins: Just remember you are the majority of the quorum when you are doing this. And you can't discuss any Park business together. If the two of you are caught discussing any Park business, be prepared to be fined. Lisa Scherer: Okay, so when do you want to meet? What night? First let's decide on a time. Paul James: Let's review our schedules and we can arrange a time and date. Chris Rollins: Actually, we are going to need a motion for executive session. We are going to have to adjourn our regular meeting, anyway. Sue Swithin: Are we going to table these two items? Are we going to leave the hiring policy thing up to you folks now? David Cathey: No. We are leaving that as is. Ken Koch: We are leaving it up to you guys, right? The City Council, for the hiring policies? Art Prochaska: Yes. Chris Rollins: Actually we should all be prepared at our next meeting to discuss what our first engagement may be for Hitchcock. I did speak to Bill by phone and they are 41 • interested to know how they can begin helping us. That is something we might want to put in the master plan section and start on that. Valerie Burd: I wanted to talk to you all about the ComEd trail. Chris Rollins: Would you like for us to put it on our agenda for next meeting? Valerie Burd: I don't know if we want to talk about it before it gets started. I kinds do not like anyone to know. (Valerie laughs) Chris Rollins: Oh see. Valerie Burd: And really the more I was thinking about it, too, this ... this ... even thought I saw the possibilities for something that is in your ballpark. So, you know, I don't know how you would ... you know, Sue Swithin: It could be a real estate issue if that is how you are going to anticipate it ... Valerie Burd: Well, it's from you I need to get some ideas, if it is something you all are interested in doing and something somebody from your Ward maybe ... because I would carry the whole piece for this ... you know ... this ... it's just a concept right now so ... Chris Rollins: Well, that is why I wondering if we have a single Board member ... maybe, someone who would like to work on this with Valerie and bring back to the Board ... that may be the best way to do it for now, because it can't be two of us (laugh) now ... it's going to have to be one person, so .. David Cathey: What is this about? Chris Rollins: I don't want to talk about it, now(laugh) ... Valerie Burd: Okay, I am on the Aurora Tourism Council — I am the City Council's liaison -- and attending those meetings, the idea came up there was funding available for the possibility of putting in a little trolley line that would link us with Aurora. It would have something to do with the old trolley barns ... and have a park, a historic park and area where that use to be ... and if you can set it up a certain way there would be funds available that would be best available for tourism ... so, very early concept. Sue Voss who is the head of the tourism department of Aurora is willing to work with the City of Yorkville to try and find some us some money. Sue Swithin: What is it going to cost? Valerie Burd: Every year ... the grants ... but she said it is a lot of money that is available and it would be connected to the park and trail system ... Sue Swithin: Well that would be important to get on our planning . Maybe Dave or Ken would want to be on ... 42 Chris Rollins: Yes it is. Is this the thing they are going to serve a revolving restaurant? Valerie Burd: No. Inaudible—all members speaking at once to decide who will work with Valerie. Sue Swithin: Do you want to work with Ken? Do you need City maps to get ready? Valerie Burd: Yea,that's a good idea,you know,to get feasibility ideas together ... Chris Rollins: Okay, so Ken you will work on that with Valerie. (Ken and Valerie discussed meeting dates. They will meet at her house at 7:00 p.m.) Chris Rollins: One last bit I would like to mention. I will copy Sue on this for inclusion in the next Board packet. There is currently a change in grant opportunity for trails, and it involves adding recreational motor vehicle opportunities to trail systems. It,isn't something necessarily I see a vision for, and we can all adjust our vision and I will tell you my reason as to why. If we were to incorporate as little as 30% recreational motor vehicle use in our total trail system design, we could get 100% funding for our trail system ... not automatic ... probably in the form of a grant for as much as 100% for a trail system. The details for that I have it in a package I got through the mail and I will pass it on to Sue. You need to think about in the context of seeing if there is anything we can do about working on our trail master plan ... looking at sections of it and determining what is the idea place for people to ride four wheelers, or dirt bikes, or anything motorized that is recreational ... provide parking, provide buffer from noise and all the things that go with those things. But if we can incorporate any kind of opportunity to do that within our overall trail system, there would be state funds to help the construction overall. Parks won't have anything to do with that. So we need to take a serious look at that. It might be another issue to ask Hitchcock to assist us with. Where to locate those things at. I don't know, maybe we would want to approach.our Forest Preserve District with, too. To do jointly, or ... everybody needs to think about it. Sue Swithin: It will be in our meeting notes and on our next agenda. Chris Rollins: Let's adjourn! Actually, first, let me entertain a motion for executive session for the purpose of employee benefits and compensation. Do I have such a motion? David Cathey: Yes. Bill Wedge: Second. Chris Rollins: Motion made and seconded. (Vote taken all ayes.) 43 I f Chris Rollins: With that, I will adjourn our regular session. Let's go ahead and adjourn our regular session. Do I have a motion to adjourn our regular session? Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rose Spears 44