HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 2025 10-28-25United City of Yorkville
Audit Overview –Fiscal Year 2025
City Council
October 28, 2025
Another award
14th time
Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting Award
by the Government Finance Officers Association
of the US and Canada in FY 24
General Fund
Fund Balance History
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Millions% Fund Balance 41% 28% 37% 42% 43% 43% 47% 51% 49% 46% 47% 51%
% Fund Balance -Adjusted 36% 24% 32% 38% 40% 34% 32% 36% 36% 34% 37% 37%
General Fund Budget
Surplus(Deficit)
($3)
($2)
($1)
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
MillionsFund Close
Out Transfers
Revenue Line-Item Budgeted Amount Actual Amount
Property Taxes $3,900,313 $3,912,307
Sales Tax (local)$4,916,400 $5,375,086
Sales Tax (non-home rule)$3,844,380 $4,121,338
Utility Tax $1,263,340 $1,204,680
Income Tax $3,682,143 $3,826,828
Use Tax $908,262 $612,039
Building Permits $600,000 $680,232
Video Gaming Tax $322,875 $324,586
Excise (i.e.,Telecom)Tax $169,200 $176,274
Investment Earnings $350,000 $545,072
Revenue performance
Page 113-114 of paper copy (page 120-121 of pdf copy)
Department Budgeted Expenses Actual Expenses
Administration $996,863 $967,080
Finance $741,086 $670,765
Police $7,192,653 $7,027,675
Community Development $1,323,325 $1,252,511
PW -Streets & Sanitation $4,573,562 $4,471,372
Admin Services $5,850,190 $4,478,983
Library Operations $1,180,272 $954,823
Parks $2,077,920 $2,075,329
Recreation $1,776,483 $1,764,548
Sewer Operations $4,856,236 $1,720,112
Water Operations $38,120,074 $11,215,499
Controlling costs
Pages 116-121 of paper copy (pages 123-128 of pdf copy) -General Fund
Page 123 (130 pdf) -Library / Pages 126-127 (133-134 pdf) -Parks & Rec
Page 152 (159 pdf) for Sewer / Page 153 (160 pdf) for Water
General Fund Performance
Budgeted Actual Variance
Revenues 24,269,791 25,329,900 1,060,109
Expenditures (20,677,679)(18,868,386)(1,809,293)
Net Transfers (4,292,112)(5,400,689)1,108,577
Surplus(Deficit)(700,000)1,060,825 1,760,825
Items of Note
Fund balance categories and amounts
Paper pages 76-77 (pdf pages 83-84)
Pensions and OPEB(notes & add’l info)
Paper page 81-107 (pdf pages 88-114)
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
(IMRF) –pages 97/100-101(pdf 104/107-108)
Total Pension Liability
Increased by $2.0M
From $19.8M to $21.8M
Net Position
Increased by $1.3M
From $18.9M to $20.1M
Percent Funded
Dec 2020: 101.96%
Dec 2021: 111.05%
Dec 2022: 92.06%
Dec 2023: 95.32%
Dec 2024: 92.47%
Fiscal Year Actuarial Determined
Contribution
Actual
Contribution
Excess (Deficit)Covered Payroll Contribution as
% of Covered
Payroll
2019 350,666 350,666 -3,506,685 10.00%
2020 365,540 365,540 -3,665,848 9.97%
2021 440,315 440,315 -4,060,573 10.84%
2022 428,230 428,230 -4,128,183 10.37%
2023 371,172 371,172 -4,659,881 7.97%
2024 313,850 313,850 -4,979,247 6.30%
2025 346,091 346,091 -5,514,579 6.28%
Police Pension Fund
pages 98/102-103 (pdf 105/109-110)
Total Pension Liability
Increased by $1.5M
From $29.4M to $30.9M
Net Position
Increased by $1.8M
From $16.9M to $18.7M
Percent Funded
Apr 2020: 46.17%
Apr 2021: 58.24%
Apr 2022: 53.56%
Apr 2023: 53.85%
Apr 2024: 57.49%
Apr 2025: 60.46%
Fiscal Year Actuarial
Determined
Contribution
Actual
Contribution
Excess (Deficit)Covered Payroll Contribution as
% of Covered
Payroll
2018 966,211 966,211 -2,543,266 37.99%
2019 963,361 963,361 -2,449,210 39.33%
2020 1,111,484 1,111,484 -2,631,165 42.24%
2021 1,226,371 1,230,604 4,233 2,744,017 44.85%
2022 1,334,771 1,334,771 -2,694,486 49.54%
2023 1,320,595 1,334,771 14,176 3,016,544 44.25%
2024 1,378,837 1,378,837 -3,139,472 43.92%
2025 1,386,265 1,386,285 20 3,343,214 41.47%
Items of note
Long term debt summary on paper
pages 67-74 (pdf pages 74-81)
Debt service schedules on paper pages
155-165 (pdf pages 162-172)
Developer commitment narratives
start on paper page 78 (pdf page 85)
Other items of note
Statistical Section
Pages 176 -204 (pdf pages 173-211)
Historical Trends covering:
City financial trends
Revenue & debt capacity
Demographic & economic information
Operating information
Other items of note
Statistical Section
Paper pages 198-199 (pdf pages 205-206) employee counts
102 full-time employees in 2025
96 full-time employees in 2008
Paper pages 200-204 (pdf pages 207-211) miscellaneous service data
Traffic violations
Permits issued
Streets resurfaced, in miles
Street inventory
New housing starts per year
Management Letter
Recommendations
Funds with deficit equity (prior year)
Countryside & Downtown TIF
Over time development in the TIF Districts
should yield sufficient surpluses to
eliminate negative equity position.
Downtown TIF II finished FY 24 with a fund
balance of +$221,130
IT Security Awareness & Risks (new)
Informational
Management Letter
Recommendations (continued)
Implementation of GASB 102 (new)
Concentration and Constraint Risks
Relying on one source of revenue, single
employer
Other legal & policy restrictions
Effective April 30, 2026
Implementation of GASB 96 (new)
Financial Reporting Model Improvements
Effective April 30, 2027
Upcoming
2025 Tax Levy discussion
Tax levy estimate approval
October 28th City Council meeting
Public Hearing
November 10th City Council meeting
Discussion and potential vote
November 25th or December 9th
Upcoming
FY 27 Budget rollout
Nov 25-Jan 26 staff planning discussions
Feb 26 budget finalized
Feb 26 City Council presentation
March 10th public hearing
Discussion and potential vote
March 24, 2026 City Council or
April 14, 2026 City Council or
April 28, 2026 City Council
1
Debra Baumgartner
JM Farm, LLC
Baseline Road Farm Owner
October 27, 2025
Re: Project Cardinal /Pioneer Development Data Center
Dear Mayor Purcell and City Council Members:
Farmland north of the proposed Project Cardinal/Pioneer Development PUD, has been in my family for over fifty-
five years. Our 200 acre farm is bounded by Ashe Road to the west, Mighell Road to the east and Baseline Road
to the south spanning approximately three quarters of a mile along the north side of Baseline Road in line with the
Phase 1 building site.
The proposed rezoning to an M-2 General Manufacturing District for the Project Cardinal Data Center PUD is
inconsistent with the long-term planning of Kendall County. The 2016 United City of Yorkville Comprehensive
Plan identifies the area as primarily agricultural and rural in character with a few scattered residential properties.
The Plan recommends the area be developed as low-density conservation or estate residential properties to
preserve the rural character.
The Project Cardinal land use is not compatible with the surrounding properties and existing land uses and will
take agricultural land out of production. The size and scale of this proposed project will destroy rather than
preserve the rural character of the area. The PUD development will significantly diminish the residential quality
of life and value of adjacent properties. The Planning & Zoning Commission acknowledged as much on July 9,
but voted to recommend approving the zoning change for special use PUD anyway.
During the October 14 City Council meeting several comments were made that the north property owners had not
provided feedback on the planned phasing. After reviewing the October 14 City Council meeting packet, I
realized that some significant changes had been made to the site plan affecting Phase 1, Phase 3, and by extension
the property owners on the north side of Baseline Road.
Here are five issues of concern arising from the recently proposed site plan modifications. Below each item is
explained in greater detail and followed with related questions:
1. New utility switchyard location
2. Increased size of “future” utility corridor
3. Noise study performed before utility switchyard was moved
4. Elevation drawings not adequate for approval
5. Separate Utility & Development Agreements to be negotiated after PUD Agreement is approved
1. New utility switchyard location and other Phase 1 & 3 Changes:
The utility switchyard location was moved to Phase 3 close to Baseline Road
Since the beginning, the site map located the switchyard in Phase 1, closer to Galena Road near the
proposed Project Steel site and the planned industrial corridor which seems a more appropriate location.
At that Phase 1 location, Data Center 4 would have provided some visual buffer to the north.
2
A stormwater management basin is located to the south of the prior Phase 1 switchyard location near
Galena Road that would buffer the noise and provide a setback.
Baseline Road Phase 3 has no stormwater basins to muffle all of the sound generated from the switchyard,
substation, and 3 data centers now turned sideways and pushed them to Baseline Road.
By contrast, the properties to the east and west of the Project Cardinal site seem to receive preferential
treatment with no entrance sites along Route 47 or Ashe Road, wider setbacks, storm management basins,
and wider berms.
I don’t recall any discussion about moving the switchyard during the public meetings.
Questions:
1. Why was the switchyard moved to the north side of the development from Phase 1to Phase 3?
2. Will the developer and City Council consider returning the switchyard to the location in Phase 1where it
was previously more appropriately sited?
2. Increased size of “Future Utility Corridor”
Adding insult to injury, the previous 300’ wide utility corridor substation entrance at Baseline Road
located between Phase 1 and Phase 3, has more or less doubled to an approximately 600’ wide gated
security entrance along the north perimeter which is devoid of any trees, berms, or water management as
shown on Exhibit D (Landscape Plan)
Exhibit A(Site Plan) and B(Phasing Plan) incorrectly depict trees planted along the north boundary fence
at this location.
Questions:
3.What will be installed in the utility corridor?
4.Why does the corridor require such a large footprint?
3. Noise study performed prior to utility switchyard location change
PUD 3.4 Noise Studies and Noise Monitoring.
The Developer has submitted an initial noise study attached hereto as Exhibit G (“Initial Noise
Study”) that included: (i) baseline noise measurements of the current environment and predictive
modeling in phased and at full buildout to ensure the facility’s design will meet local noise limits.
Questions:
5. Did Burns & McDonnell’s study include the sound level that will be generated by the utility switchyard in their
initial noise study calculations?
6. The sound study was completed before the proposed switchyard location moved close to Baseline Road. Will
new testing be conducted in light of the proposed location change and potential increased sound levels from a
switchyard and substation in close proximity to each other?
7. Utility switchyards and substations produce electromagnetic fields that emit radiation. Will the City of
Yorkville or the data center developer commission a study to determine whether the levels of EMF radiation
produced by the proposed switchyard, substations, power lines and data centers all clustered closely together near
Baseline Road are safe or harmful and at what distances?
3
4. City Council to approve building elevations per the PUD and delegate the remainder of building design
approval to City staff to approve without public feedback
PUD 2.13 Appearance Standards.
The Project is located adjacent to a main arterial thoroughfare at the City’s northern boundary. Therefore,
the Project serves as the first development members of the public see as they enter the City when driving
south down Bridge Street. Given the location of the Project, Developer shall follow the requirements of
Section 10-5-8-c-4b.(2) of the UDO requiring recesses, projections, windows, and other
ornamental/architectural features. The Developer has submitted prototype building elevations for the
Project, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E (the “Building Elevations”). The Building
Elevations are representative of architectural design and building materials to be utilized for the
Project but are not intended to be an exact depiction of any building that may be constructed as
part of the Project.
The City shall approve updated elevations which are consistent with the quality and character of the
Building Elevations. Any updated building elevations that are consistent in quality, character, and
height with Exhibit E shall be approved administratively, with no further council or commission
review required.
The above highlighted language from the PUD delegates authority to administrative staff to approve changes to
building elevations after the Council initially approves the PUD. With all due respect to the developer, the
elevations in Exhibit E are inadequate.
“Prototype” drawings do not depict the actual buildings being proposed for this site.
Minimal, and in some cases, no detail or specifications are called out on the elevation drawings.
Some of the elevations are impossible to interpret because 1”=300’ is not an appropriate scale at which to
illustrate buildings. At that scale, it is impossible to discern any useful information about the appearance
of the proposed buildings or site.
On the developer submitted North Elevation from Baseline Road Drawing A-9 the building elevations
don’t align with the associated dimension lines identifying the building locations.
There is nothing indicating either the location or appearance of the utility switchyard, customer
substation, or 600’ wide “future substation corridor” entrance.
Security site entrances are missing and the two included are only indicated by an arrow – no depiction of
the actual appearance.
Presumably the developer didn’t update the elevations to match the proposed October 14 changes to the
site plan.
At minimum drawings should accurately represent the size, appearance, and location of buildings,
entrance gates, utility switchyard and customer substations at a readable scale.
Trees are a distraction on the elevations and some are misleadingly oversized, drawn at twice the height
of the buildings. 150’ tall trees to be planted, wouldn’t that be nice?
Elevation drawings showing only buildings and other permanent structures without trees would be more
informative.
Questions:
8. Will the City Council require the developer to submit perimeter elevations drawn, scaled and dimensioned at a
large enough size and scale (segmented over multiple pages if necessary) so the Council and public, including
impacted adjacent property owners, have an opportunity to view accurate, realistic representations of the proposed
exterior facing building facades and provide comment prior to City Council approval of the PUD Agreement?
9. Will the City Council require elevation drawings that accurately depict the quality, character, and design details
of the exteriors of the 14 site specific buildings being proposed for this site and will those be made available for
public view and comment?
4
5. Separate Utility & Development Agreements negotiated after PUD Agreement is approved
PUD Sections 2.9, 3.2 and 3.6 of the PUD Agreement establish roadway and infrastructure improvements,
ROW easements and dedications will be addressed in separate Utility Agreement or Development
Agreement.
Reports and memorandums in City Council packets reference certain road right-of-way easement designations,
including:
Engineering Enterprises Preliminary Cost Estimate-Baseline Road Reconstruction & Intersection
Improvements dated May 8, 2025 notes a ROW acquisition of 50’ on the north side of Baseline Road
Engineering Enterprises letter to Krysti Barksdale-Noble dated June 16, 2025, states “Baseline Road is
not built to City standards and will be required to be reconstructed per City code. Baseline Road is under
the jurisdiction of the City. We will require a right-of-way dedication of 50 feet (100 feet total planned for
the corridor) along the north property line of the development.”
Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble’s memo to City Council dated October 7, 2025 states “Revised site plan also
contemplates all future roadway improvements required on Galena Road to occur within the Project
Cardinal site and not require additional right-of-way acquisition from parcels located on the south side of
the road.”
Questions:
10. Since dedications will be governed by separate Utility and Development Agreements, will those agreements
be discussed and approved at City Council meetings open to the public for review and comment or will they be
delegated to City staff to negotiate, prepare, and approve?
11. Engineering Enterprises notes a 50’ ROW acquisition needed from the north side of Baseline Road. I request
the same consideration be extended to owners on the north side of Baseline Road that is being given to owners on
the south side of Galena Road. Any ROW easement dedications necessary for road or infrastructure improvements
necessitated for the Project Cardinal development should be granted by Project Cardinal and taken from within
the footprint of its 1000+ acre site.
Lastly, on preference for phasing of the PUD, I am generally in agreement with prior suggestions from some
owners on Ashe Road that construction begin in the southeast section closest to the center of the development
(Buildings 8 & 9) thereby minimizing the initial impact to properties on all sides of the development since the
project is highly speculative and may not come to fruition for many years if at all.
I’ve attended Yorkville meetings remotely since receiving notification of the Project Cardinal application for PUD
in May. Activity and design changes to the proposed Project Cardinal site plan seemed fairly minimal until two
weeks ago when significant changes appeared on the proposed site plan. While the City of Yorkville has signaled
that it is prepared to vote to approve the Project Cardinal PUD on October 28, I am hopeful that Mayor Purcell,
the City Council and Yorkville administrative staff will consider delaying the vote to allow time for more public
comment on the site plan changes and phasing order, and for all parties to perform adequate due diligence.
Thank you in advance for your time, consideration and I look forward to receiving a reply.
Sincerely,
Debra Baumgartner
JM Farm, LLC
1
Monica Cisija
Subject:FW: WEITTEN COMMENT: 10/28 Project Cardinal
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Fotopoulos
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 8:36 AM
To: Jori Contrino <jcontrino@yorkville.il.us>
Subject: WEITTEN COMMENT: 10/28 Project Cardinal
Hello,
Here are my public comments for the Project Cardinal.
I am a resident of Baseline and who loves directly across the street from this property I would like to express my
gratitude for the project manager whom reached out to us recently to walk us through this project. While this did help
to ease some stressors related to this project we do have a few additional comments we would like the project manager
and city board to consider primarily since this is still an area where people are living and have investment money.
1. the current plan there is a switchyard building located directly in front of our home. I would like to request that that
building be moved to a location where there is no current resident. I am concerned for the size of this building in
relation to other (being more of an eye sore), I am still concerned for the sound that can be emitted from said building
ca others. Could this building and a data building be swapped?
2. This was brought to my attention by my neighbor who noted that in the original plans there was a conversation
regarding the widening of baseline to accommodate the construction of Project Cardinal. When they inquired about this
they were told, “this will be discussed at a later date”. The plans currently note that to widen baseline and
accommodate the construction needs The city of Yorkville is going to request additional feet from the residences and
property owners north of baseline Road. Being that that is a completely different county, I would like to know what the
justification is for requesting this additional fee and the city of Yorkville being able to request such. I would also like
justification as to why the widening isn’t extending onto the property that is being constructed, I.e any additional
footage that is needed to wide baseline should be taken from the property where said construction is occurring. I would
like to formally note that I am currently not in favor of allotting the city of Yorkville any footage from my property to
widen it. I also want to be explicit and state that if the city of Yorkville utilizes the current easement to widen baseline
thais will severely reduce not only the easement that is currently there but it will seriously negatively impact the
property value of my home which I am not in favor of.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
Sent from my iPhone
1
Monica Cisija
Subject:FW: WRITTEN COMMENT-Cardinal Development
From: Lawrence Wickter
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 2:46 PM
To: Jori Contrino <jcontrino@yorkville.il.us>
Subject: WRITTEN COMMENT-Cardinal Development
To: City Council Meeting, October 28, 2025
From: Lawrence D. Wickter, Jr. and Deborah H. Wickter
Re: City Council Agenda: Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion Item #2
We would like to renew our objections to the proposed development and the related entitlement
changes.
The development will result in loss of property value of our residence.
Contrary to assertions to the contrary by the developer/petitioner, a large commercial development of
this nature on farmland in the immediate vicinity of our subdivision, will significantly impair the
marketability (and, consequently, value) of all the homes in the subdivision. W hat was formerly a rural
environment with all the associated appeal, becomes a sprawling commercial development with
significant negative impacts on aesthetics, traffic, and noise (construction and operation). The appeal
as a residential location is unalterably diminished; this is axiomatic.
The developer has not met the most remote burden of proof in his response to the City
Special Use requirement that the use not “substantially diminish and impair property values
…. near the neighborhood in which it is to be located". Only anecdotal evidence and
conclusory comments have been offered. An evaluation on the impact on property values of
the project by a professional appraisal firm should be performed.
The development is contrary to the designs of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan called for the Eldamain Road Corridor to be concentrated in
"Estate/Conservation Residential". Now the Plan is being modified on an ex post facto basis to
provide for commercial development along the entire Corridor. The entire "feel" of the west side of
Yorkville is being dramatically altered in what appears to be an expedient shift towards maximizing
tax revenues. Does the City budget require such a shift? The City does not appear to be undergoing
the significant population growth that would require large new revenue sources or, consequently, a
modification to the previous vision for a peaceful, rural environment for residential living. While the
Comprehensive Plan is not binding on the City, it acts to influence decisions citizens make on
whether to become part of this community. We would like the rural nature of our neighborhood to be
preserved.
2
The development is speculative.
Data center development is one of the most frantic markets in commercial real estate presently. The
number of proposals being presented to the City is certainly a testament to that notion. The risk of an
oversupply condition developing in this product is no different than in any other development product
that is "hot". While "staging" would appear to be an effective mitigant to overbuilding in this project,
how would that staging be controlled or monitored by the City? If an oversupply of product interferes
with full development of Cardinal, numerous complications will arise in the unwinding of the
development and its redirection to other uses. Neighboring residents potentially will experience years
of disruption until stability is restored to the living environment.
Considering the number of similar projects which have already been approved by the City,
and the speculative nature of them, it seems prudent that a moratorium of at least 180 days on
further approvals be adopted until additional market developments can be ascertained (similar
to the action taken recently by the City of Aurora).
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Lawrence D. Wickter, Jr.
Deborah H.Wickter
C:
E-mail:
--