City Council Minutes 2010 10-26-10 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,KENDALL COUNTY,ILLINOIS,
HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
800 GAME FARM ROAD ON
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26,2010
Mayor Burd called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Deputy Clerk Pickering called the roll.
Ward I Gilson Present
Werderich Present
Ward I I Golinski Present
Plocher Present(arrived at 7:10)
Ward III Munns Present
Sutcliff Present
Ward IV Teeling Present
Spears Present
Also present: Deputy City Clerk Pickering, City Treasurer Powell,Attorney Gardner, City
Administrator/Interim Director of Park and Recreation Olson, Police Chief Hart,Deputy Police Chief
Hilt, Finance Director Fredrickson, City Engineer Wywrot, Community Relations Officer Spies, and
Community Development Director Barksdale-Noble.
QUORUM
A quorum was established.
INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS
Mayor Burd asked the staff and guests to introduce themselves. She welcomed the guests and asked them
to enter their names on the attendance sheet provided.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Alderman Sutcliff asked if she could add a presentation onto the agenda for the Jail of the Dead Haunted
— House.
Amendment approved unanimously by a viva voce vote.
COMMITTEE MEETING DATES
Public Works Committee Meeting: 6:00 p.m.,November 16, 2010
City Hall Conference Room
Economic Development Committee: 6:30 p.m.,November 2, 2010
City Hall Conference Room
Administration Committee Meeting: 6:00 p.m.,November 18, 2010
City Hall Conference Room
Public Safety Committee Meeting: 6:00 p.m., October 28,2010
City Hall Conference Room
PRESENTATIONS
Veolia Environmental Services—Refuse Service Q &A
Jim Alderman,the General Manager of Veolia of Batavia,was present to answer any questions that the
City Council members or residents had about the service that they are receiving from Veolia. He
emphasized that Veolia's customer service center is located in Batavia and is not in a customer call center
located out of state. He said that Veolia's customer service center is scored nationally by a third parry
company which uses a grading scale of 0-100. Veolia is consistently rated in the top 5 in their region and
they usually score 98 out of 100. He wanted to reiterate to residents that it is very important that all of
their products be placed out on the curb by 6 a.m. on garbage day. Mr. Alderman also mentioned that
Veolia's transfer station in Batavia now accepts wood products and they are working with third parry
vendors who want to take the wood. He said that if anyone was experiencing any service issues,that they
should call Veolia's customer service center right away. Alderman Gilson said that he had called several
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—October 26 2010—page 2
times about trucks that bring the garbage up overhead. He said that when the trucks do that,the garbage
flies out. He wondered if Veolia had looked at some alternative forms of technology to prevent that from
happening, such as side loading trucks. Mr.Alderman said that side loading trucks are an option;
however,there are weight issues with those. On windy days,he said that the drivers could use short
buckets,which means that they would not put as much trash in the bucket before they dump it. He stated
that Veolia is continuing to work on the length of the flap that is located in the bucket. The purpose of the
flap is that when the garbage gets dumped,the flap comes up and is designed to prevent the winds from
swirling the garbage around. Alderman Gilson mentioned that when he has called,Veolia has responded
quickly and he appreciates it.
Jail of the Dead Haunted House
Alderman Sutcliff gave a presentation on the Jail of the Dead Haunted House located in the Old Jail. She
began by saying that the city had purchased the Old Jail at no cost to the city through grants and IDOT
money. In a short period of time,the inside of the jail was cleaned up through a lot of community
involvement. She felt that people seemed to really want the structure to be a part of the community.
Alderman Sutcliff said that she was proud to have been a part of making the building into a haunted house
and had found it to be such a positive experience for everyone involved. She introduced the director of
the haunted house, Tam O'Connell and also Mike O'Connell,Howard Manthei, and Marianne Manthei,
who were all volunteering at the haunted house. Additionally, she said that there were approximately 30
students who were volunteering as zombies_ Alderman Sutchff said that they were really pleased with the
turnout of approximately 1100 people who went through the haunted house in the three days that they
were open over the weekend. Anyone who had not yet seen the Jail of the Dead was invited to come out
on Halloween weekend to enjoy a tour. The haunted house hours for younger children would be from 4—
6 p.m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and then from 7— 10 p.m.,the zombies would come out to scare
everyone going through the haunted house. Alderman Sutchff then showed a video of the haunted house.
After the video finished, Mayor Burd thanked Harold Oliver for his help with the lead removal from the
old jail during the cleanup process.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Jim Olson spoke regarding the vacation of Jefferson and Ridge Streets. He asked if the City Council
would table their vote until they talked to Kendall County to find out the county's plans for the vacated
roadway.
CONSENT AGENDA
None.
PLAN COMMISSION/ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
Director Barksdale-Noble said that the next Plan Commission meeting would be held November 10 at
7:00 p.m. at the Yorkville Library. She said that an agenda and packet would be posted on the city's
website before the meeting.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
None.
BILLS FOR APPROVAL
A motion was made by Alderman Sutcliff to approve the paying of the bills listed on the Detailed Board
Report dated October 19, 2010, totaling the following amounts: checks in the amount of$3,798,272.70
(vendors); $6799.14(payroll period ending 9/30/2010),and$238,204.30 (payroll period ending
10/09/2010);for a total of$4,043,276.14; seconded by Alderman Munns.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0
Plocher-aye, Spears-aye, Munns-aye, Sutcliff-aye,
Gilson-aye, Teeling-aye, Golinski-aye,Werderich-aye
REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
Resolution 2010-28 Participation in the Clean Air Counts Initiative
(CC 2010-80)
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—October 26 2010—page 3
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve a resolution of participation in the Clean Air Counts
Initiative and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all documents. So moved by Alderman
Sutcliff, seconded by Alderman Plocher.
Mayor Burd explained that staff member Jackie Dearborn had worked on this project very diligently. The
city was going for a Gold level designation based on things that the city has already accomplished. She
reminded everyone that the city is a member of the Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus and the council has
previously endorsed the Caucus's greenest region compact which calls for reductions in air pollution and
this project shows how we have gone about trying to do that.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0
Golinski-aye, Teeling-aye, Gilson-aye, Sutcliff-aye,
Munns-aye, Spears-aye, Plocher-aye,Werderich-aye
Budget Update
(CC 2010-81)
Mayor Burd said that City Administrator Olson was going to give the City Council a budget update. She
said that Administrator Olson's report(see attached)did a very good job outlining what the city is facing
because of the recession and the things that the City Council had agreed to previous to the crash. She felt
that it was very important to go over the state of the budget at this time. Mayor Burd said that she hears a
lot about fiscal responsibility from her constituents who wonder why the city doesn't just tighten its belt.
The report explains the challenges the city is facing,and why some of these issues cannot be fixed by
tightening the city's belt. She asked City Administrator Olson to talk about the budget memo that was
included in the city council packets.
Administrator Olson said that he was currently predicting that the general fund for 2010/2011 would end
up with a deficit of$198,000. A couple of items that changed since the original budget was approved
were that the City Council chose not to seek reimbursement from the library for services that city staff is
providing to the library and additionally, at the last City Council meeting,the council indicated that they
wanted to repeal the amusement tax. Mr. Olson said that he is predicting a$400,000 deficit for the
2011/2012 fiscal budget. He stated that this was a very preliminary figure at this time. He mentioned that
one positive point is that the city is seeing growth in sales tax and is one of the only communities in the
state that is still growing. He explained that if they are able to improve the budget this year,it will also
help in the next budget year if the cuts are permanent and not just a one-time cut.
Administrator Olson explained that the city's water fund has a lot of debt because the city built a lot of
projects and also had some state mandates that cost the city millions of dollars. To pay for these
mandates,the city did not raise water rates nor did the city pass those costs onto the consumers. At the
time, it was decided that at the level of growth that the city was at,the city would finance this. Eventually
the growth stopped and the city's water department was in deficit and unable to meet its' capital
expenditures. The city council approved the water fee of$8.25 per month per user,which has helped to
meet the debt obligations in this fund.
Mr. Olson further explained that the sewer fund was not in as good of shape as the water fund. He stated
that next year the city will face 2.7 million dollars in debt obligations. He said that most of those
obligations were supposed to be paid for by sewer connection fees which are fees that are paid for at the
time of building permit by home builders. The second type of sewer connection fees,which are also paid
at the time of building permit by the home builders,is the sewer maintenance fees which are on residents'
water bills and also capital fees from YBSD. Administrator Olson explained that when a developer
comes to the city and wants to annex into the sanitary district,the developer pays an annexation fee to the
sanitary district,their own permit fees and an infrastructure participation fee. He said that the largest debt
obligation in the sewer fund is for the Rob Roy Creek Interceptor. The original bond was in the amount
of$11,000,000. This bond has already been refinanced once as the city did not have a way at that time to
make the principal payment. Mr. Olson further explained that the sewer fund is an enterprise fund,which
means that it should be run as a business with the revenues offsetting the expenses. It is not a good
budgetary practice to cut from somewhere else in the budget and transfer money into the sewer fund.
Mayor Burd mentioned that people question her as to why the city is obligated for these sewer bonds;
they wonder why the sanitary district isn't paying for these. Administrator Olson explained that for the
most part all the debt that we took on for sewer is because the city was driving growth. It was decided at
the time that the city would take on the administrative and bonding burdens. The city would pay for the
sewer bonds by passing the fees onto the builders. It was planned that in later years,after the sewer was
in,the city would transfer ownership to the sanitary district and everything would be paid for and done.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council— October 26,2010—Page 4
The city did that of its' own volition so we now have this burden to meet. If 1200 homes were built next
year,we would not have to pass on sewer cost to our users. The problem is only going to get worse in
future years as debt obligations increase. Options to meet this obligation are passing another maintenance
fee or refinancing some of the bonds. With the Rob Roy Creek bond the city can refinance it down;
however, refinancing means that the city will pay a lot of additional interest. The choices are that we can
either decrease the city's burden now and pass the cost onto future residents or we can take some of the
hit now. Mr. Olson stressed that these decisions were not done lightly or without good reason. No one
could have predicted the greatest economic collapse in 70-80 years of American history. All of the city's
funding mechanisms have failed;however,the city does have 2-3 new water towers and miles of sewers.
When these are paid off,the city will have a great asset for future developers.
Mayor Burd asked everyone to please review the budget report carefully so that they could share their
thoughts at the next Administration Committee meeting. She said that the city council would be talking
about this going forward.
Tax Levy Estimate
(CC 2010-82)
Mayor Burd said that the city council has to set the tax levy every year. She asked Administrator Olson
to explain this item. Mr. Olson said that the first step in the process is for the City Council to set the
initial amount of the tax levy to be discussed at the public hearing. He said that the amount that he is
recommending is $3,424,964.
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve a tax levy estimate for 2010,to be used for purposes of
conducting a public hearing on the tax levy in the amount of$3,424,964. So moved by Alderman
Sutcliff, seconded by Alderman Plocher.
City Administrator Olson explained that the city is not doing anything different than what it does every
- year. The city is asking for the maximum allowed under the tax cap. The city usually levies for more
than the cap to make sure that we capture everything that we are allowed under the cap. The difference
this year compared to previous years is that property values have decreased so the rate is going to go up.
What each person is going to pay is based on their share of the total property tax levy. The rate also
depends on any new construction that comes into town. The dollar amount of the new construction is still
unknown. Administrator Olson stated that he based the amount of the tax levy estimate on ten million
dollars in new construction.
Alderman Golinski asked Administrator Olson if he remembered the dollar amount of new property last
year. Mr. Olson stated that he thought it was approximately twenty-four million dollars.
Alderman Gilson questioned what the minimum cap was. Mr. Olson said that there isn't a minimum cap.
Until the city becomes home rule,the issue is that there are diminishing returns when you decrease the
levy a lot in one year. He said that basically the city is limited in what it can ask for in following years.
Alderman Gilson asked if the city has taken in the maximum cap for the past five years. Administrator
Olson said that the city has asked for the maximum amount for the past twelve years with the exception of
one year when there was a conscious decision of the City Council to reduce the levy and another year
when there was some kind of estimate error and the city received less than the cap.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-6 Nays-2
Mums-aye, Spears-aye,Plocher-aye,Werderich-nay,
Golinski-aye, Teeling-aye, Gilson-nay, Sutcliff-aye,
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Amending the Code of Ordinances Repealing the Amusement Tax
CC 2010-78
Alderman Spears made a motion to approve an Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Repealing
the Amusement Tax and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute; seconded by Alderman Golinski.
Alderman Sutcliff commented that with the situation with the budget, it would be irresponsible not to
continue with this particular tax. Alderman Sutcliff made a motion to table this item indefinitely;
seconded by Alderman Teeling.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—October 26 2010—uaae 5
Motion defeated by a roll call vote. Ayes-3 Nays-5
Spears-nay, Plocher-nay,Werderich-nay, Golinski-nay,
Teeling-aye, Gilson-nay, Sutcliff-aye, Munns-aye
Alderman Teeling said that in light of the budget update that the council had just received they can't cut
off all revenue streams. She feels that this tax is not on all of the city's residents;its only on residents
who use those services.
Alderman Gilson said that there is in error in that kind of thinking; if you tax the businesses,the tax is
going to reflect on the price and trickle down to the residents.
Alderman Spears agreed with Alderman Gilson that the tax will be passed on to the city's residents and
would also discourage additional businesses from coming in. She feels that the budget still has non-
essential areas that should be cut. She said that this tax was enacted because a sports complex was
supposed to locate here in Yorkville and generate millions of people who would come to Yorkville. She
said that in the meantime we penalized the three businesses who were already operating here. She feels
that the responsible thing to do is to rescind the tax.
Alderman Sutcliff stated that there are only three businesses in town that will be paying the recreation tax.
She said that when you use a recreation facility,there would only be a minimal three percent tax on that
facility. She explained that if you go anywhere else in town and purchase something,then you pay sales
tax on the item that you are purchasing. Sales tax is much higher than the amusement tax is and the
amusement tax is only passed along to customers who are using those particular services. As fax as
driving away businesses, she mentioned that this is a very common tax in municipalities who are not
home rule. She also felt that in the long run,there may be more recreation type businesses coming to
Yorkville with the opening of the white water rafting facility.
Alderman Golinski said that one of the best ways out of this budget mess was to encourage new
businesses to come to the city. He felt that the amusement tax would deter businesses.
Alderman Plocher said that the amusement tax was projected to bring in$25,000 this year and$125,000
next year. He said that the city is running skeleton crews already and has also cut many projects. He
feels that if this tax is repealed it may mean further cuts to staff which will make it difficult for the city to
provide the services that it must provide to its residents.
Alderman Werderich stated that he is against this tax. He feels that residents of Yorkville are mainly the
users of these businesses and these residents are the ones that the tax will be passed onto. He thinks that
this is hitting residents in the wallet at a very bad time.
Alderman Plocher agreed that he doesn't want to tax anyone,but if the city is looking at a$400,000
deficit,then they are going to have to tax somewhere. He said that he would rather a few take the burden
then everybody because there are people right now who can't afford it.
Mayor Burd pointed out that a few comments had been made about how this tax would stop new
businesses from coming to town. She mentioned that Raging Waves had come into town and voluntarily
agreed to pay a five percent admissions tax. She doesn't feel that there is a correlation between this tax
and people not coming to town. She said that the Village of Oswego, which is home rule,has had an
overall increase in their total sales tax revenue; however,Yorkville can't do that. She explained that this
is a tax that is only on certain services that are not powered by a sales tax;businesses like golf, rental for
any sports equipment, amusement devices. She also pointed out that Raging Waves estimates that over
fifty percent of the people who use their facility and will pay this amusement tax,are not city residents, so
she feels that out of all of the taxes that they could possibly pass,this one would have the least impact on
residents of the city.
Alderman Gilson clarified that the figures were based on just Raging Waves and not the other businesses.
Mayor Burd said that she was basing this on the fact that Raging Waves is the biggest one;however, she
feels that anything tied to the whitewater park would also bring in people from outside the community.
Alderman Golinski commented that he feels that Raging Waves is a poor example because the five
percent that they pay was used for infrastructure, so fifty-five percent of that is rebated back.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—October 26,2010—naLye 6
Alderman Spears pointed out that according to Article D of the Amusement Tax ordinance,the city can
also tax circuses,rodeos, sports or games,wrestling,tennis, racquetball,handball,dancing, swimming,
racing; she asked if the city should be imposing a tax on the Sweetness Run or any other race that the city
holds. Administrator Olson replied that the Sweetness Run and races that the city holds are non-profit;
therefore,they are exempt. Alderman Spears felt that the city is directly competing with some of these
businesses.
Alderman Munns commented that someone has to pay this eventually whether its businesses or residents
and if there is a better way to pay for this then he wishes that someone would tell him. He said that
eventually someone has to pay the taxes so that the city can still provide services.
Alderman Spears called the question; seconded by Alderman Gilson.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0
Plocher-aye,Werderich-aye, Golinski-aye, Teeling-aye,
Gilson-aye, Sutcliff-aye, Munns-aye, Spears-aye
Mayor Burd stated that the original motion was on the table.
Original Motion defeated by a roll call vote. Ayes-4 Nays-5
Teeling-nay, Gilson-aye, Sutcliff-nay, Munns-nay, Spears-aye
Plocher-nay,Werderich-aye,Golinski-aye, Burd—nay
i
Discussion on Ward Communications
CC 2010-83
Alderman Teeling said that a resident had called her concerned about an email that Alderman Spears had
sent out regarding an article about Yorkville that had been published in Crain's Business. Additionally,
the resident said that the reporter had told them that the City Administrator and the Mayor contacted the
reporter to arrange this interview. Alderman Teeling stated that she had contacted the reporter directly to
check on this and that this was untrue. She said that the reporter's name was Lee Murphy and she had his
phone number if anyone wanted to call and verify this directly with the reporter. She said that Mr.
Murphy had called the city to ask questions about this article. Alderman Teeling stated that the reason
that she was bringing this issue up is that the city has residents that are upset already and she feels that
when there is misinformation, rumors and innuendoes going out to the residents against the city and the
administration that she thinks this is wrong. In her opinion,the council needs to restore confidence in the
city government and not tear it down. Alderman Sutcliff handed out page 3 of the governing ordinance
relating to ethics. She said that it was part of the aldermen's job to maintain confidence in city
government. She feels that the aldermen should look at the ethical standards and be positive when
speaking to residents.
There was discussion amongst the elected officials about if the aldermen had received a copy of the
article and the timeline as to when they had received it and from whom. It was questioned as to whether
Mayor Burd or City Administrator Olson had made a comment to the reporter about Grande Reserve
being a zombie subdivision. The article was produced and it was found that it was the reporter who had
made the comment(see attached article). Some of the aldermen were concerned that the article did not
present the city in a positive light. Mayor Burd said that city officials cannot control what the press writes
about. Newspapers are entitled to write stories in their own way. She said that when she is interviewed,
she tries hard to make positive statements;however, she cannot dictate what the press chooses to write
about in their articles.
Alderman Sutcliff said that she felt that all of the elected officials have a responsibility to follow the
governing ordinance and to be ethical. Alderman Munns commented that he also agreed that the elected
officials should follow the city's governing ordinance. Alderman Plocher felt that all of the bickering
back and forth between the elected officials is what would deter people from moving to Yorkville,not
how one article was written by a reporter. Alderman Spears asked if this item could be placed on another
agenda for further discussion. Alderman Werderich asked that if this item came back, if the discussion
could be tailored to just the article and not ward communications in general. Alderman Teeling stated
that the only reason that she had brought the item up is because someone had asked her to look into it.
She feels that the elected officials should make sure that the information that they are reporting to
residents is accurate.
It was the consensus that this item would return to the November 9, 2010 City Council agenda for further
discussion.
The Minutes of the Re lar Meetin of the City Council— —
�u � tv October 26, 2010 Wage 7 i
City Concessions
CC 2010-84
Alderman Golinski wanted to clarify the dollar amount that the city makes on the concession stands. He
said this was brought up at the last city council meeting and Administrator Olson had given the dollar
amount of$33,000 revenue minus$18,000 in expenses. Alderman Golinski said that the salaries had
been left out of that figure. He said that someone had written in the paper that the city makes $30,000 a
year in concessions. He explained that the last audited budget showed a profit of approximately$2,089
and every year prior to that showed a deficit. Since fiscal year 03/04,the concessions have run a deficit
of just under$21,000.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No report.
CITY CLERK'S REPORT
No report.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
No report.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
No report.
DIRECTOR OF PARKS &RECREATION'S REPORT
No report.
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Fredrickson reported that the field work for this year's audit is scheduled to begin on December
6, 2010.
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
City Engineer Wywrot reported that last week the city issued a site development permit to Wrigley. He
said that Wrigley is trying to improve security at their facilities nationwide and for their Yorkville
location,that involves construction of a guard building.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT
No report.
CHIEF OF POLICE'S REPORT
No report.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
Director Barksdale-Noble reported that Fire Marshal Jeremy Caravan of the Bristol-Kendall Fire
Protection District wanted to invite the elected officials, city staff,and members of the public to attend a
training demonstration on Friday, October 29,2010 at 10:00 a.m. at the Hoover Forest Preserve. The fire
district will be conducting a live bum on a building to demonstrate the benefits of having afire
suppression system.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICER'S REPORT
Community Relations Officer Spies reported that the Holiday Under the Stars event would be held on
Friday,November 19, 2010 from 5:00 p.m. —9:00 p.m. She wanted to let everyone know that beginning
now and during the event,there is a cold weather drive to collect cold weather gear such as coats,mittens,
hats,gloves, etc. for the Kendall County Food Pantry. Items can be dropped off at the Silver Dollar
Restaurant,Parkview Christian Academy, City Hall, and the Rec Center. She also mentioned that on the
city's website,there is a survey regarding recreational vehicles in driveways.
COMMUNITY&LIAISON REPORT
Jail of the Dead
Alderman Sutcliff reported that the Jail of the Dead netted approximately$2300.00 in profit and that the
money would be used toward restoration,insurance,and any incidental expenses for the jail. She
encouraged everyone to come out the following weekend on Friday, Saturday,and Sunday evenings from
4-6 and 7-10. Alderman Golinski mentioned that he had attended several haunted houses last Saturday
and he was thoroughly impressed with the Jail of the Dead.
i
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council— October 26 2010—page S
Eldercare Locator
Alderman Spears reported that she received information regarding The Eldercare Locator,which is a free
public service call center that serves as a nationwide link to information and services for older adults and
caregivers. The Eldercare Locator is a service of the U.S.Administration on Aging. Older adults and
caregivers may call the toll-free number at 800-677-1116 if they are looking for information about aging
services in their community. Information specialists will help connect callers to a local agency in their
specific area for information and assistance. Information can also be found online at www.eldercare.gov
on their newly re-designed website.
Northeastern Illinois Area Agency on Aging
Alderman Spears,as liaison to the Northeastern Illinois Area Agency on Aging,reported that twenty-one
states are challenging various provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,with the most
frequent target being the law's requirement that virtually everyone obtain health insurance. Since the
coverage mandate does not take effect until 2014,it is likely that the federal courts will have ruled on the
issue before then. She also reported that as part of a supplemental appropriations bill,the U.S.house has
approved a measure that would limit the ability of pharmaceutical companies to engage in"pay for delay"
tactics. "Pay for delay"occurs when a brand-name drug manufacturer pays the current or potential
manufacturer of a corresponding generic drug to keep the generic version off the market. The House
approved the appropriations bill by a vote of 239— 182. The bill will now return to the Senate, for
consideration of the amendments made by the House, including the"pay for delay"provisions.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT
Ordinance Vacating Jefferson Street and a Portion of Ridge Street—Second Reading
PW 2010-68
A motion was made by Alderman Plocher to approve an Ordinance Vacating Jefferson Street and a
Portion of Ridge Street and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute; seconded by Alderman
Munns.
Alderman Gilson asked if there would be any consequences if the City Council delayed voting as Mr. Jim
Olson had suggested earlier in the meeting. Attorney Gardner said that on page two,paragraph 1.2(c) of
the agreement for the Purchase of the Old Jail outlines the schedule for vacating the road. The schedule
for vacating the road gives the city 30 days after the closing to initiate the road vacation proceedings and
gives a time frame of 90 days to complete the vacation of the roads. He said that if the City Council
wants his opinion as to what could happen if they delay,then he would prefer to address that in executive
session.
Alderman Gilson made a motion to table this item until after the council returns from executive session;
seconded by Alderman Plocher.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0
Werderich-aye, Golinski-aye, Teeling-aye, Gilson-aye,
Sutcliff-aye, Munns-aye, Spears-aye, Plocher-aye
USGS Shallow Well Agreement
PW 2010-76
A motion was made by Alderman Plocher to approve the Well Drilling/Sampling Agreement between the
United City of Yorkville and the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute; seconded by Alderman Spears.
There were no comments or questions.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0
Sutcliff-aye, Munns-aye, Spears-aye, Plocher-aye,
Werderich-aye, Golinski-aye, Teeling-aye, Gilson-aye
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council—October 26 2010—Page 9
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Budget Update
Alderman Golinski asked if the budget update was going to be on the Administration Committee for
discussion and Mayor Burd confirmed that it would be.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to go into Executive Session for the purpose of
• For litigation,when an action against,affecting, or on behalf of the particular public body has
been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds
that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded
and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting.
• For the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline,performance, or dismissal of
specific employees of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing
testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee of the public body or against legal counsel
for the public body to determine its validity.
• For collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their
representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of
employees.
I
So moved by Alderman Werderich; seconded by Alderman Golinski.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0
Spears-aye, Plocher-aye,Werderich-aye, Golinski-aye,
Teeling-aye, Gilson-aye, Sutcliff-aye, Munns-aye
Mayor Burd stated that action would be taken after the executive session.
The City Council entered into executive session at 8:49 p.m.
The City Council returned to regular session at 9:40 p.m.
Ordinance 2010-47 Vacating Jefferson Street and a Portion of Ridge Street—Second Reading
PW 2010-68
Discussion of this item had been tabled earlier in the meeting until after the conclusion of the executive
session. Mayor Burd stated that the original motion was on the table. She asked Administrator Olson to
update the City Council regarding discussion of the road vacation with Kendall County. Administrator
Olson said that City Engineer Wywrot had spoken with Kendall County Administrator Jeff Wilkins and
was told that the county had no plans in the near future to change the layout of the site. Furthermore,he
said that if they did decide to change the layout of the site,they are incorporated within city limits so they
would be subject to the same codes and ordinances that any other builder would be.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-7 Nays-0 Present-2
Gilson-present, Sutchff-aye, Munns-aye, Spears-present,Plocher-aye
Werderich-aye, Golinski-aye, Teeling-aye, Burd-aye
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved by Alderman Munns; seconded by
Alderman Spears.
Adjournment of the meeting was unanimously approved by a viva voce vote.
Meeting adjourned at 9:43 P.M.
Minutes submitted by:
a
Lisa Pickering,
Deputy City Clerk, City of Yorkville, Illinois
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 26, 2010
PLEASE PRINT
NAME: SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
�..� 11Uir
Olen
C,
rt�v� Aa -e ,2 ULtiLi � . S
' w
LO i
Vero-pb
-1 ul4k^
�.L ,��
G,i�yt,� ������� ��,CrLr✓i ll�. ��yr r'T�
v C�� 1/IG1�9 l�� RLD
L�
SIGNIN
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 26, 2010
PLEASE PRINT
SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
SIGNIN
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Public Comment
October 26, 2010
PLEASE PRINT
NAME: SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
i
I�
i
II,
SIGNIN
Memorandum
To: City Council
EST , 1838 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator
OII h CC: Department Heads
p Date: October 22, 2010
<LE Subject: Budget Update
Purpose:
Please accept this report as an update on the fiscal year 2010-11 budget(FY 10-11) and a
forecast for the fiscal year 2011-2012 budget discussion.
Background and Executive Summary:
The budget is a moving target, and the target has moved. What was an educated guess in
February, March, and April this year is now backed by almost 6 months of figures in which to
benchmark our guesses. Revenues have changed. Expenses have changed. The priorities of the
City Council have changed. In some cases, the unknown is now known and the results are
mixed.
I
Currently, and with six months still to go in the fiscal year, the FY 2010-2011 budget
appears to be headed for a deficit of$198,000. This deficit can always change into a surplus (or
go further into deficit) depending on the accuracy of my projections and the decisions that are
made in the coming months by City staff and elected officials. In my opinion,the City does not
have a structural deficit at this time,but rather a cyclical deficit. A structural deficit would occur
when our budget remains in deficit even when the economy is at its full potential. A cyclical
deficit occurs only when the economy is at a low point. This means that we'll need to adjust our
budget (again) to account for the economy and other factors.
Projecting ahead to FY 11/12, I expect the budget to initially be discussed as in a deficit
due to capital expenses and other one-time expenses. Expenses for Route 47 expansion, River
Road bridge repair, and Game Farm Road will all need to be budgeted in the next fiscal year. I
expect a moderate uptick in real estate taxes due to growth and sales taxes due to consumer
spending patterns. These additional revenues will help to offset the costs associated with Route
47, River Road bridge, and Game Farm Road.
Of greater concern is the sewer budget for FY 11/12 and beyond. Everyone is familiar
with the discussion related to the water budget and the water infrastructure and maintenance fee
passed by the City Council this past year. The story goes: we expanded our water system by
extending water lines to our borders to service new developments,building new water towers to
meet additional demand in the water system, and had millions of dollars in unfunded mandates
passed down to the City by the state— all expenses that we intended to pay for with connection
fees. The story continues with the greatest economic downtown since the Great Depression, a
significantly stifled local housing demand, a large decrease in revenues that were pledged to pay
for our debt obligations and the implementation of the $8.25 per month per user"bonding fee".
Unfortunately, this same story exists in the sewer budget except much worse.
1
In the sections that follow in this report, I will detail the history of our sewer expansion and
why in FY 11/12 we will be facing more than $2.7 million in debt obligations within the sewer
department with only$325,000 in dedicated revenue and use of$275,000 in revenues from the
sewer fund balance. For those who do not wish to read through the sections below:
1) The amount of debt obligations in the sewer department could be satisfied in FY 11/12 if
developers build 1,200 new houses within the same year.
a. Or, if 650 acres of new development is annexed into the YBSD and the developer
pays the $4,228 per acre infrastructure participation fee.
2) We have limited ability to cut expenses in the sewer department.
3) We have limited ability to refinance existing debt. The end result of refinancing would
result in millions of dollars of new interest to be paid off by Yorkville residents over the
next 10-20 years.
4) We have limited ability to cut from outside the sewer department to offset the debt inside
the sewer department.
a. This would also violate the principles of proper budgeting of an enterprise fund
(revenues of the fund should cover the expenses of the fund).
b. We could convince every elected official, every employee of the administrative,
finance, community relations, streets, engineering, and community development
departments, and every police officer in the City to work for free next year and
still not save enough money to meet our sewer debt obligations next year.
5) Sewer debt increases each year through FY 2015-2016.
In summary, I know the City Council is discussing elimination of the amusement tax and
setting the tax levy estimate for FY 11/12. It is my duty to inform you that the elimination of
any revenue, and the creation of any new expense will exacerbate an already significant
budgetary problems.
i
2
FY 10/11 Proiected Budget-Detail
This section of the report will list most line-items that have a potential to be changed.
Revenues are shown as "R#" and expenses are shown as "E#".
R1) Amusement tax
Original budgeted amount - $162,964
Projected budget amount— $0
Positive change (negative change) - $(162,964)
Why did it change?
i. City Council signaled at the last meeting of their intent to rescind the tax.
Even if not rescinded, this amount would have to be revised downward.
R2) Admissions tax
Original budgeted amount - $112,964
Projected budget amount— $181,000
Positive change (negative change) - $68,036
Why did it change?
i. Raging Waves had a better year than anticipated.
R3) Real Estate Taxes
Original budgeted amount- $2,450,000
Projected budget amount— $2,450,000
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't—but it could change. We expect one smaller real estate tax
disbursements in November that will put us beyond the budgeted amount
by as much as $120,000. The possible variance is due to two factors.
First, we did not increase our budgeted amount from last year to this year
because many people didn't pay their real estate taxes. Second, we did not
increase our budgeted amount,but under the tax cap were allowed to ask
for$130,000 more than the year prior. In order to project figures in a
conservative manner, I am not assuming the additional money is going to
be received.
R4) State income tax
Original budgeted amount- $1,300,000
Projected budget amount - $1,300,000
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't—but, the state is catching up on our disbursements, which does
affect cash flow, which in turn affects our fund balance, which in turn
affects our ability to sustain a budget deficit.
1. State income tax disbursements might be better than expected in
the next few years if the state's unemployment situation improves.
3
2. State income tax disbursements might be worse than expected in
the next few years if the state's budget situation gets worse.
R5) Municipal sales tax
Original amount- $2,440,000
Projected budget amount - $2,440,000
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't—but numbers are trending higher this year, which could mean an
increase at the end of the fiscal year. The Chicago Tribune also reported
that analysts and retailers are expecting a good holiday season because of
the pent-up retail demand from the last few years. Numbers could be
revised if the second quarter figures beat estimates (will not be reported on
until January or February).
R6) Auto rental tax
Original amount - $3,421
Projected budget amount - $5,000
Positive change (negative change) - $1,579
i. Why did it change?
1. Enterprise Rent-A-Car beating our budget estimates.
R7) Hotel tax
Original amount - $20,000
Projected budget amount - $25,000
Positive change (negative change) - $5,000
Why did it change?
i. Hampton Inn beating our budget estimates.
R8) Liquor license
Original amount- $30,000
Projected budget amount - $32,000
Positive change (negative change) - $2,000
Why did it change?
i. Liquor license owner turnover leads to higher amounts received.
R9) Building Permits
Original amount- $205,000
Projected budget amount- $205,000
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't—but we are still looking for one moderate-sized commercial
permit this fiscal year. If that permit does not come in, this line-item will
be short by a large amount.
R10) Traffic fines
4
Original amount - $151,275
Projected budget amount - $151,275
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't—but early trends show this line-item may be overestimated.
i
R11) Administrative Adjudication
Original amount - $50,000
Projected budget amount - $50,000
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't—but early trends show this line-item may be overestimated.
R12) Police Tows
Original amount - $181,275
Projected budget amount - $181,275
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't—but early trends show this line-item may be overestimated.
R13) Reimbursement for legal expenses
Original amount - $150,000
Projected budget amount - $0
Positive change (negative change) - $(150,000)
Why did it change?
i. Assumed some litigation would be finalized this fiscal year. It does not
appear to be the case.
R14) Reimbursement from the Library
Original amount - $40,582
Projected budget amount - $0
Positive change (negative change) - $(40,582)
Why did it change?
i. Priority shift by City Council.
R15) Cell tower lease
Original amount- $0
Projected budget amount - $28,000
Positive change (negative change) - $28,000
Why did it change?
i. Interest from a cellular tower siting consultant in a certain piece of
municipal property. Details and proposal will be forthcoming.
R16) OTB
Original amount - $0
Projected budget amount - $25,000
Positive change (negative change) - $25,000
5
Why did it change?
i. If the OTB special use application is approved by City Council, it is
expected to generate$25,000 this fiscal year.
R17) Revenue summary
Original amount - $11,433,025
Projected budget amount - $11,198,544
Positive change (negative change) - $(234,481)
E1) Salaries—Administration and Finance
Original amount - $461,932
Projected budget amount - $429,690
Positive change (negative change) - $42,242
Why did it change?
i. Finance Director vacancy, Assistant Finance Director vacancy, Finance
Director salary difference, movement of HR from Finance to
Administration
E2) Contingencies
Original amount- $10,000
Projected budget amount - $0
Positive change (negative change) - $10,000
Why did it change?
i. Can not be funded. No expenses expected to be incurred.
E3) Transfer to City-wide capital
Original amount- $37,500
Projected budget amount - $6,800
Positive change (negative change) - $30,700
Why did it change?
i. City-wide sidewalk replacement program not expected to be used. Town
Square sidewalk rehabilitation was done in-house and saved substantial
money.
E4) Marketing—hotel tax
Original amount - $20,000
Projected budget amount - $22,500
Positive change (negative change) - $(2,500)
Why did it change?
i. More hotel tax revenue means more money going back out to the
Aurora Area Convention and Visitors Bureau.
E5) Sales tax rebate
Original amount - $620,000
Projected budget amount - $760,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(140,000)
6
Why did it change?
i. Sales taxes have been generated more at businesses where we have
sales tax incentive agreements than those that we do not have sales
tax incentive agreements. We cannot never know that this will
shift until some 5-6 months after we receive sales tax
disbursements (quarterly sales-tax industrial classification code
reports are released even later than the sales tax revenues).
E6) Admissions tax rebate
Original amount - $63,000
Projected budget amount - $99,550
Positive change (negative change) - $(36,550)
Why did it change?
i. Raging Waves generated more admissions tax than expected,
which means we rebate more.
E7) Transfer to Parks and Recreation
Original amount- $951,890
Projected budget amount - $911,890
Positive change (negative change) - $40,000
Why did it change?
i. Project cuts and conservative spending in FY 10/11, a surplus in
FY 09/10, and a staffing vacancy will not be filled this fiscal year.
E8) Engineering department—Contractual Services
Original amount - $30,000
Projected budget amount - $10,000
Positive change (negative change) - $20,000
Why did it change?
i. No engineering studies have been performed this fiscal year.
E9) Police department- legal services
Original amount- $20,000
Projected budget amount - $10,000
Positive change (negative change) - $10,000
Why did it change?
i. Legal costs have been avoided.
E10) Police department—salaries - overtime
Original amount- $60,000
Projected budget amount - $78,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(18,000)
Why did it change?
i. Based on current trend.
E11) Streets division—mosquito control
7
Original amount- $15,000
Projected budget amount - $6,500
Positive change (negative change) - $8,500
Why did it change?
i. Spraying was not done this Fall.
E12) Expense Summary
Original amount- $11,376,980
Projected budget amount - $11,396,598
Positive change (negative change) - $(19,618)
FY 10/11 General Fund Summary
A loss of$234,581 in revenues and a gain of$19,618 in expenses leads to a$198,054
projected deficit this fiscal year'. However, there are a few unknown positive and negative
factors. On the positive side, sales tax revenues and real estate tax revenues are outperforming
their estimates. On the negative side,the amusement tax revenues,reimbursement from legal
expense revenue,building permit revenue, administrative adjudication revenue,police tow
revenue, and ticket revenue are not meeting their budget estimates. The additional known factors
for this year's budget are that cash flow has stabilized and the City would be able to sustain a
small deficit this year with that cash-flow. However, as we will see below, the City will not be
able to sustain a deficit in the general fund next year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The$54,000 gap in the arithmetic in this sentence is explained by the fact that the budget started with a projected
$54,000 surplus.
8
FY 11/12 Budget Projections—Details
This section of the report will list most line-items that have a potential to be changed
from our budget projections in FY 10/11 to our preliminary projections in FY 11/12. Revenues
are shown as "R#" and expenses are shown as `B#".
R1) Employee Contrib Health Reimb
FY 10/11 projected amount - $166,318
FY 11/12 projected amount- $155,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(13,318)
Why did it change?
i. Large payments made to the City within this line-item are from
COBRA payments, and some are likely to cease in FY 11/12.
R2) Amusement tax
FY 10/11 projected amount- $0
FY 11/12 projected amount- $0
Positive change (negative change) - $0
Why did it change?
i. It didn't, but I am assuming that it gets repealed. If it is not
repealed, it has a value of $160,000 per year.
R3) Admissions tax
FY 10/11 projected amount- $181,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $190,000
Positive change (negative change) - $9,000
Why did it change?
i. Raging Waves has shown a steady increase each year due to
successful marketing.
R4) Real estate taxes
FY 10/11 projected amount- $2,450,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $2,550,000
Positive change (negative change) - $100,000
Why did it change?
i. Assuming continuation of asking for the maximum amount under
the tax cap (my recommendation).
R5) State income taxes
FY 10/11 projected amount- $1,300,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $1,400,000
Positive change (negative change) - $100,000
Why did it change?
i. Assuming minor improvement of economy and larger per capita
payouts after the 2010 census results.
9
I
R6) Sales taxes
FY 10/11 projected amount - $2,440,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $2,520,000
Positive change (negative change) - $80,000
Why did it change?
i. Assuming minor improvement in retail sales and other eligible
items.
R7) Utility tax - telephone
FY 10/11 projected amount- $600,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $550,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(50,000)
Why did it change?
i. Assuming degradation of the revenue source due to historical
trends.
R8) Collection fee- YBSD
FY 10/11 projected amount- $121,502
FY 11/12 projected amount- $123,932
Positive change (negative change) - $2,430
Why did it change?
i. Assuming a small increase due to CPI. This amount could change
depending on our analysis of costs related to YBSD billing.
R9) OTB
FY 10/11 projected amount- $25,000
FY 11/12 projected amount - $90,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(65,000)
Why did it change?
i. If the OTB special use application is approved by City Council, it
is expected to generate $90,000 in an entire fiscal year.
R10) Repay of Park and Rec loan
FY 10/11 projected amount - $100,000
FY 11/12 projected amount - $50,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(50,000)
Why did it change?
i. Decreased need for cash-flow in Parks and Rec bank account. This
item gets paid back at the end of the fiscal year,meaning there is
no net effect to the budget.
R11) Revenue Summary
FY 10/11 projected amount- $11,198,544
FY 11/12 projected amount - $11,443,271
Positive change (negative change) - $244,727
10
E1) All departments, IMRF
FY 10/11 projected amount - $162,678
FY 11/12 projected amount- $201,045
Positive change (negative change) - $(38,367)
Why did it change?
i. IMRF pension fund sustained significant losses as a result of the
economic downturn, which resulted in an increased employer
contribution. Further,pension obligations had increased, which
caused IMRF pension reform.
E2) Litigation counsel
FY 10/11 projected amount - $90,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $145,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(55,000)
Why did it change?
i. Increased costs of litigation.
E3) Special counsel
FY 10/11 projected amount - $65,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $25,000
Positive change (negative change) - $40,000
Why did it change?
i. We were able to negotiate a flat fee for landfill appeal attorney
representation. This appeal is likely to stretch into FY 11/12.
E4) Cable Consortium Fee
FY 10/11 projected amount- $50,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $60,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(10,000)
Why did it change?
i. Cable consortium fees have been rebated less each year.
E5) Training and Conferences and Travel/Meals
FY 10/11 projected amount- $1,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $10,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(9,000)
Why did it change?
i. A fourth straight year of cutting traning for employees is not
acceptable. Eventually, the savings generated from cutting the
training is going to be significantly outweighed by the tangible
benefits of having a staff that is up to date with the latest training.
This amount would include money to send the elected officials to
IML, which I feel is of great value.
E6) Contingencies
FY 10/11 projected amount- $0
11
FY 11/12 projected amount - $10,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(10,000)
Why did it change?
i. Re-established line-item to FY 10/11 levels.
E7) Transfer to MFT
FY 10/11 projected amount - $0
FY 11/12 projected amount - $100,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(100,000)
Why did it change?
i. Fund capital projects, including Route 47, Game Farm Road, and
River Road bridge.
E8) Salaries - Finance
FY 10/11 projected amount- $219,690
FY 11/12 projected amount - $230,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(10,310)
Why did it change?
i. Lack of Finance Director vacancy.
E9) Unemployment comp tax
FY 10/11 projected amount- $38,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $43,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(5,000)
Why did it change?
i. Previous layoffs make the tax increase.
E 10) Health insurance costs
FY 10/11 projected amount- $1,156,090
FY 11/12 projected amount- $1,248,577
Positive change (negative change) - $(92,487)
Why did it change?
i. Assuming an 8% increase in health care costs.
El 1) Dental/vision costs
FY 10/11 projected amount - $100.880
FY 11/12 projected amount- $104,915
Positive change (negative change) - $(4,035)
Why did it change?
i. Assuming a 4%increase in costs.
E 12) Audit fees
FY 10/11 projected amount- $57,700
FY 11/12 projected amount - $60,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(2,300)
Why did it change?
12
I
i. Contract price increases.
E13) EAP
FY 10/11 projected amount - $4,000
FY 11/l2 projected amount - $149
Positive change (negative change) - $3,851
Why did it change?
i. Cut existing contract and utilize optional services under health
insurance broker.
E14) Insurance—liability and property
FY 10/11 projected amount - $344,129
FY 11/12 projected amount - $400,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(55,871)
Why did it change?
i. Increased cost of insurance.
E15) Acctg system service fee
FY 10/11 projected amount - $15,000
FY 11/12 projected amount - $18,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(3,000)
Why did it change?
i. Increased cost in contract.
E16) All departments except Admin—training and conferences
FY 10/11 projected amount - $ N/A
FY 11/12 projected amount- $ N/A
Positive change (negative change) - $(10,000)
Why did it change?
i. For same reason explained under the Admin department, we
should begin budgeting for training in all departments.
E17) Marketing—hotel tax
FY 10/11 projected amount - $22,500
FY 11/12 projected amount- $24,300
Positive change (negative change) - $(1,800)
Why did it change?
i. For same reason explained under the Admin department, we
should begin budgeting for training in all departments.
E18) Sales tax rebate
FY 10/11 projected amount - $760,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $800,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(40,000)
Why did it change?
13
i. While it is likely that sales tax revenue will increase next year,
sales tax is likely to be generated with businesses for which we
have sales tax incentive agreements.
E19) Admissions tax rebate
FY 10/11 projected amount - $99,550
FY 11/12 projected amount- $104,500
Positive change (negative change) - $(4,950)
Why did it change?
i. More admissions tax revenue leads to more admissions tax rebated
to Raging Waves.
E20) Transfer to Park and Rec loan
FY 10/11 projected amount - $100,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $50,000
Positive change (negative change) - $50,000
Why did it change?
i. Less of a need for cash-flow in Parks and Rec. No net effect on
the budget.
E21) Transfer to debt service
FY 10/11 projected amount- $429,404
FY 11/12 projected amount- $427,919
Positive change (negative change) - $1,485
Why did it change?
i. Debt service payments decrease next year.
E22) Engineering department—contractual services
FY 10/11 projected amount- $10,000
FY 11/12 projected amount- $30,000
Positive change (negative change) - $20,000
Why did it change?
i. Re-establish to FY 10/11 budget approval level.
E23) Police department—legal services
FY 10/11 projected amount - $429,404
FY 11/12 projected amount- $427,919
Positive change (negative change) - $1,485
Why did it change?
i. Debt service payments decrease next year.
E24) Police department—gasoline
FY 10/11 projected amount- $80,000
FY 11/12 projected amount - $85,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(5,000)
Why did it change?
i. Assuming increased price of gasoline.
14
E25) Police pension
FY 10/11 projected amount - $325,000
FY 11/12 projected amount - $350,000
Positive change (negative change) - $(25,000)
Why did it change?
i. Per pension board.
E26) Streets division- in-town road grog am
FY 10/11 projected amount - $40,232
FY 11/12 projected amount - $0
Positive change (negative change) - $40,232
Why did it change?
i. One-time payment in FY 10/11.
E27) Streets division—mosquito control
FY 10/11 projected amount - $6,500
FY 11/12 projected amount- $15,000
Positive change (negative change) - $8,500
Why did it change?
i. Re-establish to FY 10/11 levels.
E28) Expenses summary
FY 10/11 projected amount - $11,396,598
FY 11/12 projected amount - $11,772,545
Positive change (negative change) - $(375,947)
FY 11/12 General Fund Summary
A gain of$244,000 in revenues and an increase in $375,000 in expenses from last year to
this year leads to a total projected deficit of$329,000 in FY 11/12. These figures are very
preliminary, as we have not had meetings with department heads to discuss their budgets in
depth. Of particular note should be the upcoming obligations related to three vital capital
projects: the City's share of costs for Route 47 expansion, River Road bridge rehabilitation, and
Game Farm Road expansion. Most of the cost of these projects will be rolled over a few fiscal
years and over a few budgets,but it is likely that we will have to transfer money from the general
fund to fund a percentage of each project—which means we either have to budget for that
expense each year(can be hundreds of thousands of dollars for each project), or we have to
borrow money and incur additional debt.
While growth has largely subsided in Yorkville, we must not forget that we are still in a
high-growth area compared to the rest of the country, and there will be significant expense for
that growth in the future (whether we can successfully put that burden on developers or not).
Revenues must be maintained not only to offset that growth,but to fund general maintenance
costs of infrastructure. Remember, we have all but cut out water, sewer and roadway capital
maintenance programs the past few years. The Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District has asked us
to partner with them to do sewer main investigations and repairs and we have had to decline due
15
to budgetary concerns. We have not been able to adequately fund roadway patching and sealing
the past few years. In order to fund these maintenance programs, revenues cannot be eroded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16
Debt Obligations—all fiscal years
Aside from general fund operating costs, the City has a significant amount of debt related
to infrastructure. This topic has already been covered in brief during last year's budget
discussion on the water budget and the implementation of the water infrastructure and
maintenance fee. As discussed in the executive summary above, the same issues exist in the
sewer fund because of sewer debt obligations. In order to fully understand and appreciate the
current budget situation, I feel it is necessary to discuss each project in detail. While in hindsight
it may be easy to question the decisions of the past, each project was discussed and deliberated
by a past City Council. Almost every project is geared towards expansion of infrastructure in
order to accommodate current and future growth. In a few cases, the project was initiated
because of a large capital expense related to maintenance of an existing facility. In one case, the
City took on millions of dollars of obligations because of an unfunded mandate from the state.
Many times, without installation of this infrastructure the City would not be in the position to
expand to key areas that will in the future house large commercial, industrial and office
developments. These types of land-use are the best way to reduce the overall tax burden on
residents. In short, the pain of paying for the infrastructure today will be offset in the future
when the economy returns.
Maps for all projects will be passed out at the meeting.
I
I
�I
I
17
General Fund Debt
These projects were to be funded by money within the general fund. In order to sell
bonds to pay for the project, we had to dedicate a specific amount of a revenue stream to pay the
debt service each year.
General Fund Debt Obligation#1 -In-Town Road Program Phase I
Why did we do it?
Decision by Council because of deteriorating roads in the old-part of the City.
Where did we do it?
Generally,the old part of town north of the river.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2005
End of term - 2013
Total bond term- 8 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $825,659
Principal - $650,000
Interest- $175,659
Other notes:
- Debt service on this bond is roughly equal each year.
- Next year's payment is $103,640,then $99,465 the following year, which is the final
year of the debt.
- Sales taxes and utility taxes were pledged to pay for this debt.
18
General Fund Debt Obligation#2 - In-Town Road Program Phase II—2005A issuance
Why did we do it?
Decision by City Council because of deteriorating roads in the old-part of the City.
Where did we do it?
The old part of town, generally south of the river.
When did we do it?
Start of term— 2007
End of term — 2022
Total bond term — 15 years
i
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $5,606,144
Principal - $3,825,000
Interest - $1,781,144
Other notes:
- Debt service on this bond increases slightly each year.
- Next year's payment is $324,000.
19
I
Water Fund Debt
All of the projects listed below were to be funded by water rates or water connection fees.
Most debt service is being covered by the water infrastructure and maintenance fee ($8.25 per
month per user). The debt service is being adequately covered by this fee, and this fee must
remain in place until water connection fees or another revenue stream equals the amount
currently generated by the water infrastructure and maintenance fee. If we received 200 new
building permits next year that paid an average of$3,000 per water connection fee, we would
have enough revenue to eliminate the water infrastructure and maintenance fee.
Water Fund Debt Obligation #1 - Grande Reserve Court Order
Why did we do it?
Grande Reserve developer built the entire Grande Reserve water system, and asked us to
recapture future water connection fees from other developers and rebate the fees to the Grande
Reserve developer. The fees were collected,but never rebated, so now we are paying the new
Grande Reserve developer over three years.
How much did it cost?
$827,000
Other notes:
Next year's payment is $269,856, and $137,928 the following year, which is the last
of the money owed to the Grande Reserve developer.
20
Water Fund Debt Obligation #2 -Radium Compliance Bond
�I
Why did we do it?
Deep well water has naturally occurring radium. We had a variance, along with many
other towns in the US to have higher than normal levels of radium in the water,until the EPA
passed the mandate to bring it down to 5 pc/liter. This was an unfunded mandate that was, at the
time, an expense of$444 per person in the City. The City responded by issuing two bonds for
projects related to new treatment plants and new water mains—without increasing water rates or
any other water charge (the water connection fee was increased).
Where did we do it?
A radium treatment facility was installed at 610 Tower Lane, and the Raintree Village
water tower. Raw water mains were built to connect well#3 (west alley downtown) to 610
Tower Lane (across river), and finished water mains were built to transport the treated water
from the new treatment facilities back into town.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2003
End of term— 2022
Total bond term - 20 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $8,800,000
Principal - $4,800,000
Interest- $4,000,000
Other notes:
- The debt service was structured such that there were no principal payments until
2013, and then large balloon payments in 2019 through 2022.
- Next year's payment is only $33,150. We refinanced many of the final principal
payments into the 2006A refunding issuance
- Water connection fees and water rates were pledged as a funding source to pay for the
debt service.
- At current debt service amounts, we would only need about 10 water connection fees
next year to offset the payment.
- At time of final balloon payments in 2019 through 2022, the assumption is made that
we would have—300 connection fees in each year to make the debt service payment
(or that we would have the money saved from previous growth).
21
Water Fund Debt Obligation#3 -IEPA Drinking Water Loan
Why did we do it?
Radium compliance, as dictated above in WFDO #2. For the State Street water main, this
project improved flows and fire protection in the old part of town by replacing old small water
mains with a new 12" distribution main. A portion of this project was completed many years
ago; this just finished the project from Fox St. to the Booster station near Beaver Street. Now
there is a continuous 12" water main from well 3 (downtown in the west alley) to the booster
station on Beaver Street. For the King Street water main, this project provided both a raw and
finished water main from the well 3 site across the river to the 610 Tower lane site. The raw
water is now pumped from well 3 to the treatment facility where it is treated and then distributed
back into the system via the 12" finished water main that was part of this project. By installing
the new 12"raw water main, we avoided building a treatment plant near well 3 and we were able
to abandon an old 10"water main that crossed the river that was installed approximately 50 years
ago while improving volume and fire protection to the old part of town that is north of the river
and west of Rt. 47.
Where did we do it?
Water mains were installed on State Street, King Street, and near the Raintree Village
water tower.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2007
End of term— 2026
Total bond term— 20 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $2,396,921
Principal - $1,889,243
Interest - $507,677
Other notes:
- The debt service on this loan is roughly equal each year.
- Next year's payment is $125,030.
- This represents about 40 water connection fees each year at about$3,000 per fee.
I
i
22
Water Fund Debt Obligation #4 -2006A Issuance Refunding
Why did we do it?
This was a refinancing of three bonds—the north water tower (2002A),the municipal
building construction bond, and the Bruell Street lift station bond (2003A). This was caused by
favorable interest rates and, in my opinion, a lack of ability to pay on the three existing bonds.
Where did we do it?
N/ A
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2007
End of term— 2023
Total bond term— 15 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond $8,050,000
Principal - $5,550,000
Interest - $2,500,000
Other notes:
- The debt service on this bond is less than $200,000 per year until FY 2012/13, where
it balloons up to $600,000 per year, then $900,000 per year in 2019 through 2023.
- Next year's payment is $158,506
- Water connection fees,municipal building impact fees, and sewer connection fees
were all pledged to pay this bond.
23
I
Water Fund Debt Obligation#5 -North Water Tower—2002A Issuance
Why did we do it?
Expand utilities to the northeast corner of Galena and Route 47, per our comprehensive
plan and due to growth pressures at the time.
Where did we do it?
Extended water main from Yorkville Business Center through Westbury Village to
Bristol Bay water tower. Built Bristol Bay water tower.
When did we do it?
Start of term— 2002
End of term — 2022
Total bond term — 20 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $5,420,000
Principal - $2,900,000
Interest - $2,520,000
Other notes:
- The debt service on this bond was originally set to be spread evenly across all 20
years. When it was refinanced in 2006 under 2006A, the debt service payments on
this specific bond changed to end in FY 2012/2013.
- Next year's payment is $285,000,then$365,000 the following year, which is the final
payment. The remainder of the amount owed is in the 2006A bond.
- Water connection fees were pledged to pay for this bond. At the time, the debt
service payments would have been near 15-20 building permits per year. When it
was set to balloon in 2010 (before it was refinanced), it would have represented about
100 building permits per year.
24
Water Fund Debt Obligation #6 - $2,000,000 Alt Rev Water and Sewer Principal—2005C
Why did we do it?
Improve distribution system for the area located south of the river and east of Rt. 47.
Project installed 12"water main from the west alley downtown to the intersection of Mill St and
Van Emmon Road where the Mill St. water main project begins. The Mill St project connects to
the 16"river crossing water main near the dam to a point on Mill St. near Circle Center School
where it connects to an existing 12" water main. This project continued to improve the
distribution system in the old parts of town both north and south of the river and east of Rt. 47 by
connecting to the existing Liberty St river crossing water main and to the existing 12" water
main at well 3.
Where did we do it?
Water mains at Van Emmon Road and Mill Street.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2005
End of term - 2024
Total bond term - 20 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $3,100,000
Principal - $2,000,000
Interest- $1,100,000
Other notes:
- The debt service payments on this bond increase slightly each year.
- Next year's payment is $167,000
- Income taxes, water rates, sewer expansion funds, and sewer maintenance fees are all
pledged to pay this bond (the project contained some sewer mains to be discussed
later in this report.
25
Sewer Fund Debt Obligations
All of the projects below were supposed to be paid for by sewer connection fees, sewer
maintenance fees, and infrastructure participation fees (IPFs) from YBSD. As stated in the
executive summary, there is a significant amount of debt and very minimal revenue to pay for
the debt.
Fiscal year Total sewer debt
2011-2012 $2,750,306
2012-2013 $3,105,746
2013-2014 $3,205,667
2014-2015 $3,508,288
2015-2016 $4,186,216
2016-2017 $2,047,546
2017 to 2023 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000
2023 and beyond $200,000
Because many of the bonds are already low interest loans, or are already stretched out over 20
years, we only have the opportunity to refinance three bonds—2005D, 2008 (which is a deferral
of two principal payments within 2005D, and 2004B. I do not have exact figures yet on our
options with refinancing those bonds. I do not expect the reduction in amounts owed per year to
be below a 33% discount, and I am not optimistic that a reduction will be much beyond 15%.
Even if we do refinance, we will pay millions more in interest over 20 years (as you will see on
some of the refinancing bonds listed below).
26
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation# 1 - 2007A Refunding Bond
Why did we do it?
Favorable interest rates, and in my opinion, lack of ability to pay on bond 2003A.
Where did we do it?
Partial refinancing of Bruell Street sewer bond 2003A
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2007
End of term - 2022
Total bond term— 15 years
I
I
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $4,700,000
Principal - $3,000,000
Interest - $1,700,000
Other notes:
- The debt service payments each year contain minimal principal payments until 2019,
when much of the principal is due over the final four years. The last four payments
are greater than $800,000 per year.
- Next year's payment is $133,866.
- The original bond (2003A) pledged sewer connection fees.
- Current debt service payment could be satisfied with 45 new building permits.
27
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation#2 -2008 Refunding (Rob Roy Sewer)
Why did we do it?
This is a refinancing of the 2005D Rob Roy sewer bond. The principal payments were
each $1,000,000 in 2009 and 2010, and we could not make those payments. This bond
transferred those payments to the back end of the 2005D bond ( in 2016 and 2017).
Where did we do it?
From the YBSD plant to Bristol Bay.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2009
End of term - 2017
Total bond term— 10 year
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $2,959,268
Principal- $2,020,000
Interest - $939,268
Other notes:
- The debt service payments on this bond are interest only until 2016, when two years
of large principal payments are due in 2016 and 2017.
- Next year's payment is only $110,000
- Current debt service could be satisfied with 60 building permits.
28
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation #3 -Bruell Street Bond—2003A
Why_ did we do it?
Construction of the Bruell Street lift station meant we could eliminate three other area lift
stations (Heartland Circle, Woodworth, and Gawne Lane). Lower replacement costs and
maintenance costs. Also replaced upstream and downstream gravity sewer and forcemain
Where did we do it?
The general area is Bruell Street and E Main Street.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2003
End of term - 2023
Total bond term - 20 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $3,100,000
Principal - $2,000,000
Interest - $1,100,000
Other notes:
- The debt service payments on this bond are roughly equal each year,but were
significantly reduced by the refinancing bond in 2007.
- Next year's payment is $165,142.
Sewer connection fees and sewer maintenance fees were pledged to pay this bond.
- Current debt service could be satisfied by 91 building permits per year.
29
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation #4 - Countryside Alt Revenue Bond Principal—2004B
Why did we do it?
To get sewer service to the Autumn Creek subdivision.
Where did we do it?
The general area of the Countryside lift station is across from Wendy's, and the sewer
main runs downstream to the YBSD plant.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2004
End of term - 2018
Total bond terns - 15 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $4,800,000
Principal - $3,500,000
Interest - $1,300,000
Other notes:
- The debt service payments on this bond have moderate increases each year from
$250,000 to a final payment of$473,000.
- Next year's payment is $258,650.
- Current debt service could be satisfied by 140 building permits.
30
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation #5 - ComEd Hydraulic Principal—2004A
Why did we do it?
To give sewer access to Windett Ridge, Raintree Village and other subdivisions in the
area.
Where did we do it?
Hydraulic Avenue, from east of Mill to Adams.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2004
End of term - 2014
Total bond term - 10 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $1,900,000
Principal - $1,600,000
Interest - $300,000
Other notes:
- The debt service payments on this bond increase slightly each year.
- Next year's payment is $194,000.
- Current debt service could be satisfied with 107 building permits.
31
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation#6 -Rob Roy original—2005D
Why did we do it?
To provide sewer service to Westbury, Caledonia, and Bristol Bay, and other
subdivisions. This sewer was fueled by northern expansion per comp plan and pressures of the
time.
Where did we do it?
The general location is from River Road north to Bristol Bay.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 2005
End of term - 2015
Total bond term— 10 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $14,975,000
Principal? - $11,300,000
Interest? - $3,674,963
Other notes:
- The debt service payments each year were interest only for three years, then 3 years
of principal payments at $1,000,000 (two of which we have deferred to 2016 and
2017 at the cost of$1,000,000 in additional interest), two years at$1,600,000, one
year at$2,000,000 and then a final year at$3,000,000.
- Next year's payment is $1,578,925.
o Refinancing this bond over 20 years would only drop next year's debt service
payment to about $1,100,000.
- Agreements with Wyndham Deerpoint for Caledonia ($60,000 per year), Ocean
Atlantic for Westbury Village ($260;000 per year), and Centex for Bristol Bay
($600,000), coupled with infrastructure participation fees from newly annexing
developments ($4,200 per acre), and sewer connection fees from other developments
were supposed to satisfy this debt service payment each year.
o The good news is that Ocean Atlantic and Wyndham Deerpoint were up-to-
date on payments until the past year.
o More good news—Centex has continued to pay their$300,000 per year
towards this bond.
o The bad news is that all three Rob Roy funding agreements expire in 2012 or
2013.
32
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation# 7 - Sanitary Siphon Bond
Why did we do it?
Siphon needed across the river for Mueller Construction for sanitary sewer.
Where did we do it?
From Hydraulic Street to the YBSD plant.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 1993
End of term - 2013
Total bond term— 20 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond - $771,030
Principal - $549,080
Interest - $221,949
Other notes:
- The debt service payments for this bond are roughly equal each year.
- Next year's payment is $38,978
- The current year's debt service could be satisfied with 21 new building permits.
I
I
i
33
Sewer Fund Debt Obligation #8 -IEPA Waste Water Loan
Why did we do it?
Low interest loan for Hamilton Construction sewer main and 1999 SSES (sewer repair
and rehabilitation).
Where did we do it?
Old-part of town, on both sides of the river.
When did we do it?
Start of term - 1999
End of term - 2019
Total bond term - 20 years
How much did it cost?
Total bond? $2,125,544
Principal? $1,656,808
Interest? $468,735
Other notes:
- The debt service payments for this loan are equal each yaer.
- Next year's payment is $107,050.
- The current year's debt service payment could be satisfied by 59 building permits.
34
Debt Service obligation summary- FY 11/12
General Fund obligation - $425,000
- Funded through general fund transfer to debt service fund
General Fund pledged fees2
- $402,578 in income tax revenue for Countryside Sewer Lift Station under 2004B
o Bond payment next year only$258,000
o Other pledged fees include sewer connection and sewer maintenance fees
- $408,429 in income taxes for 2005C Alt Rev Water and Sewer Principal issuance
o Bond payment next year only $167,000
o Can use water operating fund and sewer expansion fund
Water connection fees needed for debt service
o 100 water connection fees (North Water Tower 2002A)
o 42 water connection fees (IEPA Drinking Water Loan)
o 10 water connection fees (Radium Compliance)
o —100 water connection fees (2006A refunding)
o Or,have the $8.25 per month per user water infrastructure maintenance fee
remain in place
i
Sewer connection fees
o 59 sewer connection fees (IEPA Waste Water Loan)
o 540 sewer connection fees plus the 300 committed by Centex (Rob Roy
2005D)
■ Or IPF fees, which are not likely to come in this fiscal year
o 107 sewer connection fees (ComEd-Hyrdraulic sewer 2004)
o 140 sewer connection fees (Countryside lift station)
• Or 33% our current sewer maintenance fees
• Or income taxes listed above
o 91 sewer connection fees (Bruell Street lift station sewer)
■ Or 20% of our current sewer maintenance fees
o 60 sewer connection fees (Rob Roy refunding 2008)
■ Or IPF fees, which are not likely to come in this fiscal year
o 45 sewer connection fees (Bruell Street sewer lift station refunding)
■ Or 20% of our current sewer maintenance fees
o —200 sewer connection fees for 2006A refunding
o Roughly 1,200 sewer connection fees per year to make debt service
■ Or, some combination of sewer connection fees, IPF fees, and 88% of
our total sewer maintenance fees each year
■ Or implementation of a sewer infrastructure and maintenance fee.
Amount TBD.
2 Pledged fees are amounts that we told to the bond buyer that we would use to pay off the debt each year should
primary revenue sources(i.e.water connection fees or sewer connection fees)fall short of expectations.
35
GeN\Q)f-Ck �
CA
��v Cs e
wev � %-�rw� — 7-00 5 ,- Z013
cermw 7
�io
-4Z '� � �own ud 14oy 2� w
GROSS PROXCT LENGTH a 2.045 MILES (10,797.3 FT)
NET PROJECT LENGTH - 1.974 MILES (10.420.9 FT)
z_0C)7 - �am- Eo �z
W F D® L. - 14�jkjWV !�M 1jCj hCj(�/ Ut✓l 6
N
�
r� Applefree Ct
JLI~ r
F V I
r. r
(, A�=
rr �
"- 0 50 100
"
As of October 2010 Feet
The Data is provided without warranty or any representation of
To wer L an a
accuracy,timeliness,or completeness.it is the responsibility of the
Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Treatment Facility ty warranties,expressed or Implied to the use 11 the Data.
-Map produced by United City of Yorkville G!S
L-,'VA Ur,v?ki w c-fier L-oQY\
E2] N
S
r•.
i
ll
t 4�
r
0 100 200
.Qs of October 2010 Feet
South Water Tower The Data is provided without warranty or any representation of
accuracy,timeliness,or completeness.h is the responsibility of the
Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Well & Treatment Facility warranties,expressed or implied to the use the Data.
-Map produced by United City of Yorkville G/S
Y! A N PN
I LOCL G Vim- V\.
a
m E-Park-St–gin
m •�
3 m
n c
C� J
-a
�d H
E-Somonauk-St
W-Somonauk-St
in W-Spring-St—a
3 m E Spring-St
•�� Z I
% v�
c
W Center St 'o
� m t
O� v
E Center St
W-Main-St
'•�. E-Main-St
W-River_St
u,
rn
a
WiHydlaulic�Ave�c
m
E�Hydra.ulic_Ave
-
�, 6 d 0 500 1,000
o a w
As of October 2010 a W-Van-EM on-St Feet
King Street Raw ac The Data is provided without warranty or any representation ft
curacy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
■ ■ ■ appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
& Finished Wa term ain warranties,expressed or implied,y the use ll the Data.
-Map produced by United City of Yorkville G!S
WCAVI�f— r
� S
�FOXSt m
E-Fox-St
N
W-Washington-St =
E-Washington-St
m
—W Orange-St--
c =
rn m E-Orange-St
o
M W
c
M
�L
�_-
Q W Dolph-St o�
m
ti
W-Beecher St
Blaine-St
SChO
°/h
0111V.,
a
Elizabeth-St
.............. ... ...........`
1 1
1
r................. �ti2VWIM, Colonial-PkWY
1
1
....................�..�......�
0 500 1,000
m
As of October 2010 Feet
State Street accuracy,Data is provided without warranty or any representation of
curacy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
■ ■ ■ appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Finished Wa term ain warranties,expressed or implied,y the use ll the Data.
-Map produced by United City of Yorkville GIS
1 A N
�/
V 1 r net St �SP�
f�, eertra�-pr .Y
1 0 Pensacola-St
1
1
1
j Ga/ena-R /
i -d.
j 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 raw N
1 l v
•c
j m
z
1
._.._.._.._.■_.._.._..
1 6 1 1
i
i
_.._.._.._.._.._.._..��_..
Corneils Rd
1 l
I 1
L
...........
o i ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.i
_
I 1 1
L
Caledonia Dr �._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.� 0 0.25 0.5
d
S of October 2010 Miles
Commercial-Dr
Route 4 7 Wa term ain ac The Data is provided without warranty or any representation ft of
curacy,timeliness,or completeness.If is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
& North Water Tower warranties,expressed or implied,y the use ll the Data.
-Map produced by United City of Yorkville GIS
N
6 E-Hydraulic-Ave ?�
to —A Re4)eo� 5
W-Van-Emm
on-St
d
=° EtVan7E---- n St
h
W-Madison-St--,
0
H
L
d
W-Ridge
I � E'Ridge-St��
1 y
H
N �
m
S
m
W-Fox-SY
E-Fox-St
d,
ao' in
m
w-Was hm y
gton-St
E-Washington-St
c
g
N
E-Orange-St
Olsen-St------
__
0 500 1,000 Walter-St--------
w
Feet As of October 2010
Mill & Van Emmon Streets accuracy,Data is provided without warranty or any representation of
curacy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
■ ■ ■ appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Finished Wa term a►n warranties,expressed or implied,y the use ll the Data.
-Map produced by United City of Yorkville G/S
5FOO • '
Lu_ � � S
Walnut-St Orr o w
�/LJ�� �� � "`"`••'�� head Or��
Jackson-St �•.�„
Vlcto '
Appletree Ct Q �•Ma!�ihtgve r�aAve j
o j
N Elm-St j
m �
J a E-Park-St N
C
3 m E ' / J
t- L of
W-Somonauk-St LL IE r
2
g1 / O
� 1 1
C9 Center-St
d
m _U E-Center-St _ N
c i tY
Y U
N 3 Behrens-St✓ E
WWAitiISt 0 a y
M ° � c 0
W 3 0 0
N
ElMainlSt � �
0
W-River St O -°,a
y1•ra_a._.a_ I
L
Gayne.Ln '
W-Hydraulic=Ave
IE;Hydraulic•Ave
d
E-Van-Emmon-St 1
d
m
a
CD` 'Van Emmon Rd
W-Ridge-St y e
_
E- �m
Rid9e-St— oa
—W-IFox-St m_ = y m
1 30
1 1
E-Fox-StZ
'ia 1
z E-Washington-St— 1
W-orange-St 1 0 1,000 2,000
E-Orange•St
As of October 2010 Feet
Bru ell Street Pump Station ac The Data is provided without warranty or any representation of
curacy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
■ ■ appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Forcemain & Gravity Sewer warranties,expressed or implied,y the use ll the Data.
-Map produced by United City of Yorkville GIS
- O� •'♦••` T.T.
pC .♦ VJ
♦4
♦p♦ rn�.r�•�
r•♦ j•r
a/�Or ♦r•'
IVaden Ct
---- G�
yor
Strata
berry-Ln
r'
GK�e<�L
r Mulhern-C{ --
mD1
m`
Gp°r\Ns;de PkwY
Z
7�
r y
ly
0
Q
♦rr♦
•r�
1
jW-Veterans-pkwy
1�
Iti
1"
E 0 500 1,000
j Hillcrest-qve
a
As of October 2010 n a Feet
Countryside Interceptor ac The Data is provided without warranty or any representation of
curacy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
& Pump Station warranties,expressed or implied,to the use of the Data.
Map produced by United City of Yorkville GIS
N
10
W-Main-St
0
F in U s
_c r D o� t E Main St—gin
Y
W-River St
W Hydrauiic.Ave
E Hydraulic Ave
iD
W-Van-E
mmon•St P'a
fq -C
w m
w°• y E-Van-E
� mmon-St
W-Madison-St��
y
C
O
i N
d � �
W-Ridge-St------------? N
N
7
W
Rid
I E- 9e-St______ —
m
M
c
M E-Fox-St
0 500 1,000
As of October 2010 it Feet
Hydraulic Avenue The Data is provided without warranty or the representation ponsi ility of
accuracy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Interceptor warranties,expressed or implied,to the use of the Data.
Map produced by United City of Yorkville G/S
y L•._•._uw•.w.._•.wu_ow.•w w■�_.._.._ .._.._•._.•_n_..
11 ............... _
V v
Bristol Bay-Dr r
Venetian`Tla
Be v o
am Dr i v
o c o
o u Y
rTal• .Rd r■. 1 eend-Dr
�
Qr`A ecosCir
u �
y ' � • O
C1 e
Juliep-
Lu Fos
m
1
s
v 1 7 Est-
3 1 ' R°2 1
1 1
._..........._.._.I '7 1 �►•■
Im
{ m { { I y •1 S
'CorneilsRd
{ ,� �!•• _.■_.� Hunter 3 !� ' poi
c .00 •.
.._.._.._.._.._..+ _._...•.._.._i._..1 _LT� j Commerci,,, Oa v� H i m
II II �I ;st q, o�
a >
w m ood Dr v . t z–ono /lik�
J
�•� m Shadow3 K'hWar"Pve a r; I Bristo/Ri
••1 ••mod. '•� •••L••_.._..wf•
L
•X00 till o
c .•�
om••
p �
E �..._.._........_ ! er••' L.L N
w
den, •c� ;�`
trlinleaf����•iy pn `., � •�
{ ' • Gannohball
FaA-en VC r F
Faxon:Ra t s y�• Va ea `•••,•gageC�e^e
-1--Alice Sumac O •• • b�•} eO� �.• f �o
yti a Ave "+h+ '°yam , .(' .,�•. S 4
v 0 \ E o�
' Western.. c Blow 1` ci oyo
1 Ln—y
i
—Black berry Sho 2 Bw ��♦••♦.• Qt lei
♦ � o
.•`•• c tae •A•
``eyQ�e
e"o, O♦,p ,Z,a •���
I C�`? I ► i
—Erica Ln Hi m
° n O
a !,5—Edward-Ln � o0 ^° ECountryside P
c W Veterans"Pkwy 1= Ai
5 a
Rec John S EO •'•• l•ownan.�•■ m ��ete
:-J m'•PDei>. i Leisure St. .. • , •`
rnj Carly fY su_. ii d aQ' •, ��.
�, . EPleasure Dr p ♦• am
.L.• a
o ■. w 1 in '- m landmark-p4' ..�� Hear lip
�r r�kL y`11 a N
C. u.._.._.. Homes�eada�FmQ
r/
•�' r•�..au C7 'y InUbSt ...� )Glea -
i; • a—Jackson"St 1. • �• / pik'etenQ
piKa�e
1 �Elm St
TEP ark St
-W
t•'♦. 0 1 2
1 W
;1 R
Rlver Ra 1: en"
As of October 2010 �•�..� Miles
Rob Roy Creek The Data is provided without warranty or the representation ponsi ility ft
accuracy,timeliness,or completeness.It is the responsibility of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Interceptor warranties,expressed or implied,to the use of the Data.
Map produced by United City of Yorkville GIS
� J� h D-fid
L3 ,
,b? t
l
a
0 100 200
As of October 2010 Feet
1990 Sanitary The accuracy,fim provided wiomplete warranty eIt is the responsibility of
accuracy,timeliness,or completeness.h is the responsib!!!ty of the
"Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and
appropriateness of its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no
Siphon warranties,expressed or implied,to the use of the Data.
Map produced by United City of Yorkville G!S
c r.Ai Vvasfie- Tef- L-0�
LOCATION MAP LEGEND
- I : KENN£9Y RP X—X 1-4 NUMBER
xT N-4 SANITARY SEWER SYS-EM
SANITARY MANHOLE BASIN N-t•t>,
PROPOSED MANHOLE REHABILITATION
-- --- PROPOSED SMR REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED N%E AL REPAIR SLEEVE
PRCPOSEO SEWER LINING
SCALE " 300' ' PROPOSED PRESSURE GRDURNG SEWER JdN�,
'\ PROPOSED ROOT KIWNG
PROPOSED!IE—CLEANNG OF SEWER
y B
f'
f`%
Y w. O f,J �.•� � NADEN
W
f (I
w G K
�
i to I
MUUIERN
� 9 fA.;1%
.'• ^
L----
f' a 1 S
•�-�, r`�^'�-t rg +r-sue' !, �
" ra.....a:_ .'•may .. � � I
I ,O'
IV
—�_
N-1
�•r l�of s � `'
FLc0.5t;RE DIR i aG
{
CECRGEA 7 I�.4DµapK
GOND•hV:H" I '�.1 �,� lNNA
, I y� -`ate• ,?yy I 'III
+ sJ Xal I Iyi N-3 I
wJ'NALNT, Sr I
I O.MCKSON ST i i 'a8F— -` -1 --_�
TREE C*. rr �\\ 'w j'_.-,4. '"CTORA
L If iwn AI'L'.
�O' i� 'Y ii a>'f�_iT {yA H71y�A'E.
�L'm_
C I P'' f s PAR JET PARK ; I � .wir I
N_3 ", A d a °yam--. ,�•�_-_. i s _ � I
�___ SOMONAVK+ S'. - ` - Y ! •-. � � SOMC^UUIC Sr. I 1
I a G � •J•`SPRING yT. i N-3 3
W
CENi£R
I,R FR E;T
PUBIIE
W W. 'I iSGWRE BEAT
CJMSEY
`�r>� � �7 ls�+u �"•--�iX--. 1_••-9_s–_-'_ �, I;o Maa sx. 7 �'i ,n
N-1 �`'
a
WAST£WA1ER "`- ,+.k- ROAD
rgFATMDi! y' P-3
> PPM .� PFM 1 t'9B 718 97027-00
W I'=3O0' u--F:\W\97027 GEN-N
WALTER E." DEUCHUR ASSOCIATES, INC. LOCATION MAP R THE PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION 2
NORTH OF THE RIVER ` 38
Y.B.S.B.
WASTEWA ROAD
TER -�• -
TREATMENT
PLANT -� O
#A AVE
SH -
�SHEET EMMON..• l 0 sH ET'12 I��I d5 1
A,
¢q pj4 F
L
8 HE T
Z d.
T. d
`dr
RIOCE a
'I,.^'�dy `/ dl E R0GE �Sr. C
S 1 ° d +'yr ST SHEET+
'I+ a a _
SHEET
FOX SI Z °K '�`
WASHINGTON
0 5 _rq d
ORANGE
° sHtE: ]
A w `Ir"q _ OOtPH
DCLPN
r 1 p .. ST
r�P _ �_ � � �dam- I
r•`` q L r'q 44 r ♦ L' OLSEN 1.
J sr
J k.' SHEET 8 1 dam'+-=.i J
r° rr�'� BE ECNER
BuINE { st sr
sT.
Sr. ,.
SHEET 10
1,� �d
y
C\ r
t/ 3
s SHEET 10 q .� - x\1f• - 4qd
ELIZABETH St. *
qa�
I, q ,,COLONIAL
p 3 -
�
I N
STREET
d I
LOCATION MAP LEGEND Jra 5EAVER sT q r r�
X x SASW NUMBER 4, -
--<+-- SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
30-]%X% SANITARY MANHOLE BASN 30
--t- PROPOSED MANHOLE REHABRITAT.CN
---�Bl— PROPOSED SEVER REPLACEMENT
--c4— PROPOSED SEWER A:REPAIR SLEt£ r^+
-0 R
PROPOSED SEWER LINING -
PROPOSED PRESSURE GROUTNG SEWER JONTS
--- PROPOSED ROOT KUNG m 1
PROPOSED NEI-CLEANING CE SEWER a r
J WOLP
q' 1q.++ STREET T".
�•. PtW •r vru V1/se Tae/eTOS]-aa .,.
I-xao � E:/TY/9r02]/cEN-s
WALTER E. DEUCHLER ASSOCIATES INC. LOCATION MAP THE PROPOSED ZZ
� INC SANITARY SEWER R REHABILITATION `J
SOUTH OF THE RIVER 38
21
From this week's Business of Life
Subdivisions outside Chicago remain stalle&,
residents lack neighbors , basic amenities
By: H.Lee Murphy September 20,2010
w4
`.
Yorkville Mayor Valerie Burd says she hopes low land prices will turn things around in her
town,which has as many as 15 unfinished subdivisions.She's shown at Grand Reserve,
which faced foreclosure.
Photo by: John R. Boehm
When the residential real estate market imploded, several hundred subdivisions in various stages of
development grew silent around Chicago. Frustrated homeowners fumed over unpaved roads and
weeds growing high in the vacant lots around them. But there was a sense that it was a temporary
predicament;the earthmovers and carpenters would return soon, surely.
But they haven't, in most cases, and homeowners in zombie subdivisions have moved from
anger at their builders' bankruptcies to despondency and,finally, resignation at lowered
property values.
"My home is way down in value, and there is nothing I can do about that," says John
Rowoldt, owner of a four-bedroom home in the massive Grand Reserve development in
Yorkville, the epicenter of zombie development on the southwest exurban fringe.
Grand Reserve originally was mapped for 2,600 houses by a development team headed by
Moser Enterprises Inc. of Naperville, now in Chapter 11 reorganization. It was foreclosed
upon by Charlotte, N.0-based Bank of America Corp.with fewer than 500 houses finished.
"This isn't anybody's fault," says Mr. Rowoldt, 37. "The housing market has gotten dusted
everywhere."
Land prices in these subdivisions have fallen so far that there are some stirrings from
bargain-hunting investors and developers. Newer homes will be smaller,though,with fewer
upscale finishings.And buyers likely will show less desire to stretch to the farthest areas,
with focus shifting to reasonable drive-to-work distances.
'Short sales and foreclosures are setting the prices in many
neighborhoods.
—Kim Meier, developer
Naperville-based M/I Homes of Chicago LLC has acquired five subdivisions in the past six months,
including the 180 lots remaining in the 210-lot Shelburne Crossing in Winfield, 27 miles west of the
Loop, and the 75 remaining lots in the 125-lot Church Street Station in Hanover Park, 30 miles out.
Ronald Martin, M/1's president, estimates that he's buying assets at 70% below the original cost of
land purchase and development.
"Towns are greeting us with open arms. They have roads that need to be finished and homeowner
associations that are unfunded," he says. "The prices are so cheap that I can't understand why more
developers aren't buying up land."
LONG ROAD AHEAD
Yorkville Mayor Valerie Burd hopes the tide will turn in her town. "We're meeting with
I�developers and investors who want to come in and take over some of the empty lots we're
stuck with,"she says.
But Yorkville, south of Aurora along the Fox River and nearly 45 miles from downtown
Chicago,will require years of investment to recapture even some of its earlier promise. City
Administrator Bart Olson says the town may encompass as many as 15 unfinished
subdivisions. With a population of 17,000,Yorkville was once projected to grow to 50,000 as
farmland was developed.
Now, Mr. Olson says that empty, 15,000-square-foot lots once priced as high as $75,000 can
be had for$20,000 or less. Ms. Burd figures the new developers considering investment at
such low prices are likely to build cheaper housing than the $300,000 semi-custom houses
once popular.
a "it all depends on how the economy bounces back," she says. "if we don't have a double-dip
precession, we could see homes selling again here before long."
Maybe, but for now the market remains moribund. In metro Chicago, 33,000 new homes were sold
annually as recently as 2005, according to Tracy Cross, a Schaumburg-based consultant. Last year
a mere 3,600 sold, and the area is on pace for another 3,600 home sales this year, Mr. Cross says.
He estimates that perhaps four or five subdivisions in all-of the suburbs will see 20 home sales this
year. The rest will see fewer, many zero.
American MetroStudy Corp. in Elgin, a researcher, reports that 245 unfinished subdivisions in the
suburbs recorded no sales last year.
Mr. Cross says he has clients, most fueled by private-equity investors, hunting for bargains.
"This is patient investor money," he says. "They realize the lot that was selling for$100,000 a few
years ago and is selling for$20,000 today won't get back to $100,000 again. But they think it could
get back to$80,000 in three years. Some of these bets will turn out to be good,while others,
particularly in the more remote areas,won't be so good."
Even the survivors are retooling their businesses drastically. KLM Builders Inc. of Richmond has
three subdivisions still in development, but all selling homes at discount prices. In Sunset Ridge
Estates in Richmond, where 90 of 250 lots are unsold, Kim Meier, president and owner of KLM, is
putting up $275,000 homes, down from an average of$400,000 in 2006. In Thousand Oaks in
Spring Grove, where just 14 lots out of 74 have houses so far, he's building $400,000 houses near
older-generation $700,000 homes.
"The market today is totally different," he says. "Short sales and foreclosures are setting the prices in
many neighborhoods."
Still, he's searching for more lots to buy. "This is the time to be looking,"he says.
Town &Country Homes in Lombard, a division of publicly owned Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. of Red
Bank, N.J., has similar plans. Andrew Konovodoff, president of Town & Country, expects to sell 33
lots this year in his company's Hunt Club subdivision in Oswego, though the 300-lot subdivision is
still more than two-thirds empty. Like KLM, he is looking to reduce home size and cost.
This new attitude may not be good news for homeowners in troubled subdivisions, even if they
welcome a few more neighbors.
"Developers were putting up 4,000-square-foot homes for$500,000 in some places and getting
away with it," says Christopher Huecksteadt, director of American MetroStudy. "in the future, those
same subdivisions may acquire a fresh developer putting up 2,400-square-foot homes for$280,000.
They'll be saleable, but they will further devalue the older houses already in place