Loading...
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