City Council Minutes 2011 03-22-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVIL,LE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
800 GAME FARM ROAD ON
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
Mayor Burd called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Clerk Milschewski called the roll.
Ward I Gilson Present (via telephone)
Werderich Present
Ward I I Golinski Present
Plocher Present
Ward III Mums Present
Sutcliff Present
Ward IV Teeling Present
Spears Present
Also present: City Clerk Milschewski, City Treasurer Powell, City Attorney Orr, City
Administrator/Interim Director of Park and Recreation Olson, Police Chief Hart, Deputy Chiefs of Police
Hilt and Delaney, Lieutenant Schwartzkopf, Finance Director Fredrickson, City Engineer Wywrot,
Community Development Director Barksdale -Noble and Officer Jeleniewski.
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.
I
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None.
COMMITTEE MEETING DATES
Public Works Committee Meeting: 6:30 p.m., April 19, 2011
City Hall Conference Room
Economic Development Committee: 6:30 p.m., April 4, 2011
City Hall Conference Room
Administration Committee Meeting: 6:00 p.m., April 21, 2011
City Hall Conference Room
Public Safety Committee Meeting: 6:30 p.m., March 24, 2011
City Hall Conference Room
PRESENTATIONS
Swearing -in of Part-time Patrol Officer — Dave Kiest
Chief Hart stated that Part-time Patrol Officer Kiest has come to Yorkville with a lot of experience. He
has worked for the Oswego Police Department and has been a school resource officer, detective and bike
patrol officer. Mayor Burd and Chief Hart swore Officer Kiest in and welcomed him to the Police
Department.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
David Richmond, attorney for the Pat Beardsley estate, asked the City Council to support no further
remediation on the property located at 802 S. Bridge Street. He explained that the site used to be a Mobil
gas station and that the underground storage tanks were removed several years ago. Contamination was
found at that time and cleaned up. Five feet under Orange Street there is contamination still present. The
state is responsible under the Leakage Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to remove the
contamination at a great expense to the state. If nothing is done, microbes will eat the
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — March 22, 2011— page 2
contamination and solve the problem over a period of years. The estate would like the city to take on the
responsibility of the contamination. If anyone else needs to dig in the easement they then take the
responsibility to remediate. There are no immediate plans to dig down that deep. Also, no wells will be
allowed in this area. He added that City Engineer Wywrot recommended the agreement. 1Vi�r. Richmond
commented that every community is talking about being pro business and this will help the business on
the property purchase it because remediation or this agreement are needed for the purchase.
Todd Milliron, Cotswold Court, asked if there was a chance the contamination would migrate. Mr.
Richmond explained that according to the engineers since the source has been removed there is limited
migration.
Alderman Gilson asked when the contamination occurred. Mr. Richmond explained that while the tanks
r were inspected yearly they were leaking. When the tanks were removed, the source of the contamination
was removed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Administrator Olson noted that #9 of the consent agenda needs to be amended. It should read that it is for
the purchase of a 40 -foot wide half right -of -way for Kennedy Road across the frontage of the property at
8660 Kennedy Road and authorize the Mayor to sign the plat of dedication subject to receipt of funds
from Pulte Home Corporation for the full amount of the purchase price.
Alderman Spears questioned if this should be removed from the consent agenda. Attorney Orr explained
that it did not need to be removed since the correction has been noted.
1. Ordinance 2011 -08 - Amending the Code of Ordinances Amending the Fee Schedule for
Building Permits (Telecommunications Facilities) - authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute
(EDC 2010 -23)
2. Ordinance 2011 -09 - Amending the Code of Ordinances by Codifying Fees and Deposits into the
Yorkville City Code - authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute (EDC 2011 -10)
3. Water Department Report for January 2011 (PW 2011 -13)
4. Water Department Report for February 2011 (PW 2011 -14)
5. Traffic Signal Master Agreement - authorize Mayor to execute (PW 2011 -15)
6. Fox Hill and Sunflower SSA Mowing and Maintenance MFT - award contract for mowing and
maintenance to Classic Landscape LTD, as presented (PW 2011 -16)
7. Resolution 2011 -05 - MFT General Maintenance Appropriation Resolution for FY 11 -12 -
authorize City Clerk to execute (PW 2011 -17)
8. Hampton Inn — Final Approval/Acceptance and Bond Reduction - approve land improvements
and accept public improvements for watermain and sanitary sewer as described in the Bill of Sale
for ownership and maintenance; and authorize reduction to Western Surety Company Bond
# 70706014 in an amount not to exceed $122,015.68, subject to verification that the developer has
no outstanding debt owed to the city(PW 2011 -18)
9. 8660 Kennedy Road — Purchase of Right -of -Way -for the purchase of a 40 foot wide half right -
of -way for Kennedy Road across the frontage of the property at 8660 Kennedy Road and
authorize the Mayor to sign the plat of dedication subject to receipt offunds from Pulte Home
Corporation for the full amount of the purchase price and authorize City Engineer to commence
acquisition ofproperty as described in the memo dated March 3, 2011 (PW 2011 -19)
10. Resolution 2011 -06 - Route 126 Relocation at Route 71— MFT Appropriation Resolution -
authorize City Clerk to execute (PW 2011 -20)
11. Ordinance 2011 -10 - Approving a Water Tower Lease Agreement with Chicago SMSA Limited
Partnership Doing Business as Verizon Wireless (Water Tower at 3099 Lehman Crossing) -
authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute, subject to city attorney review and building permit
approval of the exhibits(PW 2011 -05)
12. Treasurer's Report for February 2011 (ADM 2011 -08)
13. Ordinance 2011 -11 - Amending the Code of Ordinances Regarding Procurement of Materials
and Services - authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute (ADM 2011 -08)
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. So moved by Alderman
Werderich; seconded by Alderman Plocher.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Werderich -aye, Plocher -aye, Spears -aye, Munns -aye,
Sutcliff -aye, Gilson -aye, Teeling -aye, Golinski -aye
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — March 22, 2011— page 3
PLAN COMMISSION /ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
Kendall County Fair Association — Mile and V2 Review
(PC 2011 -01)
Director Barksdale -Noble explained that Kendall County wants to re- classify the Fair Grounds zoning
from A -1 Agricultural (Special Use) to B-4 Commercial Recreation. There will be no change to
operations on the property. The Plan Commission unanimously supported the request.
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to support the Kendall County Fair Association's request for rezoning
to B -4 Commercial Recreation District within the County. So moved by Alderman Werderich; seconded
by Alderman Plocher.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye, Spears -aye,
Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
A motion was made by Alderman Sutcliff to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of February
8, 2011; seconded by Alderman Werderich.
Motion unanimously approved by a viva voce vote_
BILLS FOR APPROVAL
A motion was made by Alderman Sutcliff to approve the paying of the bills listed on the Detailed Board
Report dated March 16, 2011, totaling the following amounts: checks in the amount of $690,875.65
(vendors); $215,345.81 (payroll period ending 3/12/11); for a total of $906,221.46 (total); seconded by
Alderman Werderich.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Plocher -aye, Spears -aye, Mums -aye, Sutcliff -aye,
Gilson -aye, Teeling -aye, Golinski -aye, Werderich -aye
REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
Resolution 2011 -07 Supporting the Installation of Blue Hospitality Logo Signs along the Entire
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority System
(CC 2011 -23)
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve a resolution supporting the installation of Blue Hospitality
Logo Signs along the entire Illinois State Toll Highway Authority System and authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute. So moved by Alderman Sutcliff, seconded by Alderman Teeling.
Mayor Burd explained that this comes from the Aurora Area Convention and Visitor Bureau. They voted
to join the tourism industry to encourage signs along the tollways.
Alderman Spears asked if the state had the money for the signs.
Alderman Sutcliff stated that the Aurora Area Convention and Visitor Bureau has been working on this
for several years. The signs will indicate where hotels, gas stations, restaurants, etc. are located. Aurora
has been trying hard to get the signs because they feel it will help their businesses.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays-0
Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye, Mums-aye,
Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye
Ordinance Approving the 2011 -2012 Fiscal Budget for the United City of Yorkville
(CC 2011 -22)
Mayor Burd noted that this item was for discussion and suggested that the Committee Reports be moved
up on the agenda before this item.
It was the consensus of the City Council to amend the agenda to move these items up.
The Minutes of the Re ular Meetina of the City Council — March 22 2011— a e 4
A motion was made by Alderman Werderich to amend the agenda; seconded by Alderman Golinski.
Motion approved unanim ously by a viva voce vote.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT
802 S. Bridge Street — Highway Authority Agreement
(PW 2011 -12)
A motion was made by Alderman Plocher to approve a Highway Authority Agreement by and between
the estate of Patrick Beardsley and the United City of Yorkville and authorize the Mayor to execute;
seconded by Alderman Munns.
Alderman Spears stated that she rather the city passed the responsibility on to the state due to the city's
amount of litigation. She stated that if the property is sold, the contamination remains and could put the
city in a bad position. She did not support the agreement.
Alderman Sutcliff asked if the agreement left the city open to possible litigation. Attorney Orr stated that
if the city digs in the area it will have to remediate the contamination. If someone else does the work, the
city is responsible to make sure they handle the remediation. Attorney Orr asked when this would be a
dead issue. City Engineer Wywrot explained that each Brownfield is unique. It should take care of itself
over a course of several years.
Alderman Teeling asked if the current property owner would take responsibility to remediate if the
agreement is not approved and the property is not sold. Mr. Richmond stated that the state and the LUST
Fund would remediate at some time however there is no current plan to do this. This hurts the sale of the
property. Alderman Teeling asked if the LUST Fund would still cover the property if the agreement is
approved and Mr. Richmond stated it would not. Attorney Orr questioned if the city could apply for the
LUST Fund if they assume responsibility. Both Mr. Richmond and Mr. Wywrot stated that the city
cannot access the LUST Fund.
Alderman Werderich asked Mr. Wywrot what the benefits would be to the agreement. Mr. Wywrot
explained that the benefit is in making the property more marketable. Alderman Werderich asked what
the LUST Fund was. Mr. Richmond explained that the state created the fund which businesses paid into
so that the state could inspect and address underground tanks. Unfortunately the money paid into the fund
was not enough to cover all the leaking tanks so there is no money left.
Alderman Golinski noted that when Route 47 is widened the city will abandon utilities in the area. If this
does not happen, will the city have to dig in the area? City Engineer Wywrot stated that they would.
Alderman Golinski asked what the cost of remediation would be. Mr. Wywrot stated he did not know
what the cost would be.
Alderman Spears noted that sometimes the city signs off on utility work. Mr. Wywrot explained that the
agreement will require the issuance of a permit to work in the area and would require removal of soil.
Alderman Gilson stated that the owner has a letter saying that the property is clean and that he asked the
staff to get a letter from the state regarding this matter. Mr. Wywrot explained that he hadn't received a
response from the state yet. Alderman Gilson was concerned with the city taking responsibility. He
asked what supports microbes eating the con taminati on. Mr. Wywrot stated that there was no specific
research on this.
A motion was made by Alderman Gilson to table the agreement until the results are received from the
state and the cost of remediation is determined; seconded by Alderman Spears.
Motion to table 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
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — March 22 2011— na2e 5
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Employee Benefits Renewal
(ADM 2011 -10)
A motion was made by Alderman Sutcliff to approve a contract with Met Life for life insurance, to
approve a contract with EyeMed for vision insurance, and to approve a contract with Blue Cross Blue
Shield for dental and medical insurance with the following changes: a $20 Primary Care Physicians /$40
Specialist office visit co -pay and a $10/$40/$60 drug card for the HMO plan, a high deductible PPO plan
($3,500 deductible for single /$7,000 deductible for family) with a health reimbursement arrangement of
$3,000 for single /$6,000 for family and employee contribution rates for both non -union and union
employees at the union rates with the exception of those non -union employees on family coverage who
are already paying slightly higher rates than the union employees; seconded by Alderman Munns.
Alderman Spears asked if EyeMed is honored by the local eye doctors. Human Resources Manager
Meghan Ostreko confirmed that all three of the local providers honor EyeMed insurance.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Munns -aye, Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye,
Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye, Sutcliff-aye
REPORTS, continue
MAYOR'S REPORT, continued
Ordinance Approving the 2011 -2012 Fiscal Budget for the United City of Yorkville
(CC 2011 -22)
Mayor Burd opened the floor for discussion.
Alderman Golinski stated that there appeared to be a discrepancy on page 51; a transfer to the Park &
Recreation Department is listed at $1.29 million however on page 61 the corresponding transaction is
$20,000.00 different. He felt the transactions should be equal. Director Fredrickson stated that this came
up in the audit however he could not remember why. He stated he would check into the difference.
Administrator Olson added that the number is different from what was actually spent.
Mayor Burd noted the budget ideas in the March 18, 2011 memo from Administrator Olson (see
attached):
• Western Riverfront Park building use — the pre- school is moving to the old post office building so
the Park Board has recommended leasing the building and asked for City Council input.
Administrator Olson added that the City Council approved a RFP for the building and four
proposals were received. The Park Board will be discussing them this week.
• Riverfront Park Kiosk -there is $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 in the TIF budget. Staff is researching
the cost. This is away to market Yorkville businesses. The City Council supported the kiosk.
• Zip line across the Fox River — Mayor Burd's son suggested the idea. It could go from the grain
elevator to the park on the other side of the river. Administrator Olson noted that the Park Board
discussed and liked the idea however they recommended it be run by an outside company. He
mentioned the concept to a few people at Canoecopia but he did not talk to anyone who ran a zip
line. He has reached out to a few operations in Wisconsin.
• Commercial alarm fines — this was discussed by the Administration Committee. Other
communities fine repeat offenders of false alarms. Currently this is not a problem in Yorkville.
Government bodies such as schools are exempt from fines. Attorney Orr added that it is a cost to
respond to an alarm and it jeopardizes service to other areas. Some communities also fine
residential repeat offenders. Members of the City Council asked to see what other communities
charge for fines.
• Traditional economic development incentives —this will come up as developers come along.
Staff needs to know if the City Council supports incentives. Aldermen Gilson and Spears
supported removing TIF incentives. Alderman Golinsld was opened to incentives in active TIF
areas. It was the consensus of the Council that no new TIF's be offered and they supported what
is already in place.
• Digital billboards within city limits and possibly on city property — Staff was approached by
someone willing to pay $30,000.00 for one sign. This could bring in $150,000.00 /year in revenue.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — March 22 2011— Vale 6
Alderman Spears noted that the City Council has already turned down similar signs; even one
requested by a local church. Aldermen Plocher, Sutcliff, Munns, Werderich and Golinski were
open to more information about the signs. Alderman Teeling thought they were tacky. Mayor
Burd suggested looking at on a case to case basis. Administrator Olson stated the sign ordinance
would need to be amended. He stated that it will take awhile to research and draft a new policy.
Alderman Spears asked if the church comes back with a request would the City Council
reconsider their request.
0 More cell towers on municipal property — the City Council has approved a second cell tower
lease. This line of revenue could expand in the future. The City Council supported this line of
revenue.
• 6% telecommunication tax — this increase was voted down last year but is still available. If
approved, it will not take effect until June. The majority of the City Council did not support the
increase in the tax.
• Senior garbage subsidy — the subsidy costs the city approximately $120.000.00 /year. It was
suggested to eliminate it. The Senior Ad hoc Committee recommended that the seniors who
qualify for the Circuit Breaker Program would still receive the subsidy. Alderman Golinski noted
a discrepancy in revenues; $20,000.00 vs. $120,000.00. He asked which was correct.
Administrator Olson explained that the actual revenue is $120,000.00. It was determined that the
discrepancy was in what Veolia was charging. It was determined that the City Council would
like more information before considering eliminating this.
• Referendum for a sales tax increase — the budget impact depends on the referendum passing.
• Interns — could be best option for getting work done at little cost. Mayor Burd questioned how
the City Council would feel if the city could get an IT intern for a low salary. Administrator
Olson stated that there is a vast difference between free and paid interns. He felt paid interns
would probably be more likely to have the skills needed by the city. The City Council supported
free interns but was open to look at them on a case to case basis.
• Outsourcing with other municipalities and consultants — other communities have expressed an
interest in outsourcing their staff to Yorkville, especially in the areas of IT and GIS. Alderman
Spears questioned why the city didn't keep its own people rather than now having to outsource.
Mayor Burd stated that Yorkville tried to offer its services to other communities but no one
committed.
• Vehicle stickers — this could be a way of generating revenue to be used for road maintenance.
Alderman Plocher explained that this idea was presented to him by his parents as well as other
residents. It was the consensus of the City Council not to pursue this line of revenue.
• iPads v. paper — this has been discussed by the City Council before. If laptops would have been
purchased when originally suggested, they would have paid for themselves over a year or two.
iPads are now being used instead of laptops. They cost $500.00 /iPad and will save $100.00 to
$200.00 /year in paper. He also noted he factored in copier maintenance, toner, etc. into the paper
cost. He did not factor in staff time. Alderman Werderich noted that he has been using his own
iPad since December and likes using it instead of paper. Administrator Olson stated that the cost
benefit of going paperless is stretched out over four to five years. Alderman Teeling stated she
liked the idea but suggested City Council members use their own equipment. Aldermen Munns
and Spears were against purchasing iPads for the City Council. Alderman Golinski stated he
liked using paper packets and recycled them when he was done however if the city stops printing
the packets, he would buy his own iPad. Mayor Burd encouraged the City Council to get their
own laptop or iPad. She stated that if the city does purchase equipment it should stay with the
desk.
• Selling or leasing assets — the city has a land and buildings being underutilized. Administrator
Olson asked the City Council to approach this with caution. The consensus of the Council was to
look into leasing property before considering its sale.
• Business registration — requiring businesses licenses could generate revenue and result in the city
having an accurate database of every business in the city. Administrator Olson explained that a
business registration does exist however it has not been updated in three years. The City Council
was divided on this issue. It was suggested to register businesses without a fee.
• Selling other sponsorship opportunities — this is a highly variable potential for $100,000.00 and
upward in revenue. Some municipalities sell ad space on their buildings or water towers. It was
suggested to look at this on a case to case basis.
• More furloughs — non -union staff are taking five days of furloughs this fiscal year which creates
an expense reduction of $25,000.00. The majority of the City Council was against furloughs.
• Pay cuts — with almost half of the city's employees having a bargaining contract, this is not
equitable. Also, the budget impact is variable. It was suggested to lower the pay scales on job
descriptions and to address the department heads salaries. The majority of the City Council was
against pay cuts.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — March 22 2011— uaEe 7
• Structural changes in budgeting — there are still one -time revenues (building permits,
development fees, etc) being used to fund ongoing operational costs. The mayor is against this
and has mandated that it end in FY 12. This has already been implemented.
• Enterprise opportunities — there are going to be opportunities such as a solar power facility for the
city to venture into. The budget impact of these opportunities is highly variable. It was discussed
to look at these on a case to case basis.
• Off peak water pumping hours — the Administration Committee discussed pumping water during
off -peak hours only in order to save energy costs. Administrator Olson explained that the city
bids out for electricity rates and that they are locked in for a year. Through this process, the city
agrees to not pump during peak hours.
Administrator Olson addressed budget amendments suggested by staff as outlined in his March 4, 2011
memo (from the March 8, 2011 City Council packet). He asked the City Council for input so staff could
finalize the budget.
• Police Commission - staff recommended authorizing a change in the Police Commission line item
from $7,000.00 to $15,000.00. They asked that the City Council approve the change so staff
could change the line item in the final budget.
• Development Fees — staff recommended that this line item be reduced from $17,500.00 to
$10,500.00. The original calculation was based on an impact fee of $500.00/home. The actual
amount is $300.00/home. The change has no impact on the general fund but impacts the fund
balance within the Police Equipment Capital Fund.
• Road Contribution Fees - the original amount proposed was $24,000.00. The revised amount is
$20,000.00 and the change impacts the fund balance. The original amount was based on a
calculation of twelve homes at $2,000.00 when it should have been based on ten homes at the
same amount.
Administrator Olson stated that if the recommended changes are authorized by the City Council the
general fund will go from $260,636.00 to $252,636.00. It was the consensus of the City Council to
support the changes recommended in the memo.
Alderman Gilson recommended looking at increasing the municipal impact and road contribution fees.
Administrator Olson explained that the road fees could possibly be increased but the impact fees could
not. Alderman Gilson asked if staff could compile some information on increasing the fee. Administrator
Olson stated they could but it would take a few months to compile it. Alderman Gilson asked if Yorkville
could raise the development and inspection fees and still be comparable to area communities.
Administrator Olson stated that it could. Alderman Gilson asked if this discussion could be placed on an
Administration Committee meeting agenda for further.
Alderman Spears suggested removing the training recommended in #4 of the March 4, 2011 memo and
address it next year. Alderman Gilson agreed. Administrator Olson explained that $34,800.00 is for
mandatory training, $16,400.00 is for recommended training and that $9,000.00 is for the IML
conference. There was some discussion on how attending the 1? IM Conference was abused in the past.
Administrator Olson felt that the new alderman could benefit from attending the conference.
Administrator Olson suggested that if the funds for the IlVIL Conference were removed that about $500.00
remain for the newly elected training seminar and some training for staff. After a brief discussion, it was
recommended to keep funds in the budget for the newly elected officials training and not the IML
conference.
Administrator Olson noted that with the City Council approval of the new health care costs, the budget
will need to be revised to reflect the increase of about $275,000.00. The fund balance will be used and
will be significantly less.
Alderman Gilson had the following questions on the February 18, 2011 memo:
• What is the dollar equivalent if the city receives 200 new residential construction permits needed
to remove the water infrastructure fee? Administrator Olson stated that it was $600,000.00.
• Where is the city at in regards to the rebate with Raging Waves? Administrator Olson stated that
he has met with Raging Waves and the rebate will be before the council in a few months. He
explained that the increased rebate has been budgeted for.
• Were building permit revenues down in this budget. Administrator Olson stated they were.
• Was the same amount for professional services for engineering being kept in the budget?
Administrator Olson stated it was.
• What is the breakdown of the bad debt? Director Fredrickson explained that it was for the
landfill and accounts receivable.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — March 22 2011— Page 8
• Did all recent Annexation Agreements have engineering impact fees? Administrator Olson stated
that they did, this was included in agreements from 2004 forward.
• When was the last water connection comparison? Administrator Olson stated that it was done in
2007 -2008. Was it going to be looked at again? Administrator Olson stated that this was not
tied to any other community but was based on the cost of expansion. He stated he would look
into other community's fees.
• What was the status of the Rec Center purchase? Administrator Olson stated that there was
nothing to report.
• What is the status on the Rec Center property tax? Administrator Olson stated that the city was
still fighting for being released from the taxes but it may not happen.
Alderman Spears questioned the cable franchise fee. Did the city get any more information from
AT &T? Administrator Olson stated that their service began in 2008 /2009 and there is up to $5,000.00 in
revenue.
Alderman Golinski asked if AT &T U -verse was available to the entire city. Administrator Olson
explained that it was offered in some areas inside city limits but there is an issue with U -verse boxes in
the right -of -way verses private property.
Alderman Spears noted that a purchase of one police vehicle is allowed in the budget and she thought
they were allowed more. Administrator Olson explained that this was discussed in great detail and only
one was placed in the budget. If any vehicles breakdown and need replacement they can be addressed as
a budget amendment.
There were no further questions or comments. Mayor Burd indicated that the budget would be on the
next City Council agenda for approval.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
None.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No report.
CITY CLERK'S REPORT
No report.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
No report.
CITY ADMINISTATOR'S REPORT
No report.
i
DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION'S REPORT
No report.
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No report.
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
No report.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT
No report.
CHIEF OF POLICE'S REPORT
Chief Hart thanked everyone who attended the law enforcement dinner. He stated that the department
received two awards at the event. Lieutenant Schwartzkopf received an award for nineteen years of
meritorious service and the department received a valor award for its role in an officer related shooting in
August 2010. Mayor Burd congratulated the department on the awards.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
Director Barksdale -Noble reported that the final Building Code updates were discussed at a meeting
March 21, 2011. Recommendations will be sent to the Economic Development Committee and then there
will be a public hearing at a City Council meeting before they are adopted. .
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — March 22 2011— naLye 9
COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICER'S REPORT
No report.
COMMUNITY & LIAISON REPORT
Medicare Part B
Alderman Spears gave a report on the new benefits that have been added to Medicare Plan B; wellness
exams, cholesterol screenings, flu shots, etc.
Health Screening
Alderman Spears reported that there would be a free health screening sponsored by Rush - Copley event at
the Beecher Center on April 15, 2011 from 8:00 to 9:30 a.m. There will also be a diabetes screening the
same day and times.
Health Plex Family Event
Alderman Spears reported that there was a "Play It Safe" family event at the Health Plex on April 30,
2011 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Defensive Driving Class
Alderman Spears reported that a defensive driving class for drivers over the age of fifty would be held on
April 14 and 15, 2011. The cost is $15.00 /person.
Southwest Fox Valley Cable Consortium
Alderman Spears reported that she attended the Southwest Fox Valley Cable Consortium meeting where
they discussed a refund of %4 of the fees to all the participating communities. She went over the statistic
covering the last year's service.
Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District
Alderman Gilson reported that he attended the Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District meeting where they
- discussed health insurance, legal counsel, pump monitoring, etc.
Canoecopia
Alderman Werderich reported that he attended the Canoecopia event along with Administrator Olson and
Lynn Dubajic. They were there to promote Yorkville and the whitewater park. He noted that they
received a great response and that the Illinois Paddling Council did a presentation on the park.
Yorkville Economic Development Corporation
Alderman Munns reported that he attended the Yorkville Economic Development Corporation meeting
where they discussed the bike path issue and the city's sewer bonds.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Beecher Center HVAC
Alderman Sutcliff asked if the HVAC was going to be replaced at the Beecher Center. Administrator
Olson explained that this was being put off as for in the future as possible. The estimated cost for the
replacement is $330,000.00.
Cultural Arts Liaison
Alderman Sutcliff stated that she would like to be the Cultural Arts Commission liaison. Administrator
Olson explained that this fell under the Governing Ordinance which needs to be amended to add the
commission. Mayor Burd asked that her request be discussed by the Administration Committee.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing 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. So moved by Alderman Werderich; seconded by Alderman Spears.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -7 Nays -0
Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye, Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye
The City Council entered Executive Session at 9:53 p.m.
The City Council returned to regular session at 10:00 p.m.
The Minutes of the Regular Meetine of the City Council — March 22 2011— page 10
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved by Alderman Werderich; seconded
by Alderman Sutcliff.
Adjournment of the meeting was unanimously approved by a viva voce vote.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Jacquelyn Milschewski
q yn
City Clerk City of Yorkville, Illinois
I
i
t
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 22, 2011
PLEASE PRINT
N SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
- � l
6v
SIGNIN
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Public Comment
March 22, 2011
PLEASE PRINT
NAME: SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
SIGNIN
Z) Memorandum
To: City Council
EST. 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator
CC:
Date: March 18, 2011
" p
Subject: Budget discussion
Action requested at 3 -22 City Council meeting
There is no action requested by staff at the City Council meeting, other than discussion
on the policy options proposed in the February 18 memo from me to the City Council. There is
a draft budget ordinance in the City Council packet for your information. At the April 12 City
Council meeting, the budget ordinance will be in final form with the most recent figures for each
fund, as have been discussed and amended by City Council.
Supplemental information
Attached are the other two memos associated with the budget discussion for the FY 12
proposed budget. Since the last City Council meeting (March 8 only one substantial change to
the budget will occur. That change is a result of our health insurance renewal, which is on
tonight's City Council agenda for a vote. While the Finance Director and I went into the FY 12
budget with a conservative estimate of health insurance (15% higher than last year's total cost),
our renewals came in much higher. Because of that variance and a higher than anticipated usage
of the HRA plan for PPOs, the impact to this current year's budget and next year's budget is
expected to be between $200,000 and $275,000. Further details on this estimate will be
discussed at the City Council meeting and a final estimate for City Council adoption into the FY
12 proposed budget will be presented at the April 12 City Council meeting.
The Recreation department budget and REC Center budget revisions discussed at Park
Board on March 10 are in the March 24 Park Board packets for additional discussion. These
budget revisions will be presented to City Council in April after the numbers are approved by the
Park Board.
Memorandum
i!�� less To: City Council
esr.
1` I From: Bart Olson, City Administrator
-t CC:
p 0
Date: March 4, 2011
Subject: Budget amendments
i
Please accept this report as a running list of all budget amendments authorized by City
Council, all answers to questions posed, and all suggested changes from staff to the proposed
budget as a result of new information during the FY 12 budget proposal discussion. During
subsequent meetings, this report will increase in length as meeting summaries are added. Where
attachments are referred to, those attachments will be distributed only once to the City Council
(we will not redistribute the attachments each time this report is redistributed).
February 26, 2011 Special City Council meeting
Questions posed:
1) Request for detailed reports on expenses from the following line- items:
a. Parks department, operating supplies
b. Parks department, small tools
c. Recreation department, Recreation equipment
d. REC Center, operating supplies
e. REC Center, repair and maintenance
f. General fund revenues, miscellaneous income from FY 09
g. Administration department, postage and shipping from FY 11 projected
h. Administration department, dues
i. Engineering department, engineering supplies
j. Streets, hand tools
k. REC Center, outside repair and maintenance
2) Maintenance program on all City vehicles
a. Information from Public Works and the Police Department is attached. Of note,
no specific database exists within Public Works that itemizes the repairs and
maintenance invoices to specific vehicles. Public Works has been directed to
track maintenance invoices to vehicles going forward, similar to how the Police
Department tracks maintenance. Also, as reported from time -to -time in the
Administrator' Weekly, staff has been working with a fleet maintenance
consultant for the past few months. This consultant is a former employee of a
fleet maintenance department in another, larger, municipality. He is starting his
own consulting company and has volunteered his services to the City for free in
exchange for serving as a reference. He has submitted a preliminary report to
Public Works and Parks that will be discussed at an upcoming Public Works
Committee meeting, and he will be meeting with the Police in the near future.
I
I
i
i
3) Land -cash transfer to general fund for salaries
a. Emails and memos from Superintendent Sleezer and Parks Designer Schraw are
attached. These emails and memos detail the time spent in FY 11 and the
estimates for time spent in FY 12 and beyond.
4) Mandatory training for certifications v. recommended training for professional
development
a. Summary for all departments:
i. $34,800 in mandatory training
ii. $16,400 in recommended training
b. Administration Department:
i. $9,000 total, all recommended training
ii. This would send every alderman to IML with one night of lodging, and
any new elected official to the IML's newly elected officials seminar in
Summer 2011. It would also fund an ICMA national conference for me
(in Milwaukee this year), and other general training for staff ($100 to $200
per staff member, to be targeted at each staff member's areas of
improvement).
c. Finance Department
i. $3,000 total, all recommended training
ii. This would allow an IGFOA state conference for the Finance Director, as
well as general training for staff.
d. Engineering Department
i. $2,650 total - $2,400 for mandatory training and $250 for recommended
training.
ii. The mandatory training is related to continuing education requirements
related to PE's. The recommended training is for general training for the
Senior Engineering Tech.
e. Police Department
i. $22,000 total, all mandatory training
f. Community Development Department
i. $1,900 total - $1,000 mandatory training and $900 recommended
ii. The mandatory training is related to planning, building code, and
landscape architect certifications. Recommended trainings would be for
general training and seminars for the staff (state conferences).
g. Streets Department
i. $2,000 total, all mandatory training
ii. Mandatory training is related to traffic signal certifications and electrical
certifications.
h. Water Department
i. $3,600 total, all mandatory training
ii. Mandatory training is related to water licenses.
i. Sewer Department
i. $1,000 total, all mandatory training
ii. Mandatory training is related to wastewater licenses.
j. Parks Department
i. $3,350 total - $1,600 for mandatory training and $1,750 for recommended
training
ii. Mandatory training is related to playground safety certifications.
Recommended training would be for general training and conferences
(state).
k. Recreation Department
i. $2,700 total - $1,200 for mandatory training and $1,500 for recommended
training
ii. Mandatory training is related to CPRP certifications. Recommended
training is for general training and conferences (state).
Amendments made by City Council:
1) None voted upon
Amendments suggested by staff, as a result of new information: q
1) Police Commission 01- 210 -54 -00 -5411
a. FY 12 proposed budget originally: $7,000
b. FY 12 proposed budget, revised: $15,000
c. Impact on fund balance: ($8,000)
d. Reason for suggested change:
i. This number was based off of amounts spent in prior years. In this
upcoming year, sergeants' testing must be completed. Even though no
sergeants are proposed to be hired, the current sergeants list is set to expire
and must be redone.
2) Development Fees 20- 000 -42 -00 -4214 (Police Equipment Capital Fund)
a. FY 12 proposed budget originally: $17,500
b. FY 12 proposed budget, revised: $10,500
c. Impact on fund balance: ($7,000) (see note in "d ")
d, Reason for suggested change:
i. As discussed at the 2/26 City Council meeting, the calculation for this
line -item was incorrectly made off of a $500 per home impact fee. The
amount is actually $300. This change has no impact on general fund fund
balance, but it does impact the fund balance within the Police Equipment
Capital Fund.
3) Road Contribution Fees 23- 000 -42 -00 -4214 (City -Wide Capital Fund)
a. FY 12 proposed budget originally: $24,000
b. FY 12 proposed budget, revised: $20,000
c. Impact on fund balance: ($4,000) (see note in "d ")
d. As discussed at the 2/26 City Council meeting, the calculation for this line -item
was incorrectly made off of an assumption of 12 homes at $2,000, when my
budget narrative states it should be 10 homes at $2,000. This change has no
impact on general fund fund balance, but it does impact thte fund balance within
the City -Wide Capital Fund.
i
I
Recommendation by staff for the items discussed above:
Recommendation l:
Authorize the change in the Police Commission line -item from $7,000 to $15,000.
Recommendation 2 and 3:
Authorize the changes narrated in item #2 and #3 above, related to development fees
within the Police Equipment Capital Fund and the road contribution fees within the City -
Wide Capital Fund.
Results:
If the recommended changes are authorized by the City Council:
FY 12 general fund proposed fund balance will go from $260,636 to $252,636
I
s
3
C1,*
Memorandum
To: City Council
1 tee From: Bart Olson, City Administrator
.� CC: Department Heads
O� p Date: February 18, 2011
W
LE Subject: FY 12 budget proposal
Purpose and a note:
Please accept this report and budget spreadsheet as an updated proposal for the FY 12
budget. The budget proposed for approval by the City Council is for expenses and revenues
scheduled to be spent and collected, respectively, between May 1, 2011 and April 30, 2012. The
City had commonly referred to this period of time as "fiscal year 2011 - 2012 ", "FY 11/12" or
similar. For ease of use, this period of time will be referred to only as "FY 2012" in the budget
document and FY 12 in this memo.
Background and "the big picture ":
There have been two unofficial budget discussions proposals for FY 12 presented to City
Council in the past 12 months. The first budget discussion occurred during February through
April 2010 as part of the FY 11 budget approval process, and is shown on the FY 10 /11 budget
document approved by City Council in April 2010 under the column title "Proposed FY I IA2
Budget ". Some of the numbers proposed for FY 12 in February 2010 are still relevant; others are
not. In the following memo, I will illustrate where the most substantial changes occurred in the
FY 12 budget from what was proposed in April 2010 to what is being discussed today. For the
clarity of the budget document, only the FY 12 figures proposed by the Mayor and staff are
shown (since the figures proposed in April 2010 may not be relevant anymore).
The second budget update was discussed in October 2010 when the City began
discussions on satisfying the sewer debt for FY 12. That memo is included within the October
26` City Council packet if you wish to reference it. In the following memo, I will illustrate the
substantial changes in the FY 12 budget figures discussed in that memo to what is being
proposed today. The numbers discussed in the October 2010 memo were what we knew had
changed between February 2010 and October 2010, and were provided to the City Council to
show that we were (and are) dealing with general fund budget issues that prevented us from
using the general fund to satisfy sewer debt.
The budget document attached for your review contains 7 columns spanning 6 fiscal
years. There is the FY 09 actual and FY 10 actual columns, which contain figures shown in
those year's audits. There is the FY 11 adopted budget, which contains figures approved by City
Council in April 2010. There is the FY 11 projection, which is where Finance Director
Fredrickson and I think the FY 11 budget will be on April 30, 2011. There is the FY 12
proposed budget, which must be adopted (in some form) prior to April 30, 2011. Finally, the FY
13 and FY 14 budgets show the future impacts of budgetary decisions made today. To reiterate,
the City Council will only formally approve figures contained within the "FY 12 proposed"
column.
1
4
As discussed during the FY 09/10 audit, the City's general fund fund balance is at
negative $492,000 as of April 30, 2010 and our cash flow position is poor. In order to improve
our financial situation, we must run budget surpluses over the next few fiscal years. We expect
to run a small budget deficit in FY 11 (due to the transfer of one large expense from FY 12 to FY
11), but we expect to eliminate the negative fund balance by the end of FY 12. These statements
are dependent upon the actions of City Council in the review of this budget proposal.
The City's water and sewer funds are expected to remain in good standing over the next
three fiscal years, due to the City Council's decision to revert certain bond payments to property
taxes in FY 12, and the implementation of the water infrastructure improvement and
maintenance fee in FY 11. Unfortunately, the water infrastructure improvement and
maintenance fee must remain in place through FY 14 due to Route 47 construction costs and
increases in other water debt obligations — that is assuming that growth does not pick up over
that time. Fortunately, the previously discussed and defeated sewer infrastructure improvement
and maintenance fee does not need to be implemented in FY 12 or FY 13, but may need to be
implemented in FY 14, which is when Rob Roy sewer bond payment agreements cease with
Centex.
Finally, over the next few years the following trends should be monitored:
1) If the City receives 200 new residential construction building permits within any fiscal
year, it is likely the water infrastructure improvement and maintenance fee can be
removed with no detriment to the water fund. If the City receives over 200 building
permits within any fiscal year, we can discuss refunding past payments of the water
infrastructure improvement and maintenance fee.
2) If the non -home rule sales tax referendum passes in April 2011, the sewer fund will likely
be able to abate a portion of the property taxes associated with sewer debt that were not
abated in January 2011 by the City Council.
3) The City needs 120 building permits per year in order to make the debt payments on the
Public Works building on Wolf Street. Right now, we are budgeting for only 35 permits
per year. The Public Works capital fund is expected to show a negative fund balance in
April 2013 as a result. If the City receives any more than 35 per year, that event horizon
is pushed out further into the future.
4) The Library budget for FY 12 was approved in summer 2010. The Library Board has not
yet discussed their FY 13 or FY 14 budgets. Without any changes to their budget, the
Library Board will have depleted their fund balance by FY 13.
5) The decision on the extension of the REC Center lease agreement must be made by
December 2011. The end of the first five year term is July 2013.
2
5
6) The health of the general fund fund balance (discussed briefly above) already takes into
account the City's funding of the Route 47 project and River Road bridge project with no
borrowing within the water, sewer, or general fund. However, in order to fund
streetscape improvements in the downtown TIF district that are related to Route 47
construction, a bond sale in the downtown TIF will likely be necessary — but should be
easily repaid by TIF revenues over a 10 -year period. That statement is contingent upon
the City Council voting to entering into a contract with IDOT for those streetscape
improvements in the Summer /Fall of 2011. Those improvements are called for in the
City's Integrated Transportation Plan, but will ultimately be a policy decision for the City
Council.
7) The health of the general fund fund balance does take into account the City's funding of
the engineering and land acquisition associated with Game Farm Road expansion without
borrowing. It does not take into account the funding of the construction of Game Farm
Road without borrowing. The construction of Game Farm Road will not need to be paid
for until FY 15, but it may be prudent for the City Council to maximize fund balance
build -up prior to that point to defray the cost of borrowing for that project.
Changes in budget format from last year to the next
The foremost change to the budget format is the introduction of a summary sheet for each
department and fund budget, which contains a projected fund balance component for each fund.
This addition will hopefully give the casual budget observer a quicker, easier, and clearer
understanding of the budget for each department and how that department's yearly budget
impacts the City's long term fiscal health. The addition of the summary sheet corresponds with
the elimination of a past budgeting practice — the "carry- over" or "beginning fund balance" line-
item. By not showing these carry -over line -items within the revenues of each fund, everyone
should have a clearer picture of what is actually be taken in as revenues each year and what is
being spent — and whether the combination of those two processes results in a net financial gain
or net financial loss to the City. Detailed examples will be given at the City Council budget
meetings.
The next large change in the budget format is the aggregation of smaller line -items into
larger, more general line- items. This makes the budget easier to read, will cut down on budget
coding errors, and will save staff time during bill processing. Instead of having line -items for
office supplies, operating supplies and office equipment, there might be only one line -item for
"office supplies" or "small tools and equipment ".
The third large change is the display of certain reimbursements received by the City.
When the City receives a reimbursement for special police detail, that reimbursement was often
shown as a credit in the expenditure line -item within the general fund. This means that within
the expense line -item for police salaries, the reimbursement was subtracted from the total amount
of budgeted police salaries. Instead, we are now showing the reimbursement as its own revenue
line -item within the general fund and the police salaries line -item within the expenses of the
police budget remain untouched. By doing this, we now have an accurate picture of the total
3
6
cost of running the police department. This results in an increase in expenses and an increase in
revenues from a budget perspective, but no overall change in the financial health of the City.
The fourth large change in the budget format will be seen when the City Council directs
staff to make changes to individual line- iterns or staff has new information on line -items and
needs to process changes to line - items. Instead of revising the FY 12 budget column and
sending the elected officials a new copy of the proposed, we are going to keep the FY 12 budget
spreadsheet as is until the end of the budget process. Instead, the City Council will receive
budget change memos after each meeting that outline changes to individual line -items authorized
by City Council at the previous meeting. The distribution of multiple copies of the budget last
year was a source of confusion during the process, and hopefully this new format will eliminate
that.
The final large change is the creation of the administrative services cost centers within
the budget. In prior years, the Finance Department budget was bloated with transfers to other
funds in the budget. This resulted in an inaccurate picture of "Finance Department" operating
expenses. Those transfers have been removed from the department budgets and put into their
own sub - budget. Other general costs (i.e. legal) have been moved to this cost center as well.
A moderate change, discussed above, is the extension to a three -year budget. Instead of
showing only the FY 12 budget, we are showing an early FY 13 and FY 14 budget. Showing
these budget columns allow us to see the long -term impacts of the decisions made today.
A smaller change is the elimination of showing 6 years of past budget data in our
spreadsheets. While some residents may be interested in seeing how this year's budget compares
to previous years, this application has no practical purpose for staff or the elected officials in
making a decision on the FY 12 budget. Further, the elimination of that data on our budget
spreadsheet saves paper and makes the budget document easier to read. Finally, if anyone
desires to see that budget data, the City has provided the FY 11 budget document in an excel
format on the City's website here - http: / /yorkvilleJl.us /depts fin fy bud eg_t.nh� The
attachments on that page include all budget data back through FY 2003 -2004.
The small picture — items of note in the general fund
Please accept the following information as discussion on individual line -items within the
budget. These individual line -items may change between now and the date of approval based on
City Council direction or staff recommendation (due to new information). Revenues are listed as
'W ", and expenditures are listed as "E # ".
Rl) Property taxes — corporate levy 01- 000 -40 -00 -4000
R2) Property taxes — police pension 01- 000 -40 -00 -4010
a. In total, and notwithstanding the sewer debt issue, City real estate taxes are
expected to grow over the next three fiscal years due to the increase in the
consumer- price -index associated with the property tax cap. It is expected that
most of the increase each year will be directed to the police pension system and
the library.
4
7
i
R3) Municipal sales tax 01- 000 -40 -00 -4030
a. Retail sales data, both nationally and locally have outperformed recent
expectations. We expect 2% increase in total revenues each year over the FY 11
projected numbers.
R4) Electric Utility Tax 01- 000 -40 -00 -4040
R5) Natural Gas utility tax 01- 000 -40 -00 -4041
R6) Personal Property Replacement Tax 01- 000 -41 -00 -4120
R7) State income tax 01- 000 -41 -00 -4100
R8) Local use tax 01- 000 -41 -00 -4105
a. For these taxes, we saw record lows in FY 09/10. From that year to the current
year, we are seeing a strong uptick in almost every tax, but we are keeping
projected figures near FY 09/10 levels for the purpose of estimating revenues
conservatively.
b. Of note on the state income tax — in the October 2010 memo to City Council, I
had estimated the FY 12 figure to be $1.4 million, up from $1.3 million in FY 11.
The economy has markedly improved since October 2010 (as far as income tax
disbursement estimates go!), but I do not expect $1.4 million to be achieved until
FY 13. So, the FY 12 proposed figure is only $1.34 million.
R9) Amusement tax 01- 000 -40 -00 -4060
a. The difference between the FY 11 projected budget and the FY 12 proposed
budget is due to the fact that the amusement tax will be in place for a full season
at Raging Waves. In order to partially offset the increase in the amusement tax,
the City Council is expected to entertain a proposal to change the amount of
admissions fee (authorized under Raging Waves' annexation agreement) that is
rebated to Raging Waves.
R10) Business District Tax 01- 000 -40 -00 -4070
a. This revenue line -item corresponds with an expenditure line -item of the same
amount, as this tax is rebated 100% to the developer of Kendall Marketplace to
pay down bonds related to public infrastructure. Although the performance of
this line -item has no impact on the overall performance of the budget, it is
noteworthy because it is one measurement of the ongoing performance of Kendall
Marketplace.
R1 l) Telephone utility tax 01- 000 -40 -00 -4043
a. While we expect land -line use to continue to decline, more people are turning
towards cell - phones which are often more expensive month -to- month.
R12) Cable franchise fees 01- 000 -40 -00 -4045
a. While we have seen a slight decrease in revenues associated with Comcast, we
have seen large increases in revenues associated with AT &T. With the continued
growth of the area, these numbers should increase each year.
5
8
R13) Pari - mutuel tax 01- 000 -40 -00 -4080
a. These taxes are tied to wagers or bets placed at the OTB. Through the first two
months of operation, the tax has averaged $1,000 per month. While we expect
these numbers to increase substantially (the original estimate provided by the
developer was $90,000 per year) we are keeping the budget estimates low.
R14) Building permits 01- 000 -42 -00 -4210
a. Revenue figures within this line -item will equal the exact cost of the Chief
Building Official's salary, plus the Building Department Receptionist's salary,
plus the cost of outsourced inspections. During the year, once those costs are met,
all building permit revenue will be transferred into a capital fund for the use of
one -time capital expenses. This prevents us from using one -item revenues for
long -term operating costs in the future. The "surplus" building permit revenues
are currently denoted in the City -wide capital fund budget under line -item 23-
000 -42 -00 -4210. We do not expect any "surplus" building permit revenues until
FY 13.
R15) Development Fees 01- 000 -42 -00 -4214
a. Similar to the building permit revenues discussed in "R15" above, development
fees are one -time revenues paid by developers when final plats are recorded, or
when new subdivisions are proposed. Under best budgeting practices, these one-
time revenues should go to fund one -time expenses — and thus, we have created a
line -item within the city -wide capital fund for all development fees received by
the City. The line -item in the capital fund is 23- 000 -42 -00 -4214.
R16) Traffic fines 01- 000 -43 -00 -4310
R17) Administrative Adjudication 01- 000 -43 -00 -4320
R18) Police Tows 01- 000 -43 -00 -4325
a. All of these line -items were targeted in my October 2010 memo as possibly being
over- estimated, and I was correct. These line -items have been revised
downwards.
R19) Reimb - employee health insurance 01- 000 -46 -00 -4670
a. The difference between the FY I 1 approved budget and the FY 12 proposed
budget is due to a change in budgeting. As discussed above in the discussion of
the third large change in budgeting, some of the amounts in this line -item were I
moved from the expense line -item within the Finance Department for health
insurance to this revenue line -item.
R20) Reimbursement line -items Multiple #'s
a. All other line -items included within the "01- 000 -46" grouping are new line -items
that signal the budgeting change discussed in RI above.
6
I
I
9
R21) Transfer from land -cash 01- 000 -49 -00 -4979
a. Land -cash dollars may be spent on staff hours spent constructing or administering
land -cash eligible projects. In prior years, this accounted for about 35% of the
City Parks Designer's hours and about 25% of the Superintendent of Parks' hours.
In the next few years, we anticipate that their total hours spent on land -cash items
will decrease, so the transfer has been decreased. The amounts shown account
for:
i. FY 12
1. 10% of City Parks Designer Schraw's salary
2. 20% of Superintendent Sleezer's salary
ii. FY 13
L 10% of City Parks Designer Schraw's salary
2. 17% of Superintendent Sleezer's salary
iii. FY 14
L 10% of City Parks Designer Schraw's salary
2. 10% of Superintendent Sleezer's salary
El) All departments Multiple line -item #'s
a. Any references to "retirement plan contribution" are the City's expense in paying
into employee pensions. This line -item was previously referred to as "IMRF
contributions"
E2) All departments Multiple line -item #'s
a. Any references to "FICA contribution" were previously referred to as "social
security ".
E3) All departments Multiple line -item #'s
a. Each department's "training and conferences" and "travel and lodging" line -items
contain two calculations within the proposed figure. The first sub - figure is the
amount that must be approved each year to maintain employee certifications and
accreditations within that department. The costs associated with these
certifications and accreditations were funded within the FY 11 budget, and should
be funded again. The second sub - figure is related to training, seminars and
conferences related to employees' professional development. While not
necessary to maintain a certification or accreditation, it is my recommendation
that we set aside money to conduct seminars, send employees to seminars, and
send certain employees to state and national conferences. We have not funded
any of these expenses in the past three years, and I fear that we may fall behind in
overall staff efficiency by having an under - trained workforce, or worse create
issues by not having employees educated on the latest information related to
employment /personnel law. While the cost of a state or national conference may
seem expensive, it is my experience that these conferences often pay for
themselves through new initiatives or operational efficiencies. Finally, although
the IML conference has been a source of much budget discussion in the past, it is
my recommendation that the City Council fund conference fees and one night's
lodging for all aldermen, mayor, clerk, treasurer, police chief, and myself. While
7
10
I am a firm believer of streamlining conference attendance (have one person learn
something and then teach other employees), minimizing attendance does not
adequately accommodate the unique viewpoints that each elected official brings
to the table and the value that can be brought to the City if each elected official
hears the conference seminars firsthand. Also, I am a firm believer in the value
brought by our elected officials networking among other municipalities' elected
officials — and the IML conference is the best place to network.
i. Breakout between the two sub - figures will be provided at the meeting.
E4) Dues and subscriptions (Admin) 01- 110 -54 -00 -5490
a_ This line -item contains three former line - items, but the increase is related to the
increase in MetroWest dues.
E5) Auditing services (Finance) 01- 120 -54 -00 -5414
a. This line -item has decreased based on the bill to be received for the FY 10 audit
(staff was able to save money by relying on the auditors less) and a projected
decrease in costs related to an RFP for auditing services beyond FY 12.
E6) Salaries and wages (Community Relations) 01- 130 -50 -00 -5010
E7) Part-time salaries (Community Relations) 01- 130 -50 -00 -5015
a. These line -items exchanged figures because of the transfer in employment status
from full -time to part-time of the Community Relations Officer. No change in
that status is expected through FY 14.
E8) Holiday Under the Stars (Corn Rel) 01- 130 -56 -00 -5693
a. While the budget figure has been eliminated, the event will still be held. Because
the Community Relations Officer has only spent money on the event after
sponsorship money has been received, it will not be shown within the budget and
instead shown on an individual balance sheet account in the general fund's
balance sheet.
E9) Professional services (Engineering) 01- 150 -54 -00 -5462
a. Each year, $30,000 is budgeted for this line -item to be used for unanticipated
engineering projects throughout the year.
E10) Salaries — Police Officers 01- 210 -50 -00 -5010
E11) Salaries — Lieut/Sergeants /Chief 01- 210 -50 -00 -5012
a. The increase in the police officers line -item is related to mandatory wage
increases during the first 5 years of employment for police officers (under their
bargaining agreement) and the hire of one police officer on July 1 The decrease
in the salaries for the police management is related to the retirement of Sgt.
Groesch (instead of replacing the vacant Sgt's position, the Chief wishes to hire
the officer mentioned above).
8
i
I
i
11
E12) Bad debt 01- 640 -54 -00 -5499
a. The $89,000 shown in the FY 11 projected column is the last of the outstanding
bad debt, except for bad debt associated with landfill litigation (ongoing).
The small picture — all other funds
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
Rl) Illinois Jobs Now Proceeds 15- 000 -40 -00 -4172
a. Supplemental MFT disbursements were announced last year, and the City
received the first disbursement of $73,000 this year. Under that program, the
City will receive two additional disbursements in each of the next two fiscal
years.
R2) Reimb — Old Jail /Downtown Parking Lot 15- 000 -46 -00 -4605
a. The amount received in FY 12 is for the construction of the parking lot, which is
expected to be completed by the end of calendar year 2011.
R3) Transfer from General Fund 15- 000 -49 -00 -4901
a. This is the amount the general fund must transfer to MFT in order to fund the
Game Farm Road project engineering and land acquisition, River Road bridge
project, and MFT - eligible expenses related to Route 47 expansion.
E1) Patching 15- 155 -56 -00 -5632
a. With additional revenues available to the City under MFT disbursements, the
patching program can be expanded.
E2) Route 47 expansion 15- 155 -60 -00 -6079
a. MFT eligible expenses associated with the Route 47 expansion include sidewalk
construction, streetlighting, traffic signal replacement, roadway work (at
intersections where City roads meet Route 47), etc. IDOT will bill the City as
work is completed, which is why the expenditures are spread over three fiscal
years.
Parks and Recreation (Operating)
Note to the reader: Recreation Manager Tim Evans was on furlough the week prior to the
budget distribution, so the Recreation and REC Center budget has not received the same amount
of scrutiny other department budgets have received. To the extent that changes are made by him
the week of February 21", those changes will be discussed and communicated to the Park Board.
Additional materials may be distributed at the meetings.
RI) Program Fees 79- 000 -44 -00 -4440
a. Programs have continued to run at acceptable profit margins, but attendance has
been less than expected at classes that have run, and more classes have been
cancelled than expected.
9
i
i
12
R2) Rental Income 79- 000 -48 -00 -4820
a. The large spike in FY 12, the drop in FY 13, and the jump in FY 14 is related to
the Verizon Wireless land lease agreement approved by the City Council recently.
Under the agreement, the lessee will make two years of lease payments in FY 11,
none in FY 12 and one payment in FY 13 (and then one payment each subsequent
FY).
R3) Transfer from the General Fund 79- 000 -49 -00 -4901
a. In the past, the general fund transfer has fluctuated from year to year, in the hopes
of establishing a fund balance for the Parks and Recreation department. This
year, and each year going forward, staff is proposing to transfer only the amount
of money needed to the Parks and Recreation department budget to balance the
budget and keep the Parks and Recreation fund balance at zero. This means that
each year (as has been the case for the past 3 years) the City's general fund will
temporary loan the Parks and Recreation department a specific amount of money
for cash -flow purposes. When the City's general fund proceeds back to
acceptable levels (10 %), the Parks and Recreation department budget should then
seek to establish a fund balance.
Land -Cash
R1) State Grants 72- 000 -41 -00 -4170
a. This line -item condenses several line -items from the old budget format. In this
expense, we anticipate receiving reimbursement for the Whispering Meadows
OSLAD grant and Wheaton Woods RTP grant in FY 11, Prairie Meadows grant
j in FY 12, and Raintree Park B in FY 13. If the City Council authorizes the
following grants, we anticipate grant projects in FY 13 in for Hopkins Park (Clark
property) and the Riverfront Park.
E1) Caledonia 72- 720 -60 -00 -6029
a. With the proceeds from various grant reimbursements, and in anticipation of
future receipt of land -cash dollars, staff is proposing to construct a playground at
the Caledonia park -site in FY 12.
E2) Raintree Village (Park B) 72- 720 -60 -00 -6036
a. The amount proposed in FY 12 for this park is the final expenses associated with
the construction of the Raintree Park B OSLAD grant.
Fox Industrial TIF Fund
The bond associated with the Fox Industrial TIF was paid off in FY 11, and staff is
proposing to close out the TIF fund and declare the excess revenues as surplus. These taxes
would be proportionally distributed to all taxing bodies and the TIF would be abolished.
10
I
13
Countryside TIF Fund
The fund issued a bond in 2005 and distributed a portion of the proceeds to the
Countryside land -owner for the demolition of the Countryside Center. The land was sold and the
new developer has failed to meet terms of the agreement and is in default. Currently, the debt
service on the bond issued in 2005 is being paid with bond proceeds. The bond proceeds will be
sufficient to pay debt service until 2019, when there will be 6 more years and $1.8 million in
debt service payments due through 2024 (assuming the property is not redeveloped before 2019).
Downtown TIF
El) Route 47 Expansion 88- 880 -60 -00 -6079
a. The expenses proposed for FY 12 in this line item are for infrastructure and
streetscape improvements associated with the Route 47 expansion. If the City I
Council chooses to authorize the expenses during their funding agreement
negotiations with IDOT, a bond could be issued to cover these costs. That bond
would be repaid by TIF dollars, likely over a 10 year period.
Debt Service Fund
RI) Property Taxes — 2005A Bond 42- 000 -40 -00 -4006
a. This is the non - abatement of property taxes associated with the 2005A bond for
the in -town road program. The non - abatement of this property tax is necessary in
FY 13 and FY 14 in order to fund Route 47 construction without borrowing — if
the non home rule sales tax referendum fails.
El) Principle Payment (2004C Bond) 42- 420 -81 -00 -8000
E2) Interest payment (2004C Bond) 42- 420 -81 -00 -8050
a. This bond is for the original in -town road program. The last debt service payment
is scheduled for FY 13.
Municipal Building Fund
R1) Development Fees 16- 000 -42 -00 -4214
a. $150 per building permit x 35 building permits expected.
Parks Capital Fund
RI) Development Fees 22- 000 -42 -00 -4215
a. $50 per building permit x 35 building permits.
E1) Raintree Park 22- 222 -60 -00 -6035
a. The expense proposed in FY 12 is for public improvements that Lennar gave us
money to complete in FY 10. This money is located within its own bank account.
I1
I
I
i
14
Police Capital Fund
R1) Development Fees 20- 000 -42 -00 -4214
a. $300 per building permit x 35 permits
El) Vehicles 20- 200 -60 -00 -6070
a. This allows for the purchase of I vehicle per year, as needed.
Public Works Capital Fund
R1) Development Fees 21- 000 -42 -00 -4214
a. $700 per building permit x 35 permits
R2) Transfer from Parks and Rec capital 21- 000 -49 -00 -4922
a. Parks and Rec's share of the building purchase.
E1) Principle Payment 21- 211 -92 -00 -8000
E2) Interest Payment 21- 211 -92 -00 -8050
a. The annual cost of debt service for the south Public Works building on Wolf
Street.
City Wide Capital Fund i
RI) Building Permits 23- 000 -42 -00 -4210
R2) Development Fees 23- 000 -42 -00 -4214
a. As discussed in R14 and R15 in the general fund discussion above, both of these
revenues are one -time revenues that were previously coded in the general fund.
Good budgeting practices would have one -time revenues paying for one -time
expenses only — which is what this change accomplishes.
R3) Engineering Capital Fee 23- 000 -42 -00 -4213
a. $100 per building permit x 30 building permits. We are assuming less permits
than other impact fees because not all annexation agreements authorize the
: engineering impact fee.
R4) Road contribution Fee 23- 000 -42 -00 -4222
a. $2000 per building permit x 10 building permits. We are assuming less permits
than other impact fees because not all annexation agreements authorize the road
contribution fee.
R5) Transfer from General Fund 23- 000 -49 -00 -4901
_ a. The amount proposed in FY 12 is for the sole purpose of funding the last payment
to the Clark family for the acquisition of Hopkins Park.
E1) Principle payment (Clark Property) 23- 230 -97 -00 -8000
a. This is the final payment in the purchase contract for the Clark property.
12
I
15
Water Fund
RI) Property taxes — 2007A bond 51- 000 -40 -00 -4007
a. This is the non - abatement of property taxes associated with the 2007A bond. The
non- abatement of this property tax is necessary in FY 13 and FY 14 in order to
fund Route 47 construction and the balloon payments associated with other debt
certificates without borrowing — if the non home rule sales tax referendum fails.
R2) Water sales 51- 000 -44 -00 -4424
a. The FY 11 projected number is on target with the FY 09 actual and FY 10 actual
figures.
R3) Water infrastructure fee 51- 000 -44 -00 -4440
a. The water infrastructure improvement and maintenance fee, commonly called the
water infrastructure fee or water bonding fee, is shown as needed through FY 14.
It is necessary due to Route 47 construction costs and balloon payments
associated with debt certificates within the water fund (2006A). If the City
receives 200 building permits in one fiscal year, this water infrastructure fee could
be eliminated
R4) Water connection fees 51- 000 -44 -00 -4450
a. The decline of this line -item is the chief cause of the water fund budget issues
over the past few years. We are anticipating 35 residential water connection fees
this year at an average of $3,300 and $10,000 worth of commercial water meters.
R5) Transfer from Sewer fund 51- 000 -49 -00 -4952
a. The transfer from the sewer fund into the water fund is to pay for half of the
2005C bond's debt service payment that is coded entirely in the water fund. The
bond was for water and sewer projects.
E1) Bad debt 51- 510 -54 -00 -5499
a. The expenses in this line -item relate to the non - payment of water bills.
E2) Route 47 expansion 51- 510 -60 -00 -6079
a. The expenses within this line -item are for all water improvements and relocations
associated with the Route 47 expansion project. At this time, we are projecting to
be able to pay these costs without borrowing.
E3) Grande Reserve Court Order 51- 510 -75 -00 -7502
a. The expenses in this line -item are to repay the Grande Reserve developer for
construction of regional water improvements. The payments are 36 equal
installments between December 2009 and December 2012.
13
i
i
I
16
Sewer Fund
R1) Property Taxes — 2004 B Bond 52- 000 -40 -00 -4009
R2) Property Taxes — 2005 D Bond 52- 000 -40 -00 -4013
R3) Property Taxes — 2008 Bond 52- 000 -40 -00 -4014
a. This is the non - abatement of property taxes associated with the listed bonds. The
non- abatement of these property taxes is necessary in FY 13 and FY 14 in order
to fund debt service associated with the bonds — if the non home rule sales tax
referendum fails and /or the housing economy does not rebound.
R4) Sewer Infrastructure Fees 52- 000 -44 -00 -4460
a. The revenues shown in FY 14 are projected to be for a "sewer bonding fee," and
would be necessary if the housing economy does not rebound, the non -home rule
sales tax referendum fails, and/or new property is not developed.
i
E1) Route 47 Expansion 52- 520 -60 -00 -6079
a. The expenses shown in this line -item are for all sewer related relocations and
improvements related to the Route 47 expansion. At this point, we are assuming
all sewer related costs for Route 47 will be able to be paid out of the sewer fund
without borrowing.
E2) Transfer to Water 52- 520 -99 -00 -9901
a. The transfer from the sewer fund into the water fund is to pay for half of a bond's
debt service payment that is coded entirely in the water fund. The bond was for
water and sewer projects.
i
REC Center
R1) Membership Fees 80- 000 -44 -00 -4444
a. In FY 11, membership fees are expected to come in between $400,000 and
$410,000. To budget conservatively, we have shown the former. We have seen
enough month over month growth to budget $410,000 for each year in the future.
El) Rental and Lease purchase 80- 800 -54 -00 -5485
a. The increase in this line -item each year is stipulated by the lease contract. Mayor
Burd has been meeting with the property owners to renegotiate the lease terms in
hope of decreasing the monthly price.
E2) Outside Repair and Maintenance 80- 800 -54 -00 -5495
a. While this line -item has not changed from year -to -year, staff is expected some
additional maintenance costs to occur near the end of FY 11 that may necessitate
the need to increase the budgeted amount each year. Staff is working with the
property owners to replace some of the HVAC units in the building.
14
17
E3) Property tax payment 80- 800 -54 -00 -5497
a. The payment of property taxes by the City is a provision within the lease
agreement. Staff is seeking property tax exemption language to be added to the
state code that would allow this expenditure to be eliminated.
I
Library Budget (Operating, Capital, Impact Fee)
The FY 12 budget was approved by the library board in summer 2010, and is presented.
The Library Board has not begun discussing the FY 13 or FY 14 budget yet.
I
15
18
Budget ideas and policy options
Except where specifically noted, the FY 12, FY 13, and FY 14 proposed budget
document does not contain any of the items discussed below. The intent of the discussions of
these ideas was for the City Council to determine which are acceptable and direct staff to add
them into the budget.
1) Western Riverfront Park building use
a. The Park Board recommended last Thursday to lease out the southern 500sf of the
Riverfront Building that currently houses a preschool. This RFP /lease agreement
is being drafted by staff, is similar to the most recently discussed RFP /lease
agreement for the building at the east end of the park, and will be submitted to
City Council at the February 22 meeting.
i. The Park Board also directed staff to move the preschool fi•om this
building to the old post office at 201 W Hydraulic St. This new preschool
location should be available for use by mid - Spring, and will allow us to
expand registrations.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $400 per month in revenues for the
Parks and Recreation operating budget.
2) Riverfront Park kiosk
a. The Administration Committee discussed installing a business kiosk at the park to
show paddlers where area businesses are located. Staff is researching the cost of
a professionally installed kiosk vs. building one with in -house staff.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $1000 - $5000 in direct expenses, and
an undetermined amount of growth in property taxes and sales taxes through
increased business activity as a result of the exposure for those that display in the
kiosk.
3) Zip line across the Fox River
a. The Administration Committee discussed installation of a zip -line across the
river. While I think this idea has merit and has a good chance of succeeding, the
City would need to partner with a company who has operated a zip -line and
would need a significant amount of time to do due diligence on this project.
Challenges will include seeking approval from private land - owners and /or the
state for use of land in order to accommodate the footprint of a zip -line.
Ultimately, this may be developed and operated by a private enterprise, who
would only seek development assistance from the City.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: N / A, as it would have to be planned
and constructed throughout FY 12 (if the City partners with a private entity in the
funding).
4) Commercial alarm fines
a. This item was discussed briefly at the Administration Committee in January and
February 2011. Some municipalities that have been plagued by repeated false
alarm calls from certain commercial entities have decided to fine the entities in a
16
19
punitive manner due to the time spent by police officers responding to the calls.
The City currently has an ordinance for repeated false alarm calls of:
4 -9 responses in a calendar year: $50 each
10 -19 responses in a calendar year: $100 each
20+ responses in a calendar year: $250 each
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: To be determined.
5) Traditional economic development incentives
a. Continue to offer developers TIF incentives, sales tax sharing incentives,
recapture incentives, and other methods to attract businesses. Of note, waiving
recapture costs on a sewer debt would be considered an incentive to a developer.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Contingent upon development.
6) Digital billboards within City limits, and possibly on City property
a. Attached is an editorial from a newspaper in Colorado Springs outlining their I I
wish for more digital billboards within their boundaries. Digital billboards would
generate revenue through the City through permit fees (if they are on private
property) and through ground -lease fees if they are on City property. The City
staff has had brief conversations with billboard company representatives, who
have indicated a strong interest in a couple sites in the City, should the City
Council indicate they are willing to consider them.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $30,000+ in revenue.
7) More cell towers on municipal property
a. Cell service is only going to expand in the future, due to the increased demand for
data used in smartphones. The Wheaton Woods cell tower lease recently
approved by City Council has a revenue stream of $35,000 per year. The visual
impact of the cell tower, we feel, is minimized as the cell tower is in the form of a
flag pole.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $21,000 to $35,000 depending on
whether the lease is for ground space or water tower space.
8) 6% telecommunications tax
a. The maximum rate allowed by state statutes is 6 %. We are currently at 5 %.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $40,000 in revenues.
c. Budget impact if implemented each year thereafter: $100,000 in revenues.
9) Senior garbage subsidy
a. Seniors pay $1 per billing cycle for garbage service that costs the City roughly
$40 per billing cycle. Over the course of a year, that translates into a $120,000
subsidy. Previous discussions have revolved around implementing a subsidy for
seniors who are experiencing financial hardship only.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $120,000 in revenues.
17
I
20
10) Referendum for sales tax increase
a. The referendum was authorized by City Council in January 2011. The
referendum is scheduled for the April 2011 municipal election.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $500,000 in revenues.
c. Budget impact if implemented each year thereafter: $2,000,000+ in revenues per
year.
11) Interns
a. The cost effectiveness of interns is very high. Should we run into a scenario
where the City Council does not feel the current service levels are acceptable,
interns would provide the best option for getting work done at little cost.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $13,500 in expenses per intern.
12) Outsourcing with other municipalities and consultants
a. I have spoken with staff members in other organizations that are interested in out-
sourcing their staff on a limited basis to the City. Specifically, we have needs in
the IT and GIS field. This follows a recommendation from the Metropolitan
Mayors Caucus report on service consolidation, for which Mayor Burd sat on the
committee. Of note, prior to layoffs we had outsourced our GIS staff to other
communities, and those communities had paid use an hourly fee.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Already proposed in the budget due to
staff layoffs that have already occurred. GIS services and IT services are
expected to cost the City less than $50,000 in expenses per year.
13) Vehicle stickers
a. This was discussed by the Public Works committee briefly during the December
meeting. One member of the committee was opposed to it, and the other two
members were interested in seeing a brief City analysis of the service during the
budget discussions. Vehicle stickers could be used as a way of equitably
distributing the cost of a road maintenance program to those residents who use the
roads most frequently (vehicle owners), but would have some administrative
hurdles.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: To be determined (staff needs more
time to study)
14) iPads v. paper
a. A few years ago, the City discussed purchasing laptops for City Council members
instead of printing packets. The laptops would have paid for themselves over the
course of one or two years. iPads are starting to be used by boards in place of
traditional laptops. Their main benefit is that they are cheaper than traditional
laptop, and can be more user friendly.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $500 in expense per iPad, and $100 to
$200 in cost savings due to lack of paper packets for the individual (depending on
the size of the packet).
15) Selling or leasing assets
I
18
I
21
a. Land? While it is not a seller's market, the City does have a moderate amount of
land used for non -park purposes.
b. Buildings? Again, it is not a seller's market — but the City does have buildings
that are currently being underutilized due to staff cuts. City Hall, on the
administrative side is at 50% capacity. The old Post Office is currently being
used for cold storage and Park Board meetings. The Riverfront Building
concession -lease RFP is currently being reviewed by the Park Board, and is
expected to generate about $10,000 per year in lease and concession fees.
c. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Highly variable, depending on the
property being discussed.
16) Business registration
a. Business licenses are available under state statutes. This could generate an
amount multiplied by the number of individual businesses in the City (less than
750), and would result in the staff having an accurate, up -to -date database of
contacts at every business in the City. We currently have an incomplete database
via utility billing — as some strip malls have one meter for multiple units.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $7,500 to $15,000 in revenue,
depending on the amount of the registration fee ($10 or $20).
17) Selling other sponsorship opportunities
a. A few months ago, the City of Naperville briefly brought up the concept of selling
adspace on City buildings. The Village of Oswego has also discussed an offer
from a local business to have their business name on a water tower. The City of
Chicago has participated in a pothole filling program with Kentucky Fried
Chicken, wherein KFC pays to have potholes filled in Chicago with a KFC stamp
placed on the fill material.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Highly variable, depending on the
company interested and the location of the advertisement. Potential for
$100,000+ per year.
18) More furloughs
a. Non -union City staff are taking 5 -days of furloughs this fiscal year. These could
be increased, but would fail to impact almost half of the entire City staff (the other
half are in unions). Increasing furlough days would impact City services due to
the recent staff cuts, and would further hurt morale with employees who are not in
unions.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: $25,000 in expense reductions.
19) Pay cuts
a. The conversation applies to pay cuts as it does to implementing furloughs. When
almost half of the City employees have a bargaining contract, the impacts are not
equitable. The efforts to negotiate pay cuts or furloughs with unions would be
partially offset through increased attorney's fees and other concessions the City
would have to make.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Variable.
19
22
a,
20) Structural change in budgeting
a. In FY 11, there are still one -time revenues being used to fund ongoing operational
costs. Mayor Burd had argued against this practice in the past and has mandated
it be ended in FY 12. Continuing to use one -time revenues (building permits,
development fees) in the general fund to pay for operational expenses would be
irresponsible budgeting. In fact, the direction to change this practice in FY 12
was one driving force for the layoffs that occurred this month (namely, we are
planning to set aside one -time revenues in FY 12 for capital purposes, instead of
using them to pay salaries).
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Already proposed in the budget.
21) Enterprise opportunities
a. The article about the potential solar power facility in Yorkville or Oswego is a
good example. There are going to be many opportunities for the City to venture
into enterprise opportunities in the near future, be it for a solar farm or a
whitewater recreational facility event.
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Highly variable, depending on the
opportunity.
22) Off peak water pumping hours
a. The Administration Committee briefly discussed pumping water during off -peak
hours only, in order to save on energy costs. The staff is researching the concept,
as discussed by Alderwoman Sutclif£
b. Budget impact if implemented in FY 12: Undetermined.
20