AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE March 15, :30pm

Transcription

1 AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE March 15, :30pm 1) Budget Parameters 2) Phone System 3) Smart Point Meters 4) Bees (Alderman Banger) 5) Brookwood 6) Schaumburg Presentation on Road Project

2 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda March 15, ) FY 2017 Budget Parameters Attachments: Budget Planning Calendar Estimate of Debt Service Outstanding as of December 31, 2016 This discussion is the first of many to highlight some basic parameters to the City Council for review and discussion. The City Council s input from this discussion is valuable and appreciated. The City develops two key financial planning documents to guide the City s decision process in allocating revenues and expenditures: the Budget and the 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan. The 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan will be developed and reviewed by the Ad-Hoc Capital Improvements Committee from April to July. The 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan will be presented to the City Council at the August 16 th Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting. A week later, the FY 2017 Proposed Budget will be presented to the City Council at the August 23 rd City Council Meeting. As a reminder, the City s Auditors and City Staff will complete the FY 2015 Audit over the next few months. At the June 21 st Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting, the FY 2015 Audit will be presented to the City Council. Shown below are some highlighted facts from the City s FY 2014 Audit: ROLLING MEADOWS FAST FACTS (From FY 2014 Audit) Population 24,099 Per Capital Personal Income $28,813 Total Taxable Assessed Value (2013 Levy) $723,134,295 Fiscal Year 2014 Revenues $40.3 million Fiscal Year 2014 Expenses City Full-Time/Part-Time/Seasonal Employees $46.7 million 160 FT / 19 PT / 12 Seasonal City Outstanding Bonded Debt $12,740,000 Aa3 from Moody's Current City Bond Rating AA+ from Standard & Poor's

3 FY 2017 Budget Parameters General Fund 911 Fund Motor Fuel Tax & Local Road Funds Debt Service & TIF Funds Utilities & Refuse Funds Garage, Vehicle & Equipment, Building & Land Funds Liability Insurance & Health Insurance Funds Shown below are parameters to begin the budget setting process as the FY 2017 Proposed Budget is developed over the next few months. Revenues Assess the baseline data and develop revenue estimates which will be similar to the FY 2016 Adopted Budget (to be adjusted where necessary). Determine and evaluate the Fund Balance availability after the FY 2015 Audit is completed in June Evaluate revenue estimates based on prior trend-line data, Illinois Municipal League data, and various other sources. Propose Utility Rates similar as in past years Water (blended 7% based on City of Chicago rates); Sewer (5%) and Stormwater (5%). Evaluate the Refuse Rate per the Fund Balance Policy not to exceed 3.25% of an increase per the agreement. Increase Chargebacks for Funds where possible (based on Expenditure needs). Develop a Fund Balance Policy for the 911 Fund (to be presented to the City Council at the April 19 th Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting). Expenditures Assess the baseline data and develop expenditure estimates which will be similar to the FY 2016 Adopted Budget (to be adjusted where necessary). Review Consumer Price Index (CPI) data from Fully fund the Police and Fire Pension Funds at 100% with the funding to 2033 vs Evaluate the Capital Improvements Plan estimated projects. Determine the key road funding projects and funding availability from the State Motor Fuel Tax Fund and the Local Road Fund. Continue the repayment plan from the General Fund to the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund. [The City started with $100,000 in FY 2016 of a $1.0 million repayment to the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund.) Continue the transfer of funds from the Health Insurance Fund to the General Fund for Compensated Absences. [At the end of FY 2016, the City will have $721,452 towards this effort.] As mentioned, the parameters presented at this meeting is to begin discussions on the FY 2017 Proposed Budget and for City Council to discuss further.

4 CITY OF ROLLING MEADOWS FY 2017 BUDGET PLANNING CALENDAR DATE DAY ACTIVITY March 15, 2016 Tuesday March Committee of the Whole Meeting. Budget & Capital Improvement Plan Parameters Discussion. March --- Capital Improvement Projects - Inputted by Departments. April --- CIP Meetings & Review with City Manager & Finance Director. April to July --- Ad-Hoc Capital Improvements Committee Meetings. April to July --- Input Budget Entries, Review Budget Entries, Hold Departmental Meetings, Review and Edits by City Manager and Finance Director. April 19, 2016 Tuesday April Committee of the Whole Meeting Fund Balance Policy Discussion June 21, 2016 Tuesday June Committee of the Whole Meeting. FY 2015 Audit Presentation & FY 2015 Year-End Fund Balances Presentation. FY 2015 Citizens' Annual Financial Report Presentation. August 5, 2016 Friday CIP Released to the City Council & Public. August 16, 2016 Tuesday CIP presented to the City Council at the Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting for discussion & Revenues, Chargebacks, and Fund Balances. August 19, 2016 Friday FY 2017 Proposed Budget Released to the City Council & Public. August 23, 2016 Tuesday FY 2017 Proposed Budget Presentation: Staff Report in Advance of the September COW. September 20, 2016 Tuesday Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting: City Levy/Budget Discussion. September 2016 Wednesday Public Hearings for Tax Levy (9/27/16) & Budget (10/11/16) published in newspaper. September 27, 2016 Tuesday City Council Meeting - Public Hearing - Tax Levy (i.e., Truth In Taxation)(City & Library). City Council Meeting - Some Budget Ordinances - 1st Reading. October 11, 2016 Tuesday City Council Meeting - Public Hearing - City Budget & Library Budget. City Council Meeting - Some Budget Ordinances - 2nd Reading. October 18, 2016 Tuesday Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting - City & Library Levy/Budget Discussion. October 25, 2016 Tuesday City Council Meeting - 2nd Reading of some Ordinances & 1st Reading of some Ordinances. November 8, 2016 Tuesday City Council Meeting - Approve City & Library Levy (1st Readings), and 1st and 2nd Reading of some Ordinances. November 15, 2016 Tuesday Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting - City Budget November 22, 2016 Tuesday City Council Meeting - Approve City & Library Levy (2nd Readings), Adopt City Budget & Accept Library Budget; and 2nd Reading of some Ordinances. Note: The Property Tax Levy must be filed with Cook County by Friday, December 16, 2016 in order to meet the State Statute deadline.

5 Outstanding Debt Service General Obligation Bonds Outstanding Estimated for Year Ending December 31, 2016 $3,500,000 Debt Payments by Fiscal Year $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Bond Series 2013 (2003) Bond Series 2007A Bond Series 2005 Bond Series 2012 (2004) Bond Series 2012 (2002B) Bond Series 2012 (2002A) $- CITY OF ROLLING MEADOWS SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUES Arrows show the two Bonds that are paid by Property Taxes. Original Amount Issued Budget Year - Debt Matures Estimated Principal & Interest 12/31/12016 Issues City Fund Debt Retired By Bond Series 2012 (2002A) Debt Service (47)(Tax Levy) $ 4,885,000 FY 2018 $ 871,500 Bond Series 2012 (2002B) Utilities (20) $ 2,600,000 FY 2020 $ 727,539 Bond Series 2012 (2004) Debt Service (47) $ 8,070,000 FY 2023 $ 4,975,226 Bond Series 2005 Debt Service (47)(Tax Levy) $ 7,425,000 FY 2017 $ 832,000 Bond Series 2007A Utilities (20) $ 1,199,205 FY 2017 $ 144,493 Bond Series 2007A Refuse (16) $ 300,510 FY 2017 $ 36,209 Bond Series 2007A Local Roads (61) $ 1,335,285 FY 2017 $ 160,889 Bond Series 2013 (2003) TIF #2 (Kirchoff/Owl -37) $ 4,030,000 FY 2017 $ 433,500 $ 29,845,000 $ 8,181,355 Notes: 1) The City refunded (i.e., refinanced three bonds (2002A, 2002B & 2004) in FY 2012 for a savings of nearly $750,000 over the next twelve years. 2) 2004 Bond is retired with a transfer from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund. 3) The 2003 Bond was refunded in FY 2013 for a savings of approximately $65,000. 4) In FY 2014, the City paid its capital lease in full for the Fire Rescue Pumper saving the City $11,000 in interest savings. 5) The City has IEPA Loans paid for by the Utilities Fund not shown on this chart.

6 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda March 15, ) Phone System Project Background: The City s current phone system is in need of replacement for several reasons. Primarily, the current phone system is outdated and lacks many useful features found on modern phone systems. Caller ID, missed call display, integration, single number reach, instant messaging, event alerts and robust reporting are a few examples of the features the current phone system does not provide. In addition, the phone system has been unstable and exhibits issues on a regular basis. These issues create a breakdown of communication between City Staff and both external and internal customers. Issues arise from both the phone system itself as well as the old copper cabling (T1 s & PRI) that the phone system is currently running on. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to find support personnel to troubleshoot the issues as this phone system requires a specialized skillset that is no longer in demand. Furthermore, due to the fact that the phone system has not been upgraded in some time, support personnel are limited as the manufacturer no longer supports the software version the City is currently running. An additional factor in the phone system replacement is the rising cost of the copper lines that the phone system requires. Copper lines such as the PRI, T1 and POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) lines are increasing in cost every year as telecommunication companies move off of the older infrastructure. As mentioned at the June 16, 2015 Committee-of-the-Whole meeting, moving off of the T1 lines will be possible with the implementation of the new phone system as they will no longer be needed. POTS lines (which consist of mainly faxes) will be able to be consolidated and digitized eliminating a majority of the lines. The new phone system will also be able to use newer digital PRI connections, giving the City the capability to move off of the copper based PRI. The phone system is an integral piece of City Staff s communication with residents. With a new phone system the ease and capability of communication will increase. Along with the newly rebuilt website, this will help elevate the City to a new level of customer service. For example, the new system will have the capability to send voic s directly to an account. This will allow access to voic s if the recipient is not at their desk or out in the field. In addition, the system can provide a single number that will ring both desk and mobile phones, reducing missed calls. Furthermore, the system will also provide for better communication between staff members which will increase internal productivity. On February 29 th, Staff released a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to obtain pricing for the new phone system. The RFQ was both posted on the website and ed to eight (8) vendors directly. The vendors were selected on their capability to provide the services sought after in the RFQ. The phone system will leverage technologies implemented by previously approved projects implementing the server, network infrastructure and fiber communications.

7 Project Cost: Staff is still in the process of gathering RFQ responses to determine the final cost of the project. $250,000 has been budgeted for this project for FY Staff Recommendation: Assuming RFQ responses are within budget, staff recommends proceeding with the phone system project with the most qualified vendor.

8 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting Agenda March 15, ) Smart Point Water Meters As part of the City s capital improvements, the City started the initial phase of installing Smart Point Meters or Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project in FY This brief report is an update to the City Council on the status of the project from the last update that took place at the September 15, 2015 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting. This project is a multi-year infrastructure, modernization capital improvements project that upgrades the City s existing 6,700 water meters to what is commonly known as Smart Point meter devices (also known as Advanced Metering Infrastructure). Several key benefits include reducing apparent losses by replacing manual entry of meter data with real-time data, makes leak or other plumbing issues easier to detect, increases water meter flow accuracy, exhibits proactive business to agencies such as the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD), and follows guidelines and recommendations from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). As many residents have expressed recently to City Staff the City is meeting their expectations of capturing actual water meter reading every month rather than every other month. Of the 6,700 water meters, 80% of the installations have been completed. Smart points have been installed on Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Family meters. In addition, smart points have been installed on the first three of the four residential routes (with the largest of the four most recently completed). Testing continues between Public Works and Finance. There will be some outstanding items and follow-up that will continue throughout the year and into FY As mentioned before, there have been several instances this year, by installing Smart Points on meters, that the City was able to uncover thousands of gallons of water that should have been billed and is now billed going forward. This report is just a brief update to the City Council on Smart Point Water Meters. The City s FY 2016 Proposed Budget shows $500,000 budgeted for this project and will continue as a multi-year project.

9 Committee of the Whole Agenda Item March 15, ) Bees (Alderman Banger) Attachments: 1) Ordinance from 2015 (failed) Beekeeping in Rolling Meadows To summarize my first COW write-up in a single sentence, the world of honeybees, one of the most prolific pollinators of local flowers, vegetables, and fruit trees, is in dire need of our support. My initial proposal of allowing Rolling Meadows residents to keep beehives in their backyards passed out of committee but failed as an ordinance; I actually voted against it because I believed it was not encouraging but discouraging people from enjoying the pursuit of beekeeping and the community benefits that flow from even a few hives sprinkled around the city. In hindsight I could have simply made motions to massage the ordinance to bee less restrictive, or I could have been more active in helping staff bring something in front of the council that would have been more positively received. Lesson learned. To mention a few of the substantive changes I ve recommended to staff, I don t believe there s a need to erect a fence around a hive that lies on private property; this encumbers the beekeeper, and certainly doesn t restrain the bees. I reduced the allowed hive count simply due to the fact that each hive could possibly contain (at peak activity during nectar flow) 40,000 bees, and the first draft allowed up to five hives. I believe two hives is more manageable for the part-time beekeeper and the danger of swarming, while possible, won t involve numbers over (peak) 80,000. I also struck the portion about asking for your neighbor s permission which I believe is an abridgement of basic rights of use of your own property. Since my intention is to encourage the keeping of bees, and since the startup cost is around $500, I suggested a much lower permit fee. Furthermore I think having two inspections by the city is overkill so one or none a year is preferable (especially given the fact that our inspectors probably didn t see the part in their job description about being up close and personal with honeybees). Finally, although initially I don t foresee more than a handful of households applying for a permit, I suggested removing the cap of ten residents, again seeing the ordinance (in my opinion) should encourage the activity, not restrict it. To bee fair, the ordinance will only apply to single-family residences. I will be approaching council at a later date with an idea for a community beehive such as the one located at Plum Grove and Schaumburg Road in the neighboring suburb of Schaumburg. My initial thoughts are to locate a similar structure near the Rolling Meadows Community Garden for obvious reasons. I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the recommendations.

10 Ordinance No. 15- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14, ANIMALS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to allow beekeeping in single family residential areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that beekeeping activity should be regulated to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Rolling Meadows, Illinois, as follows: SECTION ONE: Chapter 14, Animals Section 14-2(b) is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: following: (b) Within the City, no person shall own or keep any goats, sheep, hogs, cattle, fowl, reptile or serpent, spider, or other animal normally wild, dangerous to human life or carnivorous in nature, other than domesticated house pets. Each day such animal is kept in violation of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. It is no defense to a violation of this section that the owner or keeper of any animal or reptile that is prohibited in this section has attempted to domesticate such animal or reptile. SECTION TWO: Chapter 14, Animals is hereby amended by adding thereto the ARTICLE VI. Section BEEKEEPING. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them: A. Abate means to exterminate, destroy, eliminate, seize, impound or mitigate. B. Africanized Honey Bees means a population of hybrid bees resulting from a cross between Apus mellifera and Apil mellifera scutellata. C. Apiary includes bees, comb, hive, appliances, or colonies, wherever they are kept, located or found.

11 D. Appliance means any implement or other device which is used in handling and manipulating bees or comb, any container of bees or comb, or any other equipment which is used in the practice of apiculture. E. Bees means honey-producing insects of the genus Apis and includes all life stages of these insects. F. Colony means one hive and its contents, including bees, comb and appliances. G. Comb includes all materials which are normally deposited into hives by bees but excludes extracted honey or royal jelly, trapped pollen, and processed beeswax. H. Hive means any receptacle or container, or part of any receptacle or container, which is made or prepared for the use of bees, or which is inhabited by bees. I. Honeybee means the common domestic Honeybee, limited to the Apis mellifera species, specifically excluding the African Honeybee, Apis mellifera ssp scutellata or Africanized Honeybees. J. Longstroth Type Beehive means a Beehive consisting of an outer frame with a solid top cover, an inner cover, a bottom board, and a number of boxes and supers containing tightly spaced movable frames. K. Overly Aggressive Honeybee Colony means a colony of honeybees that exhibits a level of aggression in response to stimuli that makes the colony a nuisance and a public health hazard. L. Swarm means a cluster or flying mass of honeybees. Section Beekeeping Permit Required. Persons seeking to have and maintain an Apiary in the City of Rolling Meadows shall first obtain a Beekeeping Permit. Applicants may be Beekeepers on the residential property of another, as long as all requirements have been satisfied and permission has been granted from the property owner to keep an Apiary and verified in writing. Applications shall be submitted to the City Manager or designee. Beekeeping Permits are only available for single family detached residential property. Not more than ten (10) permits shall be issued during a 12 month period. (a) At the time of application for a Beekeeping Permit, the applicant shall: 1. Submit a scaled site plan of the proposed Apiary showing placement of the Beehive(s), the flyway barrier and fences and compliance with all applicable requirements outlined in this Article; 2

12 2. Provide a Certificate of Insurance from property owner's homeowner's insurance company verifying that Beekeeping is covered by the insurance policy covering the property where the Apiary will be located; 3. Provide a certificate of completion or similar documentation, from a Beekeeping training course provided by an entity approved by the City of Rolling Meadows. The Community Development Department shall maintain a list of approved courses. Beekeepers are required to stay current and demonstrate their knowledge of Colony health and management; 4. Submit written consent from all neighbors on residential property that abuts the proposed location, in a form provided by the City. Notification is not required for renewals. 5. Submit a properly executed hold harmless agreement between the applicant, (if the location of the Apiary is owned by a 3rd party, then the property owner as well) and the City, waiving any liability for any loss or injury resulting from the design, construction or operation of the Apiary, in lieu of any zoning or building permits that may be associated with the construction of an Apiary; 6. Pay a One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollar ($125.00) nonrefundable initial permit fee. 7. Provide written consent of the property owner, if the Apiary will be located on residential property not owned by the applicant. The property owner will be required to sign the application as well. (b) State Registration. Beekeeper must, within 30 days of installation of a Colony into a Beehive, register their Beehive(s) with the Illinois Department of Agriculture or as otherwise required by the State of Illinois. State Registration must be maintained for the life of the Beehive. (c) Expiration and Renewal. Beekeeping Permits shall be valid for up to one year. All Beekeeping Permits expire on March 31st of each calendar year. Beekeepers must submit their renewal application at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the expiration date. A renewal permit shall be subject to the requirements in subsection (a)1-3 and (b), with payment of a fifty dollar ($50.00) permit renewal fee. Section Apiary Inspection. By signing an application for a Beekeeping Permit, the applicant (and the residential property owner whereon the Beehive is located) authorizes the Community Development Department or designee to enter onto that part of the property which contains the Beehive or Apiary for the limited purpose of inspecting the Colony and Apiary for compliance with this Article. Two inspections will be conducted each year by the Community Development Department as well other inspections as may be needed. Beekeepers must have their Beehives inspected by the State of Illinois Apiary Inspector at least every other year. 3

13 Section Beehive Type. All Bee Colonies shall be kept in Langstroth Type Beehives with removable combs, which shall be kept in sound and usable condition. Section Apiary Maintenance. Beekeepers shall keep all Beekeeping equipment in good condition and secure unused equipment from weather, potential theft, vandalism or occupancy by migratory Colonies. (a) Components. Beekeepers shall ensure that no bee comb, wax or other materials are left upon the grounds of the Beehive or Apiary site. Beekeepers shall promptly store or dispose of any bee comb, wax or other materials which have been removed from the Beehive in a sealed container or within a building or other bee proof enclosure. (b) Water. Beekeepers shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available within ten (10) feet of the Beehive at all times during the months of March through November. The water source must be maintained in a secure receptacle so as not to create a breeding site for mosquitoes. (c) Colony Maintenance. Beekeepers shall monitor and maintain their Colony or Colonies so as not to become a nuisance. Colonies must be monitored at least twice a month from March 1st to November 30th. Section Aggressive Behavior. In any instance in which a Colony exhibits Overly Aggressive behavior by stinging or attempting to sting without due provocation, or exhibits an unusual disposition towards Swarming, it shall be the duty of the Beekeeper to immediately contact the State Apiary Inspector or the City s Community Development Department. Section Beehive Location. Apiaries may only be located and maintained in residential districts with detached residences occupied by the Beekeeper. (a) Apiaries shall be located only in a rear yard at least sixty (60) feet from a front lot line. (b) Apiaries shall be located at least twenty (20) feet from a side property line. (c) Apiaries shall be located at least twenty (20) feet from a rear lot. (d) Two Apiary sites may not exist within six hundred (600) feet of each other. 4

14 (e) Apiaries and Beehives shall not be permitted on rooftops or balconies. (f) Beekeepers shall not keep more than five (5) Colonies in their Apiary on any property. Section Fencing and Flyways. (a) Fencing. The Apiary shall be enclosed on all sides by a fence five (5) feet in height and shall be at least three (3) feet from the Beehive on all sides. Fencing shall be constructed of a minimum nine (9) gauge woven mesh corrosion resistant material or a solid material. The fence posts shall be constructed of decay and corrosion resistant material set in concrete. The entrance to the Apiary shall have a gate with a locked latch at least four (4) feet from the ground, which shall be closed at all times when the Beekeeper is not present. (b) Flyways. Each Beehive entrance must have a flyway barrier which directs the Honeybees upwards as they exit the Beehive. The distance between the Beehive entrance and flyway barrier shall be no more than ten (10) feet. The flyway barrier may be part of the fence surrounding the Apiary, but must be (6) feet in height and four (4) feet wide and constructed of a solid material that bees cannot fly through. Section Signage. Beekeepers shall conspicuously post a weatherproof sign at least ten (10) inches by one (1) foot on all lot lines facing abutting properties and on the Beehive or Apiary fence outside of the latched gate with the statement, "State Registered Beehive(s) on Property" or similar language that makes clear that bees are on the premises. The sign must be visible and easily read from outside the property. Section Nontransferability. A Beekeeping Permit shall not be assigned or transferred to any other person, or to any other location. No refund shall be granted for any unexpired period of a Beekeeping Permit. Section Revocation of Beekeeping Permit. (a) The City Manager shall have the authority to revoke a Beekeeping Permit issued under this Section. The City Manager shall have the authority to establish rules and regulations for the conduct of a hearing relating to the revocation of a Beekeeping Permit. (b) The City Manager is hereby given the authority to revoke the Beekeeping Permit if the City Manager finds: 5

15 1. The Beekeeper has not complied with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, laws, policies or rules and regulations. 2. The Beekeeper has made fraudulent, false or misrepresentative statements in the application for the permit. 3. The Beekeeper owes the City fees, outstanding fines or penalties. (c) Notice and Hearing. The City Manager may revoke, suspend or take other action with respect to a Beekeeping Permit in accordance with the following procedures: 1. The City Manager or designee shall send written notice of the intent to revoke a Beekeeping Permit by First Class US Mail or personal delivery, setting forth the reasons for revocation. 2. The notice shall state the effective date of the revocation which shall be no longer than thirty (30) days from the date of the notice, and shall inform the Beekeeper of the right to submit in writing, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice, either: documentation to explain the past occurrences stated in the notice and to propose corrective action to eliminate the violations or request a hearing before the City Manager. 3. If the City Manager accepts the corrective action proposed by the Beekeeping Permit holder, the City Manager shall respond in writing, stating the conditions for continuing to hold the Beekeeping Permit, and retracting or deferring the notice of intent to revoke or suspend the Beekeeping Permit. 4. If the Beekeeping Permit holder requests a hearing, the City Manager shall hold a hearing within thirty (30) days of the date of the original notice, at which hearing the Beekeeper and representative(s) from the City shall have the right to present any evidence and/or witnesses. 5. The City Manager conducting the hearing shall render a written decision within seven (7) days of the hearing, which shall be sent to the Beekeeper by First Class US Mail or personal delivery. Section Nuisance Bees; Duty to Exterminate. Bees, including Africanized Honey Bees shall be considered a public nuisance when they interfere with the normal use of private or public property swarm or have shown unusual aggressive behavior toward a person or animal. Every owner or person in charge of, or in possession of, any property on which nuisance bees are present shall proceed in good faith to endeavor to exterminate said bees. Section Injunction. Any violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance. Upon request of the Code Compliance Officer, an action by the City Attorney for injunctive relief may be commenced for the abatement, removal and enjoyment 6

16 thereof in the manner provided by law. Application shall be made to such court or courts which have jurisdiction to grant such relief, to abate or remove such use and restrain and enjoin any person from using property contrary to the provisions of this chapter. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its date of passage and approval as required by law. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be printed and published in pamphlet form by order of the City Council of the City of Rolling Meadows, Illinois. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: Passed this 10 th day of March Approved this 10 th day of March ATTEST: Tom Rooney, Mayor Ginny Cotugno, Deputy City Clerk Published this 11 th day of March Ginny Cotugno, Deputy City Clerk 7

17 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda March 15, ) Brookwood Storm Water Detention Project Update Since early 2015, the following events have occurred: A public meeting was attended in March 2015 with the Brookwood Homeowners Association, in regard to the City s request to obtain a public utility grant from Brookwood for the purpose of proposed improvements to the existing storm water detention basin. A continuing failure of the Brookwood Homeowners Association to either secure the necessary approvals from its residents, or the choice being made to not provide said easement as no communication has been forthcoming from them since June Notification from the State of Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, that the previously offered $75,000 in grant funding for the project, is indefinitely suspended due to the lack of an approved State Budget. At this time, there is no guarantee of the grant funds ever again being made available for this project. For the overall drainage operations of this area of the City, this project needs to proceed. Several years have passed with no progress. There are a number of residents, in the adjacent Jody Court area, who continue to be adversely affected by yard and street flooding in heavy rainfall occurrences. The storm water detention area located on the southern most portion of the Brookwood Condominiums property was constructed in approximately 1970 with the purpose of providing for 1.0 acre feet of storage. Based on field survey performed by the City Engineer in early 2012, only 0.7 acre feet of storage is currently provided. This detention pond was designed to accommodate non-restricted storm water flow through it from the adjoining properties upstream, in unincorporated Palatine Township and the City of Rolling Meadows. The detention pond storage deficiency appears to be primarily caused by a siltation accumulation at the bottom of it. In the late 1980 s, the adjacent White Oaks (aka Gettysburg II) single-family subdivision was constructed, with approved plans to widen the existing Brookwood detention basin by 10 to 20 to the south (a 20 easement was platted on each of the adjacent lots). This widening appears to have never been done. The City Engineer s field survey findings of early 2012 confirm that the White Oaks area is deficient 1.1 acre feet of storm water detention storage. The City Engineer developed a concept plan for the needed re-grading and expansion of the stormwater detention pond in The estimate of cost is $150,000. The 2016 cost estimate is $177,000 for construction and engineering, and $23,000 for easement acquisition. The Brookwood Condominium storm water detention pond is located on private property, and no record of public easement has ever been found. How would any proposed detention area improvements be paid for?

18 Past suggestions have included a special service area, a special assessment, or direct payment agreement development. The City no longer has access to a state grant, up to $75,000, if construction is to begin in The funding is frozen by the lack of a state budget, with no guarantee that the grant funding will ever be provided again. For discussion, possible cost participation has been revised from the previous 2013 proposed cost participations, as follows: With Use of Grant (2013) Without Grant (2016) Grant $75,000 Grant $0 City funding $40,000 City funding $40,000 Palatine Township $10,000 Palatine Township $10,000 Brookwood $12,500 Brookwood $75,000 White Oaks $12,500 White Oaks $75,000 $150,000 $200,000 In past discussions the City of Rolling Meadows has offered to take responsibility for the future maintenance of the Brookwood storm water detention pond, upon its recording of a public utility easement upon it and upon the completion of a proposed expansion and improvement plan. Without a recorded public utility easement, the use of City funds cannot take place. A number of the residents in the White Oaks area have previously expressed a willingness to further discuss some form of financial participation in a public improvement project that would provide for a reduction to area flood risks. Since 2013, the 3 lots on Cole Court are proposed to be added to the project benefit area, plus the remaining lot fronting West Frontage Road. There are 27 lots on Jody Court, Coleen Court, Cole Court and West Frontage Road. There are 122 condominium units in the Brookwood complex. Calculate by area: Brookwood = approximately 7.5 acres (50% of land) Jody/Coleen/Cole = approximately 7.5 acres (50% of land) City funding = $ 40,000 Grant = $ 0 Palatine Township = $ 10,000 Brookwood = $ 75,000 Gettysburg = $ 75,000 $200,000

19 Brookwood $75,000 cost 122 units = $ per 10 year SSA = $61.47 per unit per 15 year SSA = $40.98 per unit per year Gettysburg area (Jody Court, Coleen Court, Cole Court, West Frontage Road) $75,000 cost 27 lots = $2, per 10 year SSA = $ per lot per 15 year SSA = $ per lot per year

20

21

22

23

24 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda March 15, ) Schaumburg Presentation of Road Project Background: The City of Rolling Meadows and the Village of Schaumburg spent several years seeking and obtaining state and federal funding assistance for improvements to Meacham Road, from Emerson Avenue to Algonquin Road, dating back to at least 2001, that would serve the local and the regional transportation network needs and to, at the same time, be as sensitive as possible in protecting neighborhood concerns for existing landscaping, to minimize pavement widths, minimize traffic volume increases, improving area drainage, etc. The City of Rolling Meadows acted as the lead agency during the following tasks: Application of, and approval of over $4,600,000 in federal funds for roadway engineering design and construction (originally programmed in 2004, at $2,250,000). Approval of over $2,500,000 in state funds from the Illinois Department of Transportation for roadway engineering design and construction with the condition that a jurisdictional transfer of the roadway from IDOT to each local municipality upon its completion (proposed Letter of Intent 2013). Completion of a concept study of roadway design issues, pavement width alternates, drainage examinations, future traffic projections, conducting a public information and input meeting, and inclusive of several meetings with IDOT and federal highway administration representatives to secure preliminary approval of a 3-lane roadway design option. Expenses totaling over $53,000, to date, shared equally between Rolling Meadows and Schaumburg, for concept engineering. The City of Rolling Meadows and Village of Schaumburg, had the support of its elected officials for all of these tasks, from 2001 up until Resolutions that supported this project were approved in 2001, 2011, and Meacham Road is not a local street it carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day generated by residents and businesses in several communities. It is important to the area economy for those travelling to and from employment, shopping, schools, and recreation. The $7,000,000 project, as proposed, would have cost the City of Rolling Meadows and Village of Schaumburg an estimated $112,500 each for a portion of engineering design, with no costs for construction. In February 2014, the City Council of Rolling Meadows voted 4-3 to NOT proceed with the proposed Meacham Road Phase I engineering study and Letter of Intent execution for ultimate roadway jurisdictional transfer. The federal funds were left with the Northwest Municipal Conference Council of Mayors for potential use at some future time for Meacham Road improvements.

25 Current Proposal: The Village of Schaumburg is now coming forward with a desire to act as the lead local agency in pursuit of improvements to Meacham Road, and with the stated support of the Village of Palatine and IDOT. A letter from them is attached (dated March 7, 2016) A meeting was held in February, at the invitation of Schaumburg, to discuss the previous efforts made for Meacham Road, with IDOT staff, Rolling Meadows staff, and Palatine staff. Meeting minutes are attached. (Palatine Township was invited, but did not attend.) Of needed emphasis here is that, this may be the final opportunity for IDOT to support and to provide funding for the 3-lane roadway design. Future development and re-development in the area, and other roadway improvements may make this section of Meacham Road primed to need to be of a roadway design to handle greater traffic volumes (that may be able to be limited by the construction of a 3-lane pavement cross-section now!). IDOT staff has indicated that it does not foresee programing funding, on its own, for roadway improvements. At the March 15, 2016 Committee of the whole meeting, the Village of Schaumburg will be making a presentation and a proposal for Meacham Road.

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35