AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE September 15, :00pm

Transcription

1 1) City Budget 2) Local Municipal Gas Tax 3) Smart Point Meters 4) Server SAN Project 5) Computer Replacement 6) EAC 7) Farmers & Food Trucks for ) Roads AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE September 15, :00pm

2 Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting September 15, ) FY 2016 Proposed Budget Attachments: Estimated Fund Balance FY 2016 Proposed Budget General Obligation Bonds Outstanding As of December 31, 2014 General Fund Revenue & Expenditure Summary (Updated to show Committed Funds as an Expense as requested during City Council one-on-one FY 2016 Proposed Budget Meetings) 2015 Proposed Property Tax Levy for the FY 2016 Proposed Budget Property Tax Scenario Information (Requested during City Council one-on-one FY 2016 Proposed Budget Meetings) The FY 2016 Proposed Budget was released with the City Council packet of August 25, The City s FY 2016 Proposed Budget is available on the City s website at under the Finance tab. A copy of the FY 2016 Proposed Budget is also available at the Rolling Meadows Library at 3110 Martin Lane, Rolling Meadows, IL The City Manager and Finance Director completed initial, one-on-one budget meetings with City Council members. The Public Hearing for the City Tax Levy and the Library Tax Levy will take place at the September 22 nd City Council Meeting. The Public Hearing for the City s Budget and the Library s Budget will take place at the October 13 th City Council Meeting. Staff will present a Power Point Presentation during the September 15 th Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting. Please also review the Executive Summary in the FY 2016 Proposed Budget. The September and October Committee-of the-whole Meetings are the primary meetings for budget discussions. The FY 2016 Proposed Budget was drafted using the basic parameters the City Council discussed at previous City Council meetings. The following guidelines were used: 1. For the General Fund, there are no new types of taxes or fee increases, only natural growth for overall revenues (Revenue estimates increased as the City receives trend data from sources such as the Illinois Municipal League), 2. For the General Fund, Property Taxes fund Public Safety Pensions are funded at 100% to 2033 (as established by the City s actuary), 3. For the General Fund, the only increase in the property tax is for pensions (Police, Fire & IMRF), 4. Utilities Rate increases as discussed (Water 7% [blended rate for JAWA and City], 5% Sewer and 5% for Stormwater). These rate increases are estimated so as to adequately fund the Utilities Fund s Operations and Capital Needs, 5. Holding the line on expenses that were not mandatory or determined necessary by City Staff, 6. Increase fund balances where possible, and 7. Continue capital projects throughout the City.

3 Some decisions by City Council should begin with the September Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting because these items deal with the City s Property Tax Levy, Road Funding, the Annual Street Program and other items. Rather than create talking points for the City Council, Staff will review the Power Point presentation and allow the City Council to discuss their thoughts and ideas on how the FY 2016 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy should proceed. CITY OF ROLLING MEADOWS FY 2016 BUDGET PLANNING CALENDAR - TENTATIVE PLANNING DOCUMENT DATE DAY ACTIVITY September 15, 2015 Tuesday Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting: City Levy/Budget Discussion September 2015 Wednesday Public Hearings for Tax Levy (9/22/15) & Budget (10/13/15) published in newspaper September 22, 2015 Tuesday City Council Meeting - Public Hearing - Tax Levy (i.e., Truth In Taxation)(City & Library) City Council Meeting - Budget Ordinances - 1st Reading October 13, 2015 Tuesday City Council Meeting - Public Hearing - City Budget & Library Budget City Council Meeting - Budget Ordinances - 2nd Reading October 20, 2015 Tuesday Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting - City & Library Levy/Budget Discussion October 27, 2015 Tuesday City Council Meeting - 1st Reading of Tax Levy of City & Library Tax Levy November 10, 2015 Tuesday City Council Meeting - Approve City & Library Levy (2nd Readings), Adopt City Budget & Accept Library Budget NOTE: The Annual Tax Levy and Budget given to City Attorney by December 9th. City Council Member one-on-one budget meetings will be done in September.

4 CITY OF ROLLING MEADOWS FUND BALANCE SUMMARY - FY 2016 PROPOSED ESTIMATED BASED ON PROJECTED 2015 DATA FUND NAME ESTIMATED BEGIN BALANCE 1/1/2016 REVENUES EXPENSES Manager's Hold OVER (UNDER) ESTIMATED END FUND BALANCE 12/31/2016 General (01) $ 8,580,643 $ 30,538,445 $ 30,374,105 $ 221,683 $ (57,343) $ 8,323,300 Motor Fuel Tax (03) 362, , ,500 - $ (361,000) $ 1,626 E911 (04) 255, , ,952 - $ (95,452) $ 160,027 Debt Service (47) 40,972 1,934,675 1,936,176 - $ (1,501) $ 39,471 Local Road (61) 105,632 1,888,419 2,774,192 - $ (885,773) $ (780,141) TIF # 2 (37) Kirch/Owl (1,153,232) 350, ,804 - $ (135,754) $ (1,288,986) TIF # 4 (38) Golf Rd. - 2,488,965 2,488,965 - $ - $ - Utilities (20) 3,813,823 10,275,133 12,899,531 - $ (2,624,398) $ 1,189,425 Refuse (16) 1,175,086 2,186,374 2,341,977 - $ (155,603) $ 1,019,483 Garage (14) 302,186 1,523,500 1,444,253 - $ 79,247 $ 381,433 Vehicle-Equip (25) 1,453,849 1,439,850 1,895,000 - $ (455,150) $ 1,008,699 Building & Land (33) 686, ,500 1,039,930 - $ (587,430) $ 98,950 Liability Insurance (23) 842, , ,000 - $ 112,959 $ 955,622 Health Insurance (45) 1,339,744 4,713,591 4,440,849 - $ 272,742 $ 1,509,486 TOTAL ALL CITY FUNDS $ 17,805,851 $ 59,781,461 $ 64,454,234 $ 221,683 $ (4,894,456) $ 12,618,395 Note: 1) Rounding differences may occur between worksheets. 2) Utility (20), Refuse (16), Garage (14), Vehicle- Equipment (25), Building & Land (33), Liability Insurance (23), and Health Insurance (45) funds are calculated using Fund Balance Equivalent. This measure is calculated by subtracting Current Assets from Current Liabilities. 3) Beginning Fund Balances for FY 2016 are unaudited and subject to change based on year-end close out and the audit. 4) Ending Fund Balances for FY 2016 are not audited data and are subject to change based on year-end close out and the audit. 5) Projects in capital funds such as the Utilities Fund are estimated at the best estimate for project completion. Most capital projects are completed over multiple fiscal years. 6) Recall - the City does not budget for Foreign Fire Tax or Police Asset Seizure - these Funds are excluded from this summary.

5 OutstandingDebtServiceSummary -GeneralObligationBonds OutstandingAs ofdecember31,2014 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 Principal&Interest Payments by Year 2002A (2012 Refunded)(Tax Levy) 2002B (2012Refunded)(Utilities) 2004(2012 Refunded)(GeneralFund) 2003(2013 Refunded)(TIF #2) 2005(Tax Levy) 2007A (Utilities, Refuse &LocalRoads) $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ General Obligation Bond Series (RetiredbySource) Purpose ofdebtservice OriginalAmount Issued Maturity Date Principal and Interest Outstanding 12/31/14 (Audited) 2002A (2012 Refunded)(Tax Levy) Street Improvements $ 4,885,000 12/31/2018 $ 1,793, B (2012 Refunded)(Utilities) Stormwater Improvements $ 2,600,000 12/31/2020 $ 1,139, (2012 Refunded)(General Fund) Meadows Town/Meijer Store Redevelopment $ 8,070,000 12/31/2023 $ 6,270, (2013 Refunded)(TIF #2) Kirchoff/Owl Redevelopment Project Area $ 4,030,000 1/1/2018 $ 1,295, (Tax Levy) Streets, Water & Sewer Improvements $ 7,425,000 12/1/2017 $ 2,502, A (Utilities) Water Improvements $ 1,199,205 12/1/2017 $ 434, A (Refuse) Recycling Carts $ 300,510 12/2/2017 $ 108, A (Local Roads) Street Improvements $ 1,335,285 12/3/2017 $ 484,250 $ 14,029,273 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 the next twelve years. 2) The 2004 Bond is retired with a transfer from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund. This Bond matures in FY ) The 2003 Bond was refunded in FY 2013 for a savings of approximately $60,000. 4) In 2014, the City paid down its remaining capital lease for the Fire Department Rescue Pumper saving the City approximately $11,000 in interest costs.

6 GENERAL FUND (01) The General Fund is the City's primary operating fund. It accounts for major tax revenue to support administrative and public safety functions. FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 Actual FY 2014 Actual FY 2015 Budget FY 2015 Estimated Projection FY 2016 Proposed Budget Revenue Taxes $ 20,103,676 $ 21,017,454 $ 21,232,222 $ 20,585,818 $ 21,054,818 $ 21,771,289 Intergovernmental 2,785,940 3,004,009 2,981,987 2,837,250 2,984,750 3,012,250 Licenses & Permits 1,150,183 1,019,414 1,055, ,500 1,120,200 1,052,000 Fines & Forfeits 1,185,562 1,173,093 1,259, ,800 1,191,300 1,191,300 Charges for Service 2,358,146 2,440,915 2,615,701 2,516,806 2,548,306 2,630,206 Investment Earnings 10,543 9,731 (39,382) 5,000 5,000 5,000 Miscellaneous 172, , , , , ,400 Other Financing In Flows 167, , , , ,000 Total Revenues 27,934,384 28,986,144 29,980,030 28,261,462 29,465,162 30,538,445 Expenditures Salaries 13,317,289 13,402,448 13,698,823 14,159,269 13,726,696 14,421,045 Benefits 3,510,785 3,707,277 3,706,089 3,776,885 3,605,588 3,598,898 IMRF 519, , , , , ,427 Fire Pension 2,312,142 2,614,318 2,678,449 2,723,205 2,723,205 2,977,769 Police Pension 2,348,936 2,433,805 2,483,648 2,518,614 2,518,614 2,805,767 Contractual Services 2,710,387 3,109,248 3,534,960 3,764,487 3,819,393 4,157,172 Supplies 238, , , , , ,735 Debt Service (to FY 2023) 583, , , , , ,575 FY 2013 Transfers (TIF 1, Garage & 911) 0 265, IMRF NPO Payment , FY 2015 Budget Transfer to Roads , ,361 0 Transfer to Vehicle & Equipment Fund (#1) ,000 Transfer to Police Pension Fund (#2) ,153 Transfer to Fire Pension Fund (#3) ,564 Prepaid Expenses , Committed Funds for Compensated Absences , , , ,000 Total Expenditures $ 25,540,808 $ 27,129,204 $ 28,517,685 $ 29,044,731 $ 28,450,181 $ 30,574,105 Manager's Hold ,683 Surplus (Deficit) $ 2,393,576 $ 1,856,940 $ 1,462,345 $ (783,269) $ 1,014,981 $ (257,343) Unassigned Fund Balance $ 4,246,377 6,103,317 $ 7,565,662 $ 6,277,585 $ 8,580,643 $ 8,323,300 Fund Balance As % of Expenditures 16.6% 22.5% 26.5% 22.4% 30.2% 27.2% Fund Balance Policy Range Between 15% to 30% of Expenditures Notes: #1 - Initial repayment of $100,000 for repayment of $1.0 million transfer from General Fund to the Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Fund. This transfers begins in FY #2 - Transfer to the Police Pension Fund from General Fund reserves/budget. #3 - Transfer to the Fire Pension Fund from General Fund reserves/budget. #4 - At the end of FY 2016, there will be $721,452 committed for funding Compensated Absences. #5 - Committed Funds and Prepaid Expenses were added as Expenses on the Summary Sheets per discussions during the one-on-one budget meetings. Ending Committed Funds Balance at FY 2016, as mentioned, will be $721,452.

7 Property Tax Levy for FY 2016 Proposed Budget Dollar Percent Change from Change Tax Levy Tax Levy Tax Levy From 14 Levy From 14 Levy General Fund Police Protection $ 1,810,905 $ 1,810,905 $ 1,810, % Fire Protection 1,810,905 1,810,905 1,810, % Police Pension 2,478,905 2,518,614 2,805, , % Fire Pension 2,662,914 2,723,205 2,977, , % IMRF Pension 1,000, , ,000 75, % Public Works Operations 524, , ,101 38, % Sub Total General 10,288,130 10,288,130 10,943, , % E911 Fund E911 Service 551, , , % Debt Service Purpose 2002A Bond (expires FY 2018) 492, , ,300 (33,800) -7.1% 2005 Bond (expires FY 2017) 836, , ,800 (4,800) -0.6% Sub Total Debt Service 1,328,200 1,315,700 1,277,100 (38,600) -2.9% Total City $ 12,167,830 $ 12,155,330 $ 12,772,047 $ 616, % Property tax estimate increase by household - based on total dollar tax bill paid: Total Tax Bill City Share Tax Increase to Household $2,500 $388 $20 3, , , , ,500 1, ,000 1, ,000 1, The above estimate represents the tax increase to a typical household's tax bill. The estimate is formulated from the prior year's City percentage of the tax bill. The City's portion of a property tax bill was approximately 15.5% for the 2013 Property Tax Levy. (Percentage is approximatley 15.5% from the City's FY 2014 Audit.) Pension increase per discussions with the City Council. Funding is at 2033 year vs and at 100%. Additional Notes: 1) IMRF Levy is $975,000 due to the IMRF calculation. 2) The Debt Service portion is lower due to debt service schedules and this deduction was added to Public Works Operations.

8 Property Tax Levy Scenarios FY 2016 Proposed Budget Property Tax Levy Proposed Dollar Increase = $616,717 Tax Levy Increase By Additional $ Amount Amount Plus $616,717 (5.1% - Proposed Increase) % Increase With Additional $ Amount from Prior Year Tax Levy $ 50,000 $ 666, % $ 100,000 $ 716, % $ 150,000 $ 766, % $ 200,000 $ 816, % $ 250,000 $ 866, % $ 300,000 $ 916, % $ 350,000 $ 966, % $ 400,000 $ 1,016, % $ 450,000 $ 1,066, % $ 500,000 $ 1,116, %

9 Examples of Tax Bills City Share of Total Tax Bill ESTIMATED TAX INCREASE TO HOUSEHOLD BASED ON TOTAL TAX BILL AND ESTIMATES OF INCREASES 5.1% Increase (As Proposed) 5.5% 5.9% 6.3% 6.7% 7.1% 7.5% 8.0% 8.4% 8.8% 9.2% $ 2,500 $ 388 $ 20 $ 21 $ 23 $ 24 $ 26 $ 28 $ 29 $ 31 $ 33 $ 34 $ 36 $ 3,000 $ 465 $ 24 $ 26 $ 27 $ 29 $ 31 $ 33 $ 35 $ 37 $ 39 $ 41 $ 43 $ 4,000 $ 620 $ 32 $ 34 $ 37 $ 39 $ 42 $ 44 $ 47 $ 50 $ 52 $ 55 $ 57 $ 5,000 $ 775 $ 40 $ 43 $ 46 $ 49 $ 52 $ 55 $ 58 $ 62 $ 65 $ 68 $ 71 $ 6,000 $ 930 $ 47 $ 51 $ 55 $ 59 $ 62 $ 66 $ 70 $ 74 $ 78 $ 82 $ 86 $ 7,000 $ 1,085 $ 55 $ 60 $ 64 $ 68 $ 73 $ 77 $ 81 $ 87 $ 91 $ 95 $ 100 $ 8,000 $ 1,240 $ 63 $ 68 $ 73 $ 78 $ 83 $ 88 $ 93 $ 99 $ 104 $ 109 $ 114 $ 9,000 $ 1,395 $ 71 $ 77 $ 82 $ 88 $ 93 $ 99 $ 105 $ 112 $ 117 $ 123 $ 128 $ 10,000 $ 1,550 $ 79 $ 85 $ 91 $ 98 $ 104 $ 110 $ 116 $ 124 $ 130 $ 136 $ 143 $ 11,000 $ 1,705 $ 87 $ 94 $ 101 $ 107 $ 114 $ 121 $ 128 $ 136 $ 143 $ 150 $ 157 $ 12,000 $ 1,860 $ 95 $ 102 $ 110 $ 117 $ 125 $ 132 $ 140 $ 149 $ 156 $ 164 $ 171 $ 13,000 $ 2,015 $ 103 $ 111 $ 119 $ 127 $ 135 $ 143 $ 151 $ 161 $ 169 $ 177 $ 185 $ 14,000 $ 2,170 $ 111 $ 119 $ 128 $ 137 $ 145 $ 154 $ 163 $ 174 $ 182 $ 191 $ 200 $ 15,000 $ 2,325 $ 119 $ 128 $ 137 $ 146 $ 156 $ 165 $ 174 $ 186 $ 195 $ 205 $ 214

10 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda September 15, ) Local Municipal Gas Tax Attachments: Survey Data Municipal Comparables Municipal Gas Tax Gas Station Survey As a follow-up from the August Committee-of-the Whole Meeting and initial FY 2016 Proposed Budget one-on-one meetings with the City Council, this is information regarding the Municipal Gas Tax. [Recall this is a different tax than the State Motor Fuel Tax remitted to the City by the State of Illinois on a per capita basis. The State Motor Fuel Tax is approximately $600,000 annually and is credited to the Motor Fuel Tax Fund (Fund 03).] The City of Rolling Meadows approved a Local Motor Fuel Tax (known as a Municipal Gas Tax) in FY 2007 at $0.02 cents per gallon and increased it a few years ago by one penny to $0.03 per gallon. There are eleven gas stations in the City of Rolling Meadows which generate approximately $300,000 in Local Motor Fuel Tax to the Local Road Fund. Each $0.01 increase in the Local Motor Fuel Tax generates approximately $100,000 in revenues to the Local Road Fund. Attached is Survey Data for Municipal Comparables and a Gas Station Survey. This item is brought back for further discussion and input by the City Council. [Side note: Due to the State Budget impasse, State MFT Funds are being withheld.]

11 SURVEY DATA - MUNICIPAL COMPARABLES - MUNICIPAL GAS TAX - 9/2015 MUNICIPALITY POPULATION LOCAL MFT TAX? RATE/GALLON NOTES ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 75,994 NO --- BARRINGTON 10,327 NO --- BUFFALO GROVE 41,496 NO --- CAROL STREAM 39,711 NO --- CRYSTAL LAKE 40,239 NO --- DEER PARK 3,228 NO --- DEERFIELD 18,408 NO --- ELK GROVE VILLAGE 33,419 NO --- FOX LAKE 10,537 NO --- FRANKLIN PARK 18,427 NO --- GLENDALE HEIGHTS 34,208 NO --- HANOVER PARK 38,510 NO --- JOHNSBURG 6,400 NO --- LOCKPORT 25,023 NO --- LOMBARD 43,907 NO --- PALATINE 69,350 NO --- SCHAUMBURG 74,907 NO --- STREAMWOOD 40,351 NO --- WHEELING 38,015 NO --- WINNETKA 12,422 NO --- BLOOMINGDALE 22,346 YES $ 0.02 CARPENTERSVILLE 38,241 YES $ 0.02 GLENVIEW 45,417 YES $ 0.02 HOFFMAN ESTATES 52,398 YES $ NILES 29,803 YES $ ROLLING MEADOWS 24,289 YES $ 0.03 DES PLAINES 58,918 YES $ 0.04 PARK RIDGE 37,839 YES $ 0.04 MORTON GROVE 23,519 YES $ 0.04 Increased from $0.02 on 8/1/15 MOUNT PROSPECT 54,771 YES $ 0.04 SKOKIE 64,700 YES $ 0.05 Increased in 2014

12 LOCAL AREA UNLEADED GAS PRICE COMPARISON Recorded By: GAS BUDDY Date: 9/4/15 # Brand Name Store Name Address Location Price for Reg. Unleaded 1 MARATHON MARATHON 3005 KIRCHOFF ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ MARATHON TRI C ENTERPRISES 3 N WILKE ROAD ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ARLINGTON HTS. $ MARATHON CENTRAL AND NEW WILKE 1745 WEST CENTRAL ROAD ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ARLINGTON HTS. $ MOBIL NEW WILKE AND 62 ARLINGTON HTS ARLINGTON HTS. $ MEIJER MEIJER # MEIJER DR ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ SHELL JULIES CAR WASH LLC 507 HIGGINS ROAD SCHAUMBURG SCHAUMBURG $ BP AMOCO 1329 E GOLF RD SCHAUMBURG SCHAUMBURG $ SHELL PECTEN MANAGEMENT INC 2501 MEACHAM SCHAUMBURG SCHAUMBURG $ MOBIL E & S OIL INC 1601 E ALGONQUIN RD SCHAUMBURG SCHAUMBURG $ MARATHON 3321 ALGONQUIN ROAD ROLLING MEADOWS $ SHELL ROLLING MEADOWS 2200 ALGONQUIN RD ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ CITGO NEW WILKE AND 62 ARLINGTON HTS ARLINGTON HTS. $ CITGO SHREE HARI OIL CO 2300 PLUM GROVE RD ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ SHELL 1950 PLUM GROVE RD ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ PHILL 66 PHILLIPS S PLUM GROVE RD PALATINE PALATINE $ BP AMOCO 2059 HICKS GAS & FOOD 2059 HICKS RD ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ MOBIL MOBIL OIL CORP HICKS RD ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ MARATHON ROLLING MEADOWS AUTO 1300 HICKS RD ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ MARATHON ROLLING MEADOWS MARATHON 4200 KIRCHOFF ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ CITGO PALATINE CITGO 5 S NORTHWEST HWY PALATINE PALATINE $ MOBIL MALAYALAP CORP 7 NORTH NORTHWEST HW PALATINE PALATINE $ CITGO ROLLING MEADOWS CITGO 3600 BERDNICK RD ROLLING MEADOWS ROLLING MEADOWS $ 2.84 LOWEST PRICE ROLLING MEADOWS AVERAGE PRICE $ 2.88 HIGHEST PRICE STATIONS OUTSIDE ROLLING MEADOWS AVERAGE $ 2.90 WITHIN ROLLING MEADOWS

13 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda September 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. 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). The meter upgrade program began with the FY 2015 Adopted Budget and will continue over the next few years. The work is being completed by the Public Works and Finance Departments. The program started with installing smart points on the Commercial and Industrial Routes (approximately 700 meters) and Multi-Family Route (approximately 300 meters). Several key benefits to this process include the following: Smart Point Meters reduce apparent losses by replacing manual entry of meter data with real-time data in the meter reading process, Assists with shutting off water during the monthly shut offs for non-payment and taking final readings for final bills, Makes leak or other plumbing issues easier to detect, Increases water meter flow accuracy to capture both lost water and revenue, Exhibits proactive business behavior to agencies such as the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD), Follows guidelines and recommendations from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Meets residents and businesses expectations of capturing an actual meter reading every month rather than every other month, and Promotes fiscal and environmental responsibility. To date, Public Works has installed smart points on approximately 90% of the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Family meters. Testing continues between Public Works and Finance. The City expects to complete the majority of the Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family Water Meter Route over the next several months and then begin the work on Residential water meter routes (5,700 remaining meters approximately). 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. (The Capital Improvements Plan showed $1.0 million.) As a side note, 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.

14 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda September 15 th, ) SAN (Storage Area Network) Project Background: The Storage Area Network (SAN) Project will consolidate City server infrastructure to the datacenter and provide a more fault tolerant data storage solution. This City is currently running a distributed server infrastructure model (having physical servers in multiple locations performing similar operations). The SAN Project, in combination with the recently approved Building Communications Project, will provide the City the capability to create a central datacenter. Creating a central datacenter has several benefits including long term cost savings, streamlined manageability and a reduction in hardware. Implementing a central datacenter will reduce long term costs in several ways. The number of physical servers will be greatly reduced by transitioning them into virtual servers, which will be stored on the SAN. While there will still be a cost to upgrading and maintaining the SAN over time, it will be more cost effective compared to having physical servers. The central datacenter will also allow for consolidation of the servers. Consolidation of City servers will save on licensing costs per server as well as the amount of electricity used to power them. Centralizing and consolidating servers to the SAN provides staff an efficiency by being able to manage the system more effectively, rather than being managed separately at multiple locations. In addition, the SAN will also allow staff to monitor overall health and stability of the system as a whole instead of on a server by server basis. This feature will allow staff to be more proactive rather than reactive when issues do arise. Product Recommendation: Staff is currently researching SAN solutions and formulating a recommendation that will be included in a Council Action Summary at a future Council Meeting. Cost: Staff is in the process of obtaining quotes for the SAN Project. Costs will be included in a Council Action Summary at a future Council Meeting.

15 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda September 15 th, ) Computer Replacement Program Background: The Computer Replacement Program would aim to refresh all City laptops, desktops and tablets that IT maintains. The program would replace roughly ¼ of the existing equipment per fiscal year on an ongoing basis. This program would insure that there is a consistent hardware refresh occurring while spreading the cost over multiple fiscal years. The program would insure that hardware and software usability and compatibility remain at levels that are current. Keeping all equipment current prevents issues/incompatibility involving either old hardware or software. The Computer Replacement Program would also allow for a staggered approach for operating system deployment (i.e. Windows 10). Staggering an operating system deployment is beneficial for two main reasons. Primarily, a staggered rollout approach will allow end users time to become familiar with an operating system before it is deployed across all equipment. This will both decrease support calls to IT and keep end user efficiency at a consistent level while users become familiar with the new operating system. Secondly, IT will necessitate less time testing programs with the new operating system simply due to the fact there will be less deployments per year compared to a City-wide deployment. Recommendation: Staff recommends implementing a four year computer replacement program. Staff is currently in the process of selecting a manufacturer for the equipment which will be included in a Council Action Summary at a future Council Meeting. Cost: Staff is in the process of obtaining quotes for the first group of replacements. Costs will be included in a Council Action Summary at a future Council Meeting.

16 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda September 15, ) EAC Based on the results of the Council s responses to the list of items from discussions related to non-union employee benefits, the Chair proposes that discussion of a package of changes begin with the following five items: A) Some form of merit pay plan A merit pay plan was a general topic, so a concrete idea would have to be fleshed out through discussion. Possible ideas could include: -A pool of merit pay money could be established to be distributed by department heads. -A program like the old Quest program could be re-established, where a portion of identified savings to the City could be distributed to the employees who made it possible. -A set of criteria could be established with a set amount of merit pay to be awarded to any employee who achieves the criteria -Any other ideas could be proposed B) Lowering the maximum number of annual vacation days from 30 to 25. Based on the previous discussion, this change would take effect for all employees who are currently between 5 and 19 years of service. Those who have been serving longer than 19 years were assumed to be grandfathered and able to keep the 30 days in the current chart. C) Changing the levels of longevity pay from percentages to the following dollar amounts: $1750 starting at 10 years of service, $2000 starting at fifteen years of service, $2250 starting at 20 years of service, and $2500 starting at 25 years of service. This set of numbers was the last of four sets that were discussed by the Council. D) Reduce total vacation day accrual from the current 2.5 times an employee s number of annual vacation days. Employees would be allowed an amount of years to use accrued vacation days before a set date when the City would buy out all excess days. - The Council would have to decide whether to the reduce the number to 2 times, 1.5 times, or equal to an employee s number of annual vacation days. - The Council would also have to decide whether the number of years before the buyout date would be three or five (or something else, but three and five were both proposed by individual aldermen). E) Allow the establishment of a sick leave pool This five point plan serves only as a starting point for the discussion.

17 Topic / informal proposal Pay differential for managers should be reduced from 10% to 5% Merit pay plan for employees Maximum annual vacation accrual lowered from 30 days to 25 days Longevity pay to change from % to dollar amount ($1750, $2000, $2250, $2500) Pre-2002 vacation benefit schedule (A) Sikich average for Tier II vacation benefit schedule (B) Sikich average for Tier II sick leave benefit schedule (C) Pre-2002 sick leave benefit schedule for Tier II (D) Salaries stay constant until they are at the median of a group of local comparables Combine vacation days, sick days, and floaters into one unit, rather than segmented Reduce vacation day accrual from the current 2.5 time annual vacation allotment, with a 3 to 5 year transition period in which employees could choose to use days or have days "bought out" by the City Allow the establishment of a sick leave pool 240 hours of accrued sick leave allowed to Tier II employees to cover the standard 30 day period before applying for any form of disability Mayor Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 if amended if amended not not as-is not as-is not if amended if amended as-is as-is if amended not not as-is as-is if amended not not if amended as-is as-is as-is as-is if amended if amended as-is if amended as-is as-is as-is if amended not as-is as-is not not not not not not not not not not as-is as-is not not if amended as-is not not not not if amended not not not not not as-is not not if amended not not not not not not not not as-is not not if amended not not if amended if amended not not if amended as-is not if amended as-is if amended if amended not as-is as-is as-is not if amended not as-is as-is not not not not

18 Committee-of-the-Whole Agenda September 15, ) 2016 Farmers & Food Trucks & Other Events Background: In order to accommodate the planning schedules of our partnering organizations such as the local churches and the Park District, the following dates are being proposed for the City s 2016 community events at this time. Following three years of Farmers and Food Trucks City markets, the Staff feels the following market plans would be beneficial for the City moving forward. First, Staff feels that the Rolling Meadows Market Rules and Regulations that were accepted at the March 19, 2013 Committee-of-the-Whole are fine, but some changes will be done administratively. Staff recommends that the Saturday location stay at City Hall and the times for the events (10:00 am to 2:00 pm) has worked well. Note: More volunteer help is always appreciated, especially with directing the vendors, assisting residents, parking, etc Farmers & Food Trucks: Staff recommends the following dates be accepted and advertised for 2016 (all on the fourth Saturday of the Month): Saturday, May 28 th Saturday, June 25 th Saturday, July 23 rd Saturday, August 27 th Saturday, September 24 th In the proposed FY 2016 Budget there is a $6,000 line item and this will be utilized for advertising, promoting, supplies, etc Additional Proposed Farmers & Food Trucks: In addition, following this year s successful Friday evening Block Party event, Staff is working with the local churches to expand additional Friday night markets and special events for (These dates are tentative and are all the second Friday night of the month): Friday, June 10 th Friday, July 8 th Friday, August 12 th Friday, September 9 th

19 These Friday events capitalize on the increased traffic already in the downtown area due to the Friday Car Shows. Note: the Friday, June 10 th event would be considered the 2 nd Annual Block Party, showcasing the law enforcement vehicle display on this initial Friday event. Staff hopes to finalize the Friday events soon Additional Proposed Events: Regarding other events in 2016, tentatively Staff is looking at: Saturday, July 16 th Parking Lot Party Saturday, July 30 th Community Bike Ride Tuesday, August 2 nd National Night Out Friday, August 5 th Wine-Down by the Creek Saturday, August 6 th Corn Fest at Community Church (for your reference) In the fiscal year 2016 Proposed Budget, there is a new budget category in the Community Events division that includes $2,000 for other events; $4,000 for Wine Down By The Creek; $4,000 for the Block Party; and $10,000 for National Night Out.

20 Committee of the Whole Meeting September 15, ) Road Fund FY 2016 Street Program Locations (To Be Determined) Attachments: 2016 Proposed Roadways for Resurfacing Only & Resurface/Reconstruct (Exhibit A) Proposed 3-Year Phasing Plan for a Reconstruction / Resurfacing Plan (Exhibit B-Map) Proposed Plan for Resurfacing in 2016 (Exhibit B-Map) Photos of base material issue at Newport Drive (Exhibit C) City Engineer Proposals (Exhibit D) o Resurfacing Only Option o Reconstruction and Resurfacing Option Engineering Services Comparison Pricing (Exhibit E) Background: At the August 18 th Committee of the Whole Meeting, Staff presented updated information, regarding the proposed 2016 Roadway Resurfacing Project. At that meeting, Council requested information for several matters that resulted from the discussion. Below is itemized information prepared to address the issues raised which is followed by a brief summary explanation. Why has Staff chosen to recommend utilizing all of the proposed funds on resurfacing as opposed to reconstruction? Prior to the August 6 th Capital Improvements Committee Meeting, Staff had several internal discussions regarding how best to administer the initially proposed funds ($1,000,000) allocated for roadway improvements in Conversations considered reconstruction of two (2) specific areas (Arlingdale and Quentin Ridge) versus utilizing the funds available to rehabilitate roadways that are not in need of reconstruction at this time. Based on Staff s review of this comparison, five (5) main factors are commonly considered. Decisions are based on the comprehensive results of all the factors listed, at a minimum. 1. Funding/Expectation Funding levels and expectation are primary considerations that always go hand in hand. Based on historical Council discussions, it is clear that the City roadway system, which was aggregately rated above a condition rating of 6 in 2010, is not currently at the level of condition expected of the Council and Residents. When Staff was originally asked to propose roadways, there still was uncertainty about the actual funding amounts. Based on Council discussions, a 1 million dollar allocation was used for planning purposes. Additionally, during our assessment of how best to utilize funding, the Council was discussing other funding mechanisms that may be pursued to address the City s road condition, such as; bonding, gas tax, natural gas taxes, etc. (At this time, these discussions continue). These issues weighed into Staff s decision to focus primarily on resurfacing projects. 2. Roadway Condition Along with funding availability, roadway condition is the primary factor considered in the preparation of the short and long term improvement plans. Staff s goal is to be resurfacing roadways when the road condition rating is between a 3 and 5. This is the point when most maintenance measures no longer have long term benefit and the city has maximized its previous maintenance investments and the useful life of the roadway. Additionally, once the roadway drops below a condition rating of 3, the need for partial or full reconstruction measures increases dramatically. Staff s proposal to utilize the funding to perform resurfacing was impacted by this line of thinking.

21 3. User impact Staff also considers the roadways that would most benefit the driving public and would have the most impact to the community. Roads with poor condition ratings were further scrutinized for benefits such as; parade routes, community bike ride, etc. 4. Geography/Project Coordination Staff considers the roadway locations in proximity throughout the community as well, not only in proximity to each other for pricing benefits, but also in relation to other capital projects. Staff is makes concerted efforts to coordinate capital projects geographically. This limits repeat projects in the same neighborhoods, reduces damage to recently improved infrastructure, and attempts to limit the year over year impact in a neighborhood. 5. Simplified Cost Resident Benefit Ratio, a simple calculation to connect the total community benefit compared to the funding level. For example, reconstruction of Arlingdale Drive/Court directly benefits 36 Residents divided by $500,000 (approximate) or ~$13,888/per lot. On the other hand, resurfacing (Hawk Street, Dove Street, Hawk Court, Bobolink Lane and Redwing Court) would directly benefit approximately 111 Residents with the same $500,000, which resulted in $4,505/household. Summary/Reasoning Behind Staff Recommendations: Based on the roadway ratings provided in 2010, there are still between three (3) and five (5) miles of roadway with a rating of less than five (5) that have yet to be resurfaced. It is important to recognize that the roadway ratings performed in 2010 do not necessarily accurately reflect roadway conditions today. Therefore, when viewing the planning document provided, ratings are based on 2010 conditions, not current conditions. A safe assumption for 2013 reduces a 2010 (3-4) rating by 2 and a 2010 (4-6) rating by 1, as the roadway conditions decline at a much faster rate, as the roadway condition worsens. Roadways rated below a five (5) in 2010 are in need of resurfacing soon and are to be added to the five-year resurfacing program. Staff s concern in not making the decision to resurface with the full $1,000,000 funding level is if the number of roadways projected for resurfacing in the next three to five years is not completed, the City will be left with a back-log of roadways requiring resurfacing. The concern is that the City will fall behind the maintenance objective, and as a result, will expose the City to reconstructing (partially or fully) roadways that could have been resurfaced. Roadways continue to decline with each passing year. Therefore, Staff s objective is to rehabilitate roadways that can be saved and protect the City against the high costs of reconstruction. Can an alternate plan be provided to include reconstruction? Staff has provided an optional three (3) year plan intended to combine needed reconstruction of the two areas discussed above and the highest priority resurfacing projects. As shown on Exhibit B, Staff has attempted to systematically address sections of roadway reconstruction, while still attempting to concentrate on proactive resurfacing maintenance on roadway segments. This systematic program will take at least three years based on a $1,000,000 funding level. Several main points need to be reinforced to the Council on this matter. First, is that breaking up the reconstruction project into several parts will not allow the City to take full advantage of the economies of scale recognized if let as one project. Secondly, utilizing 50% (or more) of the funding level currently established, on reconstruction projects, will result in approximately ½ mile (or more) of roadway, per year, that will not be resurfaced. As a result, Staff may have to request additional funding as a regular part of the operating budget to perform and/or secure a contractor to perform additional patching. In the event that actual quantities and/or pricing

22 dictate, Staff will reduce the scope of work accordingly to complete as much of the proposed work as possible. What is the Typical Engineering Costs Associated with Reconstruction/Resurfacing Projects? It is important for the Council to recognize that the engineering fees associated with the Long- Term Capital Planning document provided at the Ad-Hoc Capital Committee and again at the August 18 th Committee of the Whole meeting, are components of a working (draft) document. The engineering fees associated with these projects were estimated by Staff for budgeting purposes only. The fees on this document were not provided by the City Engineer, nor were they based on recent City projects. Instead Staff utilized 10-12% (5% design and 7% observation) for resurfacing projects and 15% (5%-7% for design and 7%-9% for observation). These percentages are not only based on industry standards, but are also based on percentages established in the Illinois Department of Transportation Bureau of Local Roads & Streets Manual, which is utilized by engineering firms and municipalities across the State. It should also be noted, the City Engineer has been maintaining their 2006 Rates for pricing City of Rolling Meadows projects. Engineering fees associated with reconstruction projects can fluctuate greatly depending on the scope of the work. Good engineers do not typically develop their fees based upon a percentage of construction. Instead, a good engineering firm will review the scope of the project, its complexity and the level of engineering the client is expecting. Questions such as; Who is responsible for construction layout? or What level of community interaction will be required?, and Is sub-surface investigation and core sampling required? are all examples of items that can have a substantial impact on pricing. Engineering firms utilize this type of information to develop man-hour estimates to complete the project. Utilizing a percentage of the construction contract can lead to broad based assumptions which can work in the Consultant s favor (if the Construction Cost Estimate is high) or the Municipality s favor (if the Construction Cost Estimate is low), which can negatively impact the budgeting/planning process. For example: 1. Since the August 18 th meeting, the City Engineer has prepared a proposal for engineering services related to design (not construction observation) for the resurfacing (only) project proposed by Staff. Their knowledge of the City s expectations, roadway conditions and concurrence with the scope of work, enabled them to provide a project specific proposal. As you can see from their proposal, the actual design percentage is actually only approximately 2.5%, whereas, Staff s percentage estimate for budgeting purposes is approximately 5%. 2. Staff also requested the Engineer provide a proposal, for design, that considered splitting the funding to allow for ~50% reconstruction / ~50% resurfacing, as discussed above. Given the Engineer s familiarity with the projects proposed and their understanding of the design and construction requirements, the proposal for design equates to approximately 4.3%, as opposed to the 6%-7% used by Staff for planning purposes. Can we do some cost comparisons with what other similar municipalities do that have outside engineering services, in regard to pricing? (See attached Exhibit E)

23 It is critical in order to maintain the schedule of activities previously provided to the Council that direction be provided at the September 15, 2015 Committee of the Whole Meeting, or as soon after as possible. Capital Planning Process* April to July (2015) Estimated Costs for 2016 Street Program* July (2015) Engineering Proposal Early-September (2015) Funding established by City Council At the September 15 th COW (2015) Engineering Services Contract to Council September 22 nd Meeting Field Investigation, Surveying and Cores Mid-September to Mid-October (2015) Design Engineering, IDOT Docs. Mid-October to Mid-November (2015) IDOT Review and Approval Mid-November to Early January(15/16) Advertising Early to Mid-January (2016) Bid Opening Late January to Mid-February (2016) Council Actions March to April (2016) Construction Mid-April to Mid-May (2016) Recommendation: While Staff recognizes the concerns regarding the areas requiring reconstruction, the recommendation remains utilizing the proposed one million dollars in FY2016 funding for the originally proposed resurfacing projects, as shown on the second Exhibit B page. However, should the Council s feel strongly that a 50/50 plan be pursued, Staff is prepared to begin moving forward with the 2016 plan attached, using that approach. With either approach for FY 2016, it remains that the City will need to address the fact that overall street conditions will remain below acceptable conditions until additional revenues are identified or established to increase the annual budget for annual street programs. The funds will be needed over a number of years, either incrementally or with a one time infusion of funds (ie. bonds). Previous Committee of the Whole Discussions: July 21, 2015, Committee of the Whole Meetings August 18, 2015, Committee of the Whole Meetings City Council Direction and Input: As part of these discussions, Staff is requesting the City Council provide direction on the following specific items: 1. Is the City Council in favor of a). the proposed 2016 road resurfacing project limits or b). the proposed 2016 road reconstruction/resurfacing (50/50) project limits? 2. Given the timeline discussed above, can the City Council provide a commitment to the funding level at this Meeting? [As Previously Proposed - $1.0 million for the FY 2016 Annual Street Program.]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30