Finance Advisory Committee

Meeting Location City of DeKalb Police Department Training Room, 2nd Floor 700 West Lincoln Highway DeKalb, Illinois 60115 AMENDED AGENDA Finance Advisory Committee June 26, 2018 5:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call for Attendance 3. Public Participation 4. Approval of Minutes a. Minutes of the Finance Advisory Committee Meeting of May 15, 2018 5. Year-to-Date Revenue and Expenditure for the General Fund and Water Fund through April 2018 Discussion 6. Five-Year Financial Plan Discussion 7. Confirm Next Meeting Date and Time a. Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. at the Police Department Training Room, 2nd Floor 8. Adjournment This meeting will be video recorded The Finance Advisory Committee’s role (as listed in Chapter 54-11) is to provide well-reasoned, financially sound recommendations to the Council. Meetings and reporting shall be on a project-by-project basis or as otherwise assigned by the City Council. The Finance Advisory Committee shall work in cooperation with the City Council and the City Manager to analyze the City’s financial policies, long term financial stability, options for greater efficiencies and possible revenue and expenditure modifications.  MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING May 15, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The Finance Advisory Committee held a meeting on May 15, 2018, in the Police Training Room, at the DeKalb Police Department, 700 W. Lincoln Highway, DeKalb, Illinois. The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. by Chair Peddle. 2. ROLL CALL Customer Service Representative Amy Frantz called roll, and the following members of the Finance Advisory Committee were present: Tom Teresinski, Lynn Neeley, Steve Parker and Chair Mike Peddle. Also present were: Finance Director Molly Talkington, Assistant Finance Director Robert Miller and Customer Service Representative Amy Frantz. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Chair Peddle asked if there was anyone from the public present who wished to speak. No one from the public was present. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Minutes of the Finance Advisory Committee of April 24, 2018 MOTION Committee Member Teresinski motioned to approve the minutes of April 24, 2018; seconded by Committee Member Neeley. VOTE Motion carried on a 4-0-2 voice vote. Aye: Teresinski, Neeley, Parker and Peddle. Not Present: Conlin and Partch. 5. FINANCIAL POLICY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Finance Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Debt Management Policy Committee Member Teresinski stated that the policy is good as it sets a series of test in which the City and the community at large were having difficulty with which then examines the overlapping debit. Finance Director Talkington stated that the overlapping debit would be updated in the Comprehensive Audit Financial Report (CAFR) which is in the final stages and will be available in August when the Auditors are here. The Committee and staff discussed the timing of the audit and CAFR. Committee Member Parker asked how years the auditors have been used. Assistant Finance Director Miller stated that this is the third physical year and that the City is currently under contract for 7 years. Committee Member Parker suggested a possible time for change of audit companies. MOTION Committee Member Parker motioned to approve the Debt Management Policy; seconded by Committee Member Neeley. VOTE Motion carried on a 4-0-2 roll call vote. Aye: Teresinski, Neeley, Parker and Peddle. Nay: none. Absent: Conlin and Partch. 6. CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE AND TIME Chair Peddle confirmed the next Finance Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. at the Police Department Training Room, 2nd Floor. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Peddle asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION Committee Member Teresinski motioned to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Committee Member Parker.  Finance Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2018 Page 3 of 3 VOTE Motion carried by a 4-0-2 voice vote. Aye: Neeley, Teresinski, Parker, Peddle. Nay: none. Absent: Conlin and Partch. The Finance Advisory Committee adjourned at 5:32 p.m. __________________________________________ AMY FRANTZ, Customer Service Representative RETURN TO AGENDA DATE: June 20, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor Jerry Smith City Council FROM: Molly Talkington, Interim City Manager Robert Miller, Assistant Finance Director Susan Hauman, Accountant SUBJECT: Year-to-Date Revenues and Expenditures for the General Fund and Water Fund through April 2018. Attached is the April 30, 2018, General Fund and Water Fund Revenue and Expenditures Report and Fund Balance Report. The report is composed of the following sections:  General Fund and Water Fund Summary  General Fund Revenues and Expenditures by Category  General Fund Major Revenues Charts  Fund Balance Report All Funds  CITY OF DEKALB, ILLINOIS FY18 BUDGET through APRIL 2018 UNAUDITED Amended Over/(Under) YTD PCT% Account AccountDesc Budget YTD Budget of Budget GENERAL FUND REVENUES 01-3110 PROPERTY TAX - CORPORATE 824,108.00 0.00 -824,108.00 0.00 % 01-3113 PROPERTY TAX - POLICE PENSION 2,397,390.00 0.00 -2,397,390.00 0.00 % 01-3114 PROPERTY TAX - FIRE PENSION 2,783,096.00 0.00 -2,783,096.00 0.00 % 6,004,594.00 0.00 -6,004,594.00 0.00 % 01-3131 SALES TAX - CITY 6,707,185.00 501,891.20 -6,205,293.80 7.48 % 01-3132 SALES TAX - STATE 5,480,472.00 422,477.14 -5,057,994.86 7.71 % 01-3133 LOCAL USE TAX 1,144,780.00 83,869.82 -1,060,910.18 7.33 % 01-3135 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX 290,000.00 56,008.21 -233,991.79 19.31 % 01-3142 RESTAURANT & BAR TAX 2,043,668.00 466,496.10 -1,577,171.90 22.83 % 15,666,105.00 1,530,742.47 -14,135,362.53 9.77 % 01-3161 FRANCHISE TAX 498,000.00 0.00 -498,000.00 0.00 % 01-3162 MUNICIPAL UTILITY TAX 2,517,019.00 850,553.85 -1,666,465.15 33.79 % 01-3163 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX 737,595.00 52,802.69 -684,792.31 7.16 % 3,752,614.00 903,356.54 -2,849,257.46 24.07 % 01-3221 AMUSEMENT LICENSES 4,600.00 2,375.00 -2,225.00 51.63 % 01-3222 LIQUOR LICENSES 247,200.00 41,628.50 -205,571.50 16.84 % 01-3225 ROOMING HOUSE LICENSES 17,900.00 1,300.00 -16,600.00 7.26 % 01-3239 OTHER/CONTRACTOR LICENSES 75,000.00 39,120.50 -35,879.50 52.16 % 01-3242 BUILDING PERMITS 450,000.00 40,256.00 -409,744.00 8.95 % 01-3244 ELECTRIC PERMITS 68,598.00 4,981.00 -63,617.00 7.26 % 01-3245 PLUMBING PERMITS 29,085.00 3,484.00 -25,601.00 11.98 % 01-3246 SEWER PERMITS 3,750.00 900.00 -2,850.00 24.00 % 01-3247 HVAC PERMITS 32,927.00 2,220.00 -30,707.00 6.74 % 01-3259 OTHER PERMITS/OVERWEIGHT TRUCK 21,951.00 1,505.00 -20,446.00 6.86 % 01-3266 FIRE LIFE SAFETY LICENSES 22,000.00 19,550.00 -2,450.00 88.86 % 01-3271 PARKING PERMITS 3,800.00 300.00 -3,500.00 7.89 % 01-3330 RENTAL CRIME FREE REGISTRATION 195,000.00 49,978.34 -145,021.66 25.63 % 1,171,811.00 207,598.34 -964,212.66 17.72 % 01-3310 FEDERAL GRANTS 200,000.00 5,728.00 -194,272.00 2.86 % 01-3320 FIRE GRANTS 130,000.00 0.00 -130,000.00 0.00 % 01-3325 POLICE GRANTS 0.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 % 01-3351 STATE INCOME TAX 3,940,685.00 1,436,255.15 -2,504,429.85 36.45 % 01-3356 PERSONAL PROP REPLACE TAX 137,188.00 41,893.55 -95,294.45 30.54 % 01-3358 OTHER SHARED REVENUES 162,100.00 0.00 -162,100.00 0.00 % 01-3359 TOWNSHIP ROAD & BRIDGE TAX 148,000.00 0.00 -148,000.00 0.00 % 01-3362 VIDEO GAMING TAX 245,000.00 34,224.16 -210,775.84 13.97 % 4,962,973.00 1,525,600.86 -3,437,372.14 30.74 % 01-3415 ZONING FEES 12,000.00 4,700.00 -7,300.00 39.17 % 01-3417 HOTEL INSPECTION FEES 5,000.00 0.00 -5,000.00 0.00 % 01-3421 POLICE SERVICES 10,000.00 4,598.00 -5,402.00 45.98 %  Amended Over/(Under) YTD PCT% Account AccountDesc Budget YTD Budget of Budget 01-3422 FIRE SERVICES 1,004,000.00 459,249.34 -544,750.66 45.74 % 01-3423 AMBULANCE SERVICES 1,272,424.00 358,775.65 -913,648.35 28.20 % 01-3437 FUEL SALES 105,000.00 30,876.52 -74,123.48 29.41 % 01-3446 ADMINSTRATION FEES 136,400.00 46,596.00 -89,804.00 34.16 % 01-3448 FINGER PRINT FEE(FY15 ONLY) 0.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 % 2,544,824.00 905,195.51 -1,639,628.49 35.57 % 01-3511 CIRCUIT COURT FINES 325,000.00 80,380.57 -244,619.43 24.73 % 01-3512 DUI FINES - CITY 55,000.00 5,407.27 -49,592.73 9.83 % 01-3514 PARKING TICKETS 136,478.00 42,479.22 -93,998.78 31.13 % 01-3515 ABATEMENT FINES 5,000.00 900.00 -4,100.00 18.00 % 01-3517 FALSE FIRE ALARM FINES 2,500.00 1,100.00 -1,400.00 44.00 % 01-3518 MAIL-IN FINES 60,000.00 17,000.00 -43,000.00 28.33 % 01-3519 TOW FINES 2,200.00 1,095.00 -1,105.00 49.77 % 01-3521 ADMINISTRATIVE TOW FINES 225,000.00 51,350.00 -173,650.00 22.82 % 01-3529 OTHER FINES/AH 28,000.00 17,896.46 -10,103.54 63.92 % 839,178.00 217,608.52 -621,569.48 25.93 % 01-3185 AUTOMOBILE RENTALS 21,350.00 1,657.08 -19,692.92 7.76 % 01-3610 INVESTMENT INTEREST 85,000.00 52,797.61 -32,202.39 62.11 % 01-3615 GAIN/LOSS ON INVESTMENTS 0.00 7,855.83 7,855.83 7,855.83 % 01-3910 REFUNDS / REIMBURSEMENTS 388,200.00 31,318.04 -356,881.96 8.07 % 01-3920 SALES OF ASSETS 130,000.00 15.00 -129,985.00 0.01 % 01-3947 POLICE FORFEITURES 35,000.00 9,348.20 -25,651.80 26.71 % 01-3948 ANTI-CRIME ACTIVITIES 35,000.00 3,320.00 -31,680.00 9.49 % 01-3949 CRIME LAB 15,000.00 2,990.00 -12,010.00 19.93 % 01-3961 DONATIONS 5,000.00 0.00 -5,000.00 0.00 % 01-3965 TIF PROPERTY TAX SURPLUS 236,000.00 0.00 -236,000.00 0.00 % 01-3966 TIF SALES TAX SURPLUS 350,000.00 0.00 -350,000.00 0.00 % 01-3970 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 50,000.00 7,194.75 -42,805.25 14.39 % 1,350,550.00 116,496.51 -1,234,053.49 8.63 % 01-4740 TRANSFER FROM WATER FUND 310,400.00 103,468.00 -206,932.00 33.33 % 01-4747 TRANSFER FROM REFUSE FUND 124,000.00 41,332.00 -82,668.00 33.33 % 01-4761 TRANSFER FROM TRANSPORTATION 57,251.00 4,771.00 -52,480.00 8.33 % 01-4763 TRANSFER FROM TIF FUND #1 678,576.00 226,192.00 -452,384.00 33.33 % 01-4766 TRANSFER FROM TIF FUND #2 113,198.00 37,732.00 -75,466.00 33.33 % 01-4767 TRANSFER FROM REHAB FUND 9,482.00 0.00 -9,482.00 0.00 % 01-4772 TRANSFER FROM CDBG FUND 82,298.00 7,217.70 -75,080.30 8.77 % 01-4781 TRANSFER FROM SSA #3 500.00 168.00 -332.00 33.60 % 01-4782 TRANSFER FROM SSA #4 500.00 168.00 -332.00 33.60 % 01-4783 TRANSFER FROM SSA #6 500.00 168.00 -332.00 33.60 % 01-4784 TRANSFER FROM SSA #14 500.00 168.00 -332.00 33.60 % 1,377,205.00 421,384.70 -955,820.30 30.60 % TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 37,669,854.00 5,827,983.45 -31,841,870.55 15.47 % GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 01-8101 REGULAR WAGES 15,492,241.00 4,888,312.32 -10,603,928.68 31.55 % 01-8102 OVERTIME 1,243,111.00 372,372.16 -870,738.84 29.95 % 01-8103 PART-TIME WAGES 796,981.00 205,197.98 -591,783.02 25.75 % 01-8112 WELLNESS BONUS 8,000.00 5,700.00 -2,300.00 71.25 % 01-8113 LONGEVITY 143,216.00 45,866.45 -97,349.55 32.03 %  Amended Over/(Under) YTD PCT% Account AccountDesc Budget YTD Budget of Budget 01-8119 EDUCATION BONUS 5,000.00 5,125.00 125.00 102.50 % 01-8171 FICA 598,555.00 175,498.29 -423,056.71 29.32 % 01-8172 POLICE/FIRE PENSION 6,450,564.00 0.00 -6,450,564.00 0.00 % 01-8173 IMRF 755,547.00 237,123.65 -518,423.35 31.38 % 01-8174 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 115,994.00 57,648.53 -58,345.47 49.70 % 01-8175 HEALTH INSURANCE 4,031,702.00 1,343,904.00 -2,687,798.00 33.33 % 01-8178 WORKERS COMPENSATION 512,375.00 170,792.00 -341,583.00 33.33 % 01-8304 CAR ALLOWANCE 23,080.00 7,492.37 -15,587.63 32.46 % 30,176,366.00 7,515,032.75 -22,661,333.25 24.90 % 01-8201 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS 11,435.00 966.60 -10,468.40 8.45 % 01-8202 PRINTED MATERIALS 54,819.00 2,390.66 -52,428.34 4.36 % 01-8204 OFFICE SUPPLY 24,311.00 4,916.67 -19,394.33 20.22 % 01-8210 BUILDING MECH SYS- MAINTENANCE 21,000.00 1,401.94 -19,598.06 6.68 % 01-8219 BUILDING SUPPLIES 11,568.00 2,518.65 -9,049.35 21.77 % 01-8226 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & PARTS 177,728.00 31,709.07 -146,018.93 17.84 % 01-8228 STREET/ALLEY MATERIALS 30,500.00 4,078.11 -26,421.89 13.37 % 01-8229 STREETLIGHTS, PARTS 17,000.00 840.29 -16,159.71 4.94 % 01-8230 TRAFFIC SIGNALS, PARTS & SUPPS 34,000.00 1,900.45 -32,099.55 5.59 % 01-8231 TRAFFIC & STREET SIGNS 20,000.00 2,406.27 -17,593.73 12.03 % 01-8233 STORMWATER SYSTEM PARTS 17,500.00 1,147.22 -16,352.78 6.56 % 01-8235 SNOW & ICE CONTROL MATERIALS 120,500.00 72,925.02 -47,574.98 60.52 % 01-8240 FIREFIGHTING SUPPLY/EQUIP 37,450.00 2,639.65 -34,810.35 7.05 % 01-8241 AMBULANCE SUPPLY/EQUIP 42,000.00 5,844.67 -36,155.33 13.92 % 01-8242 INSPECTOR SUPPLY/EQUIPMENT 62,473.00 8,056.43 -54,416.57 12.90 % 01-8243 INVESTIGATIONS SUPPLY/LIVESCAN 8,445.00 3,356.89 -5,088.11 39.75 % 01-8244 LAB SUPPLY AND MINOR EQPT 600.00 0.00 -600.00 0.00 % 01-8245 OIL GAS & ANTIFREEZE 271,449.00 97,204.97 -174,244.03 35.81 % 01-8246 DUI FINES EXPENDITURES 10,634.00 1,215.00 -9,419.00 11.43 % 01-8247 POLICE FORFEITURES EXPENDITURE 14,545.00 1,636.00 -12,909.00 11.25 % 01-8248 ANTI-CRIME ACTIVITIES 8,000.00 165.53 -7,834.47 2.07 % 01-8249 CRIME LAB EXPENDITURES 4,150.00 0.00 -4,150.00 0.00 % 01-8270 WEARING APPAREL 35,561.00 6,870.29 -28,690.71 19.32 % 01-8285 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES 33,675.00 3,020.73 -30,654.27 8.97 % 01-8291 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 17,000.00 3,785.92 -13,214.08 22.27 % 01-8294 ACTIVITIES SUPPLIES 1,600.00 191.80 -1,408.20 11.99 % 01-8295 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT 12,839.00 1,226.18 -11,612.82 9.55 % 01-8299 COMMODITIES 6,184.00 783.66 -5,400.34 12.67 % 1,106,966.00 263,198.67 -843,767.33 23.78 % 01-8301 RENTAL, EQPT & FACILITIES 1,400.00 0.00 -1,400.00 0.00 % 01-8305 FREIGHT & POSTAGE 25,437.00 19,280.19 -6,156.81 75.80 % 01-8306 SPECIAL EVENTS 19,800.00 561.95 -19,238.05 2.84 % 01-8307 HUMAN & SOCIAL SERVICES 144,500.00 0.00 -144,500.00 0.00 % 01-8310 EQUIPMENT - MAINTENANCE 53,642.00 7,073.40 -46,568.60 13.19 % 01-8311 BUILDING MECH SYS- MAINTENANCE 39,700.00 3,225.46 -36,474.54 8.12 % 01-8313 LANDSCAPE&GROUNDS- MAINTENANCE 27,500.00 356.90 -27,143.10 1.30 % 01-8315 VEHICLES-MAINTENANCE 128,649.00 24,310.90 -104,338.10 18.90 % 01-8316 STREETS/ALLEYS - MAINTENANCE 9,000.00 0.00 -9,000.00 0.00 % 01-8318 TRAFFIC SIGNALS - MAINTENANCE 15,000.00 0.00 -15,000.00 0.00 % 01-8319 SNOW & ICE CONTROL 45,000.00 42,965.00 -2,035.00 95.48 % 01-8320 INTERGOVT'L SERVICES 6,600.00 970.90 -5,629.10 14.71 % 01-8321 SIDEWALKS - MAINTENANCE 1,500.00 0.00 -1,500.00 0.00 % 01-8325 KISHWAUKEE RIVER SYS-MAINTENCE 12,340.00 0.00 -12,340.00 0.00 % 01-8327 STORMWATER SYSTEM- MAINTENANCE 10,000.00 0.00 -10,000.00 0.00 % 01-8330 TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 9,385.00 2,546.20 -6,838.80 27.13 % 01-8331 ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SERVICES 17,500.00 7,984.82 -9,515.18 45.63 %  Amended Over/(Under) YTD PCT% Account AccountDesc Budget YTD Budget of Budget 01-8333 PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT 36,275.00 2,258.50 -34,016.50 6.23 % 01-8334 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 6,000.00 0.00 -6,000.00 0.00 % 01-8337 TELEPHONE SYSTEM 110,784.00 15,497.44 -95,286.56 13.99 % 01-8342 FINANCIAL & MGMT SERVICES 36,948.00 4,590.00 -32,358.00 12.42 % 01-8343 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 140,000.00 46,250.00 -93,750.00 33.04 % 01-8345 PSYCH & MEDICAL SERVICES 36,108.00 1,355.00 -34,753.00 3.75 % 01-8347 NUISANCE ABATEMENT SERVS 1,000.00 3,950.00 2,950.00 395.00 % 01-8348 BUILDINGS - MAINTENANCE 27,750.00 7,709.18 -20,040.82 27.78 % 01-8349 LEGAL SERVICES 196,070.00 51,028.20 -145,041.80 26.03 % 01-8352 ELECTRICITY 59,794.00 38,883.69 -20,910.31 65.03 % 01-8355 UTILITIES 14,938.00 1,202.65 -13,735.35 8.05 % 01-8366 LEGAL EXPENSES & NOTICES 19,880.00 2,061.66 -17,818.34 10.37 % 01-8373 MARKETING ADS & PUBLIC INFO 19,025.00 2,572.04 -16,452.96 13.52 % 01-8375 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 58,540.00 10,706.30 -47,833.70 18.29 % 01-8376 TRAINING, EDUC, & PROF DVLP 216,808.00 30,098.83 -186,709.17 13.88 % 01-8379 EDUCATION TUITION REIMBURSEMNT 46,100.00 2,172.00 -43,928.00 4.71 % 01-8380 HOUSING ASSISTANCE SERVICES 6,600.00 0.00 -6,600.00 0.00 % 01-8384 TOWING 5,780.00 915.00 -4,865.00 15.83 % 01-8385 TAXES, LICENSES, & FEES 11,500.00 60.00 -11,440.00 0.52 % 01-8386 FORESTRY 57,000.00 0.00 -57,000.00 0.00 % 01-8387 WEATHER SERVICES 3,649.00 0.00 -3,649.00 0.00 % 01-8395 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 7,300.00 1,150.00 -6,150.00 15.75 % 01-8399 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 334,586.00 108,763.51 -225,822.49 32.51 % 2,019,388.00 440,499.72 -1,578,888.28 21.81 % 01-8430 TAX SHARING AGREEMENTS 1,488,000.00 0.00 -1,488,000.00 0.00 % 01-8450 CONTRACTED SERVICES 496,002.00 150,799.56 -345,202.44 30.40 % 01-8471 SURETY BONDS & INSURANCE 70,000.00 23,332.00 -46,668.00 33.33 % 01-8497 CONTINGENCIES 52,500.00 0.00 -52,500.00 0.00 % 2,106,502.00 174,131.56 -1,932,370.44 8.27 % 01-8510 OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIP 7,444.00 2,503.17 -4,940.83 33.63 % 01-8515 TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT 43,200.00 1,286.68 -41,913.32 2.98 % 01-8540 MACHINERY & MAJOR TOOLS 21,818.00 0.00 -21,818.00 0.00 % 01-8580 TELEPHONE & RADIO EQUIPMENT 14,458.00 770.75 -13,687.25 5.33 % 86,920.00 4,560.60 -82,359.40 5.25 % 01-9034 TRSF TO FLEET FUND 0.00 136,668.00 136,668.00 136,668.00 % 01-9035 TRSF TO EQUIPMENT FUND 410,000.00 0.00 -410,000.00 0.00 % 01-9061 TRSF TO TRANSPORTATION FUND 9,995.00 0.00 -9,995.00 0.00 % 01-9220 TRSF TO GENERAL FUND DEBT SRVC 1,801,827.00 600,608.00 -1,201,219.00 33.33 % 2,221,822.00 737,276.00 -1,484,546.00 33.18 % TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 37,717,964.00 9,134,699.30 -28,583,264.70 24.22 % SUMMARY: REVENUES = 37,669,854.00 5,827,983.45 -31,841,870.55 EXPENDITURES = 37,717,964.00 9,134,699.30 -28,583,264.70 DIFFERENCE = -48,110.00 -3,306,715.85  Amended Over/(Under) YTD PCT% Account AccountDesc Budget YTD Budget of Budget WATER FUND REVENUES 60-3258 WATER PERMITS 20,000.00 0.00 -20,000.00 0.00 % 60-3259 OTHER PERMITS 0.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 % 20,000.00 1,100.00 -18,900.00 5.50 % 60-3444 WATER SALES 5,469,112.00 1,665,572.35 -3,803,539.65 30.45 % 60-3445 MISC WATER SERVICE FEES 120,000.00 49,917.83 -70,082.17 41.60 % 5,589,112.00 1,715,490.18 -3,873,621.82 30.69 % 60-3610 INVESTMENT INTEREST 25,500.00 0.00 -25,500.00 0.00 % 60-3920 SALES OF ASSETS 2,000.00 0.00 -2,000.00 0.00 % 60-3970 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 24,000.00 3,955.00 -20,045.00 16.48 % 51,500.00 3,955.00 -47,545.00 7.68 % TOTAL WATER FUND REVENUES 5,660,612.00 1,720,545.18 -3,940,066.82 30.40 % WATER FUND EXPENSES 60-8101 REGULAR WAGES 1,464,919.00 436,768.01 -1,028,150.99 29.82 % 60-8102 OVERTIME 121,294.00 70,685.29 -50,608.71 58.28 % 60-8103 PART-TIME WAGES 88,879.00 17,735.05 -71,143.95 19.95 % 60-8113 LONGEVITY 25,280.00 8,253.05 -17,026.95 32.65 % 60-8171 FICA 130,323.00 38,105.59 -92,217.41 29.24 % 60-8173 IMRF 247,475.00 78,137.47 -169,337.53 31.57 % 60-8174 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 7,141.00 2,342.30 -4,798.70 32.80 % 60-8175 HEALTH INSURANCE 522,572.00 174,192.00 -348,380.00 33.33 % 60-8178 WORKERS COMPENSATION 234,050.00 78,016.00 -156,034.00 33.33 % 60-8304 CAR ALLOWANCE 4,098.00 1,381.93 -2,716.07 33.72 % 2,846,031.00 905,616.69 -1,940,414.31 31.82 % 60-8202 PRINTED MATERIALS 1,700.00 511.69 -1,188.31 30.10 % 60-8204 OFFICE SUPPLY 500.00 15.16 -484.84 3.03 % 60-8210 BUILDING MECHANICAL SYSTEM 3,000.00 405.81 -2,594.19 13.53 % 60-8219 BUILDING SUPPLIES 5,000.00 796.18 -4,203.82 15.92 % 60-8226 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PARTS 16,000.00 2,909.48 -13,090.52 18.18 % 60-8228 STREETS / ALLEYS MATERIALS 55,000.00 8,506.76 -46,493.24 15.47 % 60-8232 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PARTS 55,000.00 13,477.85 -41,522.15 24.51 % 60-8235 SNOW / ICE CONTROL MATERIAL 500.00 0.00 -500.00 0.00 % 60-8244 LAB SUPPLY & MINOR EQUIPMENT 20,000.00 4,834.20 -15,165.80 24.17 % 60-8245 GAS, OIL, & ANTIFREEZE 25,000.00 6,957.83 -18,042.17 27.83 % 60-8250 POTABLE WATER CHEMICALS 245,515.00 46,678.61 -198,836.39 19.01 % 60-8270 WEARING APPAREL 1,000.00 239.94 -760.06 23.99 % 60-8285 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES 1,000.00 0.00 -1,000.00 0.00 % 60-8291 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 3,000.00 114.68 -2,885.32 3.82 % 60-8295 SMALL TOOLS & EQPT 7,000.00 1,056.10 -5,943.90 15.09 % 60-8299 COMMODITIES 500.00 0.00 -500.00 0.00 % 439,715.00 86,504.29 -353,210.71 19.67 % 60-8301 RENTAL, EQPT, & FACILITIES 5,241.00 4,020.79 -1,220.21 76.72 % 60-8305 FREIGHT AND POSTAGE 38,000.00 18,681.63 -19,318.37 49.16 %  Amended Over/(Under) YTD PCT% Account AccountDesc Budget YTD Budget of Budget 60-8310 EQUIPMENT - MAINTENANCE 7,000.00 24.00 -6,976.00 0.34 % 60-8311 BUILDING MECH SYS- MAINTENANCE 6,000.00 1,157.68 -4,842.32 19.29 % 60-8313 LANDSCAPE&GROUNDS-MAINTENANCE 2,000.00 0.00 -2,000.00 0.00 % 60-8315 VEHICLES - MAINTENANCE 6,000.00 518.15 -5,481.85 8.64 % 60-8328 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM-MAINTNCE 59,000.00 5,593.35 -53,406.65 9.48 % 60-8330 TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 13,000.00 1,519.79 -11,480.21 11.69 % 60-8331 ARCHITECT / ENGINEERING SERVS 281,000.00 16,099.95 -264,900.05 5.73 % 60-8337 TELEPHONE SYSTEM 9,000.00 895.84 -8,104.16 9.95 % 60-8342 FINANCIAL & MGMT SERVICES 30,393.00 13,209.77 -17,183.23 43.46 % 60-8346 REFUSE REMOVAL SERVICES 9,000.00 0.00 -9,000.00 0.00 % 60-8348 BUILDINGS - MAINTENANCE 40,000.00 2,189.00 -37,811.00 5.47 % 60-8351 NATURAL GAS 25,000.00 8,186.58 -16,813.42 32.75 % 60-8352 ELECTRICITY 170,000.00 32,009.63 -137,990.37 18.83 % 60-8355 UTILITIES 131,500.00 19,189.24 -112,310.76 14.59 % 60-8356 LAB & TESTING SERVICES 5,105.00 612.14 -4,492.86 11.99 % 60-8366 LEGAL EXPENSES & NOTICES 75,621.00 15,334.00 -60,287.00 20.28 % 60-8373 MARKETING, ADS, PUBLIC INFO 1,000.00 0.00 -1,000.00 0.00 % 60-8375 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,400.00 2,028.00 -372.00 84.50 % 60-8376 TRAINING, EDUC, & PROF DVLP 3,200.00 0.00 -3,200.00 0.00 % 60-8385 TAXES, LICENSES, & FEES 130.00 0.00 -130.00 0.00 % 60-8399 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 32,000.00 2,613.00 -29,387.00 8.17 % 951,590.00 143,882.54 -807,707.46 15.12 % 60-8471 SURETY BONDS & INSURANCE 30,000.00 10,000.00 -20,000.00 33.33 % 60-8481 UTILITY REBATE PROGRAM 10,000.00 1,909.73 -8,090.27 19.10 % 40,000.00 11,909.73 -28,090.27 29.77 % 60-8411 DEBT SERVICE - PRINCIPAL 273,875.00 273,875.00 0.00 100.00 % 60-8412 DEBT SERVICE - INTEREST 14,858.00 8,486.21 -6,371.79 57.12 % 60-8417 LOAN PRINCIPAL 460,381.00 128,572.20 -331,808.80 27.93 % 60-8418 LOAN INTEREST 43,432.00 13,929.10 -29,502.90 32.07 % 792,546.00 424,862.51 -367,683.49 53.61 % 60-8510 OFFICE FURNITURE & EQPT 500.00 0.00 -500.00 0.00 % 60-8580 TELEPHONE & RADIO EQPT 1,000.00 0.00 -1,000.00 0.00 % 60-8582 FIRE HYDRANTS 5,000.00 0.00 -5,000.00 0.00 % 60-8584 WATER PUMPS AND MOTORS 130,000.00 0.00 -130,000.00 0.00 % 136,500.00 0.00 -136,500.00 0.00 % 60-9001 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND 310,400.00 103,468.00 -206,932.00 33.33 % 60-9062 TRANSFER TO WATER CAPITAL FUND 1,050,000.00 350,000.00 -700,000.00 33.33 % 1,360,400.00 453,468.00 -906,932.00 33.33 % TOTAL WATER FUND EXPENSES 6,566,782.00 2,026,243.76 -4,540,538.24 30.86 % SUMMARY: REVENUES = 5,660,612.00 1,720,545.18 -3,940,066.82 EXPENSES = 6,566,782.00 2,026,243.76 -4,540,538.24 DIFFERENCE = -906,170.00 -305,698.58  UNAUDITED REVENUES BY CATEGORY THROUGH PERIOD 4, FISCAL YEAR-END 2018 GENERAL FUND BUDGET YTD ACTUAL REMAINING PCT YTD REVENUE CATEGORY Property Taxes 6,004,594 0 6,004,594 0.00% Sales and Use Taxes 15,666,105 1,530,742 14,135,363 9.77% Gross Receipts Taxes 3,752,614 903,357 2,849,257 24.07% Licenses & Permits 1,171,811 207,598 964,213 17.72% Intergovernmental 4,962,973 1,525,601 3,437,372 30.74% Service Charges 2,544,824 905,196 1,639,628 35.57% Fines 839,178 217,609 621,569 25.93% Other Income 1,350,550 116,497 1,234,053 8.63% Transfers In 1,377,205 421,385 955,820 30.60% TOTAL REVENUES 37,669,854 5,827,983 31,841,871 15.47% UNAUDITED EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT THROUGH PERIOD 4, FISCAL YEAR-END 2018 GENERAL FUND BUDGET YTD ACTUAL AVAILABLE PCT USED EXPENSES Legislative 164,959 24,677 140,282 14.96% Administration 1,044,383 405,796 638,587 38.86% Human Resources 451,713 108,512 343,201 24.02% Finance 541,835 164,726 377,109 30.40% IT 954,888 255,918 698,970 26.80% Police 13,580,934 3,319,550 10,261,384 24.44% Fire 11,207,379 2,301,501 8,905,878 20.54% Public Works 3,575,399 1,129,941 2,445,458 31.60% Community Development 1,553,728 375,831 1,177,897 24.19% General Support 4,642,746 1,048,248 3,594,498 22.58% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 37,717,964 9,134,699 28,583,265 24.22% UNAUDITED EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY THROUGH PERIOD 4, FISCAL YEAR-END 2018 GENERAL FUND BUDGET YTD ACTUAL AVAILABLE PCT USED EXPENSES Personnel Services 30,176,366 7,515,033 22,661,333 24.90% Commodities 1,106,966 263,199 843,767 23.78% Contractual 2,019,388 440,500 1,578,888 21.81% Other Charges 2,106,502 174,132 1,932,370 8.27% Capital/Equipment 86,920 4,561 82,359 5.25% Interfund Transfers 2,221,822 737,276 1,484,546 33.18% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 37,717,964 9,134,699 28,583,265 24.22%  PROPERTY TAXES - GENERAL FUND 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LEVY LINE LEVY LINE ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ITEM ITEM FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016.5 FY 2017 FY 2018 Corporate Corporate 0 0 824,107 824,108 824,108 IMRF IMRF 251,024 251,028 251,035 72,480 0 Fire Pension Fire Pension 2,056,983 2,177,836 2,177,856 2,632,815 2,397,390 Police Pension Police Pension 1,472,175 1,636,885 1,636,914 2,035,981 2,783,096 Social Security Social Security 490,275 204,791 204,818 0 0 TOTAL LEVIED 4,270,457 4,270,540 5,094,730 5,565,384 6,004,594 TOTAL COLLECTED 4,203,086 4,231,993 5,049,737 5,523,531 0 % COLLECTED 98.42% 99.10% 99.12% 99.25% 0.00% 3,000,000 FY 2015 2,500,000 FY 2016 FY 2016.5 2,000,000 FY 2017 FY 2018 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Corporate IMRF Fire Pension Police Pension Social Security  HOME RULE SALES TAX (1.75%) 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 JUL OCT 523,479 514,401 508,982 492,100 AUG NOV 622,923 603,378 585,889 562,309 SEP DEC 605,338 589,435 577,244 563,820 OCT JAN 580,123 547,924 534,916 542,840 NOV FEB 578,132 547,758 559,120 570,435 DEC MAR 692,395 659,938 682,879 673,000 JAN APR 490,854 460,925 476,957 501,891 FEB MAY 478,854 485,496 468,942 MAR JUN 533,076 536,726 563,580 APR JUL 514,688 469,083 522,874 MAY AUG 532,857 526,865 540,089 JUN SEP 520,613 570,054 531,953 TOTAL 6,673,332 6,511,982 3,449,031 6,508,901 501,891 Rebate Adjustment 6,673,332 6,511,982 3,449,031 6,508,901 501,891 BUDGET 6,926,784 7,000,000 3,510,000 6,512,000 6,707,185 % OF BUDGET 96.34% 93.03% 98.26% 99.95% 7.48% 750,000 FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 650,000 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 550,000 450,000 350,000 250,000 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  MUNICIPAL SALES TAX (1.0%) 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 JUL OCT 422,789 425,278 416,591 422,291 AUG NOV 482,157 478,055 472,486 461,416 SEP DEC 476,461 470,123 453,161 462,060 OCT JAN 462,556 444,872 430,808 459,131 NOV FEB 457,482 434,708 450,828 456,091 DEC MAR 545,759 517,143 524,429 528,202 JAN APR 413,724 386,585 395,729 422,477 FEB MAY 403,346 408,587 386,033 MAR JUN 456,302 442,186 454,139 APR JUL 431,466 390,783 438,244 MAY AUG 438,569 437,976 444,562 JUN SEP 432,324 453,238 441,073 SUB-TOTAL 5,422,936 5,289,536 2,748,303 5,348,970 422,477 Rebate Adjustment TOTAL 5,422,936 5,289,536 2,748,303 5,348,970 422,477 BUDGET 5,398,150 5,400,000 2,765,000 5,364,944 5,480,472 % OF BUDGET 100.46% 97.95% 99.40% 99.70% 7.71% 600,000 FYE 2015 FYE 2016 550,000 FYE 2016.5 500,000 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  LOCAL USE TAX 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 JUL OCT 74,509 81,037 75,651 86,404 AUG NOV 63,535 74,049 82,472 91,889 SEP DEC 68,806 85,140 84,779 96,838 OCT JAN 83,489 85,744 92,462 96,165 NOV FEB 78,993 84,498 89,769 111,396 DEC MAR 75,099 120,832 139,495 140,897 JAN APR 113,832 74,240 80,584 83,870 FEB MAY 40,274 75,675 75,838 MAR JUN 78,608 88,924 98,621 APR JUL 82,879 86,613 84,690 MAY AUG 81,353 84,281 85,328 JUN SEP 77,491 99,583 90,252 TOTAL 918,868 1,040,615 564,628 1,138,904 83,870 BUDGET 786,376 900,000 538,050 1,034,705 1,144,780 % OF BUDGET 116.85% 115.62% 104.94% 110.07% 7.33% 160,000 FYE 2015 140,000 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 120,000 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  HOTEL/MOTEL TAX - 6% GF (1% of 7% H/M Tax dedicated to Debt Service Fund) 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL AUG 26,496 29,627 28,149 31,835 AUG SEP 34,216 23,736 28,480 30,442 SEP OCT 17,130 25,104 20,690 26,901 OCT NOV 30,672 22,562 24,768 26,160 NOV DEC 29,323 18,026 19,794 19,632 DEC JAN 11,525 20,162 14,327 16,584 JAN FEB 16,706 15,327 15,043 16,918 FEB MAR 20,113 15,104 14,392 18,185 MAR APR 12,324 17,564 20,902 20,906 APR MAY 23,669 21,014 22,835 MAY JUN 22,346 23,471 24,233 JUN JUL 16,778 22,506 27,330 TOTAL 261,299 254,203 136,209 276,288 56,008 BUDGET 240,613 290,000 137,500 290,000 290,000 % OF BUDGET 108.60% 87.66% 99.06% 95.27% 19.31% 40,000 FY2015 35,000 FY2016 FY2016.5 30,000 FY2017 25,000 FY2018 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  RESTAURANT & BAR TAX (2%) 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 JUL AUG 152,436 145,293 147,964 146,490 AUG SEP 144,103 156,317 155,711 156,234 SEP OCT 152,410 167,182 170,192 175,473 OCT NOV 161,802 175,395 169,137 178,427 NOV DEC 167,694 161,502 173,283 169,336 DEC JAN 150,949 166,667 147,469 183,396 JAN FEB 147,815 131,384 135,195 136,067 FEB MAR 140,851 163,241 164,791 154,044 MAR APR 145,136 165,835 173,063 176,384 APR MAY 158,145 167,038 168,695 MAY JUN 162,516 162,893 169,888 JUN JUL 172,450 150,474 145,949 TOTAL 1,856,308 1,913,222 963,756 1,966,938 466,496 BUDGET 1,761,825 1,825,000 925,000 1,935,000 2,043,668 % OF BUDGET 105.36% 104.83% 104.19% 101.65% 22.83% 200,000 FYE 2015 175,000 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 150,000 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  UTILITY TAX (ELECTRIC AND GAS) 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL AUG 191,087 165,456 185,499 171,062 AUG SEP 153,859 190,999 211,306 203,560 SEP OCT 175,216 163,081 177,593 195,149 OCT NOV 202,827 128,507 165,568 106,278 NOV DEC 186,231 177,745 156,073 248,697 DEC JAN 260,509 224,776 243,538 244,470 JAN FEB 276,805 293,840 346,600 333,650 FEB MAR 319,073 257,670 217,266 264,859 MAR APR 301,058 241,221 228,293 252,045 APR MAY 191,774 190,644 221,843 MAY JUN 160,211 165,146 112,243 JUN JUL 138,735 153,460 176,847 TOTAL 2,557,384 2,352,547 1,139,575 2,472,309 850,554 BUDGET 2,590,050 2,560,000 1,150,000 2,550,000 2,517,019 % OF BUDGET 98.74% 91.90% 99.09% 96.95% 33.79% 400,000 FY2015 350,000 FY2016 FY2016.5 300,000 FY2017 FY2018 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  TELECOM TAX 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL OCTOBER 77,339 71,547 63,215 53,568 AUG NOVEMBER 72,504 65,429 62,054 54,157 SEP DECEMBER 75,309 108,695 63,267 52,587 OCT JANUARY 73,801 64,838 60,152 53,897 NOV FEBRUARY 66,355 63,570 61,308 54,835 DEC MARCH 79,829 89,442 63,739 54,452 JAN APRIL 71,924 65,920 59,353 52,803 FEB MAY 71,222 60,824 59,331 MAR JUNE 76,294 67,074 58,535 APR JULY 69,916 63,457 57,599 MAY AUGUST 69,451 64,777 58,913 JUN SEPTEMBER 72,552 64,264 55,075 TOTAL 876,495 849,837 373,735 672,303 52,803 BUDGET 900,000 850,000 400,000 819,000 737,595 % OF BUDGET 97.39% 99.98% 93.43% 82.09% 7.16% 120,000 FY2015 FY2016 100,000 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  BUILDING PERMITS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL JUL 16,836 13,557 9,705 18,417 AUG AUG 12,374 14,952 33,167 13,311 SEP SEP 29,333 31,764 13,565 4,572 OCT OCT 37,219 173,040 10,843 4,936 NOV NOV 16,617 9,441 7,341 9,315 DEC DEC 8,388 10,254 11,227 10,352 JAN JAN 25,630 14,697 11,686 11,321 FEB FEB 32,384 14,005 20,184 10,736 MAR MAR 29,245 27,122 5,569 8,751 APR APR 15,719 62,245 9,535 9,447 MAY MAY 39,324 25,356 19,361 JUN JUN 15,721 8,303 34,940 TOTAL 278,789 404,736 85,848 162,178 40,256 BUDGET 200,000 455,401 140,000 410,000 450,000 % OF BUDGET 139.39% 88.87% 61.32% 39.56% 8.95% 200,000 180,000 FY2015 FY2016 160,000 FY2016.5 140,000 FY2017 FY2018 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  RENTAL CRIME FREE REGISTRATION 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL JUL 1,950 500 1,429 7,066 AUG AUG 1,091 1,973 580 350 SEP SEP 1,250 5,362 10,424 2,023 OCT OCT 680 4,255 250 300 NOV NOV 23,448 44,950 94,320 37,942 DEC DEC 88,995 76,831 54,074 99,159 JAN JAN 31,338 24,930 5,039 19,407 FEB FEB 23,952 4,606 8,641 14,759 MAR MAR 5,676 17,544 5,320 8,620 APR APR 7,472 2,535 665 7,192 MAY MAY 2,290 7,586 700 JUN JUN 750 1,583 546 TOTAL 188,892 192,655 161,077 167,750 49,978 BUDGET 190,366 190,000 100,000 195,000 195,000 % OF BUDGET 99.23% 101.40% 161.08% 86.03% 25.63% 120,000 FY2015 FY2016 100,000 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  INCOME TAX 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2016.5 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 JUL JUL 410,240 462,461 409,700 403,738 AUG AUG 239,317 268,375 238,585 192,945 SEP SEP 234,026 255,612 260,605 227,583 OCT OCT 417,572 449,249 385,104 346,509 NOV NOV 281,524 296,216 258,473 260,779 DEC DEC 211,689 231,660 234,170 229,586 JAN JAN 358,671 434,662 378,602 334,590 FEB FEB 535,139 475,656 437,878 484,317 MAR MAR 233,453 275,372 229,188 243,478 APR APR 477,067 426,089 441,983 373,871 MAY MAY 789,263 600,567 590,131 JUN JUN 327,768 287,073 305,197 TOTAL 4,515,729 4,462,992 1,786,638 4,044,119 1,436,255 BUDGET 4,320,664 4,358,970 2,245,530 4,513,075 3,940,685 % OF BUDGET 104.51% 102.39% 79.56% 89.61% 36.45% 900,000 FYE 2015 FYE 2016 800,000 FYE 2016.5 700,000 FYE 2017 FYE 2018 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN The State collects and distributes all sales and use taxes through the Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF). The State reduced the local share of the LGDF by 10% for the State’s FY 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) and implemented a 2.0% administrative fee for the Home Rule Sales Tax collection.  VIDEO GAMING TAX 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL SEPTEMBER 6,908 25,170 14,442 16,368 AUG OCTOBER 5,943 9,204 14,798 15,661 SEP NOVEMBER 6,345 10,840 15,060 15,808 OCT DECEMBER 6,039 11,864 16,136 17,636 NOV JANUARY 6,530 11,656 16,178 17,304 DEC FEBRUARY 7,848 11,917 15,509 18,797 JAN MARCH 6,532 11,462 14,262 16,268 FEB APRIL 7,021 12,876 16,286 17,956 MAR MAY 7,349 13,687 19,249 APR JUNE 6,573 12,947 16,678 MAY JULY 8,199 12,962 15,804 JUN AUGUST 9,182 14,707 13,853 TOTAL 84,469 159,293 92,124 197,706 34,224 BUDGET 38,000 80,000 65,000 205,000 245,000 % OF BUDGET 222.29% 199.12% 141.73% 96.44% 13.97% 30,000 FY2015 FY2016 25,000 FY2016.5 FY2017 20,000 FY2018 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  AMBULANCE USER FEES 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL JUL 45,211 77,937 67,871 110,371 AUG AUG 102,113 70,438 93,660 37,744 SEP SEP 81,965 88,518 133,807 116,735 OCT OCT 115,708 108,108 104,709 141,262 NOV NOV 48,435 70,878 85,571 3,598 DEC DEC 94,323 72,200 127,474 138,241 JAN JAN 27,714 69,388 87,995 109,104 FEB FEB 45,035 67,867 91,890 101,824 MAR MAR 86,951 68,692 109,971 12,085 APR APR 66,139 68,692 125,500 135,763 MAY MAY 79,390 74,433 10,885 JUN JUN 47,317 67,817 64,496 TOTAL 840,302 904,968 613,092 1,038,689 358,776 BUDGET 765,050 820,000 472,500 1,060,000 1,272,424 % OF BUDGET 109.84% 110.36% 129.75% 97.99% 28.20% 160,000 FY2015 140,000 FY2016 FY2016.5 120,000 FY2017 100,000 FY2018 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  FIRE SERVICES 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS 12 MONTHS LIABILITY COLLECTION ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING ENDING PERIOD PERIOD FY2015 FY2016 FY2016.5 FY2017 FY2018 JUL JUL 7,115 77,486 336,010 7,323 AUG AUG 310,917 318,992 78,928 76,242 SEP SEP 8,403 6,216 5,384 2,040 OCT OCT 8,345 11,381 10,903 15,795 NOV NOV 2,920 8,160 7,965 16,602 DEC DEC 376,668 316,439 11,091 12,328 JAN JAN 4,684 18,222 331,646 12,210 FEB FEB 4,891 79,011 86,730 81,824 MAR MAR 4,048 14,181 15,041 350,565 APR APR 39,028 5,330 8,133 14,650 MAY MAY 67,346 7,932 346,397 JUN JUN 2,401 30,734 19,601 TOTAL 836,767 894,082 450,281 937,878 459,249 BUDGET 835,596 800,000 425,000 910,000 1,004,000 % OF BUDGET 100.14% 111.76% 105.95% 103.06% 45.74% 400,000 FY2015 FY2016 350,000 FY2016.5 300,000 FY2017 FY2018 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN  Fund Balance Summary As of April 30, 2018 (100% of Fiscal Year) UNAUDITED Year To Date Year To Date Revenues as Expenditures Year To Date 2018 a Percent of Year To Date 2018 as a Percent UNAUDITED Revenues Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Expenditures Fiscal Year of Fiscal Year Fund Balance as of Revenue Revenue as of Expenditure Expenditure Fund Balance Fund @ 12/31/17 04/30/18 Budget Budget 04/30/18 Budget Budget @ 04/30/18 General Fund 9,168,479 5,827,983 37,669,854 15% 9,134,699 37,717,964 24% 5,861,764 Refuse & Recycling 232,834 731,991 2,206,200 33% 379,978 2,225,035 17% 584,847 Transportation 273,647 1,152,227 8,509,527 14% 1,095,983 8,509,527 13% 329,890 Motor Fuel Tax Fund 3,560,110 307,426 1,281,009 24% 132,090 1,945,000 7% 3,735,446 TIF District #1 1,229,458 81,735 7,067,613 1% 1,117,879 10,706,883 10% 193,314 TIF District #2 8,595,410 4,149 1,479,119 0% 38,061 598,898 6% 8,561,498 Housing Rehab 66,230 381 6,050 6% 85 35,320 0% 66,526 CDBG - 24,362 517,970 5% 24,362 517,970 5% - Special Service Area #3 2,968 - 1,000 0% 168 1,500 11% 2,800 Special Service Area #4 (285) - 4,000 0% 168 4,500 4% (453) Special Service Area #14 4,144 - 2,500 0% 168 3,000 6% 3,976 Special Service Area #6 (4,935) - 18,000 0% 3,443 18,000 19% (8,378) Foreign Fire Insurance Tax 55,267 - 45,000 0% 9,756 34,221 29% 45,511 General Fund Debt Service (8,757) 622,704 1,888,827 33% 1,601,062 1,888,827 85% (987,115) TIF Debt Service - 397,732 1,193,200 33% - 1,193,200 0% 397,732 Capital Projects 179,208 120,754 650,000 19% 1,254 272,400 0% 298,708 Equipment 394,559 288,892 779,477 37% 38,736 998,667 4% 644,715 Water 4,020,746 1,720,545 5,660,612 30% 2,026,244 6,566,782 31% 3,715,047 Water Construction 1,138,810 1,175 79,600 1% - - N/A 1,139,985 Water Capital 1,001,378 424,087 1,510,000 28% 12,708 1,537,000 1% 1,412,757 Airport (681,676) 427,936 1,201,606 36% 345,620 160,443 215% (599,360) Worker's Compensation 1,533,618 223,119 898,159 25% 612,089 1,080,205 57% 1,144,648 Health Insurance 269,074 2,055,729 6,402,975 32% 1,887,176 6,360,409 30% 437,627 Police Pension Fund 35,201,243 47,466 4,860,414 1% 1,143,718 3,503,100 33% 34,104,991 Fire Pension Fund 29,304,057 (68,784) 5,370,458 -1% 1,222,103 3,867,300 32% 28,013,170 All Funds Total 95,535,589 14,391,608 89,303,170 16% 20,827,550 89,746,151 23% 89,099,647 Component Unit: DeKalb Public Library (2,199,254) - 2,974,205 0% - 2,974,205 0% (2,199,254) RETURN TO AGENDA DATE: June 22, 2018 TO: Mike Peddle, Chair Finance Advisory Committee FROM: Molly Talkington, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: Five-Year Financial Plan 2019-2023 I. Summary: As part of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget process, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) has recommended revisions to the inaugural Five-Year Financial Plan (Plan), the financial policies, and provided feedback on the Council Goals. The Plan is a process and strategy for long-term strategic financial planning that includes economic position analysis, benchmarking to comparable communities, revenue and expenditure analysis, capital planning and alternative policy considerations. The Plan assists the City in addressing the individual or compounded effects of various policy choices and to demonstrate their impact on the City’s financial future. Through this process and strategy, the City seeks to achieve the balance of fiscal strength, accountability, and results that the community values. II. Background: Prior FAC Action  On January 30, 2018, FAC reviewed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Schedule, Five-Year Financial Plan draft, approved a Committee Operations Policy.  On February 27, 2018, FAC reviewed City Council’s Goals, recommended revisions to the Five-Year Financial Plan, and recommended revisions to these policies: o Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (01-03), o Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting Policy (01-05), and o Capital Asset Policy (01-06).  On March 27, 2018, FAC reviewed Police and Fire Pension funding illustrations and recommended revisions to the Investment Policy (01-08).  On April 24, 2018, FAC reviewed City Council’s Goals, recommended revisions to the Five-Year Financial Plan, and recommended revisions to these policies: o Budget Policy (01-01), o Fund Balance Policy (01-02), and o Revenue and Expenditure Policy (01-04).  On May 15, 2018, FAC reviewed and recommended revisions to the Debt Management Policy (01-07). Five-Year Financial Plan Since this Plan is to provide a path to effective financial management, FAC requested additional data and increased emphasis on specific points at the February 27 FAC meeting. These added items must have a nexus to the City’s long-term strategic financial planning. Below is the list of the recommended revisions that were added to the Plan unless otherwise noted. 1) Focus on the Capital Improvement Plan aligning with the Strategic Plan 2) When funding options are included, discuss the sustainability of those options for the long-term health of the City 3) Town of Normal, IL (home rule) to the University cities comparisons 4) Incorporate the statistical information from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) into the Plan a. Top Ten Employers, Taxable Sales by Category, & Direct and Overlapping Sales Tax Rates 5) Expanded the school data excluding St. Mary’s school information a. The information requested was not provided by St. Mary’s School and is thereby not included in the Plan 6) Include crime statistics and show impact on economic factors such as housing 7) Track the current home value over time from Zillow 8) Add the Pension Funding Analysis data that shows what the remaining obligation is if Police and Fire Departments were 9) Staffing history for the City The Plan is a comprehensive document that takes a broad look at the City of DeKalb, as a whole, with review of the current economic condition, benchmarking to comparable communities, streets and fleet analysis, alternative funding policy considerations, and revenue and expenditure projections (Attachment A) The revenue and expenditures projection (forecast) included in the Plan and as Attachment B, shows that the City is operating in a structural deficit, which in simpler terms means that expenditures are outpacing revenues. The City’s structural imbalance is not unlike many other municipalities in that, the City has pension obligations that consume a great deal of the fiscal resources. This places greater demand on other revenue sources. By updating the forecast earlier in the calendar year than in years past, staff is able to update the major revenues and expenditures to actual experiences. Additionally, by projecting out five years, the forecast shows trends. Page |2 The FY2018 budget information was updated (FY2018 Estimate) to reflect information that is now known. The two changes that affect the General Fund ending unassigned balance are inclusion of the Peace Road Interchange agreement expenditure to the County. This was not included in the FY2018 budget. Also, Building Permits and the related permits were updated to reflect current project information such as removing permit funding related to the STEAM project since this project is no longer in progress. Based on all the updated figures in the FY2018 Estimate, the FY2018 General Fund ending unassigned fund balance is projected at 23.8% of expenditures. The City’s financial policy is 25% of expenditures. This is a shortfall of $457K. This structural imbalance is carried into the FY2019 through FY2023 projections. The FY2019 budget shortfall is an additional $1.2M. This means the development of the FY2019 budget for City Council approval will incorporate budget balancing measures to bring the FY2019 proposed budget in line with the City’s financial policy. Since FAC recommended revising the City’s fund balance policy with the FY2019 budget, the forecast includes the variance in each year to this potential policy as well as to the current policy. The City’s unassigned General Fund balance will be maintained to provide the municipality with sufficient working capital and a margin of safety to address emergencies without borrowing. Currently, the Fund Balance Policy (01-02) sets the General Fund unassigned fund balance minimum at 25% of annual expenditures. The recommended calculation change to the minimum amount for the General Fund unassigned fund balance at 30% of expenditures less property tax revenue. The recommended calculation is intended to maintain the current policy that the unassigned fund balance provide the City with sufficient working capital and a margin of safety to address emergencies without borrowing. However, by removing the property tax funded expenditures, the City Council can make important pension decisions without sacrificing other services through additional reductions or adding new or increased non- property tax revenues to fund the 25% unassigned fund balance requirement that is in the current calculation. III. Recommendation: Staff is recommending the FAC review the Plan for any potential revisions to the overall document. Additionally, FAC should consider any recommendations for the City Council on how to address the results of the forecast. Attachments – A) Five-Year Financial Plan 2019-2023 B) Five-Year Financial Forecast 2018 Page |3 Attachment A 2019‐2023 Five Year Financial Plan  Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Purpose of Financial Planning ................................................................................................................... 7 Tool for Decision‐Making .......................................................................................................................... 8 Long‐Term Financial Plan .......................................................................................................................... 8 Elements of the Plan ................................................................................................................................. 9 Economic Position ....................................................................................................................................... 13 DeKalb’s Strengths .................................................................................................................................. 13 Population ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Northern Illinois University ..................................................................................................................... 17 Property Values and Taxes ...................................................................................................................... 18 National Retail and Commercial Real Estate .......................................................................................... 21 Bond Rating and Debt Obligations .......................................................................................................... 23 DeKalb Community Unit School District Data ......................................................................................... 26 DeKalb Crime Data .................................................................................................................................. 27 Benchmarking DeKalb to Comparable Communities.................................................................................. 30 Comparable Communities ...................................................................................................................... 30 Benchmarking Data ................................................................................................................................. 32 Population and Per Capita Income ......................................................................................................... 32 Full‐Time Equivalent Employees ............................................................................................................. 33 General Fund Expenditures..................................................................................................................... 35 General Fund Revenues .......................................................................................................................... 36 Home Rule Sales Tax ............................................................................................................................... 41 Property Taxes and Assessed Valuation ................................................................................................. 42 Pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 61 Revenue and Expenditure Projections ........................................................................................................ 72 Revenue and Expenditure Forecast ........................................................................................................ 72 Revenues ................................................................................................................................................. 83 Expenditures ........................................................................................................................................... 86 Personnel Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 88 Outsourcing of Services ...................................................................................................................... 89 Salaries ................................................................................................................................................ 90 Bargaining Units .................................................................................................................................. 91 Wellness .............................................................................................................................................. 92 Retiree Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 92 Health Insurance Plan Design ............................................................................................................. 94 Streets and Fleet Analysis – Preliminary Asset Management Plan............................................................. 98 Fleet Inventory ........................................................................................................................................ 98 Fleet Condition Assessment .................................................................................................................. 101 Level of Service ..................................................................................................................................... 104 Replacement Cost ................................................................................................................................. 105 Street Inventory .................................................................................................................................... 107 Pavement Condition Assessment ......................................................................................................... 107 Level of Service ..................................................................................................................................... 110 Pavement Management Plan................................................................................................................ 111 Alternative Funding Policy Considerations ............................................................................................... 116 Intergovernmental Agreements – Revenue Sharing ............................................................................ 116 DeKalb Market Square Agreements and the Peace Road Interchange ............................................ 116 Peace Road Interchange Improvements ........................................................................................... 118 DeKalb County Home Agreement ..................................................................................................... 122 Sycamore Boundary Agreement ....................................................................................................... 125 General Fund Stabilization – Property Tax Levy ................................................................................... 126 Streets and Fleet Funding ..................................................................................................................... 127 Streets and Fleet Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 128 Alternative Funding Policy Conclusions ................................................................................................ 128 Introduction  Introduction  Purpose of Financial Planning  Tool for Decision Making  Long‐Term Financial Plan  Elements of the Plan  Introduction The impact of the most recent recession and following slow growth recovery has built a structural imbalance for the City of DeKalb. A structural imbalance is where expenditure growth outpaces revenue growth. In the recent three years, the State of Illinois’ inability to pass a budget until the Fiscal Year 2019‐2020 budget has had additional direct and indirect impact on the City of DeKalb. The City’s budget has been impacted by declining and delayed revenue streams. It has also had an impact on the City’s latest bond rating by Moody’s. The two sectors hit hardest by the State’s lack of annual budgets include higher education and social services. The City’s largest employer Northern Illinois University has seen their funding drastically cut and revenue decreased which has had a domino effect on enrollment. Decreased social service agency funding has negatively impacted DeKalb residents who financially are the group that can least afford the reduction. All of these realities factor into the City’s ability to provide service to DeKalb residents and businesses, both short‐term and long‐term. In order to address the issues relating to the City, an important strategy in funding City operations is ensuring a diversified revenue base and creating stronger, more reliable revenue streams. One of the key components of that revenue base is a strong tax base and increasing the overall Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV). The City has a number of projects that are in the works to assist in increasing the overall EAV and create stronger revenue streams. Purpose of Financial Planning The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) outlines a number of Best Practices. According to their list of Best Practices and one relating to long‐term planning is the Establishment of Strategic Plans. GFOA identifies the following. Strategic planning is a comprehensive and systematic management tool designed to help organizations assess the current environment, anticipate and respond appropriately to changes in the environment, envision the future, increase effectiveness, develop commitment to the organizations mission and achieve consensus on strategies and objectives for achieving that mission. GFOA further recommends that, “all governmental entities use some form of strategic planning to provide a long‐term perspective for service delivery and budgeting, thus establishing logical links between authorized spending and broad organizational goals.” In 2015, the City undertook a strategic planning process that would set direction for City policy, budgeting and program development for the next 10 years. An extensive community engagement effort was conducted in order to capture the opinions and ideas about the future of DeKalb from people who live, work and/or learn in the City. In February of 2016, the City Council adopted the DeKalb 2025 Strategic Plan that provided an outline of priorities for a 10‐ year horizon. 7 GFOA’s Best Practice on Long‐Term Financial Planning states: Many governments have a comprehensive long‐term financial planning process because it stimulates discussion and engenders a long‐term perspective for decision makers. It can be used as a tool to prevent financial challenges; it stimulates long‐term and strategic thinking; it can give consensus on long‐term financial direction; and it is useful for communications with internal and external stakeholders. In past annual budget documents, the City has included a Five‐Year Financial Forecast for the General Fund. It included assumptions required to understand the City’s financial position in future years beyond the information contained in the main portions of the annual operating budget for the General Fund. The Forecast is updated annually as part of the budget process. The development of the City’s inaugural Five Year Financial Plan in 2018 was an extension of the continued and progressive path of effective financial management. The Five‐Year Financial Plan is a process and strategy for long‐term strategic financial planning that includes economic position analysis, benchmarking to comparable communities, revenue and expenditure analysis, capital planning and alternative policy considerations. The Plan will allow the City to address the individual or compounded effects of various policy choices and to demonstrate their impact on the City’s financial future. This information enables City Council and the community to discuss policy decisions with greater awareness of their long‐term financial implications. Through this process and strategy, the City seeks to achieve the balance of fiscal strength, accountability and results that the community values. Tool for Decision‐Making To achieve results that the community values in a constrained economic environment, resources must be strategically aligned to reflect community values. This process of alignment cannot be completed in only a single budget cycle. This need for multi‐year alignment is addressed through long‐term planning. The Five‐Year Financial Plan does not include specific decisions on how to bring the City’s five‐ year revenues and expenditures in balance. It presents the causes of particular issues and provides an opportunity for examining various policy options while facilitating a community dialogue about those choices. Long‐Term Financial Plan As outlined, long‐term financial planning is a best management practice recommended by the GFOA. The planning process combines financial forecasting with strategy planning. It is a collaborative process that considers future scenarios and helps governments navigate challenges. Long‐term financial planning works best as part of an overall strategic plan. GFOA states: 8  Financial forecasting is the process of projecting revenues and expenditures over a long‐term period, using assumptions about economic conditions, future spending scenarios, and other salient variables. Long‐term financial planning is the process of aligning financial capacity with long‐term service objectives. Financial planning uses forecasts to provide insight into future financial capacity so that strategies can be developed to achieve long‐term sustainability in light of the government's service objectives and financial challenges. According to GFOA, “a long‐term financial plan should include these steps: 1. Mobilization Phase. The mobilization phase prepares the organization for long‐term planning by creating consensus on what the purpose and results of the planning process should be. 2. Analysis Phase. The analysis phase is designed to produce information that supports planning and strategizing. The analysis phase includes the projections and financial analysis commonly associated with long‐term financial planning. 3. Decision Phase. After the analysis phase is completed, the government must decide how to use the information provided. Key to decision phase is a highly participative process that involves elected officials, staff, and the public. The decision phase also includes a culminating event where the stakeholders can assess the planning process to evaluate whether the purposes for the plan described in the mobilization phase were fulfilled and where a sense of closure and accomplishment can be generated. Finally, the decision phase should address the processes for executing the plan to ensure tangible results are realized. 4. Execution Phase. After the plan is officially adopted, strategies must be put into action (e.g. funding required in achieving goals). The execution phase is where the strategies become operational through the budget, financial performance measures, and action plans. Regular monitoring should be part of this phase.” Elements of the Plan The elements of the Five‐Year Financial Plan include: 1. Summary of DeKalb’s current economic position 2. Benchmarking DeKalb to comparable communities 3. Revenue and expenditure projections 4. Streets and Fleet Preliminary Asset Management Analysis 5. Alternative funding policy considerations As part of the summary on DeKalb’s current economic position, DeKalb’s economic strengths are summarized. Information is provided regarding DeKalb’s population, education 9 attainment, housing and land use. This section also describes Northern Illinois University and its general impact on the community’s workforce. A commentary is also provided on retail and commercial real estate. Information is provided describing DeKalb’s 2017 downgraded bond rating and debt obligations. In benchmarking DeKalb to comparable communities, 13 comparable communities and five university communities were analyzed. The Town of Normal was added as the fifth university community in this 2018 update. Information was gathered from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for data points of 2066, 2011 and 2016. This section compares population, per capita personal income, full time employees, employees per 1,000 population, General Fund expenditures, General Fund expenditures per capita, General Fund revenues and General Fund revenues per capita. General Fund revenues is further summarized by category – sales tax, income tax and utility tax. This section provides each communities’ information for property taxes levied, tax rates, assessed valuation and assessed valuation categories between 2006 and 2016. The last part of the benchmarking section contains comparable information for pension contributions, funding rate and unfunded liability for each community between 2006 and 2016. Summaries are provided for each detailed chart and table. The Revenues and Expenditures Forecast section includes historical fund balances, revenues and expenditures and forecasts. Each forecast contains a summary of the impact on fund balance and property tax rate. This section contains additional information describing the cost centers with significant effect on expenditures such as personnel costs, employee salaries, union contracts, health insurance and retiree health insurance. The Streets and Fleet Preliminary Asset Management Plan is outlined. For streets and fleet, this section includes detailed summaries of asset inventory and condition assessment, level of service evaluation, asset management strategy and financial strategy. Alternative Funding Policy Considerations sections includes detailed history of intergovernmental agreements between the City of DeKalb and DeKalb County and also between the City of DeKalb and the City of Sycamore. The current and projected impact of each agreement is provided. This section includes funding scenarios for streets and fleet. A forecast and policy consideration for General Fund stabilization is also provided. 10  Economic Position 11  Economic Position  DeKalb’s Strengths  Population  Northern Illinois University  Property Values and Taxes  National Retail and Commercial Real Estate  Bond Rating and Debt Obligations 12  Economic Position DeKalb’s Strengths The City of DeKalb has several distinct advantages that make it an ideal location for a regional hub for industry and business, the first being its physical location. With adjacency to I‐88 and the Union Pacific West line, DeKalb has two of the nation’s economic arteries passing directly through its jurisdiction. Combined with close proximity to I‐39 and the Global 3 Intermodal, the City is in the crosshairs for businesses needing access to the entire Midwest region and beyond. The City’s connectivity to the global economy goes beyond road and rail. A 7,025‐foot runway at the DeKalb Taylor Municipal Airport provides access via air for businesses and executives needing timely access to their local operations. The traditional trifecta of infrastructure is not the only strength of the City. DeKalb also offers a robust fiber optic network, which will continue to become a critical component of businesses staying globally connected. In addition to DeKalb’s locational advantages with infrastructure and connectivity to the larger economy, the City also has the advantage of being situated at the fringe of the Chicago Metro Area. Although there has been much discussion in the community in regards to the number of individuals that are employed in DeKalb, but living in the far western suburbs, this can also be considered an advantage. The proximity to some of the state’s most desirable communities is a recruitment tool for attracting large employers that will have highly compensated executives and managers. This proximity allows firms to locate in DeKalb and have congestion free access and offer and easy reverse commute for their employees. As significant a strength that infrastructure and geographic location are, DeKalb’s greatest asset is its workforce. Proud home to Northern Illinois University (NIU), with excellence in engineering and business, NIU has a 123‐year legacy of being a pipeline of the region’s highly‐ skilled employees. The City is extremely proud of the “Communiversity” relationship with NIU. It has led to innovative programs that connect students with local businesses and non‐profit organizations, to assist in research, problem‐solving and driving innovation. Partnerships between NIU and the region’s community college contribute to a sustainable pipeline of a highly skilled workforce. As the economy and industries continue to evolve, higher education institutions will become critical innovation hubs, necessary to maintaining regional competitiveness in a globalized economy. With the $500+ million in community investment over the past decade, DeKalb has the capacity to continue growing. While these investments have had an impact on the community’s tax burden, one must not lose sight of the opportunities that it provides for continuing to make DeKalb a great place to work, learn and live. 13 Population First incorporated in 1856, and later being designated a City in 1877, the population of DeKalb in 1880 was 1,598. Over the next 140 years, DeKalb would grow to its current population of 43,862 (per 2010 census). The current population is estimated at 44,030. The City saw a significant increase in population in the decades between 1950 and 1970, largely due to 1955 state legislation authorizing Northern Illinois State Teachers College to broaden its educational services beyond teacher education. Now known as Northern Illinois University (NIU), the school acted as a magnet for the community, drawing young individuals and families, many of whom stayed after graduation to start families, businesses and careers. Population 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 ‐ 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 The City also saw a steady rise in population in the decades between 1990 and 2010, largely driven by suburban sprawl and national demand for single family homes. Though DeKalb is considered an exurb of the Chicago Metropolitan Area, many were lured to the community because of the comparatively low cost of housing to the western suburbs. However, following the collapse of the housing market in 2008, DeKalb has struggled to regain traction in residential development. Additionally, NIU has seen a decline in enrollment over the past 10 years. It is possible that the 2020 Census will indicate flat population growth. What is unknown is the impact on the population because the apartments that once housed students alone now house students and families. In addition to general population trends, the demographic make‐up of the population can be telling of the local economy. Compared to both the State of Illinois and the nation, DeKalb has a relatively low median household income and high poverty rate. However, the City does have a relatively high percentage of the population with a college degree. Given that DeKalb is a university community, these are common traits. Given the low income of students, it may skew the statistics for income and poverty, though it is difficult to know how much. 14  DeKalb Illinois United States Median Household Income (2011‐2015) $37,954 $57,574 $53,889 Percentage of Population with College Degree (2011‐2015) 37.0% 32.3% 29.8% Persons in Poverty (2015) 32.3% 13.6% 13.5% Unemployment Rate (2016) 5.4% 5.9% 4.9% Retail Sales per Capita (2012) $11,608 $12,942 $13,443 Population per Square Mile (2010) 2,993.8 231.1 87.4 Owner Occupied Housing Units (2011‐2015) 41.6% 66.4% 63.9% Median Value of Owner‐Occupied Housing Units (2011‐2015) $154,100 $173,800 $178,600 A total of 38% of DeKalb residents 25 years old and older have a Bachelor's degree or higher. In addition, 10% of DeKalb residents have attained an Associate’s degree while 24% have some college education. For 23% of DeKalb residents, the highest level of education attained is a high school diploma or General Education Diploma (GED). The data shows the focus on educational attainment in DeKalb is reflective of a university community, or commonly referred to as a gown town. City Residents Demogrphics 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Female: 0 Male: The population pyramid data shows the median age for all residents is 23.7 Years. DeKalb is a young community due to the presence of the students at Northern Illinois University. 15  2014 Housing Distribution Single Family Attached (Townhouse), 8.90% Mult‐Family, 41.40% Single Family , Two Family, 4.30% 45.40% The breakdown in housing distribution in DeKalb is 45% is comprised of single family housing while the remaining housing is broken down with various types of multi‐family housing including apartments, townhomes and duplexes. The median year that homes were constructed in DeKalb is 1976. City of DeKalb Land Use Right‐of‐Way Single Family Two Family Residential 13% Residential 1% 18% Multiple Family Residential Vacant/Agriculture 3% 27% Commercial 4% Light Industrial 4% Heavy Industrial 4% Public Transportation/Utilities 8% Open Space 10% 8% Regarding overall land use, the two largest categories of land use at 19% a piece are single family homes and vacant or agricultural areas. Of the overall breakdown, residential comprises 23% of all land use with commercial at 4% and industrial at 10%. 16 Northern Illinois University The impact of Northern Illinois University (NIU) on the community has a much larger impact than just demographics. NIU is the largest economic driver for the City, as both the largest direct employer and largest contributor to workforce development. According to a 2015 report, NIU contributes $895 million in total economic impact to the region and is responsible for employment of 12,874 individuals. A total of 3,303 are directly employed by NIU as faculty and staff. The impact was considered to be a conservative estimate, because it did not account for the spending of visitors. The draw of visitors and students to NIU is vital to the economic success of the community. Over the past 10 years, NIU has seen a decrease in enrollment. This decline has had a direct impact on the rental housing market, leading to a surplus of available units and vacancies. Purpose built student housing, which is affordable by nature, has attracted lower income individuals and families. As a result, neighborhoods that were designed for students now have both families and students living in close proximity. This situation presents challenges for low income families and individuals, such as limited access to employment and shopping (especially grocery). Limited access to opportunity and isolation exacerbate the challenges of poverty, making it difficult, if not impossible, to break the cycle of poverty. Though improvements to public transportation systems would lead to better connectivity between individuals and employers, there are limited opportunities for employment in sectors that pay living wages. Two of the City’s top six employment sectors are low wage industries, including retail and food services. However, there is growth in both the Healthcare sector, as well as the Administration and Support sector. Thus, continued investment in workforce development can lead to improved employment opportunities. 17 As discussed prior, Northern Illinois University has a large economic impact on the City of DeKalb. Below is the list of the top 10 employers within the City of DeKalb. Top Ten Employers Number of % Of Total City Population Employees Northern Illinois University 3,596 8.17% KishHealth System 1,443 3.28% DeKalb School District 860 1.95% Target Distribution Center 700 1.59% 3M 596 1.35% Wal‐Mart Super Center 475 1.08% American Marketing & 358 0.81% Publishing Ideal Industries 344 0.78% Sonoco – Alloyd Company 330 0.75% Nestle Distribution 275 0.62% Property Values and Taxes The County’s estimated increase in the equalized assessed valuation (EAV) for the City is $530,164,571, an increase of 5.2%. Growth in the EAV from new construction within the estimated taxable property is $11 million or 41.9% of the County’s EAV estimate. After abatements and by tying the approved estimated levy increase to the growth in the EAV, existing properties with no major improvements should pay the same property tax for the City of DeKalb as the prior year. About 9.5% of a resident’s current tax bill goes to the City. A homeowner of a $150,000 (market value) or $50,000 (taxable value) has a 2016 tax rate of 1.6629% or $831 annual payment ($8,378,541 Extended 2016 Levy / $503,861,829 EAV = 0.016629). 18 While residents live within the City limits, their property tax bill is comprised of no less than 10 separate taxing districts. Each taxing district determines the total dollar amount to levy on the property which resides within the taxing district boundaries. EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUE (EAV) 450,000,000 400,000,000 350,000,000 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 ‐ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Residential Commercial Industrial Farm Railroad Similar to national trends, home values peaked in the 2006‐2008 period, with the median sale price of homes in 2008 being $171,700. Early 2013 marked the low point for sale prices in DeKalb, with the median sale prices hovering just over $100,000. A decade later, while the housing market has shown signs of recovery nationally, DeKalb’s housing values have struggled to recover. The median sale price of homes in 2017 is only $131,002 and per Zillow in 2018 the median sale price of homes has slightly increased to $134,300. Below you can find the median home value in the City of DeKalb. This information came from Zillow. Even though home values plummeted after the housing crash in 2009. Home values have been slowly recovering over the past few years. 19  DeKalb Median Home Value 161 K 147 K 142 K 133 K 130 K 133 K 132 K 122 K 119 K 124 K 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 The number of closed sales year to date in 2017 is 429 and have surpassed figures from 2008 at 388. This is signaling there is some demand in the market. Additionally, the number of homes currently for sale in 2017 is 35.6% lower than the same time in 2008. The laws of supply and demand would indicate that prices should be recovering, however they are not. One factor may be the age and quality of the homes in the market place. In the years leading up to 2008, many of the homes being purchased in DeKalb were of newer construction. Overall, DeKalb has an aging housing stock. Many of the older homes on the market require updates, driving the sale price down. Another contributing factor is more stringent regulations on lending through the Frank Dodd Act. For example, if a home receives multiple offers above the asking price, a bank is not permitted to underwrite a loan if the home does not appraise for the value offered by the potential purchaser. An even greater challenge to financing a home in DeKalb is high property taxes. Although DeKalb a significantly lower price per square foot compared to the western suburbs, this strategic advantage is lost when property taxes are accounted for. In many instances, the monthly cost of property tax is greater than the principal and interest on a mortgage. Therefore, when calculating what an individual or family is capable of affording, their dollar no longer goes as far in DeKalb as it once did. In addition to having an impact on demand for housing, high property taxes are also a leading reason for individuals and families moving out of the community. On a home with a market value of $150,000, the total tax bill would be $6,565. Of that, $914 goes to the City, in comparison to $4,059 going to the largest group which is the School District. If the community is not able to grow its tax base at a rate faster than the total cumulative levy of all taxing bodies, high property taxes will continue to have a negative impact on the economic position of the City. Given the City’s 9% share of the total tax bill, it has limited ability 20 to have a marked impact on lowering the current property tax burden through reductions in its levy. However, the City has the greatest ability to effect economic growth, which is the most sustainable approach to lowering the tax burden. 2016 TAX LEVY ALLOCATION DeKalb Township, 1% DeKalb Sanitary Forest Preserve, 1% District, 1% DeKalb Road & Bridge, 2% DeKalb Library, 4% CC 523 Kishwaukee, 5% DeKalb Sanitary District DeKalb Park District, 6% DeKalb Road & Bridge DeKalb Township City of DeKalb, 9% Forest Preserve School District 428, DeKalb Library 62% DeKalb County, 9% CC 523 Kishwaukee DeKalb Park District City of DeKalb DeKalb County School District 428 National Retail and Commercial Real Estate The City relies heavily on sales tax as a revenue source to the General Fund to cover operational expenses. Therefore, it is important that the City be able to forecast potential economic downturns that may affect sales tax revenue. The continued growth of online consumerism has already had an impact on several retail sectors, especially among national retailers and chains. Recent years have seen multiple national retailers shut their doors in some or all of their stores nationally. Other retailers are downsizing their typical footprints. Many of these are considered “big box” retailers, leaving large spaces vacant and difficult to fill with new tenants. This has a secondary impact on the local economy, lowering the value of commercial properties. Additionally, the impact of online retail has had a harsher impact on national retailers, compared to niche boutique types of retailers. These types of retailers contribute large amounts of sales tax, which means the loss of one can have a substantial impact on the fiscal health of the City. The collection of local sales tax on online sales has been considered, and currently the State of Illinois does collect its portion of sales tax. 21  State Sales Tax History $5,289,536 6,000,000 $5,422,936 $5,348,970 5,000,000 $3,621,333 $3,957,767 $4,458,400 $4,220,495 $3,782,236 $3,950,721 $3,871,872 4,000,000 $2,748,303 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 * The City changed their fiscal year ending from June 30th to December 31st. Online retail sales is not the only contributing factor impacting national chains. Consumer preferences are also shifting towards a unique experiential shopping experience. This change is a driving force in many communities reinvesting in their downtowns and concentrating on programs that support small business. Although DeKalb’s current lease rates in the downtown do not allow for redevelopment or new development to pay its own way, the affordability of rent can be seen as an asset for recruiting entrepreneurs. Below you will find the breakdown of resident’s full sales tax. In total residents will pay 8% sales tax, but only 1.75% of that comes from the City of DeKalb. Calendar Year City Home Rule Municipal Retailers County State Total Rate Occupation Tax Rate Rate 2007 1.25% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 7.50% 2008 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2009 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2010 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2011 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2012 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2013 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2014 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2015 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2016 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2017 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 2018 1.75% 1.00% 0.25% 5.00% 8.00% 22  Taxable Home Rule Sales by Category ($ in millions) Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 General Merchandise 1.541 1.613 1.298 1.496 1.451 1.453 1.430 1.374 1.340 Food 0.558 0.560 0.675 0.659 0.654 0.656 0.626 0.601 0.614 Drinking and Eating 0.645 0.665 0.666 0.686 0.674 0.724 0.737 0.751 0.782 Places Apparel 0.062 0.059 0.306 0.071 0.080 0.092 0.097 0.093 0.088 Furniture, H.H., and 0.247 0.251 0.222 0.207 0.202 0.203 0.222 0.214 0.205 Radio Lumber, Building 0.226 0.217 0.216 0.221 0.235 0.262 0.267 0.281 0.282 Hardware Automobile and Filling 0.761 0.817 0.844 0.906 0.818 0.839 0.816 0.751 0.819 Stations Drugs and Miscellaneous 0.816 0.796 0.760 0.742 0.789 0.819 0.869 0.899 0.883 Retail Agriculture and All Others 0.282 0.286 0.290 0.294 0.302 0.306 0.268 0.267 0.295 Manufactures 0.139 0.155 0.073 0.015 0.031 0.034 0.015 0.037 0.041 Total 5.276 5.418 5.350 5.298 5.237 5.388 5.346 5.268 5.349 The City’s Top Ten Tax Payers in 2017 and 2008 are on the following table: 23 Bond Rating and Debt Obligations Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the City’s $32 million General Obligation (GO) bonds to ‘A1’ from ‘Aa3’on May 24, 2017. Moody’s noted in its Report: The city’s leverage related to debt and pension liabilities has increased substantially in recent years, and is expected to remain elevated. The direct debt burden and the overall debt burden…..are above state and national medians. Moody’s also identified “Increases in leverage related to the city’s debt or pension burden” as one of the factors that could lead to a downgrade. Moody’s further stated:  Certain rating factors are outside of the City’s control – Local economy and size of local tax base – Institutional presence of Northern Illinois University, whose debt was downgraded to ‘Ba2’ (below investment grade) by Moody’s on June 9, 2017  Rating factors that are within the City’s control that are addressed in the FMP – Pension Burdens – Financial Operations and General Fund Reserves The credit strengths include:  Institutional presence of Northern Illinois University  Home‐rule with considerable revenue raising flexibility The credit challenges are:  Sizable and growing pension burden  Exposure of main local economic institution to the State of Illinois (Baa2 negative) The following factors that could lead to a downgrade include:  Deterioration in the socio‐economic profile or tax base valuation  Declines in the City’s reserves or liquidity  Increases in leverage related to the City’s debt or pension burden The City of DeKalb is a home‐rule community and has no legal debt limit set by the Illinois General Assembly. The City monitors the overlapping debt of all taxing districts and is sensitive to the burden debt places on the taxpayer. In FY 2017, the City’s ratio of General Obligation Bonded Debt to EAV was 4.68%. 24  Debt Schedule by Fiscal Year 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Bond Series 2010B Bond Series 2010C Bond Series 2012A Bond Series 2013B Bond Series 2010A (TIF) The chart below provides a ratio of general obligation bonded debt per resident in the City of DeKalb for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2016.5. Prior to Fiscal Year 2016.5, the City’s fiscal year end was on June 30th. The City’s changed its fiscal year end in 2016 to December 31st. 25  Historical Trends of Bonded Debt per Capita $787 800 $733 $666 700 $613 $581 $591 600 $554 $548 500 $374 400 $329 300 200 100 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016.5 * * ‐ The City changed their fiscal year from June 30th to December 31st Due to Moody’s 2017 downgrade as well as the City’s total debt payment, there are implications on the City’s near‐term bond issuance. Based on an analysis conducted by the financial advisor Ehlers, potential near‐term bonds as early as this year, 2018, could pose a rating challenge. This will likely necessitate a delay on the earliest bond issuance until 2020. DeKalb Community Unit School District Data The chart below provides information that was found in the District Report Card for CUSD 428. The information that was available went back to 2013. In the first table, the noticeable shifts throughout the data is the decrease in the white student population, while black and Hispanic student populations increased. Two or Fiscal American Pacific Enrollment White Black Hispanic Asian More Year Indian Islander Races 2013 6,230 56.00% 15.00% 22.00% 2.00% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 2014 6,245 54.00% 17.00% 23.00% 2.00% 1.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2015 6,336 52.00% 17.00% 24.00% 2.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2016 6,450 50.00% 18.00% 26.00% 2.00% 1.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2017 6,507 49.00% 18.00% 26.00% 2.00% 1.00% 5.00% 0.00% In the second table, there are a few different trends appearing. Low income students have increased from 53% to 60%. English learners have also increased from 9% to 12% of the student population. Both student attendance and student mobility have decreased. Finally, the percentage of chronically truant students jumped in 2015 with a high of 12% but fell to 6% in 2017. 26  Chronically Fiscal Low English Student Student IEP Homeless Truant Year Income Learners Attendance Mobility Students 2013 53.00% 14.00% 9.00% 95.00% 12.00% 8.00% 2014 54.00% 15.00% 3.00% 9.00% 95.00% 13.00% 7.00% 2015 59.00% 16.00% 2.00% 10.00% 94.00% 13.00% 12.00% 2016 57.00% 16.00% 2.00% 11.00% 94.00% 12.00% 10.00% 2017 60.00% 15.00% 2.00% 12.00% 94.00% 10.00% 6.00% DeKalb Crime Data The chart below provides information from the FBI Crime Database about violent and property crime that occurs within the City of DeKalb. Property crimes began to decrease over a few years from 2011 to 2015 but jumped in 2016. Violent crime on the other hand, has stayed relatively level over the years with a slight upward trend. Violent and Property Crime in DeKalb 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Violent Crime Property Crime 27  Benchmarking 28  Benchmarking  Comparable Communities  Benchmarking Data  Population and Per Capita Income  Full‐Time Equivalent Employees  General Fund Expenditures  General Fund Revenues  Home Rule Sale Tax  Property Taxes and Assessed Valuation  Pensions 29  Benchmarking DeKalb to Comparable Communities Comparable Communities In 2015, the City contracted with Sikich, a regional accounting, auditing and consulting firm, to complete a comprehensive Pay and Compensation Study. In order to identify comparable local government employers, Sikich used an empirically based, weighted variable model applied to communities that met the following criteria:  Communities located within 40‐mile radius of DeKalb (due to the potential labor pool)  Communities with a population plus or minus 50% of DeKalb’s population (between 22,015 and 66,045)  Contiguous local government employers that provide a similar breadth of services to those of DeKalb (Sycamore)  Communities that provide municipal fire services The empirical model used for the study employed a sliding scale of weighted variable that correspond to the measure community’s relative similarity to the City of DeKalb for the particular variable being measured. Eleven variables were assigned weighed value of 15, 10 or 5 points where proportional points were applied based a sliding scale of relativity to DeKalb. Based on a multivariate weighted model, Sikich determined 13 comparable cities or villages were sufficiently similar. The Carpentersville was the most comparable, while Sycamore and St. Charles were the least comparable. Scoring Rubric for Empirical Development of Comparable Communities Criterion Source Variable Weighting Max Point Value 1. Municipal Fire Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal (OSFM) Department httg://webapps.sfm.illinois.gov/FireDeptSearch/ Yes/No 2. Home Rule Status Illinois Municipal League Website 5 pts. http://imlrma.org/page.cfm?key=2 3. Colleges or 5 pts. Community Webpages Universities 4. Population Illinois State Comptroller Local Government 15 pts. Warehouse FY 2013 5. Distance from http://www.distance‐cities.co/ 10 pts. DeKalb 6. Number of Full‐ Illinois State Comptroller Local Government 15 pts. Time Employees Warehouse FY 2013 7. General Fund Total Illinois State Comptroller Local Government 10 pts. Expenditures Warehouse FY 2013 30  8. Total Expenditures Illinois State Comptroller Local Government 15 pts. Warehouse FY 2013 9. Equalized Assessed Illinois State Comptroller Local Government 10 pts. Value (EAV) Warehouse FY 2013 10. Square Miles U.S. Census 2010 5 pts. 11. Total Sales Tax Illinois State Comptroller Local Government 10 pts. Revenue Warehouse FY 2013 12. Median Family U.S. Census, 2012 ‐ American Fact Finder 5‐year 10 pts. Income Estimates City of DeKalb – 2014 Comparable Market Empirical Model Results Municipality Total Municipal Fire Score Department? DeKalb 110 Yes 1 Carpentersville 90 Yes 2 Hanover Park 85 Yes 3 Romeoville 84 Yes 4 Crystal Lake 82 Yes 5 Streamwood 80 Yes 6 Wheaton 80 Yes 7 Rolling Meadows 78 Yes 8 Batavia 75 Yes 9 Elk Grove Village 70 Yes 10 Belvidere 68 Yes 11 Hoffman Estates 64 Yes 12 St. Charles 60 Yes 13 Sycamore 60 Yes 14 DeKalb County ‐‐ N/A The data was provided by the City unless it was otherwise noted. The model was provided by the Sikich study team. Communities without municipal Fire Departments were excluded from analysis due to the financial impact municipalities’ face in providing Fire protection and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The City of Sycamore was included because it is a contiguous community with comparable service offerings, even though it did not fall within the population criteria. DeKalb County was included at the City’s request as a multi‐service local government serving DeKalb. This plan includes benchmarks for the 13 comparable communities and they are listed in alphabetical order: Batavia, Belvidere, Carpentersville, Crystal Lake, Elk Grove Village, Hanover Park, Hoffman Estates, Rolling Meadows, Romeoville, St. Charles, Streamwood, Sycamore and Wheaton. The plan further analyzes five university communities in Illinois and include: Bloomington, Charleston, Champaign, Normal and Urbana. The Town of Normal was added to this year’s update based on the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendation. 31 Benchmarking Data As part of the City’s benchmarking, the data will generally be broken down to between the 13 most comparable communities first and the other three university communities second. Population and Per Capita Income 86,096 78,005 Population 2017 54,373 44,030 42,014 21,133 52,894 51,895 44,528 44,030 40,743 39,680 38,291 37,973 33,460 32,931 26,045 25,070 24,667 17,867 DeKalb has the fourth highest population (44,030) of the comparable communities. Wheaton has the highest population (52,894) and Sycamore has the lowest population (17,867). DeKalb has the 4th highest population but the lowest per capita personal income. DeKalb has the third highest population (44,030) among the university communities. Champaign has the highest population (86,096) while Charleston has the lowest population (21,133). The university community most comparable based on population is Urbana (42,311). In comparison to the 13 comparable communities, DeKalb has the lowest per capita income. It is also the only community that is home to a four‐year university. Wheaton is home to Wheaton College. This low ranking may be due, in part, to the presence of NIU students. 32  44,397 43,064 39,237 27,777 Per Capita Personal Income 2016 21,096 19,088 45,270 38,565 37,218 36,581 35,492 32,238 31,133 30,735 30,199 30,011 22,643 21,347 20,604 19,088 Whereas DeKalb has the third highest population among the university community, it has the lowest per capita income of these four. Please note that in many of the charts in this document, Charleston’s information is not included because it was not available. Full‐Time Equivalent Employees 621 Full‐Time Equivalent 531 374 270.1 243 Employees 2016 128 363 331 330 296.05 269.1 243 233 204 196 191 178 157 126.5 114 Note: DeKalb’s 2016 FTE’s provided by DeKalb’s Human Resources Department 33 For the comparable communities, DeKalb has the 7th highest number of full‐time equivalent employees (FTE’s) with 231.5. Hoffman Estates has the highest FTE’s with 363 and Belvidere has the lowest FTE’s with 114. The community closest to DeKalb in FTEs is Crystal Lake (233). DeKalb ranks 4th in population, 7th for FTE’s and 10th for FTE’s per 1,000 population. The number of DeKalb’s 2016 FTEs has been provided by the Human Resources Department. The total excludes employees from the DeKalb Sycamore Area Transportation Study since they are technically not City of DeKalb employees. DeKalb has the lowest number of FTEs (231.5) of the university communities. Bloomington has the highest number (621), which is over 2.5 times the number of DeKalb FTEs. DeKalb ranks as the 3rd highest in population yet ranks 4th or has the lowest number of FTEs and FTEs per 1,000 population. 7.96 6.88 6.43 6.17 6.06 5.52 Employees per 1000 population 10.02 8.34 8.04 7.22 7.08 6.99 6.03 5.72 5.60 5.52 5.16 4.99 4.58 4.55 DeKalb has the 10th highest FTEs per 1,000 population, or alternatively the 5th lowest. Only four comparable communities have lower FTEs per 1,000 population compared to DeKalb ranking 10th highest for FTE’s per 1,000 population with 5.3 FTE’s. Elk Grove Village has the highest FTEs per 1,000 population with 9.4 and Belvidere has the lowest FTEs per 1,000 with 4.5. Hanover Park is the closest comparable with 5.2 employees per 1,000 population. DeKalb has the lowest FTEs per thousand population of the university communities. Bloomington employs 7.9 FTEs per thousand population, nearly 1.5 times the level of DeKalb. 34 General Fund Expenditures 91.30 M Expenditures ‐ Actual General 70.96 M 56.85 M Fund Fiscal Year 2016 32.28 M 30.47 M 10.20 M 57.82 M 51.24 M 43.83 M 41.51 M 38.11 M 32.28 M 31.47 M 31.10 M 29.30 M 27.84 M 26.30 M 24.14 M 15.71 M15.41 M DeKalb’s actual General Fund expenditures for Fiscal Year 2016 ranks 7th out of the 14 comparable communities. Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Belvidere and Sycamore are outliers compared to 10 other communities both on the high and low ends. Hanover Park is the closest in total General Fund expenditures at $31,098,260. 1170 1046 Expenditures per Capita 824 733 725 483 Fiscal Year 2016 1276 1241 1114 1105 927 863 819 733 727 720 658 645 627 35 University communities shown have a wide range of expenditures. Bloomington ranks the highest at $81,090,175 and Charleston at the lowest at $9,865,565. DeKalb has the 3rd highest General Fund expenditures of the five university communities at $30,744,360. Although DeKalb ranks 7th for expenditures and FTE’s, the City ranks 10th for expenditures per capita. That means nine comparable communities are providing municipal services at a higher per capita cost ranging from $1,192 to $720. Only Belvidere, Streamwood and Crystal Lake have General Fund expenditures lower than DeKalb’s at $698 per capita. DeKalb, Champaign and Urbana have very similar expenditures per capita in 2016 ranging from $656 to $698 per capita. General Fund Revenues Although, DeKalb’s actual General Fund Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2016 rank 7th and 11th for expenditures per capita, the City ranks 9th for revenues and 11th for revenues per capita. 94.25 M 72.34 M 61.18 M Total Revenues ‐ Actual 33.03 M 32.21 M General Fund 2016 10.11 M 58.51 M 55.53 M 46.56 M 40.95 M 42.30 M 34.29 M 31.70 M 33.03 M 30.76 M 28.65 M 25.55 M 25.58 M 16.09 M 15.29 M DeKalb has the 4th highest General Fund revenues for all the university communities ($30,683,651). Bloomington is over three times the amount of General Fund revenue ($94,251,263). The university community with the closest General Fund revenue is Urbana ($32,212,393). 36 DeKalb ranks 11th out of 14 comparable communities for General Fund revenues per capita at $697. Only Crystal Lake, Belvidere and Streamwood have lower revenues ranging from $627 to $643. 1208 1125 Revenues per Capita 2016 840 767 750 479 1686 1285 1264 1173 1128 982 903 856 803 774 750 643 642 627 DeKalb ranks 4th out of 6 university communities for General Fund revenues per capita. Urbana is most comparable to DeKalb at $761 per capita. 37  7 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 2016 Actual Home Rule Sales Actual State Sales Income Tax Revenues Utility Tax Revenues Other Revenues 5.20 M 13.57 M 9.96 M 18.35 M 8.10 M 28.22 M 13.76 M 7.52 M 24.74 M 21.81 M 17.37 M 4.17 M 18.94 M 39.08 M 21.76 M 3.20 M 4.31 M 1.12 M 7.05 M 5.44 M 3.51 M 1.79 M 4.46 M 2.06 M 1.90 M 1.51 M 11.15 M 5.93 M 3.83 M 2.50 M 3.53 M 3.67 M 3.70 M 2.94 M 5.64 M 2.73 M 1.29 M 4.23 M 5.29 M 10.99 M 4.01 M 5.11 M 10.18 M 4.99 M 2.32 M 3.50 M 7.42 M 5.91 M 5.52 M 6.04 M 7.89 M 3.67 M 6.51 M 3.20 M 5.04 M 3.70 M 4.71 M 8.16 M 6.15 M 5.99 M 1.97 M 3.85 M 2.67 M 2.52 M 3.87 M 3.63 M 38  General Fund Revenues 2016 20% 41% 39% 48% 49% 45% 50% 51% 53% 52% 56% 16% 55% 67% 69% 10% 17% 4% 12% 17% 14% 13% 10% 8% 5% 44% 6% 13% 13% 10% 6% 12% 11% 5% 4% 9% 14% 16% 17% 26% 20% 18% 9% 26% 7% 26% 11% 17% 12% 15% 13% 12% 20% 20% 20% 14% 15% 15% 11% 13% 14% 13% 6% 8% 9% 9% Actual Home Rule Sales Actual State Sales Income Tax Revenues Utility Tax Revenues Other Revenues Thirteen comparable communities have Home Rule Sales Tax. DeKalb relies relatively more on Home Rule Sales tax as indicated by the 21% of General Fund Revenues for 2016. Most communities rely on Home Rule Sales tax for 9% to 15% of General Fund revenue. Seven communities, including: Elk Grove, Hanover Park, Hoffman Estates, Rolling Meadows, Romeoville, St. Charles and Streamwood, rely on ''Other Revenue” category for more than 50% of their General Fund Revenues for 2016. This means that they are more reliant on property tax and revenues other than sales, income and utility taxes. At 37%, DeKalb is less reliant on property tax and other revenues compared to the other communities. 39  General Fund Revenues 2016 13.57 M 3.95 M 43.68 M 15.73 M 49.55 M 95.27 M .78 M 3.20 M 2.38 M 8.12 M 2.94 M 4.46 M 2.23 M 6.84 M 4.13 M 8.16 M 5.29 M 18.15 M 13.70 M 5.11 M 4.61 M 3.16 M 4.41 M 6.51 M 18.27 M 8.87 M 4.30 M 16.00 M 10.59 M DeKalb Champaign Urbana Charleston Bloomington Normal Actual Home Rule Sales Actual State Sales Income Tax Revenues Utility Tax Revenues Other Revenues DeKalb and three other university communities have Home Rule Sales tax. Champaign and Bloomington collect more Home Rule Sales tax. Champaign’s Home Rules Sales tax and State Sale tax account for 50% of their General Fund revenue in 2016. DeKalb relies on Home Rule Sales tax and State Sales tax for 38% of General Fund revenue. Urbana, Charleston and Bloomington are more reliant on property taxes and fees. At 37%, DeKalb is less reliant on property tax and other revenues compared to the three university communities. General Fund Revenues 2016 41% 39% 60% 49% 53% 156% 8% 10% 3% 11% 9% 14% 22% 7% 13% 9% 16% 25% 15% 16% 8% 31% 7% 20% 25% 15% 13% 17% 17% DeKalb Champaign Urbana Charleston Bloomington Normal Actual Home Rule Sales Actual State Sales Income Tax Revenues Utility Tax Revenues Other Revenues 40  General Fund Revenues 2016 ‐ DeKalb Utility Tax Other Revenues Revenues 13.57 M Income Tax Revenues 3.20 M 37% 4.46 M 10% 15% Actual State Actual Home rule Sales Sales 5.29 M 6.51 M 17% 21% Actual Home Rule Sales Actual State Sales Income Tax Revenues Utility Tax Revenues Other Revenues Home Rule Sales Tax 16.00 M 18.27 M City Home Rule Rate 2016 10.59 M 6.51 M 4.30 M 8.16 M 2.50% 2.50% 1.75% 1.50% 1.50% 6.51 M 5.99 M 6.15 M 5.04 M 4.71 M 3.85 M 3.87 M 3.70 M 3.63 M 2.67 M 2.52 M 1.97 M 1.00% 0.75% 1.00% 0.75% 1.50% 1.00% 1.75% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 2.00% 1.75% Note: Charleston does not have Home rule sales tax Communities with Home Rule Sales Tax range from 0.75% to 2%. In 2016, DeKalb ranks second in Home Rule Sales Tax revenue collection. Elk Grove Village is the highest revenue collector of Home Rules Sales Tax with $8,157,011. Only five communities including DeKalb, Crystal Lake, Elk Grove Village, Romeoville and St. Charles, collect over $5 million in home rule sales tax revenues. 41 University communities with Home Rule Sales Tax range from 1.5% to 2.5%. In 2016, DeKalb ranks third in Home Rule Sales Tax revenue collection. There is a significant difference in sales tax revenues collected by Champaign ($18,273,051) and Bloomington ($17,116,537) versus DeKalb and Urbana. Property Taxes and Assessed Valuation TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 2011 2016 17.63 M 23.41 M 13.08 M 10.98 M 17.14 M 25.31 M 8.00 M 13.73 M 7.97 M 8.84 M 10.21 M 5.25 M 19.16 M 8.36 M 10.89 M 16.32 M 10.66 M 6.89 M 12.85 M 12.06 M 9.86 M 10.40 M 13.19 M 12.06 M 13.02 M 13.58 M 10.69 M 6.36 M 11.05 M 3.19 M 11.77 M 3.02 M 6.35 M 3.04 M 4.11 M 4.24 M 3.60 M 2.85 M 4.74 M 3.93 M Each community increased their property tax levy between years 2006 and 2016. Only St. Charles experienced a slight decrease ($300) in their property tax levy from 2011 to 2016. Wheaton had the highest property tax levy in 2016 at $25,313,419. Hoffman Estates had the 2nd highest property tax levy in 2016 at $19,161,057. Although DeKalb’s population is ranked 4th, DeKalb is ranked 12th highest of 14 communities in 2016 with a levy of $5,094,730. Through the 10‐year period, DeKalb has consistently ranked 12th to 14th for property tax levy. 42  Property Taxes Levied for Fiscal Year 2016 25,313,419 19,161,057 17,971,963 13,193,894 13,061,065 12,057,772 11,053,029 13,160,870 11,879,677 11,634,443 6,362,197 5,094,730 4,741,604 3,925,479 DeKalb ranked 12th for the property tax levy in 2016. PROPERTY TAX RATES PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUATION 2006 2011 2016 2.9299 2.7346 1.07045 1.3367 1.2716 0.901 1.87 1.009 1.04 0.593 1.693 0.9863 0.75444 1.63369 0.6499 0.687 1.583 0.986 1.0591 0.8302 0.719 0.7537 0.80356 0.6899 0.5748 0.7574 1.024 1.563 1.2981 0.7785 1.6716 0.8631 1.1942 0.5925 1.213 1.159 1.064 0.9109 1.06287 1.0342 0.6955 Each community experienced increase of property tax rates between years 2006 and 2016. All communities also experienced increase of property tax rates between year 2011 and 2016. Through the 10 year period, DeKalb has consistently ranked in the lower half of the 14 communities for property tax rate. 43 DeKalb’s most comparable community, Carpentersville had the highest property tax rate in 2016 at 2.9299. DeKalb’s second most comparable community, Hanover Park (DuPage County) had the second highest property tax rate in 2016 at 2.7346. DeKalb’s property tax rate of 1.1942 is ranked 9th of 14 communities in 2016. Alternatively, it can be viewed as the 6th lowest. Property Tax Rates per $100 of Assessed Valuation for 2016 2.9299 2.7346 1.8700 1.6716 1.6337 1.5630 1.2981 1.2130 1.1942 1.1590 1.0629 1.0342 0.9109 0.6955 44  509,622,916 608,332,947 468,077,742 919,721,190 1,053,784,460 914,945,274 395,816,101 293,958,710 599,930,235 648,109,995 445,784,892 All communities experienced an increase in total assessed value of taxable property between 1,200,659,064 1,315,132,543 979,392,388 2,200,470,660 2,340,307,770 1,589,750,480 656,477,775 2006 743,626,927 525,854,318 45 2011 1,830,698,515 2,141,847,633 1,518,840,790 2016 959,038,502 1,003,838,180 2006 and 2011. However, from 2011 to 2016 all communities sustained a decrease in total 703,906,897 894,235,108 1,276,684,761 1,065,515,505 1,352,327,533 1,548,128,154 1,322,751,195 767,607,981 961,608,681 661,216,133 TOTAL A S S ES S E D VALU E O F TA X A B L E P ROP E RTY FOR T H E F I S C A L Y EAR 309,324,156 436,016,750 357,501,358 assessed value. 1,807,481,291 2,168,300,482 1,883,310,764  Total Assessed Value of Taxable Property for Fiscal Year 2006 2011 2016 Difference DeKalb 509,622,916 608,332,947 468,077,742 ‐140,255,205 ‐23% Batavia 919,721,190 1,053,784,460 914,945,274 ‐138,839,186 ‐13% Belvidere 395,816,101 293,958,710 ‐101,857,391 ‐26% Carpentersville 599,930,235 648,109,995 445,784,892 ‐202,325,103 ‐31% Crystal Lake 1,200,659,064 1,315,132,543 979,392,388 ‐335,740,155 ‐26% Elk Grove Village 2,200,470,660 2,340,307,770 1,589,750,480 ‐750,557,290 ‐32% Hanover Park 656,477,775 743,626,927 525,854,318 ‐217,772,609 ‐29% Hoffman Estates 1,830,698,515 2,141,847,633 1,518,840,790 ‐623,006,843 ‐29% Rolling Meadows 959,038,502 1,003,838,180 703,906,897 ‐299,931,283 ‐30% Romeoville 894,235,108 1,276,684,761 1,065,515,505 ‐211,169,256 ‐17% St. Charles 1,352,327,533 1,548,128,154 1,322,751,195 ‐225,376,959 ‐15% Streamwood 767,607,981 961,608,681 661,216,133 ‐300,392,548 ‐31% Sycamore 309,324,156 436,016,750 357,501,358 ‐78,515,392 ‐18% Wheaton 1,807,481,291 2,168,300,482 1,883,310,764 ‐284,989,718 ‐13% Five communities had reductions between 13% and 19% (Batavia, Romeoville, St. Charles, Sycamore and Wheaton). Five communities incurred reductions between 20% and 29% (DeKalb, Belvidere, Crystal Lake, Hanover Park and Hoffman Estates). Four communities experienced reductions between 30% and 32% (Carpentersville, Elk Grove, Rolling Meadows and Streamwood). DeKalb's assessed value declined 23% from 2011 ($608,332,947) to 2016 ($468,077,742). 46  TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY 1,883,310,764 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 1,589,750,480 1,518,840,790 1,322,751,195 1,065,515,505 979,392,388 914,945,274 703,906,897 661,216,133 525,854,318 468,077,742 445,784,892 357,501,358 293,958,710 DeKalb ranks 11th in assessed valuation in 2016 and has been in the lower half since 2006. Even with the relatively lower assessed valuation, through the 10‐year period, DeKalb has also consistently ranked in the lower half of the 14 communities for the property tax rate. 47  Assessed Value of Taxable Property for Fiscal Year 2016 32,833,576 9,401,320 12,177,758 39,511,338 15,223,571 56,205,928 38,998,251 125,965,723 63,099,260 78,686,402 149,545,866 56,768,073 308,118,039 49,645,834 122,473,358 79,253,886 217,281,136 341,110,857 68,982,503 108,495,593 441,647,788 142,889,179 763,642,797 305,076,606 56,976,024 242,324,603 116,055,318 235,964,563 505,826,859 376,194,689 1,564,260,751 891,708,866 393,686,769 656,321,694 699,260,973 261,933,495 283,233,886 178,575,396 845,660,790 506,065,090 382,895,892 587,790,868 Residential Commercial Industrial DeKalb ranks 12th for residential assessed value, 7th for commercial assessed value and 10th for industrial assessed value in 2016. 48  325,079,355 389,625,409 283,233,886 1,564,260,751 678,936,687 764,707,767 656,321,694 891,708,866 245,030,402 178,575,396 845,660,790 525,230,256 568,109,153 376,194,689 699,260,973 860,469,362 917,883,229 699,260,973 656,321,694 615,745,592 825,416,800 587,790,868 587,790,868 DeKalb ranks 12th for residential assessed value. DeKalb’s most comparable communities 2006 RESIDENTIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE 499,096,061 RESIDENTIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE 591,605,225 506,065,090 393,686,769 49 2011 885,637,285 1,148,816,831 505,826,859 845,660,790 2016 389,984,765 393,686,769 511,782,750 382,895,892 605,668,990 382,895,892 684,151,001 506,065,090 376,194,689 944,422,898 1,044,846,020 891,708,866 283,233,886 573,211,376 753,228,512 PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 505,826,859 261,933,495 234,122,073 326,423,881 261,933,495 178,575,396 (Carpentersville, Hanover Park and Rolling Meadows) all rank in the lower half of the group. 1,521,893,691 1,819,849,352 1,564,260,751 All communities experienced declines in residential assessed valuation between 2011 and 2016.  145,545,772 167,457,427 142,889,179 103,432,157 124,426,791 108,495,593 64,064,954 56,976,024 64,447,072 64,028,623 56,768,073 266,195,135 312,815,076 217,281,136 299,132,396 286,235,274 COMMERCIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE 235,964,563 All communities experienced declines in commercial assessed valuation between 2011 and 77,236,570 71,549,079 68,982,503 50 403,147,597 395,150,291 341,110,857 393,743,154 325,424,028 242,324,603 64,905,424 120,416,770 116,055,318 281,505,774 354,606,287 PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 305,076,606 120,273,247 135,324,254 122,473,358 2006 2011 2016 61,287,971 91,033,462 79,253,886 2016. 283,652,466 336,922,887 308,118,039  COMMERCIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 341,110,857 308,118,039 305,076,606 242,324,603 235,964,563 217,281,136 142,889,179 122,473,358 116,055,318 108,495,593 79,253,886 68,982,503 56,976,024 56,768,073 DeKalb ranks 7th for commercial assessed value in 2016. DeKalb’s most comparable communities (Carpentersville, Hanover Park and Rolling Meadows) all rank in the lower half of the group. 51  37,922,484 49,380,638 38,998,251 133,382,625 763,642,797 164,235,277 149,545,866 441,647,788 50,204,923 49,645,834 9,592,567 149,545,866 14,989,957 12,177,758 125,965,723 71,554,658 81,683,777 56,205,928 78,686,402 1,284,938,287 1,227,423,162 763,642,797 DeKalb ranks 10th for industrial assessed value in 2016. DeKalb’s most comparable community INDUSTRIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE INDUSTRIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE 63,099,260 80,121,173 80,447,378 63,099,260 52 56,205,928 2006 163,668,867 195,331,416 39,511,338 49,645,834 2011 175,310,583 166,631,402 78,686,402 39,511,338 221,990,396 2016 471,631,539 441,647,788 38,998,251 126,398,861 148,675,847 32,833,576 125,965,723 74,034,248 72,993,042 15,223,571 32,833,576 PROPERTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 13,378,053 PROPERTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 12,177,758 16,908,063 15,223,571 1,456,950 9,401,320 10,667,490 9,401,320 (Carpentersville) is ranked 13th. All communities experienced declines in industrial assessed valuation between 2011 and 2016.  PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 2011 2016 23,586,905 24,063,364 19,955,472 20,245,796 18,942,004 15,623,559 7,710,529 7,081,807 6,153,944 5,094,730 4,196,805 4,478,881 3,022,052 DEKALB CHAMPAIGN URBANA CHARLESTON BLOOMINGTON Note: Charleston information for 2006 and 2011 was not available. Each community increased their property tax levy between years 2006 and 2011 and 2011 and 2016. The levies for DeKalb, Urbana and Charleston are substantially lower than Champaign and Bloomington. University Communities ‐ Property Taxes Levied for Fiscal Year 2016 24,063,364 20,245,796 7,081,807 5,094,730 4,478,881 Bloomington Champaign Urbana DeKalb Charleston 53  PROPERTY TAX RATES PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUATION 2006 2011 2016 2.27434 1.312 1.2942 1.3152 1.312 1.2942 1.355 1.27185 1.31118 1.32827 1.1942 0.6899 0.593 DEKALB CHAMPAIGN URBANA CHARLESTON BLOOMINGTON DeKalb, Champaign and Urbana have very similar property tax rates in 2016. Charleston is substantially higher at 2.274 per $100 assessed value. Unlike the comparable communities, the rates have remained fairly flat for the university communities. Property Tax Rates per $100 of Assessed Valuation 2016 2.27434 1.355 1.32827 1.3152 1.1942 Charleston Urbana Bloomington Champaign DeKalb 54  TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1,799,164,559 1,811,618,358 2006 2011 2016 1,541,915,649 1,539,370,157 1,489,321,602 1,190,820,008 608,332,947 595,775,666 509,622,916 522,642,560 468,077,742 469,050,593 190,900,674 DEKALB CHAMPAIGN URBANA CHARLESTON BLOOMINGTON Unlike the declines experienced by comparable communities, the assessed valuation for Champaign and Bloomington have remained fairly flat between 2011 and 2016. Urbana experienced a 12% decline compared to DeKalb’s decrease of 23%. Total Assessed Value of Taxable Property for the Fiscal Year 2016 1,811,618,358 1,539,370,157 522,642,560 468,077,742 190,900,674 Bloomington Champaign Urbana DeKalb Charleston 55  Assessed Value of Taxable Property for Fiscal Year 2016 8,013,530 6,455,585 11,989,029 38,998,251 258,273,297 626,317,035 201,974,287 142,889,179 1,538,377,384 668,528,346 570,235,786 1,171,670,602 283,233,886 320,668,273 856,408,738 DeKalb Champaign Urbana Normal Bloomington Residential Commercial Industrial DeKalb ranks last in the assessed value of taxable residential and commercial property and 2nd for industrial assessed value behind Champaign. 56  RESIDENTIAL ASSESSED VALUE O F TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR (UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES) 2006 2011 2016 1,152,480,233 1,171,670,602 902,553,042 922,457,891 856,408,738 711,817,507 563,420,132 587,556,340 488,199,627 389,625,409 350,754,767 325,079,355 320,668,273 283,233,886 272,438,176 DEKALB CHAMPAIGN URBANA NORMAL BLOOMINGTON Except Normal and Bloomington, all communities experienced declines in residential assessed valuation between 2011 and 2016. 57  Residential Assessed Value of Taxable Property for Fiscal Year 2016 1,171,670,602 856,408,738 320,668,273 283,233,886 Bloomington Champaign Urbana DeKalb DeKalb ranks last residential assessed value. COMMERCIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR (UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES) 668,528,346 2006 2011 2016 624,502,192 636,484,972 626,317,035 556,329,628 466,974,314 245,020,899 259,706,737 250,944,674 259,706,737 196,612,417 201,974,287 145,545,772 167,457,427 142,889,179 DEKALB CHAMPAIGN URBANA NORMAL BLOOMINGTON Except Champaign and Normal, all communities experienced declines in commercial assessed valuation between 2011 and 2016. 58  Commercial Assessed Value of Taxable Property for the Fiscal Year 2016 668,528,346 626,317,035 201,974,287 142,889,179 Champaign Bloomington Urbana DeKalb DeKalb ranks last in commercial assessed value. INDUSTRIAL ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR (UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES) 1,538,377,384 2006 2011 2016 37,922,484 49,380,638 38,998,251 11,127,730 13,537,720 11,989,029 8,113,430 8,417,821 8,013,530 9,728,391 9,098,042 DEKALB CHAMPAIGN URBANA CHARLESTON BLOOMINGTON DeKalb and Urbana experienced declines in industrial assessed valuation between 2011 and 2016. Champaign experienced tremendous growth in industrial assessed valuation between 2011 and 2016. 59  Industrial Assessed Value of Taxable Property for Fiscal Year 2016 1,538,377,384 38,998,251 11,989,029 8,013,530 Champaign DeKalb Bloomington Urbana DeKalb ranks 2nd in industrial assessed value but is only 25% of Champaign’s industrial assessed value. 60  Pensions Employer Contributions for IMRF Carpentersvil Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Hanover Park Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton le Estates Meadows 2016 1.12 M .98 M .45 M .66 M 1.39 M 2.65 M .95 M 1.74 M 1.20 M 1.38 M 1.61 M .97 M .37 M 1.39 M 2011 1.01 M .91 M .32 M .57 M 1.12 M 1.43 M .69 M 1.43 M 1.08 M 1.06 M 1.48 M .68 M .30 M 1.38 M 2006 1.00 M .74 M .42 M .91 M .64 M 1.09 M 1.00 M .68 M 1.25 M .50 M .24 M 1.02 M All comparable communities increased Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) contributions between 2006 and 2011 and between 2011 and 2016. Employer Contributions for IMRF DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 1.12 M 3.95 M .55 M 2.39 M 2.07 M 1.27 M 2011 1.01 M 3.49 M .53 M 2.22 M .98 M 2006 1.00 M 2.35 M .39 M 1.61 M 1.26 M .77 M All university communities increased IMRF contributions between 2006 and 2011 and between 2011 and 2016 61  Funding Rate for IMRF Carpentersvil Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Hanover Park Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton le Estates Meadows 2016 81.80% 84.70% 84.20% 86.74% 83.01% 86.93% 84.01% 83.80% 85.23% 80.07% 85.28% 84.33% 88.36% 89.32% 2011 83.42% 107.82% 100.00% 100.00% 71.23% 100.00% 86.00% 98.00% 90.54% 100.00% 100.00% 89.00% 88.00% 100.00% 2006 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% All comparable communities had fully funded IMRF pension plans in 2006. In 2016, the communities have funded rates ranging between 80.07% and 89.32%. Funding Rate for IMRF DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 81.80% 86.20% 85.58% 86.94% 80.55% 85.31% 2011 83.42% 88.19% 97.00% 100.00% 94.00% 2006 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% All university communities had fully funded IMRF pension plans in 2006. In 2016, the communities have funded rates ranging between 81.80% and 86.94%. 62  Unfunded Liability for IMRF Carpentersvil Hanover Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton le Park Estates Meadows 2016 9.96 M 7.15 M 3.39 M 3.63 M 10.39 M 10.58 M 7.69 M 12.01 M 9.98 M 9.24 M 12.23 M 6.37 M 2.08 M 8.57 M 2011 9.16 M 6.76 M 3.65 M 3.55 M 8.98 M 13.31 M 8.01 M 12.32 M 12.05 M 6.71 M 11.05 M 6.96 M 2.22 M 9.97 M 2006 4.60 M 1.71 M .42 M 3.53 M 1.69 M 3.48 M 4.53 M 2.42 M 2.96 M .40 M .17 M 1.29 M Unfunded IMRF liability for all comparable communities had grown substantially since 2006. DeKalb’s unfunded liability has more than doubled since 2006. The unfunded liability for many communities has increased between 400% and 600%. Unfunded Liability for IMRF DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 9.96 M 23.43 M 4.39 M 16.69 M 16.66 M 8.67 M 2011 9.16 M 35.50 M 4.55 M 13.06 M 8.64 M 2006 4.60 M 8.91 M 1.64 M .44 M 3.79 M 1.85 M Unfunded IMRF liability for all university communities had grown substantially since 2006. DeKalb’s unfunded liability has more than doubled since 2006. The unfunded liability for Champaign increased by more than $16 million. 63  Employer Contributions for Police Pension Carpentersvil Hanover Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton le Park Estates Meadows 2016 1.62 M 1.81 M 1.08 M 2.35 M 1.78 M 2.23 M 2.15 M 3.23 M 3.10 M 1.70 M 1.54 M 2.27 M .39 M 2.00 M 2011 1.34 M 1.22 M .89 M 1.67 M 1.04 M 2.00 M 1.30 M 2.50 M 2.25 M 1.54 M 1.56 M 1.44 M .29 M 1.89 M 2006 .75 M .78 M 1.02 M .95 M 1.12 M 1.47 M .49 M .78 M .97 M .75 M .18 M 1.10 M All comparable communities increased Police Pension Fund contributions between 2006 and 2011. Except St. Charles, all comparable increased Police Pension Fund contributions between 2011 and 2016. Employer Contributions for Police Pension DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 1.62 M 4.69 M .73 M 5.46 M 1.74 M 1.40 M 2011 1.34 M 4.11 M .53 M 3.69 M 1.35 M 1.98 M 2006 .75 M 1.95 M .28 M 2.93 M 1.11 M 1.40 M All university communities increased Police Pension Fund contributions between 2006 and 2011. Except Urbana, all comparable increased Police Pension Fund contributions between 2011 and 2016. 64  Funding Rate for Police Pension Carpentersvi Hanover Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton lle Park Estates Meadows 2016 47.10% 53.20% 58.20% 52.39% 57.77% 51.79% 54.12% 60.70% 50.30% 61.53% 49.79% 61.90% 58.25% 59.00% 2011 99.58% 100.00% 102.72% 99.96% 55.48% 104.90% 100.00% 100.83% 107.41% 99.97% 99.98% 105.80% 77.80% 100.00% 2006 100.23% 99.02% 86.50% 103.20% 118.17% 99.61% 68.89% 99.90% 99.76% 102.80% 107.20% 102.16% Like DeKalb, many comparable communities had fully funded Police Pension plans in 2006 and/or 2011. However, by 2016, funding rates dropped dramatically ranging between DeKalb’s 47.10% and Streamwood’s 61.53%. Funding Rate for Police Pension DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 47.10% 49.80% 36.07% 73.16% 51.48% 68.60% 2011 99.58% 100.64% 76.00% 133.93% 102.93% 139.20% 2006 100.23% 108.51% 90.10% 145.23% 102.20% 132.40% Like DeKalb, most university communities had fully funded Police Pension plans in 2006 and/or 2011. However, by 2016, funding rates dropped dramatically ranging between Charleston’s 36.07% to Urbana’s 68.6%. DeKalb’s funding rate in 2016 was 47.10%. 65  Unfunded Liability for Police Pension Carpentersvi Hanover Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton lle Park Estates Meadows 2016 32.20 M 24.10 M 13.39 M 33.57 M 24.68 M 65.60 M 25.27 M 46.21 M 37.30 M 21.50 M 29.68 M 27.26 M 8.38 M 32.71 M 2011 13.97 M 15.29 M 9.85 M 19.12 M 18.07 M 28.08 M 16.16 M 34.12 M 12.95 M 13.42 M 14.15 M 15.32 M 2.92 M 22.20 M 2006 9.15 M 9.09 M 16.34 M 12.26 M 9.26 M 19.48 M 29.59 M 8.97 M 10.45 M 7.80 M 1.19 M 4.19 M Unfunded Police Pension liability for all comparable communities grew substantially since 2006. DeKalb’s unfunded liability increased more than 350% while Sycamore’s unfunded liability increased more than 700%. Unfunded Liabiliy for Police Pension DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 32.20 M 64.59 M 20.42 M 32.98 M 29.79 M 16.00 M 2011 13.97 M 37.84 M 9.55 M 24.70 M 16.41 M ‐4.62 M 2006 9.15 M 27.24 M 5.62 M 7.27 M 10.55 M ‐2.84 M Unfunded Police Pension liability for all university communities grew substantially since 2006. DeKalb’s unfunded liability increased more than 350% while Urbana’s was overfunded by nearly $2.8 million in 2006, but had an unfunded liability of $16 milli 66  Employer Contributions for Fire Pension DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 2.16 M 4.42 M .64 M 3.36 M 1.53 M 1.04 M 2011 2.00 M 3.14 M .60 M 3.49 M 1.25 M 1.48 M 2006 1.06 M 1.85 M .39 M 1.90 M 1.06 M 1.03 M All comparable communities increased Fire Pension Fund contributions between 2006 and 2011. Except Elk Grove and Belvidere, all comparable communities increased Fire Pension Fund contributions between 2011 and 2016. Employer Contributions for Fire Pension Carpentersvi Hanover Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton lle Park Estates Meadows 2016 2.16 M .81 M .78 M 1.11 M 1.56 M .84 M 1.22 M 2.87 M 3.25 M .35 M 1.16 M 1.47 M .58 M 1.01 M 2011 2.00 M .70 M .88 M .72 M .82 M 2.13 M .70 M 2.49 M 2.21 M .33 M 1.24 M 1.06 M .42 M .98 M 2006 1.06 M .43 M .42 M 1.05 M .37 M 1.35 M .50 M .12 M .61 M .60 M .28 M .75 M All university communities increased Fire Pension Fund contributions between 2006 and 2011. Except Urbana, all university communities increased Fire Pension Fund contributions between 2011 and 2016. 67  Funding Rate for Fire Pension Carpentersvi Hanover Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton lle Park Estates Meadows 2016 37.40% 66.00% 52.80% 62.34% 68.14% 49.83% 57.42% 65.20% 42.61% 95.12% 68.46% 68.51% 56.29% 68.31% 2011 99.58% 101.17% 121.70% 99.96% 60.99% 105.60% 100% 100.57% 104.01% 99.96% 99.98% 106.30% 80.70% 100.00% 2006 100.23% 105.69% 77.10% 103.50% 112.44% 100.99% 77.65% 100.45% 99.79% 105.70% 108.50% 117.26% Like DeKalb, many comparable communities had fully funded Fire Pension plans in 2006 and/or 2011. However, by 2016, funding rates dropped dramatically ranging between DeKalb’s 37.40% and Streamwood’s 68.51%. Only Romeoville was unique maintaining a fun Funding Rate for Fire Pension DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 37.40% 45.41% 36.72% 72.30% 55.04% 82.69% 2011 99.58% 100.78% 75.10% 90.20% 98.70% 124.70% 2006 100.23% 108.85% 98.20% 70.07% 101.97% 123.30% Like DeKalb, all but Champaign had over 95% funded Fire Pension plans in 2006. However, by 2016, funding rates dropped dramatically with Charleston at 36.72%, DeKalb at 37.40% and Bloomington at 45.41%. Only Urbana was able to maintain over 80% funding 68  Unfunded Liability for Fire Pension Carpentersvi Hanover Hoffman Rolling DeKalb Batavia Belvidere Crystal Lake Elk Grove Romeoville St. Charles Streamwood Sycamore Wheaton lle Park Estates Meadows 2016 39.32 M 7.93 M 12.08 M 12.21 M 12.94 M 65.72 M 12.75 M 39.80 M 39.24 M .40 M 15.19 M 16.37 M 9.52 M 12.60 M 2011 24.72 M 5.71 M 7.66 M 4.30 M 9.61 M 32.90 M 5.91 M 24.67 M 30.64 M .40 M 4.60 M 10.91 M 4.99 M 7.43 M 2006 17.51 M 3.69 M 3.31 M 11.30 M 2.79 M 11.12 M 14.67 M .96 M 2.66 M 2.78 M 2.22 M 12.63 M Unfunded Fire Pension liability for all comparable communities grew substantially since 2006. DeKalb’s unfunded liability increased more than 225% while Sycamore’s unfunded liability increased more than 423%. Unfunded Liability for Fire Pension DeKalb Bloomington Charleston Champaign Normal Urbana 2016 39.32 M 59.72 M 22.39 M 29.29 M 22.61 M 8.73 M 2011 24.72 M 37.64 M 8.82 M 16.46 M 13.23 M ‐1.87 M 2006 17.51 M 27.56 M 4.92 M 17.71 M 6.49 M ‐.75 M Unfunded Fire Pension liability for all university communities grew substantially since 2006. DeKalb’s unfunded liability increased more than 225% and Charleston’s increased by 454%. 69 Revenue and Expenditure Projections 70  Revenue and Expenditure Projections  Revenue and Expenditure Forecast  Revenues  Expenditures  Personnel Costs  Outsourcing of Service  Salaries  Bargaining Units  Wellness  Retiree Insurance  Health Insurance Plan Design 71  Revenue and Expenditure Projections Revenue and Expenditure Forecast With the beginning of the Great Recession, the City’s General Fund Balance dramatically declined from $2,161,911 in 2008 to only $22,169 in 2010. Since then, the City has succeeded in growing the fund balance to meet the City’s policy to maintain a balance of 25% of expenditures through the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget. General Fund Ending Fund Balance 12.0 10.0 8.0 Millions 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 However, the trend of the revenues are slowly being outpaced by expenditures, creating a structural imbalance as shown below. General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Trend 40.0 38.0 36.0 34.0 32.0 Millions 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 FY2015 Actual FY2016 Actual FY2016.5 Actual FY2017 Actual FY2018 Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Linear (Total Revenues) Linear (Total Expenditures) 72 The State of Illinois budget further complicates future revenue projections. The State reduced the local share of the Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF) by 10% for State Fiscal Year 2018 and implemented a 2% administrative fee for local home rule sales taxes. The State’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget still contains a reduction to LGDF of 5% and an 1.5% administrative fee for local home rule sales taxes. The State consistently shows a willingness to consider reductions to other shared revenues. Listed below are General Fund major revenue trends. General Fund Major Revenue Trends Financial Forecast A financial projection through 2023 was created using the following assumptions. Property tax increases cover projected Police and Fire Pensions less the amount shifted to other General Fund sources as part of the FY2018 budget (2017 levy). 73 2018 Five-Year Financial Forecast Assumptions FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Notes Property Tax - Corporate 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TIF 2 ends December 2018 Property Tax - FICA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Property Tax - IMRF 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Property Tax - Police Pension 7.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% 11.00% Agrees to Police Pension under Salary Property Tax - Fire Pension 7.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% 11.00% Agrees to Fire Pension under Salary TIF Property Tax Surplus 0.37% 1.16% 1.12% 1.07% 0.68% -100.00% TIF 1 ends December 2021 TIF Sales Tax Surplus -3.34% -2.49% -2.42% -2.35% -2.63% -100.00% TIF 1 ends December 2021 Home Rule Sales Tax 2.07% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Decreased $75K due to loss of retail location(s); State Admin fee changed from 2% to 1.5% beginning July 1, 2018; Annual growth for existing businesses estimated at 2.0% based on 2018 vs 2017 month to month change Statutory Sales Tax 2.63% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% Decreased $25K due to loss of retail location(s); Annual growth for existing businesses estimated at 2.5% based on 2018 vs 2017 month to month change Income Tax: Percentage -2.01% 1.12% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% The 10% reduction ends June 30, 2018 and 5% reduction begins July 1, 2018 Per capita 90.00 91.01 91.92 92.84 93.77 94.71 Level growth annually from FY2019 to FY2022. FY2018 agrees to IML Local Use Tax 0.52% 8.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5% increase per year (historical average (FY2015, FY2016 & FY2017) increase of 11.3%) plus 3% for internet sales bump in FY2019 Franchise 0.00% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.5% annual growth Municipal Utility Tax 1.81% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% Kept FY2018 at budget (based on weighted average of last three years) then growth at 1.50% annually Telecommunications Tax -1.26% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% -2.00% Annual decrease as more landline phones are replaced with cellular (data is not taxed) Hotel/Motel 2.54% 8.00% 5.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% New developments and events are included in the FY2018 to FY2020 then growth at 2.0% annually Restaurant & Bar 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% New locations added in FY2018 then growth at 2.5% annually Video Gaming 23.92% 15.00% 8.00% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% October 2016 to October 2017 $209,428 (ave $17,452 per month); 20% inc over prior year Building Permits 22.09% 6.54% 5.37% -5.56% 0.27% 0.27% Building permits are based on anticipated projects and historical averages less outliers Intergovernmental - Grants & a few 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Intergovernmental grants and the following permits: Sewer, parking, CF permits Registeration, Other Licenses, & Misc Inc. Excludes Sales Income Tax All Other Revenues 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% All other revenues, unless noted, are projected to increase 2% each year (Licenses, fines, forfeits, service charges, intergovernmental-tax only) Investment Interest 17.56% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Investment Income has not grown more than 0.25% each year Transfer In - Water Fund -1.77% 3.67% 1.84% 1.84% 1.84% 1.84% Transfer from Water fund for a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) - Based on capital assets held in Water All Other Transfer Ins 24.90% -49.74% -14.68% -17.19% -20.75% -44.16% Includes TIF Phase Out Plan 74 2018 Five-Year Financial Forecast Assumptions FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Notes Population Growth 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Flat annually Salaries: Base wage (weighted average) 1.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% ASFCME 2.25% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% Increase ties to current contract then assumes 2.5% increase annually FOP 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% Increase ties to current contract then assumes 2.5% increase annually IAFF 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% Increase ties to current contract then assumes 2.5% increase annually NBU 0.00% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% No increase in FY2018 then 2.5% increase annually to align with bargaining units Step, Longevity, & other 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% Salaries Total 2.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% This is what the regular, PT & OT wages are linked to Benefits: Police & Fire Pensions 7.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% 11.00% Keeps funding level same as the 2017 levy then increased by actuarial assumptions each year. Actuarial assumptions are based on the funding change in FY2015 to FY2016 since there were no major actuarial assumption changes between the years was 8%, then lowered with 7.0% investment return rate change; Per financial policy, property taxes cover increases in out years less the $445,970 that was not funded in FY18; Starting FY19, TIF2 adds $319,318 annually. Nothing added for TIF 1 assumes new TIF approved IMRF 9.02% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Level growth annually from FY2019 to FY2022 Health Insurance 8.74% 5.58% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% Level growth annually Social Security - ER Share 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% Excludes Police & Fire so it was divided by 2 Medicare - ER Share 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% All employees regardless of department Deferred Comp 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% kept the amount at zero so it can be changed to a percentage Wellness Bonus $8,500 $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 Wellness bonus will not exceed $5,400 from FY2018-FY2023, Proposed Budget Educational Bonus $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Education bonuses will be $5000 from FY2018-FY2023, Proposed Budget Car Allowance 14.13% 1.24% 1.24% 1.24% 1.24% 1.24% Can keep amounts flat - - 1.24% increase from FY17 to FY18 Clothing Allowance 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% Can keep amounts flat - - 1.48% increase from FY17 to FY18 Workers Compensation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% kept the amount at zero so it can be changed to a percentage Unemployment Insurance 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% kept the amount at zero so it can be changed to a percentage Commodity, Contractual Services, & 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% per the narrative in budget, commodity, contractual, and equipment costs were Equipment kept flat based on historical trends Transfers Out 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Ties to funding needs in other funds 75 Given the assumptions, each year results in deficits with the fund balance declining dramatically and virtually depleted by 2023. General Fund Ending Fund Balance as Compared to Policy 12.0 10.0 8.0 Millions 6.0 4.0 Ending Fund Balance 2.0 Unassigned Fund Balance at 25% of Expenditures Target Unassigned Fund Balance at 30% of Expenditures less Property Tax Revenue Target 0.0 FY2017 Actual FY2018 Estimate FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Actual Estimate Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues 35,716,044 37,755,265 37,946,799 39,930,399 41,008,579 42,261,814 43,033,378 Expenditures 35,871,366 37,829,204 38,893,437 40,376,286 42,016,502 43,838,731 45,873,782 Unassigned Ending Fund Balance 9,073,799 8,999,861 8,053,223 7,607,337 6,599,414 5,022,497 2,182,093 Fund Balance as % of Expenditures 25.3% 23.8% 20.7% 18.8% 15.7% 11.5% 4.8% 76 City of DeKalb - 2018 Financial Forecast Summary of Financial Position: FY2017 Actual FY2018 Budget FY2018 Estimate FY2019 Projection FY2020 Projection FY2021 Projection FY2022 Projection FY2023 Projection Beginning Fund Balance 9,229,121 9,631,715 9,073,799 8,999,861 8,053,223 7,607,337 6,599,414 5,022,497 Revenues by Category Property Taxes 5,523,531 6,004,594 6,004,594 6,424,916 7,258,227 7,882,729 8,639,070 9,554,242 Sales & Use Taxes 15,238,719 15,666,105 15,576,289 16,268,106 17,338,540 17,763,555 18,200,001 18,648,228 Gross Receipts Taxes 3,643,995 3,752,614 3,680,239 3,712,208 3,745,122 3,778,984 3,813,801 3,849,578 Intergovernmental 4,805,946 4,962,973 4,993,913 4,715,613 4,768,079 4,821,200 4,874,986 4,929,447 Licenses & Permits 875,518 1,171,811 1,023,873 1,059,761 1,091,981 1,069,325 1,076,796 1,084,398 Service Charges 2,212,674 2,544,824 2,544,824 2,595,720 2,647,635 2,700,588 2,754,599 2,809,691 Fines 608,515 839,178 770,236 783,092 798,754 814,729 831,023 847,644 Other Income 1,218,294 1,350,550 1,261,099 1,266,555 1,272,595 1,279,196 1,284,286 714,212 Transfers In 1,588,852 1,377,205 1,900,199 1,120,829 1,009,468 898,274 787,251 595,937 Total Revenues 35,716,044 37,669,854 37,755,265 37,946,799 39,930,399 41,008,579 42,261,814 43,033,378 Expenditures by Category Personnel 28,106,457 30,176,366 30,153,289 31,487,521 32,970,370 34,610,586 36,432,815 38,467,866 Commodities 891,102 1,106,966 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 Contractual Services 2,329,132 2,019,388 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 Equipment 200,861 86,920 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 Other Services 2,297,664 2,106,502 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 Transfers Out 2,046,150 2,221,822 2,111,822 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 Total Expenditures 35,871,366 37,717,964 37,829,204 38,893,437 40,376,286 42,016,502 43,838,731 45,873,782 Ending Fund Balance 9,073,799 9,583,605 8,999,861 8,053,223 7,607,337 6,599,414 5,022,497 2,182,093 Minimum Amounts Required to Meet Financial Policies Unassiged Fund Balance at 25% of Expenditures Target 9,429,491 9,457,301 9,723,359 10,094,072 10,504,126 10,959,683 11,468,445 Variance to Target 154,114 (457,440) (1,670,136) (2,486,735) (3,904,712) (5,937,186) (9,286,353) 25.4% 23.8% 20.7% 18.8% 15.7% 11.5% 4.8% Unassiged Fund Balance at 30% of Expenditures less Property Tax Revenue Target 9,514,011 9,547,383 9,740,556 9,935,418 10,240,132 10,559,898 10,895,862 Variance to Target 69,594 (547,522) (1,687,333) (2,328,081) (3,640,719) (5,537,401) (8,713,769) 30.2% 28.3% 24.8% 23.0% 19.3% 14.3% 6.0% 77 The total Police and Fire Pension required actuarial contribution increases from $6,450,564 in 2018 to $9,920,816 in 2023. As of FY2018, the full actuarial contribution is not covered by the Pension levy. Also, the Pension funding is affected depending on an actuarial reports, actuarial assumptions, retirements and payroll of Police and Fire personnel. Police & Fire Pension Funding 12.0 10.0 8.0 Millions 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 FY2017 Actual FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Estimate Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Property Tax Funding Other General Fund Sources Required Actuarial Contribution Expenditure Police & Fire Pension Funding Annual Increase 1,200,000 998,995 983,144 1,000,000 853,705 812,516 800,000 670,884 600,000 552,168 451,539 400,000 200,000 0 FY2017 Actual FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Estimate Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection 78 The City’s actuary, Foster and Foster, created two illustrations, one for Fire and one for Police Pension funds, that would show the existing funding obligation of the City without consideration of any additional future obligations as of January 1, 2018. These illustrations show that there is still a significant pension obligation to the City of $57 million over a 30‐year period to pay off the liabilities that have been accrued as of January 1, 2018. Methodology and Assumptions 1) Year 0 will match the 1/1/2017 Valuation Results. Assuming no consideration of additional future liability as of 1/1/2018, no differences occur until Year 1. 2) This assumes that the full 2017 contribution will be contributed to the fund. 3) This also assumes that all contributions will be made in full each year. 4) It is assumed that all actuarial assumptions come true. The methods and assumptions are identical to those disclosed in the 1/1/2017 actuarial valuations. This includes an interest rate of 7.50%, payroll growth of 4.50% and payment period as of 1/1/2017 of 24 years on the unfunded liability. 5) Experience between the two illustrations, Fire and Police Pension Funds, are assumed to be identical. In reality, it is possible that the pension funds would experience retirements at different points in time. For example, a short‐term retirement, not currently considered in the illustrations, would have an impact on the calculation, likely resulting in a loss (i.e., slightly higher contributions that are illustrated, which would reduce the savings). 6) The administrative expenses are assumed to grow with inflation at 2.50%. These expenses are adjusted downward to reflect the assumption of no additional future obligations. 7) Under the ongoing plan calculations, normal cost is assumed to be the same percentage of payroll over the entire period. 8) Payroll is expected to grow with the assumption of 4.50%. Again, this amount could be lower if payroll increases over the 30‐year period are lower than 4.50% per year. If that were true, the difference in the savings would be lower since normal cost would be decrease for the 30‐year period. Outcome ‐ The below illustrations show the impact on the respective pension funds without any additional future obligations as of January 1, 2018. While there are some savings from doing so, the illustrations show that the obligation to pay off past accruals remains for some time into the future. Running the impact out over 30‐years and discounting the resulting savings back to January 1, 2018 using the valuation interest rate of 7.50%, the estimated savings over the 30‐ year period are as follows: 79   Fire Pension Fund = $25.1 million  Police Pension Fund = $18.9 million However, there is still a significant contribution that needs to be realized over this period to pay off the liabilities that have been accrued to date. As of January 1, 2018, it is estimated that the City would still owe the following unfunded liability amounts on the pension funds, assuming no additional future obligations. These are the unfunded amounts for benefits that have been accrued as of January 1, 2018:  Fire Pension Fund = $29.8 million  Police Pension Fund = $27.2 million 80 Department Illustration - DeKalb Fire Ongoing Department Calculation No Additional Future Obligations Calculation Savings Contribution Calculation Contribution Calculation Projected Projected Payroll of UAAL Total Payroll of UAAL Total Present Value of Ongoing Balance at Payment on Administrative Employee Contribution as Ongoing Balance at Payment on Administrative Employee Contribution as Annual Savings Year Fund EOY Unfunded Normal Cost Expenses Contributions Interest of EOY Fund EOY Unfunded Normal Cost Expenses Contributions Interest of EOY Annual Savings as of 1/1/2018 0 4,895,248 40,212,005 2,244,390 1,112,861 35,080 (462,846) 254,425 3,183,910 4,895,248 29,828,370 2,244,390 1,112,861 35,080 (462,846) 254,425 3,183,910 0 0 1 5,115,534 40,706,614 2,345,387 1,162,940 35,957 (483,674) 265,821 3,326,431 0 30,195,260 1,739,756 0 34,706 0 133,085 1,907,547 1,418,884 1,319,892 2 5,345,733 41,124,860 2,450,930 1,215,272 36,856 (505,439) 277,729 3,475,348 0 30,505,506 1,818,045 0 34,613 0 138,949 1,991,607 1,483,741 1,283,929 3 5,586,291 41,455,912 2,561,222 1,269,959 37,777 (528,184) 290,172 3,630,946 0 30,751,073 1,899,857 0 35,149 0 145,125 2,080,131 1,550,814 1,248,344 4 5,837,674 41,687,893 2,676,477 1,327,107 38,721 (551,952) 303,173 3,793,526 0 30,923,151 1,985,351 0 35,354 0 151,553 2,172,258 1,621,268 1,214,006 5 6,100,370 41,807,798 2,796,918 1,386,827 39,689 (576,790) 316,758 3,963,402 0 31,012,094 2,074,692 0 35,548 0 158,268 2,268,508 1,694,894 1,180,593 6 6,374,886 41,801,395 2,922,779 1,449,235 40,681 (602,745) 330,952 4,140,902 0 31,007,344 2,168,053 0 36,436 0 165,337 2,369,826 1,771,077 1,147,590 7 6,661,756 41,653,122 3,054,304 1,514,450 41,698 (629,869) 345,784 4,326,367 0 30,897,359 2,265,615 0 36,259 0 172,641 2,474,515 1,851,852 1,116,213 8 6,961,535 41,345,977 3,191,748 1,582,600 42,740 (658,213) 361,282 4,520,157 0 30,669,526 2,367,568 0 36,794 0 180,327 2,584,689 1,935,468 1,085,221 9 7,274,804 40,861,396 3,335,377 1,653,817 43,809 (687,833) 377,475 4,722,645 0 30,310,074 2,474,108 0 37,333 0 188,358 2,699,799 2,022,846 1,055,083 10 7,602,170 40,179,121 3,485,469 1,728,239 44,904 (718,785) 394,396 4,934,223 0 29,803,978 2,585,443 0 37,485 0 196,720 2,819,648 2,114,575 1,025,979 11 7,944,268 39,277,067 3,642,315 1,806,010 46,027 (751,131) 412,076 5,155,297 0 29,134,854 2,701,788 0 38,423 0 205,516 2,945,727 2,209,570 997,274 12 8,301,760 38,131,162 3,806,219 1,887,280 47,178 (784,931) 430,551 5,386,297 0 28,284,847 2,823,369 0 38,973 0 214,676 3,077,018 2,309,279 969,561 13 8,675,339 36,715,188 3,977,499 1,972,208 48,357 (820,253) 449,855 5,627,666 0 27,234,509 2,950,420 0 39,106 0 224,214 3,213,740 2,413,926 942,788 14 9,065,730 35,000,604 4,156,486 2,060,957 49,566 (857,165) 470,026 5,879,870 0 25,962,669 3,083,189 0 39,653 0 234,213 3,357,055 2,522,815 916,573 15 9,473,688 32,956,356 4,343,528 2,153,700 50,805 (895,737) 491,102 6,143,398 0 24,446,292 3,221,933 0 40,202 0 244,660 3,506,795 2,636,604 891,082 16 9,900,003 30,548,672 4,538,987 2,250,617 52,075 (936,045) 513,126 6,418,760 0 22,660,325 3,366,919 0 40,302 0 255,542 3,662,763 2,755,996 866,449 17 10,345,504 27,740,838 4,743,241 2,351,895 53,377 (978,167) 536,139 6,706,485 0 20,577,536 3,518,431 0 40,845 0 266,946 3,826,222 2,880,263 842,342 18 10,811,051 24,492,962 4,956,687 2,457,730 54,711 (1,022,185) 560,185 7,007,128 0 18,168,334 3,676,760 0 41,390 0 278,861 3,997,011 3,010,117 818,900 19 11,297,549 20,761,716 5,179,738 2,568,328 56,079 (1,068,183) 585,311 7,321,273 0 15,400,579 3,842,214 0 41,450 0 291,275 4,174,939 3,146,334 796,240 20 11,805,938 16,500,056 5,412,826 2,683,902 57,481 (1,116,251) 611,566 7,649,524 0 12,239,375 4,015,114 0 41,986 0 304,283 4,361,383 3,288,141 774,072 21 12,337,205 11,656,927 5,656,404 2,804,678 58,918 (1,166,483) 639,000 7,992,517 0 8,646,849 4,195,794 0 41,499 0 317,797 4,555,090 3,437,426 752,758 22 12,892,380 6,176,934 5,910,942 2,930,889 60,391 (1,218,975) 667,667 8,350,914 0 4,581,912 4,384,605 0 42,011 0 331,996 4,758,612 3,592,302 731,790 23 13,472,537 0 6,176,934 3,062,779 61,901 (1,273,828) 697,621 8,725,407 0 0 4,581,912 0 41,985 0 346,792 4,970,689 3,754,718 711,513 24 14,078,801 0 0 3,200,604 63,449 (1,331,151) 244,804 2,177,706 0 0 0 0 41,932 0 3,145 45,077 2,132,629 375,934 25 14,712,347 0 0 3,344,631 65,035 (1,391,052) 255,725 2,274,339 0 0 0 0 41,849 0 3,139 44,988 2,229,351 365,567 26 15,374,403 0 0 3,495,139 66,661 (1,453,650) 267,135 2,375,285 0 0 0 0 41,736 0 3,130 44,866 2,330,419 355,479 27 16,066,251 0 0 3,652,420 68,328 (1,519,064) 279,056 2,480,740 0 0 0 0 41,591 0 3,119 44,710 2,436,030 345,664 28 16,789,232 0 0 3,816,779 70,036 (1,587,422) 291,511 2,590,904 0 0 0 0 42,022 0 3,152 45,174 2,545,730 336,028 29 17,544,747 0 0 3,988,534 71,787 (1,658,856) 304,524 2,705,989 0 0 0 0 41,199 0 3,090 44,289 2,661,700 326,824 30 18,334,261 0 0 4,168,018 73,582 (1,733,504) 318,120 2,826,216 0 0 0 0 41,590 0 3,119 44,709 2,781,507 317,707 Total PV of Annual Savings 25,111,395 81 Department Illustration - DeKalb Police Ongoing Department Calculation No Additional Future Obligations Calculation Savings Contribution Calculation Contribution Calculation Projected Projected Present Value Payroll of UAAL Total Payroll of UAAL Total of Annual Ongoing Balance at Payment on Administrative Employee Contribution as Ongoing Balance at Payment on Administrative Employee Contribution as Annual Savings as of Year Fund EOY Unfunded Normal Cost Expenses Contributions Interest of EOY Fund EOY Unfunded Normal Cost Expenses Contributions Interest of EOY Savings 1/1/2018 0 5,417,619 33,291,094 1,858,107 1,091,248 43,996 (536,886) 224,501 2,680,966 5,417,619 18,868,138 1,858,107 1,091,248 43,996 (536,886) 224,501 2,680,966 0 0 1 5,661,412 33,700,575 1,941,721 1,140,354 45,096 (561,046) 234,538 2,800,663 0 19,100,217 1,100,495 0 44,707 0 85,890 1,231,092 1,569,572 1,460,067 2 5,916,175 34,046,837 2,029,099 1,191,670 46,223 (586,293) 245,024 2,925,723 0 19,296,465 1,150,017 0 45,028 0 89,628 1,284,673 1,641,050 1,420,054 3 6,182,403 34,320,911 2,120,408 1,245,295 47,379 (612,676) 255,981 3,056,387 0 19,451,800 1,201,768 0 45,745 0 93,563 1,341,076 1,715,312 1,380,758 4 6,460,611 34,512,966 2,215,827 1,301,334 48,563 (640,247) 267,429 3,192,906 0 19,560,649 1,255,847 0 46,051 0 97,642 1,399,540 1,793,366 1,342,873 5 6,751,339 34,612,234 2,315,539 1,359,894 49,777 (669,058) 279,391 3,335,543 0 19,616,911 1,312,360 0 46,344 0 101,903 1,460,607 1,874,936 1,306,003 6 7,055,149 34,606,933 2,419,738 1,421,089 51,021 (699,165) 291,889 3,484,572 0 19,613,906 1,371,416 0 47,062 0 106,386 1,524,864 1,959,708 1,269,815 7 7,372,631 34,484,180 2,528,626 1,485,038 52,297 (730,628) 304,947 3,640,280 0 19,544,334 1,433,130 0 47,789 0 111,069 1,591,988 2,048,292 1,234,618 8 7,704,399 34,229,898 2,642,415 1,551,864 53,604 (763,506) 318,591 3,802,968 0 19,400,217 1,497,621 0 48,521 0 115,961 1,662,103 2,140,864 1,200,388 9 8,051,097 33,828,718 2,761,323 1,621,698 54,944 (797,864) 332,847 3,972,948 0 19,172,843 1,565,014 0 49,260 0 121,071 1,735,345 2,237,603 1,167,097 10 8,413,397 33,263,870 2,885,583 1,694,675 56,318 (833,768) 347,743 4,150,551 0 18,852,709 1,635,440 0 50,007 0 126,408 1,811,855 2,338,696 1,134,721 11 8,791,999 32,517,069 3,015,434 1,770,935 57,726 (871,287) 363,307 4,336,115 0 18,429,450 1,709,034 0 50,261 0 131,947 1,891,242 2,444,873 1,103,477 12 9,187,639 31,568,386 3,151,128 1,850,627 59,169 (910,495) 379,569 4,529,998 0 17,891,772 1,785,941 0 51,008 0 137,771 1,974,720 2,555,279 1,072,844 13 9,601,083 30,396,116 3,292,929 1,933,905 60,648 (951,467) 396,561 4,732,576 0 17,227,374 1,866,308 0 51,760 0 143,855 2,061,923 2,670,653 1,043,056 14 10,033,132 28,976,630 3,441,111 2,020,931 62,164 (994,283) 414,315 4,944,238 0 16,422,863 1,950,292 0 52,518 0 150,211 2,153,021 2,791,217 1,014,087 15 10,484,623 27,284,219 3,595,961 2,111,873 63,718 (1,039,026) 432,866 5,165,392 0 15,463,668 2,038,055 0 52,732 0 156,809 2,247,596 2,917,796 986,116 16 10,956,431 25,290,923 3,757,779 2,206,907 65,311 (1,085,782) 452,250 5,396,465 0 14,333,943 2,129,768 0 53,487 0 163,744 2,346,999 3,049,467 958,713 17 11,449,470 22,966,347 3,926,879 2,306,218 66,944 (1,134,643) 472,503 5,637,901 0 13,016,460 2,225,607 0 53,671 0 170,946 2,450,224 3,187,677 932,246 18 11,964,697 20,277,465 4,103,589 2,409,998 68,618 (1,185,701) 493,665 5,890,169 0 11,492,503 2,325,760 0 54,421 0 178,514 2,558,695 3,331,474 906,325 19 12,503,108 17,188,405 4,288,250 2,518,448 70,333 (1,239,058) 515,777 6,153,750 0 9,741,741 2,430,419 0 54,569 0 186,374 2,671,362 3,482,389 881,285 20 13,065,748 13,660,222 4,481,222 2,631,778 72,091 (1,294,816) 538,882 6,429,157 0 7,742,100 2,539,788 0 54,690 0 194,586 2,789,064 3,640,093 856,926 21 13,653,706 9,650,647 4,682,877 2,750,208 73,893 (1,353,082) 563,023 6,716,919 0 5,469,623 2,654,078 0 55,420 0 203,212 2,912,710 3,804,209 833,080 22 14,268,123 5,113,818 4,893,606 2,873,967 75,740 (1,413,971) 588,248 7,017,590 0 2,898,320 2,773,512 0 54,846 0 212,127 3,040,485 3,977,105 810,179 23 14,910,189 0 5,113,818 3,003,296 77,634 (1,477,600) 614,606 7,331,754 0 0 2,898,320 0 55,548 0 221,540 3,175,408 4,156,347 787,621 24 15,581,147 0 0 3,138,444 79,575 (1,544,092) 241,351 1,915,278 0 0 0 0 55,565 0 4,167 59,732 1,855,546 327,091 25 16,282,299 0 0 3,279,674 81,564 (1,613,576) 252,093 1,999,755 0 0 0 0 55,548 0 4,166 59,714 1,940,041 318,126 26 17,015,002 0 0 3,427,260 83,603 (1,686,187) 263,315 2,087,991 0 0 0 0 55,495 0 4,162 59,657 2,028,334 309,399 27 17,780,677 0 0 3,581,486 85,693 (1,762,065) 275,038 2,180,152 0 0 0 0 56,144 0 4,211 60,355 2,119,797 300,792 28 18,580,808 0 0 3,742,653 87,835 (1,841,358) 287,287 2,276,417 0 0 0 0 55,275 0 4,146 59,421 2,216,996 292,636 29 19,416,944 0 0 3,911,073 90,031 (1,924,219) 300,083 2,376,968 0 0 0 0 55,881 0 4,191 60,072 2,316,896 284,486 30 20,290,707 0 0 4,087,071 92,282 (2,010,809) 313,451 2,481,995 0 0 0 0 55,687 0 4,177 59,864 2,422,131 276,658 Total PV of Annual Savings 27,211,537 82 Revenues The General Fund’s major revenue categories are shown below. DeKalb revenue is reliant on elastic funding sources for 83% of its revenue sources. With intergovernmental revenues dependent on the State Legislator and State budget, this category is more elastic than in the past. Home Rule Sales Tax 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2015 2016 2016.5 2017 2018 2019 Estimate Projection Home Rules Sales Tax has fluctuated over the last four years. The State of Illinois implemented a 2% collection fee starting SFY2018 and reduced it to 1.5% for SFY2019. 83  State Sales Tax 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2015 2016 2016.5 2017 2018 Estimate 2019 Projection State Sales Tax has flattened from 2015 through 2017 for year over year sales. The 2016.5 is only six months of data. The end of FY2017 and currently, FY2018, State Sales Tax returns are beginning to grow. The chart above shows the type of local sales activity by percentage that generate sales tax for DeKalb. 84  Components of the City Property Tax Levy $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Corporate GO Bonds IMRF Fire Pension Police Pension Social Security The majority of the City’s property tax levy is dedicated to Police and Fire Pensions. The corporate levy for 2015 and 2016 is also dedicated to Police and Fire Pensions. Levies for Social Security and IMRF pension have been nearly eliminated. The General Obligation (GO) Bonds shown in 2013 through 2016 are dedicated to the construction of the Library on behalf of the Library Board. Income and Use Tax 918,867 1,040,616 1,236,362 6,000,000 1,138,904 1,144,780 5,000,000 4,000,000 564,630 3,000,000 4,515,728 4,462,992 4,044,119 3,962,700 4,007,170 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,785,638 0 2015 2016 2016.5 2017 2018 Estimate 2019 Projection Income Tax Use Tax 85 Income Tax has been reduced by the State to provide funding to the State budget. The SFY2018 reduced the City’s share of Income Tax by 10% and the SFY2019 budget reduces the City share by 5%. The Use Tax has been increasing slowly. However, as of June 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in the South Dakota verses Wayfair case which eliminates the requirement of a physical presence for sales tax to apply (internet tax). The State of Illinois has classified the internet sales tax as Use Tax. Building and Related Permits 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2015 2016 2016.5 2017 2018 2019 Estimate Projection As the City is trying to expand its tax base, focus on Building, electric, HVAC, plumbing, sewer, and other permits becomes more important. These revenues are very elastic and react immediately to development or the lack thereof. Expenditures The General Fund’s expenditures by category are shown below. Personnel including salaries and benefits are 81% of the total. Police and Fire required actuarial funding is 22% of the personnel budget. 2 86 Total General Fund revenues from 2018 estimate to 2019 projection are estimated at 2.7% growth less transfers while expenditure growth for the same time period is estimated at 3.7%. Revenue and Expenditure Trends ‐ General Fund 40.0 35.0 Millions 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 FY2015 Actual FY2016 Actual FY2016.5 Actual FY2017 Actual FY2018 Estimate FY2019 Projection Revenues Expenditures Outstanding Bonded Debt (As of 7/17/2017) Original Current Final Optional Par Amount Outstanding Coupon Range Maturity Redemption General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010A (Downtown TIF, 12 Yr bonds) $ 10,800,000 $ 5,200,000 4.00% - 4.00% 12/1/2021 Non-Callable General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B (Pub. Works, 18 Yr Refi CAB bonds) $ 3,905,000 $ 3,905,000 4.25% - 4.75% 1/1/2028 Non-Callable Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2010C (Pub. Works, PD station, 13 Yr Refi bonds) $ 5,415,000 $ 4,065,000 4.35% - 5.90% 1/1/2023 Non-Callable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2012A (PD station, 17 Yr bonds) $ 9,905,000 $ 7,405,000 2.00% - 2.63% 1/1/2030 1/1/2023 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2013A (DeKalb Library, 20 Yr bonds) $ 6,685,000 $ 5,870,000 3.00% - 4.00% 1/1/2033 1/1/2023 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2013B (PD station, 9 Yr bonds) $ 2,380,000 $ 2,320,000 1.50% - 3.00% 1/1/2022 Non-Callable $ 28,765,000 DeKalb’s debt service payments decline in 2023 with expiration of Downtown TIF bonds. Other General Obligation debt continues steady until 2027 after which debt payment reduce from nearly $2.5 million to $1.5 million. 87  Debt Payments ‐ Total Principal & Interest 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2010A 2010B 2010C 2012A 2013A 2013B Personnel Costs The biggest single driver of City operating expenditures is personnel costs and particularly employee salaries. Municipal government is mostly service based and labor intensive. In large departments such as the Police and Fire Departments, personnel costs make up over 95% of operating budget expenditures. The current City’s workforce is comprised of 221 full‐time equivalent (FTE) positions breakdown as follows: 40.5% from Police, 26.7% from Fire, 19.3% from Public Works and 13.5% from all other departments (Community Development, Finance, Human Resources, Information Technology and the City Manager’s Office). Since FY08, the City’s workforce has been reduced by approximately 13%. There have been several reductions in force since FY08, and there were fewer City positions budgeted in FY17 than there were in FY08. Compared to FY08, the pre‐recession era, the City is doing more with less in order to continue to provide responsive City services to the community. The City has shifted personnel costs from full‐time to part‐time positions. Compared to FY08, full‐time positions were reduced by 15.3%, while part‐time positions increased by 15%. 88  Size of the City’s Workforce Size City's Workforce Fiscal FT PT FTEs 300 Year FY08 234 40 254 250 FY09 225 33 241.5 200 FY10 218 33 234.5 150 FY11 188 32 204 100 FY12 186 34 203 50 FY13 187 53 213.5 0 FY14 195 58 224 FY15 197 63 228.5 FY16 199 65 231.5 Fiscal Year FY16.5 200 65 232.5 FT PT FTEs FY17 198 46* 221 *Decrease due crossing guard services being outsourced in August 2017. The size of the City’s workforce data does not include DeKalb Sycamore Area Transportation Study (DSATS) personnel. DSATS staff salaries and benefits are funded entirely through federal and state grants. The City budget does not include any reimbursements from the General Fund for these positions. Wage Growth‐ All funds $17,275,013 $16,992,928 $15,545,704 $17,378,294 $18,368,083 $16,410,946 $16,650,470 $17,656,341 $16,744,278 $16,741,218 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Outsourcing of Services The City of DeKalb continues to explore and evaluate opportunities to outsource services. During FY14, the City outsourced certain aspects of the Building Division and Crossing Guard services during FY17. 89  Salaries The City of DeKalb employs a range of personnel in a variety of capacities, in order to provide the public with City services. To attract and retain the quality work force necessary for delivering quality services, the City seeks to remain competitive with neighboring jurisdictions and the labor market in general. In 2014, a Pay and Compensation Study was commissioned by the City Council to address compensation inequalities between collective bargaining units and non‐bargaining unit employees. From FY02 to FY17, the compounded annual compensation increases for collective bargaining unit employees have exceeded the compensation increases for non‐bargaining unit employees by 36.66%. NBU AFSCME FOP IAFF Increase Increase Differential Increase Differential Increase Differential FY02 2.00% 5.00% (3.00%) 5.00% (3.00%) 5.50% (3.50%) FY03 2.00% 5.00% (3.00%) 5.00% (3.00%) 5.00% (3.00%) FY04 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 5.00% (3.00%) 5.00% (3.00%) FY05 0.00% 4.00% * (4.00%) 4.00% (4.00%) 5.00% (5.00%) FY06 2.00% 4.00% * (2.00%) 3.75% (1.75%) 4.00% (2.00%) FY07 0.00% 4.00% * (4.00%) 3.75% (3.75%) 3.50% (3.50%) * FY08 3.16% 6.00% * (2.84%) 4.00% (0.84%) 5.00% (1.84%) FY09 3.73% 4.00% (0.27%) 3.00% 0.73% 4.00% (0.27%) FY10 0.00% 4.00% (4.00%) 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% (4.00%) FY11 0.00% 1.50% (1.50%) 2.50% (2.50%) 4.00% (4.00%) FY12 1.33% 1.50% (0.17%) 2.50% (1.17%) 0.00% 1.33% FY13 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.50% (0.50%) 2.00% 0.00% FY14 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.50% (0.50%) 2.50% (0.50%) FY15 1.50% 2.00% (0.50%) 2.50% (1.00%) 2.25% (0.75%) FY16 2.50% 2.25% 0.25% 2.50% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% FY16.5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% FY17 2.50% 2.00% 0.50% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% Average 1.67% 3.20% (1.53%) 3.11% (1.44%) 3.47% (1.80%) Compd. Avg. 30.22% 65.37% (35.15%) 63.00% (32.78%) 72.26% (42.04%) Average Differential (36.66%) * AFSCME increases were 2% in July and 2% in January ** AFSCME increases were 2% in July 2007 and 4% in January 2008 Based on the Study recommendations and approval by the Council, the City made adjustments to its compensation policy to ensure that compensation and benefits afforded to non‐ bargaining unit employees were commensurate with internal data, market data and wage policies from comparable municipalities. 90 In addition to maintaining the pay plans, the City has also implemented a performance management program that will assist in transitioning to a pay for performance model. The pay for performance system was implemented in FY2018. However, non‐bargaining unit employees did not receive performance‐based pay increases since increases for non‐ bargaining unit employees were part of the overall budget reductions. As a note, non‐ bargaining unit employees previously received both an economic adjustment each year and a merit increase on their anniversary. This practice was eliminated during FY16 as a result of the Pay and Compensation Study because salaries were made more market competitive. Over the past two years, total employee salary costs have increased by 2.5% on average. In the five‐ year baseline forecast, employee salaries are projected to increase by 2.5% per year in the next three years to keep pace with the bargaining unit employees. The appropriate maintenance of the City’s pay plans and the establishment of a performance management program aligns with the DeKalb 2025 Strategic Plan vision of efficient, quality, responsive services and the goal of achieving the highest possible standards of public administration through sound Human Resources practices. The City must maintain its competitiveness with other municipalities and internal equity with bargaining units in order to retain and recruit a talented work force. Bargaining Units Employees of the City of DeKalb are represented by three bargaining units:  AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union Local #813 represents all employees from Public Works, Finance, Information Technology and Police Telecommunications and Records, except managerial, supervisory, professional and confidential positions. AFSCME represents a total of 46 employees.  IAFF: International Association of Firefighters, Local 1236 represents all active full‐ time employees of the Fire Department who holds certificate of appointment by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, excluding the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chiefs. IAFF represents a total of 54 employees.  FOP: Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 115 represents all Sergeants and Police Officers. FOP represents a total of 58 employees. Bargaining unit increases are based upon collective bargaining agreements. Bargaining unit employees receive a wage adjustment each year in addition to step increase. The step increase is an advancement in the salary schedule on anniversary date of appointment. Bargaining unit members reach the top of the pay range within eight years of employment. 91  Negotiated bargaining unit increases are as follows: FY18 FY19 FY20 Average AFSCME 2.25% 2.50% 2.50% 2.42% IAFF 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% FOP 2.50% 2.50% n/a 2.50% Wellness The City recognizes that our most valuable resource is our employees, and their health and wellness has a direct impact on the continued success of the City of DeKalb in the delivery of City services and is directly linked to healthcare costs. In 2017, the City initiated a Wellbeing Program. Representatives from all City department, including bargaining unit and non‐ bargaining unit employees, comprise the Wellbeing Team. The team’s goal is to promote and support wellness programs that encourage emotional, physical, financial, social and career wellbeing for its employee and families. Through the City’s membership with the Intergovernmental Personnel Benefits Cooperative (IPBC), the City introduced a comprehensive and integrated health management and preventive wellness solution. In 2017, biometric screenings were offered to all City employees and dependents covered through the City’s health insurance plan. While the program is in its infancy, based on our historical knowledge of the healthcare industry, the City believes a comprehensive and progressive wellness program has the opportunity to yield long term cost savings. The program also serves to engage employees and all covered lives in cost reduction and their own wellbeing. Retiree Insurance In December 2008, the City commissioned Executive Partners, Inc. (EPI) to review and evaluate the financial practices of the City. EPI recommended steps that could be taken to reverse the City’s budget deficit and create a sustainable long‐term financial plan. One of EPI’s key recommendations was that the City eliminate the retiree health subsidy. The City has made progress in reducing its financial exposure for retiree insurance benefits. In 2014, the City concluded a five year phase out of subsidized retiree dependent coverage. Previously, retirees paid only a portion of the cost for dependent coverage. As of March 1, 2014 any retiree electing dependent coverage is required to pay the full premium cost. In 2012, the City implemented a plan to reduce future obligations for retiree insurance benefits. This plan provides a phase out of subsidized benefits based on an employee’s hire date. Under this plan, the City has no obligation to subsidize benefits for future employees. 92  Retiree Benefit after Medicare FOP Retiree Benefit until Medicare Age Age Hired Prior to 50% employee/20% spouse/0% 100% employee/0% spouse/0% Tier 1 3/1/86 dependent dependent Hired 3/1/86 to 50% employee/20% spouse/0% $2,000/year for Medicare Tier 2 7/1/01 dependent Supplement Hired 7/1/01 to $2,000 deferred comp match while Tier 3 7/1/11 employed No City Contribution Hired on/after Tier 4 7/1/11 No City Contribution No City Contribution Retiree Benefit after Medicare IAFF Retiree Benefit until Medicare Age Age Hired Prior to 50% employee/20% spouse/0% 100% employee/0% spouse/0% Tier 1 3/1/86 dependent dependent Hired 3/1/86 to 50% employee/20% spouse/0% $2,000/year for Medicare Tier 2 7/1/01 dependent Supplement Hired 7/1/01 to $2,000 deferred comp match while Tier 3 7/1/11 employed No City Contribution Hired on/after Tier 4 7/1/11 No City Contribution No City Contribution Retiree Benefit after Medicare AFSCME Retiree Benefit until Medicare Age Age Tier 1 N/A N/A N/A Hired Prior to $2,000/year for Medicare Tier 2 1/1/91 80% employee Supplement $2,000 deferred comp match while employed Hired 1/1/91 to $3,000 deferred comp match while Tier 3 12/31/11 employed No City Contribution Hired on/after Tier 4 1/1/12 No City Contribution No City Contribution 93  Retiree Benefit after Medicare NBU Retiree Benefit until Medicare Age Age Hired Prior to Tier 1 3/1/86 80% employee 100% employee $2,000 deferred comp match while employed Hired 3/1/86 to $2,000/year for Medicare Tier 2 12/31/01 80% employee Supplement $2,000 deferred comp match while employed Hired 1/1/02 to $3,000 deferred comp match while Tier 3 12/31/11 employed No City Contribution Hired on/after Tier 4 1/1/12 No City Contribution No City Contribution Health Insurance Plan Design In 2014, the City added a Medicare supplement plan for retirees over age 65. The reduced premium costs and plan design have provided a significant savings to the City, as well as retirees. In 2016, the City implemented various cost‐saving options for health insurance benefits. A HMO and HDHP (high deductible health plan) were added to allow for cost‐savings for the City as well as the employee. A HDHP provides a higher deductible and a lower premium cost than a traditional insurance plan. The IRS defines a HDHP as any plan with a deductible of at least $1,300 for single coverage or $2,600 for family coverage. The HDHP offers a health savings account that allows employees to contribute pre‐tax dollars to use for current or future medical expenses. In 2016, IAFF employee contributions changed from a percent of base salary to a percent of premium. This change in contribution allows the City to better budget health insurance costs. It also allows for a change in contribution based on the premium increase each year, rather than a salary increase. FOP will change to percent of premium in 2018. In 2017, the City added an insurance opt‐out program. Employees that choose to decline City insurance coverage and can provide proof of other coverage will receive an incentive. This is a significant savings compared to the cost of the annual insurance premium. The City could see a savings up to 94% of the premium cost. 94 The City continues to research benefit options that will reduce the cost for the City and employees. Health Insurance Cost Year Employee Coverage Retiree Coverage Total 2012 $3,361,590 $1,261,041 $4,622,631 2013 $3,699,413 $1,024,727 $4,724,140 2014 $3,625,770 $1,243,473 $4,869,243 2015 $3,593,477 $1,258,057 $4,851,534 2016 $3,598,465 $1,222,298 $4,820,763 2016.5 $1,715,882 $718,024 $2,433,906 2017 $3,895,917 $1,452,050 $5,347,967 2018 Budget $4,055,224 $1,638,331 $5,693,555 Health Insurance Costs $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 Retiree Coverage $2,000,000 Employee Coverage $1,000,000 $0 95 Streets and Fleet Analysis 96  Streets and Fleet Analysis  Fleet Inventory  Fleet Condition Assessment  Level of Service  Replacement Cost  Street Inventory  Pavement Condition Assessment  Level of Service  Pavement Management Plan 97  Streets and Fleet Analysis – Preliminary Asset Management Plan In 2017, the Public Works and Finance Departments, along with consultants from Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEI) and Ehlers, Inc. (Ehlers), developed a preliminary Asset Management Plan (AMP) for Streets and Fleet. EEI was engaged to perform the street portion of the plan. EEI has performed similar evaluations for other municipalities using the same software used by the City. The preliminary, high‐level AMP examines the City’s needs for maintaining streets and replacing fleet over the next 10 years. The AMP also presents options for dedicated revenue sources to fund the improvements including local gas tax, vehicle stickers, trash hauler fees and sales tax with resident rebate. Staff and the consultants presented the preliminary plan at the Special Committee of the Whole on August 31, 2017. The preliminary AMP is a first draft of ideas for addressing the deterioration of the City’s streets and fleet. It incorporates input from residents received during two public outreach meetings, even though only eight residents attended these meetings. As a background, Asset Management (AM) is a set of coordinated activities designed to optimize the benefits derived from an asset. At its core, AM is about effectively managing City‐ owned assets over the long‐term. The AMP sets forth ideas and principles to manage municipal infrastructure in a financially sustainable manner that meets the needs and expectations of residents. The preliminary AMP consists of four primary elements: 1. Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment 2. Expected Level of Service 3. Asset Management Strategy 4. Financial Strategy The asset inventory and condition assessment define the asset in terms of type, age, value, maintenance and other key characteristics. The expected level of service defines the performance goals of the asset. Together, the condition assessment and expected level of service are used to determine the financial resources required to meet expectations. The financial strategy lays out the funding plan for investing in the asset at the level required to meet the level of service objectives. Fleet Inventory The Public Works Department maintains a fleet database that includes the following information for all City vehicles: Equipment ID Chassis Description Asset Type Purchase Price 98  Purchase Year Age Useful Life Replacement Year Current Replacement Value Mileage (or Hours of Service) Cost of Maintenance Cost of Fuel Total Operating Cost The data was reviewed and evaluated as part of the fleet inventory. The current fleet consists of 173 units with a replacement value of approximately $12 million. The table below shows the number of units, percentage of total number of units, replacement cost and percentage of total replacement costs for nine categories. Category No. of Units % Replacement Cost % Fire Trucks 11 6.3% $3,934,842 32.8% Dump Trucks 23 13.3% $2,165,276 18.1% Trucks MD/HD 25 14.5% $1,756,722 14.7% SUV 33 19.1% $1,070,714 8.9% Construction 15 8.7% $1,018,477 8.5% L. Duty/Van 16 9.2% $706,001 5.9% Sedans 29 16.8% $664,750 5.5% Other 12 6.9% $406,883 3.4% Grounds Eq. 9 5.2% $258,761 2.2% TOTALS 173 $11,982,426 Each unit in the fleet was assigned to one of the nine general fleet categories described below. Fire Trucks – These are highly specialized vehicles used to respond to emergencies. Currently, the City owns 11 units with a replacement value of over $3.9 Million. The average age of the Fire Trucks is 13 years. The useful lives range between 15 to 20 years. Trucks Medium Duty/Heavy Duty – This class of vehicle includes light dump trucks, heavy duty pick‐up trucks and specialty trucks. Uses for the light dump trucks include road repairs, asphalt hauling and storm water inlet construction. The heavy duty pick‐ups are used to haul personnel, materials and equipment to and from work sites. The specialty trucks include aviation fuel trucks, de‐icing truck, ambulances, flatbeds, aerial trucks, vac‐all and the Police paddy wagon. These types of vehicles are used by Airport (3), Fire (6), Street (9), Police (1) and Utilities (6). The average age of the Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks is 14.8 years. Useful life ranges from 7 to 10 years for ambulances, heavy duty pick‐ups and light dump trucks and 10 to 20 years for specialty trucks. Heavy Dump Trucks – These vehicles have a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of at least 33,000 pounds and a load carrying capacity of 10 tons. Heavy dump trucks are used to tow leaf 99 vacuums and leaf boxes during the fall season, large loads of rock salt during the winter and heavy loads and tow equipment trailers throughout the year. The exposure to salt causes the frame and other steel parts of these dump trucks to deteriorate faster than normal vehicles. The Utility Division has one heavy dump truck and the Airport has three older (more than 20 years old) heavy dump trucks. The Street Division requires at least 16 heavy dump trucks during the fall and winter for leaf and snow plowing/salting. Currently, the Street Division has 19 units on hand, two of which are 20 years old. The average age of the Street Division Heavy Dump Trucks is 12.6 years. The useful life of a heavy dump truck is 10 years. Construction – These units are mobile on‐road and off‐road equipment that is used to dig, load and carry large loads over short distances. The inventory includes tractors, backhoes, loaders, graders, vibratory rollers and excavators. These type of vehicles are used by Street (11) and Utilities (4). The average age of the construction equipment is 16.5 years. The useful life of this equipment is generally from 10 to 15 years. SUV – These four wheel drive sports utility vehicles are larger than, and provide more passenger room and better off road performance than traditional sedans or pick‐up trucks. Because of their size, SUVs are highly visible and provide the operator with better visibility than sedans. These type of vehicles are used in the City Hall pool (3), IT (1), CD (1), Airport (2), DSATS (1), Fire (8), Street (5), Police (7) and Utilities (3). Six of the vehicles used by the Police Department are used for patrol cars. The average age of SUVs is 11.6 years. The useful lives for this class of vehicle is generally 10 years. Light Duty Trucks/Vans – This class of vehicle may be equipped with either two or four wheel drive and may have an extended cab capable of carrying a crew of five personnel along with light hand equipment or materials. These type of vehicles are used by Airport (2), Fire (1), Street (7), Police (2) and Utilities (4). The average age of these vehicles is 12.6 years. The typical useful life of this class of vehicle is 10 years. Sedans – This class of vehicle is used as almost exclusively by the Police Department. Currently, 26 of the 29 sedans are used by the Police Department. One is assigned to the Airport as a courtesy car and two are assigned to Community Development. The vehicles are used by detectives, commanders, school resources officers and for the resident officer program. Three of these vehicles are used as patrol cars. The older sedans are reassigned to the Community Development Department. The average age of these vehicles is 6.4 years. The typical useful life of this class of vehicle is eight to 10 years and four years for patrol cars. Other – These units include specialized equipment including two Harley Davidson motorcycles, two street sweepers, three forklifts, floor cleaner, scissor lift and a line laser truck used for roadway striping. These units are used by Airport (1), Street (6), Police (4) and Utilities (2). The average age of these vehicles is 11.4 years. The typical useful life of this class is seven to 15 years. Grounds Equipment – The equipment of this class includes tractors, motorized mowing 100 equipment and a motorized Airport runway broom. These units are used by Airport (5), Street (2) and Utilities (2). The average age of these vehicles is 13.9 years. The typical useful life of this class is five to 15 years. A summary of the number of units assigned to various departments and divisions is presented in the table below. Category Street Police Fire Utilities Airport Other TOTALS Fire Trucks ‐ ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ 11 Dump Trucks 19 ‐ ‐ 1 3 ‐ 23 Trucks MD/HD 9 1 6 6 3 ‐ 25 SUV 5 7 8 3 2 8 33 Construction 11 ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ 15 L. Duty/Van 7 2 1 4 2 ‐ 16 Sedans ‐ 26 ‐ ‐ 1 2 29 Other 6 4 ‐ 1 1 ‐ 12 Grounds Eq. 2 ‐ ‐ 2 5 ‐ 9 TOTALS 59 40 26 21 17 10 173 Fleet Condition Assessment Based on the input from residents, the condition of the fleet was evaluated using age, useful life, mileage (or hours of service) and annual maintenance costs. Historical trends such as average age, number of units beyond the recommended useful life and annual maintenance were also evaluated. These historical data indicate a declining fleet condition since about 2006. The decline corresponds to the same time that the City stopped systematically replacing vehicles beyond the useful life. Prior to 2006, the City replaced most of its fleet at the end of its useful life. The average age of the fleet increased from 5.7 years to 10.7 years between 2006 and 2016 as shown by the graph to the right. This trend is a consequence of allowing vehicles to age beyond their useful life before replacing them. The consistent increase in average age from year to year indicates this practice continued for several years. 101 The number of vehicles that are beyond their useful life also increased from 2006 to 2016. The graph to the right shows that in 2006 there were 18 vehicles in the fleet that were beyond their useful life. That number steadily increased to 95 in 2016. There are 173 units in the fleet. Currently about 55% of the fleet is beyond its useful life. This trend suggests there were on average seven to eight vehicles per year that were not being replaced during the last 10 years. Older vehicles require frequent maintenance and major repairs. The graph of total annual costs to maintain the fleet confirms this. It shows that from 2006 to 2016 the annual maintenance cost of the fleet increased from about $220,000 per year to about $312,000 per year. If the fleet is allowed to continue to age, maintenance costs will continue to increase. However, the greater concern is the impact of breakdowns on the delivery of services, particularly with respect to public safety. Staff evaluated each unit in the fleet using a condition rating system. These type of systems are commonly used by municipalities for fleet evaluations. Using this system, staff assigned points for age of the unit compared to useful life, mileage or hours of service and annual maintenance costs compared to value. The table below summarizes the point system. Criteria Points Age 1 point for every 10% of useful life, plus 2 points per year in service beyond the useful life. Use 1 point for every 10,000 miles or 300 hours of service. Maintenance Cost 1 point for maintenance cost <14% of value 2 points for maintenance costs 15 to 29% of value 3 points for maintenance costs 30 to 44% of value 4 points for maintenance costs 45 to 59% of value 5 points for maintenance costs 60 to 74% of value 102  6 points for maintenance costs 75 to 89% of value 7 points for maintenance costs 90 to 99% of value 2 points for every 5% beyond 100% To illustrate this system, consider a unit that is at the end of its useful life. That unit would receive 10 points for age (one point for every 10% of the useful life). Additionally, assume the unit has 150,000 miles (or 4,500 hours of service), which are both high amounts. The unit would be assessed another 15 points. Lastly, assume the amount of annual maintenance on the unit was equal to the value of the unit. That would earn the unit another 7 points for a total of 32 points. That unit would be at the entry point of the declining category using the following rating system. Rating Points Good <16 Average 16 – 31 Declining 32 – 42 (needs replacing) Critical 43+ (needs replacing) The result of applying this scoring system to the City fleet is shown on the 38% adjacent graph. Approximately 36% of 26% the fleet is in declining or critical 20% condition. Replacing the units that are 16% in declining or critical conditions would cost approximately $4.3 million, given the total fleet value is $12 million. <16 16 ‐ 31 32 ‐ 42 43+ The decline in condition of the fleet Good Average Declining Critical corresponds to a reduction in fleet replacement expenditures. The following graph illustrates fleet expenditures that were planned based on replacing vehicles at, or near, their useful life versus actual expenditures. The graph demonstrates a significant reduction in fleet replacement expenditures since 2008. From 2002 to 2007, fleet expenditures average about $710,000. Adjusting for inflation, that level of spending (in 2007) is the equivalent of about $860,000 today. From 2008 to 2017, fleet expenditures average just under $300,000. The difference between planned and actual expenditures increases after 2009. Prior to 2009, the difference is about $190,000, whereas, after 2009, the difference is about $500,000. 103  Fleet Cost (Planned) Fleet Cost (Actual) $2.0 Millions $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Level of Service Public meetings on May 23 and 25, 2017 solicited residents’ input on several aspects of the preliminary AMP for streets and fleet. During the meetings, staff presented the planning process and preliminary findings from the asset inventory and condition assessment. The meeting featured an interactive format in which staff presented information and the audience indicated their preference regarding several options. Staff also presented information concerning historical funding for fleet replacement. The following planning principles were identified as important to the participants of the survey.  The most important criteria for assessing vehicle condition are Useful Life and Maintenance Costs.  The most important criterion for fleet level of service is Safety followed by Reliability and Functionality. The most important policy for fleet replacement is Availability of Funds followed by Maintenance Costs.  Nearly all respondents agreed that annual maintenance costs of a particular vehicle should not exceed the value of the vehicle. Based on these planning principles the following preliminary levels of service are proposed. 1. Fleet vehicles should be replaced before they reach the end of their useful life unless there are specific reasons to keep the vehicles. 2. Fleet vehicles should be evaluated for safety, reliability and functionality as part of routine maintenance. 104  3. Fleet replacement schedules should be adjusted regularly to accommodate the availability of funds. 4. Replacement schedules should include consideration of maintenance costs. 5. Fleet vehicles that cost more to maintain than they are worth should be given priority in the fleet replacement schedule. Replacement Cost Each City department submitted a fleet replacement schedule based on replacing most of the units that were beyond their useful life over the next three years. The cost of this aggressive replacement schedule is shown graphically below. The replacement schedule assumes that some vehicles being replaced will be retained for use as pool cars. The first year of this replacement schedule is just over $2.5 million. The second and subsequent years of the schedule are closer to $1.5 million. The average over five years is $1.65 million. The impact of this aggressive replacement schedule on the average age of the fleet is shown on the following graph. It shows that the average age of the vehicles used by Street, Police and Fire would be reduced from current higher than desired levels to near the same average age of vehicles in 2006. Namely, for Street, the average age of vehicles would drop from 14.5 to 7.2 years. The average age in 2006 was 7.1 years. Likewise, for Police, the average age would drop from 6.1 to 3.7 years. The average age was 3.3 years in 2006. Lastly, for Fire, it would reduce the average age of vehicles from 11.1 to 6.7 years. The average age in 2006 was 4.8 years. 105  Street Police Fire 16 14 Average Age (Years) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Recognizing that an average expenditure of $1.65 million per year for fleet may not be attainable. A more conservative replacement schedule was developed. In this scenario, each department reevaluated their needs, limiting replacement requests to those that were considered critical. The resulting replacement cost schedule is shown graphically below. The average age of the fleet in this scenario increases by about one year in 2022 compared to the aggressive replacement scenario. 106 Street Inventory The inventory and condition assessment of City‐owned streets was conducted by EEI using data collected by Infrastructure Management Services, Inc. (IMS) during three separate surveys conducted over the past four years. As part of the surveys, IMS identified all roadways in the City’s network, assigned them a unique identifier, listed their physical characteristics (length, width, etc.) and attributes (pavement type, traffic and functional classification) and linked the network to the City’s GIS map. The condition of the roads was evaluated using specialized survey equipment referred to as a Laser Road Surface Tester (RST). This equipment was used to collect observations on the condition of the pavement surface, as well as collect digital imagery and spatial coordinate information. Additionally, deflection testing and analysis was performed to measure the strength of the pavement base. There are approximately 130 centerline miles of roads owned and maintained by the City. The functional classification of these roads are shown on the map and listed below:  Residential: 97.3 miles (74.8%)  Collector: 10.1 miles (7.7%)  Arterial: 22.7 miles (17.5%) Pavement Condition Assessment The key pavement condition data elements collected by the Laser RST include roughness (bumps per mile) and distress (cracking, potholes, raveling, etc.). The condition data for each City block was used to create a single score representing the overall condition of the pavement for that City block. The scores, ranging from 10 to 100, are referred to as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI of a road can be used to characterize the condition of the pavement using the following six categories: PCI Rating 86 – 100 Excellent 80 – 85 Very Good 70 – 79 Good 60 – 69 Fair 40 – 59 Poor 10 – 39 Very Poor 107 The following pictures and descriptions of road surface, remaining life and maintenance activities are representative of several qualitative rating categories. Very Good to Excellent (PCI 80 – 100) Near perfect condition. Very minor defects may be present. Comfortable to drive. The remaining life is 15 to 25 years. Little to no maintenance required when new. Requires routine maintenance such as crack and joint sealing. Good (PCI 70‐79) Structurally sound. Cracking and other minor distresses are present. Road still feels smooth to drive. The remaining life is 12 to 18 years. Routine maintenance such as patching and crack sealing with surface treatments. Fair (60‐69) Structural damage may be present. Cracking and other minor distresses are extensive. Road may feel rough. The remaining life is 8 to 15 years. Heavier surface treatments and thin overlays. Localized panel replacements. Poor (PCI 40 – 59) Structural damage is extensive. The road is very rough. The remaining life is 5 to 10 years. Heavy surface‐based inlays or overlays with localized repairs. Moderate to extensive panel replacements. 108 The table and graph below illustrate the distribution of pavement condition for the roadway network in DeKalb using the scale described previously. The average PCI for the City’s road network is currently 78. Approximately 25.7 miles of roads have a PCI less than 70. These roads need immediate maintenance to prevent further degradation. If the roads are allowed to continue to deteriorate, they will require higher levels maintenance (or reconstruction) at higher costs in the future. PCI Rating Miles % 86 ‐ 100 Excellent 13.9 10.7% 80 – 85 Very Good 49.7 38.2% 70 ‐ 79 Good 40.8 31.4% 60 ‐ 69 Fair 16.3 12.5% 40 – 59 Poor 7.4 5.7% 10 ‐ 39 Very Poor 2.0 1.5% 38.2% 31.4% 10.7% 12.5% 5.7% 1.5% 86 ‐ 100 80 – 85 70 ‐ 79 60 ‐ 69 40 – 59 10 ‐ 39 Pavement Condition Index The need for immediate maintenance on 25.7 miles of City streets is largely the result of a lack of funding for street maintenance over the past several years. The next graph shows street maintenance expenditures per year from 1992 to 2007. The average annual expenditure for this period is $860,000 per year. If inflation is considered, the $1.0 million spent in 1994 is the 109 equivalent of about $1.65 million in today’s dollars. $2.0 Aggregate MFT Local Gas Tax TIF Funds Millions $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 Level of Service Public meetings were held on May 23 and 25, 2017, to solicit resident’s preferences and opinions on several aspects of the preliminary AMP for streets and fleet. The following planning principles were identified as more important to the participants of the survey.  Most respondents believe the PCI of City streets is between 60 and 70 (on a scale of 10 to 100). The calculated PCI is 78.  Seventy‐five percent (75%) of respondents believe the average PCI of City streets should be 10 points higher than it is now.  Most respondents believe 10% of City streets should have a PCI rating of less than 60. Currently, 18% of City streets have a PCI of less than 60.  Respondents believe funds should be prioritized to address Arterials and Collectors, ahead of Residential streets.  The majority of respondents believe it should take five years to “fix” DeKalb’s streets. Based on these planning principles, the following preliminary levels of service are proposed: 1. The average PCI for City streets should be 75 to 80. 2. No more than 10% of City streets should be in Poor condition or lower (PCI less than 60). 3. Annual street maintenance programs should prioritize Arterials and Collectors, ahead of Residential streets. 110  4. Street maintenance should significantly improve the conditions of City streets in five years or less. Pavement Management Plan A Pavement Management System (PMS) is a planning tool used to assist municipalities with the task of building and maintaining roadways. A PMS provides a means to collect, store, organize and analyze pavement condition information and help plan for preventative and future maintenance. Research and experience has shown it is far less expensive to maintain a road in good condition than it is to allow a road to deteriorate before repairing it as outlined in the graph below. Pavement Management Systems place priority on maintaining these good condition roads, which over the long‐term will effectively provide a higher condition roadway at a lower cost. 120 100 Time for Preventative Time for Measures ($0.15-$1.00/SF) Resurfacing ($1.50 - $4.00/SF) 80 Time for Reconstruction RANK ($6.00 - $12.00/SF) 60 Standard Pavement Rank Reduction Curve 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Years) The IMS software used to store the street inventory and pavement condition data was employed in simulating several pavement maintenance scenarios along and estimating the associated costs. The scenarios were completed using certain rehabilitation strategies, average regional unit rates and pavement performance curves. A total of eight scenarios were evaluated. The scenario description, average annual street maintenance expenditures and the average road network PCI rating after five years and after 10 years are presented in the following chart. 111  Maintenance Scenarios with Resulting Average Expenditures Average Annual Street Avg. Avg. No. Scenario Description Maintenance PCI @ PCI @ Expenditures 5Yrs 10Yrs 1 Maintain the current rank of 78* $7,052,400 78 71 2 Maintain the rank at 70 $7,021,300 76 70 3 Increase rank to 80** $6,931,500 79 71 Maintain current spending amount 4 $1,403,200 70 59 ($1.2M + engineering) Resurface entire system over 20 years 5 $3,830,300 72 63 ($29.28/SY) Double amount in Scenario 5/Year 1, 6 then split the remaining costs over 19 $3,940,800 73 64 yrs. 7 Maintain the rank at 65 $4,622,400 73 65 8 Spend $2.5M per year $2,587,100 71 61 Notes: 1) These scenarios were run with only a resurfacing (3"/3") option. No reconstruction option was included. * Not achievable at 10 years without reconstruction. Estimate $13 million including reconstruction. ** Not achievable at five years without reconstruction. Estimate $13.5 million including reconstruction. The average annual street maintenance expenditures for each of the scenarios above is graphed versus average PCI for the road network at five and 10 years below. At Year 5 At Year 10 85 Average Pavement Condition Index 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 $0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 Average Annual Street Maintenance Expenditure (Millions) 112 The red squares represent the average PCI at the end of five years given the corresponding average street maintenance expenditures of a particular scenario. The red dashed line shows the best‐fit linear trend. Similarly, the blue circles represent the average PCI at the end of 10 years given the corresponding average street maintenance expenditures of a particular scenario. The blue dashed line shows the best‐fit linear trend. The scenarios that meet resident’s level of service expectations after five years include scenarios 1, 2 and 3. These scenarios require over $7 million dollars of expenditures on street maintenance per year. Given the current maintenance program is only $1.3 million, it may not be reasonable to expect such a large increase in annual expenditures to be possible. Therefore, a more conservative scenario has been selected for inclusion in the preliminary financial management plan. Scenario 5, with an average annual expenditure of approximately $3.8 million, is included in the preliminary financial management plan. This scenario keeps the average PCI for City streets above 70 for the next five years. It represents a significant increase in current street maintenance expenditures and would produce noticeable improvements throughout the City. 113  Alternative Funding 114  Alternative Funding  Intergovernmental Agreements – Revenue Sharing  DeKalb Market Square Agreements  Peace Road Interchange Improvements  DeKalb County Home Agreement  Sycamore Boundary Agreement  General Fund Stabilization – Property Tax Levy  Streets and Fleet Funding  Streets and Fleet Conclusions  Alternative Funding Policy Conclusions 115  Alternative Funding Policy Considerations Intergovernmental Agreements – Revenue Sharing In the past, the City approved revenue sharing agreements with DeKalb County and the City of Sycamore. The intended purpose of each agreement with DeKalb County was to facilitate economic development projects or provide infrastructure. The intent of the boundary agreement with the City of Sycamore was also to enhance economic development and intergovernmental cooperation through revenue sharing within a specific area bordering both communities. Listed below is a short synopsis of each agreement and its associated financial impact to date and projected to the end of the agreements. In particular, the City should more thoroughly review the Peace Road Interchange Improvement agreement with DeKalb County for opportunities to end the agreement. DeKalb Market Square Agreements and the Peace Road Interchange Resolution 1993‐115, Passed October 11, 1993 – An intergovernmental agreement and annexation agreement was approved by the City and the County (owner of the property) including 138 acres of property located at Barber Greene Road and Route 23. The 40 year agreement is effective from the date of passage on October 11, 1993. The City and the County agreed to equally share sales tax revenues generated from development on the property. The following sales taxes are shared equally: City’s Municipal Retailers’ Occupation Tax (1%), City’s Home Rule Sales Tax (.75%) and the County’s Sales Tax (.25%). The City’s payments (“City Share”) to the County have been at least $1.1 million per year since 2011 with 2014 being an exception. The County’s payments (“County Share”) to the City have been at least $125,000 since 2011 with 2014 being an exception. The net amount paid by the City to the County has been close to $1 million per year since 2010. Through 2017, a total of $21.7 million has been paid to the County and a total of $2.4 million has been received from the County since the start of this agreement. Projections to the end of the agreement in October of 2033, indicate the City will pay the County $39,466,890 and the County will pay the City $4,545,400. The net payments by the City are projected to total $34,921,490. 116 Tax Sharing Analysis DeKalb Market Square Resolution 93‐115 City Share County Share Net Paid Year 50% Sales Tax 50% Sales Tax by City 1997 $235,977.31 $24,609.01 $211,368.30 1998 $753,761.50 $78,200.50 $675,561.00 1999 $765,779.00 $88,675.00 $677,104.00 2000 $821,661.00 $94,010.00 $727,651.00 2001 $850,154.00 $95,830.00 $754,324.00 2002 $926,726.86 $103,109.55 $823,617.31 2003 $719,600.24 $79,154.67 $640,445.57 2004 $943,515.07 $110,438.81 $833,076.26 2005 $1,235,943.83 $138,331.04 $1,097,612.79 2006 $1,615,006.07 $176,888.42 $1,438,117.65 2007 $1,383,536.02 $158,899.70 $1,224,636.32 2008 $1,358,715.06 $154,820.40 $1,203,894.66 2009 $1,294,528.23 $146,850.08 $1,147,678.15 2010 $1,239,505.92 $141,975.89 $1,097,530.03 2011 $1,197,385.48 $136,050.00 $1,061,335.48 2012 $1,120,365.00 $128,907.51 $991,457.49 2013 $1,099,069.24 $126,550.39 $972,518.85 2014 $866,898.03 $104,902.54 $761,995.49 2015 $1,110,996.20 $128,538.97 $982,457.23 2016 $1,107,739.70 $129,107.75 $978,631.95 2017 $1,063,440.47 $124,287.32 $939,153.15 Projected 2018 $1,068,757.67 $124,908.76 $943,848.92 Projected 2019 $1,074,101.46 $125,533.30 $948,568.16 Projected 2020 $1,079,471.97 $126,160.97 $953,311.00 Projected 2021 $1,084,869.33 $126,791.77 $958,077.56 Projected 2022 $1,090,293.68 $127,425.73 $962,867.94 Projected 2023 $1,095,745.14 $128,062.86 $967,682.28 Projected 2024 $1,101,223.87 $128,703.17 $972,520.70 Projected 2025 $1,106,729.99 $129,346.69 $977,383.30 Projected 2026 $1,112,263.64 $129,993.42 $982,270.22 Projected 2027 $1,117,824.96 $130,643.39 $987,181.57 Projected 2028 $1,123,414.08 $131,296.61 $992,117.47 Projected 2029 $1,129,031.15 $131,953.09 $997,078.06 Projected 2030 $1,134,676.31 $132,612.86 $1,002,063.45 Projected 2031 $1,140,349.69 $133,275.92 $1,007,073.77 Projected 2032 $1,146,051.44 $133,942.30 $1,012,109.14 Projected 2033 $1,151,781.69 $134,612.01 $1,017,169.68 Total $39,466,890.30 $4,545,400.39 $34,921,489.91 117 Resolution 1996‐001, Passed January 8, 1996 – An addendum to the original 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement. Walmart is listed as a “known” store to develop on the property. The City and the County agreed to each expend $500,000 toward public improvements. Resolution 2002‐095, Passed October 14, 2002 – A second amendment to the original 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement. The amendment is limited to Lot #12 of DeKalb Market Square (Kohl’s). The City and the County agreed to jointly fund and share equally in the cost of infrastructure improvements up to a total of $1,550,000 to be paid in cash or in the form of sales tax rebates of one‐half of City/County sales tax receipts for a period of up to eight years following the opening of the store. The last payment to Kohl’s was on September 27, 2013 for the period of December 2012 through February 2013. The total paid to Kohl’s was $609,301.16. Resolution 02-95 COMPLETED in 2013 City Share Kohl's Res. 02‐95 Year 50% Sales Tax $80,000.00 2004 $21,187.87 $70,000.00 2005 $64,016.04 $60,000.00 2006 $71,979.01 $50,000.00 2007 $75,603.30 $40,000.00 2008 $72,393.37 $30,000.00 2009 $67,552.96 $20,000.00 2010 $66,058.59 $10,000.00 2011 $64,521.24 $0.00 2012 $55,369.67 City Share 2013 $50,619.11 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total $609,301.16 Peace Road Interchange Improvements Peace Road Interchange ‐ Resolution 2004‐031, Passed May 24, 2004 – A second intergovernmental agreement with DeKalb County was passed to share the City’s Home Rule Sales Tax generated at the DeKalb Market Square property. The City’s payments cover costs associated with the Illinois Toll Highway Authority installing Peace Road Interchange Improvements. In December 1997, the City entered into an agreement with the Illinois Toll Highway Authority agreeing to pay them in excess of $2,300,000 by June 2004. The County agreed to participate in repayment of the City’s debt. However, the City would provide additional City Home Rule Sales Tax revenues to the County. The City increased the City’s Home Rule Sales Tax from .75% to 1.25%. The City and County equally share the additional .50% City Home Rule Sales Tax. The agreement has a clause stipulating in the event the City repeals the 0.50% sales tax increase, every payment made to the County from the City would be applied to the principal balance due to the County. Thus, each payment made reduces the principal dollar for dollar. 118 At the time the City repeals the 0.50% sales tax, the remaining balance, if any, would be subject to a 4% simple interest. However, no additional interest would accrue beyond May 24, 2014 (10 years from execution of agreement). The terms of this agreement continue throughout the 40 year term set in the original 1993 DeKalb Market Square Intergovernmental Agreement. Approximately $250,000 is paid annually to the County and a total of approximately $3.7 million has been paid between 2004 and 2017. The table shows the City has paid more than $3.7 million dollars versus the $2.3 million provided by the County in 2004. As of 2012, the City met the obligation by paying $2,410,343. 119  Peace Road Interchange Improvements Resolution 04‐31 City Share City Share Year 50% Sales Tax To Date 2004 $110,838.00 $110,838.00 2005 $290,174.00 $401,012.00 2006 $279,098.00 $680,110.00 2007 $317,791.00 $997,901.00 2008 $309,581.00 $1,307,482.00 2009 $293,161.00 $1,600,643.00 2010 $283,920.00 $1,884,563.00 2011 $267,385.00 $2,151,948.00 2012 $258,395.00 $2,410,343.00 2013 $253,101.00 $2,663,444.00 2014 $251,248.00 $2,914,692.00 2015 $255,784.00 $3,170,476.00 2016 $259,840.18 $3,430,316.18 2017 $249,449.00 $3,679,765.18 Projected 2018 $250,696.24 $3,930,461.42 Projected 2019 $251,949.73 $4,182,411.15 Projected 2020 $253,209.47 $4,435,620.62 Projected 2021 $254,475.52 $4,690,096.14 Projected 2022 $255,747.90 $4,945,844.04 Projected 2023 $257,026.64 $5,202,870.68 Projected 2024 $258,311.77 $5,461,182.45 Projected 2025 $259,603.33 $5,720,785.78 Projected 2026 $260,901.35 $5,981,687.13 Projected 2027 $262,205.85 $6,243,892.98 Projected 2028 $263,516.88 $6,507,409.87 Projected 2029 $264,834.47 $6,772,244.33 Projected 2030 $266,158.64 $7,038,402.97 Projected 2031 $267,489.43 $7,305,892.41 Projected 2032 $268,826.88 $7,574,719.29 Projected 2033 $270,171.01 $7,844,890.30 Total $7,844,890.30 For perspective, if the City had borrowed $2.3 million in 2004 at a 4% interest rate and 10 year term, annual payments would have been $283,569 and principal and interest payments for 10 years would total $2,835,691 (reference below – $2.3M Loan table). However, the City’s actual payments to the County totaled $2,914,691 by year 2014 (reference above – Peace Road Interchange Improvement table). As another example, if the City had borrowed $2.3 million in 120 2004 at a 4% interest rate and 12 year term, annual payments would have been $245,070 and principal and interest payments for 10 years would total $2,940,839 (reference below ‐ $2.3M Loan table). However, the City’s actual payments to the County totaled $3,170,476 by year 2015 (reference above– Peace Road Improvement table). $ 2,300,000 Loan with Annual Payments $ 2,300,000 Loan with Annual Payments 4% Interest Rate Compounded Annually 4% Interest Rate Compounded Annually 10 Years 12 Years Year Payment Principal Paid Interest Paid Remaining Balance Year Payment Principal Paid Interest Paid Remaining Balance 1 $283,569.17 $191,569.17 $92,000.00 $2,108,430.83 1 $245,070.00 $153,070.00 $92,000.00 $2,146,930.00 2 $283,569.17 $199,231.94 $84,337.23 $1,909,198.89 2 $245,070.00 $159,192.80 $85,877.20 $1,987,737.20 3 $283,569.17 $207,201.21 $76,367.96 $1,701,997.68 3 $245,070.00 $165,560.51 $79,509.49 $1,822,176.69 4 $283,569.17 $215,489.26 $68,079.91 $1,486,508.42 4 $245,070.00 $172,182.93 $72,887.07 $1,649,993.76 5 $283,569.17 $224,108.83 $59,460.34 $1,262,399.59 5 $245,070.00 $179,070.25 $65,999.75 $1,470,923.51 6 $283,569.17 $233,073.19 $50,495.98 $1,029,326.40 6 $245,070.00 $186,233.06 $58,836.94 $1,284,690.45 7 $283,569.17 $242,396.11 $41,173.06 $786,930.29 7 $245,070.00 $193,682.38 $51,387.62 $1,091,008.07 8 $283,569.17 $252,091.96 $31,477.21 $534,838.33 8 $245,070.00 $201,429.68 $43,640.32 $889,578.39 9 $283,569.17 $262,175.64 $21,393.53 $272,662.69 9 $245,070.00 $209,486.86 $35,583.14 $680,091.53 10 $283,569.20 $272,662.69 $10,906.51 $0.00 10 $245,070.00 $217,866.34 $27,203.66 $462,225.19 11 $245,070.00 $226,580.99 $18,489.01 $235,644.20 Totals $2,835,691.73 $2,300,000.00 $535,691.73 12 $245,069.97 $235,644.20 $9,425.77 $0.00 Totals $2,940,839.97 $2,300,000.00 $640,839.97 It appears the City has fully paid the debt intended by this agreement. The City should thoroughly review the Peace Road Interchange Improvement agreement with DeKalb County for the opportunity to end the agreement. Otherwise, if the agreement and trend continue until expiration of the original 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement, the City could pay a total of approximately $7.8 million through Year 2033 for the benefit of $2.3 million received in 2004. DeKalb Market Square Res. 93‐115/Peace Road Interchange Improvements Res. 04‐31 $1,800,000.00 $1,600,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 City Share 50% Sales Tax County Share 50% Sales Tax City Share 50% Sales Tax Currently, the City and the County have been working on an agreement that will satisfy both parties regarding the use of this funding since there is disagreement on the intent of this initial agreement. 121 DeKalb County Home Agreement Resolution 1999‐038, Passed June 28, 1999 – An Intergovernmental Agreement entered into with DeKalb County. DeKalb County agreed to purchase a 9.8 acre parcel of property to construct and relocate a new County Nursing Home and Health Center. The nursing home location at that time was a prime location for economic development. The nursing home was vacated and the property was developed for commercial development. The City agreed to assist the County with its bond obligations for the new County Nursing Home by equally sharing sales tax revenues of City’s Municipal Retailers’ Occupation Tax (1%), City’s Home Rule Sales Tax (as amended, currently 1.75%) and the County’s Sales Tax (.25%) for a term of 20 years from the issuance of the first occupancy permit for a minimum of 50,000 square feet. The County shares its property lease proceeds with the City. The City also receives an annual credit for municipal services ranging from $25,000 to $40,000 during the 20 year agreement. The City’s payments to the County have averaged $236,000 per year. However, the City receives an average of $110,000 from the County each year for a net average payment of $126,000 per year to the County. From 2002 to 2017, a total of $3.1 million has been paid to the County and a total of $1.66 million has been received from the County. If trends continue as shown below, at the end of the agreement in 2021, the City will pay the County a total of $4,121,438 and receive $2,122,554 from the County for estimated net total payments to the County totaling $1,998,884. DeKalb County Home Resolution 99‐38 Year 2021 End Date City Share County Share Lease Proceeds Municipal Svcs County to City City to County Year 50% Sales Tax 50% Sales Tax to City to City Total Net Total 2002 $72,146.13 $10,280.58 $52,500 $25,000 $87,781 ($15,634) 2003 $84,028.35 $11,969.10 $87,500 $25,000 $124,469 ($40,441) 2004 $122,215.52 $16,360.92 $52,500 $25,000 $93,861 $28,355 2005 $157,362.68 $17,409.29 $52,500 $25,000 $94,909 $62,453 2006 $180,165.30 $19,926.52 $48,000 $25,000 $92,927 $87,239 2007 $184,270.57 $20,404.94 $39,375 $30,000 $89,780 $94,491 2008 $173,493.28 $19,165.66 $58,875 $30,000 $108,041 $65,453 2009 $249,102.04 $23,356.16 $52,500 $30,000 $105,856 $143,246 2010 $245,499.10 $22,246.75 $52,500 $30,000 $104,747 $140,752 2011 $242,740.74 $21,982.53 $52,500 $30,000 $104,483 $138,258 2012 $229,871.86 $20,798.79 $52,500 $35,000 $108,299 $121,573 2013 $208,928.50 $18,898.86 $52,500 $35,000 $106,399 $102,530 2014 $178,886.32 $16,221.79 $52,500 $35,000 $103,722 $75,165 2015 $212,804.26 $19,193.98 $52,500 $35,000 $106,694 $106,110 2016 $254,223.44 $23,049.65 $52,500 $35,000 $110,550 $143,674 2017 $325,699.87 $29,538.12 $52,500 $40,000 $122,038 $203,662 Projected 2018 $250,000.00 $22,000.00 $52,500 $40,000 $114,500 $135,500 Projected 2019 $250,000.00 $22,000.00 $52,500 $40,000 $114,500 $135,500 Projected 2020 $250,000.00 $22,000.00 $52,500 $40,000 $114,500 $135,500 Projected 2021 $250,000.00 $22,000.00 $52,500 $40,000 $114,500 $135,500 Total $4,121,437.96 $398,803.64 $1,073,750 $650,000 $2,122,554 $1,998,884 122  DeKalb County Home Res. 99‐38 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $250,000.00 $200,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 City Share 50% Sales Tax County Share 50% Sales Tax Lease Proceeds to City Municipal Svcs to City County to City Total DeKalb County Home Res. 99‐38 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $250,000.00 $200,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 City Share 50% Sales Tax County to City Total Ordinance 2012‐019, Passed March 26, 2012 – A Development Agreement with First Rockford Group for Ulta retail store includes a 50/50 sales tax rebate of both the City’s share and the County’s share of sales tax proceeds to First Rockford to offset build‐out costs incurred. The maximum rebate would be the lesser of $153,125 or 20% of the documented build‐out costs. Through 2016, $15,798 has been paid by the City and $11,271 has been paid by the County for a total of $27,070. 123 124 Sycamore Boundary Agreement The City of DeKalb and the City of Sycamore entered into an Intergovernmental Boundary Line Agreement on August 31, 1995. The current Agreement had an initial term of 20 years and was set to expire on August 31, 2015. Prior to its expiration, either party could extend it for an additional 20 year period by giving written notice to the other party within 30 days of the expiration of the initial term. At its August 17, 2015 City Council Meeting, the City of Sycamore approved Resolution 639 authorizing the extension of the Intergovernmental Boundary Line Agreement between the City of Sycamore and the City of DeKalb. This extends the Agreement for another 20 years. City staff between both municipalities have had discussions regarding revisions and will continue to do so. Any changes that both municipalities can negotiate will be brought back to both City Councils for review and action. In the interim, the existing Agreement continues. Sycamore Boundary Agreement $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 2014 2015 2016 DeKalb Paid to Sycamore Sycamore Paid to DeKalb Note: Original Approval August 31, 1995 and 20 Year Renewal August 31, 2015 125 General Fund Stabilization – Property Tax Levy Previously in this report, a projection through 2023. Based on the assumptions as outlined earlier in the report, each year results in deficits with the fund balance declining dramatically and virtually depleted by 2023. FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Actual Estimate Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues 35,716,044 37,755,265 37,946,799 39,930,399 41,008,579 42,261,814 43,033,378 Expenditures 35,871,366 37,829,204 38,893,437 40,376,286 42,016,502 43,838,731 45,873,782 Unassigned Ending Fund Balance 9,073,799 8,999,861 8,053,223 7,607,337 6,599,414 5,022,497 2,182,093 Fund Balance as % of Expenditures 25.3% 23.8% 20.7% 18.8% 15.7% 11.5% 4.8% In order to stabilize the General Fund to meet the City’s financial policy of having 25% of expenditures in the unassigned fund balance or the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendation of 30% of expenditures less property tax revenue, a property tax revenue increase of $1.6M in FY2019 is needed with an assumed growth rate of 2.0% annually. 126  FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Actual Estimate Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues 35,716,044 37,755,265 39,546,799 41,562,399 42,673,219 43,959,747 44,765,269 Expenditures 35,871,366 37,829,204 38,893,437 40,376,286 42,016,502 43,838,731 45,873,782 Unassigned Ending Fund Balance 9,073,799 8,999,861 9,653,223 10,839,337 11,496,054 11,617,070 10,508,557 Fund Balance as % of Expenditures 25.3% 23.8% 24.8% 26.8% 27.4% 26.5% 22.9% Streets and Fleet Funding A preliminary financial impact has been developed by Ehlers to evaluate the impact of a dedicated funding source for fleet replacement and street maintenance. The objectives of the plan are to identify additional dedicated revenue for fleet replacement and street maintenance and develop a 10‐year plan for implementing the improvements while preserving the City’s bond rating. Annual capital expenditures between 2019 and 2023 average $6.5 million. That amount includes a conservative fleet and equipment replacement schedule averaging an annual cost of $1.88 million and an annual street maintenance averaging annual $3.8 million. Other capital expenditures funded by motor fuel tax average an annual cost of $1.39 million. The existing funding sources for capital expenditures include motor fuel tax, home rule fuel tax and existing fund balances in the motor fuel tax and the equipment funds. The annual capital expenditures described are shown graphically along with existing funding sources for a 5‐year period in the graph below. The funding gap illustrated by the graph averages about $5.4 million per year. Capital Needs vs. Existing Funding Sources 16.0 14.0 12.0 Millions 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Existing Funding Sources Total Projected Capital Project Costs 127 Streets and Fleet Conclusions The level of funding for fleet replacement over the past 10 years has not been sufficient to sustain the overall condition of this asset. Vehicle replacement has averaged about $300,000 per year since 2006. That level is about $500,000 per year less than the amount needed to sustain the overall fleet condition of 2006. Currently, the fleet backlog is about $4.3 million. The fleet condition of 2006 can be attained in about five years with an investment of about $1.65 million per year. The funding for street maintenance has averaged $860,000 per year over the past 25 years. The current funding level is $1.3 million and the average PCI of City streets is 78. Continuing to invest $1.3 million in street maintenance will result in the average PCI dropping to 70 in five years and 59 in 10 years. Based on the scenarios evaluated using the PMS, it would cost about $13 million per year to maintain a PCI of 78. The scenario used in the financial model includes about $3.8 million per year in street maintenance. This would result in the average PCI dropping from 78 to 72 in five years and to 63 in 10 years. The list of revenue sources provides updated revenue information. 1) Home Rule Sales Tax ‐ This revenue is derived from the consumption of goods and services. Items that are not subject to this tax include groceries, medicine, and licensed personal property (e.g., automobiles). Currently one of the City’s three largest source of revenue in the General Fund. a. Current tax rate is 1.75%. • Sycamore’s current tax rate is 1.75%. • Comparable cities tax rate is between 1.75% and 2.75%, however 50% of comparable cities do not have a County Sales Tax. b. Residents and non‐residents are subject to this tax. c. Revenue can be volatile and will fluctuate with the economy. Potential impact of a tax rate increase: Positive effect: • An increase of 0.25% could results in an additional $3.0 million of revenue. • A small increase is unlikely to impact purchasing behavior, as DeKalb has retail stores that are unavailable elsewhere in the immediate area. Negative effect: • The City’s finances could become more volatile since this revenue is tied to the overall economic health of the City. • Being the largest source of revenue for the General fund, the City’s overall tax structure would be less diverse which is contrary to an objective of the City’s Financial Policies • The City would have a higher sales tax rate than surrounding communities. • As online sales increase, it is anticipated brick and mortar sales will decline. 128 2) Restaurant, Bar and Packaged Liquor Tax ‐ This tax is imposed upon prepared food items and alcoholic beverages available for immediate consumption, as well as purchase of alcoholic liquor from retailers. a. Current tax rate is 2.00%. • Sycamore’s current tax rate is 2.00%. • Comparable cities Food and Beverage Tax range between 1.00% and 3.00%. b. Residents and non‐residents are subject to this tax. c. This tax could be raised by various amounts in accordance with Council’s objectives. Potential impact of a tax rate increase: Positive effect: • An increase of 0.50% could results in an additional $480,000 of revenue. • Would meet several criteria established in the City’s Financial Policies for consideration of new revenues; these include: i. Would diversify the City’s revenues, because at present this tax makes up only 5.30% of all City revenues. ii. Tax has outgrown the Consumer Price Index (Inflation) by an average of 3.00% since its inception. iii. Tax meets several criteria for fairness; these reasons include: a. Visitors to the community (who use the City’s services) would pay the tax, as well as residents; b. Most people could avoid paying the tax if they desire to do so by not eating out; and c. Tax payments increase in accordance with taxpayers’ income to a greater extent than other taxes. • A small increase is unlikely to affect people’s purchasing behaviors, as a large portion of the restaurants and bars in the area are in DeKalb. Negative effect: • Much of the increased revenues would result from a limited number of consumer preferences (eating and drinking away from home), which some residents consider unfair. • In the past, some restaurant owners have objected to increasing this tax, stating that they were “singled out”, especially if they thought the increased revenues would not directly benefit them. • A small increase is likely to affect people’s purchasing behaviors, resulting in residents traveling to Sycamore. 3) Hotel/Motel Tax ‐ This tax is imposed on hotel and motel room receipts. The hotel/motel tax rate is allocated as follows: 6.00% to the General Operating Fund; 1.00% to the Debt Service Fund. a. Current tax rate is 7.00%. b. Currently, 7 hotels/motels remit tax to the City. c. Mainly non‐residents pay the tax. d. Stable revenue source with slight fluctuations due to the economy 129  e. The State levies a 6.00% Hotel/Motel Tax. Potential impact of a tax rate increase: Positive effect: • An increase of 1.00% could results in an additional $84,000 of revenue. • The tax burden is mainly on non‐residents. Negative effect: • The City would have a higher tax rate than surrounding communities. 4) Electric Utility Tax ‐ Tax imposed upon the privilege of using or consuming electricity. Sycamore currently does not have an electricity utility tax. Breakdown as follows: • For the first 2,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.61 cents per kilowatt‐hour; • For the next 48,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.40 cents per kilowatt‐hour; • For the next 50,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.36 cents per kilowatt‐hour; • for the next 400,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.35 cents per kilowatt‐hour; • For the next 500,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.34 cents per kilowatt‐hour; • For the next 2,000,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.32 cents per kilowatt‐hour; • For the next 2,000,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.315 cents per kilowatt‐hour; (10‐28) • For the next 5,000,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.31 cents per kilowatt‐hour; • For the next 10,000,000 kilowatt‐hours used or consumed in a month; 0.305 cents per kilowatt‐hour; and (10‐28) • For all electricity used or consumed in excess of 20,000,000 kilowatt‐hours in a month; 0.300 cents per kilowatt‐hour Potential impact of a tax rate increase: Positive effect:  Tax can be raised in small incremental amounts to match desired revenue goal. Negative effect:  Utility taxes are among the more regressive of the City’s taxes because they tax items that are less discretionary than many other taxes such as prepared food and beverages services, and some general merchandise 5) Gas Utility Tax ‐ Tax imposed on the privilege of using or consuming natural gas at 4 cents ($0.04) per therm a. Sycamore currently does not have a gas utility tax. b. Other comparable cities tax rate is: Elk Grove Village 1.00%, Wheaton 3.00%, 130  Streamwood 3.25%, Carpentersville 4.50% and Hoffman Estates 5.00%. c. Council could increase these taxes up to 5.00%. d. Tax applies to residents, except for taxes passed on to visitors indirectly. Potential impact of a tax rate increase: Positive effect: • A 0.25% increase could result in an additional $240,000 of revenue, while an increasing the rate to 5.00% could raise an additional $2.1 million. • Tax can be raised in small incremental amounts to match desired revenue goal. Negative effect: • Utility taxes are among the more regressive of the City’s taxes because they tax items that are less discretionary than many other taxes such as prepared food and beverages services, and some general merchandise. 6) Video Gaming Terminal Fee ‐ This is an annual fee imposed on business for each video gaming terminals located in the establishment. a. The City currently has an initial application fee of $500 per video gaming terminal (maximum 5). Annual renewal fee for video gaming license is $250.00 per video gaming terminal. b. Sycamore’s current fee is $100 per terminal. c. Comparable cities average fee ranges from $25 ‐ $1,000 per terminal. d. Business with video gaming terminals are subject to this fee. e. Currently there are 82 video gaming terminals in the City. f. 16 belonging to not‐for‐profit entitles or charitable organizations with renewal fees of $25 per machine, per year Potential impact of a tax rate increase: Positive effect: • Adding this tax at $100 per terminal could raise an estimated $24,400. • Fee is relatively discretionary, so business can avoid them to some extent. • This tax would diversify the City’s revenues. • Tax can be raised in small incremental amounts to match desired revenue goal. Negative effect: • Businesses would have an additional workload to pay the tax. • Could discourage businesses from having video gaming terminals. 7) Local Motor Fuel Tax ‐ Current local tax in 5 ½ cents per gallon with 1 ½ cents dedicated to the Airport. This was increase 2 cents per gallon effective March 1, 2018 for street funding. a. Generates approximately $990,000 per year. b. At this time, bulk fuel sales are not taxed. Potential impact of a rate increase: Positive effect: • Drivers will pay for street maintenance 131  • Each ½ cent per gallon increase will generate $180,000 per year Negative effect: • Revenue does not increase over time. • Tax increase Alternative Funding Policy Conclusions Streets and Fleet Funding The 2017 downgrade of the City’s bond rating will impact the ability to issue bonds for capital improvement prior to 2020. The City could implement the capital improvement program as a pay‐as‐you‐go program in 2019 with an issuance of bonds in 2020 or later. General Fund Stabilization – Property Tax Levy Given projections, each year results in deficits with the fund balance declining dramatically and virtually depleted by 2022. A Corporate Property tax of $1.6 million would bring the fund balance in line with the City’s current financial policy and the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommended financial policy threshold. The increase would need to begin in FY2019 and increased annually by 2%. 132  Attachment B City of DeKalb - 2018 Financial Forecast Summary of Financial Position: FY2017 Actual FY2018 Budget FY2018 Estimate FY2019 Projection FY2020 Projection FY2021 Projection FY2022 Projection FY2023 Projection Beginning Fund Balance 9,229,121 9,631,715 9,073,799 8,999,861 8,053,223 7,607,337 6,599,414 5,022,497 Revenues by Category Property Taxes 5,523,531 6,004,594 6,004,594 6,424,916 7,258,227 7,882,729 8,639,070 9,554,242 Sales & Use Taxes 15,238,719 15,666,105 15,576,289 16,268,106 17,338,540 17,763,555 18,200,001 18,648,228 Gross Receipts Taxes 3,643,995 3,752,614 3,680,239 3,712,208 3,745,122 3,778,984 3,813,801 3,849,578 Intergovernmental 4,805,946 4,962,973 4,993,913 4,715,613 4,768,079 4,821,200 4,874,986 4,929,447 Licenses & Permits 875,518 1,171,811 1,023,873 1,059,761 1,091,981 1,069,325 1,076,796 1,084,398 Service Charges 2,212,674 2,544,824 2,544,824 2,595,720 2,647,635 2,700,588 2,754,599 2,809,691 Fines 608,515 839,178 770,236 783,092 798,754 814,729 831,023 847,644 Other Income 1,218,294 1,350,550 1,261,099 1,266,555 1,272,595 1,279,196 1,284,286 714,212 Transfers In 1,588,852 1,377,205 1,900,199 1,120,829 1,009,468 898,274 787,251 595,937 Total Revenues 35,716,044 37,669,854 37,755,265 37,946,799 39,930,399 41,008,579 42,261,814 43,033,378 Expenditures by Category Personnel 28,106,457 30,176,366 30,153,289 31,487,521 32,970,370 34,610,586 36,432,815 38,467,866 Commodities 891,102 1,106,966 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 Contractual Services 2,329,132 2,019,388 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 Equipment 200,861 86,920 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 Other Services 2,297,664 2,106,502 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 Transfers Out 2,046,150 2,221,822 2,111,822 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 Total Expenditures 35,871,366 37,717,964 37,829,204 38,893,437 40,376,286 42,016,502 43,838,731 45,873,782 Ending Fund Balance 9,073,799 9,583,605 8,999,861 8,053,223 7,607,337 6,599,414 5,022,497 2,182,093 Minimum Amounts Required to Meet Financial Policies Unassiged Fund Balance at 25% of Expenditures Target 9,429,491 9,457,301 9,723,359 10,094,072 10,504,126 10,959,683 11,468,445 Variance to Target 154,114 (457,440) (1,670,136) (2,486,735) (3,904,712) (5,937,186) (9,286,353) 25.4% 23.8% 20.7% 18.8% 15.7% 11.5% 4.8% Unassiged Fund Balance at 30% of Expenditures less Property Tax Revenue Target 9,514,011 9,547,383 9,740,556 9,935,418 10,240,132 10,559,898 10,895,862 Variance to Target 69,594 (547,522) (1,687,333) (2,328,081) (3,640,719) (5,537,401) (8,713,769) 30.2% 28.3% 24.8% 23.0% 19.3% 14.3% 6.0% General Fund Ending Fund Balance as Compared to Policy 12.0 10.0 8.0 Millions 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 FY2017 Actual FY2018 Estimate FY2019 Projection FY2020 Projection FY2021 Projection FY2022 Projection FY2023 Projection Ending Fund Balance Unassigned Fund Balance at 25% of Expenditures Target Unassigned Fund Balance at 30% of Expenditures less Property Tax Revenue Target  Attachment B Detail of 2018 Financial Forecast Revenues FY2017 Actual FY2018 Budget FY2018 Estimate FY2019 Projection FY2020 Projection FY2021 Projection FY2022 Projection FY2023 Projection Property Taxes 5,523,531 6,004,594 6,004,594 6,424,916 7,258,227 7,882,729 8,639,070 9,554,242 PROPERTY TAX - CORPORATE 817,910 824,070 0 0 319,318 319,318 319,318 319,318 PROPERTY TAX - FICA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROPERTY TAX - FIRE PENSION 2,612,994 2,758,908 3,225,807 3,451,613 3,727,743 4,063,239 4,469,563 4,961,215 PROPERTY TAX - IMRF 71,962 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROPERTY TAX - POLICE PENSION 2,020,666 2,421,616 2,778,787 2,973,302 3,211,166 3,500,171 3,850,188 4,273,709 Sales & Use Taxes 15,238,719 15,666,105 15,576,289 16,268,106 17,338,540 17,763,555 18,200,001 18,648,228 HOME RULE SALES TAX 6,508,901 6,707,185 6,643,926 6,743,880 6,878,758 7,016,333 7,156,660 7,299,793 STATUTORY SALES TAX 5,348,970 5,480,472 5,489,472 5,601,709 5,741,752 5,885,295 6,032,428 6,183,238 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX 275,007 290,000 282,000 619,640 1,301,673 1,327,706 1,354,260 1,381,346 LOCAL USE TAX 1,138,904 1,144,780 1,144,780 1,236,362 1,298,181 1,363,090 1,431,244 1,502,806 RESTAURANT & BAR TAX 1,966,938 2,043,668 2,016,111 2,066,514 2,118,177 2,171,131 2,225,410 2,281,045 Fines 608,515 839,178 770,236 783,092 798,754 814,729 831,023 847,644 ABATEMENT FINES 0 5,000 5,000 5,100 5,202 5,306 5,412 5,520 ADMINISTRATIVE TOW FINES 139,540 225,000 192,498 196,348 200,275 204,281 208,366 212,534 CIRCUIT COURT FINES 299,554 325,000 311,000 317,220 323,564 330,036 336,636 343,369 CRIME FREE HOUSING FINES 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUI FINES 29,882 55,000 40,000 40,800 41,616 42,448 43,297 44,163 FALSE FIRE ALARM FINES 4,100 2,500 4,100 4,182 4,266 4,351 4,438 4,527 MAIL-IN FINES 50,150 60,000 60,000 61,200 62,424 63,672 64,946 66,245 OTHER FINES 24,600 28,000 28,000 28,560 29,131 29,714 30,308 30,914 PARKING TICKETS 58,944 136,478 127,438 127,438 129,986 132,586 135,238 137,943 TOW FINES 1,600 2,200 2,200 2,244 2,289 2,335 2,381 2,429 Gross Receipts Taxes 3,643,995 3,752,614 3,680,239 3,712,208 3,745,122 3,778,984 3,813,801 3,849,578 FRANCHISE TAX 499,384 498,000 499,384 506,875 514,478 522,195 530,028 537,979 MUNICIPAL UTILITY TAX 2,472,309 2,517,019 2,517,019 2,554,774 2,593,096 2,631,992 2,671,472 2,711,544 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX 672,303 737,595 663,836 650,559 637,548 624,797 612,301 600,055 Intergovernmental 4,805,946 4,962,973 4,993,913 4,715,613 4,768,079 4,821,200 4,874,986 4,929,447 FEDERAL GRANTS 16,425 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 FEDERAL PASS THROUGH 45,102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FIRE GRANTS 11,654 130,000 130,000 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER SHARED REVENUES 165,358 162,100 168,169 169,010 169,855 170,704 171,558 172,416 PERSONAL PROP REPLACE TAX 173,727 137,188 137,188 139,932 142,730 145,585 148,497 151,467 POLICE GRANTS 8,500 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 STATE INCOME TAX 4,044,119 3,940,685 3,962,700 4,007,170 4,047,242 4,087,714 4,128,592 4,169,877 TOWNSHIP ROAD & BRIDGE TAX 143,356 148,000 143,356 148,621 151,350 154,129 156,960 159,842 VIDEO GAMING TAX 197,706 245,000 245,000 250,880 256,901 263,067 269,380 275,845 Licenses & Permits 875,518 1,171,811 1,023,873 1,059,761 1,091,981 1,069,325 1,076,796 1,084,398 AMUSEMENT LICENSES 4,350 4,600 3,058 3,119 3,182 3,245 3,310 3,376 BUILDING PERMITS 161,178 450,000 250,500 267,021 281,464 265,707 266,428 267,153 ELECTRIC PERMITS 34,582 68,598 53,747 57,292 60,390 57,010 57,164 57,320 FIRE LIFE SAFETY LICENSES 20,950 22,000 22,000 22,440 22,889 23,347 23,814 24,290 HVAC PERMITS 83,618 32,927 64,979 69,264 73,011 68,924 69,111 69,299 LIQUOR LICENSES 242,123 247,200 247,200 252,144 257,187 262,331 267,577 272,929 OTHER LICENSES 46,685 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 OTHER PERMITS 17,475 21,951 27,159 28,951 30,517 28,808 28,886 28,965 PARKING PERMITS 1,770 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 PLUMBING PERMITS 76,927 29,085 59,779 63,722 67,169 63,408 63,580 63,753 RENTAL CRIME FREE REGISTRATION 167,750 195,000 195,000 195,000 195,000 195,000 195,000 195,000 ROOMING HOUSE LICENSES 15,200 17,900 17,900 18,258 18,623 18,996 19,376 19,763 SEWER PERMITS 2,910 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 Service Charges 2,212,674 2,544,824 2,544,824 2,595,720 2,647,635 2,700,588 2,754,599 2,809,691 ADMINSTRATION FEES 137,508 136,400 136,400 139,128 141,911 144,749 147,644 150,597 AMBULANCE SERVICES 1,023,981 1,272,424 1,272,424 1,297,872 1,323,830 1,350,307 1,377,313 1,404,859 FINGER PRINT FEE 2,107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FIRE SERVICES 949,828 1,004,000 1,004,000 1,024,080 1,044,562 1,065,453 1,086,762 1,108,497 FUEL SALES 76,393 105,000 105,000 107,100 109,242 111,427 113,655 115,928 HOTEL INSPECTION FEES 5,100 5,000 5,000 5,100 5,202 5,306 5,412 5,520 POLICE SERVICES 6,832 10,000 10,000 10,200 10,404 10,612 10,824 11,041  Attachment B ZONING FEES 10,925 12,000 12,000 12,240 12,485 12,734 12,989 13,249 Other Income 1,218,294 1,350,550 1,261,099 1,266,555 1,272,595 1,279,196 1,284,286 714,212 ANTI-CRIME ACTIVITIES 8,192 35,000 19,531 19,921 20,320 20,726 21,140 21,563 CRIME LAB 16,660 15,000 16,371 16,699 17,033 17,374 17,721 18,075 DONATIONS 20,000 5,000 5,000 5,100 5,202 5,306 5,412 5,520 INVESTMENT INTEREST 102,079 85,000 120,000 120,600 121,203 121,809 122,418 123,030 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 39,163 50,000 50,000 51,000 52,020 53,060 54,122 55,204 MISCELLANEOUS TAXES-AUTO RENTA 19,150 21,350 21,350 21,777 22,213 22,657 23,110 23,572 POLICE FORFEITURES 32,644 35,000 35,000 35,700 36,414 37,142 37,885 38,643 REFUNDS / REIMBURSEMENTS 358,380 388,200 388,200 395,964 403,883 411,961 420,200 428,604 SALES OF ASSETS 5,100 130,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 TIF PROPERTY TAX SURPLUS 251,286 236,000 252,219 255,153 257,998 260,762 262,525 0 TIF SALES TAX SURPLUS 365,640 350,000 353,428 344,642 336,310 328,399 319,752 0 Transfers In 1,588,852 1,377,205 1,900,199 1,120,829 1,009,468 898,274 787,251 595,937 TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL FUND 209,181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSFER FROM CDBG FUND 25,326 82,298 82,298 84,355 86,464 88,626 90,842 93,113 TRANSFER FROM REFUSE FUND 104,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 TRANSFER FROM REHAB FUND 0 9,482 9,482 9,719 9,962 10,211 10,466 10,728 TRANSFER FROM SSA #14 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 TRANSFER FROM SSA #3 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 TRANSFER FROM SSA #4 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 TRANSFER FROM SSA #6 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 TRANSFER FROM TIF FUND #1 678,576 678,576 678,576 558,954 439,332 319,710 200,087 0 TRANSFER FROM TIF FUND #2 113,198 113,198 113,198 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSFER FROM TRANSPORTATION 10,570 57,251 57,251 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM WATER FUND 316,000 310,400 310,400 321,800 327,709 333,727 339,856 346,096 TRANSFER FROM WORK COMP FUND 130,000 0 249,392 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSFER FROM HEALTH INS FUNDS 0 273,602 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues 35,716,044 37,669,854 37,755,265 37,946,799 39,930,399 41,008,579 42,261,814 43,033,378 Expenditures FY2017 Actual FY2018 Budget FY2018 Estimate FY2019 Projection FY2020 Projection FY2021 Projection FY2022 Projection FY2023 Projection Personnel 28,106,457 30,176,366 30,153,289 31,487,521 32,970,370 34,610,586 36,432,815 38,467,866 REGULAR WAGES 15,102,363 15,492,241 15,553,991 16,098,381 16,661,824 17,244,988 17,848,562 18,473,262 PART-TIME WAGES 687,579 796,981 669,935 693,383 717,651 742,769 768,766 795,673 OVERTIME 1,134,032 1,243,111 1,297,111 1,342,510 1,389,498 1,438,130 1,488,465 1,540,561 LONGEVITY 134,439 143,216 129,716 131,013 132,323 133,647 134,983 136,333 IMRF 693,010 755,547 755,545 770,656 786,069 801,790 817,826 834,183 POLICE/FIRE PENSION 5,451,569 6,450,564 6,450,564 6,902,103 7,454,272 8,125,156 8,937,672 9,920,816 HEALTH INSURANCE 3,707,726 4,031,702 4,031,702 4,256,643 4,512,041 4,782,764 5,069,730 5,373,914 CAR ALLOWANCE 22,037 23,080 23,080 23,366 23,656 23,949 24,246 24,547 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 118,403 115,994 120,179 121,981 123,811 125,668 127,553 129,466 EDUCATION BONUS 4,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 FICA 533,175 598,555 598,691 624,709 646,450 668,950 692,237 716,337 WELLNESS BONUS 5,250 8,000 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 WORKERS COMPENSATION 512,375 512,375 512,375 512,375 512,375 512,375 512,375 512,375 Commodities 891,102 1,106,966 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 1,097,580 ACTIVITIES SUPPLIES 1,186 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 AMBULANCE SUPPLY/EQUIP 24,298 42,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 ANTI-CRIME ACTIVITIES 0 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS 4,090 11,435 8,085 8,085 8,085 8,085 8,085 8,085 BUILDING MECH SYS- MAINTENANCE 16,147 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 BUILDING SUPPLIES 10,016 11,568 11,568 11,568 11,568 11,568 11,568 11,568 COMMODITIES 6,742 6,184 1,184 1,184 1,184 1,184 1,184 1,184 CRIME LAB EXPENDITURES 3,196 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 DUI FINES EXPENDITURES 660 10,634 10,634 10,634 10,634 10,634 10,634 10,634 FIREFIGHTING SUPPLY/EQUIP 41,709 37,450 36,555 36,555 36,555 36,555 36,555 36,555 INSPECTOR SUPPLY/EQUIPMENT 113,668 62,473 52,767 52,767 52,767 52,767 52,767 52,767 INVESTIGATIONS SUPPLY/LIVESCAN 13,165 8,445 8,445 8,445 8,445 8,445 8,445 8,445 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 17,848 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 LAB SUPPLY AND MINOR EQPT 0 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 OFFICE SUPPLY 18,823 24,311 21,311 21,311 21,311 21,311 21,311 21,311 OIL GAS & ANTIFREEZE 231,071 271,449 280,532 280,532 280,532 280,532 280,532 280,532  Attachment B POLICE FORFEITURES EXPENDITURE 25,575 14,545 14,545 14,545 14,545 14,545 14,545 14,545 PRINTED MATERIALS 49,470 54,819 62,301 62,301 62,301 62,301 62,301 62,301 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT 10,562 12,839 15,339 15,339 15,339 15,339 15,339 15,339 SNOW & ICE CONTROL MATERIALS 3,733 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 STORMWATER SYSTEM PARTS 15,681 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 STREET/ALLEY MATERIALS 26,436 30,500 30,500 30,500 30,500 30,500 30,500 30,500 STREETLIGHTS, PARTS 7,793 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES 43,697 33,675 33,675 33,675 33,675 33,675 33,675 33,675 TRAFFIC & STREET SIGNS 20,805 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 TRAFFIC SIGNALS, PARTS & SUPPS 13,520 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & PARTS 140,033 177,728 177,728 177,728 177,728 177,728 177,728 177,728 WEARING APPAREL 31,177 35,561 38,061 38,061 38,061 38,061 38,061 38,061 Contractual Services 2,329,132 2,019,388 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 2,021,666 ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SERVICES 134,463 17,500 40,500 40,500 40,500 40,500 40,500 40,500 BUILDING MECH SYS- MAINTENANCE 28,614 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 BUILDINGS - MAINTENANCE 30,701 27,750 27,750 27,750 27,750 27,750 27,750 27,750 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 693,718 334,586 326,586 326,586 326,586 326,586 326,586 326,586 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 54,275 58,540 58,840 58,840 58,840 58,840 58,840 58,840 EDUCATION TUITION REIMBURSEMNT 25,910 46,100 30,500 30,500 30,500 30,500 30,500 30,500 ELECTRICITY 31,920 59,794 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 EQUIPMENT - MAINTENANCE 45,437 53,642 61,545 61,545 61,545 61,545 61,545 61,545 FINANCIAL & MGMT SERVICES 37,530 36,948 36,948 36,948 36,948 36,948 36,948 36,948 FORESTRY 42,346 57,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 FREIGHT & POSTAGE 24,209 25,437 25,637 25,637 25,637 25,637 25,637 25,637 HUMAN & SOCIAL SERVICES 151,500 144,500 144,500 144,500 144,500 144,500 144,500 144,500 INTERGOVT'L SERVICES 6,302 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 KISHWAUKEE RIVER SYS-MAINTENCE 9,340 12,340 12,340 12,340 12,340 12,340 12,340 12,340 LANDSCAPE&GROUNDS- MAINTENANCE 24,098 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 LEGAL EXPENSES & NOTICES 15,715 19,880 19,880 19,880 19,880 19,880 19,880 19,880 LEGAL SERVICES 185,854 196,070 196,070 196,070 196,070 196,070 196,070 196,070 MARKETING ADS & PUBLIC INFO 19,132 19,025 19,025 19,025 19,025 19,025 19,025 19,025 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 8,089 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 NUISANCE ABATEMENT SERVS 23,646 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT 31,667 36,275 33,775 33,775 33,775 33,775 33,775 33,775 PSYCH & MEDICAL SERVICES 36,648 36,108 38,708 38,708 38,708 38,708 38,708 38,708 RENTAL, EQPT & FACILITIES 250 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 SIDEWALKS - MAINTENANCE 942 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 SNOW & ICE CONTROL 18,020 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 SPECIAL EVENTS 19,957 19,800 23,900 23,900 23,900 23,900 23,900 23,900 STREETS/ALLEYS - MAINTENANCE 5,025 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 TAXES, LICENSES, & FEES 13,113 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 TOWING 4,515 5,780 5,780 5,780 5,780 5,780 5,780 5,780 TRAFFIC SIGNALS - MAINTENANCE 4,413 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 TRAINING, EDUC, & PROF DVLP 137,515 216,808 209,808 209,808 209,808 209,808 209,808 209,808 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 32,338 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 UTILITIES 7,853 14,938 7,960 7,960 7,960 7,960 7,960 7,960 VEHICLES - MAINTENANCE 100,429 128,649 128,649 128,649 128,649 128,649 128,649 128,649 WARNING SIRENS 6,480 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 WEATHER SERVICES 3,120 3,649 3,649 3,649 3,649 3,649 3,649 3,649 Equipment 200,861 86,920 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 83,397 MACHINERY & MAJOR TOOLS 15,133 21,818 18,865 18,865 18,865 18,865 18,865 18,865 OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIP 8,964 7,444 7,444 7,444 7,444 7,444 7,444 7,444 OTHER EQUIPMENT 129,798 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT 28,370 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 TELEPHONE & RADIO EQUIPMENT 12,064 14,458 13,888 13,888 13,888 13,888 13,888 13,888 VEHICLES 6,531 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Services 2,297,664 2,106,502 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 2,361,450 CONTINGENCIES 32,995 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 CONTRACTED SERVICES 468,755 496,002 505,950 505,950 505,950 505,950 505,950 505,950 SURETY BONDS & INSURANCE 64,163 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000  Attachment B TAX SHARING AGREEMENTS 1,731,750 1,488,000 1,733,000 1,733,000 1,733,000 1,733,000 1,733,000 1,733,000 Transfers Out 2,046,150 2,221,822 2,111,822 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 1,841,823 TRSF TO CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND 0 410,000 300,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 TRSF TO CAPITAL PROJECTS 196,108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRSF TO FLEET FUND 81,674 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRSF TO GENERAL FUND DEBT SRVC 1,756,998 1,801,827 1,801,827 1,801,827 1,801,827 1,801,827 1,801,827 1,801,827 TRSF TO TRANSPORTATION FUND 11,370 9,995 9,995 19,996 19,996 19,996 19,996 19,996 Total Expenditures 35,871,366 37,717,964 37,829,204 38,893,437 40,376,286 42,016,502 43,838,731 45,873,782 RETURN TO AGENDA