Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CITY COUNCIL 2016/11/21 Agenda
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, November 21, 2016 at 6:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers Honorable Mayor, Donald Schoenheider Catherine Waldeck, Alderman First Ward Stanford Tack, Alderman Third Ward Prudence R. Beidler, Alderman First Ward Jack Reisenberg, Alderman Third Ward George Pandaleon, Alderman Second Ward Michael Adelman, Alderman Fourth Ward Timothy Newman, Alderman Second Ward Michelle Moreno, Alderman Fourth Ward CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:30 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS 1. COMMENTS BY MAYOR A. Railroad Risk Analysis, Safety, and Preparedness -Acting Fire Chief, Pete Siebert 2. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER 3. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS FINANCE COMMITTEE A. Introduction of Gorton Center Executive Director, Amy Wagliardo Amy Wagliardo was hired this last April as Gorton’s Executive Director after Brenda Dick’s retirement. She lives in Lake Bluff with her husband and 2 children and was most recently the deputy director of the Midwest Young Artists Conservatory. Amy has almost 20 years of experience in cultural and arts organization management, programming, fundraising, finance, strategic planning and facility management. B. Gorton Community Center Budget Presentation PRESENTED BY: Finance Committee Chairman George Pandaleon, James Morris, Finance Chair and Amy Wagliardo, Executive Director – Gorton Community Center STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb (847-810-3612) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 10.C.3. of the Restated Agreement Relating to the Gorton Property executed in July 2013, the Finance and Operations Sub- Committee and the Gorton Executive Director shall submit to the City for review and 1 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda approval the Center’s annual budget and plans for the use of and programming at the property. Following review, the City shall submit a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with modifications or rejection of the Annual Budget and Plan to the full City Council. Upon receipt of the recommendation, the City Council has the right to approve, approve subject to modification, or reject the Annual Budget and Plan. A copy of the budget is provided beginning on page 16. Section 10.D.1 of the Agreement provides that on even-numbered anniversary years of the agreement and by mutual agreement of the parties, the Gorton Maintenance Obligation amount to be included in the annual budget may be modified from the $25,000 per year set forth in the agreement. Representatives of Gorton have requested that a reduction for 2017 be approved to $15,000 based on historical experience and the fact that Gorton has accumulated a maintenance reserve pursuant to the agreement of $18,006 as of December 30, 2015. It is recommended that this request be granted and re-evaluated again in 2018. COUNCIL ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval, approval with modifications, or rejection of the Gorton Community Center Annual Budget and Plan. If rejected, the Center would be authorized to operate and occupy the property in accordance with the Annual Budget and Plan last approved by the City Council subject to rate adjustments not exceeding the change in the Consumer Price Index. C. Elawa Farm Budget Presentation PRESENTED BY: Finance Committee Chairman George Pandaleon Holly Brown (Chair – Elawa Farm Commission) and Dianne Fitzsimons (President – Elawa Farm Foundation) STAFF CONTACT: Michael Strong (847-810-3680) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 10.C. of the Elawa Farm Operating Agreement executed in March 2014, the Elawa Farm Foundation shall submit its Annual Budget and Plan to the Elawa Farm Commission. The Commission shall then submit to the City Council a recommendation to approve, approve with modifications, or reject the Annual Budget and Plan. Upon receipt of the Commission’s recommendation, the City Council has the right to approve, approve subject to modification, or reject the Annual Budget and Plan. A copy of the budget is provided beginning on page 22. COUNCIL ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval, approval with modifications, or rejection of the Elawa Farm Annual Budget and Plan. If rejected, the Elawa Farm Foundation would be authorized to operate and occupy the property in accordance with the Annual Budget and Plan last approved by the City Council subject to rate adjustments not exceeding the change in the Consumer Price Index. D. Consideration of an Ordinance Establishing the 2016 Tax Levy (First Reading) PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) 2 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approving the first reading of an Ordinance establishing the 2016 tax levy. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Finance Committee 10/17/16 Discussion of various options for 2016 levy City Council 11/7/16 Determination of an estimated 2016 levy based on 10/17/16 Finance Committee direction. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The annual tax levy must be filed with the County Clerk by the last Tuesday in December. The City has a significant reliance on property tax revenues, which represents more than 50% of the General Fund revenue. Spreadsheets reviewing the proposed tax levy for 2016 are attached (page 74) for your consideration. These include: 1) the tax levy limitations under the tax cap; 2) the tax levy distributed by fund without new growth and allowances distributed; 3) the tax levy by fund with new growth and allowances distributed; and 4) an explanation of the tax increase to an average homeowner. The tax levy to be approved includes the needs of all City departments, as well as for pensions and debt service requirements. A summary of the proposed levies is as follows: School District #67 levy amounts are not yet available, but will be incorporated into the Tax Levy Ordinance presented for final approval on December 5. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed tax levy for 2016 reflects a 1.45% increase over the 2015 tax levy extensions for the City and Library operating funds and City pension and debt service funds. This increase is comprised of the .70% property tax cap increase on those levy lines subject to the tax cap; debt service bond levies as previously approved by City Council bond Ordinances, subject to abatement for debt paid by alternate revenue sources; increases attributable to new construction; and transfer of an $822,000 debt service levy to Capital Improvements due to the recently approved redemption of Proposed FUND 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE City General 13,913,616$ 13,656,871$ 256,745$ 1.88% Pension Funds 4,775,015 4,763,071 11,944 0.25% Fire Pension PA 93-0689 64,909 56,914 7,995 14.05% Recreation 1,374,740 1,365,183 9,557 0.70% Parks 3,059,904 3,038,634 21,270 0.70% Recreation & Parks/Specific Purpose 125,000 125,000 0 0.00% Special Recreation 440,040 415,059 24,981 6.02% Capital Improvements 822,000 635,000 187,000 29.45% Library 3,570,785 3,526,480 44,305 1.26% Library sites 394,724 391,980 2,744 0.70% Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910) -8.94% TOTAL TAX LEVY - CITY 29,956,380$ 29,528,749$ 427,631$ 1.45% 3 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda the 2008 bonds due in December 2017 and later. The average increase to existing residents ($800,000 home) is projected to be $30 or .89%. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading of an Ordinance Establishing the 2016 Tax Levy (page 64). E. Approval of Ordinances Abating 2016 Tax Levies for Various G.O. Alternate Revenue Bond Issues (First Reading) PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approving the first reading of ordinances abating 2016 tax levies. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinances provide for the abatement of 2016 taxes levied for the various outstanding general obligation ALTERNATE REVENUE bond issues. The tax levies for all bond issues are established and recorded with the County Clerk at the time the bonds are issued. Therefore, in order to reduce the bond tax levies, an abatement ordinance must be approved and filed with the County Clerk before the last Tuesday in December. The abatement of these general obligation ALTERNATE REVENUE bonds is possible due to the fact these bond funds have an adequate revenue source from water sales, golf fees, sales tax or payments from the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, the general obligation tax levy can be abated as was planned at the time the bonds were issued. The proposed Ordinances (beginning on page 78) are as follows: • An Ordinance Abating a Portion of the Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating a Portion of the Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating the Total Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating the Total Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bond Issue • An Ordinance Abating a Portion of the Tax being Levied in 2016 for the Annual Payment of the Principal and Interest on the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 Bond Issue BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: A summary of the proposed tax levy abatements is provided below: 4 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading approval of the Ordinances abating tax levies for various general obligation bond issues. F. Consideration of an Ordinance approving a Fee Schedule and Ordinances adopting new fees related to Special Events and a Public Safety Pension Fee (First Reading) PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approving the first reading of the proposed Ordinances. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: As part of the budget process, all departments are asked to review their user fees. A comprehensive fee schedule is provided as Exhibit A to the Ordinance approving a fee schedule, which clearly identifies the proposed fee increases highlighted in yellow and the proposed new fees highlighted in orange. Fees highlighted in green are not reflective of changes in existing fees; rather, they are clarifications due to a review of City Code and current practices. Departments have provided supplemental memos justifying their proposed fee adjustments and new fees, which are included in the packet beginning on page 113. New fees require a separate Ordinance to be submitted by the department proposing the new fee and accompany the Ordinance approving the fee schedule. The following Ordinances are submitted for City Council consideration at this time: • Ordinance approving a fee schedule (page 83) • Ordinance adopting new fees related to late fees for special event permit applications (page 104) 2016 Debt Service Levy and Abatements Levy per County TIF Golf Water .5 NHRST Int Rebate Net Levy 2008 822,000.00 822,000.00 2009 278,245.00 278,245.00 2010A 0.00 0.00 2010B 172,500.00 (72,307.00) 100,193.00 2010C 453,973.76 (79,389.80) 374,583.96 2011A 137,787.50 0.00 (137,787.50) 0.00 0.00 2011B 2,703,500.00 (96,967.50) (2,074,602.50) (531,930.00)0.00 2013 435,762.50 435,762.50 2015 468,425.00 (241,562.50)226,862.50 5,472,193.76 0.00 (96,967.50) (2,212,390.00) (531,930.00) (151,696.80) 2,237,646.96 1% L/C 5,526,915.70 Abatement due to 2008 Bond Issue Redemption:(822,000.00) 1,415,646.96 5 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda • Ordinance adopting new fees related to escrow deposit for special event permit applications (page 107) • Ordinance adopting new fees related to public safety pension obligations (page 110) The fee revisions and proposed new fees were considered at the November 14, 2016 Finance Committee meeting. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue for the new and increased fees is estimated to be $203,055 in the General Fund, $293,620 in the General Fund (transferred to public safety pension funds), $20,193 in the Parks and Recreation Fund, $210,080 in the Water Utility Fund and $100 in the Senior Resources Fund. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading to the proposed ordinances. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE A. Consideration of an Ordinance Proposing the Establishment of a Special Service Area for the Installation of a Sanitary Sewer System in the Winwood Drive neighborhood (SSA #41). (First Reading and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) PRESENTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WALDECK CONTACT: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager (810-3680) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests granting first reading and final approval, if desired by City Council, for the Ordinance beginning on page 146, proposing a special service area No. 41 for the Winwood Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 3/4/15 Discussion of Non-Sanitary Sewer Areas Public Works Committee 3/7/16 Discussion of Winwood Drive Funding Mechanisms Public Works Committee 5/16/16 Discussion of Winwood Drive Overflow Issue Public Works Committee 6/20/16 Design Proposal Reviewed & Approved City Council 8/1/16 Design Proposal Reviewed & Approved Public Works Committee 11/7/16 Discussion of Potential Financing Strategies for Project; Reviewed & Approved pursuit of single SSA Area BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Over the past several years, City Staff has received input from residents in the Regency Lane and Winwood Drive neighborhoods who have suggested that the installation of sanitary sewers would benefit the neighborhood and replace outdated septic systems. Since this type of infrastructure improvement project can be expensive, the City has traditionally utilized a Special Service Area (“SSA”), 6 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda pursuant to the Special Service Area Tax Law (“SSA Law”), as a funding mechanism to pay for this type of improvement. With the recently completed installation of a sanitary sewer in the Regency Lane area this past spring, Winwood Drive is now the last remaining subdivision in Lake Forest that is not connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system. The Winwood Drive area has twenty-eight (28) properties that have been on a septic system since the subdivision was built in 1950. The Committee has discussed the topic of sewer installation in the remaining areas and established a policy in March 2015, to convert them to City-owned and maintained sanitary sewers. City staff has met with the neighbors on two occasions to discuss the project. During the recent meeting held on October 13, 2016, staff provided an overview of the final project design, discussed construction related concerns, and presented preliminary project costs. Alternative options under the SSA funding mechanism were presented to the twelve (12) property owners who attended that meeting. As designed, the Winwood Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project includes a new 8” sanitary sewer system (including design and construction costs); administrative and legal expenses; and estimated financing costs to fund the project. Preliminary estimates for these items have been included in the budget/fiscal impact section. Under SSA Law, the City is required to consider a proposing ordinance which states the purpose of the special service area, identifies the legal boundaries of the properties within the SSA (“SSA Territory”), outlines a maximum tax rate and number of years that the tax will be levied, and establishes the time and place of a public hearing to consider the SSA. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The preliminary estimate for the residents’ share of the project, for the installation of a new public sanitary sewer system, is $1,378,327. The following is a breakdown of preliminary costs for this project. Cost Item Est. Fees Engineering and Construction Costs $1,236,070 Construction Contingency $110,257 Administration and Legal Expenses $12,000 Project Financing Expenses $20,000 Total Project Estimate $1,378,327 This is a conservative estimate based on the information regarding the location of the sewer and scope of the improvement available at the present time. As proposed, a special tax pursuant to a special tax roll, which includes the project costs with financing, will divide taxes equally among developable lots within the SSA territory. Based on the estimates above, the total maximum amount of taxes to be levied each year of the SSA would be $102,290, for an annual assessment of $3,654 per year per property within the area. It should be noted that the residents’ share of the project and their annual tax levy will be calculated to reflect the actual costs incurred for the project. Additionally, the levy amounts in the Ordinance may reflect additional revenue capacity to ensure there is adequate coverage, in the event of unfavorable bidding and/or costs related to the construction of the project. 7 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda Costs associated with the North Shore Water Reclamation District connection and annexation fees; City of Lake Forest connection and permit fees; installation and connection of a lateral service line to each residence; interior plumbing work; and decommissioning of septic tanks shall be the responsibility of each property owner in the SSA area, and have not been included in the SSA tax. COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading and final approval for the Ordinance proposing the Establishment of a Special Service Area for the Installation of a Sanitary Sewer System in the Winwood Drive Neighborhood (SSA #41) 4. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5. ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION 1. Approval of the November 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes A copy of the minutes can be found on page 159. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Minutes 2. Approval of One Year Contract with Credentials Inc. STAFF CONTACT: Diane Hall, Assistant Finance Director (847-810-3614) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests City Council award a one year contract for the processing of the City’s vehicle licenses, pet licenses and parking permits to Credentials Inc. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The current contract with Credentials Inc. was set to expire for the online processing of the City’s vehicle, pet and parking licenses/permits. City staff completed a Request for Proposals (RFP) process and received two responses. Both respondents met specifications of the City’s RFP, with annual program costs estimated as follows: Credentials Inc. Based on estimated FY16 Counts - $94,400 Third Millennium Based on estimated FY16 Counts – $55,800 Third Millennium proposed a significant change in the processing of vehicle stickers by the City, but offered more competitive pricing. The vendor was unable to meet the City’s required timeline and elected to withdraw from consideration. Due to the potential savings that the vendor was offering, staff recommends proceeding with a one year agreement with Credentials to allow staff an opportunity to explore more fully the changes proposed by Third Millennium. The City has used Credentials Inc. since 2007 and has had a positive working relationship and been satisfied with the vendor’s performance. The software has been designed 8 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda specifically for Lake Forest. Over the course of the year, staff will work with Credentials Inc. to identify cost savings on the program and possible ways to generate additional revenue through increased compliance and enforcement. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Credentials Inc. has maintained the current pricing for the vehicle and pet licenses and reduced the parking permits $.35 as compared to the current contract. Below is an estimated summary of Contract budget: FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Finance Operating $104,540 $94,400 Y COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, award a one year contract to Credentials Inc. 3. Request for the City Council to approve additional funding in the amount of $1,264 to CDS Office Technologies to complete the PSB camera project. STAFF CONTACT: Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police (847-810-3803). PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: On September 6, 2016, City Council approved the Staff’s request to purchase the hardware and software from three vendors (two winning bid firms and one state-bid firm) for the replacement of the department’s two legacy security video systems with a single new system. In October and November, as one of the three firms, CDS Office Technologies, began installation, it was discovered that two of the legacy security cameras, as well as related hardware and wiring, needed replacement. This has increased the cost of the overall project by $1,264. Additional funding via our DUI Seizure Fund is available to cover this increase and staff is requesting to use this additional funding to complete our project. Project Component Winning Bid Vendor Original Amount New Amount Camera hardware and software CDS (state bid vendor) $20,710 $21,974 FY2017 Funding Source Account Number Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Capital Fund 311.7672.421.7549 $20,710 Y DUI Seizure Fund 247.0001.499.6610 $1,264 Y Total $21,974 COUNCIL ACTION: Approve additional funding in the amount of $1,264 to CDS Office Technologies from the police department’s DUI Seizure Fund to complete the PSB camera project. 9 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda 4. Approval of Health Insurance Contract Renewals STAFF CONTACT: DeSha Kalmar, Director of Human Resources (847-810-3530) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: PCA Committee and Staff are recommending retaining current health plan providers. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City provides a self-funded medical and dental plan. The cost of the City plan each year is determined by actual claims, fixed costs for administration, reinsurance, and costs for life insurance. A memo containing more details can be found on page 165 of your packet. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Recommendations based on renewal quotes: • Retain Serve You Rx Pharmacy Benefit Administration for Prescription Drug Card. Summary Pricing Serve You Current Proposed Total Annual Costs $2,975 $2,975 • Retain Professional Benefit Administrators (PBA) for administration and billing services Summary Pricing PBA Current Proposed Total Cost (Fees Only) $138,372 $141,284 Total Increase including HRA Costs $142,904 • Retain preferred provider network administration with CIGNA through PBA Summary Pricing CIGNA Current Proposed Total Annual Costs $48,948 $49,817 • Retain Voya for stop loss coverage and retain Optum Health for Transplant coverage. Summary Pricing Voya Current Renewal Specific Premium $680,620 $598,734 Aggregate Premium $12,756 $13,839 Transplant Premium (Optum) $34,125 $30,830 Total $727,501 $643,403 • Retain CIGNA for life insurance. Current Renewal Basic Life / $1,000 $0.125 $0.138 AD&D/$1,000 $0.035 $0.035 The PCA Committee previously considered these recommendations. COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute contracts retaining Professional Benefit Administrators (PBA) for administration and billing services, retain 10 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda preferred provider network administration with CIGNA through PBA, retain Voya for stop loss coverage, renew with Optum Health for transplant coverage, a component of stop loss coverage, and retain CIGNA for life insurance. 5. Approval of an Agreement to Provide Design Drawings and Specifications for the Repair of Ferry Hall Bridge STAFF CONTACT: Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works (810-3540) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of an agreement with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE hereafter) to provide a design and specifications for the for the Ferry Hall Bridge located on Mayflower Road. The design will include structural drawings and special provisions for the replacement of the south approach span. If notice to proceed is given in late November, WJE anticipates completing the Phase II design work by mid-February 2017. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Public Works Committee 6/20/2016 South Approach Assessment Reviewed City Council 7/18/2016 Authorization to Provide a Bridge Condition Report Finance & Public Works Committee 11/14/2016 Executive Summary of Bridge Condition Report Provided BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Ferry Hall Bridge, located on Mayflower Road south of Spring Lane, was constructed in the 1930’s. The bridge was re-constructed in 1970 when Mayflower Road was re-aligned. Work performed in the mid-1990’s involved the replacement of the deck and barrier rail on the primary bridge structure. At the time, it was determined to be more cost effective to have the south approach span deck rehabilitated versus being replaced. This bridge is inspected every two years. During the bridge’s inspection in May, 2016, Bleck Engineering noted an area approximately 150 square feet on the underside of the south approach span slab that was visibly delaminated from the deck above. In July, 2016, City Council approved WJE to further analyze the entire bridge and provide their findings via a Bridge Condition Report; an Executive Summary of the report was provided to the Finance Committee at their November 14, 2016 capital budget meeting. WJE’s Bridge Condition Report determined that the south approach span of the Ferry Hall Bridge needs to be replaced. Their investigation found that the span has severe corrosion-related deterioration due to the age of the concrete (1970 era), chloride exposure, and freeze-thaw damage. In addition, 20%-50% of the primary reinforcing steel has been lost due to corrosion. With such conditions, IDOT classifies this superstructure rating as “serious”. Therefore the south approach span will remained closed until the repairs are completed in early fall, 2017. 11 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the repair of the bridge was discussed at the November 14, 2016 capital budget meeting. The non-budgeted design will be funded by advancing amounts to be budgeted in the FY2018 annual budget. If approved this evening, WJE anticipates the design being completed in late February, 2017. Beginning on page 169 of this agenda packet is WJE’s executive summary of the bridge condition report and their design proposal. Per section 9.0-K of the City’s purchasing directive, staff is requesting waiving the formal request for a proposal and evaluation process. Staff has worked with WJE multiple times regarding bridge issues and finds them to be very knowledgeable with bridge structures and similar in their fee structure to other engineering firms. Below is a summary of analysis budget: FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Capital Improvements Fund (Advance of FY18 Budget Allocation) $0 $64,630 N If necessary, a FY2017 supplemental appropriation will be submitted for City Council approval at the end of the year. COUNCIL ACTION: Acknowledge the exception noted in Section 9.0 K of the City’s Purchasing Directive and approve an agreement with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. to perform a Phase II Design for the Ferry Hall Bridge in the amount of $64,630. 6. Approval of an Agreement to Provide a Forest Park Bluff Restoration Feasibility Study for the Area Near Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road STAFF CONTACT: Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works (810-3540) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting City Council approval of an agreement with an engineering firm specializing in geotechnical analysis (AECOM hereafter), to provide a bluff restoration feasibility study for the bluff adjacent to Forest Park from Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road. The report will be completed by early February, 2017. Data received will be incorporated into the overall recommendations provided to the Finance Committee at their March 13, 2017 budget meeting. PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS: Reviewed Date Comments Finance Committee 11/14/2016 Reviewed the Remaining Bluff Area to be Analyzed 12 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda City Council 7/18/2016 Approval of an Agreement to Analyze the Bluff Adjacent to South Beach Access Road Public Works Committee 6/20/2016 Reviewed South Beach Access Road Bluff Movement BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In mid-May, 2016 staff reported that the bluff on the east side of the south beach access road had begun to move and separate from the curb and roadway. In July, 2016, City Council approved an agreement with AECOM to further analyze the area from the lower end of the South Beach Access Road, north to Forest Park’s drive entrance (approximately at Spring Lane). AECOM completed all topographical and cross sectional surveys of the area and provided the City with its recommendation and cost estimates to repair specific points along the bluff. The request this evening is to provide similar information for the remaining portion of the bluff that was not evaluated (Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road). By having this analysis completed, the recently established workgroup will have the necessary data needed to provide a comprehensive recommendation for any bluff repairs or restoration to the Finance Committee in mid-March, 2017. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: The non-budgeted feasibility study will be funded by advancing amounts to be budgeted in the FY2018 annual budget. Per section 9.0-K of the City’s purchasing directive, staff is requesting waiving the formal request for proposals and evaluation process. Over the past ten years, staff has worked with AECOM on various bluff and ravine issues. AECOM is very knowledgeable in the field of geotechnical analysis and has developed good baseline data for the area evaluated this past summer. AECOM’s proposal can be found on pages 174 of this agenda. Below is a summary of analysis budget: FY2017 Funding Source Amount Budgeted Amount Requested Budgeted? Y/N Capital Improvements Fund (Advance of FY18 Budget Allocation) $0 $33,400 N If necessary, a FY2017 supplemental appropriation will be submitted for City Council approval at the end of the year. COUNCIL ACTION: Acknowledge the exception noted in Section 9.0-K of the City’s Purchasing Directive and approve an agreement with AECOM to perform a Forest Park Bluff Restoration Feasibility Study for the area near Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road in the amount of $33,400. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Six (6) Omnibus items as presented 6. ORDINANCES 7. ORDINANCES AFFECTING CODE AMENDMENTS 13 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. Presentation of the Findings of the 2016 Community-Wide Survey by National Research Center, Inc. PRESENTED BY: Susan Banks, Communications Manager (847.810.3672) and Morgan Adams from the National Research Center BACKGROUND: On June 20, 2016, the City approved a contract to engage National Research Center (NRC) to conduct the project at a cost of $31,460 ($35,000 had been budgeted). Surveys were mailed to all households and P.O. boxes in Lake Forest on September 9, 2016 and the link was posted online. Surveys that were completed in hard copy were returned to NRC’s distribution center in New Jersey to ensure privacy and complete anonymity. Residents had until October 17 to complete the survey. The data we have received will be used to help develop the City’s marketing campaign and to outline priorities to be considered at the City Council’s Strategic Planning Sessions to be held this winter. We are pleased to report that the survey resulted in a 30% response rate, compared to 20% when the City last conducted a community-wide survey in 2011. Staff has received a draft executive summary and report from NRC, found on pages 177. COUNCIL ACTION: Review the findings of the survey and direct staff to publicize the findings and take action as needed. 2. Consideration of a Resolution Ratifying and Authorizing a Winter Market pilot event within the West Train Station Depot Building at 911 Telegraph Road (Approval by Motion) PRESENTED BY MIKE STRONG, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER (810-3680) This past fall the City received a request from Melissa Norton and Adam Paronto to hold an indoor Farmers’ Market (the “Market”) in the public waiting room of the City-owned Telegraph Road Train Station located at 911 Telegraph Road. The purpose of the venture is to offer an indoor winter market in Lake Forest that features food vendors generally from the Lake County area who offer products such as pastured meat and eggs, local honey, produce, and other locally-grown or produced products. Parking for the vendors and customers is proposed in the commuter lot at the station. On November 6, 2016, City staff authorized a pilot Market to test the concept in the space and in recognition of the fact that Ms. Norton and Mr. Paronto had already publicized the event. The attached Resolution, if approved by the City Council, will ratify the prior approval of the use of the train station for November 6th Market. In addition, the Resolution approves a second Market day as part of the pilot to allow for further due diligence and a better understanding of the Market, any potential impacts on commuter 14 Monday, November 21, 2016 City Council Agenda use of the station, operational costs that may be incurred by the City as a result of the Market and any health or safety issues. The second Market, if approved by the Council, would occur on December 4, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. With the information from the two pilot Markets, an ordinance to authorize the Market going forward as a Temporary Special Use will be drafted for Council consideration on December 5, 2016. Conditions of use will be incorporated into the ordinance based the experience gained during the pilot period. COUNCIL ACTION: By motion, approve a Resolution (page 267) ratifying and authorizing a winter market pilot event within the west train station depot building at 911 Telegraph Road. 9. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION 10. ADJOURNMENT Office of the City Manager November 16, 2016 The City of Lake Forest is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities, are required to contact City Manager Robert R. Kiely, Jr., at (847) 234-2600 promptly to allow the City to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. 15 Gorton Community Center 2017 Budget Draft Summary $ Variance % Variance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bgt vs 2017 Bgt vs Actual Actual Reforecast Reforecasted Budgeted 2016 Refrcst 2016 Refrcst Operations, net (76,791) (117,820) (180,422) (264,958) (216,234) 48,724 -18.39% Programs & Events, net 68,532 75,016 106,865 102,397 116,860 14,463 14.12% Drop-In Center, net (3,190) (19,955) (5,377) (693) 17 710 -102.43% Unrestricted Activity 1,795,943 1,780,978 761,360 192,200 216,660 24,460 12.73% Income from Operations 1,784,493 1,718,219 682,426 28,946 117,303 88,358 305.25% Depreciation Expense (2,525) (6,037) (133,102) (257,442) (261,860) (4,418) 1.72% Temp Restricted Activity 217,671 1,029,521 490,604 18,779 - (18,779) -100.00% Perm Restricted Activity 1,223,414 646,493 46,738 232,561 (90,158) (322,719) -123.58% Net Income/Loss 3,223,053 3,388,196 1,086,666 22,843 (234,715) (257,557) -1127.52% 16 Gorton Community Center 2017 Budget $ Variance % Variance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bgt vs 2017 Bgt vs Actual Actual Actual Reforecasted Budget 2016 Refrcst 2016 Refrcst Notes Room Rentals & Leases 4001 · Annual Leases 162,302 166,959 161,223 164,248 163,232 (1,016) -0.62%See Annual Leases subschedule 4002 · Daily and Contract Rent, Net 68,605 70,945 85,350 88,000 100,000 12,000 13.64% 4003 · Drop In Center Rent 49,308 49,100 47,100 48,515 49,970 1,455 3.00%3% increase over 2016 4004 - Theatre Rent 28,318 28,441 58,429 75,000 80,000 5,000 6.67% 4004 - Technical Fees - - 11,352 20,000 24,000 4,000 20.00% 308,533 315,445 363,454 395,763 417,202 21,439 5.42% Administration Expense 5001 · Payroll 5001.01 · Administration 156,426 163,068 258,671 325,350 370,000 44,650 13.72%See subschedule 5001.02 · Porter 34,439 38,851 40,329 53,500 55,105 1,605 3.00%3% increase over 2016 5001.03 · Taxes 14,601 15,447 22,139 28,500 32,521 4,021 14.11%7.65% of payroll 5001.04 · Payroll Fees 1,737 2,071 2,553 3,125 3,220 95 3.04%3% increase over 2016 Total 5001 · Payroll 207,204 219,437 323,692 410,475 460,846 50,371 12.27% 5002 · Porter/Cleaning Services 64,382 62,563 64,128 65,616 67,000 1,384 2.11%2% increase in cleaning fees, .33/hr increase in porter fees 5003 · Copier 2,401 3,706 4,279 3,900 3,900 - 0.00%$325/mo includes lease and avg copy charge 5004 · Postage 1,121 4 509 1,200 1,200 - 0.00%Same as 2016 5005 · Internet 1,270 1,477 2,016 2,880 2,880 - 0.00%Comcast $240/mo 5006 - Marketing 4,729 6,683 332 2,000 25,000 23,000 1150.00%Quarterly mailers and misc ads 5007 · Printing 35 1,783 400 600 600 - 0.00%Misc stationery needs 5008 · Insurance 5008.02 · Liability Insurance 5,663 7,796 8,194 13,500 14,310 810 6.00%6% over 2016 5008.03 · Workers Compensation Insurance 3,290 4,573 5,594 6,100 6,466 366 6.00%6% over 2016 5008.05 · Liquor Liability Insurance 600 800 700 700 700 - 0.00%Same as 2016 5008.04 · Directors & Officers Insurance 1,697 1,645 1,690 1,690 1,790 100 5.92%6% over 2016 Total 5008 · Insurance 11,250 14,814 16,178 21,990 23,266 1,276 5.80% 5009 · Website Maintenance 6,420 6,488 8,321 9,500 7,600 (1,900) -20.00%SALSA $975/qtr, Trilogy $225/mo, $1000 for addtl support 5010 · Accounting 6,000 7,500 7,500 10,000 10,000 - 0.00%Audit fee per proposal 5011 · Office Supplies 1,673 3,096 1,565 5,000 5,000 - 0.00%Same as 2016 5012 · Utilities 5012.01 · Gas 15,379 22,094 15,247 10,625 10,625 - 0.00%Same cost, perhaps decrease over 2016 per Utility Co-op 5012.02 · Electric 30,569 30,722 35,920 37,150 39,008 1,858 5.00%5% increase per Utility Co-op 5012.03 · Water/Sewer 1,547 1,754 1,950 1,920 2,000 80 4.17%$500/quarter 5012.04 · Telephone 3,776 4,131 4,275 4,200 4,200 - 0.00%Under contract with TDS Total 5012 · Utilities 51,271 58,701 57,392 53,895 55,833 1,938 3.59% 5013 · Inspections 1,831 - - - - Accounted for in #5014.09 GCC/Agreement for 2014 and beyond 5014 · Building Maintenance - 5014.02 · Pest Control 540 540 540 540 540 - 0.00%Quarterly service 5014.03 · Cleaning Supplies 6,606 5,655 7,106 6,400 7,200 800 12.50%$1800/qtr 5014.04 · HVAC Maintenance 3,240 - - - - - 0.00%Accounted for in #5014.09 GCC/Agreement for 2014 and beyond 5014.05 · Elevator Maintenance 2,795 - - - - - 0.00%Accounted for in #5014.09 GCC/Agreement for 2014 and beyond 5014.06 · Ongoing Maintenance 396 - - - - - 0.00%Accounted for in #5014.09 GCC/Agreement for 2014 and beyond 5014.10 - Theatre Maintenance - - 48 3,000 6,000 3,000 100.00%Service Agreement for Projection System, rigging inspection 5014.08 · Miscellaneous 4,271 4,140 11,202 15,000 15,000 - 0.00%Misc Maintenance Items 5014.09 · GCC/City Agreement - 25,000 25,000 25,000 15,000 (10,000) -40.00%Per GCC/City Agreement Total 5014 · Building Maintenance 17,848 35,334 43,896 49,940 43,740 (6,200) -12.41% 5015 · Bank/Credit Chg and Late Fees 8,276 9,346 11,633 12,000 12,000 - 0.00%Same as 2016 5017 · Miscellaneous - 5017.01 · Dues and Subscriptions 145 42 58 50 50 - 0.00% 5017.02 - Vending Machine 245 35 216 - - - 0.00%Net from Vending Machine 5017.03 - License Fees 15 15 15 15 15 - 0.00%Not-for-profit annual fee 5017.04 - Piano - - (50) 180 180 - 0.00%2 Tunings per year Page 1 of 5 17 Gorton Community Center 2017 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bgt vs 2017 Bgt vs Actual Actual Actual Reforecasted Budget 2016 Refrcst 2016 Refrcst Notes 5017.06 · Miscellaneous 150 (4) - - - - 0.00% 5017.08 - Staff Development 233 721 233 1,500 1,000 (500) -33.33%Staff training, staff appreciation Total 5017 · Miscellaneous 788 809 472 1,745 1,245 (500) -28.65% 5019 · Computer Equip/Maint/Software 3,344 3,589 5,996 15,000 10,000 (5,000) -33.33%Integration of new CRM software & training 5020 - Non-Capital Items 758 2,855 2,778 - - - 0.00% 5055 - Rent Concession - - - - - - 0.00% 4301 · Administrative Fees (4,800) (4,800) (4,920) (4,920) (4,920) - 0.00%DIC Agreement, $410/month for copies, accountant, cr card fees 4302 · Interest (476) (122) (91) (100) (100) - 0.00%Operating Acct 4304 · Miscellaneous - (2,200) - - - 0.00% 4306 - Distributions - Endowment Fund - (91,653) (91,653) 100.00%See subschedule for calculation Total Operations Expense 385,325 433,264 543,876 660,721 633,436 (27,285) -4.13% (76,791) (117,820) (180,422) (264,958) (216,234) 48,724 -18.39% Programs & Events - Income Programs 4102 · PASTA 79,467 87,835 107,461 105,000 110,000 5,000 4.76%3 Plays in Spring, 2 in Summer, 4 In Fall; Enrollment is maxed out 4103 · Yoga 10,740 9,235 9,381 2,000 2,500 500 25.00%Tues/Thurs only, smaller group, new instructor 4104 · Dog Obedience 5,915 5,038 3,950 - - - 0.00%No classes for 2017 4107 · Bridge 3,236 2,015 1,645 2,810 2,600 (210) -7.47%Summer program 4108 · Chess - - 740 - - - 0.00%No classes for 2017 4109 · Cooking Classes 10,725 8,515 7,085 7,200 7,200 - 0.00%8 Classes per year 4111 · Other 1,754 980 16,969 15,400 15,000 (400) -2.60%One-Time Classes such as Facets Film, At Home Alone 4112 · Manners 990 4,410 1,350 - - - 0.00%No classes for 2017 4113 · Bubbles Academy 2,835 3,555 1,540 2,100 2,100 - 0.00%2 Classes/session 4114 - Ballroom Dancing 1,120 - - - - - 0.00%No classes for 2016 4116 - Computer 4,925 3,535 885 3,334 5,000 1,666 49.97%Spring and Fall classes in 2017 4125 - Music Lessons 12,900 10,825 - (10,825) -100.00%Instructor has rented studio on 2nd floor of Gorton 4122 - Sylvan Partnership - - 22,425 13,230 8,200 (5,030) -38.02%competition from other programs, declining enrollment 121,706 125,118 186,330 161,899 152,600 (9,299) -5.74% Events 4117 - Safety Town 12,461 12,275 12,390 13,430 13,430 - 0.00%Enrollment at max, same sponsorships for 2017 4118 - Dog Day - 3,766 - 4,228 4,200 (28) -0.66%No change from 2016 4119 - Film Festival & Series 7,138 11,385 15,000 20,000 5,000 33.33%Childrens Film Fest, Summer, Holiday, Spring Series, Blu Mountain Film Series 4130 - Gene Siskel Film Series 6,117 6,500 6,500 - 0.00% 4125 - Hughes Distribution - - - - 17,080 17,080 100.00%To cover film cost overages 4120 - Family Concerts 2,767 7,674 1,775 500 14,000 13,500 2700.00%3 Events 4121 - Kids Only Holiday Shoppe 1,554 1,409 1,196 1,500 1,500 - 0.00%No change from 2016 4123 - Speakers - - - - 11,000 11,000 100.00% 4201 - Grotto 7,143 6,577 6,737 6,000 6,750 750 12.50%October Dance tickets 4123 - PAC Committee 8,372 13,000 4,628 55.28%Story Telling, Irish Band 4128 - Greater Good Project 24,612 50,000 25,388 103.15% 4204 - Other - 1,000 1,000 - 0.00% 4202 - Jazz Tickets 2,750 2,575 1,590 3,140 6,000 2,860 91.08%Winter Music Series 26,675 41,414 41,191 84,282 164,460 80,178 95.13% Total Program & Event Revenue 148,381 166,532 227,521 246,181 317,060 70,879 28.79% Programs & Events - Expense Programs 5102 · PASTA Expense 51,129 56,983 68,738 68,000 72,000 4,000 5.88%60% of fees plus expenses for Summer Camp 5103 · Yoga 4,680 4,560 3,804 1,000 1,000 - 0.00%50% of fees 5107 · Bridge 663 - - 1,405 1,300 (105) -7.47%50% of fees 5108 - Chess - - - - - - 0.00%No classes for 2017 5109 · Cooking Class 8,450 6,550 5,250 5,500 5,500 - 0.00%$50/person Page 2 of 5 18 Gorton Community Center 2017 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bgt vs 2017 Bgt vs Actual Actual Actual Reforecasted Budget 2016 Refrcst 2016 Refrcst Notes 5111 · Other 2,761 432 11,969 8,000 6,000 (2,000) -25.00%Fees to Facets 5112 - Manners 610 3,300 1,254 - - - 0.00%No classes for 2017 5114 - Ballroom Dancing 1,200 - - - - - 0.00%No classes for 2017 5116 - Computer 2,703 2,013 420 1,295 2,500 1,205 93.05% 4122 - Sylvan Partnership - - 14,286 7,135 - (7,135) -100.00%60% of fees 72,195 73,837 105,722 92,335 88,300 (4,035) -4.37% Events 5117 - Safety Town 1,704 3,107 2,599 2,151 2,600 449 20.87%Adding sign boards and $5/per camper increase in expenses 5118 - Dog Day - 1,713 40 1,869 2,000 131 7.02% 5119 - Film Festival & Series - 1,969 3,138 9,000 10,000 1,000 11.11% 5130 - Gene Siskel Film Series 4,422 3,500 3,500 - 0.00% 5120 - Family Concerts 1,680 6,133 395 - 12,000 12,000 100.00%3 Events 5121 - Kids Only Holiday Shoppe 170 361 75 300 300 - 0.00%No changes from 2016 5123 - Speakers - - - - 10,000 10,000 100.00% 5201 - Grotto 2,664 2,836 2,948 2,500 2,500 - 0.00%DJ, decorations, porter 5123 - PAC Committee 5,669 11,000 5,331 94.04% 5128 - Greater Good Project 24,612 50,000 25,388 103.15% 5204 - Other - 500 3,000 2,500 500.00%Block Party 5202 - Jazz 1,436 1,559 1,316 1,348 5,000 3,652 270.82%Winter Music Series 7,654 17,678 14,934 51,449 111,900 60,451 117.50% Total Program & Events Expense 79,849 91,515 120,656 143,784 200,200 56,416 39.24% Programs & Events, net 68,532 75,016 106,865 102,397 116,860 14,463 14.12% Drop-In Center - Income 4401.1 - Enrollment 30,406 27,215 22,815 30,000 32,000 2,000 6.67%Ahead of 2014-15 enrollment; 4% increase 4402 · Hourly 170,277 142,697 176,991 180,200 185,600 5,400 3.00%3% increase 4403 - Lunch Bunch 6,063 7,961 8,948 9,270 10,000 730 7.87%Nets to zero against Lunch Expense 4404 · Camp Gorton/Mini Camps 37,975 39,234 40,734 31,580 34,500 2,920 9.25%Adding enrichment programming 4405 · Other 4405.04 · Other-Donations 650 5,000 220 5,000 5,000 - 0.00%Fundraiser 4405.1 · Book Fair 73 55 47 50 35 (15) -30.00%Book Sales 4405.2 · Interest 6 11 3 - - - 0.00%Checking account closed 7/2015 Total 4405 · Other 730 5,066 270 5,050 5,035 (15) -0.30% Total Revenue, Drop-In Center 245,450 222,173 249,757 256,100 267,135 11,035 4.31% Drop-In Center - Expense 5401 · Payroll 5401.01 · Drop In Center 134,050 124,225 140,196 167,500 172,525 5,025 3.00%3% Increase 5401.03 · Camps/Classes 1,708 3,848 2,288 - - - 0.00% 5401.32 - Camp Gorton 21,520 19,208 23,818 - - - 0.00% 5401.04 · Taxes 11,826 11,384 12,643 12,810 13,198 388 3.03%7.65% of payroll 5401.05 · Payroll Fees 1,435 1,372 1,408 1,400 1,400 - 0.00%est $60/payroll 5401.06 - Unemployment Claims - - - - - - 0.00% Total 5401 · Payroll 170,539 160,037 180,354 181,710 187,123 5,413 2.98% 5402 · Administrative Services 4,800 4,800 4,920 4,920 4,920 - 0.00%Payable to GCC for copies, cr card fees, admin 5403 · Rent 49,308 49,100 47,100 48,513 49,970 1,457 3.00%3% increase 5404 · Telephone 1,152 708 702 700 720 20 2.86%Contract with TDS 5405 · Staff Development/Education 1,157 726 - - - - 0.00%Grant money in temp restr account 5406 · Office Supplies 213 472 298 600 360 (240) -40.00%Toner, misc supplies 5407 · Classroom Supplies 2,960 6,680 1,423 900 1,200 300 33.33% 5407.1 - Snack Expense 680 3,006 4,391 1,800 1,500 (300) -16.67% 5407.2 - Lunch Expense 5,422 7,800 8,947 9,270 10,000 730 7.87%Nets against Lunch Bunch Income 5408 · Cleaning & Laundry 4,683 5,254 4,949 5,000 6,000 1,000 20.00%$377/mo, $1395 for carpet/tile cleaning 5409 - Marketing 749 15 149 200 1,000 800 400.00%Adding Parent Resource shelf, open house and parent coffees in 2017 Page 3 of 5 19 Gorton Community Center 2017 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bgt vs 2017 Bgt vs Actual Actual Actual Reforecasted Budget 2016 Refrcst 2016 Refrcst Notes 5410 · Camp 3,462 2,494 1,530 1,500 1,650 150 10.00%Camp Gorton, mini camp expenses 5413 · Classroom Equipment 475 634 - 670 1,500 830 123.88%Painting, misc equipment 5414 · Miscellaneous 781 402 371 1,010 1,175 165 16.34%Food Service Permit, NSF check fees, health record service 5417 - Insurance 2,260 - - - - - 0.00% 5416 - Website Expense - - - - - - 0.00% Total Expense, Drop-In Center 248,640 242,128 255,135 256,793 267,118 10,325 4.02% Drop-In Center, net (3,190) (19,955) (5,377) (693) 17 710 -102.43% Total Gorton Operations (11,450) (62,758) (78,934) (163,254) (99,357) 63,897 -39.14% 5021 - Depreciation Expense (2,525) (6,037) (133,102) (257,442) (261,860) (4,418) 1.72%Based on projected 2017 Cap Exp (13,975) (68,795) (212,036) (420,697) (361,217) 59,480 -14.14% Unrestricted Activity Donations - Income 4501 - General Donations - - - - 0.00% 4501.13 - Annual Giving 200,145 209,804 205,353 175,000 200,000 25,000 14.29%May $45K, Nov $75K; Cap Camp pledges will lower operating fund response 4501.51 - Unrestricted - Individual 1,524,593 1,330,554 357,195 17,846 20,000 2,154 12.07%General, Life Insurance Donation 4501.52 - Unrestricted - Corporation 2,750 183,019 255,630 200 15,000 14,800 7400.00%General Donations 4501.53 - Unrestricted - Foundation 34,459 108,834 1,005 1,000 5,000 4,000 400.00%General Donations 4501.90 - Interest on Investments (20%)- 3,352 - - - 0.00%No pro-rata after 2014 due to transfer of fund to MRP 6008 - Management Fees (20%)- (1,240) - - - 0.00%1% of Wayne Hummer balance; no prorata after 2014 due to funds transfer to MRP 6011 - Draws on Investment Acct (20%)- - - - 0.00%No pro-rata after 2014 due to transfer of fund to MRP 4501.91 - Unrealized Gain/Loss on Investments 9,105 - - 0.00% 4501 - Discount on Pledges (9,355) (10,190) 7,606 - - 0.00% 4501.90 - PASTA - - - - - 0.00% 1,752,591 1,833,240 826,789 194,046 240,000 45,954 23.68% Donations - Expense 32,320 52,262 56,114 49,900 58,340 8,440 16.91%2 Appeals, Event, Development Director Salary & Taxes, Cultivation, Unrestricted Donations, net 1,720,271 1,780,978 770,675 144,146 181,660 37,514 26.03% Donor Life Insurance Policy, Annual Report Drop-In Center Parents Board - Income 4502 - Income 81,585 - - - - - 0.00%Board Disbanded 2014 5502 - Expense 26,613 - - - - 0.00% Drop-In Center Parents Board, Net 54,972 - - - - - 0.00% Friends of Gorton 4503 - Income 50,508 - - - - - 0.00%Board Disbanded 2014 5503 - Expense 29,808 - - - - 0.00% Friends of Gorton, net 20,700 - - - - - 0.00% Events Committee 4504.1 - Income - - - 81,226 60,000 (21,226) -26.13%Board Fundraiser Event in 2017 5504.1- Fundraising Expenses - - 9,315 33,172 25,000 (8,172) -24.64%Board Fundraiser Event in 2017 Events Committee, net - - (9,315) 48,054 35,000 (13,054) -27.16% Unrestricted Activity, net 1,795,943 1,780,978 761,360 192,200 216,660 24,460 12.73% Temporarily Restricted Activity 6005 - Restricted Fund Income 219,583 1,036,221 503,578 90,318 - (90,318) -100.00% 6004 - Transfer to Project in Progress 803,612 - - - - 0.00% 6004 - Restricted Fund Expenditure (1,912) (810,312) (12,974) (71,539) - 71,539 -100.00% Temporarily Restricted Activity, net 217,671 1,029,521 490,604 18,779 - (18,779) -100.00% Page 4 of 5 20 Gorton Community Center 2017 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bgt vs 2017 Bgt vs Actual Actual Actual Reforecasted Budget 2016 Refrcst 2016 Refrcst Notes Permanently Restricted Activity Hughes Film Series 6010 - Donations 500,000 - - - - - 0.00% 6010 - Hughes Film Series Income - 6,771 10,431 12,000 14,000 2,000 16.67% 6011 - Management Fees - (4,055) (4,175) (5,250) (5,425) (175) 3.33%1% of projected balance of $542,216 6013 - Unrealized Gain/Loss on Investments - 15,357 (14,022) 29,313 - (29,313) -100.00% 6015 - Draws on Investment Acct - - - - (17,080) (17,080) 100.00%Draw for film expenses Hughes Film Series Activty, net 500,000 18,073 (7,766) 36,063 (8,505) (44,568) -123.58% Permanently Restricted Donations 6002 - Realized Gain/Loss on Investments 16,393 - - - - - 0.00% 6003 - Unrealized Gain/Loss on Investments (6,179) 36,422 (43,908) 167,807 - (167,807) -100.00% 6006 - Income from Investments 7,622 13,410 24,057 36,000 40,000 4,000 11.11% 6011 - Draws on Investment Acct - - - - (91,653) (91,653) 100.00%See subschedule 6007 - Permanently Restricted Donations 705,579 584,139 83,480 8,191 - (8,191) -100.00%Donations to Endowment 6008 - Gain/Loss on Stock Sale - (592) (217) - - - 0.00%Gain/Loss on stock gift holding period 6008 - Management Fees - (4,959) (8,908) (15,500) (30,000) (14,500) 93.55%1% of projected balance of $2,909,627 Permanently Restricted Donation Actvity, net 723,414 628,420 54,504 196,498 (81,653) (278,151) -141.55% Total Permanently Restricted Activity 1,223,414 646,493 46,738 232,561 (90,158) (322,719) -138.77% Total Unrestricted, Temp Restr, Perm Restr Activity 3,237,028 3,456,992 1,298,702 443,539 126,502 (317,037) -71.48% Bad Debt Expense - Kinora w/o (182,034) Net Income/Loss 3,223,053 3,388,196 904,632 22,843 (234,715) (257,557) -1127.52% Page 5 of 5 21 2016 2017 Projected Year End*Budget INCOME Operations Activity Rentals/Catering 195.0 190.5 Garden/Kitchen Market 126.5 130.0 Tenant Leases 57.4 56.0 Holiday Market 52.0 55.0 Program Income 20.9 18.7 Miscellaneous 0.1 0.1 Total Operations Activity: 452.0 450.3 Fundraising Support Annual Gifts 184.6 202.0 Events 60.6 109.3 Total Fundraising Support: 245.2 311.3 Total Income: 697.1 761.6 EXPENSE 670.8 749.4 TOTAL NET INCOME: 26.3 12.2 * Based on actuals as at 30th September, 2016 Elawa Farm Foundation Financial Comparison 2016 Projected Actuals to 2017 Budget $000 22 2017 Budget Projected Year End Actuals Budget Projected Year End*Budget INCOME Operations Activity Rentals/Catering 117.8 136.9 159.6 158.8 195.0 190.5 Garden/Kitchen Market 114.5 100.8 121.8 120.0 126.5 130.0 Tenant Leases 70.9 70.9 59.5 59.7 57.4 56.0 Holiday Market 42.0 42.0 58.4 50.0 52.0 55.0 Program Income 8.0 18.0 23.3 16.6 20.9 18.7 Miscellaneous 3.8 8.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 357.0 377.4 422.6 405.2 452.0 450.3 Fundraising Support Annual Gifts 96.7 129.8 169.6 177.7 184.6 202.0 Events 83.2 82.0 105.4 84.4 60.6 109.3 Uihlein Donations 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fundraising Support: 259.5 291.4 354.6 262.1 245.2 311.3 Total Income: 616.5 668.8 777.2 667.3 697.1 761.6 EXPENSE 610.4 656.9 716.3 650.2 670.8 749.4 TOTAL NET INCOME: 6.1 11.9 60.9 17.1 26.3 12.2 * Based on actuals as at 30th September, 2016 Total Operations Activity: Elawa Farm Foundation Financial Comparison Budget to Projections to Actuals 2015-2016 2015 2016 $000 23 Dec 31st Dec 31st Dec 31st Dec 31st Dec 31st 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 EFF Earned Income & Donations 216.7 252.8 276.6 512.4 834.2 City Accumulated Elawa Rentals & Lease Income ---236.9 0 Less: EFF Restricted Funds ---(175.0)(192.3) Adjusted Cash Balance: 216.7 252.8 276.6 574.3 641.9 Elawa Farm Foundation Adjusted Cash Balances Year End 2011-2015 $000 24 2014 2015 2017 Actuals Actuals Actuals as at Sep 30th Projected Full Year Budget Budget Income 43400 Fundraising Support 581,377.62 354,578.00 129,044.91 245,166.00 262,080.00 311,300.00 44000 Donations-Grants 17,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45000 Investments 153.05 159.73 105.75 141.76 168.00 144.00 46400 Miscellaneous Income 4,175.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47200 Program 16,884.08 23,255.00 19,741.00 20,871.00 16,625.00 18,665.00 51000 Holiday Market 49,917.22 58,353.14 0.00 52,000.00 50,000.00 55,000.00 53000 Garden Market 108,721.76 121,795.02 107,735.14 126,500.00 119,995.00 130,000.00 56100 Tenant Leases 38,435.16 59,482.10 42,635.08 57,445.89 59,652.00 55,958.72 56200 Individual Event Income 121,498.75 155,780.26 150,808.13 168,000.00 152,800.00 168,000.00 57000 In-House Catering 0.00 3,940.65 25,648.02 27,000.00 6,000.00 22,500.00 Total Income (Before 58000 Restricted Assets)938,662.64 777,343.90 475,718.03 697,124.65 667,320.00 761,567.72 58000 Net Assets Released from Restriction 24,566.45 141,717.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Income 963,229.09 919,061.63 475,718.03 697,124.65 667,320.00 761,567.72 Expenses 60900 Business Expenses 1,092.36 1,063.66 2,535.04 2,536.27 840.00 3,300.00 62100 Personnel Expense 213,439.45 242,745.74 195,049.41 238,481.55 296,689.00 337,585.00 62200 Professional Services 43,966.43 41,982.67 14,735.42 14,735.42 11,900.00 14,500.00 62300 Contract Services 22,783.96 63,459.98 52,239.70 70,510.00 71,563.00 36,735.00 62500 Fundraising Expenses 97,883.45 78,829.56 34,847.14 48,073.25 54,770.00 61,900.00 62700 Program Expenses 8,810.13 15,219.16 11,333.33 12,779.83 11,705.00 12,770.00 62800 Facilities and Equipment 110,869.64 77,513.29 21,441.14 33,300.66 27,020.00 33,125.00 62900 Event Fees 1,195.00 1,685.00 1,975.00 2,525.00 1,125.00 1,800.00 65000 Operations 33,497.07 41,462.59 18,311.95 28,482.50 28,176.00 30,400.00 65100 Other Types of Expenses 9,112.19 6,092.93 15,483.24 30,810.09 33,969.00 31,600.00 66900 Reconciliation Discrepancies 140.00 301.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68300 Travel and Meetings 753.04 2,872.15 595.43 1,150.00 1,000.00 1,200.00 71000 Garden Expenses 11,120.41 21,766.12 60,839.50 75,551.39 12,250.00 79,350.00 72000 Kitchen Market Expenses 16,017.26 57,158.55 34,771.79 42,082.22 41,500.00 41,500.00 73000 Market Expenses 41,862.05 35,180.48 34,648.78 36,561.92 34,725.00 34,225.00 75000 Holiday Market Expense 21,758.41 26,503.57 1,129.08 20,200.00 20,000.00 20,200.00 76000 In-House Catering Expense 0.00 2,508.00 11,670.89 13,000.00 3,000.00 9,200.00 Total Expenses 634,300.85 716,345.03 511,606.84 670,780.10 650,232.00 749,390.00 Net Operating Income (before 58000 Restricted Assets)304,361.79 60,998.87 (35,888.81)26,344.55 17,088.00 12,177.72 Other Income 79100 Net Assets Released from Restrictions (24,566.45) (141,717.73)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79110 Temporarily Restricted Contributions 300,000.00 50,000.00 21,600.00 21,600.00 0.00 0.00 Total Other Income 275,433.55 (91,717.73)21,600.00 21,600.00 0.00 0.00 Net Income 604,361.79 110,998.87 (14,288.81)47,944.55 17,088.00 12,177.72 Elawa Farm Foundation 2017 Budget Planning 2016 25 Let Elawa Farm provide a breathtaking backdrop for your wedding, rehearsal dinner or celebration. We offer a quiet, elegant setting with the unforgettable charm of a restored gentleman’s farm. Your Big Day can be as rustic or as chic as you dream. Whether indoors or out, you’ll find splendor and refinement with a warm country feel. ~ For more info contact Natalie Moore at 847-234-1966 ~ Weddings at Elawa Farm 26 Weddings & Celebrations Estate Package for weddings and events over 100 guests and up to 200 guests $6,500 ——————————————— Rental Rate includes ——————————————— All outdoor areas - garden, paddock, courtyard, west lawn (adjacent to the savannah) Hay Barn Wagon Shed (Market) Kitchen dressing Room area for the Bride and Bridesmaids classroom with leather sofa for Groomsmen classroom (west) for use by Caterer and/or rental storage Shuttle service for guests provided use of customized sound system for playlist event attendant throughout your event 8-ft rectangular banquet tables (14) 6-ft rectangular banquet tables (10) Walk through time and planning visits one hour ceremony rehearsal time (pre-approved time slot) projector and/or screen coat rack, if appropriate podium *set up can begin at 1pm and end at 11pm. Clean up from 11pm through midnight. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Caterers You are able to choose your caterer from our list of Recommended Vendors, or an Elawa approved full-service caterer. Music Due to restrictions, we are limited in regards to the number of “amplified music” events we can have, “amplified music” referring to your typical deejay or live wedding band with amplified instruments/vocals. For non-amplified events, you are welcome to use our sound system, or have live musicians unplugged. Tent You are able to choose your own tent vendor or you can refer to our vendor list for tent vendors who are familiar with our facility and working within Lake Forest fire regulations. Parking All events over 75 guests need to provide shuttling (no valet parking is allowed). Please call for details. 27 Smaller Weddings and Celebrations Under 125 guests 3:00—midnight $4,500 ——————————————— Rental Rate includes ——————————————— All outdoor areas - garden, paddock, courtyard, west lawn (adjacent to the savannah) Hay Barn Wagon Shed Kitchen dressing Room area for the Bride and Bridesmaids classroom with leather sofa for Groomsmen classroom (west) for use by Caterer and/or rental storage Shuttle service for guests provided use of customized sound system for playlist** event attendant throughout your event 8-ft rectangular banquet tables (14) 6-ft rectangular banquet tables (10) Walk through time and planning visits one hour ceremony rehearsal time (pre-approved time slot) coat rack, if appropriate projector, screen, podium, coat rack available for rent * Set up can begin at 3pm. Ends at 11pm. Clean up from 11pm through midnight. Or you may choose your 9 hour time slot, ** This is a non-amplified event only - Use of Elawa Farm’s sound system or unplugged musicians. *** All events over 75 guests need to provide shuttling (no valet parking is allowed). Please call for details. Intimate Weddings, Rehearsal Dinners, and Celebrations Under 75 guests 4:00—midnight $2,000 ——————————————— Rental Rate includes ——————————————— outdoor areas included are paddock and courtyard, Hay Barn Kitchen use of customized sound system for playlist** event attendant throughout your event 8-ft rectangular banquet tables (14) 6-ft rectangular banquet tables (10) projector, screen, podium, coat rack available for rent bridal and groomsmen rooms available for an additional fee Wagon Shed available as add-on for additional fee (perfect area for cocktails!) * Set up can begin at 4pm. Ends at 11pm. Clean up from 11pm through midnight. Or you may choose your 8 hour time slot. * * This is a non-amplified event only - Use of Elawa Farm’s sound system or unplugged musicians. *** All events over 75 guests need to provide shuttling (no valet parking is allowed). Please call for details. 28 Rental Rates (During Business Day) Capacity Rates Rates Hay Barn 87 $150 $150 Wagon Shed 77 $135 $135 Kitchen 20 $95 $95 Potting Shed 18 $100 $100 West Classroom 31 $80 $80 Center Classroom 24 $75 $75 Non Profit Rental Rates (During the Day) Hay Barn $90 $90 Wagon Shed $80 $80 Kitchen $70 $70 Potting Shed $60 $60 West Classroom $50 $50 Center Classroom $45 $45 Tentant Rental Rates Hay Barn $50 $90* Wagon Shed $45 $80* Kitchen $50 $70* Potting Shed $50 $60* West Classroom $40 $50* Center Classroom $30 $45* Room Rates 29 $25 $25 Facility Use Fee $25 $35* Items available for rent, extra fees: Projector/Screen $100 $100 Sound System & Mic $100 $100 Portable Mic & Speaker $100 $100 String Lights $200 $200 Use of 14 – 8ft. tables, 14 – 6ft. tables, 50 black chairs, 40 beige chairs at NO CHARGE Black 2016 Rates Red 2017 Proposed rates *increase New Considerations for 2017 Photography - Site Use $25 per hour Commercial Videographery - Site Use $2500 per day Paddock - gravel (walk ways) or like courtyard Lighting: (Life Safety) Behind Wagon Shed Uplighting throught outdoor areas Staff Attendant charged when there is no room rental ex: Field Trips/Camps - groups impact facility use, cleaning and supplies 30 ELAWA FARM FOUNDATION FALL 2016 Autumn repays the earth the leaves which summer lent it. ~Georg Christoph Dear Friends- What an amazing summer it has been— and a busy one at Elawa Farm. The garden has never looked so good nor has it been so beautfful! After some spring revising, our gardener, Erika Vernon, has embraced the garden with endless energy and passion. If you haven’t already, come walk the garden and enjoy the views. The Garden Market has also thrived. Under the capable leadership of Market Manager, Catherine Gregg, the Market has become a very popular must-go-to place every Friday and Saturday morning. Chef Steve Chaippetti and his wonderful kitchen volunteers hav e filled the Market with delicious offerings from breakfast scones to dinner and desserts. And, of course, the Market always o ffers the freshest of vegetables and flowers from the garden and unusual finds for the home. Our new, magnificent greenhouse, named in honor of Deedee Borland, was dedicated at a delightiul and moving celebratfon in Ju ne. We are grateful to the Buchanan Family Foundatfon for such a generous gift. Elawa is now able to grow greens all winter long and garden-starts in spring. On a glorious September evening, Elawa Farm hosted our annual Farm to Table Dinner, FEAST. One hundred and forty happy guest s thoroughly enjoyed delicious food created by Chefs Sarah Grueneberg and Meg Sahs of Monteverde in Chicago, along with Chef Steve Chiappetti, highlightfng produce from the Garden. This very popular event is our major fundraiser. Thank you to all w ho supported it, and to the hardworking planners of this delightiul evening. Elawa Farm Foundatfon, a 501(c)3 non -profit organizatfon, relies solely on donors and volunteers, and we are so very grateful! The Foundatfon is very fortunate to have the strong, dedicated leadership of Executfve Director, Joanne Miller, whose passion and energy guides our mission. The rest of the year brings much to enjoy and savor. Mark your calendars for “SPOOKTACULAR!”, a fun filled Halloween event. November brings fresh turkeys and pies for Thanksgiving. And during the first weekend in December, Elawa Farm presents the always popular Holiday Market. We are so excited that this coming year, 2017, marks the 100 year anniversary of Elawa Farm, Elsa and A. Watson Armour ’s gentleman’s farm, and family weekend home. Plans of all kinds are being made for celebratfng throughout our centennial. It promises to be a thrilling year! Elawa Farm is a wonderful place. I invite all to come and share its beauty. Thank you to volunteers, staff, and donors who help to make it so. I’m proud to be a part of it. Thank you for the opportunity. Dianne FitzSimons, President—Elawa Farm Foundation 31 Elawa Farm Foundation Words from the Garden: Bountfful is the best way to describe our season this year in the garden! We started the season with our beloved arugula and radishes and are going out with a bang and with a plethora of heirloom tomatoes due to the unseasonably warm fall weather! The Elawa Farm Garden supplied well over 100 pounds of produce for this year ’s farm dinner, including potatoes, arugula, radish, tomatoes and cucumbers. We worked with Chef Robert MacClure at Lake Forest Place and Chef Chris Jacob at the Onwentsia Club to supply them with fresh, pestfcide-free produce. And most importantly, there is nothing wasted here from the garden! Al l extra produce from the market is donated weekly to the Shields Township Food Pantry and all green waste from the garden is given to Eggceptfonal Eggs just up the street at Knollwood, where it is fed to the hungry chickens who produce heavenly eggs that we sell in our market each week. Many thanks to my two interns, Maddy Ross and Eric Spehlmann, and to the many volunteers for their hard work and support in the garden. I couldn’t do it without you all. Thank you as well to the Youth Conservatfon Corps of Waukegan, who volunteered regularly with us over the course of the summer months. We look forward to working with you again next year! We were lucky to have two Eagle Scout projects this year on the farm. Kent Brucker recreated 3 Purple Martfn bird houses that were original to Elawa Farm but had been destroyed over the years. We look for- ward to springtfme to see the houses in actfon. Edward Mordini worked tfrelessly this summer to replicate the original door to our root cellar. The door weighs about 200 pounds and is expertly crafted. Endless thanks to you both! Erika Vernon, Gardener,Elawa Farm Foundation VOLUNTEERING AT ELAWA Elawa Farm would not be what it is without the much appreciated time, talents and efforts put in by our community of volunteers. Whether your interest is gardening, flower arranging, cooking, baking, or participating in a classic garden market, we have volunteer options for you. The volunteer season is generally year round, Monday through Saturday. Individuals, families, businesses and community groups are welcome If you are interested in volunteering at Elawa as an individual, family, business team or community group, please contact us at info@elawafarm.org The Garden at Elawa Farm A very special THANK YOU to all who supported our Garden Market making the 2016 season a great success! 32 Summer Camp at ELAWA FARM Elawa Farm Foundation - SUMMERTIME FUN - This past summer we introduced our first ever Summer Camp for kids. Staff at Elawa had just as much fun, if not more, as the kids! Campers created artwork made from items around the garden, learned about flower and herb identification, planting, harvesting, floral design, and even visited our bee hives with bee-keeper Charenton Drake. My son enjoyed the Elawa Farm camp so, so much! He was up early every day he attended! He loved learning about plantfng and bringing fresh veggies home. Made salad every night for his family! It was a brand new experience for him , also one of the best. Stay tuned for 2107 Summer Camp dates— We can’t wait to do it again! 33 Elawa Farm Foundation Programs at Elawa Farm Floral Arranging Classes with Alison Buck Thanksgiving Centerpiece | November 22, 2016 | 10:00am - 11:30am | Cost $60 per person Come and create a beautiful centerpiece for yourThanksgiving table. Holiday Wreath Making | December 10, 2016 | 10:00am - 11:30am | Cost $60 per person Join us to create a holiday wreath using the most beautiful greens of winter that will look gorgeous all season long. Holiday Centerpiece Family and Friends Workshop | December 21, 2016 | 10am - 11:30am | $60 per centerpiece Take a moment during this busy time to create something beautiful. This is a time for family and friends, so bring them alon g. A Market Bunch of Flowers | January 21, 2017 | 10:00am - 11:30am | $60 per person Turn a grocery store bunch into a stunning work of art! Floral Arranging With A Loved One for Valentine’s Day | 5:00pm - 7:00pm | $75 per arrangement Bring a loved one, or someone you think is really cute, for a glass of wine, sparkling apple juice and delicious hors d’oeuvres, and together create a beautiful floral arrangement! NEW! Calligraphy Workshops with Alissa Mazzenga of FEAST FINE ART AND CALLIGRAPHY Learn Calligraphy and Lettering through one of our upcoming In-Person Wokshops! MODERN CALLIGRAPHY FOR BEGINNERS | OCTOBER 22nd from 10am - 12:30pm $125 The class will include 2.5 hours of learning the basics of modern calligraphy, including the tools you ’ll need, forming foundational shapes, lowercase letters, and how to take the beautiful art of handwriting home and continue to practice. You will take hom e your own Beginner’s Modern Calligraphy Kit which will include: a pen holder, 3 of the best nibs for beginners, a jar of ink, Alis- sa’s instructional alphabet, gridded sheets to practice on, and a delicate muslin bag for storing your supplies. BRUSH LETTERING FOR BEGINNERS | OCTOBER 30TH FROM 1:00pm - 3:30pm $125 This class will include 2.5 hours of learning the basics of brush lettering, including the tools you ’ll need, forming foundational shapes, lowercase letters, and how to take the beautiful art of handwriting home and continue to practice. You will take hom e your own Beginner’s Brush Lettering Kit, which will include: a thin and thick paintbrush to lean with, ink to work with, Alissa ’s instructional alphabet, gridded sheets to practice on, high quality paper to create your own original art piece, as well as a delicate muslin bag for storing your supplies. Register at feastcalligraphy.com To register and for complete class listings and updates, visit our website at www.elawafarm.org or call 847-234-1966 Coming Soon! Elawa Farm Gardening Workshops! We have so many ideas for every age - to learn, explore something new, and feed your inner-gardener! ~ ~ ~ Container Gardening - Composting - Seed-Starting Garden Pests - Raised Bed Gardening 34 Wellness and Yoga at Elawa Farm Root to Rise - Mini Wellness Retreat A Day for YOU! SPRING 2017 | Friday, April 28, 2017 | 10:30am—1:30pm Move freely, connect deeply, eat mindfully and enjoy fully. Join Holistic Health Coach & Yoga Instructor Pam Gross and James Beard Award Winning Chef Gale Gand for a day of Self-Care 3 hour retreat. Back by demand for our 8th retreat! Escape your to -do list and spend the day with Pam and Chef Gale to soak up the beauty of spring on the Farm and set your intention for the shift in seasons farm -to-mat yoga and intention ceremony led by Pam Gross. Farm-to-table lunch and cooking demo by Chef Gale Gand. Email nmoore@elawafarm.org or call 847 -234-1966 with questions. $100, pre-registration required. Visit www.pamgross.com for more info and registration. Bee-Boppers with Lindsey Smithwick BEE BOPPERS! BZZZZZZ... Come shake, sing and bee-bop with Lindsey Smithwick and her bee-boppin’ music class! From simple standards to original tunes, Bee-Boppers is a great way to incorporate music and early socialization skills into your child’s life in a fun, interactive environment. Also available for private parties! For registration, visit www.elawafarm.org or call 847-234-1966. Classes available as drop in ($15) or 4-pack ($50). For children ages 0 - 5 from 11:15am – 12pm on Wednesdays (classes do not need to be used consecutively, but expire 12 weeks from purchase date.) Elawa Farm Foundation NEW! Photography Classes with Kerri Sherman of Bloom & Focus Now more than ever, the smart phone camera is a convenient high quality lens used to easily take and edit terrific photos, plus seamlessly print or publish digitally. Led by Kerri Sherman, owner of Bloom & Focus, this fun class will be a game changer in enhancing your every day phone camera images. Enjoy learning many helpful shooting & editing tips that will enhance your images for personal and professional use. Classes at Elawa Farm offered on: Oct 22nd | 11:00am - 12:00pm | $30 Nov 19th | 10:00am - 11:00am | $30 Jan 28th | 10:00am - 11:00am | $30 To register and for complete class listings and updates, visit our website at www.elawafarm.org or call 847-234-1966 Programs at Elawa Farm From musical theatre to singing with the band, Lindsey has performed locally and all the way to the west coast! 35 Elawa Farm Foundation A Huge “Thank You” to our Sponsors for another successful FEAST 2016 - our Fall Harvest Benefit . Corporate Events Elawa Farm is a quiet and inspiring environment for your next corporate meeting, retreat, team building event or celebration. info@elawafarm.org or call 847-234-1966 for more information. Weddings and Celebrations at Elawa Farm Let Elawa Farm provide a breathtaking backdrop for your wedding, rehearsal dinner or celebration. We offer a quiet, elegant setting with the unforgettable charm of a restored gentleman’s farm. Your Big Day can be as rustic or as chic as you dream it. Whether indoors or out, you’ll find splendor and refinement with a warm country feel. info@elawafarm.org or call 847-234-1966 for more information and available dates. 36 Silhouette Portraits at the Holiday Market Back by popular demand, Cassidy Alexander, a nationally known portrait and silhouette artist, will be participating in this year’s Holiday Market (Friday 12/2 and Saturday 12/3 only), to cut silhouettes of you or your children. Cassidy is a local artist who cuts freehand, with paper and scissors only — no preliminary drawing, shadow tracing or digital manipulation. She creates a charming, heirloom-quality miniature paper profile in just a few minutes. Cassidy can cut any age person from wee ones to seniors. Wiggly kids are not a problem! By appointment only at cgregg@elawafarm.org or 847-234-1966. Thanksgiving offerings From the Elawa Farm kitchen FRESH TURKEYS from Gunthorp Farms , LaGrange, IN Raised in pasture with no antibiotics Fresh Turkeys available from 13lbs. to 20+ lbs. Thanksgiving Dinner in a Box Includes: Fresh Turkey, four side dishes, one pie Homemade Pies Choose from three of our most delicious pies of the season: Ginger Spice Pumpkin Pie Farmhouse Classic Apple Pie Old-Fashioned Honey Pecan Order pick up from 9:00am - noon on Tue, Nov 22nd. Place your order at www.elawafarm.org 7 th Annual Elawa Farm Holiday Market December 2nd & 3rd from 10am to 4pm & December 4th from 12pm to 4pm Come shop for gifts, festive foods, and holiday décor: Frasier fir trees · Fresh holiday greens, wreathes and arrangements Hand-decorated holiday houses Local cheese, fresh eggs, and Elawa produce Unique and amazing artisan gifts Handcrafted soaps · Farm preserves and jams Festive foods from the Elawa Kitchen Come and enjoy a festfve day at Elawa Farm! JOIN US AT ELAWA FARM THIS HOLIDAY SEASON Elawa Farm Foundation 37 ELAWA FARM FOUNDATION 1401 Middlefork Drive, Lake Forest, IL 60045 | www.elawafarm.org NON-PROFIT ORG U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 58 LAKE FOREST,IL 60045 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Brayton B. Alley Pamela Bailey Edward H. Bennett, III Craig Bergmann Carol Calabresa E. Austin DePree Madeleine B. Dugan Dianne FitzSimons Mary Gesualdo Julie Gish Andrew Goltra Jane L. Hodges Leslie Hough Stanley Janowiak Horace W. Jordan, Jr. Alvin L. Kruse Robert E. Lee, III Gwendolyn O. Lincoln Constance Maines Courtney McGovern John McGovern Louellen Murray Jana O’Neil Katherine Opat Marina Carney Puryear Robert G. Shaw Claire Simpson Susan T. Skinner Andrew Trees Tom Walvoord Maria Warden ADVISORY BOARD Vernon Armour Paul Bergmann Barbara W. Carr Barry J. Carroll Susan Garrett Ashley Maentz Karen McGovern Jane O’NeilJay Owen Holiday Market At Elawa Farm ~ Dec 2nd & 3rd 10am - 4pm Dec 4th noon - 4pm Our mission: Elawa Farm, a restored gentleman’s farm and garden, enriches our community as a unique center for hands-on learning and inspires an appreciation for gardening, healthy living and historic preservation. As a nonprofit organization, Elawa Farm Foundation relies on the generosity of donors to provide the continued historic restoration of the garden and buildings. Local schools, or- ganizations and businesses are using the farm for public and private special events, celebra- tions, garden workshops, programs and meetings. Elawa Farm offers a community of natural splendor and historic significance. Please help us continue our mission. Donate on line at www.elawafarm.org or fill out the enclosed envelope and mail it in. Memorials and Tributes By making a gift to the Elawa Farm Foundation you can honor or remember a loved one. We acknowledge all gifts to their recipients and keep the amount of the donation confidential. Matching Gifts The amount of your gift may be doubled at no expense to you if you work for an employer who matches the charitable gifts of employees. Simply contact your company ’s human resource department. Stock Gifts Please contact the office for instructions to donate stock. 847-234-1966 - 2017 marks the centennial of Elawa Farm! We are proud to celebrate 100 years Watch for some sensatfonal new events throughout the year, as we celebrate this fine occasion. 38 ELAWA FARM Foundation 2017 BUDGET PRESENTATION 2016 REVIEW AND LOOKING FORWARD 39 Elawa Farm Foundation Financial Comparisons Budget to Projections to Actuals 2015-2016 $000 2015 2016 2017 Budget Projected Year End Actuals Budget Projected Year End*Budget INCOME Operations Activity Rentals/Catering 117.8 136.9 159.6 158.8 195.0 190.5 Garden/Kitchen Market 114.5 100.8 121.8 120.0 126.5 130.0 Tenant Leases 70.9 70.9 59.5 59.7 57.4 56.0 Holiday Market 42.0 42.0 58.4 50.0 52.0 55.0 Program Income 8.0 18.0 23.3 16.6 20.9 18.7 Miscellaneous 3.8 8.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Total Operations Activity: 357.0 377.4 422.6 405.2 452.0 450.3 Fundraising Support Annual Gifts 96.7 129.8 169.6 177.7 184.6 202.0 Events 83.2 82.0 105.4 84.4 60.6 109.3 Uihlein Donations 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fundraising Support: 259.5 291.4 354.6 262.1 245.2 311.3 Total Income: 616.5 668.8 777.2 667.3 697.1 761.6 EXPENSE 610.4 656.9 716.3 650.2 670.8 749.4 TOTAL NET INCOME: 6.1 11.9 60.9 17.1 26.3 12.2 * Based on actuals as at 30th September, 2016 40 Elawa Farm Foundation Adjusted Cash Balances Year End 2011-2015 $000 Dec 31st Dec 31st Dec 31st Dec 31st Dec 31st 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 EFF Earned Income & Donations 216.7 252.8 276.6 512.4 834.2 City Accumulated Elawa Rentals & Lease Income ---236.9 0 Less: EFF Restricted Funds --- (175.0) (192.3) Adjusted Cash Balance: 216.7 252.8 276.6 574.3 641.9 41 2017 Budget Highlights Income increases: •2 Fundraising Events •Centennial Celebrations – new sponsorship opportunities •New CSA Program •Targeted Gift Program 42 2017 Budget Highlights Expense increases: Personnel: •Chef salary has been changed from Contract Services to Personnel Services •New position - office support •New position - seasonal gardener •All around salary increase •2016 potential bonus pay All necessary to stay competitive and grow 43 Elawa Farm Growth 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2012 2013 2014 2015 Donors 366 446 641 760 44 Elawa Farm Growth $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 Room Rentals $32,860 $48,940 $121,500 $148,900 45 Elawa Farm Growth 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2012 2013 2014 2015 Program Participants 77 293 545 667 46 2016 in Review 47 VOLUNTEERS 48 St. Patrick's Day 2016 49 Summer Camp 2016 50 Greenhouse Dedication 51 2016 Garden Market 52 Eagle Scout Projects 2016 Root Cellar Door Purple Martin Houses 53 2016 Partnerships Shields Township Food Pantry YCC – Waukegan’s Youth Conservation Corps 54 Elawa Farm 2016 Programs Yoga Cooking Classes Author Luncheon Flower Arranging Bee-Boppers 55 Spooktacular 56 Rentals 57 Farm to Table Dinner –FEAST 2016 58 Thanksgiving Turkeys & Pies 59 100 Years 2017 60 Centennial 61 Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society 2017 Partnership with 2017 Project – Living History of Elawa Farm, the families and the role of the gentleman’s farms A. Watson Armour family as a Centennial Family 62 Hands on Learning/Education 2017 New Programming Greenhouse Propagation Farm Animals Life on a Gentleman's Farm 63 TAX LEVY 2016-2017 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR ALL CORPORATE PURPOSES AND FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE AND STATE OF ILLINOIS, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING MAY 1, 2016 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2017, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE AND STATE OF ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: That the Annual Appropriation Bill, an ordinance making appropriation for the corporate purposes of The City of Lake Forest and the objects and purposes stated therein according to the departments, and other separate agencies, and for the Public Schools of The City of Lake Forest, County of Lake and State of Illinois, for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 was duly passed the 18th of July, 2016 and thereafter published in pamphlet form as provided by law, which ordinance by reference thereto is hereby made a part of hereof. SECTION 2: That the sum of fifty-nine million, one hundred sixty-one thousand, five hundred thirty-three dollars ($59,161,533) having heretofore legally appropriated for all corporate purposes of The City of Lake Forest and for the Public Schools of The City of Lake Forest, County of Lake and State of Illinois, to be collected from the taxes levied for the fiscal year commencing May 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2017 be and same hereby is levied against all property subject to taxation with The City of Lake Forest as the same is assessed and equalized for State and County purposes for the said fiscal year. That the purposes for which the said amount of fifty-nine million, one hundred sixty-one thousand, five hundred thirty-three dollars ($59,161,533) hereto appropriated and hereby levied, respectively are as follows, to wit: GENERAL FUND Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 General Government Salaries and Benefits 2,489,766$ 1,632,335$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 4,937,987 3,237,431$ Contingency - to meet expenses of emergencies and optional expenses not otherwise provided for 3,255,698 - TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 10,683,451$ 4,869,766$ Legal Contractual Services 450,000$ 278,272$ TOTAL LAW 450,000$ 278,272$ Community Development Salaries and Benefits 1,360,251$ -$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 155,341 - Capital Equipment - - - TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,515,592$ -$ 64 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Public Works Administration Salaries and Benefits 363,464$ 352,047 Supplies/Other Services and Charges 67,481 65,361 - TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 430,945$ 417,408$ Public Buildings Building Maintenance Administration Salaries and Benefits 750,221$ 359,004 Supplies/Other Services and Charges 703,564 336,677 TOTAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS 1,453,785$ 695,681$ Streets Salaries and Benefits 913,946$ -$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 844,951 - TOTAL STREETS 1,758,897$ -$ Sanitation Salaries and Benefits 1,084,466$ 690,044$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,102,185 701,318 TOTAL SANITATION 2,186,651$ 1,391,362$ Storm Sewers Salaries and Benefits 115,695$ 105,651$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 36,668 33,485 TOTAL STORM SEWERS 152,363$ 139,136$ Engineering Salaries and Benefits 475,650$ 234,396$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 89,036 43,876 TOTAL ENGINEERING 564,686$ 278,272$ Fire Fire Administration Salaries and Benefits 4,555,061$ 2,306,048 Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 272,383 137,897 Capital Equipment - - Sub-Total 4,827,444$ 2,443,945$ 65 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Emergency Medical Services Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 27,500$ 13,922 Sub-Total 27,500$ 13,922$ Fire Suppression Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 92,015$ 46,584 Sub-Total 92,015$ 46,584$ TOTAL FIRE 4,946,959$ 2,504,451$ Police Salaries and Benefits 6,032,430$ 2,846,473$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,044,362 492,795 TOTAL POLICE 7,076,792$ 3,339,268$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM GENERAL FUND 31,220,121$ 13,913,616$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 17,306,505 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 13,913,616 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR GENERAL FUND 13,913,616$ ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY For ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT and SOCIAL SECURITY (Excludes Water and Sewer Department, Fleet, Deerpath Golf Course, Cemetery Commission and School District 67) General Fund - IMRF 894,189$ 586,688$ General Fund - Social Security 630,119 586,687 Parks and Recreation Fund - IMRF 362,667 272,390 Parks and Recreation Fund - Social Security 322,233 272,389 - TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM ILLINOIS 2,209,208$ 1,718,154$ MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 491,054 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 1,718,154 66 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY 1,718,154$ FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND Other Services and Charges 2,120,091$ 1,156,853$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 218,500 - TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR PAYMENT TO THE FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND 2,338,591$ 1,156,853$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources other than Tax Levy 1,181,738 Sub-Total 1,156,853 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND 1,156,853$ Other Services and Charges 64,909$ 64,909$ TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS'S PENSION FUND LAW PA 93-0869 64,909$ 64,909$ POLICE PENSION FUND Other Services and Charges 2,470,000$ 1,900,008$ Contingency to meet expenses for emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 247,000 - TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR PAYMENT TO THE POLICE PENSION FUND 2,717,000$ 1,900,008$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 816,992 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 1,900,008 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE POLICE PENSION FUND 1,900,008$ 67 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks and Forestry Administration Salaries and Benefits 1,997,888$ 1,854,561$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 706,689 655,992 Capital Equipment 150,000 139,239 Sub-Total 2,854,577$ 2,649,792$ Grounds Maintenance Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 279,800$ 259,727$ Sub-Total 279,800$ 259,727$ Athletic Field Plg/Tennis Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 64,000$ 59,409$ Sub-Total 64,000$ 59,409$ Lake Front Facilities Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 29,000$ 26,920$ Sub-Total 29,000$ 26,920$ Tree Trimming Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 30,000$ 27,848$ Sub-Total 30,000$ 27,848$ Tree Removal Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 16,500$ 15,316$ Sub-Total 16,500$ 15,316$ Insect & Disease Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 12,000$ 11,139$ Sub-Total 12,000$ 11,139$ Tree & Shrub Planting/Care Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 10,500$ 9,747$ Sub-Total 10,500$ 9,747$ TOTAL PARKS AND FORESTRY SECTION 3,296,377$ 3,059,898$ Recreation Recreation Programs Salaries and Benefits 2,955,013$ 813,679$ Supplies/ Other Service and Charges 1,782,912 490,934$ Capital Equipment 95,954 26,421$ 68 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Sub-Total 4,833,879$ 1,331,035$ Parks Equipment Reserve 158,745 43,711$ Recreation and Parks Specfic Purpose 125,000 125,000$ Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and expenses not otherwise provided for 909,890 - TOTAL RECREATION SECTION 6,027,514$ 1,499,746$ TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FROM THE PARKS AND 9,323,891 RECREATION FUND Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 7,824,145 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 4,559,644 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 4,559,644$ Special Recreation Salaries and Benefits 36,714$ 36,714$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 287,729 287,729 Capital Improvements 115,597 115,597 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and operational expenses not otherwise provided for 44,004 - TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL RECREATION 484,044$ 440,040$ Capital Improvements Fund Capital Equipment 822,000 822,000 Capital Improvements 4,864,934 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and capital improvements not otherwise provided for 554,603 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 6,241,537.00$ 822,000.00$ PUBLIC LIBRARY FUND Library Services Salaries and Benefits 2,338,136$ 2,336,917$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 1,009,700 1,009,174 Contingency to meet expenses of emergencies and operational expenses not otherwise provided for 315,748 - Total Lake Forest Public Library - General 3,663,584$ 3,346,091$ 69 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 317,493 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 3,346,091 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE LAKE FOREST PUBLIC LIBRARY - GENERAL 3,346,091$ Social Security and IMRF Social Security 131,000$ 112,347$ Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)192,000 112,347 Total Lake Forest Public Library - Social Security and IMRF 323,000$ 224,694$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 98,306 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 224,694 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE LAKE FOREST PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOCIAL SECURITY AND IMRF 224,694$ Library Building Salaries and Benefits 169,648$ 116,328$ Supplies/Other Services and Charges 181,000 124,112 Sub-Total 350,648$ 240,441 Capital Equipment 125,000$ 85,713$ Capital Improvements 100,000 68,570 Sub-Total 225,000$ 154,283$ Total Lake Forest Public Library Building Maintenance and Repair (Sites and Building)575,648$ 394,724$ Less: Total amount appropriated from other sources 180,924 other than Tax Levy Sub-Total 394,724 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR THE LAKE FOREST PUBLIC LIBRARY - BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 394,724$ 70 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Public Schools THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST School District No. 67** From the Educational Fund -$ -$ From the Operations, Building and Maintenance Fund - - From the Capital Projects Fund - - From the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund - - From the Social Security Fund - - From the Transportation Fund - - TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST (School District No. 67)-$ -$ TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAX LEVY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST (School District 67)-$ 71 Tax Levy Appropriation 2016-2017 Summary of the Amounts Appropriated From the the Several Funds General 31,220,121$ 13,913,616$ Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)1,256,856 859,078 Social Security 952,352 859,076 Firefighters's Pension 2,338,591 1,156,853 Firefighters's Pension law PA 93-0869 64,909 64,909 Police Pension 2,717,000 1,900,008 Sub-Total 38,549,829$ 18,753,540$ Parks and Recreation 9,323,891$ 4,559,644$ Special Recreation 484,044 440,040 Capital Improvements 6,241,537 822,000 Public Library 3,663,584 3,346,091 Public Library - Social Security 131,000 112,347 Public Library - IMRF 192,000 112,347 Public Library - Sites and Building 575,648 394,724 Sub-Total 20,611,704$ 9,787,193$ The City of Lake Forest School District No. 67 *** Educational -$ -$ Operations, Building and Maintenance - - Capital Projects Fund - - Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund - - Social Security - - Transportation - - Sub-Total -$ -$ GRAND TOTAL 59,161,533$ 28,540,733$ *** The City of Lake Forest School District No. 67 will be holding a special meeting and these tax levy numbers could change. 72 Section 3: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that provision shall be deemed severed from this Ordinance and the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4: The City Clerk of The City of Lake Forest is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the County Clerk of Lake County in the State of Illinois as required by law. Section 5: This ordinance shall be in force and effect ten (10) days after its passage, approval and publication. PASSED THIS ____ day of ________________, 2016 ____________________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ____ day of ________________, 2016 _____________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk That this ordinance be published in pamphlet form and be made available to the public at the City Hall service counter. 73 Attachment 1 PROJECTED 2016 EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATION Based on information from the County Clerk's Office the projected Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) of property in The City of Lake Forest for the tax year 2016 is as follows: 2015 EAV for The City of Lake Forest 2,307,936,059 Estimated average change to existing property 6.98% 2016 EAV for existing property 2,469,060,663 Total Estimated New Construction Growth for 2016 13,733,821$ Total Projected EAV for 2016 Tax Levy 2,482,794,484$ COMPUTATION OF MAXIMUM TAX EXTENSION FOR 2016 UNDER THE PROPERTY TAX EXTENSION LIMITATION ACT A.Tax Levy Extensions for the 2015 Tax Year (Excluding Debt 27,502,220$ Service, Special Rec and partial Fire Pension Tax Levy Extension) B.Total Projected EAV for 2016 Tax Levy 2,482,794,484$ C.Total Estimated New Construction Growth for 2016 13,733,821$ D.CPI Increase for 2016 Levy 0.70% Step 1 Numerator of Limiting Rate:27,502,220$ X 100.700%=27,694,736$ Step 2 Denominator of Limiting Rate:2,482,794,484$ -13,733,821 =2,469,060,663$ Step 3 Limiting Rate (Per $100 EAV):27,694,736$ /2,469,060,663 =0.01122$ Step 4 Maximum Tax Extension for 2016 Tax Year 2,482,794,484$ X 0.01122$ =27,848,784$ (Excluding Debt Service Tax Levy Extension): Step 5 Added Tax Levy Extension Based on New =154,048$ Growth (Step 4 minus Step 1) Aggregate Levy - Truth in Taxation Estimate:101.26% Tax Cap 0.70% TIF 0.00% New Construction 0.56% 1.26% ESTIMATING EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATION, TAX LEVY LIMITATIONS AND NEW GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR 2016 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 74 The City of Lake Forest Tax Levy 2016 Attachment 2 FUND 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE General $13,779,188 13,656,871 122,317 0.90% Pension Funds IMRF/SS - Funded Ratio 87%1,173,375 1,165,218 8,157 0.70% Police Pension - Funded Ratio 52.1%1,900,008 1,900,008 0 0.00%PS Pension Fee Fire Pension - Funded Ratio 69.6%1,156,853 1,156,853 0 0.00%PS Pension Fee Sub-Total Pension Funds 4,230,236 4,222,079 8,157 0.19% Other Funds Recreation and Parks 4,434,644 4,403,817 30,827 0.70% Recreation and Parks-IMRF/SS 544,779 540,992 3,787 0.70% Special Recreation 0 Capital Improvements 822,000 635,000 187,000 29.45% Recreation and Parks/Specific Purpose 125,000 125,000 0 0.00% Library 3,551,165 3,526,480 24,685 0.70% Library-sites 394,724 391,980 2,744 0.70% Sub-Total Other Funds 9,872,312 9,623,269 249,043 2.59% TOTAL LEVY UNDER TAX CAP 27,881,736 27,502,219 379,517 1.38%Cap/Pens fee/2008 Redemption Bond Funds (Cap - $3,525,580) 2010/2013 GO Bonds MS/CIP 910,540 825,805 84,735 10.26%Add Sequestration Capital Debt Levy Abatement 0 (635,000)635,000 2009 GO Bonds Western 278,245 277,620 625 0.23% Extension Adjustment 15,398 (15,398) 2008 GO Bonds RT 60/MS 0 821,575 (821,575)-100.00%Redemption 2015 GO Bonds - CIP 226,862 249,159 (22,297) Sub-Total Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910)-8.94% TOTAL TAX LEVY BEFORE NEW GROWTH and ALLOWANCES 29,297,383 29,056,776 240,607 0.83% Fire Pension PA 93-0689 64,909 56,914 7,995 N/A Special Recreation 440,040 415,059 24,981 N/A Plus New Growth 154,048 154,048 N/A GRAND TOTAL TAX LEVY 29,956,380 29,528,749 427,631 1.45% Aggregate Levy (Truth in Taxation)28,540,733 27,974,192 566,541 2.03% DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH General Fund Levy -134,428$ Library Levy -19,620 TOTAL NEW GROWTH 154,048$ 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 75 The City of Lake Forest Tax Levy 2016Attachment 3 FUND 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE General $13,913,616 13,656,871 256,745 1.88% Pension Funds IMRF/SS 1,173,375 1,165,218 8,157 0.70% Police Pension 1,900,008 1,900,008 0 0.00% Fire Pension 1,221,762 1,213,767 7,995 0.66% Sub-Total Pension Funds 4,295,145 4,278,993 16,152 0.38% Agency Funds Recreation and Parks 4,434,644 4,403,817 30,827 0.70% Recreation and Parks-IMRF/SS 544,779 540,992 3,787 0.70% Recreation and Parks-Specific Purpose 125,000 125,000 0 Special Recreation 440,040 415,059 24,981 6.02% Capital Improvements 822,000 635,000 187,000 Library 3,570,785 3,526,480 44,305 1.26% Library-sites 394,724 391,980 2,744 0.70% Sub-Total Agency Funds 10,331,972 10,038,328 293,644 2.93% 28,540,733 27,974,192 566,541 2.03% Bond Funds 2010 GO Bonds MS/CIP 910,540 825,805 84,735 10.26% Capital Debt Levy Abatement 0 (635,000)635,000 2009 GO Bonds Western 278,245 277,620 625 0.23% Extension Adjustment 15,398 (15,398) 2008 GO Bonds RT 60/MS 0 821,575 (821,575)-100.00% 2015 GO Bonds - CIP 226,862 249,159 (22,297) Sub-Total Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910)-8.94% GRAND TOTAL TAX LEVY 29,956,380 29,528,749 427,631 1.45% 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 76 The City of Lake Forest Tax Levy 2016 Explanation of Homeowner Increase Attachment 4 2016 LEVY 2015 Extension $ CHANGE % CHANGE Levy before growth and exclusions 27,881,736$ 27,502,219$ 379,517$ 1.38% Plus growth and exclusions 658,997 471,973 187,024$ TOTAL LEVY UNDER TAX CAP 28,540,733$ 27,974,192$ 566,541$ 2.03% Bond Funds 1,415,647 1,554,557 (138,910)$ -8.94% TOTAL TAX LEVY 29,956,380$ 29,528,749$ 427,631$ 1.45% 2016 2015 Forecast Actual City Equalized Assessed Value ( EAV)2,482,794,484 2,307,936,059 1/3 market value City Levy 29,956,380 29,528,749 Tax Rate 1.2066 1.2794 levy divided by EAV X 100 Average Home Market Value 855,851$ 800,000$ EAV 285,284 266,667 EAV X Tax Rate/100 3,442$ 3,412$ 30$ 0.89% This is the impact projected on an average existing home. This represents 19.6% (City) and 3.1% (Library) of the entire tax bill. (Impacts on individual properties may differ.) 11/11/20161:43 PM taxlevy2016_1107 77 AN ORDINANCE ABATING A PORTION OF THE TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2010-B BOND ISSUE (RECOVERY ZONE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BONDS-DIRECT PAYMENT) WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 19th day of April, 2010 authorize the issuance of Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B (Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds – Direct Payment) in the amount of $3,000,000 for the purpose of financing capital improvements and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B Bond Fund from payments from the U.S. Treasury; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay a portion of the tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B Bond Issue (Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds- Direct Payment) due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore a portion of the levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed April 19, 2010, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate a portion of the 2016 Tax Levy of $72,307 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $3,000,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-B (Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds – Direct Payment) of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed April 19, 2010. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2010-B 78 AN ORDINANCE ABATING A PORTION OF THE TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2010-C BOND ISSUE (BUILD AMERICA BONDS-DIRECT PAYMENT) WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 19th day of April, 2010 authorize the issuance of Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C (Build America Bonds- Direct Payment) in the amount of $5,425,000 for the purpose of financing capital improvements and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C Bond Fund from payments from the U.S. Treasury; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay a portion of the tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C Bond Issue (Build America Bonds- Direct Payment) due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore a portion of the levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed April 19, 2010, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate a portion of the 2016 Tax Levy of $79,389.80 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $5,425,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010-C (Build America Bonds – Direct Payment) of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed April 19, 2010. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2010-C 79 AN ORDINANCE ABATING THE TOTAL TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE 2011 GENERAL OBLIGATION SERIES 2011-A REFUNDING BOND ISSUE WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 6th day of September, 2011 authorize the issuance of General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bonds in the amount of $2,415,000 for the purpose of currently refunding certain maturities of the City’s outstanding General Obligation Bonds, Series 1999, 2003C and 2003D and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-A from sufficient revenues collected from the City owned waterworks and sewerage system; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay the total tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bond Issue due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore the total levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed September 6, 2011, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate the total 2016 Tax Levy of $137,787.50 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $2,415,000 General Obligation Series 2011-A Refunding Bonds of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed September 6, 2011. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2011A 80 AN ORDINANCE ABATING THE TOTAL TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE 2011 GENERAL OBLIGATION SERIES 2011-B REFUNDING BOND ISSUE WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 6th day of September, 2011 authorize the issuance of General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bonds in the amount of $24,825,000 for the purpose of advance refunding certain maturities of the City’s outstanding General Obligation Bonds, Series 2002A, Series 2004A and Series 2004B and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-B from sufficient revenues collected from the waterworks and sewerage system, the City’s golf fees and the City’s sales tax; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay the total tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the 2011 General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bond Issue due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore the total levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed September 6, 2011, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate the total 2016 Tax Levy of $2,703,500.00 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $24,825,000 General Obligation Series 2011-B Refunding Bonds of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed September 6, 2011. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2011B 81 AN ORDINANCE ABATING A PORTION OF THE TAX BEING LEVIED IN 2016 FOR THE ANNUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2015 BOND ISSUE WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, did on the 3rd day of August, 2015 authorize the issuance of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 in the amount of $9,780,000 for the purpose of financing capital improvements and provided for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has funds in the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 Bond Fund from sources other than property taxes; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has on hand, sufficient funds to pay a portion of the tax levied for the annual payment of the principal and interest on the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 due in fiscal year commencing May 1, 2017, therefore a portion of the levy of the tax provided in the original bond ordinance passed August 3, 2015, a copy of which was filed in the Office of the County Clerk is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of The City of Lake Forest as follows: SECTION 1: That the County Clerk of Lake County, Illinois, is hereby authorized and directed to abate a portion of the 2016 Tax Levy of $241,562.50 hitherto provided for and levied in the ordinance providing for the issuance of $9,780,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois passed August 3, 2015. SECTION 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval and publication as required by law. PASSED THIS ______ day of __________________, 2016 _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ day of _______________, 2016 _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2015 82 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016-_________ AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City has established various fees and charges as part of its codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies, which fees and charges are reviewed from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such fees and charges, and hereby determines that it is necessary to adjust certain existing fees and charges, and/or to establish formally other fees and charges; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO: Approval of Fee Schedule. The City Council hereby approves the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A (“Fee Schedule”). To the extent any provision of any code, ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy of the City is 83 2 contrary to the Fee Schedule, such provision is hereby deemed amended so that the Fee Schedule shall control. Any fee or charge not otherwise listed on the Fee Schedule shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. SECTION THREE: Effective Date of Fee Schedule. The fees and charges set forth on the Fee Schedule shall take effect as of the date noted on the Fee Schedule. SECTION FOUR: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this ____ day of _________________________, 2016 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved this __ day of _________________________, 2016 _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 84 3 Exhibit A Schedule of Fees and Charges 85 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 1 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 1. Public Works Water Utility Fees/Charges Turn Off Water Fee 51.064 Water 75 Turn Off Water Fee After Hours 51.064 Water 100 Turn On Water Fee 51.064 Water 75 Turn On Water Fee After Hours 51.064 Water 100 Water Main Taps:Water 1 Inch 51.030(b)Water 500 1-1/2 Inch 51.030(b)Water 1,000 2 Inch 51.030(b)Water 1,300 3,4,6 and 8 inch taps 51.030(b)Water 900 Water Meter Fees:Water 3/4 Inch 51.045(e)Water 470 1 Inch 51.045(e)Water 540 1-1/2 Inch 51.045(e)Water 910 2 Inch 51.045(e)Water 1,165 3 inch 51.045(e)Water 2,615 4 inch 51.045(e)Water 3,950 6 inch 51.045(e)Water 6,840 Plant Investment Fee - SF 52.15 Water 2,900 Multi-Family Dwelling - new structure 52.15 Water 2,652 Residential pools, sprinkler systems 52.15 Water 459 Nonresidential buildings - new structures and additions 52.15 Water 1.02/sq ft of entire Water interior area of the building Institutional buildings - new structure and additions 52.15 Water .94/sq ft of entire only if eligible for fed and state tax exempt status Water interior area of the building General Fees Sticker for Leaf/Grass Bags 50.016 General 1.00 per sticker Sanitation Special Pickup 50.039 ( c)General $ 40 per cubic yard White Goods 50.015 General 65 White Goods W/CFC 50.015 General 90 Monthly refuse collection fee 50.021 General 8.00 Per month Licenses Scavengers - collects and disposes of multi-family and 50.055 1,500 per company commercial waste Scavengers - collects and disposes of residential and 50.055 750 per company commercial roll -offs Exhibit A 86 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 2 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Scavengers - collection and cleaning of portable toilets 50.055 200 per company 2. Community Development Water Utility Fees/Charges Water Service Inspection Fee N/A Water 50 Home Inspection Fee 51.065 Water 150 Home Inspection Fee - Re-Inspection 51.065 Water 50 Home Inspection Waiver 51.065 Water 25 General Fees Zoning Analysis 159.052 General 100 Building & Development Fees: Service Contracts: Lake Bluff N/A General Per Agreement Bannockburn N/A General $5,000 min. N/A & 50% over that Plan Review : Remodeling up to $12,000 150.145 General 55 $12,001 to $48,000 Remodeling 150.145 General 82 $48,001 - $120,000 Remodeling 150.145 General 138 over $120,000 Remodeling 150.145 General 230 Additional fee for plan reviews that require more than 2 hours 150.145 General $55 per additional hour New Construction - SFD 150.145 General 400 New Construction - 2FD 150.145 General 230/unit New Const. - Com. & Multi. Fam.150.145 $572+$50/ 3 or more units 150.145 1,000 Sq. Ft. Plan Re-Submittal Fee 150.145 General $ 140 per re-submittal Alterations to Approved Plans 150.145 General $ 140 + $55 per hour fee for reviews requiring more than 2 hours Building Scale Calculation Fees Single Family residence - first review N/A General 400 with completed Building Scale worksheet/detailed plans N/A General 200 Two-family dwelling N/A General $ 189 per unit with completed Building Scale worksheet/detailed plans N/A General 120 Additonal reviews (for revised plans)N/A General 102 On-site inspection for an existing dwelling N/A General 102 Office meeting to discuss for building scale calculation N/A General 50 87 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 3 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Building Scale Waiver Request N/A General 100 Building Review Board Fees Signs/Awnings/Landscaping/ Lighting/Fences N/A General 75 Two or more of above N/A General 125 Storefront Alterations N/A General 100 New Commercial building, school, hospital or multi-family building N/A General 700 per building Alterations or major additions to commerical buildings, schools, N/A General 323 hopitals or multi-family buildings - per building New multi-building projects - per building N/A General 850 + 175 for more than 4 buildings (per building) Satellite Dish N/A General 100 Changes to approved building materials N/A General 60 Demolition with replacement structure N/A General 2,230 Demolition partial and replacement addition N/A General 1,310 Demolition w/o Replacement Struture N/A General 1,310 New Residence on Vacant Property (building scale fee also)155.07 General 1,050 Additions & Alterations to Existing Residence (building scale fee also)155.07 General 500 Replacement/new single family home/duplex structure N/A General 1,310 Variance from Building Scale Ordinance N/A General 367 Revisions to Approved Plans N/A General 225 Historic Preservation Commission Fees Demolition (complete) and replacement structure 155.07 General 2,450 Demolition (partial) and replacement structure 155.07 General 1,529 Removal of less than 50%155.07 Demolition partial and replacement addition N/A General 1,310 Demolition w/o Replacement Struture N/A General 1,310 New Residence on Vacant Property (building scale fee also)155.07 General 1,050 Additions & Alterations to Existing Residence (building scale fee also)155.07 General 500 Revisions to Approved Plans 155.07 General 225 Variance from Building Scale Ordinance 155.07 General 367 Rescission of local landmark designation, amendment of 155.07 local landmark designation or historic map amendment 155.07 General 2,500 Signs/Awnings/Landscaping/ Lighting/Fences N/A General 75 Two or more of above N/A General 125 Storefront Alterations N/A General 100 New Commercial building, school, hospital or multi-family building N/A General 700 per building Alterations or major additions to commerical buildings, schools, N/A General 323 88 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 4 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue hopitals or multi-family buildings - per building New multi-building projects - per building N/A General 850 + 175 for more than 4 buildings (per building) Project Fees Red Tag , per violation, per day 150.005 General 300 Stop Work Order 150.005 General 750 Street Obstruction - first 30 lineal fee of public right-of-way 150.005 General 30 Street Obstruction - for each 20 lineal feet or fraction therof in excess of 30 feet 150.005 General 10 Re-Inspection all permits (failed/no show)150.005 General 175 Additional Inspections 150.005 General 50 Off Hour Inspections 150.005 General $50 administration fee plus per hour cost of inspector Const. Codes Comm. Fees: Variances from Construction Code 150.110 General 250 Administrative Appeals 150.110 General 150 Material/Product Evaluation 150.110 General 350.00 Demolition Tax 150.110 Cap Imp/12,000 Afford Hsing Zoning Board of Appeals Variations from Zoning Codc 159.02 General 287 Administrative Appeals 159.02 General 150 Special Use Permit - Existing Developments 159.02 General 655 Legal Ad Publication (as required)159.02 General 65 Plan Commission Minor Subdivisions-Tentative Approval 2,3 or 4 lots 156.026(a)(3)General 2,184 payable at time of application Minor Subdivisions-Final Approval 156.026(a)(3)General 250+35/lot plus 156.026(a)(3)engineering and recording fees Major Subdivisions-Tentative Approval 5 or more lots 156.026(a)(3)General $3,822+35 for each 156.026(a)(3)General lot over 5 Major Subdivisions-Final approval paid prior to recording of plat 156.026(a)(3)General $400+35/ 156.026(a)(3)General plus $5/lot 156.026(a)(3)General over 10; + 156.026(a)(3)engineering and recording fees Planned Preservation Subd Special Use Pemit plus minor/major subd fee 156.026(a)(3)General 2,500 Zoning Change 156.026(a)(3)General 3,328 89 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 5 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Filing fee for all other developments 156.026(a)(3)General 788 Code Amendment 156.026(a)(3)General 3,328 Extension of Tentative Subdivision Plat Approval 156.026(a)(3)General 150 Administrative Property Line shift 156.026(a)(3)General 250 Legal Ad Publication (as required)156.026(a)(3)General 65 Special Use Permit 156.026(a)(3)General 900 Permits Building Permits repair and maintenance under $6,000 150.145 General 40 Building Permits - $100,000 or less 150.145 General 1.5% of total construction 150.145 General (50 min) Building Permts - over $100,000 $100,001 - $200,000 150.145 General 2% of total construction $200,001 - $500,000 150.145 General $4,000 + 1% of total cc in excess of $200,000 $500,001 and above 150.145 General $7,000 + .5% of total cc in excess of $500,000 Underground storage tank removal General (single family and duplex)150.145 $150 per tank All other properties 150.145 General $250 per tank Hot work 150.145 General 100 Permit Extensions 150.145 General $150 adminstration fee plus 20% of the original 150.145 permit fee - 6 month extension Adminstration Demolition 150.145 General 500 Driveway Permits: New curb cut 150.145 General $50 per cut resurface driveway - no change 150.145 General 25.00 per cut reconfiguration or change of material 150.145 General 50 Driveway Bond 150.485 General 250 Satellite Permit 150.145 General 100 Satellite dish 150.145 General 1.5% of cost, 50 min Plumbing Irrigation Systems 150.145 General 2.00 per head 150.145 General $ 60 min Plumbing - base charge 150.145 General 60+$5.50/fix. Recording of Public Right-of-Way agreement 150.145 General 40 for sprinkler system Sanitary Sewer 150.145 General $50 min + 1.00/ft over 50 ft 90 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 6 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Storm Sewer 150.145 General $50 min + 1.00/ft over 50 ft Street Opening 98.056 50.00 Electrical 150.145 General $100, plus $1 per unit beyond 100 total units Electrical Service 150.145 General 75 Electric - motors 150.145 General $75 + .50 per horsepower HVAC Residential - New or replacement 1 or 2 units 150.145 General 52 Each additional unit 150.145 General 45 Duct work 150.145 General 52 Commercial New 150.145 General $52 per 1,500 150.145 General sq ft of floor area Commerical - replacement of existing units 150.145 General same as residential Sign 150.145 General 1.5% construction cost 150.145 General 50 min Construction Trailer Permit (Commercial Construction Sites only)150.145 General $100 per month Purchase of Parking Space per Zoning Code 150.145 General to be set by City Council at the time 150.145 of approval based on market costs Vending Licenses Health -Restaurant (20 or Less)113.03(d)(1)General 250 Health - Restaurant (21-99)113.03(d)(2)General 350 Health - Restaurant (100 + Seats)113.03(d)(3)General 600 Health - Itinerant Restaurant 113.03(d)(4)General 250 Health - Food Store 113.21(d)General 100.00 Health - Limited Food Store (selling candy)113.21(d)General 50.00 Food Vendor (delivery)113.21(d)General $150/Veh. Milk Vendor (delivery)113.21(d)General $100/Veh. Health - Milk Store 113.21(d)General 100 Ice Vending Machine per machine 95.061 General 110 Food Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Candy Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Pop/Soft drink Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Milk Vending Machine per machine 113.21(d)General 55 Tobacco vending machine per machine 135.136 General 50 Card/Trinket Vending Machine per machine 110.104 General 55 Amusement Machine per machine 110.104 General 110 HVAC Contractor 150.145 General 60 Electrical Contractor 150.145 General 60 Juke Box 110.083 General 25 Pool Table 112.095(b)(1)General 25 Elevator Inspection Fee 150.220(b)General Variable DVD Vending Machine License 110.005 General 110 91 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 7 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Tree and Vegetation Removal Application Review Fee 99 General $40 Removal of Heritage Tree 99 General $ 40 per tree Removal of tree 10" DBH or larger within the streetscape preservation 99 General $ 40 per tree area, the front yard or the corner side yard 99 Removal of trees or vegetation from a Conservation Easement 99 General $ 35 per 1 1/2 acre site Removal of trees froma Tree Preservation or No Disturbance area 99 General $ 40 per tree Removal of trees or shrubs from any ravine or bluff 99 General $ 40 per 1 1/2 acre site Removal of trees or shrubs from a public right of way 99 General $ 40 per 1 1/2 acre site or other public property 99 Ash tree removals, dead or hazardous trees 99 General No Fee Bonds Permit Renewal - for projects with estimated construction 150.145 General 15% of permit fee costs of $200,000 or less refundable upon completion of project within one year Permit Renewal - for projects with estimated construction 150.145 General 17% of permit fee costs of more than $200,000 refundable upon completion of project within 18 months Street Opening Bond 98.058 General 500 Fire Protection Fees: Life Safety Plan Review Fee - New Constr/Addition 150.145 General $ 500 min or .05 s.f. includes all floors Life Safety Plan Review Fee - Remodel/Alteration 150.145 General $ 60 min or .05 sf includes all areas Fire Suppression Systems (Plan review and 2 inspections) Single Family/Duplex Residential New 150.145 General $120 or .05 per s.f whichever is greater Addition/Alteration 150.145 General $60 or .05 per s.f for scope of work area 150.145 whichever is greater Commercial/Multi Family New 150.145 General $500 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater Addition/Alteration 150.145 General $250 or .05 s.f. for scope of work area whichever is greater Specialized Suppression (FM 200, clean agent)150.145 General $150 per system ( in addition to above fees for the overall system) Stand pipe riser 150.145 General 100 Fire Alarms Single Family/Duplex Residential 150.145 General $75 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater 92 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 8 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Commercial/Multi Family - New General $500 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater Commercial/Multi Family - Addition/Alteration 150.145 General $75 or .05 per s.f. whichever is greater Inspections/Tests Annual & New Underground Flush test 150.145 Water $75 + cost per gallon of water, at current rate as 150.145 established by the City Council, based on pipe size Annual & New Fire Pump Test 150.145 Water $175 + cost per gallon of water, at current rate as 150.145 established by the City Council, based on pump size Other Hood and Duct Extinguishing System - New 150.145 General $300 per system Hood and Duct Extinguishing System - Alteration 150.145 General $100 per system Alternative Letter of Credit Review 150.145 General $100 per review Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (single family and duplex)150.145 General $200 per unit $300 per unit 50.00%400 Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (multi-family and commercial)150.145 General $250 or $25 per square foot, whichever is greater, to a maximum of $1,500 $25 per square foot to a maximum of $2,000 25.00%125 3. Finance Water Utility Fees/Charges Water Sales/1,000 Gallons Effective with Water Bills mailed on or after May 1, 2016 Lake Forest Residential - to 10,000 Gallons per Quarter 51.061(a)Water 5.43 4.50 -17.10%-270,000 Lake Forest Residential - 10,001 to 60,000 Gallons per Quarter 51.061(a)Water 5.43 5.62 3.50%110,000 Lake Forest Residential - over 60,000 Gallons per Quarter 51.061(a)Water 5.70 5.89 3.57%60,000 Lake Forest All Other Users 51.061(a)Water 5.60 5.80 3.33%40,000 Del Mar Woods 51.061(a)Water 7.71 7.98 3.50%0 Other Non resident users 51.061(a)Water 7.71 7.98 3.50%0 Sewer Charge/1,000 Gallons (winter usage)51.061(a)Water 1.16 Customer Charge - Water (Inside) 5/8" to 1.5" meter 51.061(b)Water $30/quarter $40/quarter 25.00%257760 2" to 4" meter 51.061(b)Water $150/quarter $160/quarter 6.70%12320 6" and above meter 51.061(b)Water $750/quarter Benefit Access Program Discount - must renew annually N\A Water $(10)/quarter Customer Charge - Water (Outside) 5/8" to 1.5" meter 51.062(b)Water $40/quarter $50/quarter 20.00%0 2" to 4" meter 51.062(b)Water $165/quarter $175/quarter 6.06%0 6" and above meter 51.062(b)Water $790/quarter Customer Charge - Sewer 5/8" to 1.5" meter 52.15€(1)Water $5/quarter 2" to 4" meter 52.15€(1)Water $20/quarter 93 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 9 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 6" and above meter 52.15€(1)Water $100/quarter Beach Parking Fee Beach Parking Temporary (R)73.45 General 85 Temporary (NR)73.45 General 910 Parking Permits Resident-Full Year 73.27(c)(7)Parking 313 Resident-Monthly 73.27(c)(7)Parking 30/Month Resident - Unlimited 73.27(c)(7)Parking 1,000 Employer Purchased-Full Yr. 73.27(c)(7)Parking 180 Employer Purchased-Monthly 73.27(c)(7)Parking 20/Month Non-Resident-Full Year 73.27(c)(7)Parking 700 Non-Resident - Monthly 73.27(c)(7)Parking 60/Monthly An envelope of 10 tokens N\A Parking 25 Daily Parking Fee-Telegraph 73.27(c)(7)Parking 3 Daily Parking Fee-All Other 73.27(c)(7)Parking 3 Licenses Car and Lt Truck 74.179(b)General 85 HeavyTruck (8,000+ lbs.)74.179(b)General 110 Motocycles 74.179(b)General 45 Senior Citizen 65 and over N/A General no discount Transfers 74.184 & 185 General 5 Penalties 74.179(b)General 50% Dog License 91.032 General 10 Cat License 91.032 General 10 Auto Dealer License 74.183 General 50+20/Veh Disabled vehicle sticker (Benefit Access Program)N/A General 45 Real Estate Transfer Tax 39.155(b)Cap Imp $4.00 per $1,000 Non-sufficient funds Fee 10.99 General 25 Credit Card Service Fees-Effective January 1, 2015 Daily Parking 73.27(c)(7)General $.25 per transaction Building Permits N/A General lesser of 3.00% or maximum allowable by law Public Safety Pension Fee Residential Utility Accounts N/A General $10 per Quarter 259320 All Other Utility Accounts (exclude irrigation only services)N/A General $35 per Quarter 34300 94 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 10 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 4. Parks and Recreation Golf Course Fees/Charges: Seasonal Fees-Resident: effective January 1, 2017 Class A -Adult Single 97.051 DPG 1,400 Class B -Adult Combo 97.051 DPG 2,400 Class D -Junior 97.051 DPG 600 Class F - Senior Citizen 97.051 DPG 850 Seasonal Fees (Non-Resident) effective January 1, 2017 Class A -Adult Single 97.051 DPG 1,800 Class B -Adult Combo 97.051 DPG 2,400 Class D -Junior 97.051 DPG 625 Class F - Senior Citizen 97.051 DPG 1,100 Daily Fees-Resident: effective January 1, 2017 Weekday-9 97.051 DPG 28 Weekday-18 97.051 DPG 42 Weekend 9 97.051 DPG 34 Weekend -18 97.051 DPG 50 Electric Golf Carts: effective January 1, 2017 9 Holes Single Rider 97.052 DPG 12 18 Holes Single Rider 97.052 DPG 19 Range Balls Small Bucket 97.051 DPG 4 . Medium Bucket 97.051 DPG 6 . Large Bucket 97.051 DPG 15 Pull cart - 9 holes 97.051 DPG 6 Pull cart - 18 hoes 97.051 DPG 8 USGA Handicap Fees - Members 97.051 DPG 34 Permanent Tee Time - Weekend 97.051 DPG 300 Locker - 18 inch 97.051 DPG 110 Locker - 12 inch 97.051 DPG 100 Park Fees Park Picnic Permits 0 - 50 People N/A Parks/Rec 125 51 or more People N/A Parks/Rec 75 Picnic Tables Parks/Rec 25 per table Grills Parks/Rec 85 per grill 95 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 11 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Cemetery Fees Issuance of Deeds 93.45 Cemetery .50 per deed Boating and Beach Fees - effective February 1, 2017 Watercraft Ramp/Sailboat Permits-Recreation Watercraft Ramp (R)97.066 Parks/Rec 464 478 3.02%1008 Watercraft Ramp 2nd boat/ half season 97.066 Parks/Rec 232 239 3.02%119 Watercraft Ramp (R) (Sen.) 97.066 Parks/Rec 371 382 2.96%110 Watercraft Ramp (R) (Sen) 2nd boat/ half season 97.066 Parks/Rec 186 192 3.23%30 Watercraft Ramp (NR) 97.066 Parks/Rec 928 956 3.02%56 Year round compound storage Resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 2056 2118 3.02%806 Year round compound storage Resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 1645 1694 2.98%147 Year round compound storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 3085 3178 3.01%0 Seasonal compound storage Resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 1392 1434 3.02%84 Seasonal compound storage Resident Senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 1114 1147 2.96%165 Seasonal compound storage Non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 2086 2149 3.02%0 Year round watercraft rack storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 562 579 3.02%102 Year round watercraft rack storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 450 464 3.11%56 Year round watercraft rack storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 562 579 3.02%0 Seasonal watercraft rack storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 328 338 3.05%160 Seasonal watercraft rack storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 262 270 3.05%24 Seasonal watercraft rack storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 328 338 3.05%10 Year round watercraft sand storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 695 716 3.02%21 Year round watercraft sand storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 556 573 3.06%0 Year round watercraft sand storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 1042 1074 3.07%0 Seasonal watercraft sand storage resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 426 439 3.05%39 Seasonal watercraft sand storage resident senior 97.066 Parks/Rec 341 351 2.93%0 Seasonal watercraft sand storage non-resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 640 660 3.13%0 South Beach Parking Permit (R)97.066 Parks/Rec 134 139 3.73%165 South Beach Parking Permit (R) (Sen.)97.066 Parks/Rec 107 110 2.80%75 South Beach Parking Permit (NR)97.066 Parks/Rec 910 0 South Beach Parking Permit Employee/Retiree 97.066 Parks/Rec 89 92 3.37%3 Extra vehicle decal resident - center isle 97.066 Parks/Rec 134 138 2.99%0 Extra vehicle decal senior - center isle 97.066 Parks/Rec 107 110 2.80%0 Extra vehicle decal nonresident - center isle 97.066 Parks/Rec 202 208 2.97%0 Daily Boat Launch resident 97.066 Parks/Rec 40 Daily Boat Launch nonresident 97.066 Parks/Rec 65 Resident Guest Daily Parking Pass, limit 5 per season 97.066 Parks/Rec 10 Nanny Parking Pass 97.066 Parks/Rec 85 Senior Caregiver Parking Pass 97.066 Parks/Rec 85 Non resident beach fee, weekends and holidays 97.069 Parks/Rec 10 Fitness Center Fees - effective May 1, 2017 96 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 12 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Fitness Center Membership Fees Individual resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 384 396 3.13%2,520 Individual resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 260 Individual resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 130 Individual resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 39 40 2.56%5,958 Individual non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 468 480 2.56%96 Individual non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 325 Individual non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 162 Individual non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 47 48 2.13%423 Couple resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 672 696 3.57%1,872 Couple resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 455 Couple resident rate - 3 month N/A Parks/Rec 227 Couple resident rate - 1 month N/A Parks/Rec 67 69 2.99%0 Couple non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 816 840 2.94%0 Couple non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 568 Couple non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 284 Couple non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 82 84 2.44%0 Family resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 876 900 2.74%1,320 Family resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 591 Family resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 295 Family resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 88 90 2.27%0 Family non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 1,056 1080 2.27%0 Family non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 739 Family non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 369 Family non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 106 108 1.89%0 Senior resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 288 300 4.17%1,212 Senior resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 195 Senior resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 97 Senior resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 29 30 3.45%609 Senior non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 348 360 3.45%36 Senior non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 244 Senior non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 122 Senior non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 35 36 2.86%0 Senior couple resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 504 516 2.38%576 Senior couple resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 341 Senior couple resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 170 Senior couple resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 51 52 1.96%306 Senior couple non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 612 624 1.96%24 Senior couple non-resident rate - 6 months N/A Parks/Rec 426 Senior couple non-resident rate - 3 months N/A Parks/Rec 213 Senior couple non-resident rate - 1 months N/A Parks/Rec 61 63 3.28%0 Student resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 288 300 4.17%588 Student non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 360 360 0.00%0 Matinee resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 192 204 6.25%924 97 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 13 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Matinee non-resident rate N/A Parks/Rec 240 252 5.00%108 All-inclusive - member - effective December 6, 2012 N/A Parks/Rec 290 299 3.10%441 All-inclusive - non-member - effective December 6, 2012 N/A Parks/Rec 645 665 3.10%0 5. OCM General Fees & Charges: Birth certificates (January 1, 2010)5.36 General $10 first/$4 additional Death certificates (January 1, 2013)5.36 General $14 first/$6 additional On-line data entry fee by city staff ( January 1, 2010)N/A General 10 Peddler Permit 117.01(b)General $40 Solicitors Permit 117.40 General $30 Electric Car N/A General $1 per Hour Special Event Fees Application Fee 10.13 General $25 50 100.00%1875 Application Fee - Late Fee 10.13 General 50% of fee per 30 days 750 Escrow Deposit - Special Events 10.13 General 500 0 Police Officer hourly rate 10.13 General $80 82 2.50%50 Firefighter/Paramedic hourly rate 10.13 General $80 82 2.50%25 Police and Fire Vehicle 10.13 General $110 Public Works hourly rate 10.13 General $63 Parks hourly rate 10.13 Parks/Rec.$63 A-Frame Barricades 98.011 General $5 Barricades 1 - 10 98.011 General $40 Parking Cones 98.011 General $1 Bleacher keep in park 10.13 General $70 50 -28.57%0 Bleacher move to another location 10.13 General $135 180 33.33%250 Litter Barrels 1 - 6 10.13 General $45 $10/can 350 Litter Barrels 7 - 12 10.13 General $55 Eliminate Picnic Tables 1 - 6 10.13 General $150 $30/table 500 Picnic Tables 1 - 6 10.13 General $245 Eliminate Grills 10.13 General $85 180 111.76%250 Licenses Raffle License 110.150 General 25 Tobacco License 135.138(f)General 500 Landscape License (March 1 to Feb 28)110.217 General 100 Penalties - Landscape License Applications after June 1 110.217 General 25 Auctioneers License 110.026 General $5 Daily & $1.00 per employee Factories and Slaughterhouses 110.047 General $500 Mobile Auto Service 110.200 General $50 per unit Athletic Contests 112.0029B)General $50 per day 98 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 14 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Bowling Alley 112.025 General $10 per lane per year Circuses 112.041 General $100 per day circus conducted Circuses - Side Show 112.042 General $50 per day circus conducted Motion Pictures - Establishment capacity 500 or more persons 112.075 General .50 per seat Public Dances 112.112 General $500 Theatrical Performances - less than 500 persons 112.126 General $100 Theatrical Performances - more than 500 persons 112.126 General $150 Theatrical Performance not covered by 112.126 112.127 General $25 per day Junk Yard or Junk Shop 114.22 General $75 Junk Dealer collected by vehicle 114.23 General $20 per vehicle Pawnbroker 116.03 General 100 Expressmen and Draymen 118.156 General 25 Alcoholic and Beverages: Class A-1 111.036 General 2,700 Class A-2 111.036 General 1,500 Class A-3 111.036 General 275 Class B-1 111.036 General 2,500 Class C-1 111.036 General 2,600 Class C-2 111.036 General 3,000 Class C-3 111.036 General 800 Class D-1 111.036 General 2,500 Class E-1 111.036 General 3,000 Class F-1 111.036 General 100 Class F-2 111.036 General 100 for each 24 hour period or any part therof: $50 not for profit with proof of 501 ( c)3 status Class F-3 111.036 General 75 for each 24 hour period or any part therof: $50 not for profit with proof of 501 ( c)3 status Class F-4 111.036 General 500 per vendor for the duration of the sporting event Class F-5 111.036 General 1,100 Class F-6 111.036 General 600 Class G-1 111.036 General 200 Class G-2 111.036 General 600 Class H-1 111.036 General 600 Class H-2 111.036 General 1,100 Class I-1 111.036 General None Annual Renewal 111.036 General 150 renewal existing or change in owners or officers Application Fee 111.043 General 300 new license Application for Change in Owners or Officers 111.043 General 100 Liquor License Penalty Fee 111.036 General 25 99 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 15 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Impact Fees Library 150.023 Library see ordinance Fire and Emergency Services 150.023 General see ordinance Park Site 150.023 PPL see ordinance Park Development 150.023 PPL see ordinance Police 150.023 General see ordinance Public Works 150.023 General see ordinance School District 67 (information only)150.023 pay School see ordinance High School District 115 (information only)150.023 pay School see ordinance 6. Police General Fees & Charges: Bank ID Card Fee N/A General 25 Adult Finger Print Fee Resident or Employee N/A General 25 Non-resident N/A General 200 Licenses Taxicab 118.068 General 50 Taxicab Driver 118.068 General 50 Taxi Business License (paid at City Hall) New 118.068 General 100 Renewal 118.068 General 100 Fines & Penalties: Overtime Parking - Lot 73.99 General 25/75/125 Improper Parking - Lot 73.99 General 25/75/125 Parking in Prohibited Area- Lot 73.99 General 25/75/125 Overtime Parking - Other 73.99 General 25/75/125 Improper Parking - Other 73.99 General 25/75/125 Parking in Prohibited Area- Other 73.99 General 25/75/125 Parking at Boat Ramp 73.46 General 125/250/350 No Vehicle License 74.179 General 75/100/125 No parking east of Sheridan Road 73.99 General 125/250/350 No Animal License 91.032 General 15/25/50 Dog-At-Large 91.050 General 40/55/70 Code Violations Variable General variable Motor Code Violations Variable General variable Dog Barking 91.004 General 15/25/50 Dog Impound 91.014 General 15 Leaf Burning 94.2 General 100 Handicapped Parking 73.21 General 250 Dog Public Nuisance 91.053 General 100/500/750 100 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 16 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Burglar Alarm Fees 110.125 General 0/50/100/250 Vehicle Immobilization fee 73.50 General 100 E-911 Surcharge 39.181 E911 Fund 0.65 Copies of Accident Reports 71.032 General 10 FOIA copy fees >50 pages 33.3 General .15 per page Transiant Merchant License 117.20(f)General 100.00 7. Fire General Fees & Charges: Ambulance-Resident ALS transport 94.51 General 587.40 812.10 38.25%63,365.40 Ambulance-Resident ALS2 transport 94.52 General 703.98 919.98 30.68%777.60 Ambulance-Resident BLS transport 94.53 General 524.40 704.07 34.26%30,004.89 Ambulance-Non Resident ALS transport 94.54 General 735.63 987.48 34.24%24,681.30 Ambulance- Non Resident ALS2 transport 94.55 General 903.98 1,088.92 20.46%554.82 Ambulance-Non Resident BLS transport 94.56 General 666.74 854.08 28.10%19,296.02 Ambulance - Mileage 94.58 General 7.27 per mile Fireworks Permit 94.5 General 100 200 100.00%400 Open Burn Permit 94.5 General 50 75 50.00%900 Bonfire Permit 94.5 General 50 100 100.00%150 Special Event Inspection 94.5 General 100 Tent Permit 94.5 General 50.00 or .05 per square foot $100 or .05 per sq ft 100.00%380 Fire Watch 94.5 General Hourly Rate Overtime hourly Rate tbd Annual Fire Pump Test 94.5 General/Water 10.00 Admin Fee + Water Usage Annual Inspections - 4th re-inspection 94.5 General 60 100 66.67%1280 Annual Inspections - 5th re-inspection 94.5 General 120 200 66.67%1120 Annual Inspections - 6th re-inspection 94.5 General 240 400 66.67%800 Inflatable amusement inspection 94.5 General 25.00 per inflatable 100 300.00%450 Carnival rides 94.5 General 200 Fire Alarm Fees 110.125 General 0/50/100/250 8. Engineering Sewer System Connection Fee Single Family Dwelling N/A 825 Two - family Dwelling N/A 825 per unit Multi-family Dwelling N/A 165 per population equiv 1,650 min 101 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 17 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue Non-Residential Buildings N/A 165 per population equiv 1,650 min Institutional buildings with Fed and State tax exempt status N/A 825/connection Site Grading Site Grading - New construction N/A 500 640 28.00%7560 If no grading, request may be submitted for a waiver of the requirement of N/A 100 240 140.00%34160 grading plan Resubmittal N/A 125 165 32.00%2400 Revisions to approved grading plans N/A 125 Tree fencing inspection fee N/A 125 240 92.00%6210 Site grading security (financial guarantee - refundable)N/A 3,000 per acre of development Water Shed Development Fee: Revised Fee Schedule General Fees Sediment and Erosion Control Only Single Family Residential Lot (See site grading ordinance)151.05 see ordinance Single Family Residential Lot (within regulatory floodplain)151.05 750 1040 38.67%580 Development (<10 acres)151.05 850 2400 182.35%1550 Development ( ≥ 10 acres)151.05 1,000 3560 256.00% Minor Development Without detention 151.05 2,000 2120 6.00%120 With detention or Fee - in - lieu 151.05 3,000 3120 4.00%120 Major Development With detention or Fee-in-lieu 151.05 4,500 5400 20.00%900 Within regulatory floodplain ( < 10 acres)151.05 3,000 3280 9.33% Within regulatory floodplain (≥ 10 acres)151.05 4,000 8640 116.00% Wetland Fees Category I Wetland impacts less than or equal to 1 acre N/A 500 + appropriate General fee 880 76.00% Category II Wetland impacts greater than 1 acre and less than 2 acres N/A 750 + appropriate General fee 3640 385.33% Category III Wetland impacts greater or equal to 2 acres or impacts a HQAR N/A 1,000 + appropriate General fee 4400 340.00% Category IV Wetland impacts involving either restoration, creation N/A 500 (< 1 acre) + applicable Gen fee 1440 188.00% or enhancement N/A 1,000 (≥ 1 acre) + applicable Gen fee 2760 176.00% Resubmittal fee N/A 1/3 of total Watershed Permit Fee/each resubmittal 347-2880 38% - 116% Earth Change Approval N/A 1,000 + applicable Watershed Permit Fee 1720 16% to 52%720 Securities - financial guarantee refundable N/A 3,000 per acre of development Variances N/A 2,200 + applicable Watershed Permit Fee 4240 10% to 42% Appeals N/A 550 + applicable Watershed Permit Fee 1920 0% to 22% Flood Plain Analysis and Report N/A 35 Construction Engineering Standards Manual N/A 35 102 DRAFT 11/21/16 City Council - First Reading 18 of 18 PROPOSED FY2018 FEE Amount $$ (n/c if %Projected City Code Section Fund FY2017 blank)CHANGE Revenue 9. Senior Resources Membership Dues Residents of Lake Forest, Lake Bluff and unincorporated Lake Forest and Lake Bluff 97.087 Senior Resources $35 per person 97.087 $55 per family Outside of Lake Forest and Lake Bluff 97.087 Senior Resources $45 per person 97.087 $65 per family 75 15.38%100 Circuit Breaker participants Lake Forest and Lake Bluff 97.087 Senior Resources $10 per person residents only 97.087 $15 per family Car and Bus rides 97.087 Senior Resources $3/fee each direction 97.087 $6 round trip Taxi subsidy- Lake Forest and Lake Bluff residents 97.087 Senior Resources 16 coupons/month living within the Lake Forest High School District for a value of $3/each 103 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016- ______ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW FEES RELATED TO LATE FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on an annual basis reviews fees and charges related to SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATIONS and having done so, hereby determines that it is necessary to establish new fees and charges to cover the cost of service provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO. Approval of New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS. The City Council hereby approves the fees as set forth in Exhibit A, New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION LATE FEE, and directs that said fees shall be incorporated into the Fee Schedule for the City of Lake Forest and reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis as part of the Fee Schedule as determined to be necessary by the City Council. SECTION THREE. Effective Date of the New Fees Related to a SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION LATE FEE. The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit A shall take 104 effect as of May 1, 2017, consistent with the date of the Fee Schedule for FY 2018 as adopted by the City Council. SECTION FOUR. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this day of , 2016 AYES: ( ) NAYS: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) Approved this day of , 2016 ______________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ City Clerk 105 EXHIBIT A New Fees to the Office of the City Manager Special Event Permit Application Late Fee 50% of Permit Application Fee for every 30 days under the ninety (90) day application deadline date 106 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016- ______ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW FEES RELATED TO ESCROW DEPOSIT FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on an annual basis reviews fees and charges related to SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATIONS and having done so, hereby determines that it is necessary to establish new fees and charges to cover the cost of service provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO. Approval of New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION ESCROW DEPOSIT. The City Council hereby approves the fees as set forth in Exhibit A, New Fees Related to SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION ESCROW DEPOSIT, and directs that said fees shall be incorporated into the Fee Schedule for the City of Lake Forest and reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis as part of the Fee Schedule as determined to be necessary by the City Council. SECTION THREE. Effective Date of the New Fees Related to a SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION ESCROW DEPOSIT. The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit A 107 shall take effect as of May 1, 2017, consistent with the date of the Fee Schedule for FY 2018 as adopted by the City Council. SECTION FOUR. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this day of , 2016 AYES: ( ) NAYS: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) Approved this day of , 2016 ______________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ City Clerk 108 EXHIBIT A New Fees to the Office of the City Manager Special Event Permit Application Escrow Deposit $500 109 THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 2016- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW FEES RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY PENSION OBLIGATIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest is a home rule, special charter municipal corporation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on an annual basis reviews fees and charges as part of its codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, and having done so, hereby determines that it is necessary to establish new fees and charges to address the increasing cost of public safety pension obligations mandated pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to adopt this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO. Approval of New Fee Related to Public Safety Pension Obligations. The City Council hereby approves the fees as set forth in Exhibit A, “New Fee Related to Public Safety Pension Obligations”, and directs that said fees shall be incorporated into the Fee Schedule for The City of Lake Forest and reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis as part of the Fee Schedule as determined to be necessary by the City Council. 110 SECTION THREE: Effective Date of the New Fees Related to Public Safety Pensions. The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit A shall take effect as of May 1, 2017, consistent with the date of the Fee Schedule for FY 2018 as adopted by the City Council. SECTION FOUR: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. Passed this day of , 2016 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved this day of , 2016 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 111 EXHIBIT A New Fees Related to Public Safety Pension Obligations New Fee Related to Public Safety Pensions: Residential Utility Accounts $10/quarter * All Other Utility Accounts (excluding irrigation only services) $35/quarter * *NOTE: This fee will be assessed to all utility accounts on water bills issued on or after May 1, 2017. 112 Supplemental Memos Regarding Proposed Fee Adjustments 113 Page 1 of 2 October 23, 2016 Revised - November 2, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Hall, Assistant Director of Finance Elizabeth Holleb, Director of Finance FROM: Catherine J. Czerniak, Director of Community Development DATE: October 23, 2016, Revised November 2, 2016 SUBJECT: Recommended Fee Alignments/Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2018 No significant changes are proposed for development related fees. Development related fees have remained constant for the last several years. One minor fee increase is proposed as described below and clarifications are recommended to more clearly reflect current fees. Fee Increases Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (single family and duplex units) - $300 An increase in this fee is proposed to more fully cover the cost of additional documentation and inspections that are necessary when occupancy is desired prior to completion of all work required to close out the permits. The City’s goal is for projects to be fully complete before occupancy is permitted, however, in cases where all life safety requirements are met and property owners or developers have a compelling need for early occupancy, the City works to accommodate early occupancy. After occupancy, the City continues to monitor the property to assure that all building Code requirements, approved plantings and drainage and grading issues are fully addressed in accordance with the terms of the Conditions Occupancy Permit. Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (commercial/multi-family) – $25 per square foot up to a maximum of $2,000 An increase and clarification of this fee is proposed for the same reasons stated above to more fully cover the cost of additional documentation and inspections that are necessary when occupancy is desired prior to completion of all work required to close out the permits. Current Fees Not Reflected, or not Reflected Accurately, on the Fee Schedule Ash tree removals – no fee This fee category should be expanded to clarify that no fee is charged for removal of diseased, dead or hazardous trees regardless of the species. The following fees noted on the Fee Schedule under “Building Review Board” also apply to petitions of the same type submitted for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission and should be reflected in both categories for clarity. Signs/Awnings/Landscaping/Lighting/Fences -- $ 75.00 114 Page 2 of 2 October 23, 2016 Revised - November 2, 2016 Two or more of the above -- $125.00 Storefront Alterations -- $100.00 New Commercial building, school, hospital or multi-family building (single) -- $700.00 Alterations or major additions to commercial Buildings, schools, hospitals or multi-family per building -- $323 New multi-fa The following fees noted on the Fee Schedule under “Historic Preservation Commission” also apply to petitions of the same type submitted for consideration by the Building Review Board and should be reflected in both categories for clarity. New Residence – vacant parcel -- $1,050 Additions and Alterations to Residence -- $ 500 *** Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further clarifications, have any questions or have suggestions for changes. 115 Water Rates FY2018 City Council November 21, 2016 116 Water Plant Improvements Financing Laurel/Western Redevelopment Fees * (* estimated amount – subject to change) $ 295,510 Lake Forest Hospital Permit Fees – Water Plant Investment Fee 454,498 Water Capital Fund Reserves 453,212 TOTAL $ 1,203,220 RECOMMENDATION: Utilize one-time revenues and fund balance reserves to absorb incremental debt service of new bonds, eliminating need for any rate adjustment associated with Water Plant Improvements. City Council 11/21/16 2 117 Goals for FY2018 Water Rates Increase proportion of water fund revenue generated by fixed rate Improve revenue stability; minimize weather fluctuations Most water fund expenses are fixed, but are funded predominantly by variable revenue Mitigate impact on low volume users Maintain incentive for conservation during peak demand periods City Council 11/21/16 3 118 FY2018 Water Rates Recommendation Increase fixed rate – small and medium meters Small meters – from $30 to $40 per quarter Medium meters – from $150 to $160 per quarter Create 3rd Tier for Residential Users 1st Tier – Household usage – to 10K per quarter – reduced rate Intended to offset increase in fixed rate 2nd Tier – Medium usage – over 10k to 60k per quarter 3rd Tier – Usage over 60k per quarter Set rates to provide overall projected increase in revenue of 2.5% for FY18, excluding 3rd Tier City Council 11/21/16 4 119 FY2018 Water Rates Recommendation FY17 FY18 % Incr. Fixed Quarter Fee – Small $30 $40 25% Fixed Quarter Fee – Medium $150 $160 6.7% Fixed Quarter Fee – Large $750 n/c Water Consumption Fee: Residential – 1st 10k/quarter $5.43 $4.50 (17.1)% Residential – 10-60k/quarter $5.43 $5.62 3.50% Residential – over 60k/quarter $5.70 $5.89 3.57% All other users – per 1000g $5.60 $5.80 3.33% City Council 11/21/16 5 Rate structure modification is projected to increase percent of fixed revenue from 16.7% in FY16 to 19% in FY18. 120 Impact Analysis FY17 FY18 % incr Low Usage Residential (total annual consumption of 42k gallons) 21% of users less than 50k $417.94 $427.16 2.21% Med Usage Residential (total annual consumption of 198k gallons – 1qtr over 60k) 65% of users 50k-250k $1,387.93 $1,422.39 2.48% High Usage Residential (total annual consumption of 544k gallons – 4qtr over 60k) .34% of Res. users over 250k $4,343.24 $4,446.73 2.38% Commercial/Med Meter (total annual consumption of 4128k gallons) 1.5% of all users exceed 1000k $29,167.92 $30,076.80 3.12% City Council 11/21/16 6 The table above depicts projected total water and sanitary sewer fees for a full year at various usage levels. 121 Recommendation Water Plant Improvements Fund Incremental Debt Service above current levels with one- time revenues and fund balance reserves through maturity of existing bonds Water Rates – Fiscal Year 2018 Increase fixed rate Create 3rd Tier for Residential Users 1st Tier – Household usage – to 10K per quarter – reduced rate 2nd Tier – Medium usage – over 10k to 60k per quarter 3rd Tier – Usage over 60k per quarter Set rates to provide overall projected increase in revenue of 2.5% for FY18, excluding 3rd Tier City Council 11/21/16 7 122 CITY OF LAKE FOREST MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director Date: November 15, 2016 RE: Public Safety Pension Fee City staff has been requested to further study the potential implementation of a Public Safety pension fee as an alternative means to address the growing cost of public safety pension costs. As previously discussed, the cost of public safety pensions will increase 8.9% for Fiscal Year 2018 and is projected to increase by an average of 8.0% per year. While this cost has traditionally been funded through the property tax levy, the growth rate in the contribution requirement has reduced funds available for other General Fund expenses. The Fire Service Vision 2020 Committee has also noted that the public may not be fully aware of the pension funding issue due to the complexity of the property tax bill. A new public safety pension fee would be most easily implemented by placing it on the quarterly water and sewer utility bill. The additional revenue required for Fiscal Year 2018 is $254,976. Three alternative approaches were outlined and presented to the Finance Committee on November 14. Based on input from the Finance Committee, following is the option presented for City Council consideration: Fee based on Type of Account $10/35 per quarter Option 3 proposes an approach in which the quarterly fee varies based on the type of account, intended to correlate with the amount of people that may reside in or occupy the location of the account. The following table depicts the projected distribution using this model: Account Type # of accounts Quarterly Fee Annual Revenue % of Total Residential 6,483 10 259,320 96.4% Commercial 130 35 18,200 1.9% Multi-Family 33 35 4,620 .5% School 50 35 7,000 .7% Church 17 35 2,380 .3% City 15 35 2,100 .2% TOTAL 6,728 293,620 100% 123 Approval of the Lakefront Permit Recommended Fees for FY18 PRESENTED BY: Joe Mobile, Superintendent of Recreation (847-810-3941) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff requests approval of the Lakefront Permit FY18 fees. This annual approval is necessary to prepare annual budgets for Lakefront operations. RECOMMENDATION REVIEW: Reviewed Date Comments Parks and Recreation Board 9/20/2015 Recommend Approval of fees BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is the proposed fee structure for lakefront permit fees for FY2018. Staff is recommending an increase of 3% over the FY17 fees to the majority of permit fees to offset increased utilities, supplies and personnel expenses for the annual operations of Forest Park Beach. Staff is taking a conservative approach for revenue growth by assuming that participation levels will remain constant with FY17 usage. RECOMMENDATIONS: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff are recommending the following changes to the current fee structure: A 3% increase in resident and non-resident permit fee categories with the following exceptions that will remain constant with FY17 fees. o The Nanny and Caregiver Parking Pass ($85) o The Resident Guest Daily Parking ($10) o The Non-resident Beach Access Fees ($10). o The Non-resident South Beach Parking Permit ($910) o Daily Boat Launch ($40) o Daily Boat Launch Non-Resident ($65) Staff requests keeping non-resident daily pass use restrictions in place to protect the heaviest used boating times for Lake Forest residents. Non-resident passes will only be sold Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates a positive revenue differential of $3,180.00 over FY17 with the proposed 3% increase in fees. All fees will become effective February 1, 2017. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve proposed FY2018 Lakefront fees, as detailed in attachments, effective February 1, 2017. 124 Approval of the Lake Forest Fitness Center’s Recommended Fees for FY18 PRESENTED BY: Joe Mobile, Superintendent of Recreation (847-810-3941) PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff requests approval of the Fitness Center’s FY18 fees. This annual approval is necessary to prepare annual budgets for the Fitness Center. RECOMMENDATION REVIEW: Reviewed Date Comments Parks and Recreation Board 9/20/2016 Recommend Approval of fees BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is the proposed fee structure for fitness center membership types for FY2018. Staff is recommending an adjusted 3% increase to the majority of our membership fees in order to offset increased utilities, supplies and personnel expenses as well as to stay competitive in the local fitness market. The Fitness Center’s memberships fluctuate considerably throughout the year. With varying anniversary dates, extensions due to medical reason or “holds” for snow birds, it can create difficulty in determining annual membership totals. As a result, staff takes a conservative approach for revenue growth by assuming membership levels will remain the same throughout the year based on membership totals in September. In FY17, Staff had eliminated the 6 month and 3 month membership options and began offering the Month to Month membership options which allows perspective members the flexibility to cancel their membership with 30 days written notice. Typically the Annual memberships are unable to be cancelled unless for medical reasons or relocation. The month to month membership is also a good alternative for those looking for a short term option. This option has proved successful as memberships have increased in several categories. Staff will also continue to offer a 3 month membership option as summer promotion to students. RECOMMENDATIONS: Parks and Recreation Board along with Staff are recommending the following changes to the current fee structure for FY18: • Increase all resident and non-resident membership fees by an adjusted 3%. The 3% increase was taken over FY17 fees and then adjusted to be divisible by 12 months so that our new software system can use the automatic monthly billing for all annual memberships. This adjustment to the increase will provide a consistent amount to be drawn each month providing our members a smooth and understandable transaction. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates a positive revenue differential of $17,013 over FY17 due to the 3% increase in membership rates. All fees will become effective May 1, 2017. 125 COUNCIL ACTION: Approve proposed fee structure for FY18 Fitness Center fess, as detailed in attachments, effective May 1, 2017. 126 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Application Fee – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to include new and/or additional fees are being requested. The proposed fee has includes a brief overview of the purpose, and justification. An Ordinance has been attached for review and consideration. Special Event Permit Application Fee - $50 Pursuant to the City Code (§10.13), a special application fee may be imposed in connection with the filing of an application. The special event fee was previously omitted from the fee schedule, and therefore, we are including it in our FY2018 request. The filing of the application typically takes between 1-1.5 hours, which includes coordination meetings with applicants, quality assurance and control checking, follow up with applicants to complete submittal requirements, and preparing the submittal package for staff review. The application fee reflects the staff time to facilitate this process. In reviewing fees from neighboring jurisdictions, fees range from $0 to $60 to submit an application. Based previous year data of special event permits issued, the City process between 75 and 100 special event applications annually. This total does not include independent permits that may be required by the Fire Prevention Bureau (e.g. tents, bonfires, inflatables, etc.) for activities that would not otherwise qualify as a community special event. Therefore, the estimated annual revenue potential of the fee is between $3,750 and $5,000. 127 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Application Late Fee – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to include new and/or additional fees are being requested. The proposed fee includes a brief overview of the purpose, and justification. An Ordinance has been attached for review and consideration. Application Fee (Late Fee) – 50% of Application Fee Over the past few years, community and private organizations have submitted special event applications within weeks, and in some cases, days prior to the proposed special event date. Depending on the size and scale of the event, this can hamper City staff’s ability to equitably review the application, consult with the organizer, and schedule resources to support the event. Additionally, pursuant to the policy (Administrative Directive 1-17), applications shall be filed no less than ninety (90) days prior the first proposed date of the event. As such, we are proposing to add a penalty fee of 50% of the application fee for every thirty days a permit is filed within the ninety day period. This would result in a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75) for permits filed between 60-90 days prior to the event, one hundred dollars ($100) for events filed between 30-60 days, and one-hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125) for permits filed less than 30 days prior to the proposed event. 128 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Application Escrow Deposit – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to include new and/or additional fees are being requested. The proposed fee includes a brief overview of the purpose, and justification. An Ordinance has been attached for review and consideration. Escrow Deposit – Special Events - $500 Pursuant to the City Code (10.13), escrow deposits may be required for special events that may result in the City incurring substantial recoverable costs. The escrow deposit amount traditionally charged for large scale community events was previously omitted from the fee schedule, and therefore, we are including it in our FY2018 request. The purpose of the escrow is to allow the City to draw down on expenses related to special city services (e.g. personnel, resources/rentals, etc.) that an event has requested. Over the last three years, the City has averaged between 20-25 events where city services have been requested. Funds remaining, less city service expenses, will be reimbursed to the event organizer. 129 MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 1 TO: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director CC: Robert R. Kiely, Jr., City Manager FROM: Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: October 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Special Event Fee Increases – FY2018 As part of the City’s review of fees and charges for FY2018, a request to increase certain fees is being requested. Each case has been outlined below to provide an overview of the fee, and justification for the increase. From time-to-time, special event organizers request special city services (e.g. equipment rentals/delivery) or City employees (e.g. general event support, security, or emergency medical services) to support their event. Pursuant to the City Code (§10.13), fees for these City services may be imposed in connection with recovering costs related to the personnel time associated with this support. Personnel Rates for City Employee Event Support Rates for City employees are set based on an average total compensation for employees in the workgroup. Traditionally, the City has adjusted these rates to reflect changes in union contracts and special contractual rates for special time worked or overtime. These rates were previously increased prior to FY2015. Since this time, new contracts have been executed for police and fire employees. It should be noted that rates have typically been rounded for ease of invoicing purposes. Accordingly, City staff is requesting to adjust rates to reflect these contract amounts, as follows: Previous Rate Proposed Rate % Change Police Officer Hourly Rate $80.00 $82.00 2.5% Firefighter/Paramedic Hourly Rate $80.00 $82.00 2.6% 130 Page 2 Parks Department Rental Fee Increases In addition to personnel that may be provided by the City’s Parks Department, special city services including the rental of bleachers, litter barrels, picnic tables, and grills may be delivered to special event locations. In evaluating the current rates for these services and actual costs incurred (see table below), the City’s current average cost recovery for providing these services is 73%. Service Staff Hours Avg. Cost* Current Rate Cost Recovery % Relocate Bleacher (In same park) 1 $45 $70 156% Relocate Bleacher (Different park) 4/bleacher $180 $135 75% Provide Litter Barrels (Up to 6) 2 $90 $45 50% Provide Litter Barrels (7-12) 4 $180 $55 31% Provide Picnic Tables (Up to 6) 4 $180 $150 83% Provide Picnic Tables (7-12) 8 $360 $245 68% Provide Propane/Charcoal Grill 4 $180 $85 47% *Avg. Cost reflects average total compensation rate of $45/hour It is our belief that we could simplify the fee structure to make it easier for the event organizer; while achieving greater cost recovery for the services provided. As such, the City would propose adjusting these fees, as follows: Service Current Rate Proposed Rate Difference Cost Recovery % Relocate Bleacher (In same park) $70 $50 ($20) 111% Relocate Bleacher (Different park) $135 $180 $45 100% Provide Litter Barrels (Up to 6) $45 $10/can $3 67% Provide Litter Barrels (7-12) $55 $10/can $1 67% Provide Picnic Tables (Up to 6) $150 $30/table $5 100% Provide Picnic Tables (7-12) $245 $30/table $10 100% Provide Propane/Charcoal Grill $85 $180 $95 100% The proposed fees would increase the City’s average cost recovery to 92% and still provide competitive pricing for services. Based on research conducted by staff, the proposed rate structures are in line with market rental rates for bleachers ($125-$150/each), litter barrels ($10- $15/each), picnic tables ($40-$50/table), and grills ($150-$225/each). 131 MEMORANDUM To: Finance Director, Elizabeth Holleb From: Fire Chief, Pete Siebert Date: October 18, 2016 Subject: Proposed FY18 User fees – Ambulance rates Per the attached City of Lake Forest Ordinance No. 2011-11, adopted May 2nd of 2011, the fee schedule pertaining to ambulance transports is reviewed from time to time and necessary adjustments to fees and charges may be made. This approval was noted in the minutes from the Finance Committee meeting, held on April 18th of 2011, annually raising the City’s ambulance transport rate to the average charged by surrounding municipalities and recover an additional $100 per transport was approved unanimously. It has been common practice of The City’s ambulance billing company, Andres Medical Billing, to provide updated information on the fees and charges assessed by surrounding municipalities and also provide notification of updated mileage rates as approved by Medicare. We will not know what the new Medicare allowed mileage fee will be until after January 1, 2017. Therefore, the current mileage rate of $7.27 per mile will stand for FY18. However, in reviewing the ambulance rate survey responses from surrounding municipalities, we are proposing increases for FY18 to bring us in line with Ordinance No. 2011-11. From the survey list of over 200 municipalities, we pulled out the responding municipalities within our MABAS Division 4. Thus, proposed fee increases for FY18 are reflective of the average charged, plus an additional $100 per transport. 132 Next, Andres Medical Billing provided us with the attached Activity Summary by Call Type report, for FY2016. Pages 2 and 3 provide the following transport counts: Resident ALS – 470 Resident ALS2 – 6 Resident BLS – 278 Non Resident ALS – 164 Non Resident ALS2 – 5 Non Resident BLS – 171 With the understanding that revenue collected is a fluid event spanning between fiscal years, for purposes of determining projected revenue for FY18’s User Fees Exhibit A, we simply used the FY2016 trip counts provided by Andres. Respectfully submitted. 133 134 135 136 The City of Lake Forest FINANCE COMMITTEE Proceedings of the April 18, 2011 Meeting 6:30 p.m. – City Hall Council Chambers I. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Grumhaus called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Present: Mayor Cowhey, Chairman Grumhaus, Aldermen Novit, Moore, Morsch, Schoenheider, Looby and Palmer. Absent: Alderman Widman. Quorum present. There were twelve people present in the audience. Staff present: Robert Kiely, Jr., City Manager; Kathleen Reinertsen, Finance Director; Louise Breckan, Assistant Finance Director; Jeff Howell, Fire Chief; Ramesh Kanapareddy, Assistant City Engineer; Carina Walters, Assistant City Manager; Diane Hall, Senior Accountant and Victor Filippini, City Attorney. II. Consideration of Minutes from the Finance Committee Meeting Held on March 21, 2011 Alderman Looby made a motion to approve the minutes from the Finance Committee meeting held on March 21, 2011. The motion was seconded by Alderman Novit. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. III. Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Fee Schedule for Ambulance Transport for The City of Lake Forest Fire Chief Jeff Howell stated as discussed at the March 21st Finance Committee Budget meeting, it was recommended to increase the ambulance transport rates. This recommendation coincides with rate increases being instituted by numerous area municipalities, while still remaining slightly over the average charged by same. Chief Howell reviewed two rate options with the Committee and showed a pie chart of the type of calls, ALS, BLS, etc., that Lake Forest handled in 2010. The Committee was interested in what the cost per call would be in other municipalities. Mr. Robert Kiely, City Manager stated that staff could find out those numbers. He added that there is a policy issue in every municipality as to how much of the cost of service is to be recovered by a user fee. Following discussion, Alderman Looby moved, seconded by Alderman Novit, to approve the fee, which will annually raise the City’s ambulance transport rate to the average charged by surrounding municipalities and recover an additional $100 per transport. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. IV. Consideration of an Ordinance making a Supplemental Appropriation for the Fiscal Year Beginning May 1, 2010 and ending April 30, 2011 Ms. Kathleen Reinertsen, Finance Director stated as advised by the City attorney, it is recommended to approve a supplemental appropriation at the end of each fiscal year for any fund that will exceed the original appropriation. The following funds require a supplemental appropriation: 1. The Emergency Telephone Fund software implementation expense is more than budgeted due to several unforeseen equipment and contractual service expenses. These expenses are covered by revenue. A supplemental appropriation of $20,000 is required. 2. The Elawa Farm Fund garden/market operation was transferred back to the Elawa Foundation during FY11. The expense is covered by revenue. A supplemental appropriation of $82,000 is required. 3. The Route 60 Intersection Fund refund expense was refunded to Conway Park for the Route 60 /Field Drive intersection during FY11. The project came in lower than expected. The expense is covered by revenue. A supplemental appropriation of $375,000 is required. 137 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes – April 18, 2011 2 Following discussion, Alderman Looby moved, seconded by Alderman Novit, to grant approval to the ordinance making a Supplemental Appropriation and corresponding adjustment to the Comprehensive Fiscal Plan for the Fiscal Year Beginning May 1, 2010 And Ending April 30, 2011. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. V. Opportunity for the Public to Address the Finance Committee: None. VI. Other Business: March 2011 Flash Report: Chairman Grumhaus reported there are no concerns at this time. As this was Chairman Grumhaus’s last Finance Committee meeting, he stated that he appreciated all of the staff’s efforts during his term. Items from the April 18, 2011 City Council Agenda: 1. 2011 Annual Street Resurfacing Program Project: Mr. Ramesh Kanapareddy, Assistant City Engineer stated that the City Council has approved a resolution appropriating $1,700,000 in Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) funds to pay for this project. He stated that city staff has briefed the City Council previously on the Municipal Partnership Program (MPP), a program that takes advantage of economies of scale, for securing low bid prices, among neighboring municipalities who bid similar projects each year. This year, the City joined forces with Highland Park and Lincolnshire to do a joint bid for the Annual Street Resurfacing Program. Peter Baker & Son is the lowest responsible bidder for asphalt at $64.25 per ton. A year ago the City paid $72.30 per ton. All three municipalities’ staff believe that this joint bid to be fair. This item was reviewed at the Public Works Committee meeting which was held prior to tonight’s Finance Committee meeting. The Committee requested that Mr. Kanapareddy find out asphalt prices from the communities that did not participate in this joint bid. Further discussion and the award of the contract will be conducted at tonight’s City Council meeting. 2. Replacement of Capital Equipment: Mr. Michael Thomas, Superintendent of Public Works stated that staff is recommending that the purchase of the core aerator and rotary mower be awarded to the State Bid vendor, Reinders, Inc. He stated that there was only one bid for the one ton dump truck chassis from Shepard Chevrolet and one bid for the one ton dump truck body from Lindco Equipment Company. Staff is recommending awarding the bid to Shepard Chevrolet and Lindco Equipment Company for the replacement of the one ton dump truck. He stated that there was only one bid from Shepard Chevrolet for the ¾ ton pickup truck. Staff is recommending awarding the bid to Shepard Chevrolet for the replacement of the ¾ ton pickup truck. These items were reviewed at the Public Works Committee meeting which was held prior to tonight’s Finance Committee meeting. Further discussion and approval of the replacement of capital equipment will be conducted at tonight’s City Council meeting. 3. Cell Phone Contract: Ms. Carina Walters, Assistant City Manager stated that since 2005, the City has engaged Sprint/Nextel for its cellular service. She stated that the City’s current cellular services’ contract expired in October 2010. Staff assembled a Cell Phone Committee which created a Request for Proposal. The City received five proposals. The committee reviewed all of the proposals and decided to interview Verizon Wireless and Sprint/Nextel due to their coverage, price, and the push-to-talk and/or direct connect capability. The committee decided to re-engage Sprint/Nextel. Further discussion and approval of contract will be conducted at tonight’s City Council meeting. 138 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes – April 18, 2011 3 VII. Adjournment There being no further business, Alderman Looby moved, seconded by Alderman Novit to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Louise Breckan Assistant Finance Director 139 Activity Summary by Call Type Trip date IS BETWEEN 05/01/2015 AND 04/30/2016; AND Company IS THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST; AND Status IS Assigned OR Billed OR Closed OR Complete OR NetTransit New Call OR NetTransit New Will Call OR NetTransit Review OR NetTransit Will Call OR ... Payor # of Trips Balance Average Payments Net Charges Gross Charges WD's Rev Adj Refunds WO's THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Profit Center - KNWD Call Type - ALS Medicare 1 0.00 459.54 0.00 459.54 755.99 459.54 296.45 0.00 0.00 Insurance 1 758.89 758.89 0.00 0.00 758.89 758.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1,514.88 296.45 1,218.43 0.00 459.54 0.00 0.00 758.89 609.22 Call Type - BLS Bill Patient 1 0.00 687.82 687.82 0.00 687.82 687.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 687.82 0.00 687.82 687.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 687.82 Profit Center - LBNON Call Type - ALS Medicare 14 533.83 433.16 0.00 5,619.71 18,690.00 6,064.21 12,625.79 0.00 89.33 Medicaid 4 0.00 131.11 0.00 524.43 5,340.00 524.43 4,815.57 0.00 0.00 Insurance 17 4,410.20 1,087.02 55.00 14,014.14 22,117.44 18,479.34 3,638.10 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 9 2,670.00 1,335.00 6,675.00 2,670.00 12,015.00 12,015.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44 58,162.44 21,079.46 37,082.98 6,730.00 22,828.28 0.00 89.33 7,614.03 842.80 Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 1 0.00 437.74 0.00 437.74 1,335.00 437.74 897.26 0.00 0.00 1 1,335.00 897.26 437.74 0.00 437.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 437.74 Call Type - BLS Medicare 5 0.00 354.24 15.05 1,756.14 6,675.00 1,771.19 4,903.81 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 4 1,335.00 461.10 0.00 509.38 5,340.00 1,844.38 3,495.62 0.00 0.00 Insurance 8 0.00 1,076.69 802.00 7,811.52 10,680.00 8,613.52 2,066.48 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 8 6,675.00 1,335.00 4,005.00 0.00 10,680.00 10,680.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 33,375.00 10,465.91 22,909.09 4,822.05 10,077.04 0.00 0.00 8,010.00 916.36 Profit Center - LBRES Call Type - ALS Medicare 46 444.86 439.20 89.33 19,669.17 61,410.00 20,203.36 41,206.64 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 11 0.00 160.45 0.00 1,764.97 14,685.00 1,764.97 12,920.03 0.00 0.00 Insurance 15 2,759.33 1,096.33 0.00 15,020.63 20,025.00 16,444.96 3,580.04 0.00 1,335.00 Bill Patient 5 4,005.00 1,335.00 2,670.00 0.00 6,675.00 6,675.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77 102,795.00 57,706.71 45,088.29 2,759.33 36,454.77 0.00 1,335.00 7,209.19 585.56 RescueNet™ Reporting Written by: Robert S. Betz for Andres Medical Billing Page 1 of 3 \\RN64\RESCUENET\REPORTS32\CUSTOM\ACTIVITY SUMMARY BY CALL TYPE.RPT Printed on 8/16/2016 at 10:07:15AM 140 Activity Summary by Call Type Trip date IS BETWEEN 05/01/2015 AND 04/30/2016; AND Company IS THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST; AND Status IS Assigned OR Billed OR Closed OR Complete OR NetTransit New Call OR NetTransit New Will Call OR NetTransit Review OR NetTransit Will Call OR ... Payor # of Trips Balance Average Payments Net Charges Gross Charges WD's Rev Adj Refunds WO's THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 1 0.00 437.74 0.00 437.74 1,335.00 437.74 897.26 0.00 0.00 1 1,335.00 897.26 437.74 0.00 437.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 437.74 Call Type - BLS Medicare 14 0.00 379.71 89.33 5,226.57 18,690.00 5,315.90 13,374.10 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 12 80.91 124.07 0.00 1,407.90 16,020.00 1,488.81 14,531.19 0.00 0.00 Insurance 10 2,213.00 943.56 20.00 7,202.56 13,350.00 9,435.56 3,914.44 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 4 0.00 1,335.00 2,670.00 2,900.00 5,340.00 5,340.00 0.00 0.00 230.00 40 53,400.00 31,819.73 21,580.27 2,779.33 16,737.03 0.00 230.00 2,293.91 539.51 Profit Center - NON Call Type - ALS Medicare 45 784.18 445.06 93.98 19,425.00 33,613.24 20,027.72 13,585.52 89.56 365.00 Medicaid 12 739.44 234.31 0.00 2,072.27 8,914.24 2,811.71 6,102.53 0.00 0.00 Insurance 71 6,955.70 657.92 2,860.62 36,980.46 53,257.85 46,712.35 6,545.50 0.00 84.43 Bill Patient 36 9,111.12 753.23 14,376.83 3,628.47 27,116.42 27,116.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 164 122,901.75 26,233.55 96,668.20 17,331.43 62,106.20 89.56 449.43 17,590.44 589.44 Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 2 658.42 662.30 0.00 666.18 1,853.03 1,324.60 528.43 0.00 0.00 Insurance 1 0.00 927.99 0.00 927.99 927.99 927.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 2 0.00 931.61 1,863.21 0.00 1,863.21 1,863.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 4,644.23 528.43 4,115.80 1,863.21 1,594.17 0.00 0.00 658.42 823.16 Call Type - BLS Medicare 29 859.21 376.25 0.00 10,051.97 19,605.40 10,911.18 8,694.22 0.00 0.00 Medicaid 14 1,837.30 245.27 0.00 1,596.42 9,589.84 3,433.72 6,156.12 0.00 0.00 Insurance 70 6,794.02 574.82 948.73 32,494.36 47,250.95 40,237.11 7,013.84 0.00 0.00 Bill Patient 58 8,202.99 683.48 25,977.93 5,460.85 39,665.01 39,641.77 23.24 0.00 0.00 171 116,111.20 21,887.42 94,223.78 26,926.66 49,603.60 0.00 0.00 17,693.52 551.02 Profit Center - RES Call Type - ALS Medicare 288 2,981.22 453.48 0.00 127,707.12 174,085.66 130,602.70 43,482.96 0.00 85.64 Medicaid 8 198.99 180.28 0.00 1,243.27 4,793.77 1,442.26 3,351.51 0.00 0.00 Insurance 134 4,215.21 568.21 4,176.12 67,748.65 82,349.60 76,139.98 6,209.62 0.00 0.00 RescueNet™ Reporting Written by: Robert S. Betz for Andres Medical Billing Page 2 of 3 \\RN64\RESCUENET\REPORTS32\CUSTOM\ACTIVITY SUMMARY BY CALL TYPE.RPT Printed on 8/16/2016 at 10:07:16AM 141 Activity Summary by Call Type Trip date IS BETWEEN 05/01/2015 AND 04/30/2016; AND Company IS THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST; AND Status IS Assigned OR Billed OR Closed OR Complete OR NetTransit New Call OR NetTransit New Will Call OR NetTransit Review OR NetTransit Will Call OR ... Payor # of Trips Balance Average Payments Net Charges Gross Charges WD's Rev Adj Refunds WO's THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Facility Contract 1 0.00 631.02 0.00 1,111.50 631.02 631.02 0.00 0.00 480.48 Bill Patient 39 7,958.99 604.74 9,112.93 6,513.10 23,585.02 23,585.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 470 285,445.07 53,044.09 232,400.98 13,289.05 204,323.64 0.00 566.12 15,354.41 494.47 Call Type - ALS 2 Medicare 3 0.00 661.24 0.00 1,983.72 2,191.19 1,983.72 207.47 0.00 0.00 Insurance 3 0.00 706.16 0.00 2,118.48 2,118.48 2,118.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 4,309.67 207.47 4,102.20 0.00 4,102.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 683.70 Call Type - ALS REFUSAL Medicare 1 0.00 408.52 0.00 408.52 565.11 408.52 156.59 0.00 0.00 1 565.11 156.59 408.52 0.00 408.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 408.52 Call Type - BLS Medicare 146 532.26 386.36 0.00 56,596.77 78,948.02 56,408.75 22,539.27 -0.01 720.27 Medicaid 3 127.34 119.05 0.00 229.82 1,603.01 357.16 1,245.85 0.00 0.00 Insurance 95 3,103.89 500.37 2,426.14 43,075.22 51,892.77 47,535.44 4,357.33 0.00 1,069.81 Bill Patient 34 6,456.01 565.36 7,598.30 5,168.09 19,228.42 19,222.40 6.02 0.00 0.00 278 151,672.22 28,148.47 123,523.75 10,024.44 105,069.90 -0.01 1,790.08 10,219.50 444.33 1,286 938,254.39 253,368.80 684,885.59 87,213.32 514,640.37 89.55 4,459.96 87,402.31 532.57 Company Totals - Grand Totals 1,286 87,402.31 532.57 514,640.37 938,254.39 684,885.59 253,368.80 4,459.96 89.55 87,213.32 RescueNet™ Reporting Written by: Robert S. Betz for Andres Medical Billing Page 3 of 3 \\RN64\RESCUENET\REPORTS32\CUSTOM\ACTIVITY SUMMARY BY CALL TYPE.RPT Printed on 8/16/2016 at 10:07:16AM 142 MEMORANDUM To: Finance Director, Elizabeth Holleb From: Fire Chief, Pete Siebert Date: October 18, 2016 Subject: Proposed FY18 User fees – Fire Bureau rates Fees for permits issued for fireworks, open burns, bonfires, life safety inspections, tents, and amusements, have remained the same since January 1, 2010. In review of the associated activities and time spent by staff to complete the evaluation, inspection, and issuing of permits, we are proposing increased fees for FY18. Based on our data from the previous five fiscal years, we are steadily increasing the number of permits processed, most noticeably in tents and inflatables/carnivals. Only six months into the current fiscal year, we are already at the total amount of permits processed in FY12 as well as FY13. At this pace, we will have increased volume by 100%. Similarly, fees for re-inspection of properties due to non-compliance, have remained the same since the Fire Prevention Chapter 15 (now Chapter 94) was adopted in 2001. The table below illustrates inspection counts for FY16; showing 40+ instances of four or more inspections on the same property. For purposes of determining projected revenue for FY18’s User Fees Exhibit A, we used the FY2016 counts for permits issued and re-inspections. Respectfully submitted. 143 The City of Lake Forest MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Thomas, Director of Public Works Robert Ells, Superintendent of Engineering FROM: Brian Joyce, Engineering Supervisor DATE: October 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Fees Attached are the proposed fee changes from Engineering related to the existing fee schedule. These changes involve the following areas. 1. Watershed Development Permit Fees: The fee structure has been changed to reflect how the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission fee schedule is structured. Fee increases reflect fees currently being charged by the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission personnel for the same plan review and inspection services. 144 Dickinson Hall Memo To: Diane Hall and Elizabeth Holleb From: Jill Becker cc: Sally Swarthout Date: October 12, 2016 Re: Recommendation for Senior Membership NR Household fee change for FY18 Dickinson Hall membership fees were discussed at the September 8, 2016 Senior Resources Commission meeting. Everyone present agreed that the current membership rates are fair and compare favorably with other local senior centers’ rates. However, Steve Potsic, SRC Chair, proposed one specific fee question to be considered for change: Should Non-Residents pay $75 per family/household instead of the current $65, thus getting the same $15 savings as Residents instead of the present $25 savings? Current Membership Fees: ______ $35 per person or $55 per family Residents of Lake Forest, Lake Bluff & Unincorporated Lake Forest, Lake Bluff Saving of $15 ($35 X 2 = $70 – $55 =$15) ______ $45 per person or $65 per family Outside of Lake Forest & Lake Bluff e.g.--Highland Park, Deerfield, Libertyville etc. Saving of $25 ($45 X 2 = $90 – $65 =$25) ______$10 per person or $15 per family for Benefit Access Program participants— Reduced fee incomes of less than $27,610 [individuals] or $36,635 [couples] FOR RESIDENTS OF LAKE FOREST & LAKE BLUFF ONLY The Commission unanimously approved the increase of $10 from $65 to $75 for NR Households. It should be noted that there is not a great increase in revenue as a result of this proposed change. The Dickinson Hall membership for NR households numbers just 10 in 2016 (FY17); 8 in 2015 (FY16) and 7 households in 2014 (FY15). 145 {00014548 2} THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. 16-___ AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LAKE FOREST SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 41 (WINWOOD DRIVE AREA SANITARY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City is considering the establishment of Special Service Area No. 41 to improve sanitary sewer service for the area legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance ("SSA No. 41”), as authorized pursuant to 35 ILCS 200/27-5, et seq. (“SSA Law”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has determined that it is in the best interest of the residents of SSA No. 41 and the City to conduct a public hearing pursuant to the SSA Law to consider the establishment of SSA No. 41 for the purpose of improving sanitary sewer service; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION TWO: Findings. (a) Pursuant to Section 27-20 of the SSA Law, the City has determined that the installation of sanitary sewer improvements may be most effectively financed through a special service area, and therefore the City has proposed SSA No. 41. (b) It is in the public interest that the Mayor and City Council consider the establishment of the proposed SSA No. 41. 146 {00014548 2} -2- (c) The properties within the proposed SSA No. 41 are contiguous as required by the SSA Law and as depicted on the map of the proposed SSA No. 41 attached as Exhibit B and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance. (d) The proposed sanitary sewer improvements will provide properties within the proposed SSA No. 41 with a safer and more adequate, efficient, and appropriate system for disposing of and treating sanitary sewage. SECTION THREE: Proposal. In its determination of the need to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents, the City Council of the City hereby proposes the establishment of SSA No. 41 in order to provide services in the nature of improving sanitary sewer service. SECTION FOUR: Public Hearing. Pursuant to the SSA Law, a public hearing shall be held on December 5, 2016, at 6:30p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Lake Forest City Hall, 220 Deerpath Road, Lake Forest, Illinois, to consider establishment of SSA No. 41. At the hearing, the City will consider the imposition or levy by the City of a tax in the proposed SSA No. 41 sufficient to produce revenues to provide special municipal services to the proposed SSA No. 41, as well as the issuance of special service area bonds to be supported by the SSA No. 41 taxes. In particular, (a) the City proposes to levy a special tax pursuant to a special tax roll that will divide taxes equally among developable lots within the SSA Territory. (b) The SSA shall levy taxes upon the individual developable lots within the SSA Territory at a rate sufficient to generate revenues not to exceed $152,500.00 annually for a period not to exceed 20 years. (c) The City may be issuing bonds of the SSA to be supported by the SSA taxes, which bonds will bear interest at not more than five percent (5%) as an average annual interest rate, may be in an amount not to exceed $1,525,000 in principal, payable for a period of not more than 20 years. 147 {00014548 2} -3- SECTION FIVE: Notice of Hearing. The City Council hereby ratifies the publication of notice of the public hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C at least 15 days prior to the date scheduled for the commencement of the public hearing in the Lake Forester, or any other newspaper of general circulation within the City (“Notice”). In addition, notice will be given to the persons in whose name the general taxes for the last preceding year were paid on the property located within SSA No. 41 by United States mail not less than 10 days prior to the time set for public hearing in the manner required by the SSA Law. SECTION FIVE: Objections. If a petition signed by at least 51 percent of the electors residing within the proposed SSA No. 41 and at least 51 percent of the owners of record of property within the proposed SSA No. 41 is filed with the City Clerk within sixty days following the adjournment of the public hearing, objecting to the establishment of SSA No. 41, the levy of taxes, or the issuance of bonds, then SSA No. 41 shall not be established, or have taxes levied, or issue bonds, as the case may be. SECTION SIX: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. PASSED this ___ day of November, 2016. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED this ____ day of November, 2016. ______________________________ Mayor 148 {00014548 2} -4- ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk 149 {00014548 2} Exhibit A EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SSA NO. 41 150 {00014548 2} EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B MAP OF PROPOSED SSA NO. 41 151 {00014548 2} EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 152 Legal Description of Proposed SSA Area Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Northeast Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded April 12, 1954 as Document No. 821201, in Book 1240 of Records, page 12, in Lake County, Illinois. and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the First Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded October 5, 1954 as Document No. 840107, in Book 1285 of Records, page 615, in Lake County, Illinois and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Second Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded November 12, 1954 as Document No. 845162, in Book 1297 of Records, page 7, in Lake County, Illinois. and Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded February 18, 1955 as Document No. 855127, in Book 33 of Records, page 19, in Lake County, Illinois. and Lots A and B in Spellmans Resubdivision, being a Resubdivision of Lot 4 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded December 7, 1966 as Document No. 1324137, in Book 43 of Records, page 66, in Lake County, Illinois. and That part of Winwood Drive bounded by the above described properties. P.I.N. Address Lot # Subdivision 12-30-103-001 1266 Winwood Drive 8 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-103-002 1264 Winwood Drive 7 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-103-003 1262 Winwood Drive 6 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-103-004 1260 Winwood Drive 5 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-103-005 1210 Winwood Drive 1 Second Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-103-006 1240 Winwood Drive 3 Second Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-103-007 1220 Winwood Drive 2 Second Addition to Winwood Estates 153 12-30-103-008 1268 Winwood Drive 9 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-103-009 1272 Winwood Drive A Spellman's Resubdivision 12-30-202-001 1200 Winwood Drive 2 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-202-002 1088 Winwood Drive 1 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-202-003 1190 Winwood Drive 3 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-202-004 1154 Winwood Drive 4 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-202-005 1134 Winwood Drive 5 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-202-006 1106 Winwood Drive 6 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-202-008 1270 N. Waukegan Road 4 Winwood Estates 12-30-202-009 1060 Winwood Drive 3 Winwood Estates 12-30-301-001 1270 Winwood Drive 10 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-301-002 1271 Winwood Drive B Spellman's Resubdivision 12-30-301-003 1255 Winwood Drive 3 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-301-004 1251 Winwood Drive 2 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-301-005 1225 Winwood Drive 1 Third Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-401-001 1189 Winwood Drive 11 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-401-002 1161 Winwood Drive 10 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-401-003 1137 Winwood Drive 9 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-401-004 1111 Winwood Drive 8 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-401-005 1089 Winwood Drive 7 First Addition to Winwood Estates 12-30-401-006 1055 Winwood Drive 2 First Addition to Winwood Estates 154 WINWOOD DR N WAUKEGAN RD MIDDLEFORK DR KENNICOTT DR CAHILL LN JENSEN DR AYNSLEY AVE OLMSTED DR W KESWICK LN FARLIN CT MCGLINNIN CT EM M ON S CT 1111 1 1 1 5 1189 1100 110011001100 110 011001180 1 1 0 2 11841190 1134 1106 11371161 113011251120112011501150 1154 1101 1105 11051404 1200 1200 1264 1262 10621260 1260 104510661268 10751070 10701091107210 4 3 1 0 0 2 1084133510711033104710501 0 5 0 1050 127210901255 10 2 71360 13 6 0 1271 10421089 1396 1380 138010491220 10201210 1266 1402 105710461085106510591251 1225 1225 13 5 0 13501 0 2 2130013001300 1300 1060 107913051029106412701400 1400 1086104110611031104410771245 1340 1320 12301280 1026105510881240 1240 1080 1030WINWOOD SANITARY SEWER Existing Sanitary Proposed Sanitary 155 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NO. 41 (Winwood Drive Sanitary Improvement Project) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, December 5, 2016, at 6:30p.m., a public hearing will be held before the Mayor and City Council of The City of Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, at the City Hall, 220 East Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois, for the purpose of considering the establishment of The City of Lake Forest Special Service Area No. 41 (“SSA”), which SSA would include the following described territory: Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Northeast Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded April 12, 1954 as Document No. 821201, in Book 1240 of Records, page 12, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the First Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded October 5, 1954 as Document No. 840107, in Book 1285 of Records, page 615, in Lake County, Illinois; and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Second Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded November 12, 1954 as Document No. 845162, in Book 1297 of Records, page 7, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, being a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded February 18, 1955 as Document No. 855127, in Book 33 of Records, page 19, in Lake County, Illinois.; and Lots A and B in Spellmans Resubdivision, being a Resubdivision of Lot 4 in the Third Addition to Winwood Estates, a Subdivision of part of Section 30, Township 44 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded December 7, 1966 as Document No. 1324137, in Book 43 of Records, page 66, in Lake County, Illinois.; and That part of Winwood Drive bounded by the above described properties. The area commonly known as 1055 – 1272 Winwood Drive and 1270 N. Waukegan Road (the “SSA Territory”), all in Lake Forest, Illinois, and further identified by the following property tax index numbers (“PINs”): 12-30-103-001 1266 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-002 1264 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-003 1262 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-004 1260 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-005 1210 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-006 1240 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-007 1220 Winwood Drive 156 12-30-103-008 1268 Winwood Drive 12-30-103-009 1272 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-001 1200 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-002 1088 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-003 1190 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-004 1154 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-005 1134 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-006 1106 Winwood Drive 12-30-202-008 1270 N. Waukegan Road 12-30-202-009 1060 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-001 1270 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-002 1271 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-003 1255 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-004 1251 Winwood Drive 12-30-301-005 1225 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-001 1189 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-002 1161 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-003 1137 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-004 1111 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-005 1089 Winwood Drive 12-30-401-006 1055 Winwood Drive The purpose of this public hearing is to consider establishing the SSA to provide special services in the nature of sanitary sewer improvements, including, but not limited to, the construction of a new extension of the City's sanitary sewer main to the parcels within the SSA Territory. All interested parties affected by the formation of Lake Forest SSA No. 41, including all persons owning taxable real property within the SSA Territory, will be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing regarding the establishment of the SSA, the special tax roll, and the tax levy, the issuance of bonds, and may object to the formation of the area and the levy of taxes affecting said area. The public hearing may be adjourned to another date by the City Council without further notice other than a notice entered upon the minutes of said meeting fixing the time and place of its adjournment and reconvening. To finance the special services of the SSA, the City proposes to levy a special tax pursuant to a special tax roll that will divide taxes equally among developable lots within the SSA Territory. The SSA shall levy taxes upon the individual developable lots within the SSA Territory at a rate sufficient to generate revenues not to exceed $152,500.00 annually for a period not to exceed 20 years. In addition, the City may be issuing bonds of the SSA to be supported by the SSA taxes, which bonds will bear interest at not more than five percent (5%) as an average annual interest rate, may be in an amount not to exceed $1,525,000 in principal, payable for a period of not more than 20 years. If a petition signed by at least 51% of the electors residing within the SSA Territory and at least 51% of the owners of record of properties within the SSA Territory is filed with the City Clerk within 60 days after the final adjournment of the public hearing, objecting to the establishment of the SSA or the levy and imposition of the SSA taxes or the issuance of bonds as described herein, then the SSA shall not be established, said SSA taxes shall not be levied or imposed, and/or the SSA bonds shall not be issued. 157 Dated: November 17, 2016 Respectfully submitted, City Clerk The City of Lake Forest 158 The City of Lake Forest CITY COUNCIL Proceedings of the Monday November 7, 2016 City Council Meeting - City Council Chambers – 6:30pm CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Honorable Mayor Schoenheider called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm immediately following the Finance Committee meeting, and City Clerk Margaret Boyer called the roll of Council members. Present: Honorable Mayor Schoenheider, Alderman Waldeck, Alderman Beidler, Alderman Pandaleon, Alderman Newman, Alderman Tack, Alderman Reisenberg, Alderman Adelman and Alderman Moreno. Absent: None Also present were: Robert Kiely, City Manager; Robert Pickrell, City Attorney; Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development; Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director; Susan Banks, Communications Manager; Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police; Pete Siebert, Acting Fire Chief; Mike Strong, Assistant to the City Manager, Anne Whipple and number of members of the Lake Forest Fire Department. There were approximately 80 persons present. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:30 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS 1. COMMENTS BY MAYOR A. Swear in Lt. Eric Globerger as Battalion Chief Acting Fire Chief Siebert introduced Lt. Globerger to the City Council, who was sworn into office by Mayor Schoenheider. B. Proclamation for Lake Forest Preservation Foundation’s 40th Anniversary Mayor Schoenheider read the Proclamation and presented it to Art Miller of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation. Mr. Miller invited all to an Open House at the train station on Saturday, November 19 from 1-3 pm, to celebrate the 40th anniversary and the renovations at the station. Mayor Schoenheider thanked the Foundation for all its work performed within the community. 2. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER A. Viaduct Mural Recognition -Lake Forest High School, Dr. Chala Holland and Carolyn Bielski City Manager Robert Kiely Jr. reported that after an 8 year hiatus, the mural located at the intersection of Illinois Road and McKinley Road is back with a focus on train safety. Mr. Kiely then introduced Dr. Chala Holland and Carolyn Bielski. Dr. Holland reported that this project is great collaboration between the City 159 Proceedings of the Monday, October 17, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting and the art Students at Lake Forest High School. Ms. Bielski introduced the members of the Art Club, who gave an overview of what the club is about and reviewed their work on the mural. The mural contains the words “Don’t Lose Your Train of Thought” Mr. David Mattoon, member of Operation Lifesaver and the DuPage Rail Safety Council, introduced a number of representatives from Metra, Operation Lifesaver and the DuPage Safety Rail Council, whom all thanked the members of the Art Club. B. Community Spotlight -Family Service of Lake County -Executive Directors Carrie Callas and Gail Hodges City Manager Robert Kiely Jr. introduced Gail Hodges, Development Director, and Carrie Callas, Executive Director, of Family Service of Lake County. Ms. Callas gave an overview of their mission and a brief history of service. Ms. Callas also gave an overview of its two core programs: Counseling and Educational and Resource Program. She also reported on additional specialized services for seniors and care givers along with a review of support given to the Latino community. Ms. Callas invited all to their annual event, a Show of Support on May 6, 2017. C. Preliminary Report and Discussion on the Chicago-Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Environmental Assessment and Service Development Plan City Manager Robert Kiely Jr., reported that this item was mentioned at the Town Hall meeting on November 1. The Federal Railroad administration held a public meeting held in Glenview where residents had the opportunity to see its report. Mr. Kiely stated that this project touches more than just the City of Lake Forest, as it effects Villages of Glenview, Bannockburn, Northfield and Deerfield. Each community has its environmental assessment issues of its own. Mr. Kiely reported that a consensus was reached that each community would like to work collectively to address overall issues seen in the Environmental Assessment report, which include transparency issues, details and further documentation. Mr. Kiely stated that the affected cities have no jurisdiction and that this is a federal issue within the right of way of the railroad. The City of Lake Forest has created a draft resolution that assesses issues found in the report related to noise and vibration, and requests continuing the public comment period for 60 days to allow representatives from communities to better understand and to be able to voice concerns to WIS DOT and I DOT. The City Manager then introduced Jim Messmore from Hanson Engineering, who gave a detailed overview of the process once the review period is completed. In the report provided to the City, Mr. Messmore noted the review of the Environmental Assessment report with regards to specific impacts to the City Lake Forest. There were several supporting documents in the preparation that were not available for review as they were not included as appendices, and he stated that the report lacked transparency. The City Council had discussions and questions on the following topics: Impact on passenger service, hours of operation, and the impact on the Route 60 bridge, the potential timeline, the owner of the right of way, including the tracks, and options on how to extend the public comment period. The Council also had questions on an emergency plan in case of any hazardous waste threat. 160 Proceedings of the Monday, October 17, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting City Manager Robert Kiely, stated that his recommendation was to approve the Resolution in its substantial form, respectfully asking to extend the public comment time frame to allow for additional discussions to take place. The City Council agreed with City Manager Robert Kiely's recommendation to the Resolution which addresses and highlights concerns identified. Mayor Schoenheider asked if there was anyone from the public who would like speak after hearing from the City Council, the City Manager and Mr. Messmore form Hanson Engineering. The following submitted a request to address the City Council: Nancy Cooley, 1751 Stanford Ct, Lake Forest – passed on addressing the City Council Tom Sarafield, 1808 Princeton Ct, Lake Forest- offered his opinion to the City Council Wyn Cain, 1720 Marquette Ct, Lake Forest – passed on addressing the City Council Fran Hoffer, 1670 Yale Ct, Lake Forest – passed on addressing the City Council Rick Dall, 1660 Cornell Ct, Lake Forest – passed on addressing the City Council Carol Dall, 1600 Cornell Ct, Lake Forest – passed on addressing the City Council Wendy Hessel, 1771 Stanford Ct, Lake Forest – passed on addressing the City Council Richard Jaworski, 1670 Cornell Ct, Lake Forest – passed on addressing the City Council Kim Reich, 1275 Gavin Ct, Lake Forest – offered her opinion to the City Council Mayor Schoenheider asked for a motion to approve a Resolution of the City of Lake Forest expressing concern over the design alternatives proposed in the Chicago- Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Draft Environmental Assessment released October 6, 2016. Alderman Reisenberg made a motion to approve a Resolution of the City of Lake Forest expressing concern over the design alternatives proposed in the Chicago- Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Draft Environmental Assessment released October 6, 2016, seconded by Alderman Pandaleon. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. 3. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AUDIT COMMITTEE A. Audit Committee Report-Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Financial Report Don O’Callaghan, Audit Committee Chairman reported the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016 was provided to the City Council. The document has been reviewed by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, the City’s independent audit firm, and has been accepted by the Audit Committee. The City has received an unmodified opinion on its Fiscal Year 2016 financial statements. The City has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association for thirty-seven consecutive years, this year’s report will once again be submitted to GFOA for consideration of this award. Chairman O’Callaghan complimented to Finance Director Elizabeth Holleb and Assistant Finance Director Diane Hall for all their work. COUNCIL ACTION: Receipt of the audit report for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016. 161 Proceedings of the Monday, October 17, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting The Audit report was accepted by the City Council. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Brian Martin, 111 S Waukegan Road, #12, Lake Forest, offered his opinion to the City Council on the topic of an Open Air Market at the West Side Train Station. City Manager Robert Kiely reported that City Staff will be presenting the City Council more information at the next City Council meeting. ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION 1. Approval of the October 17, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes 2. Approval of Check Register for the period September 24- October 28, 2016 3. Resolution of Appreciation for Retiring Employee Scott Irish 4. Consideration of an Ordinance Providing for the Redemption and Payment Prior to Maturity of $6,105,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2008 (Final Approval) 5. Determination of an Estimate of the Amount of Revenue to be generated from Property Taxes for the 2016 Calendar Year in Accordance with the Truth in Taxation Statute and Establishment of a Public Hearing Date for the 2016 Tax Levy (if required) 6. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 156 of the City Code, as Recommended by the Plan Commission. (Final Approval) 7. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 116 of the City Code, as Recommended by City Staff. (Final Approval) 8. Consideration of Ordinances Approving Recommendations from the Building Review Board. (First Reading and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) 9. Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (First Reading, and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval) 10. Approval of a payment of $22,575.99 to GeWalt Hamilton & Associates, Inc. in accordance with the revised Local Agency Agreement received from IDOT. COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the ten (10) Omnibus items as presented Mayor Schoenheider asked members of the Council if they would like to remove any item or take it separately. Alderman Waldeck noted a Scrivener’s error in the minutes. Mayor Schoenheider asked for a motion to approve the six Omnibus items with a correction as noted by Alderman Waldeck. Alderman Beidler made a motion to approve the six Omnibus items as presented, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. Information such as Purpose and Action Requested, Background/Discussion, Budget/Fiscal Impact, Recommended Action and a Staff Contact as it relates to the Omnibus items can be found on the agenda. 162 Proceedings of the Monday, October 17, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting ORDINANCES 1. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Plan Commission in Support of Incorporating the Vision and Goals of the Sustainability Plan as an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. (Waive First reading of an Ordinance and if desired by the City Council, Grant Final Approval.) Director of Community Development, Catherine Czerniak reported that in August, 2016, the City Council received a draft of the Sustainability Plan and approved a Resolution directing the Plan Commission to hold a public hearing to consider incorporation of the vision and goals of the Sustainability Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Sustainability Plan was developed in response to a recommendation that came out of the community’s 2011 strategic planning session. Ms. Czerniak reported that the intent of the Plan is to guide future community decisions and also to raise community awareness about sustainable practices. The Sustainability Plan was developed in collaboration with Lake Forest High School, Lake Forest College, Lake Forest Open Lands’ Association, local garden clubs, property owners and residents. A community partnership, the Lake Forest Collaborative for Environmental Leadership, took the lead in researching, engaging the public and ultimately, drafting the Plan. Chuck Myers, Superintendent of Parks, Forestry and the Cemetery, was the lead staff for the project on behalf of the City and is available to answer any questions. The Sustainability Plan provides a vision for the community around sustainability goals in several categories: • Stormwater Management and Water Use • Ecosystem Vitality and Ravine Conservation • Waste Management • Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency • Transportation and Air Quality The City Council had discussion on the financial impact, and that the approval doesn’t not mandate action. Implementation will be a separate conversation. COUNCIL ACTION: Waive first reading and grant final approval of an Ordinance amending The City of Lake Forest Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the vision and goals of the Sustainability Plan. Alderman Adelman made a motion to waive first reading and grant final approval of an Ordinance amending The City of Lake Forest Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the vision and goals of the Sustainability Plan, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. ORDINANCES AFFECTING CODE AMENDMENTS NEW BUSINESS ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION 163 Proceedings of the Monday, October 17, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to 5ILCS 120/2 (c), (6), The City Council will be discussing the consideration for the sale or lease of property owned by the Public Body. Mayor Schoenheider asked for a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to 5ILCS 120/2 (c), (6), The City Council will be discussing the consideration for the sale or lease of property owned by the Public Body. Adjournment into executive session at 8:23pm Alderman Pandaleon made a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to 5ILCS 120/2 (c), (6), The City Council will be discussing the consideration for the sale or lease of property owned by the Public Body, seconded by Alderman Reisenberg. The following voted “Yea”: Aldermen Waldeck, Beidler, Pandaleon, Newman, Tack, Reisenberg, Adelman and Moreno. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8 Yeas, 0 Nays, motion carried. RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION The City Council reconvened into regular session at 9:28pm ADJOURNMENT There being no further business. Alderman Newman made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Alderman Adelman. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Margaret Boyer City Clerk A video of the City Council meeting is available for viewing at the Lake Forest Library and on file in the Clerk’s office at City Hall. You can also view it on the website by visiting www.cityoflakeforest.com. Click on I Want To, then click on View, then choose Archived Meetings Videos. 164 Additional information about Health Insurance Contract Renewals The City provides a self-funded medical and dental plan. The cost of the City plan each year is determined by actual claims, fixed costs for administration, reinsurance, and costs for life insurance. Administration and billing services are currently provided by Professional Benefit Administrators (PBA). Stop Loss coverage is placed with Voya. Life coverage is placed with Cigna Life. Preferred Provider Network administration is provided through Cigna. Pharmacy card services are provided by ServeYou Rx. In 2015 we announced that the Traditional plan, our most expensive option, would sunset as of December 2016. All remaining participants in this plan will change to the Choice Plan effective January 1, 2017. The City expects to reduce costs next year due to this change. Staff, along with the Benefit Committee, continues to pursue PPO options, including evaluation of other vendors for PPO and managed care services. We will continue to explore vendors, options and other companies’ experiences prior to making any future recommendations. We recommend making few changes this year, in part due to lower costs resulting from better experience, changes adopted last year, and the termination of the Traditional Plan, which requires extensive communication and support. We have provided an education session about available alternatives to City retiree coverage for those with Medicare coverage as the City plan is higher in cost than individual Medicare Supplement and Part D coverage in most cases. The City is required under Illinois law, however, to continue retiree coverage. A formal Request for Proposal process was completed in the fall of 2016 for stop loss coverage in anticipation of renewal increases. RFP’s were solicited for insured and self- funded dental, as well as optional retiree coverage. The Transplant Coverage, Pharmacy Services, and Administration Services were not bid this year in anticipation of making plan changes and possible changes to the PPO structure for possible introduction in 2017. As employees pay for dependent dental, we recommend retaining our self-insured dental plan, in part due to lower coverage for similar costs and higher administration fees received through the RFP process. The City received a bid for optional retiree coverage through Hartford, which may be considered for recommendation in 2017. Last year, we renewed with Serve You Pharmacy services under a one-year contract, and we have received similar terms this year. The logistics of implementing the Affordable Care Act expanded eligibility, with associated IRS reporting which began in 2016 is also a factor in the recommendation to renew with current providers. City staff anticipates a full RFP may be performed in 2017 for all services, including insured health insurance and pharmacy coverage, dental coverage and life coverage. The medical and dental renewal projection represents a decrease of 6% from 2016 terms based on estimated paid claims, lower than the last two years. Large claims fell in comparison to 2014 and 2015 plan years. Pharmacy costs grew less than forecast, as 165 2 changes to the pharmacy benefit program adopted in 2016 have had a significant impact in reducing pharmacy cost. Elimination of the Traditional Plan option is anticipated to reduce costs in 2017. Aggregate Loss limits from Voya Financial are reducing 6% from 2016 terms. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Recommendations based on renewal quotes: • Retain Serve You Rx Pharmacy Benefit Administration for Prescription Drug Card. The current contract was effective January 2016 after renegotiating to improve discounts and rebates. Savings are higher than forecast last year due to better utilization as well as cost, and Serve You services are meeting expectations. o The City adopted a one-year contract last year in order to retain the right to negotiate better terms. Staff recommends a one-year contract for 2017. o Serve you is unwilling to improve contract terms without changes to drug coverage the City does not recommend at this time. o Serve You drug discounts, administration costs and rebates are favorable and result in low net drug cost. Summary Pricing Serve You Current Proposed Total Annual Costs $2,975 $2,975 o Staff recommends adding “Split Fill” provision allowing for partial fulfillment of new expensive medications to reduce drug waste. • Retain Professional Benefit Administrators (PBA) for administration and billing services o PBA costs are among the lowest and service levels meet expectations o PBA administration fees are increasing. Total cost increase is expected to be $3,030. The increase related to fees alone is $1,653, with the remaining increase related to transition to the Choice plan HRA costs. o Full RFP was not completed this year for Administrative processes since PBA is meeting service expectations, and it is not deemed advisable to change administrators at this point with the Affordable Care Act implementation as well as network strategies under consideration. Summary Pricing PBA Current Proposed Total Cost (Fees Only) $138,372 $141,284 Total Increase including HRA Costs $142,904 • Retain preferred provider network administration with CIGNA through PBA o Staff recommends continued work to evaluate other PPO approaches in 2017 o Cigna fees are increasing from $15.81 per participant/month to $16.28 per participant per month, for a total cost increase of $869 annually at existing enrollment levels. Summary Pricing CIGNA Current Proposed Total Annual Costs $48,948 $49,817 166 3 • Retain Voya for stop loss coverage based on favorable renewal negotiations and retain Optum Health for Transplant coverage. The City received bids from ten stop loss carriers. Two proposals were lower in initial costs than Voya, and all major stop loss carriers were higher. Eight carriers declined. Voya provided the lowest firm premium and expected paid claims, as well as the lowest pricing assuming changes to the PPO network (pended to 2017). o Voya’s terms are the lowest of all major carriers for stop loss coverage, and aggregate claims are generally lower than major carriers. The recommended renewal includes $150,000 deductible per claim, increased from $125,000. The City has not increased the deductible for many years. o The renewal provides no significant exclusions to normal contract terms. o Two carriers were similar in cost, although major stop loss carriers are all significantly higher. These quotes are less likely to have lasers, but are subject to final underwriting and existing claims have not been underwritten. o Two Managing Underwriters provided quotes from $68,000 to $24,000 lower for premiums. These proposals are contingent upon underwriting (meaning someone else has to review our claims and approve issuance of the coverage) and would likely require higher deductibles,\ or “lasers”. Proposals assume no ongoing conditions. o Recent claim history would result in exclusions up to $50,000 each for higher risk claimants with other carriers. Last year, such a “laser” would have increased cost to the City compared to the Voya renewal approximately $70,000. o The Voya Aggregate Claim Liability projection is lower than total expected paid claims and aggregate liabilities for most carriers, and slightly lower than City projections. o Coverage is billed through PBA Billing Services. Voya Current Voya Renewal Voya Renewal Tokio Marine Proposed Intermediary Insurance Proposed HM Insurance Proposed Aggregate Liability $5,758,767 $5,361,498 $5,441,963 $5,584,686 $5,666,918 $5,636,611 Specific Deductible $125,000 $125,000 $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Specific Premium $680,620 $725,710 $598,734 $721,004 $755,745 $766,460 Aggregate Premium $12,756 $12,756 $13,839 $21,672 $16,037 $13,901 Transplant Premium (Optum) $34,125 $30,830 $30,830 $30,830 $30,830 $30,830 Total $727,501 $769,296 $643,403 $773,506 $802,612 $811,191 167 4 • Renew Optum Health for Transplant Coverage, a component of Stop Loss Coverage. The renewal results in a decrease in Transplant Premium, resulting in savings of $3,925 annually at our current enrollment. o Transplant premiums reduce cost for Stop Loss Coverage. o Optum was selected three years ago after a full RFP, including Stop Loss. o Optum Transplant coverage costs reduced 10% for the second year in a row. o Coverage is billed through PBA Billing Services. Optum Current Optum Renewal Estimated Premium $34,125 $30,830 • Retain CIGNA for life insurance: Cigna has requested an increase of 10% to basic life insurance provided by the City. Employee optional insurance rates did not change. o Cigna life costs have decreased since inception in 2004, until this year due to experience and industry factors. o Cigna will provide a three-year rate guarantee. Rates would not expire until December, 2020. o The contract includes employee voluntary insurance. Approximately half of the contract benefits, and costs, are related to employee voluntary insurance paid by the employee. Rates are not increasing for the optional coverage. o An RFP was completed last in 2014. CIGNA offered the best rate and extended the rate guarantee through 2016. Cigna was the only bidder that meets the current contract terms without significantly reducing the employee life insurance options, which were determined by the Benefit Committee in exchange for lower City-provided benefits. o Staff plans on a full marketing of life insurance benefits in 2017. o The City pays CIGNA directly for Life Coverage o The total cost of the increase to Basic Insurance is $2,139 annually. Cigna Current Cigna Renewal Basic Life / $1,000 $0.125 $0.138 AD&D/$1,000 $0.035 $0.035 168 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 847.272.7400 tel | 847.291.4813 fax www.wje.com Headquarters & Laboratories–Northbrook, Illinois Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Cleveland | Dallas | Denver | Detroit | Dubai | Honolulu | Houston | Los Angeles Minneapolis | New Haven | New York | Princeton | San Francisco | Seattle | South Florida | Washington, DC Via E-mail: thomasm@cityoflakeforest.com November 3, 2016 Mr. Michael Thomas Director of Public Works The City of Lake Forest 800 North Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Re: Ferry Hall Bridge - Summary of Condition WJE No. 2016.2743.1 Dear Mr. Thomas: At the request of The City of Lake Forest, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) completed a condition assessment of the Ferry Hall Bridge located on Mayflower Road between Spring Lane and Rosemary Road. Initially, the inspection focused on the south approach span, which exhibits extensive deterioration on the underside of the concrete deck slab; however, the inspection was later expanded to include the entire bridge structure. This letter summarizes our findings and provides estimated construction costs and an estimate of engineering fees required to prepare plan and specification documents. The Ferry Hall Bridge (Structure No. 049-6853) is a two lane bridge that crosses a deep ravine tributary to Lake Michigan. It is our understanding that the bridge was originally constructed in the 1930’s and was reconstructed in 1970. The primary bridge structure currently consists of three-span continuous steel girders supported on concrete piers and abutments. The roadway was re-aligned when the bridge was reconstructed in 1970, which required the construction of a concrete viaduct to the south of the primary bridge structure. This viaduct that makes up the south approach span is constructed using an 8-1/2 inch thick concrete slab supported on beams and columns along the east edge and the original retaining wall along the west edge. Work performed in the mid-1990’s involved the replacement of the deck and barrier rail on the primary bridge structure; however, the south approach span deck was rehabilitated rather than replaced. Rehabilitation involved scarification of the top 3 to 4 inches of the original 1970’s concrete slab and replacement of concrete and the top mat of reinforcing steel. As a result, the current south approach span slab consists of two layers. The bottom several inches of the original 1970’s slab and associated reinforcing steel comprises the lower layer, and the newer, mid-1990’s concrete and reinforcing steel comprises the upper layer. Available drawings indicate the bridge was designed for H15-44 loading. The field investigation revealed that the south approach span had severe corrosion-related deterioration due to the age of the original 1970’s concrete, chloride exposure, and freeze-thaw damage. This deterioration included widespread delaminations on the deck soffit, section loss of the primary reinforcing steel on the order of 20 to 50 percent of the original reinforcing bar area, debonded reinforcing bars, and through thickness cracking with moisture staining and efflorescence. These findings are consistent with a superstructure rating of “3 - SERIOUS” for NBIS Item 59, as identified in the Illinois Highway Information System - Structure Information and Procedure Manual published by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Calculations performed by WJE indicate that the observed deterioration has 169 Mr. Michael Thomas The City of Lake Forest November 3, 2016 Page 2 reduced the load-carrying capacity of the concrete slab such that it can no longer reliably support the H15- 44 vehicle load for which it was designed. Currently the lane supported by this concrete slab is closed to traffic. Reconstruction of the south approach slab is the best option to restore the structure to its original condition as the extent of the deterioration in this slab has made concrete repairs impractical and cost prohibitive. Reconstruction would involve demolition and removal of the existing south approach span structure and replacement of the concrete columns, beams, and slab in-kind. Given the limited exposure of the retaining wall along the west edge of the span, this retaining wall structure would be re-used after localized repairs are performed. In addition, the existing footings for the concrete columns can likely be re-used. A steel- framed structure supporting a conventional concrete deck is also a potential option for the replacement structure due to the ease of construction. To maintain the aesthetics of the bridge, the decorative bridge rail for the south approach span should be replaced in-kind, to match the rail on the rest of the bridge. The components for the three main spans are in good-to-fair condition overall. The deck is in good condition with isolated areas of delaminated concrete. The steel superstructure is in satisfactory-to-fair condition overall as the weathering steel beams exhibit some laminar corrosion in the regions that have not been painted. Pitting and section loss is also present at the beam ends at each abutment. The substructure is in good-to-satisfactory condition with isolated locations of concrete deterioration on the piers and abutments. Given the condition of the main span structure, replacement is not required at this time. However, general repairs and maintenance would help to prolong the life of the structure. This maintenance includes concrete repairs to the bridge deck and piers, application of a surface sealer to the concrete components, and localized steel repairs to the beam ends. The cost of the replacement structure for the south approach span is estimated to be approximately $600,000 and repairs to the remainder of the structure are estimated at $70,000. Phase II design and Phase III construction observation can typically be estimated as 10 percent of the construction cost, or approximately $65,000 each. Therefore, the total cost of the proposed work, including design and construction observation, is estimated to be $800,000. We appreciate the opportunity to assist The City of Lake Forest on this important project. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Douglas D. Crampton, P.E., S.E. Associate Principal and Project Manager Licensed Structural Engineer Illinois No. 081-006108 170 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 847.272.7400 tel | 847.291.4813 fax www.wje.com Headquarters & Laboratories–Northbrook, Illinois Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Cleveland | Dallas | Denver | Detroit | Dubai | Honolulu | Houston | Los Angeles Minneapolis | New Haven | New York | Princeton | San Francisco | Seattle | South Florida | Washington, DC Via E-mail: thomasm@cityoflakeforest.com November 3, 2016 Mr. Michael Thomas Director of Public Works The City of Lake Forest 800 North Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Re: Ferry Hall Bridge South Approach Span Phase II Design WJE No. 2016.2743.2 Dear Mr. Thomas: Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) is pleased to provide this proposal for Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Phase II engineering services to prepare structural drawings and special provisions for the replacement of the south approach span of the Ferry Hall Bridge located on Mayflower Road between Spring Lane and Rosemary Road. It is our understanding that The City of Lake Forest (The City) would like to perform this structure replacement during the 2017 construction season. For this project, WJE will design a replacement structure with similar dimensions and proportions as the existing structure. The replacement structure will likely consist of a structural concrete slab supported on concrete beams and columns, similar to the existing structure; however, a steel framed superstructure and concrete bridge deck will also be investigated as a possible alternate. The existing retaining wall along the west edge of the approach span and column footings will be re-used for the new structure. All structural plans and specifications necessary to reconstruct the south approach span for the bridge will be developed by WJE. For estimate purposes, we have assumed a total of 11 drawing sheets. Preliminary submittals will occur at 50 and 90 percent. It has been assumed that civil and hydraulic features for the bridge will not be modified. As a result, no costs have been included in this proposal for civil design or hydraulic design; however, an allowance has been included for a surveyor to complete a survey of the existing structure and supply required survey information in electronic format for plan preparation. WJE will also prepare a cost estimate for construction. A review meeting with IDOT and The City has also been included in the proposed costs. We propose carrying out the work described above for a cost of $64,630, which includes a $5,000 surveying allowance. Costs will be accrued on a time and expense basis in accordance with the attached Terms and Conditions for Professional Services, dated October 1, 2009. If notice to proceed is received in early December, we anticipate completing the Phase II design work by mid-February 2017. We look forward to working with The City on this project. Please call if you have any questions regarding our proposal. Sincerely, WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Douglas D. Crampton, P.E., S.E. Associate Principal and Project Manager Attachment Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing below and return a copy as authorization to proceed. This box shall be completed by the party responsible for payment. Accepted by: Title: Company: Date: 171 WJE Terms and Conditions for Professional Services October 1, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. or WJE Engineers & Architects, P.C. (WJE) has been requested to perform certain professional and other services. The parties agree that these services shall be performed under the following Terms and Conditions, and that Client’s acceptance of WJE’s proposal or its direction for WJE to commence any services constitutes acceptance of these Terms. 1. Independent Contractor. WJE is an independent contractor, and all persons employed to furnish services hereunder are employees of WJE or its subcontractors/subconsultants and not of the Client. WJE and Client agree to be solely responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations, and ordinances that apply to their own respective employees. 2. Performance. The standard of care for all professional services performed or furnished by WJE will be the skill and care ordinarily used by members of WJE’s professions performing similar services and practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. WJE makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, with regard to the performance of its services. WJE shall not have control over or be in charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures or for construction safety precautions and programs since these are the responsibilities of others. WJE agrees to perform its services in as timely a manner as is consistent with the professional standard of care and to comply with applicable laws, regulations, codes and standards that relate to WJE’s services and that are in effect as of the date when the services are provided. 3. Client Duties. In order for WJE to perform the services requested, the Client shall, at no expense to WJE, (1) provide all necessary information regarding Client’s requirements as necessary for the orderly progress of the work; (2) designate a person to act as Client’s representative for the services who shall have the authority to transmit instructions, receive instructions and information, and interpret and define Client’s policies and requests for WJE’s services; and (3) provide access to and make all provisions for WJE to enter, without cost, limitation, or burden to WJE, the subject property as required to perform the work, including the use of scaffolds or similar mechanical equipment. WJE is entitled to rely upon the information and services provided by the Client. 4. Safety. Field work will be performed only under conditions deemed safe by WJE personnel. Charges may be made for safety or security measures required by hazardous job conditions that WJE may encounter. Client understands that WJE is only responsible for the safety of its own employees and that of its subconsultants and is not responsible for the safety of other persons or property. 5. Compensation and Expenses. Client agrees to pay for WJE’s requested services in accordance with WJE’s standard hourly rate schedule or negotiated fee. Charges generally will be billed in monthly intervals with applicable taxes included. Travel, subsistence, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred; communica- tions; reproduction; and shipping charges will be billed at cost plus 5 percent and invoiced as an expense service fee. Use of vehicles will be billed at $0.60 per mile. Expended materials for field and laboratory work, rental equipment, and any fees advanced on Client’s behalf will be billed at cost plus 10 percent and invoiced as an expense service fee. WJE equipment used in field or laboratory work is billed at WJE’s equipment usage rate schedule in effect at the time the work is performed, subject to adjustment for minimum or extended usage. Portal-to-portal equipment usage rates are comparable to prevailing commercial rental rates (if available). Billing rates may be increased annually. Any subcontracted service will be billed at cost plus 10 percent providing the subcontract firm has in place adequate insurance coverage determined by WJE; otherwise, the cost will be marked up 20 percent and invoiced as an expense service fee. Client agrees to pay WJE’s then-current time charges, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses resulting from required attendance at depositions, administrative proceedings, or responding to sub- poenas or court orders relating to the Project, but not for such expenses attributed to WJE’s negligent performance of its services. Payment for WJE’s services is expected in full in US dollars upon receipt of the invoice. Invoices considered past due are subject to any related attorneys’ fees and collection expenses. WJE reserves the right to suspend its services if the Client fails to make payment when due providing that WJE gives seven calendar days’ notice to Client as practicable. In such an event, WJE shall have no liability to the Client for delay or damage caused the Client because of such suspension. 6. Termination. Both the Client and WJE have the right to terminate WJE’s services for convenience upon seven calendar days’ written notice to the other party. In the event the Client terminates without cause, WJE shall be entitled to compensation for its services and expenses up to the time of such notification, including fees for any transition services, and shall have no liability for delay or damage to Client because of such termination. 7. Reports, Drawings, and Work Product. WJE retains ownership of reports, drawings, specifications, test data, techniques, photographs, letters, notes, and other work product, including those in electronic form, it has created. These docu- ments or parts thereof may not be reproduced or used by the Client for any purpose other than the purpose for which they were prepared, including, but not limited to, use on other projects or future modifications to this Project, without the prior written consent of WJE. Upon request, WJE will provide Client with a copy of documentation for information and reference purposes and bill for such reproduction in accordance with Paragraph 5 above. Any unauthorized use of WJE’s work product shall be at the Client’s sole risk and Client shall indemnify WJE for any liability or legal exposure to WJE. To the extent WJE terminates its services due to non-payment of fees by Client, Client shall not be entitled to use the documents described herein for any purpose whatsoever. 8. Environmental Hazards. Client acknowledges that WJE’s services do not include the detection, investigation, evaluation, or abatement of environmental conditions that WJE may encounter, such as mold, lead, asbestos, PCBs, hazardous substances, or toxic materials that may be present in buildings and structures involved in this Project. The Client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold WJE harmless from any claims relating to the actual or alleged existence or discharge of such materials through no fault 172 WJE Terms and Conditions for Professional Services October 1, 2009 Page 2 of 2 of WJE’s employees. WJE reserves the right to suspend its services, without liability for consequential or any other damages, if it has reason to believe that its employees may be exposed to hazardous materials and will notify the Client in such event. 9. Dispute Resolution. Prior to the initiation of any legal proceedings, WJE and the Client agree to submit all claims, disputes, or controversies arising out of or in relation to the services provided by WJE to mediation. Such mediation shall be conducted under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association or such other mediation service or mediator upon which the parties agree. 10. Governing Law. The laws of the state where WJE performs its services shall govern. 11. Successors and Assigns. These Terms shall be binding upon Client and WJE and their respective successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither party may assign, subcontract, or otherwise delegate its responsibilities without the prior consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 12. Insurance. WJE maintains commercial general liability, automobile, workers’ compensation, and employers’ liability and professional liability coverages under policies written by national insurance carriers rated by the A.M. Best Company, evidence of which will be provided upon request. Endorsements are not allowed. No waiver of subrogation is allowed on WJE’s profes- sional liability policy. Upon written request, WJE agrees to name the Client as an additional insured to the commercial general liability and automobile coverages. Any request to add other parties as additional insureds must be made in writing and is subject to certain limitations. All policies are subject to annual renewal, and WJE will not undertake to guarantee continued coverage beyond the individual policy term. Excess coverage is available for exposures over primary policy limits except for professional liability. 13. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Client and WJE each agree to indemnify and hold the other harmless, and their respective agents, officers and employees, from and against liability for all direct claims, losses, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent such claims, losses, damages, or expenses are for bodily injury, sickness, disease, death, or property damage and to the extent they are caused by the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the indemnifying party, and/or the indemnifying party’s agents, officers, employees, independent contractors, or subcontractors of any tier. In the event such claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of Client and WJE, or their respective agents, officers, employees, independent contractors, or subcontractors of any tier, they shall be borne by each party in proportion to that negligence. 14. Agreed Remedy. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of WJE and WJE’s officers, directors, employees, agents, and consultants to Client and anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses, or damages, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in any way related to WJE’s services, the Project, or these Terms, from any cause or causes whatsoever, including but not limited to, negligence, strict liability, indemnity or breach of contract shall not exceed an amount equal to the proceeds obligated to be paid under WJE’s applicable insurance policy for such claims. If, for any reason, the applicable insurance policy does not provide coverage for any particular claim described herein, then the liability amount shall not exceed WJE’s fees for the services performed hereunder. In no event shall WJE be liable in contract, tort, strict liability, warranty or otherwise, for any special, incidental or consequential damages, such as, but not limited to, delay, disruption, loss of product, loss of anticipated profits or revenue, loss of use of equipment or system, non-operation or increased expense of operation of other equipment or systems, cost of capital, or cost of purchase or replacement equipment systems or power. 15. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in these Terms shall create a contractual relationship with, or a cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the Client or WJE. WJE’s services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of the Client, and no other entity shall have any claim against WJE because of these Terms or WJE’s performance or non-perfor- mance of services hereunder. 16. Entire Agreement. These Terms together with any written proposal shall constitute the entire understanding of the parties concerning the Project and supersede all prior negotiations and written agreements between them, and any amendment or modi- fication to either WJE’s proposal or these Terms may be made only by a written instrument expressly stated to be an amendment and signed by WJE. 17. Severability. If any provisions of these Terms, or portions thereof, are determined to be unenforceable, the remainder shall not be affected thereby and each remaining provision or portion thereof shall continue to be valid and effective and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. Copyright 2009 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 173 AECOM 303 East Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 www.aecom.com November 16, 2016 Mr. Mike Thomas City of Lake Forest 800 N. Field Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 RE: Proposal for Engineering Services – South Beach Access Road Bluff and Ravine Slope Restoration -- Feasibility Study Lake Forest, IL --- Change Order #5 Dear Mike: AECOM is pleased to provide you with Change Order #5 to complete a condition evaluation for bluff and ravine slope restoration for the North Beach Access Road area. This feasibility study includes examination of the existing bluff conditions and development of schematic restoration concepts for 1400 feet of bluff and ravine slopes from Spring Lane to the North Beach Access Road. This feasibility study will include the development of restoration concepts, and preparation of planning level schematic design for the selected options. The analysis will include prioritization of slope restoration areas and recommended approaches for implementation. Preliminary opinions of probable construction cost for recommended solutions will be provided such that the City can develop an implementation plan. When the City has reviewed the recommended solutions and decides to move forward with implementation, AECOM will provide a proposal for the first implementation phase. Scope of Services 1. Spring Lane North to the North Beach Access Road and Ravine A feasibility study for slope restoration will be performed for the reach of bluff extending from Spring Lane to a point approximately 1400 feet to the north, including the North Beach Access Road and the ravine slopes adjacent to the road. This feasibility study will include the following tasks: • Task 1 – Data Collection and Review: We will request that the City provide us with information for this study reach that you may have on file including the following: o Original road plans for the road that is along the top of bluff and for the North Beach Access Road– and any road, bluff or land grading modifications that have occurred in recent years. o Construction as-built drawings for any recent slope and road work at, near or on the bluff including as-built plans and details. o Geotechnical information including boring logs or studies completed in the past for this study that we do not already have on file. o Survey, aerial photographs, topography and other base map information. • Task 2 – Bluff Survey: AECOM surveyors will complete a partial topographic survey and cross sections for the bluff to supplement upland information that is available for this study 174 reach. The survey will focus on potentially problematic slope areas in this reach. We will prepare a base map and bluff cross sections that will serve as a base for the illustration of existing and alternative slope conditions. • Task 3 – Geotechnical & Slope Stability Review: Our geotechnical engineers will provide feasibility level guidance for slope restoration concepts based on information gathered and from our prior design work in the area in recent years. Based on their review of slope conditions and the geotechnical information and slope studies performed in the past, they will help guide the development of slope solutions. • Task 4 – Field Observation: Our geotechnical and slope restoration engineers will visit the site to observe existing slope conditions and begin the restoration concept development process. This visit will occur when the slope survey is completed so that a base map is available to assist in the field assessment of options that make sense from a stability perspective. • Task 4 – Slope Condition Evaluation: We will evaluate the existing slope condition based on our field observations, analysis of available geotechnical information in this and nearby bluff areas, assessment of reported bluff issues in the past, and interpretation of slope geometry. • Task 5 – Develop Restoration Concepts: We anticipate investigating the applicability of the following slope restoration approaches for portions of this study reach: o Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall o Reinforced Earth Slopes o Geogrid Lifts o Steel Sheet Pile Wall o Slope Regrading o Slope Drainage Improvements We will provide schematic design drawings and sections for feasible solutions to assess how these might fit in with the slope geometry for the study reach. It is possible that slope conditions will require changes to the existing pedestrian access. We will perform an observation of the pedestrian access and slope improvements in this study reach and will comment on expected slope issues that appear to affect this area. We will assign slope restoration priorities in case the City may want to implement the improvements in phases over time. A preliminary opinion of probable cost will be provided for each option that is considered feasible along with a summary of benefits and advantages and disadvantages for each option. If it is not possible to conclude if any slope restoration is necessary due to a lack of field or analysis evidence, we will provide a recommended monitoring program for those areas that have potential for causing problems. • Task 6 – Prepare a feasibility study report to present the study results and the recommended options. The report will include planning level schematic drawings, a summary of options considered, and details regarding recommended options. We will discuss slope restoration priorities that can be used to develop a capital improvement phasing plan where applicable. • Task 7 – Project Management and Meeting: In addition to the normal project coordination and quality control tasks, we will attend a meeting with your staff to discuss the study results. We will also meet with the advisory work group that will be working with the City Manager. 175 The budget for the this Study area is as follows: TASK DESCRIPTION BUDGET ($) 1 Data Collection and Review $2,000 2 Bluff Survey & Evaluation $4,900 3 Field Observations & Analysis $4,500 4 Slope Condition Evaluation $5,000 5 Develop Restoration Concepts $8,500 6 Prepare Feasibility Report $5,000 7 Project Management and City Meeting $3,500 TOTAL COST $33,400 For purposes of invoice reporting, the budget for task nos. 1 thru 4 will be monitored together as one consolidated data collection and analysis task, and the budget for task nos. 5 thru 7 will be monitored together as one consolidated feasibility study task. Proposed Budget We propose to perform this study on a time and materials basis with a recommended initial budget cap of $33,400 for the North Spring Lane Area/North Beach Access Road Bluff study. The fee schedule will be a direct labor multiplier of 2.80. Contract Terms and Conditions The same Terms and Conditions of Service that apply to the first phase study as provided in our May 18, 2016 contract will apply to Change Order #5 and are an integral part of this proposal. If acceptable, please return one signed original to the attention of William J. Weaver. Should you have any questions with regard to this proposal, please call Bill at (847) 323-2171 or contact him by email at bill.weaver@aecom.com . We thank you for the opportunity to submit this change order proposal and look forward to continuing to work with you on this important assignment. Sincerely, Responsible for Payment and Accepted by: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Signature: Name: (please print) William J. Weaver, P.E., D.WRE Title: (please print) Vice President – Senior Project Engineer Firm: Date: Patrick Clifford, P.E. Vice President © AECOM 2016, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 176 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 • Boulder, CO 80301 303-444-7863 • nrc@n-r-c.com •www.n-r-c.com CITY OF LAKE FOREST RESIDENT SURVEY Report of Results NOVEMBER 2016 177 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 Tables of Results .......................................................................................................... 4 Responses for question excluding “don’t know” .............................................................................................. 4 Responses for questions including “don’t know” ........................................................................................... 15 Appendix A: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Questions ...................................... 29 Appendix B: Comparisons of Ratings by Ward ............................................................ 31 Appendix C: Subgroup Comparisons by Select Respondent Characteristics ................ 43 Appendix D: Detailed Benchmark Comparisons .......................................................... 56 Appendix E: Comparisons Over Time ......................................................................... 69 Appendix G: Survey Materials .................................................................................... 77 178 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 1 Executive Summary Survey Background • In 2016 the City of Lake Forest contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to administer a community survey to all residents of Lake Forest to provide the opportunity to rate quality of life in the city, their use of city amenities, their opinion on policy issues facing the city and their assessment of city service delivery. • The City of Lake Forest Resident Survey was administered to all 7,458 households. Of the 7,172 eligible households who received the survey, 2,133 responded to the mailed questionnaire, giving a total response rate of 30%. • Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender and housing tenure (rent vs. own), and ward were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire city. • The margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points around any given percentage point for the entire sample. Differences between survey years can be considered meaningfully different if they are greater than four percentage points. • When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of rounding values to the nearest whole number. City of Lake Forest Resident Survey Highlights Residents enjoy a high quality of life. • In 2016, 93% of survey respondents rated their overall quality of life as excellent or good. Lake Forest residents gave higher ratings to the overall quality of life in comparison to communities across the nation, but gave similar ratings as respondents in select peer cities. • Nearly all residents (98%) gave positive marks to Lake Forest as a place to live and only slightly fewer gave favorable ratings to Lake Forest as a place to raise children (96%). About 8 in 10 also awarded high scores to the city as a place to work and as a place to visit. Ratings for aspects of quality of life tended to be higher than national benchmarks and similar to peer communities. • When asked what factors influenced residents’ decisions to live in Lake Forest, close to half reported that the public school system, natural environment, public amenities such as parks, the library and recreation and the quietness of the community influenced their decision to live in the city. Residents feel safe in their community. • Almost all respondents (98%) reported that they felt very safe or somewhat safe overall in Lake Forest, a level that was much higher than communities across the nation and similar to peer communities. • When asked what factors influenced residents’ decisions to live in Lake Forest, about 7 in 10 indicated that the safety of the community played a role in their decision to live in the community. 179 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 2 Respondents appreciated dimensions of the community related to the environment. • The overall natural environment of Lake Forest was rated as excellent or good by 98% of participants, which was higher than both national and peer comparisons communities. • Additionally, about 9 in 10 or more also awarded high marks to public parks, the public beach, the amount of open space, bike paths and walking trails, cleanliness and overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest. These ratings tended to be higher or much higher than national and peer benchmarks. • Compared to 2011, evaluations for overall appearance/attractiveness, public parks, the public beach, amount of open space and bike paths and walking trails have remained stable over time. • When asked about City budget priorities, about 6 in 10 indicated that environmental sustainability is essential or very important for the future of Lake Forest. Survey respondents think highly of City services. • Respondents continued to feel positively regarding the overall quality of services provided by the City of Lake Forest with 95% awarding excellent or good scores. This rating has remained stable 2011 and was similarly evaluated compared to residents in communities similar to Lake Forest, but higher than residents across the country. • Of the 20 services rated by residents, 12 of them were rated as excellent or good by 9 in 10 or more, including police, fire, ambulance or emergency medical services, 911 dispatch, maintenance of parks and of the beach, garbage collection, recycling, library services and senior and youth services. Evaluations of garbage collection and recycling services were higher than both sets of comparisons, while most other services were rated higher than communities across the U.S. and similar to peer cities when comparisons could be made. • When comparisons over time could be made, ratings for a few services remained consistent with levels seen in 2011, including police, fire and ambulance, library, senior and youth services, maintenance of parks and the beach and the Recreation Center. However, several decreases were seen within City services, such as drinking water, street repair, sewer services, snow and ice removal and building permit and inspection process services. • Of the 18 possible budget priorities for the City, about 8 in 10 indicated that crime prevention and fire response were top priorities for the Lake Forest budget, while about 4 in 10 placed high importance on code enforcement, neighborhood revitalization and CROYA services and one-third thought that Dickinson Hall services were essential or very important. The performance of the City of Lake Forest government is viewed favorably by residents. • At least two-thirds or more of respondents gave high ratings to the City’s response to citizen questions or concerns, the overall direction of Lake Forest government, the value of services for taxes paid, the job the City does at managing tax dollars and to the overall confidence in Lake Forest government. • Ratings for government performance tended to be similar or higher than communities across the nation and in selected peer communities when comparisons could be made. 180 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 3 Lake Forest residents do a majority of their shopping in the city, but would increase their spending if apparel and casual dining were available. • Less than 4 in 10 awarded high marks to the shopping opportunities provided by the City of Lake Forest and about one-quarter reported that shopping variety was excellent or good; both of these ratings decreased since 2011. Ratings for shopping opportunities were similar to those across the nation, but much lower when compared to peer cities. • Almost all residents (98%) reported that they make a purchase at least once a month in Lake Forest, which was a higher rate than purchases made elsewhere. Additionally, close to 9 in 10 also indicated that they dined in the community at least once a month. • About half of residents stated that they were more likely to spend a little more or a lot more in Lake Forest if apparel, home accessories or hardware stores were available. Less than 1 in 10 reported that the availability of fine jewelry or financial services would increase their spending in the community. • Over half of residents indicated that they spend $100 or more on dining out in an average week and over one-third spend between $25 and $100 on meals away from the home. Most residents (79%) reported that they eat out during the evening hours; while over half communicated that they typically choose to dine out on Saturday during a typical week. Maintenance of infrastructure and parks are top priorities for residents. • In addition to budget priorities, survey participants were also asked to rate the importance of a variety of aspects related to quality of life in Lake Forest. Residents indicated that maintenance of City infrastructure, such as streets, sidewalks and sewers, and the maintenance of City parks and facilities were essential or very important, with over 9 in 10 placing high importance on these aspects. • Additionally, about 8 in 10 stated that management of traffic flow would be at least very important, while the lowest rated priorities included encouraging increased use of existing bus transportation for school children and increased variety of housing options, sizes and price points with 47% of respondents ratings these as essential or very important. 181 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 4 Tables of Results The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” and “refused” responses. Responses for question excluding “don’t know” Table 1: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Lake Forest: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Lake Forest as a place to live 76% N=1597 22% N=472 1% N=31 0% N=9 100% N=2108 Lake Forest as a place to raise children 71% N=1377 25% N=492 4% N=69 1% N=14 100% N=1952 Lake Forest as a place to work 44% N=563 36% N=465 16% N=202 4% N=51 100% N=1281 Lake Forest as a place to visit 46% N=904 37% N=723 14% N=275 2% N=44 100% N=1946 Lake Forest as a place to shop 16% N=324 30% N=632 40% N=824 14% N=297 100% N=2076 Lake Forest as a place to dine 13% N=271 30% N=621 41% N=853 16% N=339 100% N=2084 Lake Forest as a place to retire 30% N=478 31% N=491 24% N=371 15% N=239 100% N=1579 Overall quality of life in Lake Forest 47% N=954 46% N=940 6% N=132 1% N=18 100% N=2044 Table 2: Question 2 Please indicate which of the following influence your decision to live in Lake Forest (please select all that apply): Percent Number Raised here/close to family 31% N=656 Public school system 54% N=1130 Natural environment 48% N=1016 Public amenities (parks, library, recreation, etc.) 53% N=1102 Open space preservation 38% N=807 Safety of community 72% N=1507 Property tax rates 36% N=761 Culture and history 23% N=476 Architecture 28% N=594 Quiet community 59% N=1228 Other 21% N=437 Neighborhoods/housing 39% N=817 Health care/community hospital 27% N=566 Sense of community 31% N=646 Total 100% N=2097 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 182 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 5 Table 3: Question 3 Please rate the quality of each of the following characteristics of Lake Forest: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest 81% N=1694 18% N=379 1% N=24 0% N=0 100% N=2097 Volume of traffic on local roads 21% N=435 52% N=1088 23% N=472 5% N=103 100% N=2098 Availability of parking in business districts 21% N=433 48% N=997 25% N=520 6% N=118 100% N=2067 Shopping opportunities 6% N=133 32% N=661 47% N=977 15% N=314 100% N=2085 Shopping variety 6% N=123 22% N=457 48% N=991 24% N=488 100% N=2060 Ease of bicycle travel in Lake Forest 33% N=538 45% N=747 19% N=307 4% N=62 100% N=1654 Pedestrian safety 36% N=735 49% N=993 12% N=237 4% N=77 100% N=2041 Public parks 64% N=1334 31% N=646 4% N=88 0% N=7 100% N=2075 Public beach 83% N=1720 14% N=294 2% N=45 0% N=7 100% N=2066 Recreational opportunities 45% N=912 44% N=889 10% N=198 1% N=18 100% N=2016 Amount of open space 63% N=1306 32% N=669 5% N=96 0% N=5 100% N=2077 Bike paths/walking trails 55% N=1062 37% N=725 7% N=132 1% N=24 100% N=1943 Lake Forest-sponsored special events 29% N=559 50% N=959 18% N=347 3% N=48 100% N=1914 Variety of housing options, sizes and price points 16% N=311 38% N=760 32% N=634 15% N=296 100% N=2002 Sense of community 35% N=699 44% N=882 18% N=367 4% N=73 100% N=2022 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 16% N=286 35% N=647 31% N=572 18% N=329 100% N=1835 K-12 education 58% N=1033 35% N=626 6% N=111 1% N=14 100% N=1784 Overall natural environment in Lake Forest 66% N=1381 32% N=657 2% N=46 0% N=0 100% N=2084 Overall feeling of safety in Lake Forest 71% N=1491 27% N=564 2% N=37 0% N=6 100% N=2098 Availability of quality health care 49% N=996 41% N=835 8% N=162 1% N=28 100% N=2021 Overall design of Lake Forest buildings 50% N=1038 43% N=881 7% N=138 1% N=12 100% N=2068 Neighborliness of residents in Lake Forest 30% N=622 43% N=898 21% N=436 5% N=110 100% N=2066 Public places where people want to spend time 33% N=672 47% N=953 17% N=347 3% N=52 100% N=2023 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 28% N=562 44% N=889 25% N=510 3% N=64 100% N=2025 Cleanliness of Lake Forest 71% N=1492 27% N=563 2% N=41 0% N=1 100% N=2097 Availability of goods for sale 11% N=215 41% N=830 38% N=779 10% N=214 100% N=2037 Downtown store hours 12% N=246 47% N=937 29% N=577 12% N=243 100% N=2003 Friendliness of store employees in Lake Forest 32% N=657 50% N=1026 15% N=315 2% N=43 100% N=2041 Knowledge of store employees in Lake Forest 27% N=516 54% N=1029 17% N=333 2% N=33 100% N=1912 183 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 6 Table 4: Question 4 Please rate the quality of each of the following City of Lake Forest services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 66% N=1296 28% N=546 5% N=101 1% N=14 100% N=1957 Fire services 76% N=1306 23% N=388 1% N=15 0% N=5 100% N=1714 911 dispatch services 70% N=968 24% N=337 4% N=59 2% N=21 100% N=1384 Ambulance or emergency medical services 73% N=980 25% N=342 2% N=23 0% N=6 100% N=1350 Street repair 26% N=530 50% N=1004 20% N=407 4% N=79 100% N=2020 Sewer services 32% N=548 52% N=902 13% N=228 3% N=55 100% N=1733 Sidewalk maintenance 28% N=543 49% N=955 17% N=323 6% N=109 100% N=1930 Snow and ice removal 33% N=675 44% N=898 17% N=346 5% N=100 100% N=2020 Maintenance of parks 56% N=1143 40% N=820 3% N=62 0% N=5 100% N=2030 Maintenance of beach 67% N=1339 31% N=613 2% N=34 0% N=2 100% N=1987 Deerpath Golf Course 44% N=486 43% N=480 10% N=106 4% N=41 100% N=1113 Recreation Center 39% N=613 49% N=758 10% N=151 2% N=35 100% N=1558 Stormwater management 28% N=437 47% N=729 17% N=263 8% N=125 100% N=1554 Drinking water 51% N=990 40% N=774 8% N=162 1% N=21 100% N=1948 Garbage collection 69% N=1419 28% N=562 3% N=54 0% N=7 100% N=2043 Recycling 66% N=1314 28% N=549 5% N=101 1% N=27 100% N=1991 Building permit and inspection process 22% N=339 37% N=558 26% N=394 15% N=236 100% N=1527 Library services 64% N=1198 31% N=578 4% N=84 1% N=10 100% N=1870 Senior services at Dickinson Hall 55% N=369 39% N=263 5% N=34 1% N=5 100% N=671 Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) 54% N=430 39% N=312 5% N=38 1% N=11 100% N=791 Overall quality of Lake Forest City services 43% N=855 52% N=1028 5% N=101 0% N=6 100% N=1990 Table 5: Question 5 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Police Department performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 66% N=1034 27% N=426 5% N=77 1% N=21 100% N=1558 Responsiveness/promptness 71% N=1218 25% N=425 4% N=64 1% N=11 100% N=1718 Courtesy 66% N=1211 26% N=478 6% N=118 2% N=38 100% N=1846 Overall impression 62% N=1186 31% N=593 6% N=111 1% N=28 100% N=1918 Table 6: Question 6 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Fire Department performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 80% N=1029 19% N=240 1% N=6 0% N=4 100% N=1280 Responsiveness/promptness 81% N=1092 17% N=234 1% N=7 1% N=11 100% N=1344 Courtesy 81% N=1157 18% N=263 1% N=10 0% N=5 100% N=1435 Overall impression 75% N=1171 23% N=356 1% N=20 0% N=8 100% N=1554 184 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 7 Table 7: Question 7 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s ambulance/emergency medical services performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 78% N=797 21% N=216 1% N=11 0% N=2 100% N=1026 Responsiveness/promptness 78% N=824 20% N=212 1% N=13 1% N=9 100% N=1059 Courtesy 79% N=847 19% N=207 1% N=9 0% N=5 100% N=1068 Overall impression 74% N=859 24% N=274 2% N=21 0% N=3 100% N=1157 Table 8: Question 8 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total City response to citizen questions or concerns 23% N=366 49% N=785 20% N=323 9% N=137 100% N=1611 The job Lake Forest City Council does at listening to residents 19% N=282 40% N=596 28% N=422 13% N=190 100% N=1491 City Council generally acting in the best interest of the community 22% N=361 41% N=681 26% N=439 11% N=189 100% N=1671 The overall direction that Lake Forest is taking 19% N=348 47% N=865 23% N=425 10% N=186 100% N=1824 The value of services for taxes paid 26% N=507 42% N=797 25% N=481 7% N=135 100% N=1920 The job Lake Forest government does at managing tax dollars 25% N=434 42% N=712 24% N=405 10% N=163 100% N=1715 Overall confidence in Lake Forest City government 21% N=401 47% N=903 24% N=466 7% N=140 100% N=1909 Table 9: Question 9 Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to address each of the following to maintain the quality of life in Lake Forest for the next five years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Manage traffic on local roads 37% N=755 42% N=852 19% N=382 3% N=51 100% N=2041 Demolition of existing homes and replacing with the construction of new ones 14% N=285 23% N=473 34% N=684 29% N=585 100% N=2027 Preservation of historic homes and landscapes 34% N=694 35% N=721 26% N=525 5% N=97 100% N=2036 Repurpose historic homes and property for other purposes (inns, condos, etc.) 22% N=450 29% N=581 30% N=605 19% N=383 100% N=2019 Maintenance of City infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.) 70% N=1426 28% N=564 2% N=41 0% N=1 100% N=2033 Maintenance of City parks and facilities 59% N=1208 35% N=725 5% N=107 0% N=4 100% N=2044 Maintain Lake Forest as a triple-a bonded community (triple-a bonding secures the lowest borrowing rates for the City) 67% N=1354 27% N=539 6% N=117 1% N=18 100% N=2028 185 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 8 Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to address each of the following to maintain the quality of life in Lake Forest for the next five years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 35% N=703 34% N=681 22% N=444 10% N=199 100% N=2027 Economic development (more retail and restaurants) 43% N=883 35% N=705 19% N=377 3% N=70 100% N=2035 Encourage increased use of existing bus transportation for school children 20% N=399 28% N=555 33% N=667 20% N=396 100% N=2017 Increase the variety of housing options, sizes and price points 21% N=418 27% N=538 32% N=644 21% N=429 100% N=2029 Availability of quality senior housing 20% N=416 32% N=643 35% N=717 13% N=263 100% N=2040 Availability of quality housing for younger families 24% N=494 38% N=777 27% N=556 11% N=217 100% N=2044 Table 10: Question 10 Cities are faced with difficult choices. If you were a member of the City Council and had to consider budget changes, please rate the importance of increasing the budget for each of the following areas: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Crime prevention 51% N=1028 29% N=576 14% N=290 6% N=121 100% N=2015 Police response 54% N=1080 26% N=529 15% N=292 6% N=111 100% N=2012 Fire prevention 44% N=886 30% N=595 19% N=375 8% N=153 100% N=2009 Fire response 55% N=1098 25% N=494 14% N=290 6% N=128 100% N=2009 Ambulance service 50% N=1009 29% N=574 16% N=312 5% N=107 100% N=2002 Road maintenance 34% N=679 50% N=1006 14% N=291 2% N=40 100% N=2017 Sidewalk services 23% N=451 44% N=888 29% N=579 4% N=82 100% N=2000 Snow removal 35% N=698 45% N=915 16% N=324 4% N=75 100% N=2011 Trash collection service 26% N=528 41% N=822 25% N=497 8% N=157 100% N=2003 Code enforcement services 12% N=225 29% N=556 44% N=861 15% N=299 100% N=1941 Neighborhood revitalization 13% N=262 27% N=540 43% N=844 17% N=329 100% N=1975 Library services 17% N=337 33% N=665 38% N=768 11% N=227 100% N=1996 Economic development services 20% N=389 37% N=720 35% N=695 8% N=167 100% N=1971 Dickinson Hall services 8% N=160 24% N=463 49% N=954 20% N=384 100% N=1961 Parks and Recreation services 23% N=449 43% N=864 28% N=559 6% N=123 100% N=1995 CROYA services 11% N=216 32% N=627 41% N=795 16% N=315 100% N=1953 Stormwater management 32% N=645 41% N=812 23% N=450 5% N=92 100% N=1999 Environmental sustainability 25% N=507 36% N=713 28% N=551 11% N=225 100% N=1995 186 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 9 Table 11: Question 11 How likely, if all, would you be to utilize a public transportation system (bus or trolley) in Lake Forest? Percent Number Very likely 10% N=200 Somewhat likely 17% N=332 Somewhat unlikely 13% N=250 Very unlikely 60% N=1186 Total 100% N=1968 Table 12: Question 12 Which of the following, if any, would make you more likely to use a bus or trolley in Lake Forest? (Please check all that apply.) Percent Number Schedules that provide options to commute to work 25% N=329 Affordable pricing 29% N=385 Adequate stops in downtown 39% N=518 Convenience/distance of stops from home 81% N=1072 Total 100% N=1320 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 13: Question 13 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services: Major source Minor source Not a source Total City "Dialogue" quarterly newsletter 52% N=1060 34% N=699 13% N=271 100% N=2030 City's website (www.cityoflakeforest.com) 46% N=918 38% N=765 16% N=325 100% N=2008 Local newspapers 45% N=917 40% N=812 15% N=302 100% N=2031 Online media publications 21% N=416 36% N=705 43% N=862 100% N=1982 LFTV (channels 17 or 19) or U-Verse 5% N=104 22% N=444 72% N=1435 100% N=1983 Recreation Department Program Brochure 31% N=618 40% N=798 29% N=591 100% N=2006 Dickinson Hall “Newsbrief” 12% N=233 26% N=523 62% N=1240 100% N=1996 Council meetings 11% N=218 35% N=688 54% N=1075 100% N=1981 City staff 18% N=347 37% N=727 46% N=901 100% N=1975 Information provided in City buildings (library, CROYA, etc.) 13% N=253 44% N=871 43% N=857 100% N=1982 Ward or Town Hall Meetings 11% N=219 34% N=675 55% N=1084 100% N=1978 E-news (including emergency notifications) 31% N=624 37% N=735 31% N=624 100% N=1983 187 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 10 Table 14: Question 14 In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household make a purchase in these commercial areas? Daily 3 to 4 times per week Once a week 1 to 3 times a month Never Total Lake Forest (Central Business District) 17% N=351 36% N=732 25% N=513 20% N=415 2% N=51 100% N=2062 West Lake Forest 8% N=154 22% N=450 25% N=502 35% N=704 10% N=205 100% N=2014 Vernon Hills 2% N=32 15% N=315 26% N=530 47% N=960 10% N=200 100% N=2038 Lake Bluff 1% N=14 6% N=126 17% N=339 46% N=921 30% N=612 100% N=2012 Highwood 0% N=9 7% N=137 19% N=382 51% N=1036 23% N=455 100% N=2019 Highland Park 1% N=12 5% N=101 12% N=247 52% N=1048 30% N=611 100% N=2020 Libertyville 0% N=6 2% N=48 11% N=215 38% N=763 49% N=993 100% N=2025 Online 13% N=271 25% N=512 20% N=402 26% N=528 15% N=295 100% N=2008 Table 15: Question 15 In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household dine in these commercial areas? Daily 3 to 4 times per week Once a week 1 to 3 times a month Never Total Lake Forest (Central Business District) 2% N=44 9% N=187 23% N=463 55% N=1137 11% N=226 100% N=2056 West Lake Forest 0% N=9 3% N=51 10% N=210 43% N=869 43% N=875 100% N=2013 Vernon Hills 0% N=2 3% N=70 9% N=179 44% N=893 43% N=866 100% N=2009 Lake Bluff 0% N=4 3% N=58 10% N=192 46% N=917 42% N=833 100% N=2004 Highwood 0% N=4 4% N=74 16% N=328 62% N=1263 18% N=369 100% N=2037 Highland Park 0% N=1 2% N=31 7% N=148 48% N=957 43% N=873 100% N=2011 Libertyville 0% N=1 2% N=32 4% N=85 35% N=702 59% N=1200 100% N=2020 Table 16: Question 16 Please indicate how the addition of these stores and services would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? I would spend a lot more I would spend a little more No change Total Apparel 17% N=319 40% N=740 43% N=807 100% N=1866 Home accessories 14% N=268 36% N=675 49% N=908 100% N=1851 Hardware 19% N=371 36% N=690 44% N=848 100% N=1910 Gardening supplies 10% N=198 30% N=557 60% N=1133 100% N=1889 Make-up cosmetics 4% N=72 17% N=305 79% N=1406 100% N=1783 Greeting cards/gifts 10% N=195 31% N=583 58% N=1088 100% N=1866 Craft supplies 8% N=131 26% N=449 67% N=1157 100% N=1737 Pet supplies 10% N=180 27% N=464 63% N=1095 100% N=1739 Spa services 7% N=120 23% N=399 70% N=1224 100% N=1743 Furniture 4% N=78 19% N=332 76% N=1332 100% N=1742 188 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 11 Please indicate how the addition of these stores and services would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? I would spend a lot more I would spend a little more No change Total Costume jewelry 3% N=54 15% N=257 82% N=1418 100% N=1729 Fast print/photocopy 3% N=50 18% N=328 79% N=1411 100% N=1789 Florist 2% N=29 14% N=260 84% N=1531 100% N=1819 Video game store 2% N=35 8% N=138 90% N=1498 100% N=1671 Exercise/personal training 4% N=77 13% N=237 82% N=1458 100% N=1772 Art gallery 2% N=38 15% N=263 83% N=1471 100% N=1772 Fine jewelry 1% N=17 8% N=143 91% N=1601 100% N=1761 Financial services 1% N=26 6% N=108 92% N=1626 100% N=1761 Table 17: Question 17 In an average week, how much would you estimate that your household spends on meals away from home (full-service restaurants, take-out, drive-thru, etc.) Percent Number Less than $25 8% N=170 $25 to $49.99 12% N=248 $50 to $99.99 25% N=505 $100 to $149.99 24% N=493 Over $150 31% N=628 Total 100% N=2044 Table 18: Question 18 Please indicate how the addition of these restaurants would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? I would spend a lot more I would spend a little more No change Total Casual dining 41% N=830 43% N=872 15% N=304 100% N=2006 Counter service restaurant (i.e. LF Food and Wine) 17% N=326 35% N=670 48% N=930 100% N=1926 White tablecloth restaurant 18% N=354 36% N=699 46% N=899 100% N=1951 Sports bar 17% N=324 26% N=501 57% N=1078 100% N=1902 Quick service restaurant 18% N=350 33% N=638 48% N=922 100% N=1909 Table 19: Question 19 In an average week, when does your household buy meals away from home (full-service restaurants, take-out, drive-thru, etc.) Percent Number Daytime (10am - 5pm) 30% N=611 Evening (after 5 pm) 79% N=1603 Saturday 56% N=1125 Sunday 36% N=719 Total 100% N=2016 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 189 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 12 Table 20: Question 20 Are you or anyone in your household a member of Dickinson Hall Senior Center? Percent Number Yes 10% N=198 No 90% N=1817 Total 100% N=2015 Table 21: Question 21 For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate whether or not they are available to you or members of your household: Yes No Total Escorted transportation 46% N=80 54% N=94 100% N=174 Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 23% N=37 77% N=125 100% N=162 Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 27% N=44 73% N=118 100% N=162 Health insurance/medication help 34% N=55 66% N=108 100% N=162 Help locating medical/mental health services 24% N=38 76% N=119 100% N=156 Help locating a nursing home/housing 26% N=42 74% N=118 100% N=161 Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 27% N=43 73% N=118 100% N=161 Provide home delivered meal programs 19% N=31 81% N=128 100% N=159 Provide visitors 18% N=28 82% N=127 100% N=155 Provide legal or financial help 22% N=35 78% N=126 100% N=161 Respite care 18% N=28 82% N=128 100% N=155 Table 22: Question 21a For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate how important each of these amenities is to you or members of your household. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Escorted transportation 17% N=27 23% N=37 24% N=39 37% N=60 100% N=163 Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 7% N=11 17% N=25 19% N=29 57% N=87 100% N=153 Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 9% N=15 19% N=29 20% N=31 52% N=80 100% N=156 Health insurance/medication help 13% N=20 19% N=30 19% N=29 49% N=76 100% N=156 Help locating medical/mental health services 11% N=16 17% N=26 22% N=32 50% N=75 100% N=149 Help locating a nursing home/housing 12% N=18 17% N=25 18% N=27 53% N=80 100% N=150 Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 15% N=23 21% N=32 22% N=34 43% N=66 100% N=156 Provide home delivered meal programs 11% N=16 16% N=24 23% N=35 50% N=76 100% N=151 Provide visitors 6% N=9 15% N=21 20% N=29 59% N=85 100% N=145 Provide legal or financial help 12% N=17 16% N=24 19% N=28 54% N=79 100% N=148 Respite care 11% N=17 15% N=22 21% N=30 53% N=77 100% N=147 190 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 13 Table 23: Question 22 What is the single most important priority for the City of Lake Forest to address in the next five years? Percent of respondents Number Safety 6% N=91 Affordability/Cost of living 24% N=339 Parks/Natural environment 5% N=65 Traffic/Transportation 11% N=147 Commercial/Downtown development 14% N=194 Growth Management 9% N=126 Education/Schools 5% N=73 Housing/Real estate 9% N=121 City government/Services 7% N=92 Marketability 3% N=45 Other 7% N=102 Total 100% N=1394 Table 24: Question D1 How many years have you lived in Lake Forest? Percent Number Less than 2 years 9% N=190 2 to 5 years 12% N=256 6 to 10 years 11% N=236 11 to 20 years 25% N=512 More than 20 years 43% N=885 Total 100% N=2079 Table 25: Question D2 Are you a part-time or full-time resident of Lake Forest? Percent Number Part-time (less than 6 months/year) 4% N=87 Full-time (6 or more months/year) 96% N=1989 Total 100% N=2076 Table 26: Question D3 Do you work inside the boundaries of Lake Forest? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 19% N=392 Yes, inside the home 16% N=334 No 65% N=1323 Total 100% N=2049 Table 27: Question D4 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 83% N=1713 House attached to one or more homes (e.g., a duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 16% N=322 Other 2% N=39 Total 100% N=2074 191 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 14 Table 28: Question D5 Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number Rent 10% N=205 Own 90% N=1860 Total 100% N=2064 Table 29: Question D6 What is your gender? Percent Number Female 53% N=1097 Male 47% N=955 Total 100% N=2052 Table 30: Question D7 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 1% N=10 25 to 34 years 9% N=174 35 to 44 years 13% N=268 45 to 54 years 28% N=567 55 to 64 years 19% N=380 65 to 74 years 16% N=332 75 years or older 15% N=317 Total 100% N=2049 Table 31: Question D8 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=15 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3% N=67 Black or African American 1% N=18 White 94% N=1889 Other 1% N=29 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 32: Question D9 Number of children under 18 Percent Number 1 67% N=1140 2 26% N=436 3 6% N=99 4 or more 1% N=18 Total 100% N=1692 192 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 15 Responses for questions including “don’t know” Table 33: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Lake Forest: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Lake Forest as a place to live 76% N=1597 22% N=472 1% N=31 0% N=9 0% N=4 100% N=2112 Lake Forest as a place to raise children 66% N=1377 23% N=492 3% N=69 1% N=14 7% N=148 100% N=2100 Lake Forest as a place to work 27% N=563 22% N=465 10% N=202 2% N=51 39% N=806 100% N=2087 Lake Forest as a place to visit 44% N=904 35% N=723 13% N=275 2% N=44 6% N=133 100% N=2079 Lake Forest as a place to shop 15% N=324 30% N=632 39% N=824 14% N=297 1% N=17 100% N=2093 Lake Forest as a place to dine 13% N=271 30% N=621 41% N=853 16% N=339 1% N=15 100% N=2099 Lake Forest as a place to retire 24% N=478 24% N=491 18% N=371 12% N=239 22% N=433 100% N=2012 Overall quality of life in Lake Forest 46% N=954 46% N=940 6% N=132 1% N=18 1% N=19 100% N=2064 Table 34: Question 2 Please indicate which of the following influence your decision to live in Lake Forest (please select all that apply): Percent Number Raised here/close to family 31% N=656 Public school system 54% N=1130 Natural environment 48% N=1016 Public amenities (parks, library, recreation, etc.) 53% N=1102 Open space preservation 38% N=807 Safety of community 72% N=1507 Property tax rates 36% N=761 Culture and history 23% N=476 Architecture 28% N=594 Quiet community 59% N=1228 Other 21% N=437 Neighborhoods/housing 39% N=817 Health care/community hospital 27% N=566 Sense of community 31% N=646 Total 100% N=2097 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 193 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 16 Table 35: Question 3 Please rate the quality of each of the following characteristics of Lake Forest: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest 81% N=1694 18% N=379 1% N=24 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=2097 Volume of traffic on local roads 21% N=435 52% N=1088 23% N=472 5% N=103 0% N=1 100% N=2099 Availability of parking in business districts 21% N=433 48% N=997 25% N=520 6% N=118 1% N=27 100% N=2094 Shopping opportunities 6% N=133 32% N=661 47% N=977 15% N=314 1% N=11 100% N=2096 Shopping variety 6% N=123 22% N=457 48% N=991 23% N=488 1% N=24 100% N=2083 Ease of bicycle travel in Lake Forest 26% N=538 36% N=747 15% N=307 3% N=62 20% N=422 100% N=2076 Pedestrian safety 35% N=735 47% N=993 11% N=237 4% N=77 2% N=49 100% N=2090 Public parks 63% N=1334 31% N=646 4% N=88 0% N=7 1% N=28 100% N=2103 Public beach 82% N=1720 14% N=294 2% N=45 0% N=7 2% N=33 100% N=2098 Recreational opportunities 44% N=912 42% N=889 9% N=198 1% N=18 4% N=79 100% N=2095 Amount of open space 62% N=1306 32% N=669 5% N=96 0% N=5 1% N=20 100% N=2097 Bike paths/walking trails 51% N=1062 35% N=725 6% N=132 1% N=24 7% N=146 100% N=2089 Lake Forest-sponsored special events 27% N=559 46% N=959 17% N=347 2% N=48 8% N=166 100% N=2080 Variety of housing options, sizes and price points 15% N=311 36% N=760 30% N=634 14% N=296 4% N=87 100% N=2088 Sense of community 34% N=699 43% N=882 18% N=367 4% N=73 2% N=45 100% N=2067 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 14% N=286 31% N=647 28% N=572 16% N=329 12% N=242 100% N=2077 K-12 education 50% N=1033 30% N=626 5% N=111 1% N=14 14% N=297 100% N=2081 Overall natural environment in Lake Forest 66% N=1381 31% N=657 2% N=46 0% N=0 0% N=6 100% N=2090 Overall feeling of safety in Lake Forest 71% N=1491 27% N=564 2% N=37 0% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=2098 Availability of quality health care 48% N=996 40% N=835 8% N=162 1% N=28 4% N=76 100% N=2097 Overall design of Lake Forest buildings 50% N=1038 42% N=881 7% N=138 1% N=12 1% N=18 100% N=2087 Neighborliness of residents in Lake Forest 30% N=622 43% N=898 21% N=436 5% N=110 1% N=17 100% N=2082 Public places where people want to spend time 32% N=672 46% N=953 17% N=347 3% N=52 3% N=60 100% N=2084 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 27% N=562 43% N=889 24% N=510 3% N=64 3% N=60 100% N=2085 Cleanliness of Lake Forest 71% N=1492 27% N=563 2% N=41 0% N=1 0% N=1 100% N=2098 Availability of goods for sale 10% N=215 40% N=830 37% N=779 10% N=214 2% N=52 100% N=2089 Downtown store hours 12% N=246 45% N=937 28% N=577 12% N=243 4% N=89 100% N=2092 Friendliness of store employees in Lake Forest 31% N=657 49% N=1026 15% N=315 2% N=43 3% N=53 100% N=2094 Knowledge of store employees in Lake Forest 25% N=516 49% N=1029 16% N=333 2% N=33 8% N=177 100% N=2089 194 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 17 Table 36: Question 4 Please rate the quality of each of the following City of Lake Forest services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 62% N=1296 26% N=546 5% N=101 1% N=14 7% N=137 100% N=2094 Fire services 62% N=1306 19% N=388 1% N=15 0% N=5 18% N=376 100% N=2089 911 dispatch services 47% N=968 16% N=337 3% N=59 1% N=21 33% N=692 100% N=2077 Ambulance or emergency medical services 47% N=980 16% N=342 1% N=23 0% N=6 35% N=722 100% N=2072 Street repair 25% N=530 48% N=1004 20% N=407 4% N=79 3% N=62 100% N=2082 Sewer services 27% N=548 44% N=902 11% N=228 3% N=55 16% N=334 100% N=2067 Sidewalk maintenance 26% N=543 46% N=955 16% N=323 5% N=109 6% N=134 100% N=2063 Snow and ice removal 32% N=675 43% N=898 17% N=346 5% N=100 3% N=62 100% N=2082 Maintenance of parks 55% N=1143 40% N=820 3% N=62 0% N=5 2% N=45 100% N=2075 Maintenance of beach 65% N=1339 30% N=613 2% N=34 0% N=2 4% N=86 100% N=2073 Deerpath Golf Course 24% N=486 23% N=480 5% N=106 2% N=41 46% N=948 100% N=2061 Recreation Center 30% N=613 37% N=758 7% N=151 2% N=35 25% N=510 100% N=2067 Stormwater management 21% N=437 36% N=729 13% N=263 6% N=125 24% N=494 100% N=2048 Drinking water 48% N=990 37% N=774 8% N=162 1% N=21 6% N=121 100% N=2068 Garbage collection 68% N=1419 27% N=562 3% N=54 0% N=7 2% N=38 100% N=2080 Recycling 64% N=1314 27% N=549 5% N=101 1% N=27 4% N=77 100% N=2069 Building permit and inspection process 16% N=339 27% N=558 19% N=394 11% N=236 26% N=531 100% N=2058 Library services 58% N=1198 28% N=578 4% N=84 1% N=10 9% N=189 100% N=2059 Senior services at Dickinson Hall 18% N=369 13% N=263 2% N=34 0% N=5 67% N=1382 100% N=2053 Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) 21% N=430 15% N=312 2% N=38 1% N=11 61% N=1243 100% N=2034 Overall quality of Lake Forest City services 42% N=855 51% N=1028 5% N=101 0% N=6 1% N=29 100% N=2019 Table 37: Question 5 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Police Department performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 50% N=1034 21% N=426 4% N=77 1% N=21 25% N=515 100% N=2073 Responsiveness/promptness 59% N=1218 20% N=425 3% N=64 1% N=11 17% N=358 100% N=2076 Courtesy 58% N=1211 23% N=478 6% N=118 2% N=38 11% N=229 100% N=2074 Overall impression 57% N=1186 29% N=593 5% N=111 1% N=28 8% N=163 100% N=2081 195 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 18 Table 38: Question 6 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Fire Department performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 50% N=1029 12% N=240 0% N=6 0% N=4 38% N=790 100% N=2070 Responsiveness/promptness 53% N=1092 11% N=234 0% N=7 1% N=11 35% N=725 100% N=2069 Courtesy 56% N=1157 13% N=263 0% N=10 0% N=5 31% N=630 100% N=2066 Overall impression 56% N=1171 17% N=356 1% N=20 0% N=8 25% N=518 100% N=2072 Table 39: Question 7 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s ambulance/emergency medical services performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 39% N=797 10% N=216 1% N=11 0% N=2 50% N=1035 100% N=2060 Responsiveness/promptness 40% N=824 10% N=212 1% N=13 0% N=9 49% N=998 100% N=2057 Courtesy 41% N=847 10% N=207 0% N=9 0% N=5 48% N=986 100% N=2053 Overall impression 42% N=859 13% N=274 1% N=21 0% N=3 44% N=904 100% N=2061 Table 40: Question 8 Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total City response to citizen questions or concerns 18% N=366 38% N=785 16% N=323 7% N=137 22% N=452 100% N=2062 The job Lake Forest City Council does at listening to residents 14% N=282 29% N=596 20% N=422 9% N=190 28% N=574 100% N=2065 City Council generally acting in the best interest of the community 18% N=361 33% N=681 21% N=439 9% N=189 19% N=386 100% N=2057 The overall direction that Lake Forest is taking 17% N=348 42% N=865 21% N=425 9% N=186 12% N=247 100% N=2071 The value of services for taxes paid 25% N=507 39% N=797 23% N=481 7% N=135 7% N=145 100% N=2066 The job Lake Forest government does at managing tax dollars 21% N=434 34% N=712 20% N=405 8% N=163 17% N=358 100% N=2072 Overall confidence in Lake Forest City government 19% N=401 44% N=903 23% N=466 7% N=140 8% N=157 100% N=2067 196 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 19 Table 41: Question 9 Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to address each of the following to maintain the quality of life in Lake Forest for the next five years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Manage traffic on local roads 37% N=755 42% N=852 19% N=382 3% N=51 100% N=2041 Demolition of existing homes and replacing with the construction of new ones 14% N=285 23% N=473 34% N=684 29% N=585 100% N=2027 Preservation of historic homes and landscapes 34% N=694 35% N=721 26% N=525 5% N=97 100% N=2036 Repurpose historic homes and property for other purposes (inns, condos, etc.) 22% N=450 29% N=581 30% N=605 19% N=383 100% N=2019 Maintenance of City infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.) 70% N=1426 28% N=564 2% N=41 0% N=1 100% N=2033 Maintenance of City parks and facilities 59% N=1208 35% N=725 5% N=107 0% N=4 100% N=2044 Maintain Lake Forest as a triple-a bonded community (triple-a bonding secures the lowest borrowing rates for the City) 67% N=1354 27% N=539 6% N=117 1% N=18 100% N=2028 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 35% N=703 34% N=681 22% N=444 10% N=199 100% N=2027 Economic development (more retail and restaurants) 43% N=883 35% N=705 19% N=377 3% N=70 100% N=2035 Encourage increased use of existing bus transportation for school children 20% N=399 28% N=555 33% N=667 20% N=396 100% N=2017 Increase the variety of housing options, sizes and price points 21% N=418 27% N=538 32% N=644 21% N=429 100% N=2029 Availability of quality senior housing 20% N=416 32% N=643 35% N=717 13% N=263 100% N=2040 Availability of quality housing for younger families 24% N=494 38% N=777 27% N=556 11% N=217 100% N=2044 Table 42: Question 10 Cities are faced with difficult choices. If you were a member of the City Council and had to consider budget changes, please rate the importance of increasing the budget for each of the following areas: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Crime prevention 51% N=1028 29% N=576 14% N=290 6% N=121 100% N=2015 Police response 54% N=1080 26% N=529 15% N=292 6% N=111 100% N=2012 Fire prevention 44% N=886 30% N=595 19% N=375 8% N=153 100% N=2009 Fire response 55% N=1098 25% N=494 14% N=290 6% N=128 100% N=2009 Ambulance service 50% N=1009 29% N=574 16% N=312 5% N=107 100% N=2002 Road maintenance 34% N=679 50% N=1006 14% N=291 2% N=40 100% N=2017 Sidewalk services 23% N=451 44% N=888 29% N=579 4% N=82 100% N=2000 Snow removal 35% N=698 45% N=915 16% N=324 4% N=75 100% N=2011 Trash collection service 26% N=528 41% N=822 25% N=497 8% N=157 100% N=2003 197 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 20 Cities are faced with difficult choices. If you were a member of the City Council and had to consider budget changes, please rate the importance of increasing the budget for each of the following areas: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Code enforcement services 12% N=225 29% N=556 44% N=861 15% N=299 100% N=1941 Neighborhood revitalization 13% N=262 27% N=540 43% N=844 17% N=329 100% N=1975 Library services 17% N=337 33% N=665 38% N=768 11% N=227 100% N=1996 Economic development services 20% N=389 37% N=720 35% N=695 8% N=167 100% N=1971 Dickinson Hall services 8% N=160 24% N=463 49% N=954 20% N=384 100% N=1961 Parks and Recreation services 23% N=449 43% N=864 28% N=559 6% N=123 100% N=1995 CROYA services 11% N=216 32% N=627 41% N=795 16% N=315 100% N=1953 Stormwater management 32% N=645 41% N=812 23% N=450 5% N=92 100% N=1999 Environmental sustainability 25% N=507 36% N=713 28% N=551 11% N=225 100% N=1995 Table 43: Question 11 How likely, if all, would you be to utilize a public transportation system (bus or trolley) in Lake Forest? Percent Number Very likely 10% N=200 Somewhat likely 16% N=332 Somewhat unlikely 12% N=250 Very unlikely 57% N=1186 Don't know 5% N=97 Total 100% N=2065 Table 44: Question 12 Which of the following, if any, would make you more likely to use a bus or trolley in Lake Forest? (Please check all that app ly.) Percent Number Schedules that provide options to commute to work 25% N=329 Affordable pricing 29% N=385 Adequate stops in downtown 39% N=518 Convenience/distance of stops from home 81% N=1072 Total 100% N=1320 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 198 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 21 Table 45: Question 13 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services: Major source Minor source Not a source Total City "Dialogue" quarterly newsletter 52% N=1060 34% N=699 13% N=271 100% N=2030 City's website (www.cityoflakeforest.com) 46% N=918 38% N=765 16% N=325 100% N=2008 Local newspapers 45% N=917 40% N=812 15% N=302 100% N=2031 Online media publications 21% N=416 36% N=705 43% N=862 100% N=1982 LFTV (channels 17 or 19) or U-Verse 5% N=104 22% N=444 72% N=1435 100% N=1983 Recreation Department Program Brochure 31% N=618 40% N=798 29% N=591 100% N=2006 Dickinson Hall “Newsbrief” 12% N=233 26% N=523 62% N=1240 100% N=1996 Council meetings 11% N=218 35% N=688 54% N=1075 100% N=1981 City staff 18% N=347 37% N=727 46% N=901 100% N=1975 Information provided in City buildings (library, CROYA, etc.) 13% N=253 44% N=871 43% N=857 100% N=1982 Ward or Town Hall Meetings 11% N=219 34% N=675 55% N=1084 100% N=1978 E-news (including emergency notifications) 31% N=624 37% N=735 31% N=624 100% N=1983 Table 46: Question 14 In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household make a purchase in these commercial areas? Daily 3 to 4 times per week Once a week 1 to 3 times a month Never Total Lake Forest (Central Business District) 17% N=351 36% N=732 25% N=513 20% N=415 2% N=51 100% N=2062 West Lake Forest 8% N=154 22% N=450 25% N=502 35% N=704 10% N=205 100% N=2014 Vernon Hills 2% N=32 15% N=315 26% N=530 47% N=960 10% N=200 100% N=2038 Lake Bluff 1% N=14 6% N=126 17% N=339 46% N=921 30% N=612 100% N=2012 Highwood 0% N=9 7% N=137 19% N=382 51% N=1036 23% N=455 100% N=2019 Highland Park 1% N=12 5% N=101 12% N=247 52% N=1048 30% N=611 100% N=2020 Libertyville 0% N=6 2% N=48 11% N=215 38% N=763 49% N=993 100% N=2025 Online 13% N=271 25% N=512 20% N=402 26% N=528 15% N=295 100% N=2008 199 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 22 Table 47: Question 15 In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household dine in these commercial areas? Daily 3 to 4 times per week Once a week 1 to 3 times a month Never Total Lake Forest (Central Business District) 2% N=44 9% N=187 23% N=463 55% N=1137 11% N=226 100% N=2056 West Lake Forest 0% N=9 3% N=51 10% N=210 43% N=869 43% N=875 100% N=2013 Vernon Hills 0% N=2 3% N=70 9% N=179 44% N=893 43% N=866 100% N=2009 Lake Bluff 0% N=4 3% N=58 10% N=192 46% N=917 42% N=833 100% N=2004 Highwood 0% N=4 4% N=74 16% N=328 62% N=1263 18% N=369 100% N=2037 Highland Park 0% N=1 2% N=31 7% N=148 48% N=957 43% N=873 100% N=2011 Libertyville 0% N=1 2% N=32 4% N=85 35% N=702 59% N=1200 100% N=2020 Table 48: Question 16 Please indicate how the addition of these stores and services would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? I would spend a lot more I would spend a little more No change Don't know Total Apparel 16% N=319 37% N=740 40% N=807 7% N=143 100% N=2009 Home accessories 13% N=268 34% N=675 46% N=908 7% N=137 100% N=1988 Hardware 18% N=371 34% N=690 42% N=848 5% N=109 100% N=2019 Gardening supplies 10% N=198 28% N=557 56% N=1133 6% N=118 100% N=2007 Make-up cosmetics 4% N=72 15% N=305 71% N=1406 10% N=206 100% N=1989 Greeting cards/gifts 10% N=195 29% N=583 54% N=1088 8% N=153 100% N=2018 Craft supplies 7% N=131 23% N=449 58% N=1157 13% N=254 100% N=1991 Pet supplies 9% N=180 23% N=464 55% N=1095 13% N=262 100% N=2002 Spa services 6% N=120 20% N=399 61% N=1224 13% N=252 100% N=1995 Furniture 4% N=78 17% N=332 67% N=1332 13% N=256 100% N=1998 Costume jewelry 3% N=54 13% N=257 71% N=1418 13% N=266 100% N=1995 Fast print/photocopy 3% N=50 16% N=328 71% N=1411 10% N=208 100% N=1997 Florist 1% N=29 13% N=260 77% N=1531 9% N=178 100% N=1997 Video game store 2% N=35 7% N=138 75% N=1498 16% N=323 100% N=1994 Exercise/personal training 4% N=77 12% N=237 73% N=1458 11% N=227 100% N=2000 Art gallery 2% N=38 13% N=263 73% N=1471 12% N=234 100% N=2006 Fine jewelry 1% N=17 7% N=143 80% N=1601 12% N=240 100% N=2002 Financial services 1% N=26 5% N=108 82% N=1626 12% N=235 100% N=1995 200 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 23 Table 49: Question 17 In an average week, how much would you estimate that your household spends on meals away from home (full-service restaurants, take-out, drive-thru, etc.) Percent Number Less than $25 8% N=170 $25 to $49.99 12% N=248 $50 to $99.99 25% N=505 $100 to $149.99 24% N=493 Over $150 31% N=628 Total 100% N=2044 Table 50: Question 18 Please indicate how the addition of these restaurants would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? I would spend a lot more I would spend a little more No change Don't know Total Casual dining 40% N=830 42% N=872 15% N=304 3% N=60 100% N=2066 Counter service restaurant (i.e. LF Food and Wine) 16% N=326 33% N=670 46% N=930 5% N=99 100% N=2025 White tablecloth restaurant 17% N=354 34% N=699 44% N=899 4% N=91 100% N=2042 Sports bar 16% N=324 25% N=501 53% N=1078 6% N=121 100% N=2023 Quick service restaurant 17% N=350 31% N=638 45% N=922 6% N=123 100% N=2033 Table 51: Question 19 In an average week, when does your household buy meals away from home (full-service restaurants, take-out, drive-thru, etc.) Percent Number Daytime (10am - 5pm) 30% N=611 Evening (after 5 pm) 79% N=1603 Saturday 56% N=1125 Sunday 36% N=719 Total 100% N=2016 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 201 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 24 Table 52: Question 20 Are you or anyone in your household a member of Dickinson Hall Senior Center? Percent Number Yes 10% N=198 No 89% N=1817 Don't know 1% N=22 Total 100% N=2037 Table 53: Question 21 For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate whether or not they are available to you or members of your household: Yes No Total Escorted transportation 46% N=80 54% N=94 100% N=174 Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 23% N=37 77% N=125 100% N=162 Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 27% N=44 73% N=118 100% N=162 Health insurance/medication help 34% N=55 66% N=108 100% N=162 Help locating medical/mental health services 24% N=38 76% N=119 100% N=156 Help locating a nursing home/housing 26% N=42 74% N=118 100% N=161 Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 27% N=43 73% N=118 100% N=161 Provide home delivered meal programs 19% N=31 81% N=128 100% N=159 Provide visitors 18% N=28 82% N=127 100% N=155 Provide legal or financial help 22% N=35 78% N=126 100% N=161 Respite care 18% N=28 82% N=128 100% N=155 202 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 25 Table 54: Question 21a For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate how important each of these amenities is to you or members of your household. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Escorted transportation 17% N=27 23% N=37 24% N=39 37% N=60 100% N=163 Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 7% N=11 17% N=25 19% N=29 57% N=87 100% N=153 Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 9% N=15 19% N=29 20% N=31 52% N=80 100% N=156 Health insurance/medication help 13% N=20 19% N=30 19% N=29 49% N=76 100% N=156 Help locating medical/mental health services 11% N=16 17% N=26 22% N=32 50% N=75 100% N=149 Help locating a nursing home/housing 12% N=18 17% N=25 18% N=27 53% N=80 100% N=150 Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 15% N=23 21% N=32 22% N=34 43% N=66 100% N=156 Provide home delivered meal programs 11% N=16 16% N=24 23% N=35 50% N=76 100% N=151 Provide visitors 6% N=9 15% N=21 20% N=29 59% N=85 100% N=145 Provide legal or financial help 12% N=17 16% N=24 19% N=28 54% N=79 100% N=148 Respite care 11% N=17 15% N=22 21% N=30 53% N=77 100% N=147 Table 55: Question 22 What is the single most important priority for the City of Lake Forest to address in the next five years? Percent of respondents Number Safety 6% N=91 Affordability/Cost of living 24% N=339 Parks/Natural environment 5% N=65 Traffic/Transportation 11% N=147 Commercial/Downtown development 14% N=194 Growth Management 9% N=126 Education/Schools 5% N=73 Housing/Real estate 9% N=121 City government/Services 7% N=92 Marketability 3% N=45 Other 7% N=102 Total 100% N=1394 203 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 26 Table 56: Question D1 How many years have you lived in Lake Forest? Percent Number Less than 2 years 9% N=190 2 to 5 years 12% N=256 6 to 10 years 11% N=236 11 to 20 years 25% N=512 More than 20 years 43% N=885 Total 100% N=2079 Table 57: Question D2 Are you a part-time or full-time resident of Lake Forest? Percent Number Part-time (less than 6 months/year) 4% N=87 Full-time (6 or more months/year) 96% N=1989 Total 100% N=2076 Table 58: Question D3 Do you work inside the boundaries of Lake Forest? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 19% N=392 Yes, inside the home 16% N=334 No 65% N=1323 Total 100% N=2049 Table 59: Question D4 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 83% N=1713 House attached to one or more homes (e.g., a duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 16% N=322 Other 2% N=39 Total 100% N=2074 204 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 27 Table 60: Question D5 Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number Rent 10% N=205 Own 90% N=1860 Total 100% N=2064 Table 61: Question D6 What is your gender? Percent Number Female 53% N=1097 Male 47% N=955 Total 100% N=2052 Table 62: Question D7 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 1% N=10 25 to 34 years 9% N=174 35 to 44 years 13% N=268 45 to 54 years 28% N=567 55 to 64 years 19% N=380 65 to 74 years 16% N=332 75 years or older 15% N=317 Total 100% N=2049 Table 63: Question D8 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=15 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3% N=67 Black or African American 1% N=18 White 94% N=1889 Other 1% N=29 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 205 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 28 Table 64: Question D9 Number of children under 18 Percent Number 1 67% N=1140 2 26% N=436 3 6% N=99 4 or more 1% N=18 Total 100% N=1692 206 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 29 Appendix A: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Questions Appendix A: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Questions can be found under a separate report cover. 207 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 30 Appendix B: Comparisons of Ratings by Ward 208 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 31 Appendix B: Comparisons of Ratings by Ward Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents who were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to utilize a public transportation system. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. The margin of error for this report is generally no greater than plus or minus two percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (2,133 completed surveys). For comparisons by Ward, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus five percentage points. Table 65: Question 1 by Ward Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Lake Forest: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Lake Forest as a place to live 97% 99% 98% 99% 98% Lake Forest as a place to raise children 95% 98% 94% 97% 96% Lake Forest as a place to work 80% 76% 83% 78% 80% Lake Forest as a place to visit 83% 85% 86% 79% 84% Lake Forest as a place to shop 48% 42% 49% 41% 46% Lake Forest as a place to dine 40% 39% 49% 38% 43% Lake Forest as a place to retire 61% 55% 67% 55% 61% Overall quality of life in Lake Forest 91% 94% 92% 94% 93% 209 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 32 Table 66: Question 3 by Ward Please rate the quality of each of the following characteristics of Lake Forest: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest 99% 100% 98% 98% 99% Volume of traffic on local roads 76% 80% 65% 80% 73% Availability of parking in business districts 71% 73% 65% 77% 69% Shopping opportunities 40% 35% 40% 36% 38% Shopping variety 27% 27% 31% 27% 28% Ease of bicycle travel in Lake Forest 84% 80% 76% 69% 78% Pedestrian safety 86% 86% 83% 86% 85% Public parks 96% 97% 93% 96% 95% Public beach 97% 98% 98% 97% 97% Recreational opportunities 90% 90% 89% 88% 89% Amount of open space 95% 97% 95% 96% 95% Bike paths/walking trails 94% 94% 92% 88% 92% Lake Forest-sponsored special events 74% 80% 82% 76% 79% Variety of housing options, sizes and price points 48% 52% 58% 53% 54% Sense of community 76% 78% 80% 77% 78% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 45% 49% 54% 61% 51% K-12 education 93% 94% 92% 92% 93% Overall natural environment in Lake Forest 99% 97% 98% 98% 98% Overall feeling of safety in Lake Forest 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% Availability of quality health care 87% 91% 91% 92% 91% Overall design of Lake Forest buildings 94% 94% 91% 94% 93% Neighborliness of residents in Lake Forest 74% 75% 73% 74% 74% Public places where people want to spend time 80% 83% 79% 79% 80% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 66% 73% 75% 69% 72% Cleanliness of Lake Forest 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% Availability of goods for sale 49% 48% 54% 54% 51% Downtown store hours 60% 58% 62% 57% 59% Friendliness of store employees in Lake Forest 81% 83% 83% 83% 82% Knowledge of store employees in Lake Forest 83% 81% 79% 80% 81% 210 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 33 Table 67: Question 4 by Ward Please rate the quality of each of the following City of Lake Forest services: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Police services 92% 94% 95% 93% 94% Fire services 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 911 dispatch services 96% 95% 93% 93% 94% Ambulance or emergency medical services 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% Street repair 70% 80% 78% 70% 76% Sewer services 81% 83% 87% 79% 84% Sidewalk maintenance 75% 77% 79% 76% 78% Snow and ice removal 77% 78% 79% 78% 78% Maintenance of parks 96% 96% 98% 95% 97% Maintenance of beach 98% 99% 99% 97% 98% Deerpath Golf Course 84% 84% 89% 86% 87% Recreation Center 85% 90% 87% 89% 88% Stormwater management 74% 73% 79% 71% 75% Drinking water 87% 93% 92% 90% 91% Garbage collection 98% 97% 96% 98% 97% Recycling 92% 95% 93% 94% 94% Building permit and inspection process 50% 57% 64% 62% 59% Library services 95% 96% 94% 94% 95% Senior services at Dickinson Hall 95% 94% 94% 93% 94% Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) 95% 93% 93% 93% 94% Overall quality of Lake Forest City services 96% 95% 94% 92% 95% Table 68: Question 5 by Ward Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Police Department performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Knowledge 90% 95% 94% 95% 94% Responsiveness/promptness 94% 94% 97% 95% 96% Courtesy 90% 91% 93% 91% 92% Overall impression 90% 93% 94% 92% 93% 211 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 34 Table 69: Question 6 by Ward Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Fire Department performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Knowledge 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% Responsiveness/promptness 97% 99% 99% 99% 99% Courtesy 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% Overall impression 97% 99% 98% 100% 98% Table 70: Question 7 by Ward Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s ambulance/emergency medical services Department performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Knowledge 100% 98% 99% 99% 99% Responsiveness/promptness 97% 99% 98% 95% 98% Courtesy 98% 99% 99% 98% 99% Overall impression 96% 99% 99% 96% 98% Table 71: Question 8 by Ward Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest government performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 City response to citizen questions or concerns 70% 73% 70% 70% 71% The job Lake Forest City Council does at listening to residents 56% 61% 57% 61% 59% City Council generally acting in the best interest of the community 57% 66% 61% 62% 62% The overall direction that Lake Forest is taking 62% 70% 66% 64% 66% The value of services for taxes paid 62% 71% 69% 66% 68% The job Lake Forest government does at managing tax dollars 61% 71% 66% 67% 67% Overall confidence in Lake Forest City government 64% 68% 68% 69% 68% 212 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 35 Table 72: Question 9 by Ward Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to address each of the following to maintain the quality of life in Lake Forest for the next five years: (Percent rating as essential/very important) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Manage traffic on local roads 74% 76% 83% 75% 79% Demolition of existing homes and replacing with the construction of new ones 39% 37% 38% 34% 37% Preservation of historic homes and landscapes 74% 65% 69% 70% 69% Repurpose historic homes and property for other purposes (inns, condos, etc.) 57% 47% 53% 40% 51% Maintenance of City infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.) 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% Maintenance of City parks and facilities 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% Maintain Lake Forest as a triple-a bonded community (triple-a bonding secures the lowest borrowing rates for the City) 92% 94% 94% 94% 93% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 73% 67% 67% 67% 68% Economic development (more retail and restaurants) 81% 81% 74% 80% 78% Encourage increased use of existing bus transportation for school children 49% 47% 47% 46% 47% Increase the variety of housing options, sizes and price points 53% 43% 48% 43% 47% Availability of quality senior housing 53% 50% 53% 49% 52% Availability of quality housing for younger families 66% 63% 61% 60% 62% 213 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 36 Table 73: Question 10 by Ward Cities are faced with difficult choices. If you were a member of the City Council and had to consider budget changes, please rate the importance of increasing the budget for each of the following areas: (Percent rating as essential/very important) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Crime prevention 75% 80% 81% 78% 80% Police response 74% 80% 82% 79% 80% Fire prevention 71% 73% 77% 72% 74% Fire response 74% 79% 82% 80% 79% Ambulance service 73% 78% 82% 80% 79% Road maintenance 79% 82% 85% 86% 84% Sidewalk services 67% 64% 67% 66% 67% Snow removal 75% 81% 81% 81% 80% Trash collection service 65% 65% 69% 65% 67% Code enforcement services 40% 36% 45% 34% 40% Neighborhood revitalization 38% 41% 41% 37% 41% Library services 51% 48% 52% 48% 50% Economic development services 56% 55% 58% 55% 56% Dickinson Hall services 31% 29% 35% 28% 32% Parks and Recreation services 65% 66% 66% 63% 66% CROYA services 44% 39% 45% 38% 43% Stormwater management 68% 76% 75% 70% 73% Environmental sustainability 62% 58% 61% 61% 61% Table 74: Question 11 by Ward (Percent rating as very or somewhat likely) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 How likely, if all, would you be to utilize a public transportation system (bus or trolley) in Lake Forest? 30% 26% 26% 24% 27% 214 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 37 Table 75: Question 13 by Ward Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services: (Percent rating as major source/minor source) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 City "Dialogue" quarterly newsletter 83% 91% 85% 85% 87% City’s website (www.cityoflakeforest.com) 83% 85% 81% 90% 84% Local newspapers 86% 86% 85% 85% 85% Online media publications 56% 61% 55% 60% 57% LFTV (channels 17 or 19) or U-Verse 26% 24% 32% 26% 28% Recreation Department Program Brochure 67% 71% 69% 75% 71% Dickinson Hall "Newsbrief" 34% 36% 44% 33% 38% Council meetings 47% 42% 48% 43% 46% City staff 55% 54% 54% 53% 54% Information provided in City buildings (library, CROYA, etc.) 61% 56% 55% 56% 57% Ward or Town Hall Meetings 45% 42% 49% 41% 45% E-news (including emergency notifications) 65% 71% 68% 75% 69% 215 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 38 Table 76: Question 14 by Ward In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household make a purchase in these commercial areas? (Percent rating as at least once) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Lake Forest (Central Business District) 98% 99% 97% 94% 98% West Lake Forest 82% 92% 89% 99% 90% Vernon Hills 91% 90% 89% 94% 90% Lake Bluff 79% 65% 72% 57% 70% Highwood 81% 87% 72% 75% 77% Highland Park 74% 74% 67% 69% 70% Libertyville 49% 42% 56% 58% 51% Online 90% 86% 82% 86% 85% Table 77: Question 15 by Ward In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household dine in these commercial areas? (Percent rating as at least once) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Lake Forest (Central Business District) 90% 89% 90% 84% 89% West Lake Forest 45% 47% 61% 79% 57% Vernon Hills 52% 54% 59% 66% 57% Lake Bluff 69% 55% 59% 48% 58% Highwood 85% 90% 78% 79% 82% Highland Park 60% 65% 53% 51% 57% Libertyville 37% 32% 45% 50% 41% 216 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 39 Table 78: Question 16 by Ward Please indicate how the addition of these stores and services would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? (Percent rating as would spend a lot more/spend a little more) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Apparel 53% 61% 57% 55% 57% Home accessories 48% 56% 48% 53% 51% Hardware 72% 57% 49% 44% 56% Gardening supplies 53% 46% 30% 37% 40% Make-up cosmetics 20% 21% 21% 23% 21% Greeting cards/gifts 42% 39% 42% 44% 42% Craft supplies 40% 33% 31% 30% 33% Pet supplies 41% 42% 31% 35% 37% Spa services 27% 28% 31% 32% 30% Furniture 22% 26% 23% 24% 24% Costume jewelry 13% 19% 20% 19% 18% Fast print/photocopy 24% 19% 18% 21% 21% Florist 18% 13% 15% 17% 16% Video game store 10% 11% 9% 9% 10% Exercise/personal training 17% 16% 18% 21% 18% Art gallery 16% 14% 18% 20% 17% Fine jewelry 8% 8% 10% 12% 9% Financial services 5% 8% 9% 11% 8% Table 79: Question 18 by Ward Please indicate how the addition of these restaurants would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? (Percent rating as would spend a lot more/spend a little more) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Casual dining 86% 88% 81% 89% 85% Counter service restaurant (i.e. LF Food and Wine) 59% 54% 49% 45% 52% White tablecloth restaurant 51% 52% 54% 62% 54% Sports bar 45% 47% 39% 46% 43% Quick service restaurant 57% 54% 48% 51% 52% 217 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 40 Table 80: Question 20 by Ward (Percent answering “yes”) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Are you or anyone in your household a member of Dickinson Hall Senior Center? 30% 26% 26% 24% 27% Table 81: Question 21 by Ward For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate whether or not they are available to you or members of your household (Percent rating as yes) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Escorted transportation 36% 49% 50% 41% 46% Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 22% 19% 25% 26% 23% Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 29% 21% 25% 32% 27% Health insurance/medication help 36% 28% 38% 27% 34% Help locating medical/mental health services 26% 23% 25% 28% 24% Help locating a nursing home/housing 29% 28% 27% 23% 26% Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 38% 23% 24% 36% 27% Provide home delivered meal programs 32% 16% 17% 23% 19% Provide visitors 28% 17% 16% 19% 18% Provide legal or financial help 28% 24% 19% 24% 22% Respite care 25% 16% 17% 19% 18% 218 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 41 Table 82: Question 21a by Ward For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate how important each of these amenities is to you or members of your household. (Percent rating as essential/very important) Ward Overall Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Escorted transportation 35% 41% 41% 25% 40% Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 26% 17% 24% 18% 24% Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 39% 26% 23% 31% 28% Health insurance/medication help 36% 28% 32% 26% 32% Help locating medical/mental health services 28% 30% 25% 25% 28% Help locating a nursing home/housing 31% 27% 29% 19% 29% Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 29% 43% 32% 33% 36% Provide home delivered meal programs 29% 22% 25% 28% 27% Provide visitors 24% 15% 19% 21% 21% Provide legal or financial help 27% 25% 26% 26% 28% Respite care 24% 22% 26% 28% 27% 219 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 42 Appendix C: Subgroup Comparisons by Select Respondent Characteristics 220 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 43 Appendix C: Subgroup Comparisons by Select Respondent Characteristics Select survey questions were compared by demographic characteristics (age, length of residency, etc.). It should be noted that the percentages in the tables represent the two most positive responses on any given scale. Each question received a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represented “poor,” “not at all important,” “very unlikely,” or “never” and 5 indicated “excellent,” “essential,” “very likely,” or “daily” and 3 represented a “neither” response. The percent positive ratings shown in the tables that follow represent respondents who gave a rating of 4 or 5. Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences (p .05). Table 83: Question 1 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Lake Forest: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Lake Forest as a place to live 99% 97% 94% 99% 98% 99% 96% 94% 99% 98% 97% 98% Lake Forest as a place to raise children 96% 95% 94% 96% 96% 97% 91% 92% 96% 96% 96% 96% Lake Forest as a place to work 82% 79% 85% 79% 80% 79% 86% 86% 79% 81% 75% 80% Lake Forest as a place to visit 87% 80% 77% 81% 87% 83% 84% 78% 84% 85% 72% 84% Lake Forest as a place to shop 51% 40% 51% 45% 46% 45% 52% 48% 46% 46% 40% 46% Lake Forest as a place to dine 47% 38% 35% 36% 50% 40% 57% 59% 41% 43% 33% 43% Lake Forest as a place to retire 60% 63% 87% 57% 61% 59% 71% 72% 60% 61% 70% 61% Overall quality of life in Lake Forest 93% 92% 92% 93% 92% 93% 91% 90% 93% 93% 89% 93% Table 84: Question 3 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate the quality of each of the following characteristics of Lake Forest: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18-34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest 99% 99% 97% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 97% 99% Volume of traffic on local roads 74% 70% 84% 74% 69% 74% 66% 74% 72% 73% 72% 73% Availability of parking in business districts 70% 68% 81% 72% 65% 70% 66% 71% 69% 70% 67% 69% Shopping opportunities 43% 32% 37% 38% 38% 37% 41% 44% 37% 38% 35% 38% Shopping variety 32% 23% 31% 26% 28% 26% 34% 33% 27% 28% 24% 28% 221 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 44 Please rate the quality of each of the following characteristics of Lake Forest: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18-34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Ease of bicycle travel in Lake Forest 77% 77% 85% 76% 77% 77% 79% 85% 77% 78% 69% 78% Pedestrian safety 85% 84% 86% 82% 87% 85% 85% 87% 84% 85% 78% 85% Public parks 97% 94% 94% 95% 96% 95% 95% 94% 95% 96% 90% 95% Public beach 98% 97% 100% 97% 97% 98% 97% 94% 98% 98% 93% 97% Recreational opportunities 91% 88% 84% 90% 90% 90% 87% 87% 89% 89% 88% 89% Amount of open space 97% 93% 94% 95% 95% 95% 93% 92% 95% 96% 87% 95% Bike paths/walking trails 94% 89% 92% 92% 91% 92% 91% 91% 92% 93% 81% 92% Lake Forest-sponsored special events 84% 74% 75% 81% 79% 79% 81% 78% 79% 80% 70% 79% Variety of housing options, sizes and price points 52% 55% 56% 56% 51% 54% 49% 41% 55% 53% 49% 54% Sense of community 81% 75% 77% 79% 78% 79% 76% 77% 78% 79% 76% 78% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 50% 51% 46% 47% 54% 51% 53% 47% 51% 51% 48% 51% K-12 education 93% 94% 94% 92% 94% 93% 94% 96% 93% 94% 90% 93% Overall natural environment in Lake Forest 98% 98% 97% 99% 97% 98% 97% 100% 98% 98% 98% 98% Overall feeling of safety in Lake Forest 99% 97% 97% 98% 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% Availability of quality health care 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90% 93% 91% 91% 91% 89% 91% Overall design of Lake Forest buildings 95% 90% 97% 92% 92% 93% 92% 93% 93% 94% 82% 93% Neighborliness of residents in Lake Forest 76% 71% 79% 76% 71% 75% 67% 70% 74% 74% 68% 74% Public places where people want to spend time 85% 75% 85% 83% 77% 81% 74% 75% 81% 81% 76% 80% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 78% 65% 59% 73% 72% 72% 71% 65% 72% 72% 63% 72% Cleanliness of Lake Forest 98% 98% 97% 99% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 98% 99% 98% Availability of goods for sale 57% 45% 60% 52% 49% 50% 55% 60% 50% 51% 43% 51% Downtown store hours 61% 56% 57% 50% 67% 57% 68% 65% 58% 60% 37% 59% Friendliness of store employees in Lake Forest 81% 84% 77% 79% 86% 81% 89% 82% 82% 83% 73% 82% Knowledge of store employees in Lake Forest 83% 78% 76% 80% 82% 80% 83% 78% 81% 81% 71% 81% 222 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 45 Table 85: Question 4 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate the quality of each of the following City of Lake Forest services: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18-34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Police services 95% 93% 95% 94% 94% 94% 94% 91% 94% 94% 93% 94% Fire services 99% 98% 96% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 911 dispatch services 94% 94% 94% 93% 95% 94% 98% 98% 94% 95% 92% 94% Ambulance or emergency medical services 98% 98% 100% 98% 98% 98% 99% 100% 98% 98% 95% 98% Street repair 76% 75% 80% 74% 77% 75% 82% 80% 75% 76% 63% 76% Sewer services 83% 84% 79% 84% 84% 82% 95% 93% 83% 84% 73% 84% Sidewalk maintenance 80% 75% 85% 76% 77% 77% 83% 85% 77% 78% 70% 78% Snow and ice removal 77% 79% 67% 77% 80% 78% 79% 85% 77% 79% 70% 78% Maintenance of parks 98% 96% 98% 96% 97% 96% 99% 99% 96% 97% 94% 97% Maintenance of beach 98% 98% 98% 99% 98% 98% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% Deerpath Golf Course 93% 82% 72% 88% 88% 86% 92% 93% 86% 87% 87% 87% Recreation Center 91% 85% 71% 88% 91% 88% 89% 91% 88% 89% 81% 88% Stormwater management 74% 76% 68% 73% 78% 73% 87% 91% 73% 76% 69% 75% Drinking water 90% 91% 91% 87% 93% 90% 92% 85% 91% 91% 86% 91% Garbage collection 97% 97% 100% 96% 98% 97% 98% 96% 97% 97% 95% 97% Recycling 93% 94% 86% 92% 96% 94% 92% 89% 94% 94% 86% 94% Building permit and inspection process 63% 55% 52% 56% 62% 58% 66% 74% 58% 59% 59% 59% Library services 96% 93% 96% 94% 95% 95% 93% 91% 95% 95% 90% 95% Senior services at Dickinson Hall 95% 93% 100% 95% 94% 94% 96% 98% 94% 94% 95% 94% Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) 96% 91% 85% 95% 93% 94% 96% 98% 93% 94% 87% 94% Overall quality of Lake Forest City services 95% 94% 96% 93% 96% 94% 96% 95% 95% 95% 88% 95% 223 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 46 Table 86: Question 5 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Police Department performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Knowledge 95% 93% 84% 95% 94% 94% 93% 92% 94% 93% 96% 94% Responsiveness/promptness 96% 96% 86% 96% 96% 95% 99% 99% 95% 96% 96% 96% Courtesy 92% 90% 93% 90% 92% 91% 96% 94% 91% 91% 92% 92% Overall impression 94% 92% 92% 92% 93% 92% 95% 95% 93% 93% 93% 93% Table 87: Question 6 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Fire Department performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18-34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Knowledge 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 99% Responsiveness/promptness 99% 98% 96% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 98% 100% 99% Courtesy 100% 98% 96% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 99% Overall impression 99% 97% 93% 98% 99% 98% 99% 97% 98% 98% 99% 98% Table 88: Question 7 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s ambulance/emergency medical services Department performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18-34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Knowledge 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 97% 99% Responsiveness/promptness 99% 97% 89% 99% 99% 97% 100% 100% 98% 98% 99% 98% Courtesy 99% 99% 100% 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 97% 99% Overall impression 99% 97% 91% 99% 99% 97% 100% 99% 98% 98% 99% 98% 224 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 47 Table 89: Question 8 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest government performance: (Percent rating as excellent/good) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white City response to citizen questions or concerns 74% 69% 79% 73% 70% 72% 68% 87% 70% 72% 71% 71% The job Lake Forest City Council does at listening to residents 61% 56% 51% 59% 59% 59% 55% 70% 58% 59% 59% 59% City Council generally acting in the best interest of the community 63% 62% 55% 64% 63% 63% 58% 71% 61% 63% 56% 62% The overall direction that Lake Forest is taking 68% 65% 68% 69% 65% 67% 67% 80% 65% 67% 63% 66% The value of services for taxes paid 71% 65% 67% 65% 71% 66% 76% 84% 66% 69% 56% 68% The job Lake Forest government does at managing tax dollars 68% 66% 67% 64% 69% 66% 70% 80% 66% 68% 65% 67% Overall confidence in Lake Forest City government 71% 66% 70% 67% 70% 68% 71% 79% 67% 69% 63% 68% Table 90: Question 9 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to address each of the following to maintain the quality of life in Lake Forest for the next five years: (Percent rating as essential/very important) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Manage traffic on local roads 80% 78% 57% 76% 85% 78% 82% 74% 79% 78% 80% 79% Demolition of existing homes and replacing with the construction of new ones 37% 38% 35% 34% 41% 38% 35% 31% 38% 37% 41% 37% Preservation of historic homes and landscapes 73% 65% 70% 66% 72% 70% 65% 60% 70% 69% 71% 69% Repurpose historic homes and property for other purposes (inns, condos, etc.) 55% 47% 52% 51% 51% 50% 53% 57% 50% 51% 54% 51% Maintenance of City infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.) 98% 98% 97% 98% 98% 98% 96% 94% 98% 98% 96% 98% Maintenance of City parks and facilities 96% 93% 97% 95% 93% 94% 95% 93% 95% 94% 96% 95% Maintain Lake Forest as a triple-a bonded community (triple-a bonding secures the lowest borrowing rates for the City) 93% 94% 85% 93% 95% 94% 91% 87% 94% 93% 94% 93% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 73% 63% 60% 69% 69% 68% 70% 71% 67% 68% 78% 68% Economic development (more retail and restaurants) 81% 75% 90% 81% 74% 80% 68% 68% 79% 79% 77% 78% 225 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 48 Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to address each of the following to maintain the quality of life in Lake Forest for the next five years: (Percent rating as essential/very important) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Encourage increased use of existing bus transportation for school children 50% 45% 44% 42% 53% 46% 52% 53% 46% 47% 48% 47% Increase the variety of housing options, sizes and price points 55% 38% 42% 42% 53% 44% 61% 75% 44% 48% 45% 47% Availability of quality senior housing 60% 43% 41% 42% 63% 51% 58% 63% 51% 53% 50% 52% Availability of quality housing for younger families 64% 60% 77% 59% 63% 61% 66% 77% 61% 62% 67% 62% Table 91: Question 10 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Cities are faced with difficult choices. If you were a member of the City Council and had to consider budget changes, please rate the importance of increasing the budget for each of the following areas: (Percent rating as essential/very important) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Crime prevention 83% 76% 78% 79% 81% 79% 82% 82% 79% 79% 82% 80% Police response 84% 75% 75% 76% 84% 79% 82% 78% 80% 80% 81% 80% Fire prevention 77% 69% 70% 66% 80% 73% 78% 75% 73% 74% 72% 74% Fire response 84% 74% 69% 74% 85% 78% 82% 79% 79% 79% 79% 79% Ambulance service 83% 74% 75% 73% 85% 79% 80% 77% 79% 79% 77% 79% Road maintenance 84% 83% 83% 80% 87% 84% 82% 79% 84% 84% 81% 84% Sidewalk services 70% 63% 68% 64% 69% 67% 67% 69% 66% 66% 72% 67% Snow removal 84% 76% 83% 76% 82% 80% 80% 78% 80% 80% 81% 80% Trash collection service 70% 64% 66% 62% 72% 66% 71% 77% 66% 67% 70% 67% Code enforcement services 45% 35% 34% 30% 49% 38% 50% 55% 38% 40% 45% 40% Neighborhood revitalization 42% 39% 57% 39% 39% 40% 44% 42% 40% 40% 53% 41% Library services 55% 44% 49% 47% 52% 48% 60% 62% 48% 48% 67% 50% Economic development services 61% 51% 67% 54% 56% 55% 62% 65% 55% 57% 55% 56% Dickinson Hall services 37% 25% 25% 26% 38% 30% 39% 40% 31% 31% 37% 32% Parks and Recreation services 66% 65% 62% 68% 65% 65% 68% 75% 65% 65% 75% 66% CROYA services 46% 39% 26% 44% 46% 41% 53% 61% 41% 43% 44% 43% Stormwater management 75% 71% 68% 69% 77% 73% 69% 64% 74% 73% 74% 73% Environmental sustainability 66% 56% 63% 58% 64% 59% 70% 76% 59% 61% 74% 61% 226 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 49 Table 92: Question 11 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race (Percent rating as very or somewhat likely) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white How likely, if all, would you be to utilize a public transportation system (bus or trolley) in Lake Forest? 31% 22% 33% 28% 25% 25% 37% 42% 25% 26% 39% 27% Table 93: Question 13 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services: (Percent rating as major source/minor source) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white City "Dialogue" quarterly newsletter 89% 84% 79% 82% 91% 86% 88% 82% 87% 87% 83% 87% City’s website (www.cityoflakeforest.com) 86% 81% 94% 89% 78% 85% 76% 81% 85% 83% 88% 84% Local newspapers 84% 86% 80% 86% 85% 85% 84% 85% 85% 86% 82% 85% Online media publications 58% 55% 59% 63% 51% 58% 51% 61% 56% 57% 57% 57% LFTV (channels 17 or 19) or U-Verse 28% 27% 12% 23% 34% 26% 32% 35% 27% 28% 28% 28% Recreation Department Program Brochure 78% 62% 64% 74% 68% 71% 68% 72% 71% 70% 80% 71% Dickinson Hall "Newsbrief" 44% 31% 21% 22% 54% 34% 57% 48% 36% 38% 38% 38% Council meetings 45% 47% 38% 36% 55% 44% 52% 45% 46% 45% 43% 46% City staff 53% 56% 36% 48% 63% 54% 54% 51% 55% 54% 54% 54% Information provided in City buildings (library, CROYA, etc.) 61% 52% 50% 61% 54% 55% 63% 66% 56% 56% 61% 57% Ward or Town Hall Meetings 46% 44% 28% 39% 53% 43% 55% 48% 45% 45% 43% 45% E-news (including emergency notifications) 74% 62% 60% 72% 66% 70% 62% 61% 69% 68% 72% 69% 227 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 50 Table 94: Question 14 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household make a purchase in these commercial areas? (Percent rating as at least once) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Lake Forest (Central Business District) 97% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 96% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% West Lake Forest 88% 92% 88% 94% 87% 91% 83% 75% 91% 90% 88% 90% Vernon Hills 89% 92% 90% 96% 85% 92% 83% 87% 91% 90% 93% 90% Lake Bluff 68% 72% 74% 80% 60% 70% 68% 77% 69% 69% 79% 70% Highwood 73% 82% 90% 80% 74% 79% 71% 73% 78% 77% 77% 77% Highland Park 68% 71% 69% 74% 66% 70% 69% 74% 69% 69% 74% 70% Libertyville 45% 58% 34% 58% 49% 51% 49% 53% 51% 50% 60% 51% Online 85% 86% 98% 95% 75% 88% 71% 79% 86% 85% 94% 85% Table 95: Question 15 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household dine in these commercial areas? (Percent rating as at least once) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Lake Forest (Central Business District) 91% 87% 95% 91% 87% 90% 84% 83% 90% 90% 82% 89% West Lake Forest 55% 58% 50% 64% 51% 58% 48% 50% 57% 56% 67% 57% Vernon Hills 54% 60% 59% 67% 48% 57% 54% 64% 56% 55% 79% 57% Lake Bluff 59% 59% 70% 68% 49% 59% 56% 58% 58% 57% 76% 58% Highwood 82% 82% 88% 84% 79% 84% 73% 72% 83% 82% 78% 82% Highland Park 56% 57% 62% 61% 52% 57% 54% 61% 56% 56% 59% 57% Libertyville 38% 44% 34% 48% 36% 40% 42% 45% 40% 40% 55% 41% 228 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 51 Table 96: Question 16 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please indicate how the addition of these stores and services would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? (Percent rating as would spend a lot more/spend a little more) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Apparel 64% 49% 70% 59% 53% 58% 49% 51% 58% 57% 54% 57% Home accessories 56% 44% 53% 57% 44% 54% 35% 36% 53% 50% 61% 51% Hardware 52% 59% 54% 55% 56% 57% 51% 56% 56% 56% 52% 56% Gardening supplies 34% 47% 29% 42% 40% 43% 21% 26% 42% 40% 33% 40% Make-up cosmetics 27% 14% 24% 21% 20% 22% 18% 21% 21% 21% 28% 21% Greeting cards/gifts 51% 30% 45% 40% 42% 43% 36% 30% 43% 41% 42% 42% Craft supplies 40% 24% 49% 39% 25% 34% 31% 35% 33% 34% 30% 33% Pet supplies 38% 35% 26% 46% 30% 39% 24% 35% 37% 37% 45% 37% Spa services 35% 24% 39% 38% 19% 31% 21% 28% 30% 29% 41% 30% Furniture 26% 21% 26% 30% 17% 26% 12% 14% 25% 22% 40% 24% Costume jewelry 23% 12% 17% 21% 15% 19% 13% 12% 19% 17% 30% 18% Fast print/photocopy 23% 19% 32% 23% 17% 22% 18% 19% 21% 21% 23% 21% Florist 15% 17% 15% 17% 15% 17% 10% 9% 17% 15% 21% 16% Video game store 8% 13% 9% 16% 5% 11% 8% 13% 10% 10% 21% 10% Exercise/personal training 16% 20% 31% 19% 13% 17% 18% 20% 17% 17% 29% 18% Art gallery 15% 18% 19% 18% 15% 18% 10% 6% 18% 16% 26% 17% Fine jewelry 8% 11% 8% 9% 10% 10% 4% 2% 10% 8% 16% 9% Financial services 5% 11% 11% 7% 8% 7% 8% 3% 8% 7% 13% 8% 229 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 52 Table 97: Question 18 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race Please indicate how the addition of these restaurants would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? (Percent rating as would spend a lot more/spend a little more) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Casual dining 86% 84% 94% 92% 77% 87% 75% 81% 85% 85% 89% 85% Counter service restaurant (i.e. LF Food and Wine) 53% 51% 73% 62% 38% 53% 43% 57% 51% 52% 59% 52% White tablecloth restaurant 51% 58% 44% 56% 54% 56% 44% 37% 56% 53% 61% 54% Sports bar 40% 48% 67% 55% 28% 47% 25% 38% 44% 43% 56% 43% Quick service restaurant 52% 51% 68% 65% 37% 53% 43% 53% 52% 51% 63% 52% Table 98: Question 20 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race (Percent answering “yes”) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Are you or anyone in your household a member of Dickinson Hall Senior Center? 12% 7% 0% 1% 19% 8% 19% 7% 10% 10% 4% 10% 230 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 53 Table 99: Question 21 by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate whether or not they are available to you or members of your household (Percent rating as yes) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Escorted transportation 50% 36% N/A 12% 48% 43% 51% 43% 46% 46% 44% 46% Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 26% 16% N/A 12% 24% 23% 22% 11% 25% 23% 0% 23% Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 29% 23% N/A 0% 30% 28% 25% 0% 31% 27% 14% 27% Health insurance/medication help 38% 24% N/A 12% 36% 35% 31% 22% 36% 34% 14% 34% Help locating medical/mental health services 25% 20% N/A 12% 25% 27% 18% 11% 26% 25% 14% 24% Help locating a nursing home/housing 27% 23% N/A 12% 28% 28% 22% 11% 29% 27% 14% 26% Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 29% 21% N/A 0% 29% 25% 28% 11% 28% 26% 14% 27% Provide home delivered meal programs 20% 17% N/A 0% 21% 21% 12% 0% 21% 19% 14% 19% Provide visitors 18% 18% N/A 10% 19% 20% 12% 11% 19% 18% 14% 18% Provide legal or financial help 22% 18% N/A 0% 23% 21% 21% 11% 23% 21% 14% 22% Respite care 20% 14% N/A 22% 18% 20% 10% 0% 20% 17% 14% 18% 231 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 54 Table 100: Question 21a by Gender, Age, Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Race For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, please rate how important each of these amenities is to you or members of your household. (Percent rating as essential/very important) Sex Age Detached or attached Rent or own Race Overall Female Male 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Detached Attached Rent Own White Not white Escorted transportation 48% 27% N/A 39% 40% 40% 38% 54% 39% 39% 81% 40% Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) 28% 18% N/A 39% 23% 27% 15% 14% 25% 25% 19% 24% Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) 36% 17% N/A 0% 30% 33% 16% 14% 30% 28% 25% 28% Health insurance/medication help 36% 27% N/A 15% 33% 32% 33% 27% 33% 32% 19% 32% Help locating medical/mental health services 33% 22% N/A 15% 29% 31% 21% 17% 29% 28% 42% 28% Help locating a nursing home/housing 35% 21% N/A 15% 30% 31% 24% 14% 31% 29% 42% 29% Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) 40% 27% N/A 0% 37% 35% 33% 14% 37% 36% 42% 36% Provide home delivered meal programs 32% 20% N/A 0% 28% 28% 23% 14% 28% 27% 42% 27% Provide visitors 25% 15% N/A 15% 22% 24% 14% 14% 22% 21% 19% 21% Provide legal or financial help 30% 24% N/A 28% 28% 29% 23% 14% 29% 28% 19% 28% Respite care 32% 19% N/A 15% 27% 26% 26% 14% 27% 27% 19% 27% 232 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 55 Appendix D: Detailed Benchmark Comparisons 233 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 56 Appendix D: Detailed Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data National Research Center, Inc.’s (NRC) database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on the Lake Forest Resident Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. National and select peer community benchmark comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Lake Forest Resident Survey are included in NRC’s database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, three columns are provided in the table. The first column is the rank assigned to Lake Forest’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The second column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Lake Forest’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Lake Forest’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by of City residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.” Benchmark Database Characteristics Region Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% 234 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 57 National Benchmark Comparisons Table 101: Aspects of Quality of Life Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Lake Forest as a place to live 98% 4 373 Higher Lake Forest as a place to raise children 96% 12 360 Higher Lake Forest as a place to work 80% 24 336 Higher Lake Forest as a place to visit 84% 34 190 Higher Lake Forest as a place to retire 61% 196 341 Similar Overall quality of life in Lake Forest 93% 60 439 Higher Table 102: Community Characteristics Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest 99% 1 340 Much higher Volume of traffic on local roads 73% NA NA NA Availability of parking in business districts 69% 3 78 Higher Shopping opportunities 38% 205 275 Similar Ease of bicycle travel in Lake Forest 78% 21 278 Higher Public parks 95% 4 314 Higher Public beach 97% NA NA NA Recreational opportunities 89% 12 285 Higher Amount of open space 95% NA NA NA Bike paths/walking trails 92% 7 288 Much higher Lake Forest-sponsored special events 79% 32 191 Similar Variety of housing options, sizes and price points 54% 146 256 Similar Sense of community 78% 30 291 Higher Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 51% 205 269 Similar K-12 education 93% 14 248 Much higher Overall natural environment in Lake Forest 98% 1 260 Much higher Overall feeling of safety in Lake Forest 98% 8 274 Much higher Availability of quality health care 91% 1 241 Much higher Overall design of Lake Forest buildings 93% 1 175 Much higher Neighborliness of residents in Lake Forest 74% 12 170 Higher Public places where people want to spend time 80% 34 169 Higher Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 72% 61 275 Higher Cleanliness of Lake Forest 98% 1 254 Much higher 235 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 58 Table 103: Quality of City Services Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services 94% 3 431 Higher Fire services 99% 1 349 Higher Ambulance or emergency medical services 98% 4 329 Higher Street repair 76% 16 396 Higher Sewer services 84% 76 308 Similar Sidewalk maintenance 78% 9 305 Higher Snow and ice removal 78% 37 281 Higher Recreation Center 88% 22 265 Higher Stormwater management 75% 59 336 Similar Drinking water 91% 11 322 Higher Garbage collection 97% 1 337 Higher Recycling 94% 2 344 Higher Building permit and inspection process 59% 3 16 Similar Library services 95% 6 333 Higher Senior services at Dickinson Hall 94% 1 108 Much higher Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) 94% 1 94 Much higher Table 104: Overall Quality of City Services Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of Lake Forest City services 95% 6 422 Higher Table 105: City Government Performance Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark City response to citizen questions or concerns 71% 21 297 Higher The job Lake Forest City Council does at listening to residents 59% 5 24 Similar City Council generally acting in the best interest of the community 62% 46 177 Similar The overall direction that Lake Forest is taking 66% 90 303 Similar The value of services for taxes paid 68% 33 386 Higher The job Lake Forest government does at managing tax dollars 67% 2 19 Higher Overall confidence in Lake Forest City government 68% 18 177 Higher 236 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 59 Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Lake Forest’s national comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Adams County, CO ................................................ 441,603 Airway Heights city, WA ........................................... 6,114 Albany city, OR.......................................................... 50,158 Albemarle County, VA ............................................ 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN .................................................. 18,016 Alexandria city, VA ................................................. 139,966 Algonquin village, IL ................................................ 30,046 Aliso Viejo city, CA .................................................. 47,823 Altoona city, IA .......................................................... 14,541 American Canyon city, CA ..................................... 19,454 Ames city, IA ............................................................. 58,965 Andover CDP, MA ...................................................... 8,762 Ankeny city, IA ......................................................... 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI .................................................. 113,934 Annapolis city, MD .................................................. 38,394 Apache Junction city, AZ ....................................... 35,840 Apple Valley town, CA ............................................ 69,135 Arapahoe County, CO ........................................... 572,003 Arkansas City city, AR .................................................. 366 Arlington County, VA ........................................... 207,627 Arvada city, CO........................................................ 106,433 Asheville city, NC ...................................................... 83,393 Ashland city, OR ...................................................... 20,078 Ashland town, MA .................................................... 16,593 Ashland town, VA ....................................................... 7,225 Aspen city, CO ............................................................ 6,658 Athens-Clarke County, GA .................................. 115,452 Auburn city, AL ........................................................ 53,380 Auburn city, WA ....................................................... 70,180 Augusta CCD, GA ................................................... 134,777 Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 325,078 Austin city, TX ........................................................ 790,390 Avon town, CO ........................................................... 6,447 Bainbridge Island city, WA ................................... 23,025 Baltimore city, MD ................................................. 620,961 Bartonville town, TX .................................................. 1,469 Battle Creek city, MI ............................................... 52,347 Bay City city, MI ....................................................... 34,932 Baytown city, TX ....................................................... 71,802 Bedford city, TX ........................................................ 46,979 Bedford town, MA..................................................... 13,320 Bellevue city, WA .................................................... 122,363 Bellingham city, WA ............................................... 80,885 Beltrami County, MN ............................................. 44,442 Benbrook city, TX ..................................................... 21,234 Bend city, OR ............................................................ 76,639 Benicia city, CA ......................................................... 26,997 Bettendorf city, IA ..................................................... 33,217 Billings city, MT ...................................................... 104,170 Blaine city, MN .......................................................... 57,186 Bloomfield Hills city, MI ........................................... 3,869 Bloomington city, MN............................................. 82,893 Blue Springs city, MO ............................................. 52,575 Boise City city, ID .................................................... 205,671 Boone County, KY ..................................................... 118,811 Boulder city, CO ........................................................ 97,385 Bowling Green city, KY .......................................... 58,067 Bozeman city, MT .................................................... 37,280 Brentwood city, MO .................................................. 8,055 Brentwood city, TN ................................................. 37,060 Brighton city, CO ...................................................... 33,352 Brighton city, MI ........................................................ 7,444 Bristol city, TN .......................................................... 26,702 Broken Arrow city, OK ........................................... 98,850 Brookfield city, WI .................................................. 37,920 Brookline CDP, MA .................................................. 58,732 Broomfield city, CO ................................................. 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN .............................................. 21,285 Bryan city, TX ............................................................. 76,201 Burien city, WA ......................................................... 33,313 Burleson city, TX ...................................................... 36,690 Cabarrus County, NC ............................................. 178,011 Cambridge city, MA ............................................... 105,162 Cannon Beach city, OR .............................................. 1,690 Cañon City city, CO ................................................ 16,400 Canton city, SD ............................................................ 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL .................................................154,305 Cape Girardeau city, MO ........................................ 37,941 Carlisle borough, PA ................................................. 18,682 Carlsbad city, CA .................................................... 105,328 Carroll city, IA.............................................................10,103 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 19,731 Cary town, NC ......................................................... 135,234 Casa Grande city, AZ ............................................... 48,571 Casper city, WY ........................................................ 55,316 Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366 Castle Pines North city, CO ................................... 10,360 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................. 48,231 Cedar Hill city, TX ................................................... 45,028 Cedar Rapids city, IA ............................................. 126,326 Celina city, TX ............................................................ 6,028 Centennial city, CO ................................................ 100,377 Centralia city, IL ........................................................ 13,032 Chambersburg borough, PA .................................. 20,268 Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 236,123 Chandler city, TX ........................................................ 2,734 Chanhassen city, MN .............................................. 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC .............................................. 57,233 Charles County, MD ............................................... 146,551 Charlotte city, NC ................................................... 731,424 Charlotte County, FL ............................................. 159,978 Charlottesville city, VA ........................................... 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN ............................................. 167,674 Chesterfield County, VA ....................................... 316,236 237 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 60 Chippewa Falls city, WI .......................................... 13,661 Citrus Heights city, CA ........................................... 83,301 Clackamas County, OR ........................................ 375,992 Clarendon Hills village, IL........................................ 8,427 Clayton city, MO ....................................................... 15,939 Clearwater city, FL ................................................. 107,685 Cleveland Heights city, OH .................................... 46,121 Clinton city, SC .......................................................... 8,490 Clive city, IA ............................................................... 15,447 Clovis city, CA ........................................................... 95,631 College Park city, MD .............................................. 30,413 College Station city, TX ........................................... 93,857 Colleyville city, TX ................................................... 22,807 Collinsville city, IL ................................................... 25,579 Columbia city, SC ................................................... 129,272 Columbia Falls city, MT ........................................... 4,688 Columbus city, WI ..................................................... 4,991 Commerce City city, CO ......................................... 45,913 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 122,067 Concord town, MA ................................................... 17,668 Cookeville city, TN .................................................. 30,435 Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................. 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX .......................................... 32,032 Coronado city, CA ......................................................18,912 Corvallis city, OR ..................................................... 54,462 Creve Coeur city, MO .............................................. 17,833 Cross Roads town, TX ............................................... 1,563 Crystal Lake city, IL................................................. 40,743 Dacono city, CO ........................................................... 4,152 Dade City city, FL ....................................................... 6,437 Dakota County, MN .............................................. 398,552 Dallas city, OR ........................................................... 14,583 Dallas city, TX ........................................................ 1,197,816 Danville city, KY ......................................................... 16,218 Dardenne Prairie city, MO ...................................... 11,494 Davenport city, IA .................................................... 99,685 Davidson town, NC ................................................. 10,944 Decatur city, GA ........................................................ 19,335 Del Mar city, CA ........................................................... 4,161 Delaware city, OH ..................................................... 34,753 Delray Beach city, FL ............................................... 60,522 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682 Denton city, TX......................................................... 113,383 Denver city, CO....................................................... 600,158 Derby city, KS............................................................. 22,158 Des Moines city, IA ................................................ 203,433 Des Peres city, MO ...................................................... 8,373 Destin city, FL ............................................................ 12,305 Dorchester County, MD .......................................... 32,618 Dothan city, AL ......................................................... 65,496 Douglas County, CO .............................................. 285,465 Dover city, NH .......................................................... 29,987 Dublin city, CA ......................................................... 46,036 Dublin city, OH ........................................................... 41,751 Duluth city, MN ....................................................... 86,265 Duncanville city, TX ................................................ 38,524 Durham city, NC .................................................... 228,330 Durham County, NC ............................................. 267,587 Eagle town, CO ........................................................... 6,508 East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ................................ 440,171 East Grand Forks city, MN ....................................... 8,601 East Lansing city, MI ............................................... 48,579 Eau Claire city, WI .................................................. 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN .............................................. 60,797 Edgerton city, KS .......................................................... 1,671 Edgewater city, CO ..................................................... 5,170 Edina city, MN ........................................................... 47,941 Edmond city, OK ....................................................... 81,405 Edmonds city, WA ................................................... 39,709 El Cerrito city, CA .................................................... 23,549 El Dorado County, CA ........................................... 181,058 El Paso city, TX ........................................................ 649,121 Elk Grove city, CA .................................................. 153,015 Elk River city, MN ................................................... 22,974 Elko New Market city, MN ....................................... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL ........................................................ 44,121 Encinitas city, CA ...................................................... 59,518 Englewood city, CO ................................................. 30,255 Erie town, CO ............................................................. 18,135 Escambia County, FL ............................................. 297,619 Estes Park town, CO .................................................. 5,858 Fairview town, TX ..................................................... 7,248 Farmersville city, TX .................................................. 3,301 Farmington Hills city, MI ...................................... 79,740 Fayetteville city, NC ..............................................200,564 Fishers town, IN ....................................................... 76,794 Flower Mound town, TX ....................................... 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR............................................... 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ..............................................143,986 Fort Lauderdale city, FL ........................................ 165,521 Fort Smith city, AR .................................................. 86,209 Fort Worth city, TX ...............................................741,206 Fountain Hills town, AZ ........................................ 22,489 Franklin city, TN ...................................................... 62,487 Fredericksburg city, VA .......................................... 24,286 Fremont city, CA .................................................... 214,089 Friendswood city, TX .............................................. 35,805 Fruita city, CO ........................................................... 12,646 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 33,248 Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................ 59,933 Galveston city, TX.................................................... 47,743 Gardner city, KS ......................................................... 19,123 Geneva city, NY .......................................................... 13,261 Georgetown city, TX ............................................... 47,400 Germantown city, TN ............................................. 38,844 Gilbert town, AZ .................................................... 208,453 Gillette city, WY ...................................................... 29,087 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 50,073 Glenview village, IL ................................................. 44,692 Globe city, AZ .............................................................. 7,532 Golden city, CO ......................................................... 18,867 Golden Valley city, MN ........................................... 20,371 Goodyear city, AZ .................................................... 65,275 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,459 238 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 61 Grand Blanc city, MI .................................................. 8,276 Grand Island city, NE .............................................. 48,520 Grants Pass city, OR ................................................ 34,533 Grass Valley city, CA ................................................ 12,860 Green Valley CDP, AZ .............................................. 21,391 Greenville city, NC .................................................. 84,554 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO ................................... 13,925 Greer city, SC ............................................................. 25,515 Guilford County, NC ............................................ 488,406 Gunnison County, CO ............................................. 15,324 Gurnee village, IL ...................................................... 31,295 Hailey city, ID ...............................................................7,960 Haines Borough, AK .................................................. 2,508 Hallandale Beach city, FL ......................................... 37,113 Hamilton city, OH .................................................... 62,477 Hanover County, VA ............................................... 99,863 Harrisburg city, SD .................................................... 4,089 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................. 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................. 10,019 Hayward city, CA .................................................... 144,186 Henderson city, NV ............................................... 257,729 Herndon town, VA ................................................... 23,292 High Point city, NC ................................................ 104,371 Highland Park city, IL ............................................. 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO..................................... 96,713 Hillsborough town, NC ............................................. 6,087 Holland city, MI ........................................................ 33,051 Honolulu County, HI ............................................ 953,207 Hooksett town, NH ................................................... 13,451 Hopkins city, MN ...................................................... 17,591 Hopkinton town, MA .............................................. 14,925 Hoquiam city, WA ...................................................... 8,726 Horry County, SC................................................... 269,291 Hudson city, OH ....................................................... 22,262 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356 Hudsonville city, MI .................................................... 7,116 Huntersville town, NC............................................. 46,773 Hurst city, TX ............................................................ 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................ 14,178 Hutto city, TX ............................................................ 14,698 Hyattsville city, MD ................................................. 17,557 Independence city, MO .......................................... 116,830 Indian Trail town, NC .............................................. 33,518 Indianola city, IA ....................................................... 14,782 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862 Irving city, TX ......................................................... 216,290 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 30,434 Jackson County, MI ............................................... 160,248 James City County, VA ........................................... 67,009 Jefferson City city, MO ........................................... 43,079 Jefferson County, CO ............................................ 534,543 Jefferson County, NY .............................................. 116,229 Jerome city, ID ............................................................ 10,890 Johnson City city, TN ............................................... 63,152 Johnston city, IA ........................................................ 17,278 Jupiter town, FL ........................................................ 55,156 Kalamazoo city, MI .................................................. 74,262 Kansas City city, KS ............................................... 145,786 Kansas City city, MO ............................................ 459,787 Keizer city, OR .......................................................... 36,478 Kenmore city, WA ................................................... 20,460 Kennedale city, TX ...................................................... 6,763 Kennett Square borough, PA ....................................6,072 Kettering city, OH ..................................................... 56,163 Key West city, FL ..................................................... 24,649 King City city, CA ..................................................... 12,874 King County, WA ................................................ 1,931,249 Kirkland city, WA .....................................................48,787 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................. 27,540 Knoxville city, IA .......................................................... 7,313 La Mesa city, CA ....................................................... 57,065 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753 La Porte city, TX ....................................................... 33,800 La Vista city, NE ........................................................ 15,758 Lafayette city, CO ..................................................... 24,453 Laguna Beach city, CA ............................................ 22,723 Laguna Hills city, CA .............................................. 30,344 Laguna Niguel city, CA ........................................... 62,979 Lake Forest city, IL ................................................... 19,375 Lake Oswego city, OR .............................................. 36,619 Lake Stevens city, WA ............................................ 28,069 Lake Worth city, FL ................................................. 34,910 Lake Zurich village, IL .............................................. 19,631 Lakeville city, MN .................................................... 55,954 Lakewood city, CO ................................................ 142,980 Lakewood city, WA .................................................. 58,163 Lane County, OR ...................................................... 351,715 Lansing city, MI ....................................................... 114,297 Laramie city, WY ....................................................... 30,816 Larimer County, CO .............................................. 299,630 Las Vegas city, NV ................................................. 583,756 Lawrence city, KS ..................................................... 87,643 League City city, TX ................................................ 83,560 Lee's Summit city, MO ............................................. 91,364 Lehi city, UT .............................................................. 47,407 Lenexa city, KS........................................................... 48,190 Lewis County, NY .....................................................27,087 Lewiston city, ID ....................................................... 31,894 Lewisville city, TX ................................................... 95,290 Libertyville village, IL ............................................... 20,315 Lincoln city, NE ...................................................... 258,379 Lindsborg city, KS ...................................................... 3,458 Little Chute village, WI .......................................... 10,449 Littleton city, CO ...................................................... 41,737 Livermore city, CA ................................................... 80,968 Lone Tree city, CO .................................................... 10,218 Long Grove village, IL................................................ 8,043 Longmont city, CO .................................................. 86,270 Longview city, TX .................................................... 80,455 Lonsdale city, MN ....................................................... 3,674 Los Altos Hills town, CA ........................................... 7,922 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376 Lynchburg city, VA .................................................. 75,568 239 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 62 Lynnwood city, WA .................................................35,836 Macomb County, MI ............................................. 840,978 Madison city, WI ................................................... 233,209 Manhattan Beach city, CA ...................................... 35,135 Manhattan city, KS ................................................... 52,281 Mankato city, MN .................................................... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN ............................................. 61,567 Maple Valley city, WA ............................................ 22,684 Maricopa County, AZ .......................................... 3,817,117 Marshfield city, WI ................................................... 19,118 Martinez city, CA ..................................................... 35,824 Marysville city, WA ................................................. 60,020 Matthews town, NC................................................. 27,198 McAllen city, TX ..................................................... 129,877 McDonough city, GA............................................... 22,084 McKinney city, TX .................................................... 131,117 McMinnville city, OR .............................................. 32,187 Medford city, OR...................................................... 74,907 Menlo Park city, CA ................................................ 32,026 Mercer Island city, WA .......................................... 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI ............................ 39,688 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 75,092 Merriam city, KS .........................................................11,003 Mesa County, CO .................................................... 146,723 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 87,779 Miami city, FL ......................................................... 399,457 Middleton city, WI ................................................... 17,442 Midland city, MI ........................................................ 41,863 Milford city, DE .......................................................... 9,559 Milton city, GA .......................................................... 32,661 Minneapolis city, MN ........................................... 382,578 Mission Viejo city, CA ............................................ 93,305 Modesto city, CA ..................................................... 201,165 Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810 Montgomery County, VA ....................................... 94,392 Monticello city, UT..................................................... 1,972 Monument town, CO ................................................. 5,530 Mooresville town, NC ............................................... 32,711 Morristown city, TN ................................................ 29,137 Morrisville town, NC ............................................... 18,576 Morro Bay city, CA ................................................... 10,234 Mountain Village town, CO ..................................... 1,320 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ................................. 19,909 Murphy city, TX ........................................................ 17,708 Muscatine city, IA .................................................... 22,886 Naperville city, IL .................................................... 141,853 Napoleon city, OH ..................................................... 8,749 Needham CDP, MA ................................................. 28,886 New Braunfels city, TX ........................................... 57,740 New Brighton city, MN ........................................... 21,456 New Hanover County, NC ................................... 202,667 New Orleans city, LA ............................................ 343,829 New Smyrna Beach city, FL ................................... 22,464 New Ulm city, MN ................................................... 13,522 Newberg city, OR ..................................................... 22,068 Newport Beach city, CA .......................................... 85,186 Newport city, RI ....................................................... 24,672 Newport News city, VA ........................................ 180,719 Newton city, IA ......................................................... 15,254 Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 51,969 Nogales city, AZ ....................................................... 20,837 Norcross city, GA ......................................................... 9,116 Norfolk city, VA ...................................................... 242,803 North Port city, FL .................................................... 57,357 North Richland Hills city, TX ............................... 63,343 Northglenn city, CO ................................................. 35,789 Novato city, CA ......................................................... 51,904 Novi city, MI .............................................................. 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL ......................................................... 28,281 O'Fallon city, MO ..................................................... 79,329 Oak Park village, IL ................................................... 51,878 Oakland city, CA .................................................... 390,724 Oakland Park city, FL .............................................. 41,363 Oakley city, CA ......................................................... 35,432 Ogdensburg city, NY ................................................. 11,128 Oklahoma City city, OK ....................................... 579,999 Olathe city, KS ......................................................... 125,872 Old Town city, ME .................................................... 7,840 Olmsted County, MN ............................................ 144,248 Olympia city, WA .................................................... 46,478 Oregon town, WI ........................................................ 3,184 Orland Park village, IL ............................................. 56,767 Oshkosh city, WI ..................................................... 66,083 Oshtemo charter township, MI ............................. 21,705 Otsego County, MI .................................................. 24,164 Oviedo city, FL .......................................................... 33,342 Paducah city, KY....................................................... 25,024 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ................................. 48,452 Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 75,180 Palo Alto city, CA ..................................................... 64,403 Papillion city, NE....................................................... 18,894 Paradise Valley town, AZ ........................................ 12,820 Park City city, UT ....................................................... 7,558 Parker town, CO ....................................................... 45,297 Parkland city, FL ...................................................... 23,962 Pasadena city, CA ..................................................... 137,122 Pasco city, WA ........................................................... 59,781 Pasco County, FL ................................................... 464,697 Pearland city, TX ....................................................... 91,252 Peoria city, AZ ......................................................... 154,065 Peoria city, IL ............................................................ 115,007 Peoria County, IL.................................................... 186,494 Petoskey city, MI ......................................................... 5,670 Pflugerville city, TX ................................................. 46,936 Phoenix city, AZ .................................................. 1,445,632 Pinal County, AZ ..................................................... 375,770 Pinehurst village, NC.................................................13,124 Piqua city, OH ........................................................... 20,522 Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,148 Plano city, TX .......................................................... 259,841 Platte City city, MO .................................................... 4,691 Plymouth city, MN ................................................... 70,576 Pocatello city, ID ...................................................... 54,255 Polk County, IA ..................................................... 430,640 240 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 63 Pompano Beach city, FL.......................................... 99,845 Port Huron city, MI .................................................. 30,184 Port Orange city, FL ................................................ 56,048 Portland city, OR ..................................................... 583,776 Post Falls city, ID ...................................................... 27,574 Powell city, OH .......................................................... 11,500 Prince William County, VA ................................ 402,002 Prior Lake city, MN ................................................. 22,796 Provo city, UT .......................................................... 112,488 Pueblo city, CO ........................................................106,595 Purcellville town, VA ................................................. 7,727 Queen Creek town, AZ ............................................ 26,361 Radnor township, PA ................................................ 31,531 Ramsey city, MN ...................................................... 23,668 Rapid City city, SD .................................................. 67,956 Raymond town, ME................................................... 4,436 Raymore city, MO ..................................................... 19,206 Redmond city, WA .................................................. 54,144 Rehoboth Beach city, DE ............................................1,327 Reno city, NV .......................................................... 225,221 Reston CDP, VA ....................................................... 58,404 Richmond city, CA.................................................. 103,701 Richmond Heights city, MO ....................................8,603 Rifle city, CO ................................................................ 9,172 Rio Rancho city, NM ................................................ 87,521 River Falls city, WI ................................................... 15,000 Riverside city, CA.................................................... 303,871 Riverside city, MO ...................................................... 2,937 Roanoke County, VA ............................................... 92,376 Rochester Hills city, MI .......................................... 70,995 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154 Rockford city, IL ....................................................... 152,871 Rockville city, MD .................................................... 61,209 Rogers city, MN ........................................................... 8,597 Rolla city, MO ............................................................ 19,559 Roselle village, IL ...................................................... 22,763 Rosemount city, MN ................................................ 21,874 Rosenberg city, TX ................................................... 30,618 Roseville city, MN .................................................... 33,660 Roswell city, GA ....................................................... 88,346 Round Rock city, TX ............................................... 99,887 Royal Oak city, MI ....................................................57,236 Saco city, ME .............................................................. 18,482 Sahuarita town, AZ .................................................. 25,259 Salida city, CO.............................................................. 5,236 Sammamish city, WA .............................................. 45,780 San Anselmo town, CA ............................................ 12,336 San Antonio city, TX ........................................... 1,327,407 San Carlos city, CA .................................................. 28,406 San Diego city, CA............................................... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, CA .......................................... 805,235 San Jose city, CA .................................................... 945,942 San Juan County, NM ........................................... 130,044 San Marcos city, CA ................................................. 83,781 San Marcos city, TX ................................................. 44,894 San Rafael city, CA .....................................................57,713 Sandy Springs city, GA ........................................... 93,853 Sanford city, FL ..........................................................53,570 Sangamon County, IL ............................................. 197,465 Santa Clarita city, CA ............................................. 176,320 Santa Fe County, NM ............................................. 144,170 Santa Monica city, CA .............................................89,736 Sarasota County, FL .............................................. 379,448 Savage city, MN ......................................................... 26,911 Scarborough CDP, ME .............................................. 4,403 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................ 74,227 Scott County, MN .................................................. 129,928 Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 217,385 Seaside city, CA ........................................................ 33,025 Sevierville city, TN .................................................... 14,807 Shawnee city, KS ...................................................... 62,209 Sheboygan city, WI .................................................. 49,288 Sherborn town, MA ..................................................... 4,119 Shoreview city, MN ................................................. 25,043 Shorewood city, MN .................................................. 7,307 Shorewood village, IL ................................................ 15,615 Shorewood village, WI .............................................. 13,162 Sierra Vista city, AZ ................................................. 43,888 Sioux Center city, IA ................................................. 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD ................................................. 153,888 Skokie village, IL ....................................................... 64,784 Snellville city, GA ...................................................... 18,242 South Kingstown town, RI .................................... 30,639 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ..................................... 21,403 South Portland city, ME ......................................... 25,002 Southborough town, MA .......................................... 9,767 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575 Sparks city, NV ......................................................... 90,264 Spokane Valley city, WA ........................................ 89,755 Spring Hill city, KS ..................................................... 5,437 Springboro city, OH ................................................. 17,409 Springfield city, MO .............................................. 159,498 Springfield city, OR ................................................. 59,403 Springville city, UT .................................................. 29,466 St. Augustine city, FL ............................................... 12,975 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,974 St. Cloud city, FL ....................................................... 35,183 St. Cloud city, MN ................................................... 65,842 St. Joseph city, MO ................................................... 76,780 St. Louis County, MN ........................................... 200,226 St. Louis Park city, MN ........................................... 45,250 Stallings town, NC ..................................................... 13,831 State College borough, PA ..................................... 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO .................................... 12,088 Sterling Heights city, MI ...................................... 129,699 Sugar Grove village, IL ............................................... 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817 Suisun City city, CA .................................................. 28,111 Summit city, NJ.......................................................... 21,457 Summit County, UT ................................................ 36,324 Sunnyvale city, CA .................................................. 140,081 Surprise city, AZ ........................................................117,517 Suwanee city, GA ...................................................... 15,355 Tacoma city, WA ..................................................... 198,397 241 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 64 Takoma Park city, MD .............................................. 16,715 Tamarac city, FL ....................................................... 60,427 Temecula city, CA ...................................................100,097 Tempe city, AZ ......................................................... 161,719 Texarkana city, TX ....................................................36,411 The Woodlands CDP, TX ...................................... 93,847 Thornton city, CO .................................................... 118,772 Thousand Oaks city, CA ........................................ 126,683 Tigard city, OR ......................................................... 48,035 Tracy city, CA ........................................................... 82,922 Trinidad CCD, CO ..................................................... 12,017 Tualatin city, OR ...................................................... 26,054 Tulsa city, OK ...........................................................391,906 Twin Falls city, ID .....................................................44,125 Tyler city, TX ............................................................. 96,900 Umatilla city, OR ....................................................... 6,906 University Park city, TX ......................................... 23,068 Upper Arlington city, OH ........................................ 33,771 Urbandale city, IA .................................................... 39,463 Vail town, CO .............................................................. 5,305 Vancouver city, WA ................................................ 161,791 Ventura CCD, CA..................................................... 111,889 Vernon Hills village, IL ............................................. 25,113 Vestavia Hills city, AL ............................................. 34,033 Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 7,345 Vienna town, VA ....................................................... 15,687 Virginia Beach city, VA ......................................... 437,994 Wake Forest town, NC ............................................ 30,117 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................ 64,173 Washington County, MN ..................................... 238,136 Washington town, NH ............................................... 1,123 Washoe County, NV ............................................. 421,407 Washougal city, WA ................................................ 14,095 Watauga city, TX ..................................................... 23,497 Wauwatosa city, WI ............................................... 46,396 Waverly city, IA .......................................................... 9,874 Weddington town, NC ............................................. 9,459 Wentzville city, MO ................................................ 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH ........................................ 13,143 West Chester borough, PA ..................................... 18,461 West Des Moines city, IA ...................................... 56,609 West Richland city, WA ........................................... 11,811 Western Springs village, IL..................................... 12,975 Westerville city, OH ................................................. 36,120 Westlake town, TX ....................................................... 992 Westminster city, CO ............................................. 106,114 Weston town, MA ..................................................... 11,261 White House city, TN .............................................. 10,255 Wichita city, KS ..................................................... 382,368 Williamsburg city, VA ............................................. 14,068 Willowbrook village, IL ............................................ 8,540 Wilmington city, NC .............................................106,476 Wilsonville city, OR ................................................. 19,509 Winchester city, VA ................................................ 26,203 Windsor town, CO ...................................................18,644 Windsor town, CT ................................................... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL .................................................. 12,187 Winston-Salem city, NC ....................................... 229,617 Winter Garden city, FL .......................................... 34,568 Woodbury city, MN ..................................................61,961 Woodland city, CA .................................................. 55,468 Woodland city, WA .................................................. 5,509 Wrentham town, MA .............................................. 10,955 Wyandotte County, KS ......................................... 157,505 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067 York County, VA ...................................................... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN ................................................... 9,405 Yountville city, CA ...................................................... 2,933 242 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 65 Selected Peer Cities Benchmark Comparisons Table 106: Aspects of Quality of Life Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Lake Forest as a place to live 98% 1 12 Similar Lake Forest as a place to raise children 96% 3 11 Similar Lake Forest as a place to work 80% 3 11 Similar Lake Forest as a place to visit 84% 3 10 Similar Lake Forest as a place to retire 61% 5 11 Similar Overall quality of life in Lake Forest 93% 4 12 Similar Table 107: Community Characteristics Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest 99% 1 8 Higher Volume of traffic on local roads 73% NA NA NA Availability of parking in business districts 69% NA NA NA Shopping opportunities 38% 7 8 Much lower Ease of bicycle travel in Lake Forest 78% 1 6 Higher Public parks 95% 1 8 Similar Public beach 97% NA NA NA Recreational opportunities 89% 1 6 Similar Amount of open space 95% NA NA NA Bike paths/walking trails 92% 1 6 Higher Lake Forest-sponsored special events 79% 3 8 Similar Variety of housing options, sizes and price points 54% 5 6 Similar Sense of community 78% 2 9 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 51% 6 6 Lower K-12 education 93% 1 7 Higher Overall natural environment in Lake Forest 98% 1 9 Higher Overall feeling of safety in Lake Forest 98% 2 10 Similar Availability of quality health care 91% 1 5 Higher Overall design of Lake Forest buildings 93% 1 8 Higher Neighborliness of residents in Lake Forest 74% 2 6 Similar Public places where people want to spend time 80% 4 6 Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 72% 3 6 Similar Cleanliness of Lake Forest 98% 1 7 Higher 243 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 66 Table 108: Quality of City Services Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services 94% 1 10 Similar Fire services 99% 1 9 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 98% 2 9 Similar Street repair 76% 2 11 Higher Sewer services 84% 7 10 Similar Sidewalk maintenance 78% 1 9 Similar Snow and ice removal 78% 4 11 Similar Recreation Center 88% 2 6 Similar Stormwater management 75% 3 10 Similar Drinking water 91% 2 10 Similar Garbage collection 97% 1 11 Higher Recycling 94% 1 9 Higher Building permit and inspection process 59% NA NA NA Library services 95% 1 8 Similar Senior services at Dickinson Hall 94% NA NA NA Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) 94% NA NA NA Table 109: Overall Quality of City Services Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of Lake Forest City services 95% 1 12 Similar Table 110: City Government Performance Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark City response to citizen questions or concerns 71% 1 7 Similar The job Lake Forest City Council does at listening to residents 59% NA NA NA City Council generally acting in the best interest of the community 62% 5 8 Similar The overall direction that Lake Forest is taking 66% 6 8 Similar The value of services for taxes paid 68% 2 9 Similar The job Lake Forest government does at managing tax dollars 67% NA NA NA Overall confidence in Lake Forest City government 68% 4 6 Similar 244 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 67 Communities Included in Selected Peer Cities Benchmark The communities included in Lake Forest’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Alexandria city, VA ................................................. 139,966 Bloomfield Hills city, MI ........................................... 3,869 Glenview village, IL ................................................. 44,692 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171 Gurnee village, IL ...................................................... 31,295 Highland Park city, IL ............................................. 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO..................................... 96,713 Lake Forest city, IL ................................................... 19,375 Libertyville village, IL ............................................... 20,315 Long Grove village, IL................................................ 8,043 Naperville city, IL .................................................... 141,853 Newport Beach city, CA .......................................... 85,186 Orland Park village, IL ............................................. 56,767 Vernon Hills village, IL ............................................. 25,113 Winnetka village, IL .................................................. 12,187 245 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 68 Appendix E: Comparisons Over Time 246 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 69 Appendix E: Comparisons Over Time This appendix contains comparisons for questions that were asked in the 2011 and 2016 administrations of the Lake Forest Resident Survey. Differences between 2016 and 2011 can be considered “statistically significant” if they are four percentage points or more; however, some differences that surfaced may or may not be meaningful, as wording changed between survey versions. Table 111: Lake Forest as a Place to Live Compared by Year Percent "excellent" or "good" 2011 2016 Lake Forest as a place to live 96% 98% Table 112: Quality of Community Characteristics Compared by Year Percent "excellent" or "good" 2011 2016 Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest 97% 99% Volume of traffic on local roads 82% 73% Availability of parking in business districts 84% 69% Shopping opportunities 66% 38% Shopping variety 61% 28% Public parks 98% 95% Public beach 98% 97% Recreational opportunities 95% 89% Amount of open space 96% 95% Bike paths/walking trails 93% 92% Lake Forest-sponsored special events 96% 79% Variety of housing options, sizes and price points 85% 54% 247 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 70 Table 113: Quality of Lake Forest Services Compared by Year Percent "excellent" or "good" 2011 2016 Police services 97% 94% Fire services 100% 99% Ambulance or emergency medical services 99% 98% Street repair 83% 76% Sewer services 95% 84% Sidewalk maintenance 87% 78% Snow and ice removal 89% 78% Maintenance of parks 98% 97% Maintenance of beach 99% 98% Deerpath Golf Course 91% 87% Recreation Center 89% 88% Stormwater management 88% 75% Drinking water 97% 91% Building permit and inspection process 70% 59% Library services 98% 95% Senior services at Dickinson Hall 96% 94% Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) 97% 94% Overall quality of Lake Forest City services 96% 95% Table 114: City Response to Citizen Questions and Concerns Compared by Year Percent "excellent" or "good" 2011 2016 City response to citizen questions or concerns 89% 71% 248 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 71 Appendix F: Survey Methodology 249 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 72 Appendix F: Survey Methodology Developing the Questionnaire The City of Lake Forest Resident Survey was first administered in 2011. General citizen surveys, such as this one, ask recipients their perspectives about the quality of life in the city, their use of city amenities, their opinion on policy issues facing the city and their assessment of city service delivery. The citizen survey instrument for Lake Forest was developed by starting with the version from the previous implementation in 2011. A list of topics was generated for new questions; topics and questions were modified to find those that were the best fit for the 2016 questionnaire. In an iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a final five-page questionnaire was created. Selecting Survey Recipients “Sampling” refers to the method by which survey recipients are chosen. The “sample” refers to all those who were given a chance to participate in the survey. Ideally, the chosen survey recipients should be representative of all eligible survey recipients. Randomly selecting survey recipients ensures that this will occur. Selecting survey recipients in this way is part of what makes this type of survey process a scientific one. All households in Lake Forest were selected to receive the survey. A list of addresses based on the United States Postal Service (USPS) delivery sequence file was used for this selection. The addresses were geocoded (mapped to a specific latitude and longitude) and compared to the Lake Forest boundaries. Addresses identified as being outside Lake Forest were excluded. Those within the city were identified as being in one of the city’s four Wards or City P.O. boxes so that results could be broken down by Ward of residence. An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. (The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys.) Administering the Survey The database of selected household addresses was processed for certification and verification using CASS™/NCOA software that relies on the USPS National Directory information to verify and standardize the address elements and assign each a complete, nine-digit zip code where possible. Each of the survey recipients were contacted by mail once in September 2016. The mailing included a packet with the questionnaire with a cover letter signed by the Mayor. Included in the packet was a self- addressed, postage-paid return envelope. The survey packet included a web address where the survey could be completed online, if preferred. A copy of the survey materials can be found in Appendix G: Survey Materials. Of the 7,458 addresses to receive the survey, 286 were identified by the post office as vacant or undeliverable. A total of 2,133 completed surveys were returned, for a response rate of 30%. Of these 2,133 surveys, 383 were completed online and the remaining surveys were mailed hard copies. The number of surveys returned by Ward ranged from 432 in Ward 1 to 673 in Ward 3, providing response rates between 28% and 32%. Detailed return rates by Ward appear in the table below. 250 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 73 Table 115: Survey Response Rates by Ward Ward Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Number returned Response rate Ward 1 1,481 63 1,418 432 30% Ward 2 1,563 39 1,524 483 32% Ward 3 2,485 122 2,363 673 28% Ward 4 1,706 49 1,657 518 31% Overall 7,458 286 7,172 2,133 30% Confidence Intervals The 95% confidence interval (or “margin of error”) quantifies the “sampling error” or precision of the estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size, and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result would be found that is within a certain range if everyone in the population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite the best efforts to boost participation and ensure inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in the survey (referred to as non-response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error). Coverage error is very low for this survey, as the USPS delivery sequence file is used to select addresses, which has nearly complete coverage of all households. For this survey, with 2,133 responses, the 95% confidence interval is about plus or minus two percentage points. The precision is less when looking only at responses from within subgroups. For each of the four Wards, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus five percentage points based on the range of sample sizes (as noted above). Survey Processing (Data Entry) Mailed surveys were returned to NRC directly via postage-paid business reply envelopes. Once received, staff assigned a unique identification number to each questionnaire. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of “key and verify,” in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Analyzing the Results One of the first steps in the data analysis was to statistically adjust the survey results so that the demographic profile of the respondents mirrors that of the population as a whole. This process is known as “weighting” the data. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic 251 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 74 characteristics that are least similar to the known demographic profile and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. The socioeconomic profile of survey respondents was compared to estimates provided by the 2010 U.S. Census for adults in Lake Forest. The variables used for weighting were respondent age, gender and housing tenure (rent versus own). This decision was based on the disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables and the saliency of these variables in differences of opinion among subgroups. A final weight was applied for the overall results so that the four Wards were represented in their correct proportions. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. Table 116: 2016 Lake Forest Weighting Table Characteristic 2010 Census Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing1 Own home 88% 95% 90% Rent home 12% 5% 10% Detached unit 84% 85% 83% Attached unit 16% 15% 17% Race and Ethnicity White 93% 95% 94% Not white 7% 5% 6% Sex and Age Female 52% 59% 53% Male 48% 41% 47% 18-34 years of age 12% 2% 9% 35-54 years of age 40% 31% 41% 55+ years of age 48% 67% 50% Females 18-34 6% 1% 4% Females 35-54 22% 20% 23% Females 55+ 25% 38% 26% Males 18-34 7% 1% 5% Males 35-54 18% 11% 18% Males 55+ 23% 29% 24% Council Ward2 Ward 1 20% 20% 22% Ward 2 21% 23% 23% Ward 3 33% 32% 37% Ward 4 12% 24% 14% 1 Source: City of Lake Forest, 2010 Census 2 Source: City of Lake Forest, 2010 Census, Basic Housing Unit Count Estimates 252 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 75 The electronic dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, frequency distributions and average (mean) ratings are presented in the body of the report. A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Tables of Results. Also included are results by selected respondent characteristics, found in Appendix C: Subgroup Comparisons by Select Respondent Characteristics, and by ward, found in Appendix B: Comparisons of Ratings by Ward. Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they are marked with grey shading. Comparing Survey Results Over Time Differences between percentages between 2016 and 2011 can be considered “statistically significant” if they are four percentage points or more. Trend data for Lake Forest represent important comparisons and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. However, it should be noted that differences between results in the two years may or may not be meaningful due to the change in wording in the survey questions. The comparisons in questions over time can be found in Appendix E: Comparisons Over Time. Benchmark comparisons Where similar questions on the Lake Forest Resident Survey were included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked, a comparison was made. Lake Forest’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Lake Forest residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.” Two sets of benchmarks comparisons are included in Appendix D: Detailed Benchmark Comparisons. These include: • National comparisons • Selected peer cities comparisons 253 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 76 Appendix G: Survey Materials 254 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Lake Forest, IL • City of Lake Forest Resident Survey • 2016 77 Appendix G: Survey Materials A copy of the survey materials appear on the following pages. 255 September, 2016 Dear Resident, Please help us shape the future of Lake Forest! You have been selected to participate in the 2016 Lake Forest Resident Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important –your feedback will help Lake Forest make decisions that affect our community. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: www.n-r-c.com/survey/lakeforest.htm If you have any questions about the survey, please call City Hall at 847-810-3672. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Donald P. Schoenheider Mayor Ward 1 256 September, 2016 Dear Resident, Please help us shape the future of Lake Forest! You have been selected to participate in the 2016 Lake Forest Resident Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important –your feedback will help Lake Forest make decisions that affect our community. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: www.n-r-c.com/survey/lakeforest2016.htm If you have any questions about the survey, please call City Hall at 847-810-3672. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Donald P. Schoenheider Mayor Ward 2 257 September, 2016 Dear Resident, Please help us shape the future of Lake Forest! You have been selected to participate in the 2016 Lake Forest Resident Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important –your feedback will help Lake Forest make decisions that affect our community. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: www.n-r-c.com/survey/2016lakeforest.htm If you have any questions about the survey, please call City Hall at 847-810-3672. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Donald P. Schoenheider Mayor Ward 3 258 September, 2016 Dear Resident, Please help us shape the future of Lake Forest! You have been selected to participate in the 2016 Lake Forest Resident Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important –your feedback will help Lake Forest make decisions that affect our community. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: www.n-r-c.com/survey/2016lakeforestsurvey.htm If you have any questions about the survey, please call City Hall at 847-810-3672. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Donald P. Schoenheider Mayor Ward 4 259 September, 2016 Dear Resident, Please help us shape the future of Lake Forest! You have been selected to participate in the 2016 Lake Forest Resident Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important –your feedback will help Lake Forest make decisions that affect our community. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: www.n-r-c.com/survey/lakeforestsurvey.htm If you have any questions about the survey, please call City Hall at 847-810-3672. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Donald P. Schoenheider Mayor P.O. Boxes 260 City of Lake Forest 2016 Resident Survey Page 1 of 5 City of Lake Forest 2016 Resident Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please circle the response that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Lake Forest: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Lake Forest as a place to live ........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Lake Forest as a place to raise children ........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Lake Forest as a place to work ......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Lake Forest as a place to visit ........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Lake Forest as a place to shop ......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Lake Forest as a place to dine .......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Lake Forest as a place to retire......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Lake Forest ...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 2. Please indicate which of the following influence your decision to live in Lake Forest (please select all that apply): Raised here/close to family Open space preservation Culture and history Neighborhoods/housing Public school system Safety of community Architecture Health care/community hospital Natural environment Property tax rates Quiet community Sense of community Public amenities (parks, library, recreation, etc.) Other (please specify)____________________ 3. Please rate the quality of each of the following characteristics of Lake Forest: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Overall appearance/attractiveness of Lake Forest ........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Volume of traffic on local roads ......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of parking in business districts .....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping variety ............................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in Lake Forest .............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Pedestrian safety ...........................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Public parks ....................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Public beach ...................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities .............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Amount of open space ...................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Bike paths/walking trails .................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Lake Forest-sponsored special events ..........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options, sizes and price points .........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community .......................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education ...............................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall natural environment in Lake Forest ...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall feeling of safety in Lake Forest ..........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of quality health care ....................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall design of Lake Forest buildings ........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Lake Forest ....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ......................................................1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Lake Forest .............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of goods for sale ...........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Downtown store hours ...................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Friendliness of store employees in Lake Forest ............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of store employees in Lake Forest ..............................................................1 2 3 4 5 261 City of Lake Forest 2016 Resident Survey Page 2 of 5 4. Please rate the quality of each of the following City of Lake Forest services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services ...............................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ...................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 911 dispatch services .....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services ..................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Street repair....................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services ...............................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ...................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Snow and ice removal ....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Maintenance of parks .....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Maintenance of beach ....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Deerpath Golf Course ....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recreation Center ..........................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Stormwater management ...............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection .........................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recycling ........................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Building permit and inspection process .........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Library services ..............................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Senior services at Dickinson Hall ...................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Youth services at CROYA (Committee Representing Our Young Adults) .....................1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of Lake Forest City services .............................................................1 2 3 4 5 5. Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Police Department performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge ......................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness/promptness .........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy .........................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression .........................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 6. Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s Fire Department performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge ......................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness/promptness .........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy .........................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression .........................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 7. Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest’s ambulance/emergency medical services performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge ......................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness/promptness .........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy .........................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression .........................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 8. Please rate the following categories of Lake Forest government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know City response to citizen questions or concerns ..............................................................1 2 3 4 5 The job Lake Forest City Council does at listening to residents ....................................1 2 3 4 5 City Council generally acting in the best interest of the community ...............................1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Lake Forest is taking .............................................................1 2 3 4 5 The value of services for taxes paid ..............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 The job Lake Forest government does at managing tax dollars ....................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in Lake Forest City government ......................................................1 2 3 4 5 262 City of Lake Forest 2016 Resident Survey Page 3 of 5 9. Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to address each of the following to maintain the quality of life in Lake Forest for the next five years: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Manage traffic on local roads ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Demolition of existing homes and replacing with the construction of new ones .. 1 2 3 4 Preservation of historic homes and landscapes .................................................. 1 2 3 4 Repurpose historic homes and property for other purposes (inns, condos, etc.) 1 2 3 4 Maintenance of City infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.) .................. 1 2 3 4 Maintenance of City parks and facilities ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 Maintain Lake Forest as a triple-a bonded community (triple-a bonding secures the lowest borrowing rates for the City) ................... 1 2 3 4 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Economic development (more retail and restaurants) ......................................... 1 2 3 4 Encourage increased use of existing bus transportation for school children ....... 1 2 3 4 Increase the variety of housing options, sizes and price points ........................... 1 2 3 4 Availability of quality senior housing .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Availability of quality housing for younger families............................................... 1 2 3 4 10. Cities are faced with difficult choices. If you were a member of the City Council and had to consider budget changes, please rate the importance of increasing the budget for each of the following areas: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Crime prevention .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Police response .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Fire prevention ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Fire response ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Ambulance service ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Road maintenance ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sidewalk services ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Snow removal....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Trash collection service ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Code enforcement services ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Neighborhood revitalization ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Library services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Economic development services.......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Dickinson Hall services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Parks and Recreation services ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 CROYA services .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Stormwater management ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Environmental sustainability ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 11. How likely, if all, would you be to utilize a public transportation system (bus or trolley) in Lake Forest? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know 12. Which of the following, if any, would make you more likely to use a bus or trolley in Lake Forest? (Please check all that apply.) Schedules that provide options to commute to work Affordable pricing Adequate stops in downtown Convenience/distance of stops from home 263 City of Lake Forest 2016 Resident Survey Page 4 of 5 13. Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services: Major Minor Not a source source source City “Dialogue” quarterly newsletter ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 City’s website (www.cityoflakeforest.com) ........................................................................... 1 2 3 Local newspapers ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 Online media publications .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 LFTV (channels 17 or 19) or U-Verse .................................................................................. 1 2 3 Recreation Department Program Brochure ......................................................................... 1 2 3 Dickinson Hall “Newsbrief” ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Council meetings .................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 City staff ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Information provided in City buildings (library, CROYA, etc.) .............................................. 1 2 3 Ward or Town Hall Meetings ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 E-news (including emergency notifications) ......................................................................... 1 2 3 14. In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household make a purchase in these commercial areas? 3 to 4 times Once 1 to 3 times Daily per week a week a month Never Lake Forest (Central Business District) ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 West Lake Forest .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Vernon Hills ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lake Bluff .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Highwood .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Highland Park ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Libertyville ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Online .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 15. In an average month, how many times do you or members of your household dine in these commercial areas? 3 to 4 times Once 1 to 3 times Daily per week a week a month Never Lake Forest (Central Business District) ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 West Lake Forest .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Vernon Hills ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lake Bluff .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Highwood .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Highland Park ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Libertyville ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Please indicate how the addition of these stores and services would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? I would spend I would spend No Don’t a lot more a little more change know Apparel .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Home accessories ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Hardware ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Gardening supplies ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Make-up cosmetics ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Greeting cards/gifts ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Craft supplies ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Pet supplies ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Spa services .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Furniture ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Costume jewelry ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Fast print/photocopy ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Florist ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Video game store .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Exercise/personal training ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 Art gallery ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Fine jewelry ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Financial services .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 17. In an average week, how much would you estimate that your household spends on meals away from home (full- service restaurants, take-out, drive-thru, etc.) Less than $25 $25 to $49.99 $50 to $99.99 $100 to $149.99 Over $150 264 City of Lake Forest 2016 Resident Survey Page 5 of 5 18. Please indicate how the addition of these restaurants would affect the amount that you or a member of your household would spend in Lake Forest? I would spend I would spend No Don’t a lot more a little more change know Casual dining................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Counter service restaurant (i.e. LF Food and Wine) ..................... 1 2 3 4 White tablecloth restaurant ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sports bar ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Quick service restaurant ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 19. In an average week, when does your household buy meals away from home (full-service restaurants, take-out, drive-thru, etc.) Daytime (10am - 5pm) Evening (after 5 pm) Saturday Sunday 20. Are you or anyone in your household a member of Dickinson Hall Senior Center? Yes (go to Question 21) No (go to Question 22) Don’t know 21. For each of the following amenities provided by Dickinson Hall Senior Center in Lake Forest, first please rate whether or not they are available to you or members of your household and then rate how important each of these amenities is to you or members of your household. Very Somewhat Not at all Yes No Essential important important important Escorted transportation ............................................... 1 2 1 2 3 4 Help with daily errands (grocery shopping, etc.) ......... 1 2 1 2 3 4 Troubleshooting household problems (leaky faucets, etc.) .................................................. 1 2 1 2 3 4 Health insurance/medication help ............................... 1 2 1 2 3 4 Help locating medical/mental health services ............. 1 2 1 2 3 4 Help locating a nursing home/housing ........................ 1 2 1 2 3 4 Provide technology to allow seniors to stay in their own homes (stair lifts, reading magnifiers) ...... 1 2 1 2 3 4 Provide home delivered meal programs ..................... 1 2 1 2 3 4 Provide visitors ............................................................ 1 2 1 2 3 4 Provide legal or financial help ..................................... 1 2 1 2 3 4 Respite care ................................................................ 1 2 1 2 3 4 22. What is the single most important priority for the City of Lake Forest to address in the next five years? _________________________________________________________________________________________ 23. Additional comments:____________________________________________________________________ Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How many years have you lived in Lake Forest? Less than 2 years 11-20 years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D2. Are you a part-time or full-time resident of Lake Forest? Part-time (less than 6 months/year) Full-time (6 or more months/year) D3. Do you work inside the boundaries of Lake Forest? Yes, outside the home Yes, inside the home No D4. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) Other D5. Do you rent or own your home? Rent Own D6. What is your gender? Female Male D7. In which category is your age? 18-24 years 55-64 years 25-34 years 65-74 years 35-44 years 75 years or older 45-54 years D8. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White Other D9. How many children 17 or under live in your household? ___________ Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 265 220 E. Deerpath Lake Forest, IL 60045 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 266 {00014555 2} CITY OF LAKE FOREST RESOLUTION No. 16-_______ RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND AUTHORIZING A WINTER MARKET PILOT EVENT WITHIN THE WEST TRAIN STATION DEPOT BUILDING AT 911 TELEGRAPH ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Lake Forest received a request from the Applicants Melissa Norton and Adam Paronto to allow for an indoor winter farmers’ market (the “Market”) on the premises located at 911 Telegraph Road, the location of the west train station depot building in Lake Forest, Illinois, County of Lake, State of Illinois (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested the Market be authorized to occur twice monthly between the months of November 2016 and May 2017, on the first and third Sunday of the month between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the Property located at 911 Telegraph Road is located within the B-1 Neighborhood Business District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to existing zoning regulations, farmers’ markets require zoning relief to allow for the temporary use of a commercial space; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2016, the City authorized a one-time pilot event for the market to occur on the Property to evaluate the impact of the Market on the Property, its primary use, and its environs; and WHEREAS, the initial pilot event did not cause any known operational or maintenance issues or concerns at the Property; and WHEREAS, in order to better assess the impact of the Market on the Property and its environs, a second pilot event is being requested to be held on Sunday, December 4, 2016, under the supervision of the City Manager’s Office in consultation with the City’s Economic Development Coordinator, Police Department, and Community Development Department with support from other City staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that undertaking an evaluation of the Market at the Property during the winter season is in the best interest of the City and its residents and is authorizing that enforcement of the zoning requirements be temporarily suspended to allow for this evaluation to occur; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated in, and made a part of, this Resolution by this reference as findings of the City Council of The City of Lake Forest. 267 {00014555 2} Section 2. Suspension of Enforcement of City Zoning Regulations. In order to undertake a more thoroughgoing evaluation of the desirability and logistics relating to the use of the Property for the Market and the Market’s impact on the Property and its environs, the Mayor and City Council hereby: a. Ratify the approval of the initial pilot event for the Market on November 6, 2016; b. Further authorize a second pilot event for the Market at the Property on December 4, 2016, subject to such terms and conditions that the City Manager and staff determine to be necessary or appropriate; and c. Authorize and direct the City Manager and staff to suspend enforcement of City zoning restrictions that would prohibit the use of the Market at the Property with respect to the foregoing pilot events. Nothing in this Resolution is intended to suspend or waive any other regulations with respect to the Market. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the Market shall be fully subject to the provisions of the City Code, as well as to the terms and conditions of operating the Market that may be established by the City Manager and staff. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon the passage and approval. PASSED THIS _____ day of __________, 2016. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED THIS_____ day of __________, 2016 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 268