PARKS & RECREATION BOARD 2014/09/16 Packet
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
6:30PM at CITY HALL
LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Steve Hill, Chairman _____Charlie Kohlmeyer
David Brush _____Curt Volkmann
_____Sondra Douglass _____Paul “Skoo” Walker
Dan Jasica
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of minutes of the August 19, 2014 Parks and Recreation Board Meeting
B. Approval of minutes of the August 28, 2014 Special Meeting with the Golf
Advisory Committee
III. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD ON
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
IV. DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUTURE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE—Presented by Mary Van
Arsdale, Director of Parks and Recreation
V. ANNUAL SPECIAL FACILITY FEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY16—Presented by Jeff
Wait, Superintendent of Special Facilities
A. Lakefront FY16 Proposed Fees
B. Lake Forest Fitness Center FY16 Proposed Fees
VI. EMERALD ASH BORER PROGRAM UPDATE—Presented by Peter Gordon, City Forester
VII. SPOTLIGHT: RECREATION DEPARTMENT SPECIAL EVENTS—Presented by Joe Mobile,
Manager
VIII. COMMENTS BY DIRECTOR
IX. COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS
X. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Lake Forest
Parks and Recreation Board
Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2014
I. Call to Order
The Parks and Recreation Board Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Curt Volkmann at
6:30p.m. The following were present:
Board Members: Mr. David Brush
Ms. Sondra Douglass
Mr. Dan Jasica
Mr. Charlie Kohlmeyer
Mr. Curt Volkmann, Acting Chairman
Mr. Skoo Walker
Staff: Ms. Mary Van Arsdale, Director of Parks and Recreation
Ms. Sally Swarthout, Superintendent of Recreation
Mr. Jeff Wait, Superintendent of Special Facilities
Ms. Tricia Schwall, Administrative Assistant
Special Guests: Mr. Mike Adelman, Alderman
Mr. Tighe Magnuson – LF/LB Joint Recreation Task Force – Co‐Chair
Mr. Chris Mosbarger – LF/LB Joint Recreation Task Force – Co‐Chair
II. Approval of Minutes
The meeting minutes of the May 20, 2014 Park & Recreation Board meeting were presented.
Board Member Jasica moved for approval of the minutes and Board Member Kohlmeyer
seconded. The Board meeting minutes of the May 20, 2014 meeting were then unanimously
approved.
The meeting minutes of the May 28, 2014 Park & Recreation Capital Visioning Workshop were
presented.
Board Member Jasica moved for approval of the minutes and Board Member Brush seconded. The
Capital Visioning Workshop minutes of the May 28, 2014 Workshop were then unanimously
approved.
The meeting minutes of the June 17, 2014 Park & Recreation Board meeting were presented.
Board Member Kohlmeyer moved for approval of the minutes and Board Member Douglass
seconded. The Board meeting minutes of the June 17, 2014 meeting were then unanimously
approved.
The meeting minutes of the June 26, 2014 Park & Recreation Board Workshop with the Golf
Advisory Committee were presented.
Board Member Brush moved for approval of the minutes as amended and Board Member Walker
seconded. The Board Workshop with the Golf Advisory Committee minutes of the June 26, 2014
meeting were then unanimously approved.
III. Opportunities for the Public to Address the Board on Items not listed on the Agenda
There were no comments.
IV. Lake Forest/Lake Bluff Joint Recreation Task Force
Mr. Tighe Magnuson and Mr. Chris Mosbarger, LF/LB Joint Recreation Task Force –Co‐Chairs gave
an overview of the task force and what they were charged with as a group. They shared that their
primary focus was finding synergies between the two communities in the areas of programming,
aquatics, beach and golf courses. The primary take‐aways from this group were: both operations
are operating on a very lean basis, there are opportunities for greater reciprocity of services
between the two communities and more transparency of operations between the two entities going
forward. They then share the summary observations which Mr. Magnuson discussed as mostly
being sharing, collaborating and working together. He added that there needed to be more time
spent on looking at sharing of large capital items.
Mr. Magnuson gave the recommendations for the Programming between the two communities
including; reciprocal use with no Lake Forest/Lake Bluff non‐resident fees, super pass concept,
investigate consolidating the two brochures (though may be too challenging) and combining
programs. A short conversation followed on timing related to further investigation.
Mr. Mosbarger gave the recommendations for the Aquatic Facility including: further research into
the revenue impact, better record attendance, survey Lake Forest residents to determine interest,
explore willingness to share responsibility/stewardship of aquatic facility and research the possibility
of a super joint resident pass for joint use of aquatic facility, beach, paddle & both golf courses.
Mr. Mosbarger then gave the recommendations for the Beach including: joint training/cross training
Lake Forest/Lake Bluff lifeguards, parking continuing to be a problem that makes beach access
reciprocity difficult, track usage by respective communities at each beach to determine how much
crossover, allowing reciprocity at beaches when one is closed and exploring opportunities to cost
share on future capital equipment expenditures.
Mr. Magnuson gave the recommendations for Golf including: eliminate non‐resident daily fees for
Lake Forest/Lake Bluff residents at each other’s course, initiate 10‐punch pass to be used at either
golf courses, separate 10‐punch pass for non‐Lake Forest/Lake Bluff residents (higher rate than
residents), create a Lake Bluff golf advisory committee to work with Lake Forest golf advisory
committee, independent review by golf operations consultant to develop options regarding
feasibility of consolidating operations.
Mr. Magnuson ended with the overall recommendations from the group. There should be greater
transparency of operations between the two groups to create reciprocity and cost sharing where
applicable. There could be further cost savings from a broader initiative between the two
communities by leveraging some common services. Finally, create a survey to Lake Forest/Lake
Bluff residents on interests by them regarding reciprocity and cost sharing opportunities. A short
conversation regarding what to do going forward.
V. Advisory Authorization to Expend Capital Funds and Award Contract with Vermont Systems, Inc.
for Recreation Software Replacement Project
Director Van Arsdale gave the board a brief history of the need to replace the current Recreation
Software. She explained why they chose Vermont Systems, Inc. (VSI). She shared the benefits to
hosting the software on‐premises as opposed to going with vendor hosting. She then explained all
of the different modules that would be used with VSI and the benefits they have for other
departments also. Director Van Arsdale gave a summary overview of the price quote from VSI. She
explained why there would be additional costs to the City. Board Member Brush asked about
sufficient licenses. Director Van Arsdale explained the number of licenses that would be provided
and additional features that come with the licensing. Board Member Volkmann asked about
training for employees. Director Van Arsdale stated that initial training is built into the price of the
system. She also explained that additional costs could potentially be shared with other communities
in the area that also have VSI as their software provider.
Requested Action: Recommend to City Council the award of contract with Vermont Systems, Inc. for
the replacement of the Parks and Recreation Department software system at an expense of
$143,999 and the City additional expense of $29,277 for a total project cost of $173,276 to be
funded from Parks and Recreation Fund 220.
A motion was made by Board Member Brush to award the contract to recommend to City Council
the award of contract with Vermont Systems, Inc. for the replacement of the Parks and Recreation
Department software system at an expense of $143,999 and the City additional expense of
$29,277 for a total project cost of $173,276 to be funded from Parks and Recreation Fund 220. The
motion was seconded by Board Member Kohlmeyer. The motion passed.
VI. Advisory approval of Resolution to Ratify NSSRA Board Action to Sell Property
Director Van Arsdale gave the board a brief history of NSSRA and the Facility Acquisition Plan. She
shared that the next step in the process is for NSSRA to petition the Cook County Circuit Court to
gain permission to sell NSSRA’s current building in Northbrook. She explained why NSSRA has to file
this petition.
Requested Action: Advisory approval of Resolution to ratify NSSRA Board action authorizing petition
to Circuit Court for leave to sell NSSRA property no longer needed for Park or Special Recreation
purposes.
A motion was made by Board Member Brush to give advisory approval of Resolution to ratify
NSSRA Board action authorizing petition to Circuit Court for leave to sell NSSRA property no longer
needed for Park or Special Recreation purposes. The motion was seconded by Board Member
Douglass. The motion passed.
VII. Spotlight: Deerpath Golf Course 2014 Season Update
Superintendent Wait gave an update to Deerpath Golf Course FY 15 first quarter performance. He
explained that this information is unaudited and informational only. He explained the course and
weather conditions during that time period and how that had an impact on play. He showed the
comparison between memberships during 2013 and 2014. A short conversation followed regarding
memberships. Superintendent Wait showed comparisons between FY 14 and FY 15 YTD revenues.
Board Member Volkmann asked why there no projected budget numbers for instructional services.
Superintendent Wait responded that he overlooked this line item estimate when the budget was
prepared. Board Member Volkmann also inquired as to why there is an increase in instruction does
not translate into increased play. Superintendent Wait gave his thoughts as to why that is
happening. A conversation followed. Board Member Walker asked for a future breakdown of the
instructions, i.e., adults, campers, etc. Superintendent Wait then showed comparisons between
FY14 and FY 15 YTD expenses. A conversation ensued regarding expenses. Board Member
Volkmann asked that there be a better understanding of the numbers by the time the joint meeting
between the board and the advisory committee meeting at the end of August. He also discussed
the different course related projects that have been completed or will be completed at the golf
course.
VIII. Director’s Report
Director Van Arsdale gave a department update.
A. Thanked staff and community for participation in the Lake Forest Run
B. COTW and Golf Advisory Committee meeting will be on August 28th
C. Coming up
i. Family Beach Campout – September 6 & 7
ii. Still taking registration for Fall
iii. Book Sale coming up September 11‐14
iv. Maintenance week at the Rec Center wrapped up last week
II. Comments by Board Members
A. Board Member Kohlmeyer commented that the Deerpath Tennis courts look great
B. Board Member Jasica commented that Festival & Fireworks was a great event
IX. Adjournment
Board Member Brush moved to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Douglass seconded. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Tricia Schwall
Administrative Assistant
The City of Lake Forest
Parks and Recreation Board
& Golf Advisory Committee
Special Meeting Minutes
August 28, 2014
I. Call to Order
The Parks and Recreation Board and Golf Advisory Committee Special Meeting was called to order
by Acting Chairman Curt Volkmann at 6:33p.m. The following were present:
Board Members: Mr. David Brush
Ms. Sondra Douglass
Mr. Dan Jasica
Mr. Charlie Kohlmeyer
Mr. Curt Volkmann, Acting Chairman
Mr. Skoo Walker
Golf Advisory: Mr. Mike Adelman, Alderman
Mr. Ron Hirasawa
Mr. Jim Carey
Mr. Tim Newman, Chairman
Staff: Ms. Mary Van Arsdale, Director of Parks and Recreation
Ms. Elizabeth Holleb, Director of Finance
Mr. Jeff Wait, Superintendent of Special Facilities
Ms. Tricia Schwall, Administrative Assistant
Special Guests: Mr. Steve Skinner, KemperSports
Mr. Rick Walrath, General Manager, Deerpath Golf Course
Mr. Mike Williams, KemperSports
II. Introduction of Golf Advisory Committee Guests
III. Deerpath Golf Course: Future Management Discussion
Director Van Arsdale gave a brief overview of the KemperSports management of the golf course
over the past 3 years and what it could look like in the future. She then shared the goals of the
meeting. She mentioned that they will answer questions after each section, that this is not a budget
meeting and there is no action being taken during the meeting. Director Van Arsdale went over the
timeline of the development of the contract with Kemper Sports. Mr. Mike Williams gave an
overview of the state of the industry with golf compared to Deerpath Golf Course. Mr. Williams
then shared the KemperSports/City structure that has been in place over the past three years. He
emphasized some of the service challenges that have occurred over these past years because of the
hybrid structure. A conversation followed regarding the structure. Mr. Williams reviewed the
accomplishments of KemperSports over the past three years. A conversation ensued regarding the
courses in the area. Mr. Williams gave an overview of the relative stability of rounds at Deerpath.
Director Holleb shared the revenue and expenses for Deerpath for FY ’09 through FY ’14 and the
financial history of the Deerpath Golf Course fund FY ’07 through FY ‘14. Various clarifications were
sought on fund balance reserve and debt.
Director Van Arsdale shared the FY16 line item budget proforma, starting with the budgeted
revenue for the course during FY15 and the FY16 projected budget for the course if the
management moved back to a fully City‐managed course. Mr. Walrath then shared the revenue
projections for the course if KemperSports went to full management of the course. A conversation
followed regarding revenue approaches and assumptions used. Director Van Arsdale then shared
the line item budget proforma for expenses for the City managed course. A conversation followed
regarding salary and benefits. Mr. Walrath followed with the expense for the KemperSports
managed course. A conversation followed regarding employees, wages and overtime. After
sharing the remainder of the expense items under each management option, a lengthy discussion
followed regarding KemperSports management of the course. Mr. Skinner explained to the group
how they would be held accountable for the condition of the course, the memberships and the
revenue. Board Member Volkmann asked Mr. Skinner how the capital projects at the golf course
would be completed through the City. Mr. Skinner explained how the process would work and how
control remains with The City.
Based on questions, Director Van Arsdale moved into sharing the Management Options Matrix that
outlines how the different aspects of the course operations would be handled by the City or
KemperSports. Director Holleb presented the 5‐year Fund Forecast scenarios for both a City‐
managed course and the KemperSports‐managed course. A conversation followed regarding these
fiscal fund scenarios. Board Member Volkmann inquired about how different the net after capital
and debt (pre‐subsidy) would be if the City managed scenario was run using Kemper revenues.
Volkmann indicated that he thought The City’s revenue projections may be too conservative and it
may be skewing the financial outlook. Director Holleb responded the net would change and that this
scenario could be created. Board member Jasica and Alderman Adelman indicated that they would
like to see the scenario of City revenue with Kemper expense as well. The group discussed the
various scenarios and agreed that they would like to see four options created.
Director Van Arsdale asked the group to discuss several considerations as follows:
1. What is the current community perception of our hybrid structure and how would they
respond under possible management options moving forward? Board Member Walker
commented that he felt that most of the people he has spoken with think that
KemperSports is already running the whole thing and that there is no hybrid structure. Mr.
Hirasawa commented that in his experience it is very difficult to manage an operation with
too many different sections not under one umbrella. Volkmann asked for some examples of
when approaches or decisions did not align. Manager Walrath and Director Van Arsdale
provided some examples.
2. What are the personnel impacts going forward? Director Van Arsdale indicated that the City
would not create new positions in other departments for existing golf employees and that
the golf staff have been, and in the future, are welcome to apply for any vacancies that
arise. Mr. Carey commented on the vast difference between benefits and insurance.
3. What is more important: control, risk reduction or financial bottom lines? A discussion
occurred and financial bottom line was of significant concern but City control must be of
importance also.
4. What are impacts to future capital and debt, if any? Director Van Arsdale indicated this
would be a future discussion this fall, but anticipates needing to make some adjustments.
5. What is management structure preference? City or Outsourced Management with
KemperSports?
Golf Committee Chairman Newman asked Director Van Arsdale if the Park Board makes a
recommendation to move forward to City Council. Director Van Arsdale replied yes. Director Van
Arsdale also asked the group how they would like to move forward. Board Member Volkmann
asked KemperSports if they would supply more creative ideas on alternative performance
mechanisms to help improve utilization of the course. Mr. Skinner agreed to have KemperSports
prepare some ideas. Board Member Kohlmeyer indicated that he would like to see the total
utilization of Lake Forest residents at the course.
KemperSports attendees left the meeting at 8:42 p.m.
Director Van Arsdale asked the group to share their thoughts about a KemperSports managed
option. Board Member Volkmann felt good about the relationship but wanted to see the expanded
financial projections and he wants to make sure that it is legal to go forward in a contract with
KemperSports without going through another proposal process. A discussion followed about the
past Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposal process. Director Van Arsdale shared that
she would put together the Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposal documentation
from 2011 and would seek clarification from the City Attorney regarding what the City’s obligation is
to going through another proposal process. She asked if the group needed to meet again before the
next Park Board meeting on September 16. The response was that there was no need for a second
meeting. Director Van Arsdale wanted clarification on what the board was looking for at the board
meeting in September. Board member Brush wanted the information from Director Van Arsdale on
the Request for Proposal, the expanded financial data, and the City Attorney’s ruling, and that if this
information satisfied the questions still lingering, that he felt the Park Board should be comfortable
with making a recommendation for City Council’s consideration.
IV. Opportunity for Public Comment
No public comments.
V. Adjournment
Board Member Jasica moved to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Brush seconded. The meeting
was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Tricia Schwall
Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Deerpath Golf Course Future Management Structure
PRESENTED BY: Mary Van Arsdale, Director of Parks and Recreation, 810-3918
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff has provided various documents to allow the
Parks and Recreation Board to discuss and make a recommendation to City Council
related to the future management structure of Deerpath Golf Course.
FACILITY COMMUNICATION/RECOMMENDATIONS: The following chart outlines the
significant public meetings held to communicate golf course challenges and/or
consulting analysis related to Deerpath Golf Course. In addition to these documents
and events, periodic seasonal updates were shared at the monthly Parks and
Recreation Board meetings.
Meeting/Activity Date Focus
Pellucid Corporation/Edgehill Golf
Advisors Report
October
2008
Business Operational Review
Community Forum October
2010
State of the Industry and ‘What’s On the
Horizon for Deerpath Golf Course’
National Golf Foundation
Consulting Services
February
2011
Review and Analysis of Deerpath Golf
Course Business Operations
Community Forum August
2011
Deerpath Performance and Management
Options being investigated
Request for Qualifications &
Request for Information Process
Fall 2012 KemperSports, Inc. selected to provide
hybrid management assistance
Community Forum January
2013
Deerpath Performance and Changes to
Permanent Tee Time Lottery
City Council/Park Board October
2013
State of Industry Update and Deerpath 2012-
2013 Performance
Park Board August
2014
First Quarter FY15 Operations Report
Park Board and Golf Advisory
Committee Workshop
August
2014
Review of historical performance data,
management structure discussion
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Deerpath Golf Course was established in 1927 when a
private entity transferred title of multiple parcels to the City of Lake Forest. The property,
which is designated primarily as flood plain, is located in the heart of the community
adjacent to Deerpath Road and the Skokie River. Reviewing the cache of title
documents, various deed restrictions exist affecting the properties that comprise
Deerpath. The restriction that appears in numerous documents states: “Deerpath is to
be used for public park and recreational purposes, except for trap shooting….and that
2
in the event the Property, at any time, ceases to be used by the City of Lake Forest or its
duly constituted Park Board as a public park or for recreational purposes, or shall be
used for trap shooting, then said property shall immediately revert to and become
property of said grantor, his heirs, executors or assigns.” Thus for eighty-seven years,
Deerpath Golf Course, with its 145 acres of woods, ponds, natural areas, and lawn, has
played a critical and vital role in delivering year-round recreational services and
providing critical flood control and environmental benefits to residents. As a
recreational amenity of the City of Lake Forest, it has been financially sufficient until
recent years when the golf industry became saturated with courses, the 2011 recession
occurred and the volume of core golfers declined.
Beginning in early 2010, The City hosted several community forums in an effort to inform
residents about future challenges facing the golf industry and Deerpath Golf Course in
particular. Discussions focused on how to increase revenues, reduce expenses and
maintain a quality golfing experience for our valued golfing patrons in light of the fact
that Deerpath Golf Course was projected to begin operating at a financial deficit.
As a result, in 2012, The City took a proactive approach and investigated third party
management of the Golf Course by conducting an extensive Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) and Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Multiple companies were interviewed,
and as you are aware, KemperSports Management was determined to be best suited
for Deerpath Golf Course. A three-year contract was signed for KemperSports to
provide a “hybrid management option” by providing the General Manager and
assisting with marketing and revenue generation, while The City continued to retain all
other staff as City employees and managed the maintenance of the Course. This
arrangement over the past three years resulted in helping Deerpath remain
competitive in a challenging industry.
However, City expenses continue to outpace revenue under the current structure. As
we approach the final months of the hybrid management agreement, KemperSports
and The City identified the importance of conducting due diligence in determining the
next course of action to gain better efficiencies and financial outcomes. Both groups
identified that the hybrid management option, while a good fit initially, is not the optimal
solution going forward, and KemperSports indicated they are not interested in
extending the hybrid arrangement. Challenges identified with a hybrid management
structure include:
Bifurcated management system creates a challenging communication process,
especially in addressing significant customer or employee issues
Difficult to build team dynamics with multiple employers
Programming challenges with multiple vendors and stakeholders
Different financial and accounting models for timely reporting
Capital planning and prioritization conflicts with cohesive planning
Recently, the Golf Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Board reviewed
financial materials, including recent performance and industry trends compared to the
Illinois/Chicago market, while evaluating a City-managed course with a KemperSports-
managed course. The Deerpath Golf Course Flash Report (Attachment A) and
3
Financial History FY07-FY14 (Attachment B) provide a summary of this data with the
following highlights:
Rounds Trend:
a) Deerpath total rounds have outpaced Chicago/Illinois daily fee, semi-private,
municipal and other public courses.
b) Deerpath’s 3-year average is 31,089 rounds.
Total Revenue/Rounds:
a) Deerpath’s revenue per round was the higher than the average daily fee/semi-
private or municipal course in 2013.
b) Deerpath’s revenue per round was higher than other municipal courses in years
2011 and 2012.
Deerpath Regional Competition:
a) 81 golf courses are located within 30 minutes. Neighboring communities all offer
a public option for their residents.
b) Around Lake Forest, the highest concentration is private courses.
Financial History:
a) Deerpath’s net before capital and debt was positive until FY14, but is expected
to be a deficit for FY15.
b) Deerpath’s net after capital and debt became a negative balance beginning in
FY08.
c) Due to the debt service coverage requirement (this means that the operating
income of the golf course must exceed the annual debt service requirements by
125%), Deerpath received a subsidy from the Recreation Fund beginning in FY11.
The subsidy from the Recreation Fund has increased annually each year.
Regarding the future management structure, The City deemed it appropriate to
continue to investigate a full management option with KemperSports. Per clarification
with The City’s legal counsel, The City is not required to issue another RFP before
executing a proposed contract with KemperSports. Under the City’s Purchasing
Directive, professional services, like the ones provided by KemperSports, are initially to
be selected through an RFP process, and those professional relationships can continue
and be extended until The City determines a change is warranted or until it again wants
to test the waters. Since The City selected KemperSports following an RFP process in
2011, the City’s renegotiation of the services agreement with KemperSports is consistent
with the Directive and a new RFP is not required. As a result, staff prepared various
financial proformas comparing a City managed option versus a KemperSports
managed option.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:
The budget proforma process began with The City and KemperSports each creating a
detailed FY16 line item budget (Attachment C) using various revenue and expense
assumptions based upon performance history, anticipated increases and industry
expectations. Where feasible, alignment was sought on both revenues and expenses.
Historically, The City utilizes very conservative revenue projections based upon recent
performance and current fiscal year. Expenses are typically estimated based upon
current year and expected increases for the various line items. KemperSports looks at a
3 year course and industry average and recent weather impacts to project its revenues
4
and a similar approach as the City’s for expense line items. When reviewing the FY16
line item budget it becomes apparent that the driving factors that impact the overall
fiscal performance are due to limited revenue growth potential and significant costs
differentials in wages and benefits. Capital and debt expenses were kept identical for
both scenarios.
From the FY16 Line Item Budget, four 5-year fund performance summaries (Attachment
D) were then projected with the following significant assumptions and results:
1. City Managed Fund Forecast:
Assumptions: Revenues reflect City’s conservative revenue estimates. With
expenses, all employees are City staff, including adding salary expense for a
General Manager and the related benefit and insurance costs.
Results: Net, before and after debt and capital, operate as a deficit beginning
in FY16 and the fund balance reserve of 15% is not achieved. The Recreation
Fund transfer exceeds $225,000 annually. Potentially least favorable financial
results.
2. Kemper Managed Fund Forecast:
Assumptions: Revenues reflect KemperSports increased revenue projections
primarily achieved through greater daily fee revenue. Revenues also reflect a
$61,378 (4% of revenue) management fee paid by The City to KemperSports. All
employees are KemperSports employees with KemperSports benefit and
insurance costs.
Results: Net before capital and debt remains with positive cash flow; after
adding debt and capital a deficit balance is generated and fund balance
reserve of 15% is not achieved. The Recreation Fund transfer is less than $50,000
annually. Potentially best financial results.
3. City Revenue/Kemper Expense Fund Forecast:
Assumptions: Conservative City revenues were utilized with KemperSports
expenses (all employees are KemperSports employees) and KemperSports is
managing the course.
Results: Net before capital and debt remains with positive cash flow, though less
than the Kemper Managed scenario; after adding capital and debt a deficit
balance is generated and fund balance reserve of 15% is not achieved. The
Recreation Fund transfer averages $95,000 per year. Potentially second best
financial results.
4. Kemper Revenue/City Expense Fund Forecast:
Assumptions: KemperSports projected revenue included with City estimated
expenses (all employees are City employees) and The City continues to maintain
the entire operation.
Results: Net before capital and debt operate at a deficit beginning in FY16 but
remains flat around $50,000 annually; after adding capital and debt a deficit
balance is generated in excess of $200,000 annually and fund balance reserve
of 15% is not achieved. The Recreation Fund transfer averages $174,800 per year.
Potentially third best financial results.
The “Net after Capital and Debt Chart -pre-subsidy”(Attachment E) helps illustrate the
proforma results graphically for each fiscal scenario.
5
In addition to fiscal performance, there are differences between the two management
options related to the role The City plays and degree of control retained in key
operational areas that impact our golfing patrons. The Management Options Matrix
(Attachment F) outlines these items in such important areas as setting fees, course
conditions and staffing. As the Matrix indicates, both options allow The City a strong
voice in how the course is operated and setting expectations.
Park Board Discussion Considerations:
1. What questions remain about the two management structures?
2. What are the primary opportunities or benefits to either management structure?
3. What are the primary downsides or concerns for our golfing patrons and The City
with either management structure?
4. Which of the fund forecast scenarios provide the acceptable level of financial
risk and/or require an unacceptable level of subsidy?
5. What management option creates the most viable future for the golf course?
PARK BOARD ACTION:
Based upon the significance of the topic, staff is not making a recommended course of
action. It is the Park Board’s role to discuss the topic, and if determined to be
appropriately vetted, make a motion regarding the future management structure that
should be recommended to City Council for their approval. After the motion and
second, a roll call vote would be conducted.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Deerpath Flash Report
Attachment B: Financial Fund History FY07-FY14
Attachment C: FY16 Line Item Budget
Attachment D: Five Year Fund Forecasts
City Managed
Kemper Managed
City Revenue/Kemper Expense
Kemper Revenue/City Expense
Attachment E: Net After Capital and Debt (pre-subsidy chart)
Attachment F: Management Options Matrix
Deerpath Golf Course Flash ReportAttachment A
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Preliminary
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
Fund Balance 5/1 62,569$ 318,233$ 263,011$ 208,631$ 278,787$ 298,928$ 310,906$ 279,027$
Revenue
Operating revenue 1,585,915 1,428,307 1,412,208 1,325,874 1,264,624 1,222,912 1,320,455 1,397,836
Giving Tree - 5,500 1,520 8,005 16,100 - -
Grant 125,000 - - -
Interest Income 30,618 28,262 7,004 3,959 4,400 3,920 2,686 2,138
Total Current Revenue 1,741,533$ 1,462,069$ 1,420,732$ 1,337,838$ 1,269,024$ 1,242,932$ 1,323,141$ 1,399,974$
Less:
Operations and Maintenance 436,356 489,728 427,080 459,149 426,941 481,028$ 666,209 741,425
Salaries/Benefits 773,138 795,761 791,977 688,462 725,722 652,542$ 567,571 597,885
Adm Serv to City 19,375 20,102 20,855 21,637 22,070 22,401 22,961 23,535
Total Operating Expenses 1,228,869$ 1,305,591$ 1,239,912$ 1,169,248$ 1,174,733$ 1,155,971$ 1,256,741$ 1,362,845$
Net Before Capital & Debt 512,664 156,478 180,820 168,590 94,291 86,961 66,400 37,129
Capital Expense 141,600 93,700 187,200 5,004 - - 65,491 34,670
Debt Service 115,400 118,000 48,000 93,430 96,750 112,983 110,788 105,366
Total Capital/Debt Service 257,000 211,700 235,200 98,434 96,750 112,983 176,279 140,036
Net after Capital & Debt 255,664 (55,222) (54,380) 70,156 (2,459) (26,022) (109,879) (102,907)
Recreation Fund Transfer 22,600 38,000 78,000 96,000
Fund Balance 4/30 318,233$ 263,011$ 208,631$ 278,787$ 298,928$ 310,906$ 279,027$ 272,120$
Fund Balance Target (15% Revenue)198,471$ 209,996$
Over (under) FB Target $80,556 $62,124
Debt service coverage 1.25 4.44 1.33 3.77 1.80 1.21 1.11 1.30 1.26
Series 2004A bonds were refunded as part of the 2011B refunding issue and mature 12-15-23 (FY24).
Op Revenue increase%-9.9%-1.1%-6.1%-4.6%-3.3%8.0%5.9%
Op Expense increase % 6.2%-5.0%-5.7%0.5%-1.6%8.7%8.4%
FINANCIAL HISTORY
DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUND
Revised 9/5/14 FY2014 pending audit finalization - subject to change
Attachment B
Attachment CCity City KemperFY15 Budget FY'16 FY'16REVENUE Seasonal Fees‐Resident $296,040 $296,705 $298,818Seasonal Fees‐Non Resident $66,720 $56,874 $66,041Daily Fee‐Resident $196,577 $176,919 $189,705Daily Fee‐Non Resident $248,431 $206,642 $236,408 Seasonal & Daily Fees Sub‐Total $807,768 $737,140 $790,972Locker Fee $6,503 $7,129 $8,650Electric Car Rental $235,556 $205,272 $217,893Start Time $12,000 $11,690 $11,690Range Fees $60,000 $60,000 $60,861Club Rental $1,009 $1,000 $1,000Pullcarts $4,512 $4,060 $4,322Merchandise Sales $21,056 $98,131 $98,131Concession Sales $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Handicap Service $10,000 $10,000 $7,230Golf Classes/Lessons $303,000 $296,536 $296,536Interest on Investment $2,600 $1,926 $1,926Interfund Transfer from Recreation $91,000TOTAL REVENUE $1,570,004 $1,447,883 $1,514,211TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE* $1,386,532 $1,521,272 $1,357,750 *line item detail pages 18 ‐ 19NET OPERATIONS$183,472‐$73,389 $156,461DEBT/CAPITAL/OTHER EXPENSE** $216,530 $224,552 $285,930 **line item detail page 20GRAND TOTAL WITH DEBT/CAP $1,603,062 $1,745,824 $1,643,680TOTAL PROFIT/LOSS‐$33,058‐$297,941‐$129,469Deerpath Golf CourseLine Item Detail Budget Proformas
Attachment CCity City KemperFY15 Budget FY'16 FY'16Deerpath Golf Course Proforma BudgetEXPENSESADMINISTRATIONSalaries ‐ General Manager 98,200$ $90,000 $90,000Salaries‐Full Time Other 176,091$ $181,374 $165,000Wages‐Temporary Maintenance 157,935$ $159,497 $162,874Wages‐Temporary Clubhouse 84,038$ $84,038 $58,243Overtime 20,956$ $21,709 $0 Salaries Sub‐Total $537,220 $536,618 $476,117Longevity 1,887$ $1,875 $0Insurance Medical 57,919$ $75,705 $65,135Insurance Dental 1,171$ $1,652 $0Insurance Life 243$ $324 $0Unemployment Insurance 44,194$ $48,470 $19,772Social Security 32,690$ $39,033 $37,319Pension 49,525$ $61,395 $1,125Flexi 446$ $396 $0Payroll W.C. $15,000 $11,891 Benefits‐Sub‐Total $188,075 $243,850 $135,242IRMA (Risk) Insurance & Deductible 32,231$ $18,126 $18,126Training and Development 200$ $200 $357Membership Dues 1,900$ $1,900 $1,935Meetings and Exp Reimbursement 150$ $150 $0Contractual Services ‐ Audit 2,496$ $2,596 $4,160IT Maintenance 3,645$ $6,827 $6,827Cell Phone 1,069$ $1,000 $1,000Clothing 4,100$ $4,100 $4,925Assets under $10,000 9,900$ $9,900 $10,001 Administration Sub‐Total $780,986 $825,266 $658,690
Attachment CCity City KemperFY15 Budget FY'16 FY'16CLUBHOUSEMeetings and Exp Reimbursement 100$ $100 $0Contractual Services 264,840$ $262,040 $273,501Credit Card Charges 28,020$ $28,860 $28,580Water 4,197$ $4,200 $4,200Sewer 770$ $770 $770Maintenance of Equipment 5,302$ $5,302 $5,444Materials for Bldg. Maint 17,700$ $14,902 $18,050Telephone 4,515$ $4,605 $4,605Advertising 15,000$ $15,000 $15,301Office Supplies 2,000$ $2,000 $2,040Postage and Printing 9,000$ $9,000 $9,180Minor Equipment 5,850$ $5,850 $5,967Janitorial Supplies 2,250$ $3,000 $2,292Electricity 19,000$ $19,602 $19,602Gas 6,610$ $6,480 $6,480Merchandise COG‐$ $80,870 $80,870Handicap Service 9,726$ $9,726 $9,921Inventory Loss 1,000$ $1,000 $0Sales Tax 8,500$ $8,670 $8,670 Clubhouse Sub‐Total $404,380 $481,977 $495,473MAINTENANCEContractual Services 4,978$ $4,975 $5,073Water 60,000$ $64,066 $64,066Fleet PM Service/Fuel 47,513$ $48,938 $20,000Maintenance of Equipment/Parts 3,725$ $9,395 $8,899Minor Equipment/Tools 6,950$ $7,000 $7,089Material to Maintain/Repair 12,700$ $14,000 $7,854Agricultural Materials 23,800$ $24,154 $36,276Chemicals 41,500$ $41,500 $54,330 Maintenance Sub‐Total$201,166 $214,029 $203,587GRAND TOTAL EXPENSE w/o Capital/Debt$1,386,532 $1,521,272 $1,357,750
Attachment CCity City KemperFY15 Budget FY'16 FY'16CAPITAL, DEBT & OTHERKemperSports Management Fee 25,000$ $0 $61,378Capital Equipment 60,000$ $97,000 $97,000Revenue Bond Interest 21,910$ $20,208 $20,208Bond Expense 85,000$ $82,000 $82,000Paying Agents/Bonds 500$ $500 $500Administrative Services 24,120$ $24,844 $24,844 Capital, Debt & Other Sub‐Total $216,530 $224,552 $285,930GRAND TOTAL with Capital/Debt $1,603,062 $1,745,824 $1,643,680TOTAL PROFIT/LOSS‐$33,058‐$297,941‐$129,469
Prelim BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Fund Balance 5/1 279,027$ 272,120$ 239,062$ 167,121$ 107,401$ 68,120$ 16,177$
Revenue
Operating revenue 1,397,836 1,476,404 1,445,957 1,474,876 1,519,122 1,564,696 1,611,637
Interest Income 2,138 2,600 1,926 1,253 1,074 681 243
Total Current Revenue 1,399,974$ 1,479,004$ 1,447,883$ 1,476,130$ 1,520,196$ 1,565,377$ 1,611,880$
Less:
Operations and Maintenance 741,425 829,131 741,304 756,130 771,253 786,678 802,411
Salaries/Benefits 597,885 582,901 780,468 811,687 844,154 877,920 913,037
Adm Serv to City 23,535 24,120 24,844 25,465 26,102 26,754 27,423
Total Operating Expenses 1,362,845$ 1,436,152$ 1,546,616$ 1,593,282$ 1,641,509$ 1,691,352$ 1,742,872$
Net Before Capital & Debt 37,129 42,852 (98,733) (117,152) (121,312) (125,975) (130,992)
Capital Expense 34,670 60,000 97,000 84,000 64,000 75,000 65,000
Debt Service 105,366 106,910 102,208 98,568 96,968 92,968 113,018
Total Capital/Debt Service 140,036 166,910 199,208 182,568 160,968 167,968 178,018
Net after Capital & Debt (102,907) (124,058) (297,941) (299,720) (282,280) (293,943) (309,010)
Recreation Fund Transfer 96,000 91,000 226,000 240,000 243,000 242,000 272,000
Fund Balance 4/30 $272,120 $239,062 $167,121 $107,401 $68,120 $16,177 ($20,833)
Fund Balance Target 209,996$ 221,851$ 217,182$ 221,419$ 228,029$ 234,807$ 241,782$
Over (under) FB Target $62,124 $17,211 ($50,062)($114,019)($159,909)($218,629)($262,615)
Debt service coverage 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Series 2004A bonds were refunded as part of the 2011B refunding issue and mature 12-15-23 (FY24).
Op Revenue increase%5.9%5.6%-2.1%2.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
Op Expense increase % 8.4%5.4%7.7%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
FIVE YEAR FUND BALANCE FORECAST
DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUND
City Managed
9/5/14
Attachment D
Prelim BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Fund Balance 5/1 279,027$ 272,120$ 239,062$ 167,593$ 108,554$ 68,867$ 17,505$
Revenue
Operating revenue 1,397,836 1,476,404 1,512,285 1,542,531 1,588,807 1,636,471 1,685,565
Interest Income 2,138 2,600 1,926 1,257 1,086 689 263
Total Current Revenue 1,399,974$ 1,479,004$ 1,514,211$ 1,543,788$ 1,589,892$ 1,637,159$ 1,685,828$
Less:
Operations and Maintenance 741,425 829,131 808,269 824,434 840,923 857,742 874,896
Salaries/Benefits 597,885 582,901 611,359 611,359 623,586 636,058 648,779
Adm Serv to City 23,535 24,120 24,844 25,465 26,102 26,754 27,423
Total Operating Expenses 1,362,845$ 1,436,152$ 1,444,472$ 1,461,258$ 1,490,611$ 1,520,554$ 1,551,099$
Net Before Capital & Debt 37,129 42,852 69,739 82,529 99,281 116,606 134,729
Capital Expense 34,670 60,000 97,000 84,000 64,000 75,000 65,000
Debt Service 105,366 106,910 102,208 98,568 96,968 92,968 113,018
Total Capital/Debt Service 140,036 166,910 199,208 182,568 160,968 167,968 178,018
Net after Capital & Debt (102,907) (124,058) (129,469) (100,039) (61,687) (51,362) (43,289)
Recreation Fund Transfer 96,000 91,000 58,000 41,000 22,000 - 6,000
Fund Balance 4/30 $272,120 $239,062 $167,593 $108,554 $68,867 $17,505 ($19,784)
Fund Balance Target 209,996$ 221,851$ 227,132$ 231,568$ 238,484$ 245,574$ 252,874$
Over (under) FB Target $62,124 $17,211 ($59,539)($123,014)($169,617)($228,069)($272,658)
Debt service coverage 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Series 2004A bonds were refunded as part of the 2011B refunding issue and mature 12-15-23 (FY24).
Op Revenue increase%5.9%5.6%2.4%2.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
Op Expense increase % 8.4%5.4%0.6%1.2%2.0%2.0%2.0%
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
FIVE YEAR FUND BALANCE FORECAST
DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUND
Kemper Managed
9/5/14
Attachment D
Prelim BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Fund Balance 5/1 279,027$ 272,120$ 239,062$ 167,449$ 108,386$ 68,799$ 16,638$
Revenue
Operating revenue 1,397,836 1,476,404 1,512,285 1,542,531 1,588,807 1,636,471 1,685,565
Interest Income 2,138 2,600 1,926 1,256 1,084 688 250
Total Current Revenue 1,399,974$ 1,479,004$ 1,514,211$ 1,543,787$ 1,589,890$ 1,637,159$ 1,685,815$
Less:
Operations and Maintenance 741,425 829,131 741,304 756,130 771,253 786,678 802,411
Salaries/Benefits 597,885 582,901 780,468 811,687 844,154 877,920 913,037
Adm Serv to City 23,535 24,120 24,844 25,465 26,102 26,754 27,423
Total Operating Expenses 1,362,845$ 1,436,152$ 1,546,616$ 1,593,282$ 1,641,509$ 1,691,352$ 1,742,872$
Net Before Capital & Debt 37,129 42,852 (32,405) (49,495) (51,618) (54,194) (57,057)
Capital Expense 34,670 60,000 97,000 84,000 64,000 75,000 65,000
Debt Service 105,366 106,910 102,208 98,568 96,968 92,968 113,018
Total Capital/Debt Service 140,036 166,910 199,208 182,568 160,968 167,968 178,018
Net after Capital & Debt (102,907) (124,058) (231,613) (232,063) (212,586) (222,162) (235,075)
Recreation Fund Transfer 96,000 91,000 160,000 173,000 173,000 170,000 198,000
Fund Balance 4/30 $272,120 $239,062 $167,449 $108,386 $68,799 $16,638 ($20,437)
Fund Balance Target 209,996$ 221,851$ 227,132$ 231,568$ 238,484$ 245,574$ 252,872$
Over (under) FB Target $62,124 $17,211 ($59,683)($123,182)($169,684)($228,936)($273,309)
Debt service coverage 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Series 2004A bonds were refunded as part of the 2011B refunding issue and mature 12-15-23 (FY24).
Op Revenue increase%5.9%5.6%2.4%2.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
Op Expense increase % 8.4%5.4%7.7%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
FIVE YEAR FUND BALANCE FORECAST
DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUND
Kemper Revenue/City Exp
9/5/14
Attachment D
Prelim BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Fund Balance 5/1 279,027$ 272,120$ 239,062$ 167,265$ 107,569$ 68,188$ 16,044$
Revenue
Operating revenue 1,397,836 1,476,404 1,445,957 1,474,876 1,519,122 1,564,696 1,611,637
Interest Income 2,138 2,600 1,926 1,254 1,076 682 241
Total Current Revenue 1,399,974$ 1,479,004$ 1,447,883$ 1,476,131$ 1,520,198$ 1,565,378$ 1,611,878$
Less:
Operations and Maintenance 741,425 829,131 808,269 824,434 840,923 857,742 874,896
Salaries/Benefits 597,885 582,901 611,359 611,359 623,586 636,058 648,779
Adm Serv to City 23,535 24,120 24,844 25,465 26,102 26,754 27,423
Total Operating Expenses 1,362,845$ 1,436,152$ 1,444,472$ 1,461,258$ 1,490,611$ 1,520,554$ 1,551,099$
Net Before Capital & Debt 37,129 42,852 3,411 14,872 29,587 44,824 60,779
Capital Expense 34,670 60,000 97,000 84,000 64,000 75,000 65,000
Debt Service 105,366 106,910 102,208 98,568 96,968 92,968 113,018
Total Capital/Debt Service 140,036 166,910 199,208 182,568 160,968 167,968 178,018
Net after Capital & Debt (102,907) (124,058) (195,797) (167,696) (131,381) (123,144) (117,239)
Recreation Fund Transfer 96,000 91,000 124,000 108,000 92,000 71,000 80,000
Fund Balance 4/30 $272,120 $239,062 $167,265 $107,569 $68,188 $16,044 ($21,194)
Fund Balance Target 209,996$ 221,851$ 217,182$ 221,420$ 228,030$ 234,807$ 241,782$
Over (under) FB Target $62,124 $17,211 ($49,918)($113,851)($159,842)($218,762)($262,976)
Debt service coverage 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Series 2004A bonds were refunded as part of the 2011B refunding issue and mature 12-15-23 (FY24).
Op Revenue increase%5.9%5.6%-2.1%2.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
Op Expense increase % 8.4%5.4%0.6%1.2%2.0%2.0%2.0%
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
FIVE YEAR FUND BALANCE FORECAST
DEERPATH GOLF COURSE FUND
City Rev/Kemper Exp
9/5/14
Attachment D
(350,000)
(300,000)
(250,000)
(200,000)
(150,000)
(100,000)
(50,000)
-
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Net after Capital and Debt (pre-subsidy)
City Managed Kemper Managed
Kemper Rev/City Exp City Rev/Kemper Exp
Attachment E
Management Options Matrix
1
CITY OPERATION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
PAYMENT City continues to operate all services. The City pays a Management Firm, typically a
fixed fee, plus incentives.
REVENUES All revenues belong to the City. All revenues belong to the City.
FEES & CHARGES Controlled and established by the City
annually.
Recommended by Management Firm and
approved by City annually.
SERVICES & COURSE
CONDITIONS
City determines services and
responsible for conditions.
Expectations set by City. Management Firm
responsible for executing.
STAFFING City is responsible for all staffing and
related expense.
Management Firm provides all staff and is
responsible for related expense. Staff approved by
City.
EQUIPMENT City purchases, maintains, and replaces. City retains responsibility to purchase and pay
repair expense. Firm repairs with its staff.
CAPITAL & DEBT City has total responsibility. City has total responsibility.
Attachment F
Subject: Lakefront Permit Fees for FY16
Presented by: Jeffrey Wait, Superintendent of Special Facilities, 847-810-3930
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is seeking approval of the Lakefront Permit Fees
for FY16. This annual approval is necessary to prepare annual budgets for Lakefront
operations.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is the proposed fee structure (Exhibit #1) for
lakefront permit fees for FY16. Staff is recommending a slight increase to the majority of
permits to offset increased utilities, supplies and personnel expenses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending the following changes to the current fee structure:
A 2.5% increase in resident and non-resident permit fee categories with the
following exceptions.
o Staff recommends no changes to the Nanny and Senior Caregiver Parking
Pass ($85) as well as the Daily Resident Guest and Non-resident Beach
Access Fees ($10).
o FY15 was the final year for a higher increase to the Seasonal and Year-
round Watercraft Permits for Senior as compared to other permits. All
senior permits will reflect a 25% discount off of the resident permit fees.
o No change to the Resident and Non-resident Daily Watercraft Launch Fee
of $38 and $60 respectively.
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.
o Staff recommends not increasing rack and sand watercraft permits. This
will allow more time for our competitor’s fees to bridge the difference
between our fees. Additionally, this would attract more interest in these
permits thereby increasing revenue.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates a positive revenue differential of $2,228 over
FY15 with this increase. All fee increases would go into effect February 1, 2015.
BOARD ACTION:
Approval of the proposed fee structure for FY 16 as presented.
Watercraft Ramp Launch Resident$410 $424 $435 69 $30,015 $446 $11 $30,774 $759Watercraft Ramp Launch 2nd Watercraft$205 $212 $217 9 $1,953 $222 $5 $1,998 $45Watercraft Ramp Launch ½ season$205 $212 $217 0 $0 $222 $5 $0 $0Watercraft Ramp Launch Resident Senior$313 $318 $326 11 $3,586 $335 $9 $3,685 $99Watercraft Ramp Launch 2nd Watercraft / ½ season$156 $159 $163 4 $652 $167 $4 $668 $16Watercraft Ramp Launch Non-Resident$2,601 $2,692 $2,759 1 $2,759 $2,828 $69 $2,828 $69Year Round Compound Storage Resident$1,818 $1,882 $1,929 12 $23,148 $1,977 $48 $23,724 $576Year Round Compound Storage Resident Senior$1,107 $1,235 $1,447 7 $10,129 $1,483 $36 $10,381 $252Year Round Compound Storage Non-Resident$5,474 $5,666 $5,807 0 $0 $5,952 $145 $0 $0Seasonal Compound Storage Resident$1,230 $1,273 $1,305 3 $3,915 $1,338 $33 $4,014 $99Seasonal Compound Storage Resident Senior$806 $865 $979 2 $1,958 $1,004 $25 $2,008 $50Seasonal Compound Storage Non-Resident$4,651 $4,814 $3,915 0 $0 $4,014 $99 $0 $0Year Round Watercraft Rack Storage Resident$668 $540 8 $4,320 $540 $0 $4,320 $0Year Round Watercraft Rack Storage Resident Senior$668 $405 3 $1,215 $405 $0 $1,215 $0Year Round Watercraft Rack Storage Non-Resident$2,004 $1,620 0 $0 $1,620 $0 $0 $0Seasonal Watercraft Rack Resident$410 $410 $315 15 $4,725 $315 $0 $4,725 $0Seasonal Watercraft Rack Resident Senior$313 $313 $236 0 $0 $236 $0 $0 $0Seasonal Watercraft Rack Non-Resident$2,417 $2,417 $945 0 $0 $945 $0 $0 $0Year Round Watercraft Sand Storage Resident$668 1 $668 $668 $0 $668 $0Year Round Watercraft Sand Storage Resident Senior$501 0 $0 $501 $0 $0 $0Year Round Watercraft Sand Storage Nonresident$2,004 0 $0 $2,004 $0 $0 $0Seasonal Watercraft Sand Storage Resident$410 5 $2,050 $410 $0 $2,050 $0Seasonal Watercraft Sand Storage Resident Senior$308 0 $0 $308 $0 $0 $0Seasonal Watercraft Sand Storage Nonresident$1,230 0 $0 $1,230 $0 $0 $0South Beach Parking Permit Resident $119 $123 $126 30 $3,780 $129 $3 $3,870 $90South Beach Parking Permit Res Senior $89 $92 $94 28 $2,632 $97 $3 $2,716 $84South Beach Parking Permit Non-Res $1,460 $1,511 $1,549 0 $0 $1,588 $39 $0 $0South Beach Parking Permit Empl/Retiree$85 $88 $84 1 $84 $86 $2 $86 $2Extra Vehicle Decal Resident - Center Aisle$119 $123 $126 24 $3,024 $129 $3 $3,096 $72Extra Vehicle Decal Resident Senior- Center Aisle$89 $92 $94 5 $470 $97 $3 $485 $15Extra Vehicle Decal Non-resident - Center Aisle$1,460 $1,511 $1,549 0 $0 $1,588 $39 $0 $0Daily Boat Launch$37 $38 $38 64 $2,432 $38 $0 $2,432 $0Daily Boat Launch Non-resident$0 $60 $60 3 $180 $60 $0 $180 $0Resident Guest Daily Parking Pass$10 $10 $10 51 $510 $10 $0 $510 $0Nanny Parking Pass$85 $85 $85 0 $0 $85 $0 $0 $0Caregiver Parking Pass$85 $85 $85 31 $2,635 $85 $0 $2,635 $0Non-resident beach fee weekend/holiday$10 $10 $10 705 $7,050 $10 $0 $7,050 $0$113,890 $116,118 $2,228FY2016 w/ 2.5% IncreaseFY2016 RevenueFY15 RevenueFY2014 FY2015Lakefront Permit Fees Revenue GrowthLAKE FOREST PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENTIncremental DifferencePermits SoldFY2013Difference
CITY RESIDENT WEEKDAY RESIDENT WEEKEND NON‐RESIDENT WEEKDAY NON‐RESIDENT
WEEKEND RESTRICTIONS
Lake Forest $38 $38 $60 N/A No NR daily launch on weekends
or holidays.
Highland Park concrete ramp.$15 $35 $30 $70
Weekend pass includes Sat & Sun
if bought Sat, but same price if
bought Sunday.
Sand Ramp, non‐motorized $10 $20 $20 $40 For small sailboats
Kayak Launch Free Before 3PM, $10. After
3PM, free $20 $20
Evanston N/A N/A N/A N/A NO DAILY LAUNCH.
Wilmette N/A N/A N/A N/A
A trailer in fee is offered to
customers who wish to launch on
the beach adjacent to the "sailing
beach", but this fee does not
allow for the use of the sailing
beach. The fee includes a
"Lakefront ParkingDecal".
.R = $ 148. NR = $ 294.
Winnetka see below. see below. see below. see below. See below
Pier $15 $35 $30 $70 N/A
Beach $5 $15 $10 $30 N/A
Glencoe N/A N/A N/A N/A
Do not allow daily launches of any
kind. "If you would like to use
your boat here, you have to store
it here in the summer."
Waukegan $20 $20 $20 $20 N/A
NORTH SHORE DAILY LAUNCHING RATE COMPARISON
CITY RES NR RES NR RES NR
Evanston $260 $320 $360 $490 $250 $500
Wilmette $433 $614 $581 $772 N/A N/A
Winnetka $240 $360 $265 $375 $325 $750
Glencoe $400 $610 $600 $855 N/A N/A
Highland Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lake Bluff $270 $270 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Waukegan N/A N/A N/A N/A $200 $200
Seasonal COMPOUND COMPOUND
LAKE FOREST $410 $2,417 $1,273 $4,814 $424 $2,692
Year Round COMPOUND COMPOUND
LAKE FOREST $503 N/A $1,882 $5,666 N/A N/A
CITY RES NR RES NR RES NR
Evanston $260 $320 $360 $490 $250 $500
Wilmette $451 $660 $576 $816 N/A N/A
Winnetka $240 $360 $265 $375 $400 $800
Glencoe $315 $420 $509 $662 N/A N/A
Highland Park $189 $377 COMPOUND COMPOUND $389 $778
Sailboat 18' $435 $635
Powerboat / PWC $636 $954
Lake Bluff $415 $415 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Waukegan N/A N/A N/A N/A $220 $220
Seasonal
LAKE FOREST $315 $945 $410 $1,230 $435 $2,759
COMPOUND COMPOUND
$1,305 $3,915
Year Round
LAKE FOREST $540 $1,620 $668 $2,004 N/A N/A
COMPOUND COMPOUND
$1,929 $5,807
RACK SAND RAMP
2014
North Shore Seasonal and Year Round Launching Comparison
2013
RACK SAND RAMP
SUBJECT: Lake Forest Fitness Center Recommended Fees for FY16
PRESENTED BY: Jeff Wait, Superintendent of Special Facilities, 847-810-3930
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is seeking approval of the Fitness Center’s FY16
fees. This annual approval is necessary to prepare annual budgets for the Fitness
Center.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is the proposed fee structure for fitness center
membership types for FY16 as well as a comparison of the local competition rates
versus the City’s rates. As the comparative chart, Exhibit #1, indicates, the proposed
increase keeps our resident rate slightly below the resident rate of our main
competition, Lake Bluff, and well below the private clubs such as Lake Forest Health &
Fitness and Lifetime Athletic. Staff is recommending this increase to keep pace with
increased utilities, supplies and personnel expenses.
The Fitness Center’s memberships fluctuate considerably throughout the year. With
varying anniversary dates, extensions due to medical reason or “holds” for snow birds,
this creates a difficulty in determining annual membership totals. However, taking a
conservative approach, staff anticipates a 2% (24 new memberships) increase in
membership from its current membership total. This would bring the membership total to
1,201.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending the following:
Increase all resident and non-resident membership fees by 2.5%, Exhibit #3, with
the exception of the Senior Individual and Senior Couple. All senior membership
fees will reflect a 25% discount that seniors receive for other programs and
services offered within the Department.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff anticipates a positive revenue differential of $14,302, Exhibit #2, over FY15 due to
increase in membership rates. All fees will become effective May 1, 2015
BOARD ACTION:
Approval of the proposed fee structure for FY16 as presented.
Fitness Center Individual Couple Family SeniorSenior CoupleStudent MatineeLimited hours 10am‐4pmOther feesPark District of Highland Park Resident$564 $972 $1,199 $480 $912 $312 N/A $312Non‐resident$684 $1,212 $1,380 $600 $1,104 $360 N/A $432Month to Month Membership $59 Residents and $69 Non‐ResidentsNo infoNR rates have decreased from previous yearLake Bluff PDAvailable for 2014Resident$380 $741 $1,091 $332 $560 n/a N/A$50 Enrollment FeeNon‐resident$456 $889 $1,309 $386 $672 n/a N/ALake Forest Health & Fitness$1,344 $2,328 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnrollment $100 per personLifeTime Atheltic$1,224 $2,256 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnroll ‐ $99 Admin ‐ $75LA Fitness$300 ‐ $420 per yearN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$99 ‐ $349 depending on membership optionMemberships on hold for general public. $450 N/A $975 $225 $500 N/A N/ASame pricing listed as previous year$350 $750FAN Club members$225 $500Alumni members/SeniorsCity of Lake ForestEnrollment feeResident$362 $565 $791 $271 $424 $276 $182$50Non‐resident$434 $679 $948 $325 $509 $331 $217$50City of Lake ForestEnrollment feeProposed FY15Resident$371 $579 $811 $278 $434 $283 $187$50Non‐resident$445 $696 $972 $334 $522 $339 $222$50FITNESS CENTER MEMBERSHIP COMPARISON ‐ FY16Exhibit # 1Lake Forest College
Individual resident rate $362 $371 217 $78,554 $80,518 $1,964
Individual resident rate - 6 months $249 $255 5 $1,245 $1,276 $31
Individual resident rate - 3 months $186 $191 38 $7,068 $7,245 $177
Individual non-resident rate $434 $445 15 $6,510 $6,673 $163
Individual non-resident rate - 6 months $322 $330 0 $0 $0 $0
Individual non-resident rate - 3 months $222 $228 15 $3,330 $3,413 $83
Couple resident rate $565 $579 251 $141,815 $145,360 $3,545
Couple resident rate - 6 months $452 $463 0 $0 $0 $0
Couple resident rate - 3 month $277 $284 0 $0 $0 $0
Couple non-resident rate $679 $696 8 $5,432 $5,568 $136
Couple non-resident rate - 6 months $567 $581 0 $0 $0 $0
Couple non-resident rate - 3 months $332 $340 0 $0 $0 $0
Family resident rate $791 $811 272 $215,152 $220,531 $5,379
Family resident rate - 6 months $679 $696 0 $0 $0 $0
Family resident rate - 3 months $366 $375 0 $0 $0 $0
Family non-resident rate $948 $972 1 $948 $972 $24
Family non-resident rate - 6 months $836 $857 0 $0 $0 $0
Family non-resident rate - 3 months $441 $452 0 $0 $0 $0
Senior resident rate $272 $278 85 $23,120 $23,654 $534
Senior resident rate - 6 months $187 $191 5 $935 $957 $22
Senior resident rate - 3 months $136 $143 0 $0 $0 $0
Senior non-resident rate $325 $334 5 $1,625 $1,668 $43
Senior non-resident rate - 6 months $241 $248 2 $482 $495 $13
Senior non-resident rate - 3 months $167 $171 0 $0 $0 $0
Senior couple resident rate $423 $434 97 $41,031 $42,131 $1,100
Senior couple resident rate - 6 months $339 $347 0 $0 $0 $0
Senior couple resident rate - 3 months $208 $213 0 $0 $0 $0
Senior couple non-resident rate $509 $522 5 $2,545 $2,610 $65
Senior couple non-resident rate - 6 months $425 $436 0 $0 $0 $0
Senior couple non-resident rate - 3 months $249 $255 0 $0 $0 $0
Student resident rate $276 $283 40 $11,040 $11,316 $276
Student non-resident rate $331 $339 2 $662 $679 $17
Matinee resident rate $182 $187 89 $16,198 $16,603 $405
Matinee non-resident rate $217 $222 11 $2,387 $2,447 $60
All-inclusive - Member (Addl' to the base)$279 $286 38 $10,602 $10,867 $265
All-inclusive - Non-member (Addl' to the base)$620 $636 0 $0 $0 $0
1201 $570,681 $584,983 $14,302
New member enrollment fee - resident $50
New member enrollment fee - non-resident $50
FY2016
Memberships
(2 year average)
FY2015
Revenue
Proposed
FY2016 @ 2.5%
FY2016
Revenue @ 2.5%
Exhibit #2 - Revenue Growth
LAKE FOREST PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Fitness Membership Fees
Incremental
difference @ 2.5%
TOTAL
FY 2015
FY15FY15FY152%2.5%3%2%2.5%3%$362 $369 $371 $373 $565 $576 $579 $582 $272 $277 $278 $280resident$434 $443 $445 $447 $679 $693 $696 $699 $325 $332 $334 $335non‐resident6‐Month$249 $254 $255 $256 $452 $461 $463 $466 $187 $190 $191 $192resident$322 $328 $330 $332 $567 $578 $581 $584 $241 $246 $248 $249non‐resident3‐Month$186 $190 $191 $192 $277 $283 $284 $285 $136 $142 $143 $144resident$222 $226 $228 $229 $324 $330 $332 $334 $167 $170 $171 $171non‐residentFY15FY15FY152%2.5%3%2%2.5%3%2%2.5%3%$791 $807 $811 $815 $276 $282 $283 $284 $182 $187 $187 $187resident$948 $967 $972 $976 $331 $338 $339 $341 $217 $221 $222 $224non‐resident6‐Month$679 $693 $696 $699 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Aresident$836 $853 $857 $861 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Anon‐resident3‐Month$366 $373 $375 $377 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$441 $450 $452 $454 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AFY15FY15FY16$423 $432 $434 $436resident Member$279 $286 2.5%$509 $519 $522 $525non‐resident Non‐Member$620 $636 2.5%6‐Month$339 $346 $347 $349resident$425 $434 $436 $438non‐resident3‐Month$208 $212 $213 $214resident$249 $248 $249 $250non‐resident$50$50Annual PaymentFamily Annual PaymentFY16FY16All Access PassFY16No Change for FY16Senior Couple LAKE FOREST FITNESS CENTERExhibit #3 ‐ Membership Rate AnalysisMatineenon‐residentCoupleIndividualSeniorresidentFY16Enrollment FeeAnnual PaymentFY16FY16Student25% discount off of Individaul25% discount off of CoupleFY16
SUBJECT: Emerald Ash Borer Update
PRESENTED BY: Peter Gordon, City Forester (847-810-3563)
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The following is an overview of the 2014 City of Lake
Forest Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) program and is intended for informational purposes
only. There is no action needed at this time.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The objective of the EAB plan is to take a proactive,
methodical, and measured approach to dealing with EAB in Lake Forest while
attempting to minimize the impact of tree loss. While much of the time has been spent
managing the 7,227 inventoried ash trees on city owned properties including parkways,
parks, cemetery and golf course, Forestry has also spent a considerable amount of time
identifying private property ash trees that pose a threat to the public health or safety or
public properties. As forecasted, EAB is poised to deplete Lake Forest’s untreated ash
tree population within 5-7 years. By utilizing the combination of treatment, removal and
re-greening efforts outlined in the City’s EAB Plan, the City is effectively responding to
this difficult environmental issue.
Project FY ‘15 Budget YTD Year-End Estimates
EAB Treatments
Municipal Partnering
$35,000 $19,947
210 trees
$19,947
210 trees
EAB Removals $200,000
$88,148
353 Contractual
225 City
$199,870
869 Contractual
600 City
Tree Replacement
Municipal Partnering
$100,000 $11,384
367trees
$165,000*
567trees
* $65,000 was rolled over from FY ‘14
Treatment of parkway trees - EAB has spread quickly. Trees that have not been
chemically treated have likely declined to a level where treatment is no longer a viable
option. “Tree Age,” a trunk injected insecticide, has proven to have the best efficacy in
protecting ash trees against EAB and has been utilized in select areas or on select trees
that provide a significant contribution to the community. Applied every two years,
Tree-Age has also aided in the incremental removal of ash trees, reducing the
immediate financial burden associated with tree removals. Based on current
observations, the Forestry section has:
2
1. Identified approximately 650 trees to treat with Tree-Age
a. FY ’14 – 440 trees treated
b. FY ’15 – 210 trees treated
2. The City will continue to leverage consortium pricing to treat trees
3. The Legacy Tree Project, a five year grant that treated 185 trees with a soil-
injected insecticide, has just been completed. The results have been
favorable but due to the higher cost of the treatment the City has opted to
treat these Ash trees with Tree-Age
4. Based on current pricing, treatment costs will surpass removal and
replacement costs in 10 years.
a. Treatment is indefinite and therefore not considered a long-term
strategy.
Tree removals - Ash tree surveys to identify dead and dying ash trees are conducted
during the months of June, July and August by part-time Forestry staff. This year has
seen exponential growth in infested Ash trees on both public and private properties.
Since June 9, the City has identified:
1,780 ash trees on public property
o 573 ash trees tagged for removal on main roads, i.e., Deerpath,
Greenbay and Sheridan roads
o 1172 ash trees tagged for removal on side streets
o 35 ash trees tagged in parking lots
o 145 ash trees were removed from West Park and Northcroft Park
147 ash trees on IDOT-owned property:
o 142 Waukegan Road (Route 43)
o 5 Townline Road (Route 60)
3,702 ash trees have been identified on private property:
o These trees pose a threat to the public health or safety or public
properties
Although more money was allocated in the FY ‘15 CIP budget for ash tree removals, the
reality is removals are far outpacing the monies available. Removing trees that are
hazardous and dead will continue to be the main focus, followed by removing trees on
main roads and then side streets. In order to reduce contractual costs, the Forestry
section is attempting to remove 600 infested ash trees a year.
While the immediate response may be to allocate more money to ash tree removals,
staff recommends maintaining the current level of funding for the next three years;
allowing for a much more managed approach that also results in a potential savings of
over $150,000, if removals continue in-house. Should the community or Council wish to
accelerate the removals, this is feasible but will accelerate costs. This will be brought to
Council for discussion at the October CIP meeting.
3
Tagging of residential trees has proven to be one of the biggest challenges for the
Forestry section. With over 3,700 private ash trees posing a potential hazard, two part-
time employees cannot physically tag all the trees identified. As a result, Forestry met
with the City Attorney to discuss potential options. It was determined that letters would
be sent to each homeowner whose infested ash tree(s) pose a threat to the public
health or safety or public properties by regular mail and certified mail. The letters will
reference the approximate number of trees and their location and requests that their
timely removal take place. The letter also serves as an acknowledgement that if a
tree(s) were to fall the homeowners would be liable.
Re-greening efforts - Although reforestation is essential for maintaining the community
character of our neighborhoods and emphasizing our continued commitment to the
environment, the City has found it is not feasible to replant every ash tree removed due
to EAB. In many cases, it is best to replant fewer trees due to other mature growth
nearby, sight lines, updated underground infrastructure (i.e., electric, cable, fiber
optics), etc. It is also important to note that while the City’s EAB Management Plan may
call for a diversity of replacement trees, being able to locate and purchase them in
large quantities has become challenging as more and more communities are
diversifying their urban forests. Fortunately, this year, the City was able to plant over 38
species of trees throughout the community. The Forestry section:
1. Planted 367 trees spring of 2014
2. Scheduled to plant 200 trees in fall of 2014
Based on current projections, ash tree replacement would continue through FY ‘21,
replacing approximately 400 trees per year. This does not take in account other tree
species that may need to be removed and replaced as a result of other insects,
disease or natural causes.
Community outreach –
1. The City completed a city-wide mailing of its Native Tree Guide.
2. On May 17, 2014 the City and Lake Forest Open Lands partnered in a native tree
and plant sale at Mellody Nature Preserve. All trees were sold at a discounted
price with a portion of the proceeds going to plant trees and re-green our open
spaces.
3. On October 18, 2014 the City and Lake Forest Open Lands will be hosting
another native tree sale at Mellody Nature Preserve from 8am to 1pm. Over 13
native tree species will be offered.
PARK BOARD ACTION: No action is being sought at this time. This update was for
informational purposes only.
9/10/2014
1
The Parks and Recreation Staff
has long realized that
Lake Forest is a special place to live.
In our own unique way,
The Lake Forest Parks and Recreation
Department endeavors to:
•provide fun opportunities
•develop multi generational events
•contribute to the character of the community.
9/10/2014
2
The Parks and Recreation Department
strives to provide
Lake Forest residents with:
•family style entertainment
•a variety of special events
•community wide holiday activities.
Strengthening Social Fabric
9/10/2014
3
January
Frost Fest
February
Camp Preview Day
March
Reptile Rampage
2 Ball
Easter Egg Hunt
April
Easter Bunny Baskets
Smelt-O-Rama
May
Dance Academy Recitals
Kinderhaven Art Show
Kindershop
June
Fred Jackson Golf Classic
Concerts in the Square
Junior Olympics Regatta
July
Festival & Fireworks
Movie at the Beach
Concerts in the Square
Annual Car Show
August
Lake Forest Day 5K Run Lake Forest Day Parade
LFC Welcome Party
September
Family Fun Camp-out
Library Book Sale
October
Croctoberfest
Halloween Tricks & Treats
Halloween Regatta
November
Hospital Holiday Boutique
December
Stirling Holiday Art Sale
Claus’s Coach
Santa Calls & Visits
Extrava-Dance-A
The Parks and Recreation Department
builds community through local
sponsorships:
•Lake Forest Bank & Trust
•L3 Capital
•Forest Orthodontics & Pediatric Dentistry
Forest Orthodontics
& Pediatric Dentistry
9/10/2014
4
EASTER EGG HUNT
Forest Orthodontics
& Pediatric Dentistry
CONCERTS IN THE SQUARE
9/10/2014
5
LIBIDO FUNK CIRCUS
Video will be shown
HALLOWEEN TRICKS & TREATS
Forest Orthodontics
& Pediatric Dentistry
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31 – 5:00-8:00 PM
9/10/2014
6
QUESTIONS