Village of Bartlett Committee of the Whole met May 2.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
President Wallace called the Committee of the Whole meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
Present: Chairmen Camerer, Carbonaro, Hopkins, Reinke, and President Wallace
Absent: Chairman Deyne
Also Present: Acting Village Administrator Paula Schumacher, Assistant to the Village Administrator Scott Skrycki, Acting Finance Director Todd Dowden, Community Development Director Jim Plonczynski, Director of Public Works Dan Dinges, Public Works Engineer Bob Allen, Building Director Brian Goralski, Head Golf Professional Phil Lenz, Police Chief Patrick Ullrich, Deputy Chief Geoff Pretkelis, Deputy Chief Chuck Snider, Village Attorney Bryan Mraz and Village Clerk Lorna Giless.
Finance & Golf Committee:
1. 2007 GO Bonds Refunding
President Wallace stated that staff has requested that this item be postponed until the next meeting.
Acting Village Administrator Paula Schumacher stated that they needed to work through some of the language in the bond ordinances. They found some conflicting language between our existing bond ordinance from 2007 compared to the one under consideration tonight.
2. General Fund Revenue
Chairman Hopkins stated that the Board asked staff to look at different revenue sources and he asked the Acting Finance Director to explain.
Ms. Schumacher stated that when the Board had their strategic planning session, the Board was interested in discussing a food and beverage tax. When they moved through the budget process they were also charged with finding a way to stabilize the budget in terms of not using reserve funds to balance and find a more sustainable revenue source. She asked Todd Dowden to explain his findings.
Acting Finance Director Todd Dowden stated that when they put the budget together for this year, they left several positions open to save some money. The approved budget will use some general fund balance - a little over $400,000 and left the property tax levy flat. The Village has had a decrease in income taxes due to the issues at the State level. He presented the following options that would be available to them as a home rule municipality. There was some previous discussion on the food and beverage tax and one of the downsides is that it is administrated by the Village. That means the Village would make the rules and create the forms. The businesses would submit the forms and pay the tax directly to the Village and the Village would be required to enforce that and to make sure it is in compliance throughout. There would be costs associated with that.
There is also a home rule sales tax option. The chart below represents a comparison of surrounding towns and their home rule sales tax rate:
Bartlett; Elgin; Hanover Park; Streamwood; Carol Stream; West Chicago; Bloomingdale:
Local Sales Tax- 0%; 1.25%; 0.75%; 1%; 0.75%; 0.75%; 0.50%
Food & Bev Tax- 0%; 3%; 3%; 2%; 0%; 0%; 0%
He stated that Bartlett does not have any home rule sales tax right now and all of the towns around us do. He didn’t think it would put us at a disadvantage. Part of the home rule sales tax is that it will be on all the businesses in town but does not apply to food and qualifying drugs, it is only on general merchandise. This tax can only be implemented twice per year, July 1 and January 1. We missed the July 1 deadline at this point and the next deadline would be October to be implemented on January 1, 2018 if that is an option the Board wishes to consider.
He spoke about adjusting the fees such as parking tickets, etc. As far as revenue, as a home rule municipality, he believed a good option is for a home rule sales tax.
Chairman Hopkins admired his presentation and agreed that the local sales tax would be their best route to generate some revenue versus the food and beverage tax. Every community around us has a local sales tax.
President Wallace stated that 0.25% is equivalent to $400,000. It would shore her up the gap that we took out of the General Fund.
Mr. Dowden stated “yes”, as far as what we are using this year. They did leave several positions open but he would say, to keep up with the basics, $400,000 would help but he didn’t think it would be the full amount needed to keep up.
Chairman Hopkins stated that a local sales tax is much better than raising property taxes.
President Wallace stated that it is a better alternative than the utility tax.
Chairman Hopkins asked if they had 0.50% of local sales tax, could they eliminate the utility tax and still have a surplus?
Mr. Dowden stated that he did not think so. It would be about the same as the positions that are left open and using the fund balance. The utility taxes are at $750,000 right now.
Chairman Reinke stated that if they were to approve the local sales tax and the food and beverage tax, would the Village fill those positions? We are not doing this to fill positions, we are dealing with this to address structural issues in the budget.
Ms. Schumacher stated that they look at budget positions every year. They look at staffing rates and what can be managed. This is looking at the structural deficits that we had to shore up the opportunity to have a balanced budget without digging into unsustainable revenue. We are not doing this to fill positions, we are doing this to stabilize the budget.
Chairman Reinke asked about the administrative burden on the Village to do a food and beverage tax. Would we need to hire additional staff or increase the hours of a staff person? What are the transactional costs?
Mr. Dowden stated that they have not administered their own tax since 2001 or 2002 when the telecommunications tax was sent into the Village and they administered it. With telecommunications, there are little companies all over the place and they would get checks for less than $5 every month. It is a burden as far as keeping all that straight. Another part of it is the compliance and enforcement issue and making sure everyone is complying.
Chairman Camerer asked how the businesses are affected negatively in this case? They obviously have a burden to fill out forms.
Mr. Dowden stated that the food and beverage tax would increase what their customer’s paid by the percentage of the tax. Some of the surrounding towns have this tax – about 50%. He didn’t know if the competition factor would be there. Mr. Dowden stated that he didn’t think it would affect their customer base as much, it would just be the extra work for the businesses.
Chairman Reinke asked if most points of sale would be able to handle the addition of these taxes? Would you be able to program it into your point-of-sale devices?
Mr. Dowden stated that the home rule sales tax would just put in the total rate that they collect, e.g., instead of 7% in DuPage County they would put in 7.5% and send it all into the State. The food and beverage tax would have to be kept separately.
President Wallace stated that it is much simpler on the business as well as the Village to do a local sales tax over a food and beverage tax. There is no administration, we just collect a check. The business just tweaks what they charge for sales tax.
President Wallace stated that they also requested some feedback on the gaming terminal fee.
Ms. Schumacher stated that the terminal fee is currently $25. She stated that the surrounding communities range between $50-$500. Some of our neighbors looked at that higher terminal fee as a deterrent to putting in machines. We should probably be in the mid-range between $50 and $100 per terminal. Our businesses are finding this to be a mass revenue source for them. Raising the terminal fee will not be a particular burden.
Attorney Mraz stated that this issue was raised some time ago and he thought they should leave the fee where it was at the time. He was talking to a town that had $1,000 terminal fee and that was challenged in court in a dispute. The municipality being sued over the $1,000 fee won in the trial court in early 2015 and that decision in favor of the municipality was upheld in the Appellate Court at the end of 2015. In late 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court denied review of that case so in essence it upheld the $1,000 terminal license fee. However, after that, the Illinois Supreme Court, on a different issue, in looking at the jurisdiction of the Illinois Gaming Board between companies that install and service gaming terminals, the Supreme Court held that the Gaming Board has exclusive jurisdiction over gaming and terminals. While that case was not a dispute between gaming terminal operators and municipalities, it may signal that municipalities shouldn’t take great comfort in the Appellate Court’s decision that upheld the $1000 terminal fee. The Appellate Court decision is more on point and is distinguishable from the Illinois Supreme Court case. The long and short of it is that the Village could be safe in raising terminal fees in the mid-range (between $250-$500). He stated that was his opinion from an authority perspective, not on what is a good business decision and what is not.
Ms. Schumacher stated that they are looking at all department fees to see whether they are high or low. Each department has been tasked to look at their fees and the Internal Disruption Committee is helping her look through them. She stated that they will put those figures together and look at them as a whole.
President Wallace suggested putting this on a future Committee meeting.
Police & Health Committee:
1. New Police Building Parking Lot
Chairman Carbonaro asked the community development director to summarize.
Community Development Director Jim Plonczynski stated that this is the 2nd time the Board has seen the police facility and parking lot. They are seeking approval of rezoning of the parking lot on the west side of the street, on Oak Avenue. This property was the subject of a rezoning Public Hearing and there is a site plan review for the parking lot. There is also a site plan amendment for the new police building, amending the existing site plan for the municipal complex and variations for both projects. The 10 foot reduction from the 25 foot rear yard along Oak for the parking lot; a 6 foot high fence to be located in the front yard along Oak. There is also a 20 foot reduction in the 25 foot side yard along the south property line for the parking lot and a 17 foot reduction in the 25 foot side yard of the north property line; a 10.5 foot reduction for the 30 foot rear yard; a 10 foot reduction in the new parking lot along Oak to allow for parking in the front yard and eliminating of the required curb planting islands. Both the variances and the Public Hearings were seen and heard in front of the Zoning Board on April 6 and they recommended approval of the variances. The Plan Commission recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan, amended site plan on April 13.
Chairman Reinke stated that one of the things he is most concerned with are the neighbors. He knew that notices were sent and a few neighbors appeared at the meetings to make some comments. He asked if they were talking with the neighbors?
Ms. Schumacher stated that FQC, the Construction Management firm on the project, did walk the neighborhood and they will continue to do that throughout the process to give the neighbors a point of contact.
Chairman Hopkins asked if any neighbors had voiced any concerns.
Mr. Plonczynski stated “yes”, they are noted in the Plan Commission minutes. He stated that one of the neighbors is in the audience tonight and they expressed concern about the future development of the parking and the proximity of the police department to their residence. He talked about the landscape plan and stated that the parameters of the parking lot will be fenced. This area must be secured so there is a gate that will go up in the front.
Chairman Reinke asked about light pollution.
Mr. Plonczynski stated that they do have dimming lights when there is no activity in the parking lot. He spoke about having light foot candles that dim to about 40% light level with no activity. They are dark sky fixtures.
Mark Bushhouse from Wlliams Architects stated that the west side of the parking lot will be primarily for personal vehicles and that will keep the sound of doors closing and headlights to a minimum.
Mark Carter, 234 S. Oak Avenue-
Mr. Carter stated that his main concern is his property value and what that parking lot is going to do to the property value and potential resale value of his house. He stated that the previous owner of the lot had a hard time selling it because it was directly across the street from the driveway of the police department. The requested variances going from 25 feet to 5 feet does not allow for a lot of landscaping.
Mr. Plonczynski stated that the purpose for asking for the variance is that there is a need for the parking of the vehicles for the police officers and to maximize the use of the lot.
Mr. Carter asked about the municipal lot by Banbury Fair which is hardly ever full. He felt that putting a parking lot between two residential houses was ridiculous.
Mr. Plonczynski stated that the new building is going to go where the current parking lot is and they are making additional parking across the street. The parking lot at the corner is used for business purposes.
Mr. Carter asked if there was any research done regarding the potential loss to the property values?
Mr. Plonczynski stated that they have not done property value research, but in his opinion it will be sufficiently screened and landscaped.
Chairman Reinke stated that if additional land becomes available for parking, would they be able to shrink the size of the parking area on this lot.
Mr. Plonczynski stated that theoretically if you were to acquire enough land, they could create a bigger setback on the parking spaces.
Chairman Hopkins stated that we currently have officers parking their vehicles on the street and this is going to alleviate that.
Mr. Plonczynski stated that it is now ready to move on to the Village Board for a final vote.
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman Camerer moved to adjourn the regular Committee of the Whole meeting and that motion was seconded by Chairman Hopkins.
Roll Call Vote to Adjourn
Ayes: Chairmen Camerer, Carbonaro, Hopkins, Reinke
Nays: None
Absent: Trustee Deyne
Motion Carried
The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
http://www.village.bartlett.il.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=4978
Alerts Sign-up