City Council

GENEVA CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 4, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The April 4, 2016 meeting of the Geneva City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Mayor Kevin Burns. Aldermen present: Mike Bruno, Tara Burghart, Don Cummings, Dean Kilburg, Craig Maladra, Richard Marks, Jim Radecki, Mary Seno, Tom Simonian, Ron Singer. Aldermen absent: None. Also attending: City Atty. Charles Radovich, Asst. City Administrator/Dir. of Administrative Services Stephanie Dawkins, Public Works Director Richard Babica, Economic Development Director Cathleen Tymoszenko, Community Development Director David DeGroot, Police Chief Steve Mexin, Police Cmdr. Eric Passarelli, Police Cmdr. Julie Nash, Finance Manager Rita Kruse, Fire Chief Steve Olson, Fire Lt. Michael Antenore, Asst. Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer Brian Schiber, Water & Sewer Division Superintendent Bob VanGyseghem. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SPECIAL ITEMS AND PRESENTATIONS Public Hearing on FY2016-17 Budget Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Bruno to open the Public Hearing. Roll call: AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED The Public Hearing was opened at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Kevin Burns called for comments from the public. John Schultz, 712 East Side Dr., stated that he was a former paid-on-call member of the Geneva Fire Dept. and a retired full-time firefighter. He called the current level of service provided by city employees “fantastic”. He said that the current collective bargaining unit of the Fire Dept., when necessary economically, has made concessions regarding wages and benefits. He cited the dedication and professionalism of the Fire Dept. personnel, saying they deserve a fair wage and benefits for themselves and their families, and that wages and benefits should remain as they currently stand. Hearing no further comments from the public, Mayor Burns called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Moved by Ald. Kilburg, seconded by Ald. Marks to close the Public Hearing. Roll call: AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED The Public Hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m. Retirement Announcement of Fire Chief Steve Olson Inviting Chief Olson to the podium. Mayor Burns asked him to recount some of his past experiences with the Fire Dept. and reveal his future plans after retirement. Chief Olson paid tribute to the many fire personnel he has worked with, referencing their outstanding performance and contributions to the department. He cited his pride in those firefighters who began with the Geneva Fire Dept. and later went on to rise in the ranks with other fire departments and emergency agencies. He also talked of those who served as his Geneva City Council Meeting April 4, 2016 1461 mentors over his career. Several Council members expressed their appreciation for Chief Olson’s service. He received a standing ovation. Appointment of Michael Antenore to Fire Chief Effective August 8, 2016 Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Seno to approve the appointment of Michael Antenore to Fire Chief effective Aug. 8, 2016. AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Lt. Antenore thanked the Council and others for their support and said he was excited and looking forward to the challenges of his new position. He received a round of applause. APWA Chicago Chapter “Project of the Year” Award Recognition for Third Street Commuter Parking Deck Expansion Project. Mayor Burns presented a plaque to Asst. Dir. Schiber, who said the parking deck expansion project now becomes eligible for the APWA national award. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Mayor Burns noted that the Closed Session on the purchase, sale or lease of property for the public use is removed from the agenda. OMNIBUS AGENDA All items listed on the Omnibus Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the Omnibus (Consent) Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda. Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Bruno to approve the Omnibus Agenda as presented. Roll call: AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED APPROVE MINUTES OF THE LAST REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 2016 Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Bruno to approve motion as presented. Approved by unanimous roll call vote. (Omnibus Agenda). MOTION CARRIED APPROVE REPORTS Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Bruno to approve motion as presented. Approved by unanimous roll call vote. (Omnibus Agenda). MOTION CARRIED COUNCIL COMMITTEES Committee of the Whole April 14 at 7 p.m. OTHER ITEMS AND CORRESPONDENCE None Geneva City Council Meeting April 4, 2016 1462 MUNICIPAL BILLS FOR PAYMENT The following bills were presented for payment: General Fund $102,758.75 Cultural Arts Fund 2,523.21 Tourism Fund 28.90 Tri‐Com Fund 165,427.14 SSA #1 176.63 TIF #2 10,991.28 Electric 154,242.54 Water/Wastewater 51,980.70 Refuse 88.13 Commuter Parking 3,728.85 Group Dental 6,504.00 Utility Refunds 784.63 __________ Total Funds $499,234.76 Moved by Ald. Bruno, seconded by Ald. Marks that the bills be approved and vouchers prepared. Roll call: AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ITEMS OF BUSINESS Resolution 2016-20 Adopting FY2016-17 General Fund, Electric, Water/Wastewater, Capital, Miscellaneous, Tri-Com Budgets; and Classification and Compensation Plan Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Bruno to approve Res. 2016-20 adopting the FY2016-17 General Fund, Electric, Water/Wastewater, Capital, Miscellaneous, Tri-Com Budgets; and Classification and Compensation Plan. Ald. Simonian read a letter (Exhibit A) that he sent to all city department heads. He also read two signed letters (Exhibit B) he received from Geneva citizens, noting that he is not reading letters aloud that commented on specific Council members. He requested that any city employees with concerns regarding his comments should contact him directly. Ald. Simonian then read his response (Exhibit C) to comments made by Mayor Burns at the March 21 Council meeting, which were, in turn, responses to comments made by Ald. Simonian at the March 14 Committee of the Whole meeting. Ald. Bruno apologized for reading an anonymous letter regarding the budget at last week’s COW meeting, which made reference to a specific Council member. Responding to Ald. Simonian’s comments, Ald. Maladra felt some of the comments touched on matters of policy rather than matters relating to a specific budget, although he felt that those matters need to be discussed, he said they should be discussed in meetings apart from the regularly scheduled Council or COW meetings. He cautioned against discussing wage agreements reached through collective bargaining outside of those negotiations, saying it might lead to possible accusations of unfair labor practices. He also felt that wage austerity alone would not solve budgetary problems and could weaken the City’s partnership with its employees (soft assets). Concluding, Ald. Maladra said there are major policy issues that must be addressed, but discussed apart from budget discussions. Ald. Cummings wished to clarify that previous references to cutting insurance costs does not mean cutting benefits, but rather comparing insurance packages to achieve cost savings for comparable coverage. Geneva City Council Meeting April 4, 2016 1463 Mayor Burns now moved to the various budget issues he saw as still being open for further consideration, beginning with the funding of the assistant city administrator/director of administrative services position. Ald. Maladra saw this topic as an example of a policy issue as previously stated, requiring additional separate discussion. Ald. Bruno supported funding the position at this time, with further discussion later. Ald. Radecki took the opposite approach, calling for de-funding the position at this point, with discussion and evaluation as to restoration at a later time, including as to where other cuts might be made to fund this position. Ald. Maladra called that approach a trail-and-error exercise, which he said should be avoided. Ald. Burghart felt that leaving the position unfilled would put an undue burden on the new city administrator. Ald. Simonian saw a restructuring whereby the position’s responsibilities would be distributed among existing staff, with those employees receiving appropriate compensation. With further discussion as to distributing the duties of the assistant city administrator/director of administrative services, Mayor Burns argued that the City has been making the case for this position for the past 17 years that the position has existed and evolved. He supported continued funding of the position. Motion to fund the position of assistant city administrator/director of administrative services Moved by Ald. Bruno, seconded by Ald. Maladra to amend the original motion to adopt the FY2016-17 budget by re-establishing funding for the assistant city administrator/director of administrative services position to the level previously stated in the original budget. Roll call: AYES: 3 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Maladra) NAYS: 7 (Ald. Cummings, Kilburg, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer) MOTION DEFEATED Discussion now turned to funding the Geneva Chamber of Commerce and at what level. Mayor Burns reminded the Council that previous discussions also involved funding the Geneva Chamber of Commerce at either $100,000 or full amount of approximately $138,000 from the hotel/motel tax dollars, with consideration that some of those funds be used to partially pay for the welcome signs being proposed. Motion to provide funds to the Chamber of Commerce from the hotel/motel tax Moved by Ald. Simonian, seconded by Ald. Singer to amend the original motion to fund the Chamber of Commerce from the hotel/motel tax at the full amount of approximately $138,000. Ald. Simonian added that perhaps the Chamber would voluntarily contribute some of those funds to help finance the purchase of the welcome signs. As a compromise between the $100,000 originally earmarked for the Chamber and the $138,000 now being considered, Ald. Radecki recommended that the Chamber be funded at $115,000, but the Chamber should not be required to apply for these funds through the grant process. On a question from Ald. Marks, Dir. Tymoszenko explained that the first year of the four-year welcome sign installation program would see the installation of four signs at an approximate of cost $140,000. But she added that bids have not been returned, so the cost is an estimate. Chamber President Jean Gaines reminded the Council that by State statute any funds from the hotel/motel tax must be spent to promote overnight tourism and attract conventions. She questioned how welcome signs attract overnight visitors. She also noted that the hotel/motel tax is five percent, but that the Chamber administers only three percent. She emphasized that the Chamber’s promotional efforts translate into increased Geneva City Council Meeting April 4, 2016 1464 sales taxes. She requested the City provide the fully funded amount of $138,000. With no further discussion, roll call on the amendment. AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Continuing with the various budget issues still being open for further consideration, Mayor Burns asked if anyone wished to discuss or offer an amendment regarding the pay for performance for non-represented employees figures included in FY2016-17 budget. No comments were heard. Mayor Burns asked for any comments on the reduction in SSA #1 by $90,000 and shifting that amount to the General Fund. No comments were heard. Mayor Burns asked for comments defining which Capital Fund to increase to $1 million, referencing the General Capital Fund, the Capital Equipment Fund or the Infrastructure Capital Fund. Ald. Radecki asked which fund would make the most sense to increase. Asst. Dir. Dawkins defined each fund and items included therein. Ald. Marks felt that the three funds need a closer analysis before deciding which to increase. Mayor Burns asked for discussion and final decision to implement or forgo the proposed Places for Eating Tax (PET). Ald. Bruno expressed the need to accelerate comprehensive discussion on this issue. He favored leaving this item in the budget at this point. Ald. Simonian called for removing the PET from the budget and focusing on a referendum in November for a one-half percent sales tax increase. Motion to remove Places for Eating Tax from budget Moved by Ald. Simonian, seconded by Ald. Seno to remove the Places for Eating Tax from the FY2016-17 budget. Ald. Maladra felt that the estimated $300,000 in revenues expected to be generated by the PET should be included in the budget in some form. Ald. Radecki objected to including the PET without discussion with the stakeholders. Brief discussion continued regarding the efficacy and logistics of instituting either or both the PET and the sales tax. Mayor Burns reminded the Council that it has until April 30 to resolve budget issues. Roll call on the amendment: AYES: 6 (Ald. Cummings, Kilburg, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian) NAYS: 4 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Maladra, Singer) MOTION CARRIED Mayor Burns asked for comments on fully funding the reserve fund at a 90-day goal, based on the proposed budget. Ald. Radecki suggested viewing this as a goal, rather than a mandate. Ald. Cummings noted that the rating agencies give consideration to reserve balances should the City consider borrowing. Mayor Burns recapped the motion to approve Budget Res. 2016-20 as amended. Ald. Marks felt he would like to see the budget with the amendments in place before voting. Mayor Burns said that to vote now would be voting on a deficit budget, and that the motion could be tabled for further discussion as early as at a special Council meeting following next Monday’s COW meeting. Motion to table Moved by Ald. Simonian, seconded by Ald. Marks to table discussion on Res. 2016-20 until a special City Council meeting to be held April 11, 2016 immediately following the scheduled COW meeting. Roll call: AYES: 7 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Simonian) Geneva City Council Meeting April 4, 2016 1465 NAYS: 3 (Ald. Radecki, Seno, Singer) MOTION CARRIED Approve Resolution 2016-21 Authorizing Execution of Agreement with Kane County for Animal Control Services Subject to County Board Approval Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Bruno to approve motion as presented. Approved by unanimous roll call vote. (Omnibus Agenda). MOTION CARRIED PRESENTATION OF ORDINANCES, PETITIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND BID AWARDS None NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, moved by Ald. Simonian, seconded by Ald. Marks to adjourn the Geneva City Council meeting. Carried unanimously by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:41p.m. ________________________ Lynn P. Landberg, City Clerk Geneva City Council Meeting April 4, 2016 1466 EXHIBIT A From: Simonian, Tom Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:46 AM To: ADMINISTRATOR & DEPARTMENT HEADS; Passarelli, Eric; Collins, Peter Cc: Burns, Kevin; Bruno, Mike; Marks, Richard; Seno, Mary; Singer, Ron; Burghart, Tara; Cummings, Jr., Donald B.; Kilburg, Dean; Radecki, Jim; Maladra, Craig Subject: My Apology To All, I want to first begin by saying that I tried to send this message to all city employees only to find out that when I tried to do so I am restricted. That said, I hope that you will share this email with all the City Employees since obviously I am prohibited from doing so. As you all may or may not know, I am not a career and/or seasoned politician so political correctness is not a trait I handle very well. I don't apologize for it but sometimes what I say, what I mean and what is construed doesn't always align. I made some comments in Monday night's meeting that I want to explain. It is not at all that I do not care about the City Employees. I absolutely do care about our City's Employees. I want you to know that I value, appreciate and acknowledge your high quality service and although we are financially challenged right now it has never been about what all of you do and the great services you provide. What you do know about me is what you may see/hear once a week at meetings or what you hear from others who don't know me. What you don't know is what it is like to work for me. There are two things I was trying to communicate to the Council, 1) as elected officials, our first responsibility is to the citizens of Geneva who elected us as the fiduciaries and stewards of their thoughts, requests, concerns and taxpayer dollars and 2) what I am trying to accomplish is to save City Employees jobs in the future by everyone sacrificing a little now to avoid some employees having to be sacrificed in the future by losing their jobs. I hope we’re all adult enough to realize that government doesn’t exist purely for the benefit of government workers. I believe, we pay and treat our staff very fair and we focus our efforts on delivering service, value and safety to the public for their tax dollars. Over the past few years we’ve seen wages and benefits rise while services are either cut or costs increase. All this with the future threat of a State that may or may not cut monies owed to our City. A State that may or may not continue to pass along unfunded mandates. A State that may or may not freeze property taxes. A State that may or may not file for bankruptcy. One thing is for sure, things are going to change and not for the better. If this was your household and your revenues were threatened to be reduced and your expenses continued to increase and your annual budget got larger and larger each year, would you not want to protect the future by being proactive vs. reactive? That is exactly what I am trying to accomplish. No one said it was going to be easy and painless but I am determined to do it TOGETHER and for it to be FAIR. All that said, if I in anyway made you feel that I do not care and am not thankful for all you do for the City of Geneva and its citizens I humbly apologize. That was in no way what I even remotely meant or intended. I hope that you will accept my apology and, if not, I understand. I will also share this email with the public on April 4th during the City Council meeting. With a Healthy Disrespect for the Impossible, Tom Simonian Alderman 5th Ward City of Geneva, Illinois Phone: (630) 232-0000 ext. 4010 Email: aldsimonian@geneva.il.us EXHIBIT B On Mar 23, 2016, at 3:09 PM, "terry@gsddev.com" <terry@gsddev.com> wrote: Hi Tom, Please feel free to share this email message with your fellow aldermen and anyone you wish. I’d like to thank you and your fellow aldermen for the work you’re trying to do to get the budget back under control. For the past few years, the budget has been growing at an alarming rate while the tax base has been shrinking. The proposed budget in 2010 – 2011 called for approximately $63 million in revenue and $66 million in expenses. The proposed budget for this year is just shy of $92 million in revenues and slightly less than that in expenses. In 6 years the budget has increased almost $30 million despite a hiring freeze, furlough days, and service cutbacks. The fact that the budget is balanced is cold comfort when we are paying more for electric, sewer and water, trash pickup, and taxes. When we first moved to Geneva we had free trash pickup (twice a week during the summer months), more frequent brush pickup, the side streets were plowed and salted in the winter, our electric rates were the envy of every suburb, and the city prided itself on keeping the lid on tax increases. Now, we’re cutting back on services, raising our service rates every year, increasing the tax levy every year, and our equipment is aging and in need of replacement. The most recent service casualty was the electronics drop-off box. We all understand that the economy is recovering slowly. And in Illinois, it’s really a mess. We’re in a bad situation and while we can’t avoid the pain, we can and should attempt to share in it equally. I assume that this is what the “Today, Tomorrow, Together” slogan in this year’s proposed budget means or should mean and that it’s also the basis of Alderman Simonian’s quest to make the budget fair. The Mayor has suggested that the time for aldermen to address budget issues should have been during the 35 or 34 budget meetings staff has had. There are a couple of problems with that theory. The first is that the meetings are not scheduled for the convenience of the aldermen, many of whom would have to take time off their regular jobs to attend. Secondly, those 35 meetings become 140 meetings when they have to be scheduled to accommodate groups of 3 or fewer aldermen to avoid violating the Open Meetings Act. That would be a scheduling nightmare and a terrible ordeal for staff. The process needs to change as Alderman Radecki recommended if we don’t want to face the same problems each year. The Wednesday budget meetings the Mayor suggested at the last City Council meeting are a step in the right direction I think. But there are other problems too. When the Assistant City Administrator has to explain what is and what isn’t in a budget figure or why parts of a budget amount don’t really fit the category or when the Mayor and aldermen have radically different numbers for the same budget items, there is a failure in the budget reporting process that a boatload of budget presentation awards is not going to fix. We just purchased a $500,000 accounting system and pay almost $5600 per year to maintain it. We should be able to produce clear and comprehensible reports that tell us exactly what we expect to or will be taking in and spending and where. There should be no confusion. And if there is, we need to find ways to fix it. The OMB describes the Federal budget figures in an appendix of the budget document. If we need clarification of figures, there should be some document that explains those if we don’t already have such a document. That information should be available to the aldermen and the public. In the Age of Big Data and with all of the technology available, aldermen should be able to drill down in the budget to find whatever contributing figures they need to know to determine exactly what a number on the budget represents. The budget has to be a useful planning tool for both staff and elected officials. It needs to be clear and consistent to aid in the analysis of trends and costs in running the city. Additionally, the budget process should not be seen as opportunity to pit staff against city council. It’s rather disingenuous and a failure of leadership to suggest that council members are acting with ulterior motives or that taking their fiduciary responsibilities seriously is an affront to staff. We all need to be adults about the situation. The focus of the council and the staff should be on public service. Both have different roles, but the goals are the same. It’s generally a thankless job for both staff and elected officials. No one involved in public service is getting a lot of fan letters. I would suggest to the city employee who wrote the anonymous letter the Mayor read that if he or she really wants to feel loved and appreciated then a career in public service couldn’t be more inappropriate. You need to be really thick-skinned to survive in this field. I think in general, however, that the community is satisfied with the job that staff and elected officials are doing. I think our employees are well compensated, have great benefits, and have great working conditions. I recall going to the police station in Florida when Dorothy’s sister passed away and thinking what a dump it was, especially in comparison to our own police and fire facilities. I don’t think we have anything to be ashamed about in the way our employees are treated. Many of our regular firefighters are being paid as much as lieutenants and even captains in the New York City fire department. Our employees have excellent health insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, life insurance and pension benefits. For some time now, not just this year, the aldermen have been asking to take a look at reducing the costs of benefits, not cutting them. They want to look into possibly greater employee contributions for insurance plans in a tiered structure so as not to cause undue hardship for lower paid employees. They’ve also stated that they do not want to cut jobs, but they do want to reduce the strain on the budget. For the Mayor to suggest that council is creating a hostile work environment is ludicrous on the face of it. As anecdotal evidence of how things should be done he talked about how we all “celebrated” the fact that the fire department had agreed to provide some contractual relief for pay raises by forfeiting a contractual pay raise. But that doesn’t tell the full story. At the April 18, 2011, meeting of the city council, a side letter agreement with the union was approved that essentially deferred (not forfeited) 1.75 percent of their bargained 3.75 wage agreement until the last period of the fiscal year in exchange for no layoffs in FY 2011- 2012. The approximate savings to the City was $22,375. That agreement was in keeping with the council’s desire and the department’s wishes to avoid layoffs. This was not a one-sided concession as the Mayor’s comments imply. Furthermore, in July of 2014, the council agreed to a reorganization of the Fire Department in a move that would create and fill the positions of fire marshal and 2 new battalion chiefs, fill the vacant battalion chief position, and eliminate one of the deputy chief positions held by one of the retiring deputy chiefs. According to officials, as reported in the Kane County Chronicle, the reorganization would cost the city an additional $265,000 annually. After scouring the Internet looking for some standards that apply to these positions, the best I could determine was that a battalion chief is generally responsible for a battalion, which covers 3 – 5 fire stations. We have two. I don’t know whether these positions are a necessity or a luxury, but the Fire Chief said they were needed and long overdue and the council accommodated his request. Have we created a hostile work environment? I don’t think so. We have, however, created an expensive one and growing more expensive every year. I think we need to put on the brakes and figure out just where we’re going first before we continue careening down this road. If we don’t we’re going to have to continue scratching for additional revenue sources, placing a greater burden on businesses and taxpayers, and creating a hostile environment for our stakeholders in the process. Finally, I’d like to add my agreement to Alderman Simonian’s suggestion that we obtain outside legal counsel to negotiate union contracts. The unions write the contracts and send seasoned professionals to the negotiating table. The process has become something more akin to a hostage negotiation than a bargaining agreement. Our position is somewhat weakened by the threat that we either accept union terms or face the grim and expensive process of arbitration in which we are likely to lose. It makes sense to have an outsider, rather than a member of the team, negotiate with the team on behalf of the owner. Whether there is statutory conflict or not, it’s a difficult situation that might be handled more effectively by someone on the outside. We could also take the opportunity to approach our neighboring towns about working together to obtain legal counsel that specializes in labor contract negotiations to help all of us out. Our objective should be to negotiate a fair contract for employees that is affordable to the citizens of Geneva and doesn’t break our budget. As for the criticism that this would require hiring an outside attorney, we do that in many instances already, presumably to provide some expertise we don’t have in house. The bills for payment on March 21st included $16,035 for legal fees, not including the fees charged by our city attorney. So there is precedent. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments and please keep up the good work. Regards, Terry Flanagan 102 Brookfield Lane From: dick.graff@ferguson.com [dick.graff@ferguson.com] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:15 AM To: Bruno, Mike; Burghart, Tara; Burns, Kevin; Kilburg, Dean; Maladra, Craig; Marks, Richard; Radecki, Jim; Seno, Mary; Simonian, Tom; Singer, Ron Cc: dick.graff@ferguson.com Subject: OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR AND ALD. OF GENEVA Ladies & Gentlemen: Ald. Simonian, thank you for exercising your responsibility to be a good steward of the tax payer’s money. Thank you, Ald. Simonian for bringing up the 800# elephant in the room! The unsustainable pensions, contracts and expenses that one day will devour us if we don’t change how things are done now. We can’t tax ourselves into continued solvency as some would choose, such as sales tax hike and restaurant tax, etc. It is time for reform and change. State after state, city after city face these same challenges, but yet offer no plan or solution for the future. Businesses discovered long ago that pension funds are a unsustainable pyramid game and yet government bodies think they can do it better? The benefit packages need to be open for negotiation, as well. This is not about the tax payers vs. the city employees. Few, if any, would say the city employee’s aren’t dedicated and doing a great job. This is about being fiscally responsible and making sure Geneva can continue to employ these people in the future. I applaud Ald. Simonian’s courage to bring frank and open discussion of this subject to the forefront. It should not be a behind closed doors topic, as the Mayor has been quoted for saying. The time for change is now, let’s show Illinois and the country what can be accomplished with some ingenuity, compromise and shared accountability. It will be challenging, but very rewarding. I was disappointed that anonymous letters, allegedly from City employees, were allowed to be read into the records. I would akin that to quoting a submission from the Kane County Chronicle “Sound Off” section. If there is not a name on it, then it is not worth the paper it is written on. This was beneath the stature of the Council to allow that to happen. It just can’t be business as usual. Today we are comfortable with the way things are, but we cannot be complacent. The ”can” we continue to kick down the road is beginning to look more like a 55 gallon oil drum. Thank you all for your service and dedication. Dick Graff First Ward 502 Charles Street Geneva, Illinois 60134 EXHIBIT C Budget Fund Facts (Statements submitted in black by Alderman Tom Simonian 3/14/16) Responses provided by KB and fact checked by Department Heads Follow-up to KB responses and checked by • General Fund Operation Reserves o In 2014 our reserves were 106 days o In 2016 we budgeted 84 days and have projected it to be 79 days o If the projection is correct we have depleted our reserves from 106 to 79 days which is a 25.47% decrease. The statistic cited is misleading as the reserve number will reflect audited financial statements from FY to FY based on budget. The statistic is not misleading it is actually very straight forward. When you go from 106 days to 79 days it represents a 25.47% decrease. Of course I am using the math I was taught way back when – maybe the new math gets you to a different number? Since you want to use the term misleading, how misleading is it when you make this statement about pay raises “look at the numbers presented we are looking at some $150K budgeted for the highest amount of Paid for Performance. Let’s round it up to $160K. $160K budget out of a $90M budget is less than 0.17% of that budget. Identical to the discussion we had 5 years ago and identical to the discussion we had 10 years ago.” Comparing any amount against $90M is misleading. You should compare the $160K to the total amount of salaries it is being applied to. This will give you a true, not misleading, % increase. Since I was not privileged to receive what the total salaries that apply to the $160K raises I have no way of giving an accurate % of what the raises are to total salaries. o Our 2017 proposed budget is 84 days. 6 days less than what we are required (or strive) to maintain. o When staff suggested that the City Council adopt a fund balance policy in 2009, the City had approximately 41 days in reserve for the General Fund. The City is NOT required to maintain any fund balance. The actual policy (not requirement) states, “The City will strive to maintain an available fund balance of at least 90 days of current budget year operating expenditures for the General Fund.” This is a best practice not a requirement. o The fund balance was reduced in FY 2014-15 for the Fourth Street property purchase. Using General Fund reserves was understood and approved by the City Council unanimously. I am not talking about 2014-15, I am talking about the proposed budget, 2016-17 we are budgeting 84 days, which is 6 days short, or 6.67%, below what the City will strive to maintain. • Police Overtime o In 2014 police overtime was $256,682.60 o In 2015 police overtime was $336,215.37 o Our 2017 proposed budget for police overtime is $360,560.00 which is a 40.47% increase o The 2017 proposed budget for the police overtime line item is $360,560.00 (which includes double-time, field training officer pay, holiday pay, officer in charge pay, and Medicare). Removing the Medicare and non-overtime equals (as it gets moved to a different line item upon passage) 5.7% increase over FY 2015. In other words this line item includes more than overtime. Overtime is not applied to pension calculations. My numbers also include the exact same line items as you reference here, double time, field training officer pay, holiday pay, officer in charge pay and Medicare. So regardless if you examine Overtime as a total amount or item by item it still comes out the same in total. If overtime is not applied to pension calculations should we not look into a tri-city (Geneva, St. Charles, Batavia) agreement that we use each other’s police force for overtime needs at regular hourly wages vs. overtime thus saving all communities a great deal of overtime costs. What about looking into using Kane County Sheriffs officers for our overtime at regular pay? What about outsourcing? What about looking into districting? We have one of the most successful districting programs in the country with our tri-city ambulances. Municipalities from around the country contact us about this program. It saves all of us (Geneva, Batavia & St. Charles) money and they are outsourced employees and we do not have to pay their benefits, pensions, insurance, etc. What about part time officers for overtime, oh that’s right we can’t because we are prohibited from doing so in our union contract. A contract I voted against, one of the reasons being this “no part-time” clause which completely hand-cuffs the City on controlling its budget. • Group Health Insurance o In 2016 it is projected to be $2,060,224.41 o In 2016 Group Health insurance is estimated to be $1,910,125 for all funds (excluding Tri-Com). o Our 2017 proposed budget for health insurance is $2,471,815.00 which is a 19.98% increase The 2017 proposed budget for Group Health insurance is $2,080,853 for all funds (excluding Tri-Com) which is an 8.94% increase over FY 2016 estimate. I am using the numbers that were provided to the City Council not numbers that were only provided to the Mayor. The numbers provided to the City Council do not have a breakdown of with or without Tri-com. Since the City Council was not given those numbers, I suggest that the budget should reflect Group Health and Dental Insurance not to exceed the 2015/2016 actual, not budgeted, amount as a maximum amount for those two expenses in the 2016/2017 budget. • Police Pension Contribution o Sworn police officers are required by state statute to contribute 9.91% of their base wages to the pension plan (base wages do not include overtime or any additional compensation). o The City is required by state statute to contribute the actuarial determined amount each year or face penalties. This is a burden passed on to the City of Geneva by Springfield. . • Fire Pension Contribution o Fire personnel are required by state statute to contribute 9.455% of their base wages to the pension plan (base wages do not include overtime or any additional compensation). o The City is required by state statute to contribute the actuarial determined amount each year or face penalties. This is a burden passed on to the City of Geneva by Springfield. • Combined Pension Contributions o The City does not determine the pension contributions. Pension contributions are based on an actuarial study as required by state statute. This is a burden passed on to the City of Geneva by Springfield. This is a burden passed on to the City of Geneva by Springfield. The City does not have the legal authority to combine these pension funds. Doing otherwise would be illegal. I completely agreed when Alderman Kilberg brought this matter up on 3/14/16. We may not have any control over the pension contributions but we may have control over how many full time hours are used to determine that pension contribution. We should look into removing the “part time” clause from the contracts, outsourcing and districting as options to control inflating costs. • Pay Raises o Police average increase is 4% including equity adjustment and step increases based on contract approved by the City Council. o IBEW (Electric) 2% o IBEW (Street/Fleet) 2.25% o Fire – In negotiations. Statements from the dais to “ask our unions to forfeit contractual pay increases” is not only inappropriate, and potentially deemed “hostile” by represented employees, it puts current and future negotiations at greater risk. I completely disagree. • Proposed Revenues o Places for Eating Tax - $300,000 o SSA#1 - $90,000 (This is not a new revenue but only keeps it in the General Fund, rather than subsidizing the SSA #1)  o Hotel/Motel Tax/Grant - $240,000. It is a mistake to assume the “shift” in this line item be considered revenue. The recommendation was mererly to reallocate under a different process. o Refuse/Buffer – This extra $0.05 per month on each utility bill is to create a reserve to be used for special pickups following a storm situation. I Am Seeking the COW to support the following changes to the proposed budget: • Increase General Fund Reserves to 90 day minimum requirement – To bring the fund balance in to a 90 day reserve, we would need to decrease expenditures by $265,000 This direction must be voted upon by the entire City Council. I would recommend that the Council support this direction. • Increase the Capital Fund back to a minimum of $1M – which capital fund? The City has three (3) capital funds – General Capital, Capital Equipment, and Infrastructure Capital. General Capital Fund and I would recommend that the Council support this direction. • No Increase in the health insurance budget and look into the following changes in the plan(s) that were proposed by Aldermen Cummings, Radecki, Marks and myself in a previous meeting regarding this cost to taxpayers. Staff has already been in discussions with the broker to look into options for next year. The renewal process typically begins in late summer with a November 1 renewal date. o Look into HAS’s and possible help fund them  Will be reviewed with broker per above o Implement higher deductibles vs. the $500 deductible currently offered o Begin with a standard plan and anyone wanting to apply for a better plan would have to pay the difference with no City contribution o Increase the employee contribution o Employee contribution is proportionate to employees compensation so someone making $150,000 would pay a higher % premium vs. someone making $50,000. We would need to consider base wages vs. combined wages (overtime, etc). We have several staff who make more than their respective managers because of overtime. Developing a “class system” will backfire provide a disincentive for staff to serve in management roles. Totally disagree. It is not fair for someone making $150,000 a year to pay the same as someone paying $30,000 a year. You talk about creating a toxic culture and deflating morale. • No increase in Dental insurance budget. The City is self-insured for dental. As such, the third party administrator (TPA) provides recommended funding levels. Levels can remain the same rather than taking the recommendation of the TPA. Makes no difference that we are self-insured we still have to pay the bills. • Eliminate the Vision benefit – The City does not contribute to this benefit. Employee pays 100% of coverage for single or family. This has been explained several times during budget and health benefit presentations. • Meet with Batavia and Saint Charles to agree to sharing in an approximately a $30,000 cost to engage a Consolidation Feasibility Study for a fire district, police  district or other consolidation feasibility options. The Council saw a presentation and discussed this issue at the November 2015 Strategic Planning Workshop. The consensus of the City Council and direction to staff at that time was to NOT move in this direction due to various reasons including legal limitations, increased costs of combining union contracts, and losing control of public safety operations. Your words: “no need to go any further Chief, no need to expend any money, we are not interested in discussing nor reviewing consolidation. That was the will of the Council on that day.” If this is the absolute direction of the City Council then why did 8 members of professional staff go to the conference on consolidation/districting. The expert in this field who has been part of successful districting in municipalities throughout the United States said the biggest mistake municipalities make is trying to eat the elephant in one bite when it should be done a piece at a time starting with the chief’s and upper management first. Once that is in place then move to the general body, equipment, locations, contracts, etc. I believe it is tax payer money well spent by Geneva, Batavia & Saint Charles to consult with the experts and find out the feasibility of consolidation or districting. • No pay raises to employees for 2017 – Such action would only apply to non- represented employees as we have contractual obligations with our represented teammates. Furthermore, making such statements from the dais with no substantive reason why is, in my opinion, destructive to the efforts of this Council and previous Council’s to develop a mutually respectful relationship with our employees. Pay raises are not “automatic”, but based on performance. I totally disagree. I would also recommend that raises based on performance should be based on CPI/Inflation plus. For example: Below expectation receives no pay increase, At expectation receives whatever CPI/Inflation and Above expectation gets CPI/Inflation plus a % • Request Police, Fire, and IBEW to amend their contracts to no raises for 2016/17. As stated above, to request such a major amendment to existing contracts from the dais is hostile and unproductive on many levels. Totally disagree. • Request Police, Fire and IBEW to remove the “part-time” clause from their contracts. As stated above, to request such a major amendment to existing contracts from the dais is hostile and unproductive on many levels. Totally disagree. • Remove the “Places for Eating Tax” of 2% from the budget and open up discussion on the SSA #1 and Hotel/Motel Tax. The authority rests with the majority of the Council. I recommend to the Council that we remove this line item from the budget and proceed with a ½% citywide tax by referendum for the November election. • Remove from the budget any salary/benefits to fill the assistant city administrator position and re-visit this item for the 2017-18 budget. A refresher course on what the responsibilities (a partial list) of the ACA is necessary and illustrative as to the impact of such a request. Such action puts the next City Administrator at a distinct disadvantage to achieve success and, in my opinion, becomes a disservice to the employees and community. The salary of the ACA is broken out as follows: o General Fund = $97,795 (wages and benefits) o Electric Fund = $29,191 (wages and benefits) o Water/Wastewater Fund = $18,970 (wages and benefits) JOB FUNCTIONS: o The following functions need to be the responsibility of someone. o Position serves as the Director of Administrative Services Department overseeing the divisions of Administration, Information Technology, Human Resources, and Finance.  Directly supervises 4 employees (Admin Asst, IT Manager, HR Manager, and Finance Manager and completes annual and semi- annual performance evaluations for these employees, disciplines, and directs general workflow); indirectly supervises another 6 employees.  Serves as chief negotiator for union contracts (City has 4); as reference TriCom spent ~$40,000 to negotiate last successor contract.  Serves as FOIA officer and spends approximately 5% of time responding to FOIA requests including inquiries to the Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor regarding FOIA requests.  Serves as risk manager • prepare paperwork for insurance renewal (general liability, property, casualty) • submit and track claims with carrier, advise carrier, consult with attorneys • process deductible payments  Serves as liaison to SPAC (attends SPAC meetings and student government sub-committee meetings, assists the NRC and ICEC on an as-needed basis)  Student Government day coordinator (2x a year)  Works with City’s broker and HR Manager in compiling health insurance renewal  Serves as project manager for special projects (e.g. update of strategic plan, procurement and implementation of enterprise resource software, personnel policy manual updates).  Works with City Administrator and Finance Manager in preparing annual budget. Responsible for calculating all numbers associated with personnel services for all funds. Responsible for completing SPAC budget, Dental, and Workers’ Compensation.  Represents City on various boards and organizations (e.g. Public Building Commission, Legacy Project Board) Has anyone looked into offering the ACA job responsibilities to our current employees for an increase in salary or restructuring the organizational chart to have finance, IT and HR report directly to the CA vs. an ACA? We can outsource contract negotiations to outside counsel. I have been totally against, since day one on this Council, a city employee negotiating a city employee’s contract. Especially when both parties share the same benefits, health insurance, dental insurance, etc. In my opinion this is a conflict of interest and I am not buying that it is not a conflict of interest when it is written in their job responsibilities.