HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket - 11/20/2017 - City CouncilAGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
City Council Chambers, 333 S Green Street
Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:00 PM
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Oath of Office: City of McHenry Police Commander Ryan J. Sciame
5. Oath of Office: City of McHenry Police Sergeant Kelly A. Ducak
6. Public Comments: Any member of the public wishing to address the Council is invited to do so by signing in at
the meeting entrance and, when recognized, stepping to the podium. Opportunities for Public Comment are also
provided under each Individual Action Item.
7. Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda Items or for items not on the Meeting Agenda.
Motion to Approve the Following Consent Agenda Items:
A. Resolution designating November 25, 2017 as Small Business Saturday in City of
McHenry;
B. Resolution adopting the McHenry County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan;
C. Ordinance adopting an amendment to the Traffic & Motor Vehicle Code Section 13-604
regarding Overnight Parking Hours in the Downtown Business District;
D. Ordinance authorizing the Sale of Public Property of five retired Police Vehicles through
Clinton Auto Auction;
E. Issuance of Checks in the amount of $402,747.79; and
F. Payment of Bills in the amount of $1,081,303.68.
8. Individual Action Item Agenda:
None.
9. Discussion Only Items:
A. Presentation of Parks and Recreation Community Needs Assessment
B. Downtown Parking Discussion
The City ofMcHenry is dedicated to providing its citizens, businesses, and visitors with the highest quality ofprograms and services in
a customer -oriented, efficient, and fiscally responsible manner.
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
November 20, 2017
Page Two
10. Staff Reports.
A. Transmittal of 2nd Quarter 2017/18 Financial Report.
11. Mayor and City Council Comments.
12. Adjourn.
The complete City Council packet is available for review online via the City website at www.ci.mchenry.il.us. For further
information, please contact the Office of the City Administrator at 815-363-2108.
The proceedings of the City Council meeting are being video and audio -recorded and every attempt is made to ensure that
they are posted on the City of McHenry, IL "YouTube" channel within twenty-four (24) hours of the meeting adjournment.
NOTICE: In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), this and all other City Council meetings are
located in facilities that are physically accessible to those who have disabilities. If additional accommodations are needed,
please call the Office of the City Administrator at 815-363-2108 at least 72 hours prior to any meeting so that
accommodations can be made.
Ir Nuwr OF TN• FOX wrvu
9
CONSENT AGENDA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas Martin, Director of Economic Development
FOR: November 9, 2017
Department of Community &
Economic Development
McHenry Municipal Center
333 Green Street
McHenry, Illinois 60050
Phone: (815) 363-2170
Fax: (815) 363-2173
www.ci.mchenry.il.us
RE: Resolution designating November 25, 2017 Small Business Saturday in the City
of McHenry
ATT: Resolution designating November 25, 2017 Small Business Saturday in the City of
McHenry
Attached is a resolution designating November 25, 2017 Small Business Saturday in the City of
McHenry.
If the City Council concurs it's recommended the attached resolution designating November
25, 2017 Small Business Saturday in the City of McHenry be approved.
R-17-021
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 259 2017 AS
SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY IN THE CITY OF MCHENRY,
MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, America's progress has been driven by pioneers who think big, take risks
and work hard; and
WHEREAS, from the storefront shops that anchor Main Street to the high-tech startups
that keep America on the cutting edge, small businesses are the backbone of our economy and
the cornerstones of our nation's promise; and
WHEREAS, small business owners and Main Street businesses have energy and a
passion for what they do; and
WHEREAS, when we support small business, jobs are created and local communities
preserve their unique culture; and
WHEREAS, because this country's 28 million small businesses create nearly two out of
three jobs in our economy, we cannot resolve ourselves to create jobs and spur economic growth
in America without discussing ways to support our entrepreneurs; and
WHEREAS, 87 percent of consumers in the United States agree that the success of small
businesses is critical to the overall economic health of the United States; and
WHEREAS, 89 percent of consumers in the United States agree that small businesses
contribute positively to local communities by supplying jobs and generating tax revenue; and
WHEREAS, the City of McHenry supports and joins in this national effort to help
America's small businesses do what they do best — grow their business, create jobs, and ensure
that our communities remain as vibrant tomorrow as they are today.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED NOVEMBER 25, 2017 SHALL BE
DESIGNATED SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY IN THE CITY OF MCHENRY,
ILLINOIS.
PASSED and ADOPTED the 20th day of November 2017.
Voting Aye:
Voting Nay:
Abstaining:
Not Voting:
Absent:
Mayor Wayne S. Jett
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lynzi Nevitt
Department of Community &
Economic Development
McHenry Municipal Center
333 Green Street
McHenry, Illinois 60050
Phone: (815) 363-2170
Fax: (815) 363-2173
www.ci.mchenry.il.us
CONSENT AGENDA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ross Polerecky, Community Development Director
FOR: November 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting
RE: Resolution adopting McHenry County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
ATT: Resolution
Agenda Item Summary: The City of McHenry adopted The McHenry County Hazard Mitigation
Plan in 2011, the plan has since been updated and must be adopted prior to November 30t" of
this year.
Background: Attached is a resolution approving the McHenry County Natural Hazards Mitigation
Plan. All actions identified in the resolution for implementation by the City of McHenry have been
completed and/or addressed in the municipal code. The actual plan is comprised of 440 pages
and such, can be reviewed at this link
https://www.co.mchenry.il.us/home/showdocument?id=77420 , the plan was adopted by the
county and will be adopted by a resolution by each participating municipality, township and
agency.
The City of McHenry is eligible to receive hazard mitigation grant funding if the plan is adopted
prior to November 30t", 2017. The federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) have approved the plan.
Staff Recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution.
CITY OF MCHENRY
RESOLUTION
ADOPTION OF THE MCHENRY COUNTY
NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, McHenry County is subject to flooding, severe summer and winter storms,
tornadoes, drought, and other natural hazards that can damage property, close businesses,
disrupt traffic, and present a public health and safety hazard; and
WHEREAS, the McHenry County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee has prepared a
recommended the McHenry County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan that reviews the County's
options to protect people and reduce damage from hazards; and
WHEREAS, the McHenry County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed as a
multi -jurisdictional plan has been submitted and approved by Illinois Emergency Management
Agency (IEMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and
WHEREAS, the recommended McHenry County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan has
been widely circulated for review by residents and federal, state, and regional agencies and has
been supported by those reviewers; and
WHEREAS the preparation and adoption of a community mitigation plan is a
requirement of FEMA in order for McHenry County to be eligible for federal mitigation funds
under Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (42 USC 5165), and under 44 CFR
(Code of Federal Regulations) Part 201.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the McHenry County Natural
Hazards Mitigation Plan, August 2017, is hereby adopted as an official plan of the City
A McHenry and;
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that Ross Polerecky and Ryan Schwalenberg is
hereby appointed as the City of McHenry representative on the McHenry County Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee and they will keep the City of McHenry apprised of the
mitigation action items undertaken by or reported to the McHenry County Hazard Mitigation
Planning Committee, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the McHenry County Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan identifies a series of action items. The following action items are hereby
assigned to the City of McHenry as shown below, or to the McHenry County Hazard Mitigation
Planning Committee or department of the McHenry County government. The City of
McHenry shall be responsible for the implementation of the action item within the
City of McHenry as staff resources and funding permit:
Action Item 1: Plan Adoption — City Council, City of McHenry
Action Item 2: Continuation of Mitigation Committee - McHenry County Board.
Action Item 3: Plan Monitoring and Maintenance - McHenry County Hazard Mitigation
Planning Committee.
Action Item 4: Watershed Studies - McHenry County Planning and Development Department.
Action Item 5: Expand Stream Gaging Network - McHenry County Planning and Development
Department.
Action Item 6: Stream Maintenance Programs —City of McHenry
Action Item 7: Prohibited Waterway Dumping Ordinances — City of McHenry
Action Item 8: Mitigation of Public Infrastructure - City of McHenry
Action Item 9: Continued NFIP Compliance — City of McHenry
Action Item 10: Repetitive Loss Areas Study -McHenry County Planning and Development
Department with cooperation of the City of McHenry
Action Item 11: Identification of Floodplain Structures - McHenry County Planning and
Development and GIS Division.
Action Item 12: Investigation of Critical Facilities -McHenry County Emergency Management
Agency and GIS Division
Action Item 13: Critical Facilities Design with Natural Hazards Protection —
City of McHenry
Action Item 14: Mitigation of Floodplain Properties - Property Protection Projects -
[City of McHenry
Action Item 15: Safe Rooms - No Participation
Action Item 16: Community Rating System Participation - No Participation
Action Item 17: Urban Forestry - Participation in Tree City USA — City of McHenry
Action Item 18: Participation in StormReady - No Participation
Action Item 19: Strengthen Building Codes and Code Enforcement Training -
City of McHenry
Action Item 20: Seek Mitigation Grant Funding for Additional Mitigation Planning and Cost
Beneficial Projects -City of McHenry
Action Item 21: Implementation of the Water Resources Protection Action Plan — McHenry
County Water Resources Department.
Action Item 22: Development of a Public Information Strategy -McHenry County Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee.
Action Item 23: Property Protection References - City of McHenry
Action Item 24: Warning System for Dunham Township - No Participation
Action Item 25: Power Outages for the Community of Algonquin - No Participation
Action Item 26: Replace Main Drain Tiles in Hebron Township - No Participation
Action Item 27: Tornado Siren at Public Works Facility in the City of McHenry- No Participation
Action Item 28:
Participation
Action Item 29
Review of Storm Sewers/Drainage System Maintenance for the City of McHenry - No
Outreach Projects (Seminars, Pamphlets, etc.) in the City of McHenry
Addressing All Hazards - No Participation
Action Item 30: Develop a Reliable Means for Citizens in the McHenry city to Receive Official
Information from the City - - No Participation
Action Item 31: Remote/Regional Salt Storage for McHenry County - No Participation
Action Item 32: Include the McHenry County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan into Other Plans; -
And;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby requested to
distribute a certified copy of this Resolution to the McHenry County Emergency
Management Agency Director and IEMA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this the 20th day of November 2017.
City Clerk Lynzi Nevitt
Wayne S. Jett, Mayor
Office of the Chief of Police
John R. Birk
McHenry Municipal Center
333 Green Street
McHenry, Illinois 60050
Phone: (815) 363-2200
Fax: (815) 363-2149
www.ci.mchenry.il.us
CONSENT SUPPLEMENT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John R. Birk, Chief of Police
FOR: November 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting
RE: Revision to Overnight Parking Hours in Downtown Business District
ATT: Proposed Ordinance Revision and Unapproved 10/2/17 Public Works Committee
Minutes
Agenda Item Summary:
Staff is seeking City Councils review and support to amend overnight parking hours (identified
in the City's Traffic and Motor Vehicle Code, section 13-604, No Parking 2am to 6am) for the
downtown business district. Specifically staff is seeking Councils support in extending the
overnight parking hours from 2am to 3am in the downtown business district on Saturday
mornings, Sunday mornings and specific holidays that fall on a weekday, allowing businesses
with liquor licenses to stay open an extra hour. For the purpose of the request, the areas
identified within the business district include.
• Riverside Drive between Elm Street and Broad Street,
• Green Street between Waukegan Road and Pearl Street,
• Waukegan Road east from Green Street to the end of the property located at 1110 N.
Green Street,
• Pearl Street between Green Street and the Pearl Street Bridge and
• Main Street between Front Street and Crystal Lake Road.
Further detailed information regarding this request is provided in the full agenda supplement.
Staff will be present to answer any questions Council may have at the meeting.
Background:
Currently the City of McHenry has a no parking ordinance (13-604) and prohibits parking on all
public streets within McHenry between the hours of 2am and 6am daily. Over the course of the
last year the Police Department has received an increase in the amount of parking complaints
specific to late night hours in the downtown business district.
Currently there are fourteen downtown businesses that hold Class A liquor licenses. On
Saturday mornings, Sunday mornings and specific weekday Holidays (defined in the Liquor
Ordinance) this Class A license allows these businesses to serve until 2am and allow their
patrons to remain within their businesses until 2:15am. Once these same businesses close for the
evening staff begins the process of cleaning up and leaves the premises normally by 3am.
The Police Department like the City as a whole actively seeks ways to positively affect the
businesses within our community. With such, police staff has taken the time to look at
Ordinance 13-604 as it is written and enforced in order to provide this revision recommendation
to City Council for review.
On September 11, 2017 this parking revision was presented to the Public Works Committee at
which time the committee unanimously approved the revision and directed staff to forward the
request to the full City Council for consideration.
Analysis:
As Ordinance 13-604 is written currently, patrons of these fourteen downtown businesses could
be in violation of the parking ordinance if they left their vehicles parked on the roadway past
lam. It is not uncommon for these businesses to allow their patrons (in accordance with the law)
to remain in their establishments until 2:15am so that they may finish whatever beverages or
food they may have. The parking ordinance is in clear contradiction with liquor licensing laws.
In recent years the police have used discretion to avoid enforcing these violations due to these
Facts. This 2am parking regulation can also place those who consume alcohol in a situation
where they choose to drive their vehicle because it is illegally parked rather than make other
more responsible arrangements.
Additionally the employees who work at these fourteen establishments often must remain on
premise to clean up after closing time. This process, observed by the police on the midnight shift
most always is completed by 3am. These bar employees must park their vehicles in back
business lots to avoid parking citations. This often forces employees to walk into poorly lit back
parking lots to get to their vehicle. This possesses a safety concern for these employees which
the Police Department supports.
This original ordinance was written to support the City's need to clean streets and remove snow.
Traditionally streets are not cleaned between the hours of tam and Sam on Saturday and Sunday
mornings making this proposed revision of little impact to street cleaning efforts. Snow removal
is conducted at all hours of the day and night but for snow falls that require special snow removal
operations (over 2 inches of snowfall) in the downtown business district, the City has a separate
Ordinance (13-602 Parking Limited During Snow Removal). This separate ordinance would
meet the needs of the City in making sure streets are cleared during snow removal operations in
the business district.
Finally the City has openly recognized that the prosperity of the downtown business district and
the businesses that operate within it are a priority. Police staff believe that by making the
revision to 13-604, to allow extending downtown business district parking hours on Saturdays
and Sundays to 3am the following would occur:
• The City would affirm their commitment to the business owners of the downtown
business district.
• Increased safety by allowing people to park on well -lit roadways.
• Allow people who have consued alcohol to find an alternate way homw e ith time
mfito
remove their car before a citation is issued.
• The City would be able to maintain the same level of service regarding its responsibility
to clean streets and remove snow.
Staff is respectfully recommending a revision to the McHenry City Parking Ordinance 13-604
No Parking 2am — 6am), to extend parking hours as highlight in the attached Ordinance.
Recommendation:
If Council concurs, then it is recommended a motion be considered, approving the attached
Ordinance that revises Parking Ordinance 13-604 to allow for extended parking in the
Downtown Business District by extending the overnight parking hours from 2am to 3am on
Saturday mornings, Sunday mornings and specific Holidays that fall on a weekdays.
ORDINANCE NO. MC-17-11-1157
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 13 TRAFFIC AND
MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE CITY OF MCHENR Y MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City of McHenry, McHenry County, Illinois, is a home rule municipality as
contemplated under Article VII, Section 6, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the passage
of this Ordinance constitutes an exercise of the City's home rule powers and functions as granted in
the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the corporate authorities of the City of McHenry, overnight
parking hours in the downtown business district should be revised to allow for extended parking time
on weekends and specific holidays that fall on weekdays; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Mayor and City Council of the City of McHenry
to revise Parking Ordinance 13-604 to accommodate this revision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF McHENRY, McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS, to include the following language:
SECTION l : That Chapter 13, ARTICLE VI, Sec. 13-604 shall now be known as Sec. 13-
604-A, and Sec. 13-604-13 shall be added as follows.
13-604-A NO PARKING 2:00 A.M. TO 6:00 A.M. (MC-91-563, MC-17-1157)
To make possible the cleaning of streets and removal of snow and ice, it shall be unlawful for
the operator of any motor vehicle to park such motor vehicle between the hours of 2:00 A.M.
to 6:00 A.M. in any of the following locations, except as regulated in Sec. 13-604-B.
a) The paved portion of any roadway.
b) Any city -owned or controlled park and parking lots whether paved or
unpaved.
13-604-B DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT NO PARKING 3:00 A.M. TO 6:00
A.M. (MC-17-1157)
To meet the needs of those downtown businesses with late operating hours, parking hours in
the downtown business district only in locations specified, shall be 3:00 A.M. to 6:00 AM
on Saturday and Sunday mornings and those specific holidays tied to extended liquor licenses
hours, which are the mornings of Thanksgiving Day, Memorial Day (observed), New Year's
Day and Independence Day in any of the following locations:
a) Riverside Drive between Miller Riverfront Park and Broad Street.
b) Green Street between Waukegan Road and Pearl Street.
c) Waukegan Road east between Green Street and the end of the property
located at 1110 N. Green Street.
d) Pearl Street between Green Street and the Pearl Street Bridge.
e) Main Street between Front Street and the railroad tracks.
f) Main Street Municipal Parking Lot.
g) Court Street Municipal Lot
h) Riverside Drive Municipal Parking Lot
This ordinance shall not supersede City Parking Ordinance 13-602 (Parking Limited During
Snow Removal) when it is in effect.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be published in pamphlet form by and under the authority
of the corporate authorities of the City of McHenry, Illinois.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 20th day of NOVEMBER 2017.
Voting Aye:
Voting Nay:
Abstaining:
Not Voting:
Absent:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lynzi Nevitt
Mayor Wayne S. Jett
UNAPPROVED
Public Works Committee Meeting
Page 6
September 11, 2017
6. Motion to approve the Public Works Committee meeting schedule for the
remainder of Fiscal Year 2017/18.
Chairperson Santi announced proposed dates for future Public Works Committee
meetings as follows: October 9, November 27, January 8, February 12 March 12, and
April 9. All meetings would be held on Monday at 6:30 PM. Chairperson Santi noted he
is not in favor of holding Committee meetings prior to Council meetings. He would also
prefer the meetings begin at 6:30 PM.
Alderman Mihevc stated he is in favor of the proposed schedule as presented.
After a brief discussion, Chairperson Santi asked for a motion. Alderman Mihevc made a
motion, seconded by Alderman Glab to approve the Public Works Committee meeting
schedule as presented.
Aye: Mihevc Glab, Santi
Motion carried.
5. Review of a proposed Ordinance amending the Traffic & Motor Vehicle Code Sec.
13-604, to revise parking hours to No Parking 3:00 AM to 6:00 AM in Downtown
Business Districts on Saturday and Sunday mornings and designated holidays, and
direction to place item on the next available City Council meeting agenda.
Chairperson Santi asked Deputy Chief Birk to begin the discussion.
Deputy Chief Birk stated staff is seeking the Committee's support and possible
recommendation to amend the Traffic & Motor Vehicle Code Sec. 13-604, to revise
parking hours to No Parking 3:00 AM to 6:00 AM in Downtown Business Districts on
Saturday and Sunday mornings and those specific holidays tied to extended liquor
licensing hours. Specifically, the areas of Riverside Drive, Green Street, Pearl Street, and
Main Street and municipal lots that are adjacent to those properties as stated in the
summary included in the Committee packet.
As background, Deputy Chief Birk reported the City has a citywide no parking ordinance
from 2:00 AM to 6:00 AM. Although we have 15 businesses that have liquor license
classifications that allow them on certain days of the week to actually serve until 2:00
AM and allow patrons to stay in their business until 2:15 AM, the current parking
regulation is a contradiction of the city ordinance. A request is being brought forward on
behalf of the McHenry Police Department to amend the parking ordinance to restrict
parking from 3:00 AM to 6:00 AM.
Chairperson Santi asked for comments from the Committee.
Alderman Glab asked how this matter was brought to the city's attention. Deputy Chief
Public Works Committee Meeting
Page 7
September 11, 2017
Birk answered in his position, he deals with complaints and issues regarding parking
ticket violations and recently, several people have voiced concerns about the parking
limits. Several local business owners that are open late actually choose to have their
employees park on the street and risk a ticket rather than having them return to their
vehicles at 2:30 AM in a darkly lit public parking area. This amending is an opportunity
for the department to be proactive rather than reactive to promote downtown businesses.
Alderman Glab asked what the reasoning was when the ordinance was originally
adopted. Director Schmitt said to clear vehicles off the street overnight. Deputy Chief
Birk noted the parking restriction is also a deterrent for potential victims of property
crime and car burglaries. There is also more of a potential for vehicles being struck in
neighborhoods while parked on dark roadways versus the downtown district. It also
keeps the criminals from parking down the street from your house and then coming to
burglarize your car while it is parked in your driveway because they might get a parking
ticket and at the very least, the department would have a good investigating league.
Alderman Glab asked if we really want to have different streets in the city with different
parking regulations and, would it hurt if we made a citywide parking restriction from
3:00 AM to 6:00 AM. Deputy Chief Birk said as proposed, enforcement would not be
difficult. Director Schmitt said one concern about changing the parking limits citywide
would be the cost of changing all the signage. In addition, when he looks at different
parking restrictions in areas throughout town, some have two-hour parking and school
day only limits.
Chairperson Santi said Alderman Glab's point is good. The Police Department came to
the Committee with this suggestion and if Public Works is comfortable with this we
should look to them as professionals and consider this amendment. He reported having
discussions with some of the business owners regarding their concerns about employees
walking two or three blocks to their cars after closing. Although personally he has a
problem when he sees that an owner of a business is parked in front of their business.
With that said, he is in favor of this amendment because it is focused on certain areas.
Deputy Chief Birk stated liquor license holders in other areas of the community have
parking lots and are located on streets with no street parking. Extended parking in these
specific locations gives drivers an extra hour to find other options to get home and avoid
getting a parking ticket, which also makes our roadways safer.
Alderman Mihevc stated he appreciated the straightforward and clear analysis submitted
by staff adding the rational for the amendment makes sense to him and he is in favor of
the proposed amendment. Alderman Mihevc asked if there is also time limit parking on
some of these streets. Deputy Chief Birk answered without looking it up in the code, he
is aware of 4-hour daytime parking limits on some areas of these streets, which has been
adjusted from time to time by the Council. Restricted daytime parking usually ends after
6:00 or 7:00 PM.
Alderman Glab said these are good locations and asked is staff was certain there are no
other locations that should also be reviewed.
Public Works Committee Meeting
Page 8
September 11, 2017
Chairperson Santi suggested staff look into this, change the proposed locations as needed,
and bring the amendment to the Council.
Deputy Chief Birk reported so far this year, the department has issued 154 citations in the
downtown business district for 2:00 AM to 6:00 AM parking violations. Of those, just
over 60 were written between 2:00 AM and 3:00 AM, which totals approximately $1,600
in fines. In 2016, the department issued over 226 in that specific area for parking
violations and of those only 69 were written between 2:00 AM and 3:00 AM.
Chairperson Santi asked staff to explain bullet point #3 in the supplement - Waukegan
Road between Green Street and the end of the Riverwalk Center property. Deputy Chief
answered this language was taken directly from the ordinance and is directed at the three
parking spots located on the road right before the McHenry Villa. If further clarification
is request, staff could declare it in the ordinance as the first three parking spots on the
north side of the road.
As there were no further comments, Chairperson Santi asked for a motion. Alderman
Glab made a motion, seconded by Alderman Mihevc to recommend the proposed
ordinance amendment be brought to the full City Council for consideration.
Aye: Glab, Mihevc, Santi
Motion carried.
Future Meeting Topics
Chairperson Santi asked if there were any topics the Committee would like Director
Schmitt to present at a future meeting. Deputy Chief Birk reported he and Director
Schmitt have investigated the use of flashing speed limit signs. Alderman Glab said he
brought this topic up to the Mayor a few weeks ago as over the years he has received
complaints from residents who reside on Dartmoor Drive. After further discussion, it
was agreed to bring this suggestion before the Committee at a future meeting.
Alderman Glab suggested the Committee discuss next year's road resurfacing program
and future CIP projects.
Chairperson Santi summarized the following future meeting topics:
• CIP Projects
• Road Resurfacing Program
• Flashing Speed Limit Signs
• Framed Rubber Pedestrian Crossing Signs
• Crosswalk on Green Street
Chairperson Santi urged the Committee members to call or email Director Schmitt with
suggestions for future meeting topics.
The Committee agreed to add a line item for discussion on future agenda items to
Committee agendas.
Office of the Chief of Police
John R. Birk
McHenry Municipal Center
333 Green Street
McHenry, Illinois 60050
Phone: (815) 363-2200
Fax: (815) 363-2149
www.ci.mchenry.il.us
CONSENT AGENDA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John R. Birk, Chief of Police
FOR: November 20th, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting
RE: Sale of Five (5) Police Vehicles
ATT: Ordinance
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY:
Council is being asked to consider staffs request for the authorization of an Ordinance to sell
five (5) vehicles. Each fiscal year staff conducts an analysis of its vehicle fleet after new vehicles
are purchased through the approved Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and any additional
vehicles seized throughout the year. This process includes the examination of vehicle age,
overall mileage, vehicle condition and historical maintenance costs in order to determine if a
vehicle should be retired from service, or sold without placing into service if the vehicle is an
Article 36 seizure. With such, staff has concluded that five vehicles from the Police Department
should be retired from service and/or sold at auction to the highest bidder. The funds
generated from the sale of these vehicles will then be placed into the General Fund and Seizure
Fund, respectively. Further detailed information regarding this request is provided in the full
agenda supplement. Staff will be present to answer any questions Council may have at the
meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The Police Department currently has five (5) vehicles that are scheduled for auction. One (1)
vehicle is a retired marked patrol vehicle which was replaced this fiscal year. Two (2) vehicles
were unmarked detective vehicles which were originally acquired through Illinois drug seizure
proceedings and replaced this fiscal year as well. The final two (2) vehicles are vehicles that
were awarded to the police department through Illinois Article 36 seizure proceedings and are
not suitable for use.
These five vehicles are identified as follows:
Vehicle Status
Department
Year
Make
Model
VIN /Serial #
Mileage
Age
Article 36
Police
1994
Lexus
ES300
JT8GK13T6R0044570
205,959
23 yrs
Article 36
Police
2002
Ford
Explorer
1FMZU63E82UA87143
175,573
16 yrs
Retired Detective
Police
2005
Lincoln
Aviator
5LMEU88H352J25122
121,201
13 yrs
Retired Detective
Police
2006
Dodge
Charger
263KA43G161-1252044
91,408
12 yrs
Retired Patrol
Police
2010
Ford
Crown Vic
2FABP7BV9BX104387
126,164
8 yrs
ANALYSIS:
All of the above vehicles are between (8) eight years and (23) twenty-three years in age. They
all have mileage that ranges between 91,408 and 205,959 miles. Overall condition and
mechanical maintenance records confirm that the cost to maintain these vehicles well
outweighs the value of the vehicles, and keeping them in service would not be cost effective to
the City. Of the five (5) vehicles up for auction approval, three are retired active police vehicles.
All three of these vehicles were replaced this fiscal year. The remaining two (2) vehicles are
vehicles that were awarded to the police department subsequent to Article 36 proceedings. It
was never intended for these seized vehicles to be used, as their condition and age is poor, but
rather to be sold at auction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends utilizing the services of Clinton Auto Auctions to sell these vehicles and
equipment. The police department works with Clinton Auto Auctions on a regular basis
regarding the sale of vehicles and has always received positive results. The timely sale of this
property will allow for the highest purchase prices and return of revenue to the General Fund
and Seizure Fund.
Therefore, if Council concurs, then it is recommended that a motion be made to approve the
attached Ordinance authorizing the sale of the presented vehicles through Clinton Auto
Auction out of Clinton, Illinois.
Ordinance No. ORD-17-1847
An Ordinance Authorizing the Sale of Public Property
Owned by the City of McHenry
WHEREAS, the City of McHenry, McHenry County, Illinois, is a home rule
municipality as contemplated under Article VII, Section 6, of the Constitution of the
State of Illinois, and the passage of this Ordinance constitutes an exercise of the City's
home rule powers and functions as granted in the Constitution of the State of Illinois; and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the corporate authorities of the City of McHenry, it
is no longer necessary or useful to or for the best interests of the City of McHenry to
retain ownership of the public property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Mayor and City Council of the City of
McHenry to sell said public property for cash.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MCHENRY, as follows:
SECTION 1: The Mayor and City Council of the City of McHenry find that the
following described public property now owned by said jurisdiction is no longer
necessary to said jurisdiction and said jurisdiction would be best served by the said public
property sale:
1994 Lexus ES300 JT8GK13T6R0044570 2055959 23 yrs
2002 Ford Explorer 1FMZU63E82UA87143 1755573 16 yrs
2005 Lincoln Aviator 5LMEU88H352J25122 121,201 13 yrs
2006 Dodge Charger 2133KA43G161-1252044 917408 12 yrs
2010 Ford I Crown Vic 12FABP7BV9BX104387 1265164 1 8 yrs
SECTION 2: The Chief of Police is hereby authorized and directed to execute an
auction services agreement with Clinton Auto Auction Services and to sell via public
auction utilizing the services of said company the vehicles listed in Section 1 of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 3: Upon payment in full, the Chief of Police is hereby authorized and
directed to convey and/or transfer the aforesaid property to the respective buyers.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage by the corporate authorities.
PASSED and ADOPTED this
Voting Aye:
Voting Nay:
Abstaining:
Not Voting:
Absent:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lynzi Nevitt
ch day of
Mayor Wayne S. Jett
2017
AS NEEDED CHECKS
100 100-33-5370 ACE HARDWARE, MCHENRY 45.03 10/06/2017
100 100-33-6110 ACE HARDWARE, MCHENRY 51.17 10/06/2017
100 100-33-6270 ACE HARDWARE, MCHENRY 40.48 10/06/2017
100 10042-6110 ACE HARDWARE, MCHENRY 131.94 10/06/2017
100 10045-6110 ACE HARDWARE, MCHENRY 356.47 10/06/2017
510 510-31-6110 ACE HARDWARE, MCHENRY 135.96 10/06/2017
510 510-32-6110 ACE HARDWARE, MCHENRY 843.88 10/06/2017
620 620-00-5110 AT&T 2159.40 10/06/2017
620 620-00-5110 AT&T 1675.39 10/06/2017
100 1 00-33-61 10 BAKER & SON CO, PETER 76.76 10/06/2017
510 510-35-6110 BAKER & SON CO, PETER 80.18 10/06/2017
MO 300-00J300 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE 117.35 10/06/2017
510 510-3l-7300 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE 310.65 10/06/2017
100 100-01-6110 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 79.94 10/06/2017
100 100-33-6110 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 157.35 10/06/2017
100 100-33-6270 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 478.32 10/06/2017
100 10045-6110 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 660.76 10/06/2017
400 400-00-6110 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 174.93 10/06/2017
590 590-00-6940 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 400.00 10/06/2017
100 100454310 MIDWEST OPERATING ENGINEERS WELFARE FUND 1063,90,10/06/2017
400 40040-3650 NORTHERN, RACHEL 25.00 10/06/2017
100 10045-6110 PERRICONE GARDEN CENTER & NURSERY 160.00 10/06/2017
290 290-00-6940 RNM LLC 29869.92 10/06/2017
215 215-00-6110 SECRETARY OF STATE 10.00 10/06/2017
100 100-01-6940 SECRETARY OF STATE/INDEX DEPT 10.00 10/06/2017
620 620-00-6210 STANS LPS MIDWEST 49.12 10/06/2017
100 100-01-6210 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 306.22 10/06/2017
100 100-03=6210 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 79.38 10/06/2017
100 100-04-6210 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 44.99 10/06/2017
100 100-22-6210 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 485.34 10/06/2017
100 100=23-6210 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 37.76 10/06/2017
100 100-33-6210 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 113.15 10/06/2017
510 510-32-6110 THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC LLC 1420.95 10/06/2017
100 100-22-6310 TOPS IN DOG TRAINING CORP 425.97 10/06/2017
510 510-32-5580 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN 12145.12 10/06/2017
100 100-02-5310 WOODWARD PRINTING SERVICES 3400.00 10/06/2017
100 100-01-5320 AT&T 161.40 10/13/2017
100 100-02-5320 AT&T 60.53 10/13/2017
100 100-03-5320 AT&T 131.14 10/13/2017
100 100-04-5320 AT&T 70.61 10/13/2017
100 100-22-5320 AT&T 302.63 10/13/2017
100 100-30-5320 AT&T 60.53 10/13/2017
100 100-33-5320 AT&T 20.18 10/13/2017
100 10041-5320 AT&T 60.53 10/13/2017
100 10044-5320 AT&T 10.09 10/13/2017
100 10046-5320 AT&T 10.09 10/13/2017
100 10047-5320 AT&T 10.09 10/13/2017
620 620-00-5110 AT&T 40.35 10/13/2017
100 100-01-5110 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 165.00 10/13/2017
100 100=01-6940 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 1698.76 10/13/2017
100 100-03-6110 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 344.97 10/13/2017
100 100-22-5420 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 364.40 10/13/2017
100 100-22-5430 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 640.00 10/13/2017
100 10041-5110 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 401.41 10/13/2017
100 100-41-5310 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 159.76 10/13/2017
100 10041-5310 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 67.95 10/13/2017
100 10044-5430 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 60.00 10/13/2017
100 10046-6110 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 161.91 10/13/2017
100 10047-6110 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 47.45 10/13/2017
400 400-00-6110 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 20.06 10/13/2017
400 400-00-6120 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 126.92 10/13/2017
400 400-00-6141 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 135.74 10/13/2017
400 40040-5110 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 750400 10/13/2017
620 620-00-5430 BANKCARD PROCESSING CENTER 450.00 10/13/2017
100 100-33-6110 BIG R STORE 63.96 10/13/2017
100 10045-6110 BIG R STORE 106,98 10/13/2017
510 510-314510 BIG R STORE 139.96 10/13/2017
510 510-31-6110 BIG R STORE 155.99 10/13/2017
100 100-33-5520 DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS 6992olO 10/13/2017
510 510-31-5510 DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS 6404.97 10/13/2017
510 510-32-5510 DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS 8181,88 10/13/2017
100 100-33-5370 ED'S AUTOMOTIVEMIM'S MUFFLER SHOP 29.00 10/13/2017
100 100-33-5370 ED'S AUTOMOTIVE/JIM'S MUFFLER SHOP 29,00 10/13/2017
510 510-35-5370 ED'S AUTOMOTIVE/JIM'S MUFFLER SHOP 29.00 10/13/2017
100 10047-6110 FOX VALLEY SWIM TEAM 584.00 10/13/2017
100 10046-6920 GALVICIUS, DEREK 200,00 10/13/2017
510 510-35-6110 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 66,80 10/13/2017
100 10047-5410 ILLINOIS SWIMMING INC 75.00 10/13/2017
610 610-00-5960 KLEEN MAINTENANCE CO LLC 2100.00 10/13/2017
100 100-22-5430 MICROTEL INN 100.91 10/13/2017
100 100-03-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 260,42 10/13/2017
100 100-22-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 914.20 10/13/2017
100 100-33-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 702.34 10/13/2017
100 100-33-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 403.30 10/13/2017
100 10045-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 220635 10/13/2017
510 510-31-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 304.26 10/13/2017
510 510-32-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 38,06 10/13/2017
510 510-32-6110 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 56.85 10/13/2017
510 510-35-5370 NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 258.39 10/13/2017
100 100-01-5310 UPS STORE, THE 11471 10/13/2017
100 100-01-5310 UPS STORE, THE 1114 10/13/2017
100 100-01-5320 AT&T 159.93 10/20/2017
100 100-03-5320 AT&T 53.31 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5320 AT&T 344.97 10/20/2017
100 100-23-5320 AT&T 888.39 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5515 AT&T 60.30 10/20/2017
100 10043-5320 AT&T 59.26 10/20/2017
100 10045-5320 AT&T 89.53 10/20/2017
100 10046-5320 AT&T 29.63 10/20/2017
620 620-00-5320 AT&T 53.31 10/20/2017
100 10047-5110 BARRINGTON SWIM CLUB 1725.00 10/20/2017
100 100-03-5110 BRENNAN, DAN 560.00 10/20/2017
100 100-03-5110 BRENNAN, DAN 535,00 10/20/2017
100 100-03-5110 BRENNAN, DAN 250,00 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 472,98 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 358.54 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 79.50 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 4,34 10/20/2017
100 100-03-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 11,78 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5370 BUSS FORD SALES-150.00 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 358.54 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 395,00 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 110.31 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 400.00 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 1482.97 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 167.38 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 134.83 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 122457 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 400.00 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 180.25 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 312,06 10/20/2017
100 100-03-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 68422 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5370 BUSS FORD SALES 1335.02 10/20/2017
100 10045-5110 CLARKE ENVIRONMENTAL MOSQUITO MGMT INC 175.00 10/20/2017
620 620-00-5110 COMCAST CABLE 164.85 10/20/2017
620 620-00-5110 COMCAST CABLE 12.64 10/20/2017
620 620-00-5110 COMCAST CABLE 134.40 10/20/2017
100 1 00-33-61 10 COONEY COMPANY, FRANK 295.00 10/20/2017
100 10045-6110 CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO 460.00 10/20/2017
100 10045-6110 CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO -%83 10/20/2017
100 10045-6110 CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO 23.36 10/20/2017
400 400-00-5321 DIRECTV 262.97 10/20/2017
100 10045-5370 ED'S AUTOMOTIVE/JIM'S MUFFLER SHOP 348,00 10/20/2017
225 225-00-5110 FOX VALLEY FIRE & SAFETY 2805.00 10/20/2017
225 225-00-5110 FOX VALLEY FIRE & SAFETY 1267.50 10/20/2017
225 225-00-5110 FOX VALLEY FIRE & SAFETY 448,00 10/20/2017
100 100-33-6110 FOX WATERWAY AGENCY 690.00 10/20/2017
510 510-35-6110 FOX WATERWAY AGENCY 150.00 10/20/2017
510 510-32-8500 HRGREEN 47682933 10/20/2017
510 510-32-5110 IWPIPE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY INC 7750.00 10/20/2017
100 10045-5110 KLEEN MAINTENANCE CO LLC 3720,00 10/20/2017
100 1 00-22-51 10 LEXISNEXIS 124.50 10/20/2017
510 510-32-6110 LIONHEART 452.66 10/20/2017
610 610-00-5960 MARKS TREE SERVICE & SNOW PLOWING CORP 5500.00 10/20/2017
100 100-01-5110 MCHENRY COUNTY DIV OF TRANSPORTATION 2946,08 10/20/2017
100 100�01-6940 MCHENRY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS 40.00 10/20/2017
100 100-33-6950 MCHENRY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS 72.00 10/20/2017
510 510-31-6940 MCHENRY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS 360.00 10/20/2017
510 510-32-6940 MCHENRY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS 400.00 10/20/2017
510 510-31-6940 MCHENRY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS 61.50 10/20/2017
510 510-32-6940 MCHENRY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS 100900 10/20/2017
510 510-32-5375 MID AMERICAN WATER OF WAUCONDA INC 690.84 10/20/2017
100 1 00-33-61 10 MID AMERICAN WATER OF WAUCONDA INC 3%80 10/20/2017
510 510-35-6110 MID AMERICAN WATER OF WAUCONDA INC 279600 10/20/2017
100 100-22-6210 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS - STARCOM21 NETWORK 54.75 10/20/2017
100 1 00-33-61 10 NETWORKFLEET INC 291.30 10/20/2017
100 100A290 RADICOM INC 47696.69 10/20/2017
100 1 00-22-51 10 RADICOM INC 15898.90 10/20/2017
100 1 00-23-51 10 RADICOM INC 72292.41 10/20/2017
100 10045-5370 REINDERS INC 191,29 10/20/2017
100 10045-5370 REINDERS INC 528,38 10/20/2017
100 10045-5370 REINDERS INC llv09 10/20/2017
100 100-45-5370 REINDERS INC 1642olO 10/20/2017
100 10045-5370 REINDERS INC 195.36 10/20/2017
100 10045-6270 REINDERS INC 2837.14 10/20/2017
100 1 00-44-61 10 SAM'S CLUB 94.36 10/20/2017
100 10046-6920 SAM'S CLUB 47,92 10/20/2017
400 400-00-6110 SAM'S CLUB 49496 10/20/2017
100 100-01-5330 SHAW MEDIA 1000600 10/20/2017
100 100-01-5330 SHAW MEDIA 102,10 10/20/2017
100 100-41-5330 SHAW MEDIA 596.00 10/20/2011
620 620-00-6210 STAN'S FINANCIAL SERVICES 90,06 10/20/2017
100 1 00-01 -61 10 SYNCB/AMAZON 311066 10/20/2017
100 100-03-6110 SYNCB/AMAZON 97.63 10/20/2017
100 10041-6210 SYNCB/AMAZON 25.47 10/20/2017
100 10042-6110 SYNCB/AMAZON 229.27 10/20/2017
100 10045-6110 SYNCB/AMAZON 11.39 10/20/2017
100 10046-6110 SYNCB/AMAZON 49A4 10/20/2017
100 10046-6920 SYNCB/AMAZON 13.74 10/20/2017
100 100-22-6210 SYNCB/AMAZON 34.70 10/20/2017
100 100-01-5110 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 280.66 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5110 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 277.84 10/20/2017
100 1 00-33-51 10 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 73.00 10/20/2017
510 510-31-5110 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 73.00 10/20/2017
510 510-32-5110 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 73.00 10/20/2017
510 510-35-5110 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 7100 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 14.65 10/20/2017
510 510-3l-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 231,32 10/20/2017
510 510-32-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 14.65 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 114.03 10/20/2017
100 100-01-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 142,13 10/20/2017
100 100-03-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 105.30 10/20/2017
100 100-22-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 1128.93 10/20/2017
100 100-30-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 57.60 10/20/2017
100 100-33-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 112.59 10/20/2017
100 10041-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 3.11 10/20/2017
100 10045-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 35.50 10/20/2017
100 10046-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 1.34 10/20/2017
620 620-00-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 106.65 10/20/2017
510 510-31-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 55.84 10/20/2017
510 510-32-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 28.69 10/20/2017
510 510-35-5320 VERIZON WIRELESS 76.02 10/20/2017
100 100-33-6110 CABAY & COMPANY INC 748,40 10/25/2017
620 620-00-5110 COMCAST CABLE 124,66 10/25/2017
620 620-00-5110 COMCAST CABLE 127.11 10/25/2017
900 100-01-5510 COMED 98,38 10/25/2017
100 100-33-5520 COMED 99.60 10/25/2017
100 10045-5510 COMED 34.62 10/25/2017
510 510-32-5510 COMED 167.76 10/25/2017
100 100=44-5110 CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY INC 31.10 10/25/2017
100 100-33-6110 CURRAN CONTRACTING COMPANY 996,02 10/25/2017
620 620-00-6210 DOCUMENT IMAGING DIMENSIONS INC 129.00 10/25/2017
620 620-00-6210 DOCUMENT IMAGING DIMENSIONS INC 307.00 10/25/2017
100 10047-5110 FOX VALLEY SWIM TEAM 16,00 10/25/2017
100 1 00-33-61 10 GESKE AND SONS INC 362.88 10/26/2017
740 740-00-3750 GILLEY, JAMES OR PATRICIA 447.50 10/25/2017
510 510-32-6110 HAWKINS INC 4203,23 10/25/2017
100 100=01-5110 ILLINOIS STATE POLICE 27.00 10/25/2017
100 100-33-5430 MCHENRY COUNTY DEPT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPI 25.00 10/25/2017
100 100=33-5110 MCHENRY TOWNSHIP ROAD DISTRICT 5233*00 10/25/2017
100 100-22-8300 RADICOM INC 19135.58 10/25/2017
100 100-22-8300 RADICOM INC 21762,42 10/25/2017
100 100-22-6210 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 15.49 10/25/2017
100 100-30-6210 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 51.16 10/25/2017
100 10Mlm5310 UPS STORE, THE 5.66 10/25/2017
100 100-04-5310 UPS STORE, THE 7.27 10/25/2017
510 510-31-5310 UPS STORE, THE 3,64 10/25/2017
510 510-32-5580 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WkMN 12900408 10/25/2017
510
510-35-6110
WATER
PRODUCTS -
AURORA
510
510-35-6110
WATER
PRODUCTS =
AURORA
510
510-3&6110
WATER
PRODUCTS -
AURORA
510
510-35-6110
WATER
PRODUCTS -
AURORA
510
51M2-5580
WINNEBAGO LANDFILL CO
TOTAL
FUND 100
FUND 215
FUND 290
FUND 400
FUND 510
FUND 590
FUND 620
FUND 740
532.80 10/25/2011
245.56 10/25/2017
1.72 10/25/2017
11.68 10/25/2017
8004,60 10/25/2017
402747.79
249650.03
10.00
29869.92
1545.58
115200.82
400.00
5623.94
447.50
402747.79
Vendor Name
MCHenry, IL
Payable Number
Vendor: ALTHOFF INDUSTRIES INC
ALTHOFF INDUSTRIES INC S407307
Vendor: AMERICAN RED CROSS
AMERICAN RED CROSS 22057243
AMERICAN RED CROSS 22059452
Vendor: ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL 5
Vendor: AT&T
AT&T INV0004858
Vendor: BANK
OF NEW YORK
MELLON TRUST CO, THE
BANK
OF
NEW
YORK
MELLON
10/14 MCHENRY 2010B
BANK
OF
NEW
YORK
MELLON
10/14 MCHENRY 2010E
BANK
OF
NEW
YORK
MELLON
MCHENRY 2010C
BANK
OF
NEW
YORK
MELLON
MCHENRY 2010C
Vendor: BANK
OF NEW YORK
MELLON, THE
BANI<OF
NEW
YORI<MELLON,
10/17 MCHENRY2012
BANK
OF
NEW
YORK
MELLON,
10/17 MCHENRY2012
BANK
OF
NEW
YORK
MELLON,
MCHENRY 201210/17
BANK
OF
NEW
YORK
MELLON,
MCHENRY 201210/17
Vendor: BARTER &WOODMAN
BARTER &WOODMAN 0195540
Vendor: BERKHEIMER CO INC, G W
BERKHEIMER CO INC, G W 72863
Vendor: BIRI<,JOHN
BIRI<, JOHN INV0004797
Vendor: CABAY &COMPANY INC
CABAY &COMPANY INC 58002
CABAY & COMPANY INC 58093
CABAY & COMPANY INC 58214
Vendor: CHRISTOPHER, DAVID
CHRISTOPHER, DAVID INV0004798
Vendor: CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 355
CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 355 0992/01000 11/20
CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 355 11/20 0992,01000
CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 355 11/20 0992,01000
Vendor: CINTAS
CINTAS 5009130496
Expense Approval Register
List of Bills Council Meeting 11-2047
Post Date Description (Item) Account Number Amount
11/20/2017 SVS 100-01-5110 1,232.85
Vendor ALTHOFF INDUSTRIES INC Total: 1,232.85
11/20/2017
WERDERITCHCPR
400-00-5430
27.00
11/20/2017
SWENO CPR
100-47-5430
27.00
Vendor AMERICAN RED CROSS Total:
54.00
11/20/2017
PW PJT
440-00-8200
13,125.02
Vendor ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS Total:
13,125.02
11/20/2017
UTIL
100-33-S515
60.45
Vendor AT&T Total:
60,45
11t20/2017
BDS
300-00-7100
365,000.00
11/20/2017
BDS
300-00-7200
31,078.75
11/20/2017
BDS
510-2305
255,000.00
11J20/2017
BDS
510-32-7200
94,593.75
Vendor BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO, THE Total:
745,672.50
11/13/2017
BND
300-00-7100
550000600
11/13/2017
BND
300-00-7200
71012,50
11/20/2017
BND
510-2305
95,000.00
11/20/2017
BND
510-31-7200
22,203475
Vendor BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE Total:
179,216.25
11(20/2017
REC CTR LOT
400-00-8200
3,730.00
Vendor BARTER & WOODMAN Total:
3,730.00
11(20/2017
SUPP
400-00-5375
258.00
Vendor BERKHEIMER CO INC, 6 W Total:
258.00
11/20/2017
REIMB
100-22-5420
62.72
Vendor BIRK, JOHN Total:
62.72
11/20/2017
SUPP
400-00-6111
953.90
11/20/2017
SUPP
400-00-6111
27.50
11/20/2017
SUPP
400-00-6111
588.50
Vendor CABAY & COMPANY INC Total:
1,569.90
11/20/2017
UNIFORM REIMB 100-33-4510
83.81
Vendor CHRISTOPHER, DAVID Total:
83.81
11/20/2017
MAT/SUPP
510-32-4510
390.88
11/20/2017
MAT/SUPP
100-33-4510
173.36
11/20/2017
MAT/SUPP
100-33-6110
157.48
Vendor CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 355 Total:
721.72
11/20/2017
F/A CAB
400-00-6130 82.62
Vendor CINTAS Total: 82.62
11/15/2017 11:00:00 AM
Expense Approval Register
Vendor Name
Payable Number
Post Date
Vendor: COMED
COMED
0046 11/20
11/20/2017
COMED
3531 11/20
11/20/2017
COMED
353111/20
11/20/2017
Vendor: COMMUNICATIONS REVOLVING FUND
COMMUNICATIONS
T1809657
11/20/2017
Vendor: CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY INC
CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY
INV0004799
11/20/2017
CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY
INV0004799
11/20/2017
Vendor: CURRAN CONTRACTING COMPANY
Packet: APPKT00989-11-20-17AP CKS
Description (Item) Account Number Amount
U71L 100-33-5520
UTIL 510-31-5510
UTIL 510-32-5510
Vendor COMED Total:
COMM 620-00-5110
Vendor COMMUNICATIONS REVOLVING FUND Total:
UTIL 100-33-5520
UTIL 100-44-5510
Vendor CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY INC Total:
CURRAN CONTRACTING 13547 11/20/2017 MAT 100-33-6110
CURRAN CONTRACTING 13547 11/20/2017 MAT 100-33-6110
CURRAN CONTRACTING 13590 11/20/2017 MAT 100-33-6110
Vendor CURRAN CONTRACTING COMPANY Total:
Vendor: DIXON ENGINEERING INC
DIXON ENGINEERING INC 17-2935 11/20/2017 RET PERS 740.00-5220
Vendor DIXON ENGINEERING INC Total:
Vendor: DOTY, SAMANTHA
DOTY, SAMANTHA INV0004800 11/20/2017 INITIALUNIF 100-23-6110
Vendor DOTY, SAMANTHA Total:
Vendor: ED'S RENTAL & SALES INC
ED'S RENTAL& SALES INC 215912-1 11/20/2017 RNTL 400-40-5110
Vendor ED'S RENTAL & SALES INC Total:
Vendor: ETTEN, CHRISTOPHER
ETTEN, CHRISTOPHER INV0004801 11/20/2017 CDL REIMB 100-45-5430
Vendor ETTEN, CHRISTOPHER Total:
Vendor: FGM ARCHITECTS
FGM ARCHITECTS 17-2366.01-2 11/20/2017 RECCTRARTWK 400-00-5110
Vendor FGM ARCHITECTS Total:
Vendor: GLICK IV, HENRY W
GLICK IV, HENRY W 10/3-10/27 11/20/2017 LIMP 100-47-5110
Vendor GLICK IV, HENRY W Total:
Vendor: HEADLEY, JEAN
HEADLEY, JEAN INV0004802 11/20/2017 BOOTREIMB 100-03-4510
Vendor HEADLEY, JEAN Total:
Vendor: HRGREEN
HRGREEN 114672 11/20/2017 SVS 290-00-8900
HRGREEN 114678 11/21/2017 REC CTR OBS 400-00-8200
Vendor HRGREEN Total:
Vendor: ILLINOIS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
ILLINOIS DEPT OF INV0004803 11/20/2017 LIC- 100-45-5430
Vendor ILLINOIS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE Total:
Vendor: ILLINOIS STATE POLICE
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE INV0004804 11/20/2017 EMPLCKS 100-33-5110
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE INV0004804 11/20/2017 EMPLCKS 400-00-5110
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE INV0004805 11/20/2017 LIQCOMM 100-01-5110
Vendor ILLINOIS STATE POLICE Totah
Vendor: KINNEY, BRETT
KINNEY, BRETT INV0004806 11/20/2017 MEALREIMB 100-22-5420
Vendor KINNEY, BRETT Total:
875.41
418.51
1,039.90
2,333.82
10.00
10.00
96A3
31.11
iPy/fir!
275.40
747.90
281.43
1,304.73
950.00
950.00
69.05
165.00
165.00
65.00
65.00
735.00
735.00
225.00
225.00
150.00
150.00
344,00
328.25
672.25
50.00
50.00
27.00
27.00
27.00
81.00
40.00
40.00
11/15/2017 11:00:00 AM
Expense Approval Register
Vendor Name Payable Number
Vendor: KIWANIS CLUB OF MCHENRY
KIWANIS CLUB OF MCHENRY 1059
Vendor:LARSON,ED
LARSON, ED INV0004807
Vendor: LECHNER,TIM
LECHNER,TIM INV0004808
Vendor: LES MILLS UNITED STATES TRADING INC
LES MILLS UNITED STATES SIV506938
Vendor: LEXISNEXIS
LEXISNEXIS 1236684-20171031
Vendor: M-B COMPANIES, INC
M-B COMPANIES, INC 219820
M-B COMPANIES, INC 220502
Vendor: MCANDREWS PC, THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK
MCANDREWS PC, THE LAW 10/19 a
Vendor: MCHENRY
COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
10/2017
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
10/2017
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
10/2017
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
10/2017
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
10/2017
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
10/2017
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
OCT 17
MCHENRY
COUNTY
RECORDER
OCT 17
Vendor: MCHENRY MARLINS AQUATIC CLUB
MCHENRY MARLINS AQUATIC 204
Vendor: MCHENRYTOWNSHIP FIRE PROTECTION DIST
MCHENRY TOWNSHIP FIRE INV0004809
Vendor: MINUTEMAN PRE55 OF MCH
Post Date
11/20/2017
11/20/2017
11/20/2017
11/20/2017
11/20/2017
11/20/2017
11/20/2017
11/14/2017
Description (Item)
MEALS
MILEAGE
UNIFORM REIMB
Packet: APPKT00989-11-20-17AP CKS
Account Number Amount
100-46-6110
Vendor KIWANIS CLUB OF MCHENRY Total
620-00-5420
Vendor LARSON, ED Total:
100-33-4510
Vendor LECHNER, TIM Total:
LIC FEE 400-40-5110
Vendor LES MILLS UNITED STATES TRADING INC Total:
MTHLY
100-22-5110
Vendor LEXISNEXIS Total:
SUPP 100-33-6110
SUPP 100-33-6110
Vendor M-B COMPANIES, INCTotal:
SVS 100-01-5230
Vendor MCANDREWS PC, THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK Total:
11/20/2017
REC
FEES
510-31-6940
11/2D/2017
REC
FEES
510-31-6940
11/20/2017
REC
FEES
510-31-6940
11'20/2017
REC
FEES
510-32-6940
11/20/2017
REC
FEES
510-32-6940
11/20/2017
REC
FEES
510-32-6940
11/20/2017
REC
FEES
100-01-6940
11/20/2017
REC
FEES
100-03-5110
Vendor MCHENRY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS Total:
11/20/2017
10 SWM FEES
100-47-5110
Vendor
MCHENRY MARLINS AQUATIC CLUB Total:
11/20/2017 2ND QTR REV SHR Inn -23-5110
Vendor MCHENRY TOWNSHIP FIRE PROTECTION DIST Total:
36.00
36.00
198.72
198.72
410.00
410.00
153.00
153.00
294.55
294.64
589.19
5,175.00
5,175.00
60.00
60.00
20.00
180.00
60.00
340.00
263.00
15.50
30.OD
30.00
17,578.23
17,578.23
MINUTEMAN PRESS OF MCH 89091 11/20/2D17 NOT STMP-CRUZ MARTENSON 100-01-6210 33.75
MINUTEMAN PRESS OF MCH 89091 11/20/2017 NOTSTMP-CRUZ MARTENSON 100-22-6210 33.75
MINUTEMAN PRESS OF MCH 89378 11/20/2017 HOBSON-BUS CARDS 40D-00-6210 61.50
MINUTEMAN PRESS OF MCH 89394 11/20/2017 BUS CARDS-WALSH 100-22-6110 48.00
Vendor MINUTEMAN PRESS OF MCH Total: 177.00
Vendor: MITCHELL, RICHARD
MITCHELL, RICHARD 176934 11/20/2017 MSHIP CXL 400-40-3645 57,43
Vendor MITCHELL, RICHARD Total: 57,43
Vendor, MUNICIPAL COLLECTION SERVICES INC
MUNICIPAL COLLECTION 011032 11/20/2017 FEES 100-04-5110 10.50
MUNICIPAL COLLECTION 011032 11/20/2017 FEES 100-2200 10.50
Vendor MUNICIPAL COLLECTION SERVICES INC Total: 21.00
Vendor: NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC
NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 10/171370 11/20/2017 MAT/SUPP 510-31-5370 33.42
NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 10/171370 11/20/2017 MAT/SUPP 510-32-5370 382,06
NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 10/171370 11/20/2017 MAT/SUPP 510-35-5370 106,19
NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 137010/17 11/20/2017 MAT/SUPP 100-22-5370 41304A3
il/15/2017 11:00:00 AM
Expense Approval Register Packet: APPKT00989-11-20-17AP CKS
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Account Number Amount
NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 137010/17 11/20/2017 MAT/SUPP 100-33-5370 11015.30
NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC 137010/17 11/20/2017 MAT/SUPP 100-45-5370 481.20
Vendor NAPA AUTO PARTS MPEC Total: 6,322.30
Vendor: NEUMANN JR, EDWARD J
NEUMANN JR, EDWARD J INV0004810 11/20/2017 DEC RENT 740-00-6960 500.00
Vendor NEUMANN JR, EDWARD J Total: 500.00
Vendor: ORTH, KIRSTEN
ORTH, KIRSTEN 178662 11/20/2017 CXL PGM 10041-3636 24.00
Vendor ORTH, KIRSTEN Total: 24.00
Vendor: PADRO, PEDRO
PADRO, PEDRO INV0004846 11/20/2017 CLOTHING REIMB 100-33-4510 311.73
Vendor PADRO, PEDRO Total: 311.73
Vendor: PETROCHOICE LLC
PETROCHOICE LLC 10332017 11/20/2017 FUEL 100-45-6250 97.62
Vendor PETROCHOICE LLC Total: 97.62
Vendor: PRATHER,JAiMIE
PRATHER,JAIMIE INV0004847 11/20/2017 MEAL REIMB 100-22-5420 40.00
Vendor PRATHER, JAIMIE Total: 40.00
Vendor: RE HUMMEL CONSTRUCTION CO
RE HUMMEL CONSTRUCTION INV0004848 11/20/2017 BOAT LAUNCH PRJ 280-41-8100 371049.22
Vendor RE HUMMEL CONSTRUCTION CO Total$ 37,049.22
Vendor: RIVERSIDE BAKESHOP
RIVERSIDE BAKE SHOP 163642/163348 11/20/2017 /163348 100-01-6940 81.81
RIVERSIDE BAKE SHOP 1636421163348 11/20/2017 /163348 610-00-5960 19,81
Vendor RIVERSIDE BAKESHOP Total: 101.62
Vendor: ROTARY CLUB OF MCHENRY
ROTARY CLUB OF MCHENRY 2903 11/20/2017 DUES/MEALS 100-01-5410 249.00
Vendor ROTARY CLUB OF MCHENRY Total: 249.00
Vendor: SCHMITT, KELLY
SCHMITT, KELLY INV0004849 11/20/2017 MEAL REIMB 100-23-5420 24.00
Vendor SCHMITT, KELLY Total: 24.00
Vendor: SCHMITT, MATTHEW
SCHMITT, MATTHEW INV0004850 11/20/2017 MEAL REIMB 100-22-5420 7.59
Vendor SCHMITT, MATTHEW Total: 7.59
Vendor: SCHOPEN PEST SOLUTIONS INC
SCHOPEN PEST SOLUTIONS INC 84134 11/20/2017 PEST SVS 100-01-5110 130.00
Vendor SCHOPEN PEST SOLUTIONS INCTotal: 130.00
Vendor: SHAW MEDIA
SHAW MEDIA 1047410/2017 11/20/2017 PUB 100-01-5330 134.60
SHAW MEDIA 1047410/2017 11/20/2017 PUB 10D-01-5330 46.20
SHAW MEDIA 1047410/2017 11/20/2017 PUB 100-01-5330 1,391.48
SHAW MEDIA 1047410/2017 11/20/2017 PUB 100-01-5330 316.48
SHAW MEDIA 1047410/2017 11/20/2017 PUB 400-00-5210 596.00
Vendor SHAW MEDIA Total: 21484.76
Vendor: SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL
SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL ARW34260084 11/20/2017 TOOL 100-33-5370 2,442.20
Vendor SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL Total: 2,442.20
Vendor: SWENO, ROBERT M
SWENO, ROBERT M 17-1015 11/20/2017 GOLF PGM INST 500-47-5110 245.00
Vendor SWENO, ROBERT M Total: 245.00
Vendor: THIRD MILLENNIUM ASSOCIATES INC
THIRD MILLENNIUM 21324 11/20/2017 SVS 100-04-5330 31650.00
VendorTHiRD MILLENNIUM ASSOCIATES INCTotal: 3,650.00
Vendor: UPS
UPS 60X485447/485397 11/20/2017 SHP 100-01-5310 11,56
11/15/2017 11:00;00 AM
Expense Approval Register Packet: APPK100989-11-20-17AP CKS
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Account Number Amount
UPS 6OX485447/485397 11/20/2017 SHP 100-23-5310 5.65
UPS 60X485447 11/20/2017 SHP 510-31-5310 9096
Vendor UPS Total: 27.17
Vendor: VALLEY VIEW ACRES
VALLEY VIEW ACRES 16982 11/20/2017 RID LESS 10047-5110 200.00
Vendor VALLEY VIEW ACRES Total: 200.00
Vendor: VERIZON WIRELESS
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 100-01-5320 148.28
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 100-03-5320 102.64
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 100-22-5320 1,080.19
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 100-30-5320 55.82
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 100-33-5320 118.62
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 100-41-5320 2.28
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 10045-5320 35.50
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 10046-5320 1.61
VERIZON WIRELESS 11/2017 11/20/2017 UTIL 620-00-5320 40.29
VERIZON WIRELESS INV0004859 11/20/2017 UTIL 510-31-5320 55.84
VERIZON WIRELESS INV0004859 11/20/2017 UTIL 510-32-5320 27.29
VERIZON WIRELESS INV0004859 11/20/2017 UTIL 510-35-5320 76.02
Vendor VERIZON WIRELESS Total: 1,744.38
Vendor: WILLIAMS, DEANNA
WILLIAMS, DEANNA INV0004851 11/20/2017 REIMB 100-47-5430 57.00
Vendor WILLIAMS, DEANNA Total: S7.00
Vendor: WINNEBAGO LANDFILL CO
WINNEBAGO LANDFILL CO 1142 11/20/2017 SLDG 510-32-5580 7,437.24
Vendor WINNEBAGO LANDFILL CO Total: 7,437.24
Vendor: WORKPLACE SOLUTIONS
WORKPLACE SOLUTIONS INV13313 11/20/2017 EAPMTHLY 100-01-5110 450.42
Vendor WORKPLACE SOLUTIONS Total: 450.42
Vendor: ZUMWALT, JACK D
ZUMWALT, LACK D INV0004852 11/20/2017 MEAL REIMB 100-22-5420 16.00
Vendor ZUMWALT, JACK D Total: 16.00
Grand Total: 1,041,984.76
il/15J2017 11:00:00 AM
ExpenseApproval Register
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100-GENERAL FUND 46,113.94
280- DEVELOPER DONATION FUND 37,049.22
290-TIF FUND 344,00
300- DEBT SERVICE-1997A FUND 458,091.25
4 )0- RECREATION CENTER FUND 8104730
440 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 13,125.02
510- WATER/SEWER FUND 477,494.81
610 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 19681
620 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND 249.01
740 - RETAINED PERSONNEL ESCROW 11450,00
Grand Total: 11041,98436
Packet: APPKT00989-11-20-17AP CKS
Vendor Name
McHenry, IL
Payable Number Post Date
Vendor:.ADAMS ENTERPRISES INC, R A
Expense Approval Register
#2 List of bills Council Meeting 11-2047
Description (Item) Account Number Amount
ADAMS ENTERPRISES INC, R A 810868 11/20/2017 HARNESS 510-32-5370 190.31
ADAMS ENTERPRISES INC, R A 810997 11/20/2017 auger parts 100-33-5370 160.55
ADAMS ENTERPRISES INC, RA 811040 11/20/2017 lights 510-32-5370 747.54
ADAMS ENTERPRISES INC, RA 811064 11/20/2017 plow blades 100-45-5370 325.80
ADAMS ENTERPRISES INC, RA 811249 11/20/2017 oil 100-33-5370 81.60
Vendor ADAMS ENTERPRISES INC, R A Total: 1/505480
Vendor: ADAMS STEEL SERVICE INC
ADAMS STEELSERVICE INC
344660 11/20/2017 steel 100-33-5370 26.13
ADAMS STEEL SERVICE INC 344779 11/20/2017 steel 100-33-5370 241.60
ADAMS STEEL SERVICE INC 344975 11/20/2017 steel 100-33-5370 10,80
Vendor ADAMS STEEL SERVICE INC Total: 278.53
Vendor: AMERICAN HEATING &COOLING
AMERICAN HEATING & 11031705 11/20/2017 WTP #2 Rooftop unit- 510-31-6110 162.00
Vendor AMERICAN HEATING & COOLING Total: 162.00
Vendor: ARAMARK
ARAMARK 20413946 11/20/2017 Clothing Dillon: Parks 100-45-4510 217.95
Vendor ARAMARK Total: 217.95
Vendor: ARIES INDUSTRIES INC
ARIES INDUSTRIES INC 372958 11/20/2D17 Camera Repair 510-35-5370 1,129.80
Vendor ARIES INDUSTRIES INC Total: 11129.80
Vendor: BAKER & SON CO, PETER
BAKER & SON CO, PETER 17560 11/20/2017 Coring Green Street Bridge 100-33-5110 527,00
BAKER & SON CO, PETER 18403 11/20/2017 HMA surface N70. vendor 100-33-6110 61.18
Vendor BAKER & SON CO, PETER Total: 588.18
Vendor: BERNIE'S RESTORATION
BERNIE'S RESTORATION 1817696 11/20/2017 parl<ingsigns:DMD 100-45-5110 340.00
Vendor BERNIE'S RESTORATION Total: 340.00
Vendor: BIG R STORE
BIG R STORE 1150210/31 11/20/2017 see below. vendor INV # 100-33-6110 94.56
Vendor BIG R STORE Total: 94.56
Vendor: BUSS FORD SALES
BUSS FORD SALES 5027895 11/20/2017 bulb 318 100-22-5370 271.62
BUSS FORD SALES 5027942 11/20/2017 axle 320 100-22-5370 121.56
Vendor BUSS FORD SALES Total: 393.18
Vendor: CAREY ELECTRIC
CAREY ELECTRIC 1817699 11/20/2017 Contracted Electrical: Parks 100-45-5110 380.00
Vendor CAREY ELECTRIC Total: 380.00
Vendor: CENTURY SPRINGS
CENTURY SPRINGS INV0004853 11/20/2017 Lab Water 510-32-6110 25.00
CENTURY SPRINGS INV0004854 11/20/2017 Lab water 510-32-6110 9.00
Vendor CENTURY SPRINGS Total: 34.00
Vendor: COMCAST CABLE
COMCAST CABLE INV0004855 11/20/2017 City Hall Cable 620-00-5110 31.64
COMCAST CABLE INV0004856 11/20/2017 Rec Center Internet 620-00-5110 124.90
COMCAST CABLE INV0004857 11/20/2017 City Hall Internet 620-00 5110 164.85
Vendor COMCAST CABLE Total: 321.39
Vendor: CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO
CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO 5504245647.001 11/20/2017 GE -LAMPS. vendor order # 100-33-6110 171.98
11/15/2017 11:06:27 AM
Expense Approval Register
Vendor Name Payable Number
CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO S504266340.001
Vendor: CUTTING EDGE COMMUNICATIONS INC
CUTTING EDGE 5118
Vendor: DOCUMENT IMAGING DIMENSIONS INC
DOCUMENTIMAGING 329730
Vendor: DREISILKER ELECTRIC MOTORS INC
DREISILKER ELECTRIC MOTORS 1065943
DREISILKER ELECTRIC MOTORS 1066602
Vendor: D'S
MARINE
SERVICE
INC
D'S MARINE
SERVICE
INC
1817714
Vendor: FISCHER BROS FRESH
FISCHER BROS FRESH 9241
Vendor: GALLAGHER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC,
GALLAGHER RISK 2349598
Vendor: GALLS LLC
Packet: APPKT00993-1140-17 RECT INVOICE
Post Date Description (Item) Account Number Amount
11/20/2017 ElectricalSupplies: DMD 100-45-6110 44.30
Vendor CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO Total: 216.28
11/20/2017 ID CARDS 100-23-6210 45.00
Vendor CUTTING EDGE COMMUNICATIONS INC Total: 45.00
11/20/2017 Order 329927 Investigations 620-00-6210 109,00
Vendor DOCUMENT IMAGING DIMENSIONS INCTotal: 109.00
11/20/2017 Polymer mixing motor bearings 510-32-611D 40.82
11/20/2017 Aerator#3 Motor Bearings 510-32-6110 119.14
Vendor DREISILKER ELECTRIC MOTORS INC Total: 159.96
11/20/2017 starter switch: DMD 100-45-5370 114.00
Vendor D'S MARINE SERVICE INC Total: 114.OD
11'20/2017 READY MIX #102535 100-33-6110 852.50
Vendor FISCHER BROS FRESH Total: 852.50
11/20J2017 NOTARY BOND DUCAK 610-00-5960 30.00
Vendor GALLAGHER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC, Total: 30.00
GALLS LLC 008455062 11/20/2017 UNIFORM ORDER- PARDUE 100-Z2-4510 44.94
GALLS LLC 008455993 11/20/2017 UNIFORM ORDER- WALSH/P. 100 22 4510 98.87
Vendor GALLS LLCTotal: 143.81
Vendor: HUEMANN & SONS INC, JOSEPH H
HUEMANN & SONS INC, 1151870 11/20/2017 Boiler repair Hickory Creek 100-45-5110 192.72
Vendor HUEMANN & SONS INC, JOSEPH H Total: 192.72
Vendor: HYDRAULIC SERVICES AND REPAIRS INC
HYDRAULIC SERVICES AND 322237 11/20/2017 rebuild rams 510-32-5370 276.34
HYDRAULIC SERVICES AND 322286 11/20/2017 rams 100-33-5370 720.00
HYDRAULIC SERVICES AND 322419 11/20/2017 motor 100-33-5370 216.00
Vendor HYDRAULIC SERVICES AND REPAIRS INCTotal: 11212.34
Vendor: ILLINOIS TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
ILLINOIS TACTICAL OFFICERS 718-258 11/20/2017 CONFERENCE - K. COX 100-22-5430 325,00
Vendor ILLINOIS TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Total: 325.00
Vendor: ILLINOIS TRUCK ENFORCEMENT ASSOC
ILLINOIS TRUCK ENFORCEMENT 01962 11/20/2017 TRUCK ENFORCEMENT 100-22-5410 25.00
Vendor ILLINOIS TRUCK ENFORCEMENT ASSOC Total: 25.00
Vendor: INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE INC
INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE 3008314062 11/20/2017 brake 100-33-5370 635.76
INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE 3008412521 11/20/2017 exhaust 100-33-5370 513.60
Vendor INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE INCTotal: 11149.36
Vendor: JG UNIFORMS INC
1G UNIFORMS INC 26624 11/20/2017 NAME PLATE 100-22-6110 50.50
JG UNIFORMS INC 26625 11/20/2017 UNIFORM ORDER -ZUMWALT 100-22-4510 153.45
JG UNIFORMS INC 26680 11/20/2017 ALTERATION - CHIEF BIRK 100-22-6110 25.00
Vendor JG UNIFORMS INC Total: 228.95
Vendor: KIMBALL MIDWEST
KIMBALL MIDWEST 5952171 11/20/2017 stock 100-33-537D 242.28
KIMBALL MIDWEST 5963350 11/20/2017 stock 100-33-5370 272.44
Vendor KIMBALL MIDWEST Total: 514.72
Vendor: KIWANIS CLUB OF MCHENRY
KIWANIS CLUB OF MCHENRY 1053 11/20/2017 KIWANIS LUNCH MEETING 100-01-5410 12.00
Vendor KIWANIS CLUB OF MCHENRY Total: 12.00
11/15/2017 11:06:27 AM
ExpenseApproval Register
Vendor Name Payable Number
Vendor: KOMUNE-SANDERSON
KOMLINE-SANDERSON 42036955
Vendor: LAFARGE NOR7H AMERICA
LAFARGE
NORTH
AMERICA
708025109
LAFARGE
NORTH
AMERICA
708025109A
LAFARGE
NORTH
AMERICA
708025109E
LAFARGE
NORTH
AMERICA
708025110
LAFARGE
NORTH
AMERICA
708074065
Vendor: TANG AUTO GROUP, GARY
LANG AUTO GROUP, GARY 5018539
Vendor: LIONHEART
LIONHEART 2362
Vendor: MCHENRY PRINTING
MCHENRY PRINTING 41316
Vendor: MCHENRYSPECIAL7IES
MCHENRY SPECIALTIES 2017-924
Vendor: MENARDS -CRYSTAL LAKE
MENARDS-CRYSTAL LAKE 52261
Vendor: MID AMERICAN WATER OF WAUCONDA INC
MIDAMERICANWATEROF 192230W
Vendor: MIDWEST FUEL INIECTION
MIDWEST FUELINIECTION N472808
Vendor: MIDWEST METER INC
MIDWEST METER INC 0095171-IN
Vendor: MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS - STARCOM21 NETWORK
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS - 8280334298
Vendor: NORTHERN BALANCE &SCALE
NORTHERN BALANCE &SCALE 107719
Vendor: PDC LABORATORIES INC
PDC LABORATORIES INC 880843
PDC LABORATORIESINC 880844
PDC LABORATORIES INC 880910
Packet: APPKT00993-11-2047
RECI INVOICE
Post Date Description
(Item)
Account Number
Amount
11/20/2017 Belt Press Drive Motor 510-32-5380 1,198.00
Vendor KOMLINE-SANDERSON Total: 1,198.00
11/20J2017 027 FM-2 Sand 101773389 510-35-6110 64.40
11/20/2017 027 FM-2 Sand 101773327 510-35-6110 63.60
11/20/2017 FM2sand 101773310 510-35-6110 107.28
11/20/2017 027 FM -Sand 101773615 510-35-6110 109.28
11/20/2017 FM2 sand 101775043 510-35-6110 104.32
Vendor LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA Total: 448.88
11/20/2017 wheel626 510-32-5370 119.19
Vendor LANG AUTO GROUP, GARY Total: 119.19
11/20/2017 Hemlock -Generator Turbo 510-32-5380 1,551.00
Vendor LIONHEARTTotal: 11551.00
11/20/2017 4Bsnners-Apprenticeship 100-01-6110 394.00
Vendor MCHENRY PRINTING Total: 394.00
11/20/2017 EDC Nametags 100-01-6940 49.OD
Vendor MCHENRY SPECIALTIES Total: 49.00
il/20/2017 Lumber: Parks 100-45-6110 82.06
Vendor MENARDS - CRYSTAL LAKE Total: 82.06
11/20/2017 (6) -1.5" Meter Flange 510-31-6110 294,00
Vendor MID AMERICAN WATER OF WAUCONDA INCTotal: 294.00
11/20/2017 additive 100-33-5370 93.56
Vendor MIDWEST FUEL INJECTION Total: 93.56
11/20/2017 Orderl0/16/2017 510-31-5110 4,493.96
Vendor MIDWEST METER INC Total: 4,493.96
11/20/2D17 HEADSET REPAIR 100-23-6110 54.75
Vendor MOTOROLASOLUTIONS - STARCOM21 NETWORK Total: 54.75
11/20/2017 Scale Calibration 510-32-6110 115.00
Vendor NORTHERN BALANCE &SCALE Total: 115.00
11/20J2017 Total Nitrogen Test 510-32-6110 60.00
11/ZO/2017 Total Nitrogen 510-32-6110 60.00
11/20/2017 Routine Samples - Inv#880910 510-31-6110 335.00
Vendor PDC LABORATORIES INC Total: 455.00
Vendor: PETROCHOICE LLC
PETROCHOICE LLC 10315008 11/20/2017 Fue110315008 510-35-6250 407.18
PETROCHOICE LLC 10315031 11/20/2017 SQUAD CAR FUEL 100-22-5250 1,467.41
PETROCHOICE LLC 10323221 11/20/2017 SQUAD CAR FUEL 100-22-6250 11795.24
PETROCHOICE LLC 10330184 11/20/2017 Fuel 10330184 510-35-6250 35.56
PETROCHOICE LLC 10330207 11/20/2017 Fuel Bill 100-03-6250 33.66
PETROCHOICE LLC 10330208 11/20/2017 Fuel 10330208 510-32-6250 402.44
PETROCHOICE LLC 10330209 11/20/2017 Fuel 10330209 510-31-6250 86.67
PETROCHOICE LLC 10330211 11/20/2017 Fue110330211 100-33-6250 602.83
PETROCHOICE LLC 10332015 11/20/2017 Fuel Bill 100-03-6250 71.99
li/15/2017 11:06:27 AM
Expense Approval Register Packet: APPKT00993-11-20-17 REC1 INVOICE
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Account Number Amount
PETROCHOICE LLC 10315026 11/27/2017 Fuel Bill 100-03-6250 45.06
Vendor PETROCHOICE LLC Total: 4,948.04
Vendor: PETTIBONE & CO, P f
PETTIBONE & CO, P F 173236 11/20/2017 UNIFORM ORDER- KULCSAR 100-22-4510 62.45
Vendor PETTIBONE & CO, P F Total: 62.45
Vendor: REICHE'S PLUMBING SEWER RODDING CORP
REICHE'S PLUMBING SEWER 4401 11/20/2017 Replace broken 1.5" ball valve 510-31-5110 265.00
Vendor RUCHE'S PLUMBING SEWER RODDING CORP Total: 265.00
Vendor: RNOW INC
RNOW INC 2017-52606 11/20/2017 CABLE 100-33-5370 670.82
Vendor RNOW INC Total: 670.82
Vendor: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO, THE
SHERWIWWILUAMS CO, THE 56384 11/20/2017 paint 510-35-6110 139.90
Vendor SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO, THE Total: 139.90
Vendor: SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABORATORIES
SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT 0321578-IN 11/20/2017 EVIDENCE COLLECTION 100-22-6210 231.69
Vendor SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABORATORIES Total: 231.69
Vendor: SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL
SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL 201183350 11/20/2017 snap on scan tool 100-33-5370 2,500.21
Vendor SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL Total: 2,500.21
Vendor: TRAFFIC CONTROL & PROTECTION INC
TRAFFIC CONTROL& 90885 11/20/2017 Crosswalksigns:DMD 100-45-6110 407.05
Vendor TRAFFIC CONTROL & PROTECTION INC Total: 407.05
Vendor: ULINE
ULINE 91953084 11/20/2017 Safety Supplies 510-32-6110 468.63
Vendor ULINE Total: 468.63
Vendor: USA BLUEBOOK
USA BLUEBOOK 400663 11/20/2017 Safety Glasses 510-32-6110 92.23
Vendor USA BLUEBOOK Total: 92.23
Vendor: VIKING CHEMICAL COMPANY
VIKING CHEMICAL COMPANY 54668 11/20/2017 Ferric Chloride 510-32-6110 8,911.47
Vendor VIKING CHEMICAL COMPANYTotal: 8,911.47
Vendor: WATER PRODUCTS -AURORA
WATERPRODUCTS-AURORA 0275814 11/20/2017 upper flange 5055718 610-00-5980 109.00
Vendor WATER PRODUCTS as AURORA Total: 109.00
Vendor: WELCH BROS INC
WELCH BROS INC 656024 11/20/2017 Barrel riser flattop 656024 100-33-6110 388.00
Vendor WELCH BROS INCTotal: 388.00
Grand Total: 3%318.92
11/15/2017 11:06:27 AM
Expense Approval Register
Fund Summary
Fund
100-GENERAL FUND
510- WATER/SEWER FUND
610 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
620 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND
Grand Total:
Expense Amount
16,565.47
22,184,06
139.00
430.39
39,318.92
Packet: APPKT00993-11-20-17 REU INVOICE
McH rlr!
IFFV
Bill Hobson, Director of Parks and Recreation
McHenry Recreation Center
3636 Municipal Drive
McHenry, Illinois 60050
Phone: (815) 363-2160
Fax: (815) 363-3119
www.ci.mchenry.il.us/park_recreation
DISCUSSION ITEM
DATE: November 20, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Hobson, Director of Parks and Recreation
RE: McHenry Parks and Recreation Community Needs Assessment Presentation
ATT: Community Needs Assessment Presentation
Unapproved Minutes from the 10/26/17 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY:
Presentation by Jeff Andreason of aQity Research and Insights on the results of the recently
completed Community Needs Assessment and a City Council discussion of the results and next
steps.
BACKGROUND:
On February 20, 2017 the City Council approved a proposal for the development of a Community
Needs Assessment for the Parks and Recreation Department from aQuity Research and Insights.
Subsequent to this approval, a thorough survey was compiled and vetted a number of times before
ultimately being distributed to members of the community in August 2017. The survey results were
then compiled and analyzed by aQity formulating the results that were presented to the Parks and
Recreation Committee on October 26, 2017 (unapproved minutes attached). The Committee has
recommended the results be forwarded to City Council for final review and to entertain a discussion
on the next steps.
ANALYSIS:
The Community Needs Assessment is an extremely valuable tool that presents a statistically valid
cross section of the desires of the community. This tool will aid the department in the selection of
future items for the Capital Improvement Program. However, of particular interest is the
community's desire regarding expansion of the McHenry Recreation Center. This includes elements
they would like to see added such as a gymnasium, indoor pool or outdoor aquatic center as well as
what they might be willing to support monetarily. The survey very specifically addresses all of these
issues and provides the basis for the opening of a dialogue on the desires of the city to broach the
discussion of expansion via a referendum or other funding options.
IcHcruty
aQity Research &Insights
Evanston, IL
`� aQity-
Table of Contents
SECTION
Sample Demographics
Executive Summary
Detailed Findings:
I. Overall Opinions of McHenry Parks &Recreation Department
II. McHenry Parks & Recreation Department's Park and Facility Usage
III. Levels of Interest/Unmet Needs Among Outdoor Recreational Facilities
IV. Levels of Interest/Unmet Needs Among Indoor Recreational Facilities
V. McHenry Parks & Recreation Department Program/Event Participation and Needs
VI. Potential Improvements and Willingness To Pay
VII. McHenry Parks & Recreation Department Communications
APPENDICES:
SurveyTopline
aQity
PAG E
3
4
6
14
28
34
43
51
65
76
79
80
�1C 1-ICY li\
Research Methods
Y District -wide sample of n=407 households.
➢ Data collection between August 2 and October 5, 2017.
Y Residents were given several response options:
ONLINE
MAILED
QUESTIONAIRE
229
Average survey length was approximately 14 minutes.
PHONE
INTERVIEW
7
Y Sample was weighted to match updated US Census data for the City of McHenry (by region, gender, age, ethnicity, and
percentage of households with children).
Y Assuming no sample bias, the margin of error is +/- 4.9% (at the 95% confidence level)
'�= In addition to sampling error, question wording, respondent error, and practical difficulties in conducting surveys may introduce error or bias in any
opinion poll.
r�
aQity-
3
<` DRAFT > Sample Demographics
Methods: Sample Demographics
(weighted to reflect US Census data for McHenry)
Gender* Length of Residence in Area
Male 47% Less than 5 years 14%
Female 53% 5-14 years 31 %
15-24 years 19%
Age* 25-34 years 15%
Under 35 21% 35 years+ 20%
............................................................................................
3544 20% Mean (years) 21
45-54 22%
55=64 17% Ethnicity*
65+ 20%
Mean (years) 50
Children in Household*
Yes 35%
No 65%
White 94%
Hispanic 5%
Asian 0.5%
Black/African American no/
Other 0.5%
*Weighted to 2016 Census data. Census targets used for weighting are provided in the Appendix
aQity
n
Sample -
• •
i44CH(:IITV �
Methods: Regional Distribution of Survey Respondents
Regions*
Northwest 17%
Northeast 8% •'
Southwest S3%
Southeast 22%
�•' NW
N E
• •,
. • • ' • •
4 . •'
•
•
Sw •i _ � � i
�; OR SE
`Weighted to 2016 Census data. Census targets used for weighting are provided in the Appendix
aQity
McHen
aQity =
C]
ti1cHr;rutir ,�Executive Summary
Overall Opinions: McHenry Parks & Recreation Department
➢ The Department receives a very positive average esteem rating %J 7.3 (on a 0- I 0 <pg. 15>
scale), second only to the McHenry County Conservation District (7.4 average).
■ However, residents are much more familiar with the Parks &Recreation
Department (87% familiarity) than the MCCD (70%).
■ Other local agencies tested -- City government, local school districts -- each
received lower (yet still positive) ratings than the Parks & Rec Department.
➢ From these esteem ratings, the Department has a 10: I favorable -to -unfavorable ratio,
with only 8% expressing dissatisfaction.
■ The longer one has lived in McHenry, the more favorable they are to the <pg. I6>
Parks & Rec Department.
➢ On average, residents believe that the Department receives roughly 5% of their < 2s-
property taxes. When informed that it's share is actually just under I %, residents rate 26>
the Department a good value overall (78% positive value, vs. just 9% "poor" value).
➢ Residents feel the Department's top strengths are its programs and events (good
variety, especially youth programs), followed closely by its parks (well -maintained).
One in five specifically cite the Rec Center as a top strength.
➢ When asked about weaknesses or improvement opportunities, half (47%) are unable
to mention anything. The recent cite facty issues (need an indoor pool, improved
outdoor poor), parks and playground needs (better maintained, more dog -friendly),
and program and event issues (more opportunities across the board).
aQity=
OcHenry
Park and Facility Usage, Satisfaction
➢ Overall, 84% report visiting or using one of the Department's parks or facilities in
the past twelve months, usually:
■ Veteran's Memorial Park (65% of recent users/visitors);
■ Petersen Park (63%);
■ Fort McHenry/Whispering Oaks Park (46%);
■ McHenry Recreation Center (41 %);
■ Knox Park (39%);
■ Fox Ridge Park (23%);
■ East Beach Park (22%);
■ Merkel Aquatics Center/Outdoor Pool (21 %).
➢ Recent users voice high satisfaction with the parks and facilities visited. Relatively
few offer any concerns or negative experiences, which are usually:
■ More upkeep, maintenance, or updates (most often Merkel Pool, Knox Park,
McBark Dog Park, Petersen Park);
■ More and/or safer parking (most often Veteran's Park and the Rec Center).
➢ Those not recently using or visiting a park or facility most often attribute it to not
having children in the household (557o),or simply lacking the time (47%). Just over a
third go elsewhere for fitness and recreation, and one in five are either unfamiliar with
what the Department offers (21 %) or that the user fees/costs are too high (18%).
■ In a separate question, half of the respondents report going to other sources
foI fitness and recreation, usually nearby agencies (MCCD and state parks,
Crystal Lake Park District) or private facilities (usually Health Bridge,YMCA,
and Charter Fitness).
aQity=
<pp. 30-
31>
<pg 32>
0
Park and Facility Usage, Satisfaction
➢ Overall, 84% report visiting or using one of the Department's parks or facilities in
the past twelve months, usually:
■ Veteran's Memorial Park (65% of recent users/visitors);
■ Petersen Park (63%);
■ Fort McHenry/Whispering Oaks Park (46%);
■ McHenry Recreation Center (41 %);
■ Knox Park (39%);
■ Fox Ridge Park (23%);
■ East Beach Park (22%);
■ Merkel Aquatics Center/Outdoor Pool (21 %).
➢ Recent users voice high satisfaction with the parks and facilities visited. Relatively
few offer any concerns or negative experiences, which are usually:
■ More upkeep, maintenance, or updates (most often Merkel Pool, Knox Park,
McBark Dog Park, Petersen Park);
■ More and/or safer parking (most often Veteran's Park and the Rec Center).
➢ Those not recently using or visiting a park or facility most often attribute it to not
having children in the household (557o),or simply lacking the time (47%). Just over a
third go elsewhere for fitness and recreation, and one in five are either unfamiliar with
what the Department offers (21 %) or that the user fees/costs are too high (18%).
■ In a separate question, half of the respondents report going to other sources
foI fitness and recreation, usually nearby agencies (MCCD and state parks,
Crystal Lake Park District) or private facilities (usually Health Bridge,YMCA,
and Charter Fitness).
aQity=
<pp. 30-
31>
<pg 32>
0
McHenry,
Priorities and Unmet Needs: Outdoor Facilities
➢ Nearly two-thirds of McHenry residents report having an interest, need, or current
usage of walking and biking trails.
➢ Interest or demand in an outdoor open recreation pool ranked a distant second (of
interest to 44% overall). Other outdoor water options registered comparable levels
of interest:
■ Pool and aquatic park with slides (39%);
■ Splash pad at a neighborhood park (30%)
■ Lap pool (27%).
➢ A third also express interest in playgrounds, but the remaining outdoor facilities
tested represent lower levels of need or interest:
■ Baseball/softball fields (21 %);
■ Sports fields for soccer, football, lacrosse (20%).
➢ Many of these facilities are deemed in adequate supply locally, mainly trails, baseball
and sports fields, and playgrounds.
■ The opportunities where demand appears to outpace supply (either by the
Parks & Rec Department or other sources) are outdoor water facilities,
especially an open general recreation pool, and an outdoor water park.
➢ When asked which outdoor improvement should be the top priority for the
department, residents most often stay with ng and ng trials (40%),with half as
many saying the focus should be on an outdoor water park (21 %). Splash pads and an
open recreation pool each register about 12% to 13% of the responses).
aQity- -- .
<pp. 39-
40>
0
Priorities and Unmet Needs: Outdoor Facilities
➢ Nearly two-thirds of McHenry residents report having an interest, need, or current
usage of walking and biking trails.
➢ Interest or demand in an outdoor open recreation pool ranked a distant second (of
interest to 44% overall). Other outdoor water options registered comparable levels
of interest:
■ Pool and aquatic park with slides (39%);
■ Splash pad at a neighborhood park (30%)
■ Lap pool (27%).
➢ A third also express interest in playgrounds, but the remaining outdoor facilities
tested represent lower levels of need or interest:
■ Baseball/softball fields (21 %);
■ Sports fields for soccer, football, lacrosse (20%).
➢ Many of these facilities are deemed in adequate supply locally, mainly trails, baseball
and sports fields, and playgrounds.
■ The opportunities where demand appears to outpace supply (either by the
Parks & Rec Department or other sources) are outdoor water facilities,
especially an open general recreation pool, and an outdoor water park.
➢ When asked which outdoor improvement should be the top priority for the
department, residents most often stay with ng and ng trials (40%),with half as
many saying the focus should be on an outdoor water park (21 %). Splash pads and an
open recreation pool each register about 12% to 13% of the responses).
aQity- -- .
<pp. 39-
40>
0
h9cH PF r 7
Priorities and Unmet Needs: Indoor Facilities
➢ About half express interest or a need for an open indoor pool and a fitness <pg. 44>
center (49%), with an indoor track ranking a close third (43%).
■ In addition, roughly one in three adults are interested in group exercise
studios, an indoor water/splash park, an indoor lap pool, and gym courts.
■ Community rooms, indoor playgrounds, and childcare/babysitting facilities
generate far less interest.
➢ Of these, residents feel that many indoor amenities are already sufficiently available <pp. 47-
(fitness center, group exercise studio, multi -purpose rooms, childcare facilities). 48>
However, there is clearly a "gap" in delivering on some of the indoor amenities in high
demand, especially:
■ An indoor general recreation pool;
■ Running/walking track;
■ Other indoor water (lap swimming, splash park);
■ And (to a lesser extent) gym courts.
➢ Of these facilities, an indoor general recreation pool is clearly seen as the top <pg. 49>
priority for the Department (35%).
■ Half as many place priority on an indoor track (17%) and indoor splash park
( 15%).
■ The next tier of top improvements includes a lap pool (10%), gym courts (9%)
and the fitness center (8%).
aQity
Executive Summary
�IcHer , ►
Priorities and Unmet Needs: Programs and Events
➢ Most often, residents report taking part in fitness programs (47%), followed by
youth sports (24%).
■ All other program categories were mentioned by roughly one in ten
respondents, including programs for seniors, swimming lessons, sports
clinics/lessons, preschool and toddler programs, and Summer Day Camp.
➢ As with other Department attributes, recent program and event participants are <pg. 54>
very satisfied with these experiences (8.1 average score on a 0-10 scale). Only 4%
expressed any dissatisfaction.
➢ In terms of program interest, fitness programs and adult programming/classes/ <pg. 56>
sports generate the highest levels of demand (42% and 39%, respectively), followed by:
■ Special events (sought by 3 I %);
■ Active adult activities for those ages 55+ (27%).
■ The remaining programs tested were various youth programs, each of which
generated lower levels of need or interest (I 87o or less each). In fact, many of these
programs (youth programs in general, Summer Day Camp, preschool/toddler
programs) are currently seen as sufficiently available in the community.
■ The biggest program opportunities for the Department to deliver (meeting unmet <pg. 59>
needs) are:
■ Adult programs, including active adult activities for those age 55+;
■ Fitness programs;
■ Special events.
aQity=
rk:Hel lk
Willingness -to -Pay for Expanded Indoor/Outdoor Facilities
➢ When posed with the following scenario:
Do you support or oppose the McHenry Parks &Recreation Department upgrading and improving
the McHenry Rec Center to meet the community's recreational needs? This would include adding a
2-court gymnasium; an indoor running track; an indoor pool with lap lanes, a splash pad, and therapy
pool; expanded indoor play/childcare space; and an outdoor pool and aquatic park. The expanded
facilities would mean an increase of $150 in annual property taxes on the average $200,000 home.
➢ Residents support these improvements over 2:1 (69% support, 3 I %opposed). In
fact, as many are "strongly" supportive (29%) as the total number opposed (31 %).
■ A majority of all subgroups tend to favor this concept, though the oldest
(ages 65+) and most long-term McHenry residents are more evenly divided.
➢ Supporters clearly feel the improvements are needed and will benefit McHenry:
■ They feel the facilities would be heavily used and obviate the need to drive <pg. bs>
(and spend money) elsewhere for similar amenities;
■ They will provide healthy activities for the entire community;
■ Property values will improve, making McHenry a more attractive place to live.
➢ The top reason for opposing the proposal is the property tax increase, as most
opponents are against Any hike in taxes. This is especially true among those who do
not expect to use the new facilities.
➢ Note that even among supporters, nearly one in five (I 8%) voice concerns
over whether the estimated cost is accurate, or whether it would pass given
the impact on anti -tax and older (fixed income) residents in the community.
aQityr
11
%IcHentmv
Information Sources
➢ The program guide is referred to by 59% of the survey respondents when seeking <pg. 77>
information about the Parks & Recreation Departments facilities, parks or programs.
➢ Roughly half (48%) also go to the Department's website for this information, and 24%
call Parks & Rec staff by phone. At least one in four residents get Parks & Rec
information from non -Department sources:
■ Calling or visiting the City of McHenry's offices, or accessing the City's
website (37%);
■ Local newspapers, usually the Northwest Herald (30%);
■ Word of mouth from neighbors and friends (27%).
➢ By far, the program guide is the preferred source for Department information (45%), <pg. 78>
with the Parks & Rec website a distant second (18%). Ten percent first look to local
newspapers.
■ The program guide is most likely to be the top choice among women and
those with children.
■ Newer McHenry residents tend to prefer the Parks &Rec website, while
older and long-term residents rely on local newspapers more than average.
aQit,
13
McHe.rg .
aQity
McHenry
Residents hold the Parks & Recreation Department in very positive
esteem overall.
➢ A majority (56%) give very positive or higher ratings to the Department, and it's overall ratio of favorable to unfavorable
scores is 10:1. Only 8% are dissatisfied overall.
➢ It shares the highest average esteem rating (7.3) with the MCCD (7.4 — no meaningful difference), though the Parks &
Recreation Department is the better-known of the two agencies (13% and 30% unfamiliar, respectively).
➢ City government and the two local school districts also receive strong esteem ratings, albeit somewhat lower than the
Parks & Rec Department.
McHenry Parlcs &Recreation Department
Esteem Ratings: Local Agencies
II%
City of McHenry Government®'. 20%
McHenry Elementary School District 15 � 20%
McHenry Community High School District 22%
McHenry County Conservation District � 17% , ->•, . _. , -,. ,
■% Negative (04) % Neutral (5) F % Somewhat Positive (6-7)
aQity-
Avg. (mean)
Rating
7.3
Unfamiliar
13%
6.6 12
6.8 28%
6.6 30%
7.4 30%
■ %Very Positive (8) ■ %Highest Regard (9-I 0)
Q2. Please rate your overall opinion of each group or agency in your community on a 0-10 scale (0=dislike completely, 5=neutral, 10=highest regard).
15
Residents hold the Parks & Recreation Department in very positive
esteem overall.
➢ A majority (56%) give very positive or higher ratings to the Department, and it's overall ratio of favorable to unfavorable
scores is 10:1. Only 8% are dissatisfied overall.
➢ It shares the highest average esteem rating (7.3) with the MCCD (7.4 — no meaningful difference), though the Parks &
Recreation Department is the better-known of the two agencies (13% and 30% unfamiliar, respectively).
➢ City government and the two local school districts also receive strong esteem ratings, albeit somewhat lower than the
Parks & Rec Department.
McHenry Parlcs &Recreation Department
Esteem Ratings: Local Agencies
II%
City of McHenry Government®'. 20%
McHenry Elementary School District 15 � 20%
McHenry Community High School District 22%
McHenry County Conservation District � 17% , ->•, . _. , -,. ,
■% Negative (04) % Neutral (5) F % Somewhat Positive (6-7)
aQity-
Avg. (mean)
Rating
7.3
Unfamiliar
13%
6.6 12
6.8 28%
6.6 30%
7.4 30%
■ %Very Positive (8) ■ %Highest Regard (9-I 0)
Q2. Please rate your overall opinion of each group or agency in your community on a 0-10 scale (0=dislike completely, 5=neutral, 10=highest regard).
15
41(Ncill't
All groups in McHenry are favorable toward the Parks & Recreation
Department.
➢ No segment rated the Department unfavorably. The lowest scores come from the newest McHenry residents (average
ratings of 6.7; still positive).
➢ Conversely, long-term residents and households with children give the Department its highest scores.
➢ Similarly, the other agencies also tend to be rated more favorably among longer -term McHenry residents and those with
children under age 18.
Differences by Subgroups: Overall Esteem Ratings
McHenry Parks &Recreation Department 7,3 - No children in HH (7.0) - Children in HH (7.7)
Lived in McHenry <10 yrs. (6.7) Lived in McHenry 10-29 yrs.
City of McHenry Government
McHenry Elementary School District 15
McHenry Community High School
District 156
McHenry County Conservation District
aQity=
6.6 - Ages 55-64 (6.4)
No children in HH (6.4)
- Men (6.5)
6.8 - No children in HH (6.5)
Lived in McHenry <10 yrs. (6.3)
- No children in HH (6.4)
6.6 - Southwest region (6.4)
Lived in McHenry < 10 yrs. (6.3)
7.4 - No children in HH (7.1)
-
Ages 65+ (7.0)
Children in HH (7.0)
- Women (7.2)
- Children in HH (7.4)
Lived in McHenry 10+ yrs. (6.9)
- Children in HH (7.0)
- Northeast region (7.1)
Lived in McHenry 10-19 yrs. (6.9)
- Children in HH (7.9)
rr•;
(ti1cNeo
i uy
While the Parks & Rec Department receives high marks, it slightly lags
benchmark comparisons from nearby independent park districts.
➢ Parks agencies in the area tend to receive more of the highest ratings (9 or higher on a 0- I 0 scale), while the McHenry
Parks & Recreation Department tends to garner more of the positive scores in the "somewhat -to -very positive" range
(6-8 ratings on the 0-10 scale).
➢ As a result, the Departments average rating is slightly lower than the benchmarks.
McHenry Parks & Rec Department Esteem Compared to Benchmarks
Avg. (mean) Rating:
81%
Favorable
7.3
McHenry Parks/Rec Dept.
(2017)
iZ9
7.9
22%
Statewide Benchmark
(2013)
82%
23
10%
Nearby Park District/Agency
Benchmark (2013)
■Highest Regard (9-10)
®Very Positive (8)
Somewhat Positive (6-7)
Neutral (5)
■Negative Esteem (0-4)
Q2. Please rate your overall opinion of each group or agency in your community on a 0-10 scale (0=dislike completely, 5=neutral, 10=highest regard).
�` 2013 benchmark comparisons with parka eg ncies in communities close to McHenry, specifically in McHenry County and in western Lake County
(generally covering the Algonquin, Antioch, Cary, Barrington, Crystal Lake, Fox Lake, Fox River Grove, Grayslake, Harvard, Hawthorn Woods,
Huntley, Island Lake, Johnsburg, Lake in the Hills, Lake Villa, Lake Zurich, Marengo, Oakwood Hills, Round Lake, Spring Grove, Wauconda, Wonder
Lake, Woodstock area)
aQlty-
17
t. Strengths
McHeAry McHenry Parks & Rec � D •
Residents most often appreciate the Department's programs and events,
followed closely by its well -maintained parks.
➢ One in four also cite the Department's faces as atop strength, primarily the Rec center.
Top Strengths (open-ended)
Programs/Events (Net)
Number/Variety of programs
Feedback on McHenry Parks Youth programs specifically
& Rec Strengths?
Events
Nothing Positive
2%
Parks (Net)
Clean, well-
maintained
Good parks, general
Variety/Number of Parks
Buildings/Facilities (Net)
Rec Center
Well-maintained/updated facilities � 3%
Staff/Administration
Friendly, Helpful
Innovative, Always Something New 0 2%
Q3. What do you like most about the McHenry Parks &Recreation Department or what does it do particularly well? (most frequent multiple open-
ended responses) 18
kl Ieru'-
Sample Verbatims: Parks & Rec Department Strengths
Programs/Events (48%�
"Great programs for the community such as the River Run."
"I really enjoy the free classes when you are a member, and the classes for kids."
"I'm not that familiar with the Park District but 1 do like the fact they manage the July 4th fireworks."
"1 really like the Thursday night band concerts"
"Local events like concerts, Fiesta Days, Celebration events in the park"
"Concerts in the park (Veterans); Thur. pm farmers market; pool; entertainment; festivals (Petersen Park)"
"It has nice day camps and kids programs. We have participated on the swim team for years and wish we had a nicer pool."
"1 like the variety of activities for the kids. There are also activities at different times of the day to suit different needs."
'My kids have been doing the 5 star sports classes for a couple years and we couldn't be happier. During the summer the kids did floor hockey.
field. Both classes were great"
"Offers great programs for toddlers/preschoolers"
"They have added more youth programs."
"Seems to offer a decent diversity of offerings in its overall programming"
Parks (46%�
"Clean-up after events in park is typically prompt and well done. Nice job addressing the littering."
"Veterans Park is very clean and we enjoy all the activities they have there."
The beach areas are nice, and the path by Knox Park"
"My kids love the parks near our house. It's nice to have so many options and places to go."
"I like Petersen Park, it just needs a little more updating"
"McHenry does have a number of nice parks that put on some fun events."
The parks are a nice place to spend some time. My favorite is Veteran's Park."
"Has useful parks & trails."
The McBark Dog Park and admiring all the preserved land"
"There are plenty of parks and they are kept safe and clean. I especially like Fort McHenry when the grandkids come to visit."
The parks I've visited are clean and mowed all the time. Each time I've rented has been excellent"
The parks appear to be well kept for kids to have sports activities"
r�
aQity
They'
ve also done the track and
19
McHenry Parks & Rec
i41cHern�^ "� Department
Sample Verbatims: Parks & Rec Department Strengths (cont'a)
Buildings/Facilities (25%�
"The new recreation center provides a hub for the community to come together."
The pool and gym are nice. The new walking path is also nice."
'Nice to see growth & expansion. The new Rec facility is nice and the progress has been welcomed"
"Rec center is a beautiful building, good classes, well maintained"
'The rec center is fantastic. We are there probably every other day. We also use the pool"
'I like the new rec facility, and they have activities for seniors."
'I'm really happy with the fitness center. All machines work perfect, staff is knowledgeable and friendly."
'The new rec center is great My family is there all the time."
'Good pool, softball is great"
'I love all the playgrounds for the kids."
'Community swimming pool"
Staff/Administration (I 0%�
"The customer service is excellent, and my kids love the babysitters in childcare."
`Always improving, outstanding maintenance, adding new programs - I like that it is not a separate entity and part of the city"
'They seem to be trying to make improvements over the past year or two."
"How well they keep me informed about classes starting, changed or cancelled. —How well they keep track of my refunds or credit in my account."
'Communicate clearly with residents via email and paper copy."
'They are incredible to work with. Nicole and Pat are helpful and accommodating."
`Any time I have called or interacted, the people are friendly and helpful"
dQlty= __ -
I�9cHe.nry,
Only about half cite weaknesses or improvement opportunities for the
Department, usually expressing a need for new/improved pool facilities.
➢ Of those offering feedback, nearly one in five want
to see an indoor pool added. Half as many (10%)
seek improvements to the existing outdoor pool
or a new outdoor water facility altogether.
➢ About one in ten of these comments concern
better park maintenance (I I %) or more dog -
friendly parks and/or another dog park (I I %).
➢ The remaining suggestions are more scattered
with relatively few responses.
Feedback on McHenry Parks &
Rec Dept. Weaknesses?
Top Weaknesses/Improvement Opportunities
(open-ended)
Facilities (NET) � �'.
Need indoor pool
Improve/add community pool a'.
Unhappy with Rec Center, general 4%
Parks/Playgrounds (NET)
Better maintained parks
More dog parks/dog-friendly parks
Playground issues 0 2%
Programs/Events (NET)
More for seniors ■ 3%
Lack of variety 3
More youth programs 3%
More programs in general 3%
Management/Staff (NET)
Poor communication/marketing 15%
Dislike policies, lack of enforcement 4%
Access/Availability (NET)
Inconvenient class schedule 7�1
Lack of parking % YXIM
Costs/Fees/Taxes Too High (NET)
.:. Q4. What do you dislike most about the McHenry Parks & Recreation Department, or what do you think it could do better? (most frequent multiple
r° open-ended responses)
21
h1cHenty
Sample Verbatims: McHenry Parks & Rec Dept. Weaknesses
Facilities (40%�
"We would love an on site indoor swimming facility"
"1 would like to see a swimming pool that can be used year round"
"1 would love an indoor pool as first envisioned for Petersen Park in 1976"
Am aware that a new indoor & outdoor pool facility is planned however they cannot come soon enough for the community. Realize the driving factor is funding availability, hence the wait."
"Finding an indoor pool, McHenry west has a pool that the some taxpayers pay for. 1 totally understand that the school district is the sticking point"
"Lack of full facility including an indoor pool"
"We really wish there was a better pool though, and we really want a community indoor basketball court."
"The pool is old and not updated like Woodstock Water Works."
"The pool is really old and run down."
"I think McHenry is a big enough city to have a better pool than what we have. Knox was aged when we moved in 13 years ago. It's time to compete with towns like Woodstock that have a
really impressive public pool. McHenry loses tons of revenue each year to Woodstock. I know this, because I never took my kids to Knox, and paid the extra to go somewhere fun."
"Better swim facilities for swim team. Need an aquatic center like Woodstock - something more than just a pool Need more parking at Fox Ridge and better washroom facilities. Also we
need batting cages at the baseball fields. Better dugouts."
"The pool & pool area should be expanded to accommodate the population growth of McHenry. Incorporate lazy river etc. Indoor tennis court / basketball would be nice."
"I think the new rec center is disappointing. It's a brand new facility. I pay a lot of tax money, and I don't see why we built such a small facility with very basic amenities .., namely no pool."
"It would be nice to have a gym with a walking track"
"Rec center is too small"
"I do like all the sports fields; however, I hate the porto potties that are never emptied until they are to the point of overflowing. Very unsanitary and smells horrible."
"When popular bands play on Thursday nights there are not enough female bathrooms. They could use more than one staff."
Parks/PlaXgrounds (23%�
"Sometimes the parks are not well kept like Petersen after big events"
"Keep up McCullom Lake better. Dirty and bad smell"
`Althoff Park is not being used for anything now, a lot of the trees in the southwest corner need trimming and cleaned up"
"Department could do a better job of making the downtown parks more attractive and welcoming — currently some look sad & shoddy, poor quality signage & plantings, areas of overgrown
brush, drinking fountain inside a wood structure at Veterans needs either upkeep or replacement"
"Sometimes the parks are not kept clean or the paths have trash or are muddy."
"Not enough baby -friendly play equipment"
"I completely dislike the fact that they do not allow dogs at any parks. Our community park in our neighborhood was one of the last parks that still allowed dogs. All of our neighborhood
would take their kids and dogs to the park. We NEVER saw any dog waste. As for as we saw everyone cleaned up after their dogs"
`Allow dogs to be walked in the parks ( on leash and cleaned up after)"
"Dogs are not allowed in city parks. Really? How unfriendly."
"McHenry is very dog UNFRIENDLY"
�22
OcHel I Jolt
h < %<�� 1 ' 1
San pieVerbaVMS*. McHenry Parks & Rec Dept. Weaknesses (cont'a)
Programs/Events (I6%�
`%Vlore fitness activities for older adults"
'You do a good job having activities for young adults -the latest fitness trend- but feel that leaves out the persons 50 and older who are active but not at the level of a 20 or 30 year old."
'Do not have enough programs related to aging population"
'I wish they had more activities for adults to keep up a basic level of fitness. Many of the events are focused on specific topics or are geared more towards in -shape folks or very athletic
types."
'I don't like that the Rec Center has a 4 year gap for kids where there is nowhere for them to go 8-12. The daycare is up to age 8 but you can't be a member until age U."
More for families"
'Bus rides on 'field trips' are often cancelled due to lack of participation required to fill a bus."
'Include more diverse classes. Especially dance lessons from other cultural backgrounds."
'One thing is moving the River Run from Tuesday during Fiesta Days week."
Management/Staff (13%�
"It should do more to publicize its programs, especially for families. Things that families can do together."
"Three times I signed up for a program and they were cancelled. I received zero notification. I came to the event and nothing."
'Wish you got out more information about seniors' activities"
'The reliability. My son has had multiple classes canceled on him, and the instructors have showed up late for classes on multiple occasions."
'There could be more communication before a program begins on what is expected. Sometimes the dates/times/price is confusing in the brochure and I will need to make a call to clarify."
'I live and drive by Ft. McHenry Park every day - and although there are several signs saying 0 dogs in park - people and their dogs are there all the time."
'Proof of residency a bit cumbersome process - can you do this online?"
'The City needs to offer better discounts to city residents, so we can take advantage of the parks and recreation programs."
'That the summer camp & other programs don't offer a discounted rate for a family wl multiple children attending"
Access/Availability (I I %�
"Parking is limited sometimes at the rec center."
"Need more and better handicap parking and access to ALL fields. Some o f my granddaughter's games- I couldn't walk that far to get to it"
'Not enough parking at some summer events"
Many times the programs for younger kids are only scheduled where parents that work during the day/ week are unable to have their kids participate.'
"I wish they had some classes I use in the evening, although I'm sure the attendance wouldn't be high."
"Classes for kids seem to be always held on the some day each time the schedule comes out; doesn't always work with our schedule. Schedule doesn't always respect school dismissal times."
aQity=
23
1,
McHen
SampleVerbatims: McHenry Parks & Rec Dept. Weaknesses (cont'a)
Costs/Fees/Taxes Too High (8%)
"Our taxes keep going up, stop the spending"
'Paying for facilities 1 will never use"
'Lower fees for programs not included in membership"
'Cost of membership to health facility"
'Health Club is too expensive, joined a different one in Crystal Lake"
'The cost is too high for the new rec center. We are a middle class family and can not afford the cost."
aQity-
24
On average, residents estimate that the Department represents just over
five percent of their property tax bill.
➢ While only one in seven adults correctly estimate thatless) of their property taxes goes to the Parks &
Recreation Department, a majority gave relatively close estimates of 5% or less.
No
estimate
16%
Estimated Percent of Property Taxes Going to the
McHenry Parks & Recreation Department
7%
Average Estimate: 5.5% of Property Taxes
Go to McHenry Parks & Rec Dept.
■ 6% to 10%
■ 1 % or Less
Q5. About what percent of your property taxes do you think goes to the McHenry Parks &Recreation Dept? 25
aQity-
h1cHea uy .
When informed of the Department's actual share of one's property taxes,
residents overall feel that the Department represents a good value.
➢ Over three-quarters of the respondents (78%) give the Department positive value ratings given its share of property
taxes, including 38% overall who feel it represents an excellent value.
➢ By comparison, fewer than one in ten adults rate the Department as a poor value relative to its proportion of property
taxes.
Perceived Value of McHenry Parks & Rec Department
Relative to Property Tax Share
Avg. (mean) Rating:
Q6. Just under I % o f your property taxes goes 78
to the McHenry Parks &Recreation
Department Thinking about the programs, Positive
parks, facilities, and services that the Parks & Value
Recreation Department provides, please rate
the overall value that it represents given its
share of property taxes.
�aQity
7.3
22%
13%
■ Excellent (9- 10)
®Great Value (8)
Good Value (6-)
Neutral (5)
■ Poor Value (0A)
26
McHenry Parks & Rec
Department
h1cHenry
The longer one has lived in McHenry, the greater the value they feel the
Department represents given its share of property taxes.
➢ Similarly, there is a clear difference by ones age,
as those who are 45 and older tend to rate the
Department's value highest, while residents
under age 45 tend to give lower (albeit still
positive) value ratings.
r�
aQity=
Significant Differences: Value of Property Taxes
to McHenry Parks & Recreation Department
• Lived in McHenry 20-29 yrs. (7.9)
• Ages 45-54 (7.8)
• Ages 65+ (7.7)
• Ages 55-64 (7.6)
OVERALL AVERAGE = 7.3
Lived in McHenry
• <10 yrs. (7.0)
• Under age.3.13 (7.1)
• Ages 3544 (6.8)
McHenry
McHenry Parks & Rec Dept. Park/Facillity
&Hg,iry � Usage
More than four out of five households have used or visited a Department
Park or facility in the past year.
➢ Most often, residents report going to Veteran's Memorial and Petersen parks. Nearly half have visited Fort
McHenry/Whispering Oaks.
➢ The Rec Center has been visited by 41 % overall, with nearly as many saying they have visited Knox Park.
➢ One in five report that someone in their household went to Merkel Pool in the past year.
Used orVisited an McHenry Parks
& Rec Department Park or Facility
in Past 12 Months?
Veteran's Memorial Park
Petersen Park
Fort McHenry/Whispering Oaks Park
McHenry Recreation Center
Knox Park
63
46%
41%
39%
Fox Ridge Park 23%
East Beach Park (McCullom Lake) 22%
Merkel Aquatics Center/Outdoor Pool (at Knox Park) 21
Shamrock Farms Park 18%
Jaycees Park 14%
McBark Dog Park 13%
Freund Park 12%
West Beach Park (McCullom Lake) I I
Althoff Park 1 1
Lakeland Park 10%
* All others used/visited by fewer than 10% overall.
29
0.k1 fcruy
Recent visitors to these parks and facilities are generally very or
completely satisfied.
➢ A maiority give nearly perfect scores to the Department's parks and facilities (9 or higher on a 0- I 0 scale). The one
exception is for overall access (46% completely satisfied), for which residents tend to be "somewhat satisfied.
■ The most long term residents tend to be less satisfied with accessibility (7.7 average from those living in McHenry
21 + years), while newer residents tend to be most satisfied (8.3 scores from those in McHenry less than 5 years, or
between 13 and 20 years).
➢ Note that no more than 5% are unhappy with any aspects of the parks or facilities they recently visited.
Satisfaction with Parks &Recreation Parks and Facilities
(n=334 recent users/visitors who responded)
Overall experience
Cleanliness, maintenance, and upkeep
Safety
Access (parking, paths, entrances/ exits)
Level of Service from Parks &
Recreation Department Staff
Avg. (mean)
Rating
8.3
7.9
■ %Dissatisfied (0-4) %Neutral (5) ❑ %Slightly Satisfied (6-7) ■ %Very Satisfied (8) ■ %Completely Satisfied (9- 10)
Q9. Thinking about those parks and facilities you recently visited, please rate your overall satisfaction with the following (on a 0 to 10 scale).
Values under 4% are not shown.
aQity=
30
McHenry Parks & Rec
41cHeru'y ' Dept.
while relatively few are dissatisfied, many seek improvements to specific
parks and amen ities(especially Merkel Pool and Knox Park).
➢ Concerns about limited parking (including safe parking and more handicapped spaces) tends to focus on Veteran's Park
(especially during outdoor concerts) and the Rec Center at busy times.
➢ A few residents dislike that dogs are not allowed at multiple parks, or feel that some parks are unsafe due to presence
among teenagers or young adults.
Reasons for Dissatisfaction with
Parks or Facilities
More Upkeep/Better
Maintained/More Updates
Limited Parking/Limited
Handicapped Parking
Dislike That Dogs Aren't
Allowed
Unsafe, Concerned about
Older Kids Hanging out
Lack of Indoor Pool
aQity-
n=31
Top Responses
n=20 Veteran's Park (n=8)
• Rec Center (n=8)
• Fox Ridge (n=2)
Top Responses
• Merkel Pool (n=9)
• Knox Park (n=5)
• Clean up, remove graffiti (n=3)
• Improve tennis courts (n=2)
• McSark Dog Park (n=4)
• Petersen Park (n=4)
��, Top Responses
• Veteran's Park (n=2 each)
• Fox Ridge, Fort McHenry/Whispering Springs, Cold Springs, Petersen, parks in general (n= I each)
Top Responses
n=6 Fox Ridge (n=3)
• Fort McHenry/Whispering Springs (n=2)
• Freund Field, Cold Springs (n=l each)
n=3 Rec Center (n=3)
QIO. If you are dissatisfied with any McHenry Parks &Recreation park or facility, which ones) and why?
31
(vlcHestty
Non -users tend to be non -parents or cite lack of time/interest
➢ Note that 37% say they use other facilities for recreation.
aQity=
Top Reasons: Not Using McHenry Parks Of Rec Department Parks/Facilities in PastYear
(multiple open-ended responses, n=55 cases)
No Children in HH
Too Busy/Lack of Time
Use Other Facilities for Recreation/ Activities
Unfamiliar with Parks &Rec Department's Parks/Facilities
Just Not Interested (e.g., not very active)
Cost/Fees Too High
Poor Health
No Facilities Offered For My Age Group
All others (30/ or less each)
QI 1. 1 f you have not used or visited a Parks &Recreation park or facility recently, why not? (multiple open-ended responses)
32
mcHenw
Half of McHenry residents report going elsewhere for recreation, most
often other public agencies.
➢ A majority of these households ( ) use a variety of area park, forest preserve, and conservation districts.
➢ Nearly as many (44%) rely on private options, mostly fitness facilities and health clubs.
➢ One in five simply said they take advantage of trails in the area without identifying where those trails are located.
use Other Facilities for
Recreation or Fitness?
Other Sources for Recreation/Fitness
(n=199 providing responses)'
Other Parks/Conservation/Forest Preserve Agencies (NET)
MCCD (Glacial Park, Prairie Trail, etc.)
State Parks (Morraine Hills, Chain O' Lakes, etc.)
Crystal Lake Park District
Woodstock Recreation Dept. 0011
Other Forest Preserves (Lake and Cook Cos.) 05%
Private Fitness Facilities (NET)
Centegra Health Bridge
YMCA 6%
Charter Fitness 6%
Golf courses 2%
Other fitness centers (<3% each)
Other Public Facilities (NET)
Outdoor walking trails/bike paths (non-specific)
McHenry Townshpi Rec Center/Senior Services � 2%
In -Home Fitness Equipment l
Q30. Other than the McHenry Parks &Recreation Department parks and facilities, what facilities does your household use for recreation or
fitness?
33
McHenry,,
dQlty_ _
34
dQlty_ _
34
j 1: �f
11C'I-lei 1
Two-thirds of local residents express an interest in walking and biking
trails.
➢ In addition, roughly two in five households are interested or express a need for an outdoor open pool
outdoor pool and aquatic park (39%).
■ Other outdoor water options generate less interest (30% for splash pads at a local park, and 27% for a lap pool).
■ Overall, younger adults, women, and those with children tend to be most interested in outdoor water facilities (see
next page). Likewise, residents in the Southwest region also tend to express greater interest in outdoor water.
➢ One in three households have a need for playgrounds. Sports fields and baseball fields are of interest to roughly one in
five residents.
Outdoor Facilities of Interest/Need Among Residents (% "Yes")
Walking/Biking Trails
General Recreation Pool (swimming lessons, water therapy, etc.)
Pool and Aquatic Park (with water slides)
Playgrounds
Splash Pad at Neighborhood Parlc
Pool for Lap Swimming and Swim Meets
Baseball/Softball Fields
Sports fields (for soccer, football, lacrosse)
�� Q15. Which of the following outdoor facilities do you or your household have a need or interest in? (multiple open-ended responses)
aQity_
35
N9cHen
Significant Differences: Interest/Need/Use of Outdoor Facilities
Walking/Biking Trails 66% Men (71 % vs. 63% of women)
Households with children (78%, vs. 60% of those without)
Lived in McHenry 13-20 yrs. (75%)
Under age 35 (52%), 35-44 (63%)
General Recreation Pool* 44% - Southwest residents (49%)
Households with children (67%, vs. 31 % of those without)
Ages 35-44 (64%)
Women (49%, vs. 27% of men)
Aquatic Park with Water Slides 39% - Households with children (66%, vs. 23% of those without)
Non -Hispanics (39%, vs. 23% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
Lived in McHenry 6-12 yrs. (51 %)
- Under age 35 (46%), 35-44 (48%)
Women (39%, vs. 28% of men)
Playgrounds 33% - Southwest residents (38%)
Households with children (55%, vs. 21 % of those without)
Lived in McHenry under 36 yrs. (37%)
Under age 35 (40%), 3544 (45%), 55-64 (35%)
Splash Pad at Neighborhood Park 30% Women (39%, vs. 20% of men)
Southwest residents (36%)
Households with children (49%, vs. 20% of those without)
Ages 35-44 (43%)
Pool for Lap Swimming/Swim Meets 27% Southwest residents (32%)
Households with children (46%, vs. 16% of those without)
Non -Hispanics (28%, vs. 7% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
r
.]• for *Swimming lessons, warm water therapy, etc.
36
Significant Differences: Interest/Need/Use of Outdoor Facilities
Walking/Biking Trails 66% Men (71 % vs. 63% of women)
Households with children (78%, vs. 60% of those without)
Lived in McHenry 13-20 yrs. (75%)
Under age 35 (52%), 35-44 (63%)
General Recreation Pool* 44% - Southwest residents (49%)
Households with children (67%, vs. 31 % of those without)
Ages 35-44 (64%)
Women (49%, vs. 27% of men)
Aquatic Park with Water Slides 39% - Households with children (66%, vs. 23% of those without)
Non -Hispanics (39%, vs. 23% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
Lived in McHenry 6-12 yrs. (51 %)
- Under age 35 (46%), 35-44 (48%)
Women (39%, vs. 28% of men)
Playgrounds 33% - Southwest residents (38%)
Households with children (55%, vs. 21 % of those without)
Lived in McHenry under 36 yrs. (37%)
Under age 35 (40%), 3544 (45%), 55-64 (35%)
Splash Pad at Neighborhood Park 30% Women (39%, vs. 20% of men)
Southwest residents (36%)
Households with children (49%, vs. 20% of those without)
Ages 35-44 (43%)
Pool for Lap Swimming/Swim Meets 27% Southwest residents (32%)
Households with children (46%, vs. 16% of those without)
Non -Hispanics (28%, vs. 7% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
r
.]• for *Swimming lessons, warm water therapy, etc.
36
< DRAFT > Need/Interest in Outdoor Facilities
Significant Differences: Interest/Need/Use of Outdoor Facilities (cont'a)
- Women (25%, vs. 16% of men)
Baseball/Softball Fields 21 % Households with children (30%, vs. 16% of those without)
Non -Hispanics (21 %, vs. 6% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
- Under age 35 (27%), 35-44 (31 %)
Sports Fields (soccer, football, lacrosse) 20% - Women (24%, vs. 16% of men)
Households with children (36%, vs. I I % of those without)
�aQity_ _
37
McHe_v
Quadrant; nalysis: Determining if Demand for Facilities is Being
Met
➢ Respondents who report use or interest in each type of facility were also asked how well needs are currently being met.
■ Using a I -5 scale, a score of "4" means their needs are mostly met, and a "5" means they are completely met.
➢ The results are reported on the following pages using a scatter plot that shows both:
■ The overall demand for each facility (vertical axis) based on the % of respondents who indicate usage or interest;
■ And the % who report that this "need" is currently being met (horizontal axis) using the I -5 scale.
➢ In the example below, facilities A and C in the upper right quadrant are in high demand and sufficient supply, whereas
facilities E and G in the upper left represents opportunity (high demand that is not currently being met).
■ Facilities to the bottom (B, D, and F) are in lower demand.
Level of Demand
(% Currently Using/Interested
In Using)
aQity_
100%
High Priority Needs: I Meeting High Demand:
High demand not met High demand is being met
Facility G ® � Facility C
♦ Facility E ®Facility A
Facility F Facility D I � Facility B
Exceeding Demand:
Low der�nanu not being n�e� Meeting low demand
20%
40%
60%
Degree of Meeting Demand/Need:
Saying Need is Being Met (on a I-5 scale)
100%
41Ci-ICI ll'4 '
None of the outdoor facilities tested represent critical unmet needs. In
Fact, trails, baseball/sports fields, and playgrounds are sufficiently available.
➢ The outdoor water facility options all rank as lower priority needs, given that less than half of all residents express a need
or interest in these amenities. However, those who are interested clearly feel that outdoor water opportunities are in
limited supply (especially a water park and splash pad area).
a�
>1
N
c
L
�
V
o
N
L
+�
c
co
c
�
N
aQity
1 oo°i°
60%
0%
0%
High Priority Needs i Meeting High Demand
i
i
i
i
i !:> Walking/ Biking Trails
-------------- 6utd-oor general-Rec ---------------------------------------
Outdoor Pool/ Aquatic Pool j
Park Playgrounds
l;
Splash Pad Outdoor Lap Pool/
Swim Meets i Base -/Softball Fields
Sports Fields
i
Exceeding Demand
20%
Degree of Meeting Demand/Needs
40% 60% 80%
%Saying Need is Mostly/Completely Being Met
Meeting Demand:
(scores of 4+ on a 1-5 scale)
100%
39
McHenry,
In terms of outdoor facilities that are completely meeting demand, more
trails for hiking or biking represent the one potential need.
0
L
�
d
c
+r
R
�
❑
N
All other features continue to be identified as lower priority needs (again, especially outdoor water faces).
aQity
>0%
GO%
?o%
High Prioritv Needs i Meeting High Demand
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
® Walking/ Biking Trails
I
I
I
I
I
Outdoor General Rec Pool I
I
I
Outdoor Pool/ Aquatic Park Playgrounds I
I
I
Splash Outdoor Lap Pool/ Base -/Softball
Pad Swim Meets Fields I
I
Sports Fields I
I
I
Low Priority Needs Demand
20°i°
40%
Degree of Meeting Demand/Needs
Meeting Demand: %Saying Need is COMPLETELY
Being Met
(score of 5 on a 1-5 scale)
:i�
McHenr�R
Of the outdoor improvements tested, a plurality placed a top priority on
adding/improving trails.
➢ Half as many (21 % overall) said an outdoor pool/water park should be the Department's top priority. However, when
other pool facilities are included (general open pool, lap pool), these combined responses total 38% -- nearly the same
level of response as for more/better trails (40% overall).
r►
dQif)/-
Top Priority: Most Important Outdoor Facility/Amenity For McHenry Parks &
Recreation Department To Provide/Expand/Improve
Walking/Biking Trails
Outdoor Pool/Aquatic Park
Splash Pad at Neighborhood Park
General Rec Pool
Pool for Laps/Swim Meets
Playgrounds
Sports Fields
Base -/Softball Fields
I%
Outdoor Pool -Related (38% total)
Q 17. Which o f those facilities do you think should be a top priority for the Parks &Recreation Department to provide, add, or improve?
41
-),r Top Outdoor Priority
NIO-Icnir
Trails vs. outdoor pools appeal to two different segments in terms of
priorities for the District.
➢ Older adults, men, and Latino residents tend to place higher priority on walking and biking trials.
➢ Conversely, women, younger respondents, and households with children tend to seek either an outdoor water park/pool
or an open recreational pool.
Differences by Subgroups: Top Outdoor Priority
Walking/Biking Trails
Pool/Aquatic Park with Water Slides
Splash Pad at Neighborhood Park
General Recreational Pool
Pool for Lap Swimming/Swim Meets
Playgrounds
Fields for Soccer/Football/Lacrosse
Baseball/Softball Fields
aQity =
Men (53%, vs. 28% of women)
40 0 - North residents (53%)
No children in HH (57%, vs. 20% of those with children)
Hispanic/Latino residents (SI%)
- Ages 35-44 (290/), 45-54 (290/)
Women (30%, vs. I I % of men)
Households with children (31 %, vs. 12% of those without)
Under age 35 (23%)
3% - Southwest residents (17%)
Households with children (19%, vs. 8% of those without)
Hispanic/Latino residents (22%)
- Under age 35 (17%)
2% - Women (16%7 vs. 8% of men)
Southwest residents (17%)
5%
4% - Under age 35 (9%)
3%
I%
`Swimming lessons, warm water therapy, etc.
<no meaningful differences>
<no meaningful differences>
<no meaningful differences>
42
ort...
NlIcHen
:aQity_
43
h1cHc:rny
A majority of residents express interest in an indoor pool, followed
closely by an interest or need for a fitness center and indoor track.
➢ In addition, roughly one in three adults use or are interested in group exercise space, and indoor water park and/or an
indoor lap pool.
➢ Gym courts are of interest to just over one -in -four adults.
➢ Across these potential indoor facilities, interest is consistently highest among households with children, non -seniors
(under age 65). Women tend to be most interested in indoor pools/splash parks and an indoor track as well.
Indoor Facilities of Interest/Need Among Residents (% "Yes")
Indoor Pool for General Recration
for swimming lessons, water therapy, etc.)
Fitness Center
Indoor Running/V1/alking Track
Group Exercise Studio
Indoor Water/Splash Park
Indoor Pool Co Laps/Swim Meets
Gym Courts for Basketball, Volleyball, etc.
Multi-Purpose/Community Rooms
Indoor Playground
Childcare/Babysitting Service
aQlty = Q 12. Which Of the following indoor facilities do you or your household have a need or interest in?
- •/interest in Indoo
�9C1-1el Iry
Significant Differences: Interest/Need/Use of Indoor Facilities
- Ages 35-44 (74%), 45-54 (63%)
Indoor Pool for General Recreation * 54% Women (57%, vs. 50% of men)
HH with children (75%, vs. 43% of those without)
Non -Hispanics (55%, vs. 32% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
Fitness Center 49% - Households with children (64%, vs. 41 % of those without)
McHenry residents 13-35 yrs. (60%)
Ages 3544 (54%), 45-54 (51 %)
Indoor Running/Walking Track 43% - Women (49%, vs. 39% of men)
HH with children (53%, vs. 38% of those without)
Group Exercise Studio 35% Ages 35-44 (44%), 45-54 (470/)
Women (467b, vs. 247o of men)
Under age 35 (43%), 35-44 (57%)
Women (42%, vs. 26% of men)
Indoor Water/Splash Park 35% - Southwest residents (40%)
HH with children (60%, vs. 21 % of those without)
Lived in McHenry 6-12 yrs. (44%), 13-20 yrs. (43%)
Ages 35-44 (53%), 45-64 (37%)
Indoor Pool for Laps/Swim Meets 33% - HH with children (50%, vs. 24% of those without)
Lived in McHenry 10-19 yrs. (42%), 20-29 yrs. (43%)
Gym Courts 28% Under age 35 (33%), 35-44 (36%), 45-54 (41 %)
HH with children (43%, vs. 20% of those without)
Ages 35-44 (38%), 55-64 (31 %)
Multi-Purpose/Community Room 25% - HH with children (33%, vs. 21 % of those without)
Non -Hispanics (26%, vs. 5% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
aQity * Swimming lessons, water therapy, etc.
45
McHenry
Significant Differences: Interest/Need/Use of Indoor Facilities (cont'a)
Indoor Playground
Childcare/Babysitting Service
aQity=
- Under age 35 (25%), 35-44 (24%)
o Women (21 %, vs. I I % of men)
HH with children (31 %, vs. 9% of those without)
Lived in McHenry I-5 yrs. (21%), 6-12yrs. (25%)
- Under age 35 (IS%)
Women (13%, vs. 2% of men)
HH with children (16%, vs. 4% of those without)
m
OcHenry
With the Rec Center, residents feel that their demand for many indoor
Facilities is already being mostly met.
➢ In terms of unmet needs, an indoor open pool clearly represents the biggest priority, followed by an indoor walking or
jogging track. Relatively few of those expressing interest in these amenities feel they are "mostly/completely" available.
N
c
L
U
m
oV1
m
LM
co
c
1 oo°i°
JO%
i
20%
0%
High Priority Needs i Meeting High ®emend
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
General Rec Pool
® I
I
---------------------------------- �-----------�-.' --------------------
Indoor Track I Fitness Center
I
Water/ Splash Park
<; Group Exercise Studio
Pool for Laps/ I
Swim Meets Gym Courts i Multi -Purpose Rooms
I
Indoor
Playground i Childcare Service
I awl
i
Exceeding Demand
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Degree of Meeting Demand/Needs
Meeting Demand: % Saying Need is Mostly/Completely Being Met
(scores of 4+ on a Im5 scale)
�laQity=
100%
47
A j
..4.1.,-Ur -
Ar
None of the indoor facility needs are seen as "completely" being met
(though many Rec Center amenities come close).
19
L
U
m
o
�
L
°r
c
ca
=
E
Again, indoor water options, a jogging and walking track, gym courts, and indoor playgrounds are clearly seen as
unavailable to residents
1 oo°i°
aQity=-
90%
)0%
40%
?0%
0%
High Priority Needs i Meeting High ®errand
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
General Rec Pool
♦ I
Indoor Track Fitness Centel
Pool for Laps/ Swim Meets
Water/ Splash Park Group EIkercise Studio
Gym Courts Multi-Pprpose Rooms
I
Indoor
Playground Childcare Service.
I
Low Priority 1Nee6 I Exceeding Demand
0%
20%
40% 60% 80%
r�
Degree of Meeting Demand/Needs
Meeting Demand: % Saying Need is COMPLETELY Being Met
(score of 5 on a 1-5 scale)
100%
AcHeriry
By far, the top priority for indoor recreation among residents is an indoor
pool.
➢ When combined with other indoor water options, a majority (60%) rank an indoor water feature as the Department's
highest priority improvement (general recreational pool, water/splash park, or indoor lap pool).
■ Younger adults and households with children are most interested in indoor water (see next page).
➢ An indoor track ranked a distant second behind an open pool, and is of greatest interest to older adults. One in ten are
most interested in gym courts (especially men).
Top Priority: Most Important Indoor Facility/Amenity For McHenry Parks &Recreation
Department To Provide/Expand/Improve
Walking/Running Track
Gym Courts
Fitness Center
Indoor Playground
Group Exercise Studios
Multi -Purpose Rooms
Childcare Faciliites
Indoor Water Related (60% total)
Q14. Which of those facilities do you think should be a top priority for the Parks &Recreation Department to provide, add, or improve? 49
McHeni r
Significant Differences: Top Outdoor Facility Priority
Pool for General Recreation
Indoor Running/V1/alking Track
Water/Splash Park
Pool for Lap Swimming/Swim Meets
Gym Courts
Fitness Center
Indoor Playground
Group Exercise Studio
Multi-Purpose/Community Room
Childcare Space
r'
aQity=
- Under age 35 (38%), 35-44 (40%0
35%
17% - Women (19%, vs. 14% of men)
No children in HH (24%)
5% Under age 35 (20%), 35-44 (26%)
HH with children (2S%)
10 % - Ages 45-64 (14%)
o - Ages 45-54 (19%)
9� - Men (14%, vs. 5% of women)
$ / - Ages 65+ (17%) No children in HH (13%)
der age 35 (14%)
*Swim lessons, water therapy, etc.
<no meaningful differences>
<no meaningful differences>
50
McHernay
aQity -
51
McHenry,
Two in five households report participating in a Department program or
event in the past year, usually fitness or youth sports.
➢ Aside from fitness programs, many of the top
responses focus on youth sports and activities
aIong with programming for seniors.
➢ Fewer than 12% participated in cultural/arts
programs or team sports for adults.
➢ All other programs or events were each cited
by 5% or fewer respondents.
➢ More than I in 4 households participated in an
event in the past year, the most popular being
River Run.
Any household member participated
in McHenry Parks & Rec Dept.
program/event in past year?
aQity=
Top Responses:
Recent Program/ Event Participation
Fitness Programs
Youth Team Sports
Seniors Programs
Swimming Lessons M
Other sports clinics/lessons
Preschool/Toddler Programs
Summer Day Camp
Adult Cultural/Arts Programs NO
Nature Programs IM
Tennis Lessons LOS
Swim Team
Adult Team Sports 05/
Events (net)
River Run Im
Big Wheels Race
(e.g., group/personal
training, yoga)
(e.g., basketball, football, softball)
Daddy- Daughter Dance MI * (e.g., basketball, football, softball)
Q 18. Which programs/events has your household participated in over the past year?(multiple responses)
52
Mc:Hcnry
Households with children are more likely to participate in programs/
events than households without children.
Recent Program/ Event Participation
Fitness Programs
Youth Team Sports
Seniors Programs
Swimming Lessons
Other sports clinics/lessons
■ 2%-
— � 18%
Preschool/Toddler Programs - 16%
� 3/
Summer Day Camp
Adult Cultural/Arts Programs
Nature Programs
14%
5%
10%
5%
8%
48%
HH With Children
Tennis Lessons - o - — -- 12% ■ HH Without Children
� I
Swim Team -o_..__.... 12%
2/
Adult Team Sports i�7 3%
8/
net Events( ) - -1 37%
2n i
River Run
Big Wheels Race
Daddy- Daughter Dance
aQity - -
7% 13%
15%
I%
I
I%
53
ltrrMcHenry,
Those taking part recently in the Department's programs and events are
very satisfied overall.
➢ A majority are completely satisfied (53%), and 87% overall express some level of satisfaction.
■ By comparison, only 4% were dissatisfied with their experience.
➢ These high ratings are consistently strong among all subgroups.
■ The oldest residents ages 65+ gave slightly lower (but still favorable ratings (7.7 average), while those ages 35 to 49
are most satisfied (8.9 average).
Satisfaction with McHenry Parks &Recreation Department
Programs and Events
(n=180 recent program/event participants)
Overall Program/Event � 9/
Satisfaction
■ Dissatisfied (0-4)
aQity
Neutral (5)
13%
Slightly Satisfied (6-7) ■Very Satisfied (8)
Avg. 0- I 0
Score
8.1
■Completely Satisfied (9-10)
QI 9. How would you rate your overall sans faction with the McHenry Parks &Recreation programs. or events you have recently participated in? (on
a 0 to 10 scale)
54
Those taking part recently in the Department's programs and events are
very satisfied overall.
➢ A majority are completely satisfied (53%), and 87% overall express some level of satisfaction.
■ By comparison, only 4% were dissatisfied with their experience.
➢ These high ratings are consistently strong among all subgroups.
■ The oldest residents ages 65+ gave slightly lower (but still favorable ratings (7.7 average), while those ages 35 to 49
are most satisfied (8.9 average).
Satisfaction with McHenry Parks &Recreation Department
Programs and Events
(n=180 recent program/event participants)
Overall Program/Event � 9/
Satisfaction
■ Dissatisfied (0-4)
aQity
Neutral (5)
13%
Slightly Satisfied (6-7) ■Very Satisfied (8)
Avg. 0- I 0
Score
8.1
■Completely Satisfied (9-10)
QI 9. How would you rate your overall sans faction with the McHenry Parks &Recreation programs. or events you have recently participated in? (on
a 0 to 10 scale)
54
+ry.McHen
only 16 respondents had program complaint, mostly dealing with Rec
Center classes.
"Would love more options."
"Wish McHenry had a indoor pool facilities and or a nice water park."
"Swim Team: lack of quality facility."
"Summer Day Camp — An email was sent with calendar of activities and none were done until the last 2 days when we spoke to someone about it. My daughter was disappointed. It was
$130 for swimming basically."
"Rec Center classes —Schedule needs to be more diverse —more core strengthening low intensity, stretch, flexibility classes needed."
"Not much for seniors - no indoor walking —nothing."
"Not enough for seniors."
"Need to offer Disability Rate for health club."
"Need more kayaks to rent, more boat paddle boards."
"In the Youth Strength/Agility class, the instructor was envisioning a group o f hardcore athletes attending. When he didn't get it he was kind o f a jerk. My son took it to help with tight
ligaments and muscles. I was disappointed."
"Fitness group class: work 'til 5 -hard to get to a bpm class."
"Fiesta Days and the Parade ,all the drinking keeps people away."
"Car shows — draws undesirables."
"Better water fitness classes for mom's."
`Aerobic Swim Class (Indoor) —Was discontinued — It was a great class for people w/joint issues —really miss it!"
"Cost."
aQity
Q20. Which programs are you dissatisfied with, and why?
55
only 16 respondents had program complaint, mostly dealing with Rec
Center classes.
"Would love more options."
"Wish McHenry had a indoor pool facilities and or a nice water park."
"Swim Team: lack of quality facility."
"Summer Day Camp — An email was sent with calendar of activities and none were done until the last 2 days when we spoke to someone about it. My daughter was disappointed. It was
$130 for swimming basically."
"Rec Center classes —Schedule needs to be more diverse —more core strengthening low intensity, stretch, flexibility classes needed."
"Not much for seniors - no indoor walking —nothing."
"Not enough for seniors."
"Need to offer Disability Rate for health club."
"Need more kayaks to rent, more boat paddle boards."
"In the Youth Strength/Agility class, the instructor was envisioning a group o f hardcore athletes attending. When he didn't get it he was kind o f a jerk. My son took it to help with tight
ligaments and muscles. I was disappointed."
"Fitness group class: work 'til 5 -hard to get to a bpm class."
"Fiesta Days and the Parade ,all the drinking keeps people away."
"Car shows — draws undesirables."
"Better water fitness classes for mom's."
`Aerobic Swim Class (Indoor) —Was discontinued — It was a great class for people w/joint issues —really miss it!"
"Cost."
aQity
Q20. Which programs are you dissatisfied with, and why?
55
McHei ira
When asked about current levels of interest or demand for
programming, fitness and adult activities generate the most response.
➢ These are followed closely by special events in the community (3 I %), and activities for active adults ages 55 and older
(27%).
➢ Not surprisingly, interest in these specific programs reflect the age groups targeted (see next page). Women tend to be
most interested in fitness programs. The youngest households express strong interest in events.
➢ Fewer than one in five households express interest in the remaining programs tested (mostly specific youth programs).
Programs/Events of Interest/Need Among Residents (% "Yes")
Fitness Programs
Adult Programs/Classes/Sports
Special Events
Active Adult (ages 55+) Activities
Youth Programs/Classes/Sports
Swimming Lessons
Before -/After -School Program for Ages 5-12
Summer Camp
Preschool/Toddler Programs
Recreational Swim Teams for Ages 5-20
aQity Q21. Which of the following recreational programs or activities do you or your household have a need or interest in?
56
Significant Differences: in of Programs/Events
Fitness Programs 42% Women (48%, vs. 36% of men)
HH with children (50%, vs. 38% of those without)
Lived in McHenry 13-20 yrs. (51 %), 21-35 yrs. (56%)
Adult Programs * 39% Ages 45-54 (51 %)
Non -Hispanics (40%, vs. 16% of Hispanic/Latino residents)
Under age 35 (41 %), 35-44 (38%)
Special Events 3 I% HH with children (44%, vs. 24% of those without)
No children in HH (36%, vs. 12 % of those with children)
Active Adult (ages SS+) Activities 27% - Non -Hispanics (28%, vs. I I % of Hispanic/Latino residents)
Lived in McHenry 36+ yrs. (39%)
Northwest region (43%)
Under age 35 (26%), 3544 (37%)
Youth Programs * 18% - Women (21%vs. 14% of men)
HH with children (40%, vs. 7% of those without)
Ages 3544 (18%)
Swimming Lessons 14% Women (18%, vs. 9% of men)
HH with children (27%, vs. 6% of those without)
Lived in McHenry 6-12 yrs. (19%), 13-20 yrs. (21 %)
* Classes/Sports
aoity
57
LF
ACHenT
Significant Differences: Interest/Need/Use of Programs/Events (cont'a)
Before -/After -School Programs
Summer Camp
Preschool/Toddler Programs
Recreational Swim Teams (ages 5-20)
- Under age 35 (18%), ages 35-44 (21%)
Women (13%, vs. 6% of men)
HH with children (24%, vs. 3% of those without)
- Women (I I%, vs. 5% of men)
HH with children (20%, vs. 3% of those without)
- Under age 35 (22%)
Women (13%, vs. 3% of men)
HH with children (18%, vs. 4% of those without)
- Ages 35-44 (16%)
6� - HH with children (14%, vs. I % of those without)
Most youth -related program needs appear to be sufficiently met.
➢ The top opportunities to address unmet needs are represented by programs for adults, including active adults ages 55
and older. Fitness programs also rank as a potential area to address, as they generate the highest level of interest.
1 o0°i°
)0%
I
20%
0%
0%
High Priority Needs i ���eet'sr�m� i�i�� �e�����
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fitness
Adult Programs* Programs
I
Active Adult Special Events j
(55+) Activities
Swimming IPreschool/ Youth Programs
Before./After School Lessons Toddler
Programs I Programs
Recreation Swim I ` I> Summer Camp
rL
Teams Ages 5-20 Exceeding Demand
20%
40% 60% 80%
Degree of Meeting Demand/Needs
Meeting Demand: %Saying Need is Mostly/Completely Being Met
(scores of 4+ on a 1-5 scale)
*Classes, sports, etc.
100%
59
hlcHennr
Very few of these program needs are "completely" being met.
w
c
L
=
V
O
V%
a�
W
c�c
c
❑
N
M
Again, the programming"gap" appears to be widest between adult actives and fitness classes/programs.
1 oo°io
)0%
10%
0%
High Priority Needs i Meeting High Demand
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PreschoolfToddler
I
Programs Fitness Programs
Adult Programs*
I
Active Adult
Special Events j
I
(55+) Activities Youth Summer Camp I
Programs * I
efore-/After School Swimming Lessons j
Programs
Recreation Swim
Exceeding Demand
Teams Ages 5-20 I
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Degree of Meeting Demand/Needs
Meeting Demand: % Saying Need is COMPLETELY Being Met
r (score of 5 on a 1-5 scale)
aQity= =
k Classes, sports, etc. 60
VIcHenry .
Of the programs tested, offering more activities for active adults ranks as
the top priority, followed by fitness programs.
➢ Other adult programming is included in the "next tier" of priorities, which also includes youth programs along with
special events (all mentioned by I I % to 15% each).
Top Priority: Most Important Program/Event For McHenry Parks &Recreation
Department To Provide/Expand/Improve
Active Adult (ages 55+) Activities
Fitness Programs
Youth Programs/Classes/Sports
Special Events
Adult Programs/Classes/Sports
Before -/After -School Programs (ages 5-12)
dQity
Preschool/Toddler Programs
Swimming Lessons
Summer Camp
for Ages 5-20
Recrational Swim Teams
Q23. Which of those programs/activities do you think should be a top priority for the Parks &Recreation Department to provide, add, or improve?
61
McHer+A'
Significant Differences: Top Program/Event Priority
Active Adult (55+) Activities 26% - Southeast region (41 %) 0
Lived in McHenry 21-35 yrs. (36%), 36+ yrs. (32%)
No children in HH (41 %)
Ages 45-54 (34%)
Fitness Programs 19% - North region (32%)
Lived in McHenry 36+ yrs. (32%)
No Children in HH (23%)
- Ages 35-44 (41 %), 45-54 (21 %)
Youth Programs * 15% - HH with children (31761 vs. 47b of those without)
Lived in McHenry 6-12 yrs. (25%)
Underage 35 (22%), 35-44 (21 %)
Special Events 13% - Southwest (IS%) and Northeast (26%) regions)
Hispanic/Latino residents (25%, vs. 12% of non -Hispanics)
HH with children (17%, vs. 10% of those without)
- Under age 35 (16%)
Adult Programs * I I% - Lived in McHenry under 6 yrs. (25%)
No children in HH (16%)
aQity* Classes, sports
MCHCIIt:}O
Significant Differences: Top Program/Event Priority (cont'd)
- Under age 35 (13%)
Before -/After -School Programs (ages 5-12) 5% - HH with children (10%)
Hispanic/Latino resident (25%)
Preschool/Toddler Program 4% - Under age 35 (19%)
HH with children (10%)
Swimming Lessons 3% <no meaningful differences>
Summer Camp 3% <no meaningful differences>
Recreational Swim Teams for ages 5-20 go/ <no meaningful differences>
aQity
63
McHenry
Similar to the needs analysis, open-ended feedback confirms that more
adult programming represents the biggest unmet need.
Most often, residents suggest more
activities for active older adults, usually
some type of sports or fitness programs,
or events/day trips.
y Nearly as many seek more programming
for younger adults under age 55. Again,
sports and fitness are preferred by most,
with arts and life programs a distant
second. (Trips or events are seldom
requested).
y Note that far fewer residents offer
suggestions specifically for children,
reflecting earlier findings that indicate
sufficient programming is already
available.
Active Adult (Ages 55+1 Program Suggestions (n=55
■ n=33 Fitness/Sports (e.g., aquatics, group fitness, dance,
yoga/Pilates/barre, senior exercise programs, group walking/hiking)
■ n=19 Events/Trips
■ n=4 Arts/Lifestyle programs (e.g., arts/crafts, nutrition)
Adult (Under 55) Program Suggestions (n=51�
■ n=40 Fitness/Sports (e.g., aquatics, softball, yoga/Pilates/barre,
group fitness, hockey)
■ n=8 Arts/Lifestyle programs (e.g., general arts/crafts, nutrition)
■ n=6 Events/Trips
General Program Suggestions (n=35�
■ n= 16 Athletic/Sports (e.g., aquatics, group fitness, dance)
■ n=16 Events/trips
■ n=2 Youth programs, general
■ n=2 Arts programs, general
Youth Program Suggestions (n= 18�
■ n=7 Athletic/Sports (e.g., t-ball, softball, gymnastics)
■ n=4 Before -/After -School programs
■ n=3 Teen programs
■ n=2 Arts/Language programs
Q24. Please list any specific �rogram(s) or events) you would like the Parks &Recreation Department to offer.
N.,IcHeriry
65
aQity=
65
aQity=
MCI my
Residents express high levels of support for a potential expansion of the
Rec Center and adding an outdoor water facility.
➢ Supporters outnumber opponents more than 2: I . In fact, there are nearly as many "strong" supporters (29%) as the total
number of opponents (31 % "strong" and "not strong" combined).
➢ A few points to keep in mind:
■ This willingness -to -pay question is very broad, and does not include information about fees, memberships,
schedules/availability, etc. associated with these new facilities. Given that many are "not strong" in their opinions,
these factors could impact their positions.
■ The sample includes all residents, including voters and non -voters. Therefore, the responses should not be
interpreted as an expected outcome to a referendum question.
Q30. Do you support or oppose the McHenry Parks &Recreation Department upgrading and improving the McHenry Rec
Center to meet the community's recreational needs? This would include adding a 2-court gymnasium; an indoor running track;
and indoor pool with lap lanes, a splash pad, and therapy pool; expanded indoor play/childcare space; and an outdoor pool
and aquatic park. These expanded facilities would mean an increase of $150 in annual property taxes on the average home
valued at $200,0000
■Strongly Opposed
aQity
13%
Somewhat Oppose
Somewhat Support
■ Strongly Support
m
McHenry
A majority of all groups generally support these possible improvements,
though the oldest and most long-term residents are evenly divided.
➢ Overall, 46% of residents age 65 or older oppose the proposed upgrades (including 26% "strongly opposed"), while about
as many (54%) support the improvements.
➢ Conversely, support is clearly strongest among younger adults and those with young children. Women tend to be
"strong" supporters of these improvements; men tend to be in favor only "somewhat".
➢ Note also that the relatively small Hispanic population tends to be least willing to support these improvements.
Significant Differences: Support vs. Oppose Proposed Facility Improvements
Strongly Su 29% - Women (37%, vs. 20% of men)
g Y Support - HH with children (39%, vs. 23% support among those without)
Non -Hispanics (30%, vs. 12% support among Hispanic/Latino residents)
Under age 35 (58%), 35-44 (49%)
Somewhat Support 40% - Men (47%, vs. 36% of women)
HH with children (44%, vs. 38% of those without)
Somewhat Oppose 130/ - Ages 65+ (21%)
- Lived in McHenry 36+years (21%)
Ages 65+ (26%)
Strongly Oppose 18% - HH without children (24%, vs. 9% of those with children)
g Y pp - Lived in McHenry 30 yrs. (29%)
Hispanic/Latino residents (34%, vs. 18% of non -Hispanics)
aQity=
67
A majority of all groups generally support these possible improvements,
though the oldest and most long-term residents are evenly divided.
➢ Overall, 46% of residents age 65 or older oppose the proposed upgrades (including 26% "strongly opposed"), while about
as many (54%) support the improvements.
➢ Conversely, support is clearly strongest among younger adults and those with young children. Women tend to be
"strong" supporters of these improvements; men tend to be in favor only "somewhat".
➢ Note also that the relatively small Hispanic population tends to be least willing to support these improvements.
Significant Differences: Support vs. Oppose Proposed Facility Improvements
Strongly Su 29% - Women (37%, vs. 20% of men)
g Y Support - HH with children (39%, vs. 23% support among those without)
Non -Hispanics (30%, vs. 12% support among Hispanic/Latino residents)
Under age 35 (58%), 35-44 (49%)
Somewhat Support 40% - Men (47%, vs. 36% of women)
HH with children (44%, vs. 38% of those without)
Somewhat Oppose 130/ - Ages 65+ (21%)
- Lived in McHenry 36+years (21%)
Ages 65+ (26%)
Strongly Oppose 18% - HH without children (24%, vs. 9% of those with children)
g Y pp - Lived in McHenry 30 yrs. (29%)
Hispanic/Latino residents (34%, vs. 18% of non -Hispanics)
aQity=
67
i Reasons••••
McHenry
Virtually all supporters feel these improvement are needed and would be
good for the overall community.
➢ This includes roughly one in ten who are in favor because it will help improve residential property values (making
McHenry more desirable to new residents).
➢ Note, however, that one in five supporters express some concerns or doubts about the actual costs and fees, or whether
residents will support paying higher taxes for these improvements.
Top Reasons for Support
(n=239 providing open-ended responses)*
Needed/Good for Community (NET)
Proposed facilities are needed _ _ __'_ .'�-_ '' -s I
Benefits the whole community - _�.L-xE �aC�'��r
Promotes fitness/healthy lifestyles:�,
Improves property values If I=�; I
Good Value (NET)
Support But Have Concerns (NET)
Concerns with higher taxes and fees 7%
Taxes too high already 6%
Skeptical of price 2%
s,LY
Q288. Why do you support these proposed improvements? * Multiple responses accepted/coded.
�i
R1cHen�� ,�
SampleVerbatims: Reasons for Support
Needed/Good for Community (86%�
"The city could use another pool and some more indoor fitness activities."
"These are all the improvements I'm looking for!"
We need these improvements. We should not need to travel outside of our town."
"Need for city of this size, people go to other towns for pools. Keep them here"
"When grandkids visit it would be a fun activity to participate with them. Also, as a senior citizen the lap pool may be appealing."
"1 like the current rec center. Having gyms and a pool and a track would be good additions especially for the winter months."
"McHenry would benefit greatly by offering residents and non-residents a local waterpork/splash park for the kids rather than traveling to Lake Zurich, Mundelein or Woodstock
and investing in their towns."
McHenry does not have an aquatic park, losing money that 1 would spend at other parks"
The two court gymnasium and track would be extremely beneficial to aerobic exercise and the social well being of our community. It would draw plenty of interest to the community
as well."
"1 support these plans. They include all ages!"
"It will provide the residents who live in McHenry with more opportunities to be active and healthy and will allow people to have these benefits without having to go to a different
town."
"They are needed to keep our community active and helping people to know each other."
"Our community needs to stay focused on health concerns to support our current residents, and draw in new residents to our community."
"It is better for a community, we are all paying high taxes and actually having something to show for is a benefit. I have a 3 year old and parks and splash pads, pools, and activities
such as gymnastics are important"
"With the parks department offering these amenities there will be excellent public access to the facilities. These facilities will provide an outlet for an entire family to come to the
rec center and have something for everyone."
"1 think we need more spaces and opportunities to bring our community together. We have young children and I would love to have more options for activities here in McHenry as
opposed to traveling to other towns for activities such as aquatic parks, etc."
"The pools and an aquatic park would be great for our family. If it were close by so that we could walk to it, that would be perfect!"
Good Value (6%�
"$13.00 a month is a small price to pay for all of that! Bravo!"
"Great value for small investment cost (on my part)"
"Sounds like it would add a /at of value"
"Great value, much needed"
i�1c:Hern�r ,�
Sampleverbatims: Reasons for Support
Support But Concerned About HigherTaxes/Fees (18%
"For seniors on a low annual income it would be hard."
'I might use it for the gym and the pool but the cost is really high."
'skeptical of price, what percentage of residents would really use facility"
"I support it if the only cost to taxpayers is the $150 increase in property taxes. If residents will have to pay extra on top of the property taxes to use the facility, then I am
opposed."
'Concerned about fees in addition to raising property tax."
'I see the pros and cons. Biggest CON - our taxes are already WAY out of bounds! Don't want them higher."
'if my taxes pay for them then I don't expect to be charged a fee to use the facilities!"
'Taxes are too high now! Would be more excited @ $50 per yr."
'No one likes the taxes to go up"
aQity
70
ti1cHc:nru ,�
As one would expect, those opposed to these new facilities do not want
to pay higher taxes and/or feel the improvements are unnecessary.
➢ Residents who do not expect to use the proposed faces were most likely to say that the costs should be covered via
user fees, and not from a tax increase impacting users and non -users alike.
➢ Examples of these responses are provided on the next two pages.
Top Reasons for Oppose
( i=1 12 providing open-ended responses)*
Taxes too high already
Facilities are not needed/won't be used
Charge user fees instead, no taxes
Skeptical of price/cost
Enough facilities already exist
s1. Q28A. Why do you oppose these proposed improvements? * Multiple responses accepted/coded.
2C•U[1
71
i�1C I IU ll"\
Sample Verbatims: Reasons for Oppose
Taxes Too High Already k =% 9
"I feel I pay a high amount already in taxes so I think they should be able to budget the money so they can add on to the facility. I'm not sure how are taxes can be so high and not
be able to do this. We don't have much in McHenry so I'm not sure where all the money for taxes are going???"
"Do not increase taxes! I oppose any increase, as 1 would like to one day sell my home. Taxes + City's reputation makes moving here unattractive to potential buyers."
"Because I'm tired of my taxes going towards things that will be priced too high for me to take advantage of."
AS A SENIOR ON A FIXED INCOME, 1 DON'T WANT MORE TAXES - ESPECIALLY ON THINGS 1 PROBABLY WON'T USE
At this time taxes are way too high and people will vote down an increase. Work to get more business in McHenry and not so many vacant stores."
"My taxes are too high as it is. If people need or want to use this they should pay for them themselves, not all taxpayers."
Nly taxes already have me looking out of state to retire, 1 am 76 and still working. I am being forced out of a house that has been paid for 21 years."
"My tax bill is high enough and while some of those additions would be nice, they ore not really need at this time"
"Property taxes are already pretty high in my neighborhood. On the other hand, these improvements would be helpful for lots of people. The price for memberships are already
high."
"Taxes are too high all ready, plus the state income tax is going up. Cut spending!"
"Taxes are way too high as it is. You need to do more with what you have instead of always adding more. Taxes are forcing people and businesses to leave McHenry."
Facilities Are Not Needed �20%�
"City does not need to be in the fitness business. Plenty o f health clubs around"
"We have enough parks if people need more recreation let them find it and pay for it themselves! I want to see my taxes go down not up!"
"The rec center was just built. If we needed those items it should have been done when it was built. Tired of my taxes going up for silly things like this."
"We don't use the parks or pools or recreation center, so why pay more?"
"Don't use facilities now and would not use new ones"
Fund with User Fees, Not Taxes (7%�
"Should be 100% self-supporting with membership &user fees"
`%Make the people who want it -pay, not the people like me who have no need."
"I feel the improvements cater to a select few who would use the facilities."
"I do not see a need, charge a larger fee for those that would use the indoor facility"
72
1HReasons• Oppose
Mcenry ;�
SampleVerbatims: Reasons for Oppose
Skeptical of Cost/Price (5%�:
"That is too large an increase for a single department. Improvements should be made incrementally."
"I'm not opposed to the improvements, and I know it has to be paid for somehow, but raising taxes that much would be a burden to many homeowners."
"Your I % rate would jump to 34% — a triple to quadruple increase — would support a lesser rate"
"We do not have a home worth over $200,000 but we have checked the numbers. McHenry County is the most heavily taxed community in America! We feel that with the
amount of taxes taken in that there must be a lot of waste in how it is currently spent. We pay $4500 for a 1500 SF condo in McHenry! The improvements would be lovely, but
work it into to the budgets. Control your spending. Thank you for this opportunity to express our thoughts."
Enough Facilities Already Exist (4%�
"Facilities are available at other locations, i.e., Health Bridge, and would be taking business away from them. Park District would be using tax dollars to provide services already
available."
Already available at schools, aquatic center, (Knox Park) just duplicating services already available."
We have an outdoor pool, and 1 don't think we need an aquatic park."
31 'LA
AI
73
hIcHenry
Of the improvements tested, nearly half place top priority on an indoor
pool
➢ Half as many (roughly one in five overall) feel an outdoor water park/pool and an indoor track are among the most important
improvements.
Potential Improvements Considered
"Top Priority" (multiple responses)
Indoor Pool '�
Outdoor Pool/Aquatic Park
Indoor Track
Two -Court Gym
Expanded Indoor Play/Childcare
None are Priorities
No answer
Q29. Which im�rovement(s) do you consider to be priorities?
74
1Ic} Iccu�
T k
Many of the proposed improvements are especially appealing to those in
the 35=54 age range (especially the pools and gym space).
➢ Men tend to identify the indoor track and gyms as top priorities, more so than women.
➢ Those who do not consider any of these improvements are important include both the newest and longest McHenry
residents (who also tend to report no children in their households).
Significant Differences: Top Priorities Among Proposed Improvements
Indoor Pool
Outdoor Pool/Aquatic Park
Indoor Running Track
Two -Court Gymnasium
Expanded Indoor Childcare/Play Space
None of Proposed Improvements Are Priorities
ai
- Ages 35-44 (59%), 45-54 (54%)
45% - HH with children (53%, vs. 41 % of those without)
23% - Under age 35 (32%), 35-44 (39%)
HH with children (40%, vs. I I % among those without)
Men 1270/, vs. 18% of women)
- Ages 3544 (31 %), 45-54 (23%)
(20%, vs. 10% of women)
HH with children (23%, vs. 9% among those without)
HH with children (12%, vs. 4% among those without)
Lived in McHenry under 6 yrs. (16%) or 36+ yrs. (16%)
- No children in HH (15%)
75
tryMcHen
76
76
h1c 1 Ic.t try
Residents most often rely on the Department's printed program guide
for information about parks, facilities and programs.
➢ Nearly half also report going to the Department's
website when they seek information.
➢ The good news is that residents rely most often
on these two channels from the Department.
However significant numbers also seek
information from non -Parks & Recreations
sources, namely:
■ Local newspapers (30% -- almost exclusively
the Northwest Herald);
■ Word of mouth from friends, family,
neighbors, etc. (27%).
Most Used Current Sources for
ParWRecreation Information (n=389)
Parks &Rec Department Program Guide
Parks &Rec Department Website
City of McHenry (website, visit, call)
Local newspaper (print or online)'`
Word of mouth from friends/neighbors
Call Parks &Rec main office
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Digital sign at Fort McHenry
McHenry Public Library
Communications from local schools
Other website(s)
F3Y
— 48%
37%
30%
27%
- 24%
18%
■ 16%
15%
9%
3%
* Almost exclusively the Northwest Herald ''
Q25. From what sources do you get information about the McHenry Parks &Recreation Department and its programs, parks, facilities, or
services?
77
OcHenix
The most preferred source is the Program Guide, with the Parks & Rec
website a distant second.
➢ The percent relying on the Department's website is
much lower compared to park districts in general.
Usually park district websites are preferred nearly
as often or equal to the program guides.
➢ Those most likely to rely most on the program
guide are.
■ Ages 35-44 (50%)
■ Women (50%, vs. 41 % of men)
■ Those with children (51%)
➢ Newer residents (past five years) tend to rely more
than average on the websites for the Parks & Rec
Department (23%) or the city (13%).
➢ Conversely, long-term residents and especially older
adults (ages 65+) favor newspapers for parks and
recreation information.
➢ While the number of cases is small, Hispanic/Latino
residents tend to prefer calling the Parks & Rec
Department for information.
aQity=
Preferred Sources for Parks & Rec Information
McHenry Parks &Rec Program Guide
McHenry Parks &Rec Website
Local Newspaper (mostly NW Herald)
City of McHenry Gov't (website, call,
visit)
Call Parks &Rec by Phone
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Word of mouth for
family/neighbors/friends
All others (<3 % each)
Q26. What is your re erred source of in formation about the Parks &Recreation Department?
+ry.McHeri
dQity'
MCHeW
o.�j
McHenry Parks and Recreation Department zoa7Community Survey
—Final Weighted Topline Results—
(n-407compferes)
z. Please rate youroverall opinion of each group oragency in
your community. (o-ao scale)
Highestregaru(g-ao)
1E%
Ve ositive(B)
xg%
Somewhat positive (6-7)
32%
Neutral (S)
xv%
Negative (0-4)
10%
Mean
6.63
UnfOMXCr*
1 %
DepartmentB. McHenry Parks & Recreation
H ghest regard (g-ia)
29%
Very positive (8)
26%
Somewhat positive(6-7)
25%
Neutral(5)
11%
Negative(0-4)
8%
Mean
7e26
Un amlUar*
a %
SchoolMcHenry Elementary
District
----_--__ -_—.. Highest regard (9-io)
1 26%
Very positive (a)
23%
Somewhat positive(6.7)
29%
Neutral (g)
zo%
Negative(a-4)
12%
1
aQity= _
Mean i -_ - 6.8;
Unfamiliar* 1 288fi -
�+,rrc��rrororc;,vrrtst��7s: ser.ls-a7
z. please rate your overall opinion of each group or agency in
your community. (continued)
Neutral (5) xx%
Ne ative(o•4) 12%
Mean I 6.6o
Very positive (8) a9%
Somewhat positive (61) zo%
Neutral (5) 16%
Negative (0-4) 7%
Mean 748
* Excluded from base
3. What do you like mostabvuttheMcHenryParks&
E
+ryMcHen
4. What do you dislikemostaboutiheMcHenryParks
& Recreation De antment?
Unhappy with Rec Center 4%
Too few facilities, eneral 3%
Pools (net) 33%
Need indoor pool, general _ 3.8%__
Improveladd community pool, qeneral ao%
Lr�flu
endly parks
f,Ci•T
Programsklasses don't have enough variety
Youth programs
More Droarams for seniors
Poor comnonicationlmarketirg ,�
(uninformed of offeri s, etc.) 5
Dislikes 'fie licieslnoenfamement 4%
Wa M
Improve class scheduling 5%
Lack of nearby parking, other parking 5YO
POSITIVE COMMENTS (nothing negative) 294-1
UnfamiliarJNA(Refused iz%
5. About what percent ofyotnr property taxes do you
think goes to the McHenry Parks ecreation
Department?
o-a%(correct response) 15%
_._ 2-5% 56%
6-io% 22%
as-zo% 6%
Over zo% 10/4
Mean S•54
3
6. Just underri%ofyour propentytaxesgoes tothe McHenryParks&
Recreation Department. Thinking about the programs, parks, facilities,
and services that the Parks& Recreation Department provides, please
rate the overall value that it represents given its share of property taxes.
Excellerrtvalue(g-io) 38%
Great value 1 18% - -
Good value
Neutral (5)
Poorvalue (0•4)
Mean
t3%
7. Which ofthese parks andfacilities have you or other
nousenaia members wsaea m me oast az monrnsr
4. What do you dislikemostaboutiheMcHenryParks
& Recreation De antment?
Unhappy with Rec Center 4%
Too few facilities, eneral 3%
Pools (net) 33%
Need indoor pool, general _ 3.8%__
Improveladd community pool, qeneral ao%
Lr�flu
endly parks
f,Ci•T
Programsklasses don't have enough variety
Youth programs
More Droarams for seniors
Poor comnonicationlmarketirg ,�
(uninformed of offeri s, etc.) 5
Dislikes 'fie licieslnoenfamement 4%
Wa M
Improve class scheduling 5%
Lack of nearby parking, other parking 5YO
POSITIVE COMMENTS (nothing negative) 294-1
UnfamiliarJNA(Refused iz%
5. About what percent ofyotnr property taxes do you
think goes to the McHenry Parks ecreation
Department?
o-a%(correct response) 15%
_._ 2-5% 56%
6-io% 22%
as-zo% 6%
Over zo% 10/4
Mean S•54
3
6. Just underri%ofyour propentytaxesgoes tothe McHenryParks&
Recreation Department. Thinking about the programs, parks, facilities,
and services that the Parks& Recreation Department provides, please
rate the overall value that it represents given its share of property taxes.
Excellerrtvalue(g-io) 38%
Great value 1 18% - -
Good value
Neutral (5)
Poorvalue (0•4)
Mean
t3%
7. Which ofthese parks andfacilities have you or other
nousenaia members wsaea m me oast az monrnsr
Veterans Menorial Park
659�a
Petersen Park
63%
Fort McHenryjWhispering Oaks Park
McHenry Recreation Center
Knox Park
Fox Ri a Park
East Beach Park (Mc[ulknm Lake)
46%
41%
39%
a %
22%
Merkel Aquatics CenrterJOutdoor Pool (at Knox
Park)
21(y
Shamrock Farms Park
18%
JnLcees Park
_
14%
McBark Dog Park
Freund Field
_ _ la%
az%
West Beach Park (McCullom Lake)
Iio/o
_
Althoff Park
li%
Lakeland Park
_ McHenry Shores Beach
McHenry Zone Skate Park (at Knox Park)
Webees Park
Center Street Park
KiwanisTotLot
so%
8%
8%
%
5%
4%
Pebble Creek Park
4%
Malibu Playground
LibertTrails Park
4%
3%
Cold Springs Park
%
Homestead Park
Riverside Hollow Park
Lakeland Park CommunityCenter
CreeksidePark
North Oak Park
Other.
=eased cn multiple responses (%selected)
3%
z%
s%
z%
1%
m
McHer +rY,,,
8. Which pasility do you use most often?
McHenry Recreation CerMer
8. Which pasility do you use most often?
McHenry Recreation CerMer
21
Veterans Memorial Park
18%
Petersen Park
Fort McHen /Whi rin Oaks Park
23%
9%
Knox Park
%
Shamrock Farms Park
6%
9. Thinking about the facilities you have recentlyvisited, please
rate your overall satisfaction. (o-io scale]
Extreme satisfied (gao)
So%
Verysattsfied (8)
24%
Somewhat satisfied (b7)
16%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (5)
8%
Dissatisfied (0.4)
3%
B. Overall cleanliness, maintenance, and upkeep
Extremely
satisfied
(9ao)
53Wo
Ve rsatisfied(8)
i83a
Somewhat satisfied (6-7)
19%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (5)
S'+/u
Dissatisfied (0-4)
5%
Mean
8.L8
Extremely satisfied (9ao)
1 60%
Ve satisfied (8)
1 %
Somewhat satisfied (6-7)
15%
Neither satisfied nordissatisfied(5)
6%
I.
Dissatisfied (0.4)
4%
Mean
8.35
Extremelysatisfied(g-io)
46%
Very satisfied (8)
18%
Somewhat satisfied (6-7)
14%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (S)
- - --
9%
Dissatisfied (0-4)
3Yo
--
Mean
7.95
Somewhat satisfiedd {6.7) 159/a
Nedher satisfied nordissat-sfied (ter) 16%
Dissatisfied (o-) %
Mean 8.0
5
t�
10, Which specific parksorfacilities are you dissatisfied
with, and whv? (n reoorted)
aging
�o
Ned
7
out
6
a Too fe�a cases/ reported
u. Why haven'tyouvished aParks & Reueation
Department park or facility? (multiple response; non -visitors
Do not have children
or chidren are rown
Too busyMon t havetime
_�c4b
47%
_
I use other facilities for recreationlactivitiesr:2216KO
7%
Unfamiliarwith Parks & Recreation Department1%
parks/facilities
Just not interested -eg,not very active
- Cost/Fees are too high
181/0 _
Poorhealth
13%
No facilitiesoffered for my age group
40
Poorquality/condition ofthe park facilities
31j
D'rsfiketheParks & Recreation Department, had
2%
badexperience
_
Location issues, lack of transportation
i%
Other
10%
•Based on multiple responses (94selected)
ii. Which ofthe following indoorfacilities do you oryour
household have a need or interest in? Selectallthata 1 .
(qb es)
Pool for general recreation, swimming lessons, water
_ therap) etc•
Fitness center
54%
9%
indoor running orwalkirg track
%
Group exercise room orstudio
35%
Water park1s lash park
Pool for lap swimming, swim meets
Gym courts for basketball, volleyball, etc,
Mult(- u seorcommu raoms
--- - — Indoor p§y9mrid
Childcare/Sabysitting service
35%
33%
28%
2SVO
17%
8%
"'Based on multiple responses (%selected)
McHernr >;
i3. liov+well is your need or interest in each indoorfacility
being met (whether provided by McHenry Parks & Recreation
or any other source)?
A. Indoor running or walking track
<ompletely met (s) 2%
Somewhat met (4) -- 50/0
Average (3) -3.
3%
-
Not very well met (2) 2.7%
Not at all met (a) 64%
Mean 2.66
B. Gym courts for basketball, volleyball, etc.
Completely met (�)
Somewhat met (4)
14%
Average (3)
20%
Not very well met (2)
i99'o
Not at all met (a)
42%
Mean
2.23
playgroundC. Indoor
Completely met (5)
1%
Somewhat met (4)
a%
_ ix%
Not very well met (2)
Not at all met (2)
77%
Mean
z
D. Pool for lap swimming, swim
meets
Com lets net (s)
3%
Somewhat met (4)
8%
Average (3)
260A
_
Not very well met (2)
24%
Not at all met (2)
58%
Mean
2.86
E. Pool for general recreation, swimming
lessons, water
theram etc.
Completely met (5)
7% --
Somewhat met (4)
- 9%
Average (3)
_ _ 38Na _
Notverywell met (2)
180/0
Not at all met (1)
49%
Mean
249
F. Water park/splash park
Completely met (5)
8%
79"0
_Somewhat met (4)
to%
Average (3)
Not verywell met (2)
110/0
Not at all met (2)
64%
Mean
loss
G
aQity
Completely met (5)
Somewhat met (4)
Average (3)
Not v� well met (z)
Not at all met (i)
Mean
Completely met (5)
_ Somewhat met (4)
Average (3)
Notyerywell met (2)
Not at all met (2)
Mean
Completely met (5)
- - Somewhat met (4)
-- - Average (3)
Not verywell met (2)
Not at all met (s)
Completely met (S)
Somewhat met (4)
Average (3)
Not very well met (2)
Not at all met W
Mean
42—
x6%
tg%
8a/a
i4. Which one do youthink should be a top priorityforthe Parks &
Recreation Dcoartmentto provide, add, or improve?
Poolfor general recreation, swimming lessons, water
_ therapy, etc, 35%
Indoorrunrongorwalkingtrack i%
Waterparkfsplash park _ 25%
Pool for lap swimming, swim meets io9'o
Gym courts for basketball, volleyball, etc. 9%
Fitness Center 80/0
Indoor la round _ 4%
Group exerciseroomorstudio 2%
Multi-oumoseorcommunitvrooms z%
0
m
McHenry It
�ir;c�rrrn r��zccn;r rzrsi.�±rs: lo.�,� � i
25. Which of the following outdoor facilities do you oryour
_ Walking and biking trail 66%
Pool for general recreation, swimming lessons, water
therapy, etc. 44°�a
Pod and aquatic park withwaterslides 39%
meets _ z�46
fields 22%
26. How well is yourneed ar interest in each
indoorfacility
being met (whether provided by McHenry Parks & Recreation
or any other source)?
A. Pool for general recreation, swimming lessons,
water
therapy, etc.
Completely met (5)
�I
22%
Somewhat met (4)
24%
Average (3)
33%_
_
Not verywell met (z)
5%
Not at all met (1)
25yya
Mean
a.
B. Pool for swimming and swim
meats
Completely met (5)
20%
_,
Somewhat met (4)
20%
at all met (s)
Mean
Completely met (5)
Somewhat met(4) _ 3'`%
Average (3) 23%
Not very well met (2) 18%
Not at all met (2) 62Nu
Mean z.n
D.
Completely met (5) 2%
Somewhat met (4) 4%
Av�raje (3) 7%
Not ve well met (2) za%
Not at all met (a) 75%
Mean 1.48
9
r�
aQity
6'!£i G�'rID 70.aLL�i Ri5U±75: i�7.T8.I?
E. Walking and biking trails
Completely met (5) 1 230/3
Somewhatmet(4) 32'L3 -
Average (3) 236
Not verywell met (2) '?'a _
Not at all met (2)
Completely met (5) - 3z%
Somewhat met (4) 2.6%
— Average (3) zT/o
Notve wall met (z) 14%
Not at all met (1) i°!u
- - Mean - 3
Completely met (5) 38%
Somewhat met (4) 38%
Average (3) tg%
Not very well met (z) 4%
Not at all met (i) ODA
Mean 4.ao
Completely met (5) 43%
Somewhat met (4) 35%
Average (3) 20%
Not very well met (2) 2%
Not at all met (2) o%
Mean 4,19
27. Which one do you thinkshould be a top priorityforthe Parks &
Recreation Deoartmentto provide, add, or improve?
Walking and biking trail
40%
Pool and aquatic park with water slides
22%
Splash pad at a neighborhood park
Pool for general recreation, swimming lessons, water
theraPYr�•
23%
12%
Pool for lap swimming, swim meets
Playgrounds
%
Fieldsforsoccer)football/lacrosse
%
Baseball/softball
fields
2%
io
McHenry
-•ern 1i,lCR�L�LiS. f0-i.-',
t8. Have you or any household member participated in the
McHenry Parks & Recreation Department programs or event, in
the Da5t 22 months?
Fitness programs (group/personal training, yoga, I
%[ 47%
-�•-�--- r -� --- --� •--------- •softball)
z3%
Seniors programs
Swimming lessons
22%
Othersports chnics/lessons
90A
Preschooler/Toddlerprograms
g%
Summerdaycamp
8%
Adult cultural arts and dance programs
7%
Nature or environmental programs
7M
Tennislessons
7%
Swimteam
7%
Adult sports programs (e.g., softball, volleyball,
basketball)
5�0
Youth culturalarts, music, danee programs
5%
Special interest programs (e.g., meditation,
cooking, computers)
3%
-_ RiverRun
lo%
Big Wheels Race
8%
_
Daddy -Daughter Dance
5%
Track Meet
4%
_
Turkey Burn
2%
Otherevent
8%
19. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the
McHenry Parks & Recreation programs or events you
have recently Darticioated in? (o-lo scale)
Extremely satisfied
(g-lo)
z%
Very satisfied(8)
_ 2.1%
14%
Somewhat satisfied (6y)
Neithersatisfied nor dissatisfied (5)
9%
Dissatisfied
(0-4)
4%
Mean
8.oy
aQity=
4'i£i G,IiTLd}iU,�£LVL RLSU£75: iG,.i3,17
zo. If you are dissatisfied with any program or event,
indicate which one(s) and why.
n=36. Results pravided in Final Report.
zl, W hick of the following recreational programs or activities do
you or your household have a need or interest in? Select all that
a PPly.
Fitness
pr rams
z%
Adult programs/classes/spans
Special events
19%
31%
Active adult (55t)activities
Youth programs/classes/sports
swimming lessons
Before•/Aker-schoolprogranss forages 5ozz
PreschoolrroddlerPrrograms
Summer On
z
28%
14%
la%
9%
90/0
Recreational swim team(s)faragessp2o
6%
zz. How welt is your need or interest in each recreational
program) activity being met (whether providedby McHenry
Parks & Recreation or any other source)?
Gom late met
)
z8%
Somewhat met (4)
13%
Average (3)
20%
Not very well met (2)
28%
Not at all met (1)
22%
Mean
3.ofl SpV%
S. Active adult (55+) activities
Completely met (5)
14%
- - - -- - Somewhat met (4)
al%
Average (3)
41%
Not very well met (a)
23%
Not at all met (2)
114
Mean
z.
C. Adult •
rts
Complete met )
24% -
Somewhat met (4)
23%
42%
Average (3)
13%
Not very well met (z)
Not at all met (a)
g%
Mean
3=
12
McHenry.
McHenLry
�;v,�,c,�.rmTopun;r.nrs�cTs: 2o.ls �_
25. From what sources do you get Information about the McHenryParks
& Recreation Department and its programs, parks, facilities, or services?
�;v,�,c,�.rmTopun;r.nrs�cTs: 2o.ls �_
25. From what sources do you get Information about the McHenryParks
& Recreation Department and its programs, parks, facilities, or services?
Local newspaper (print or online)
30%
City of McHenry government (visit, website, or phone call)
McHenry Parks& Recreation website
Call the Parks & Recreation main office
Parks & Recreation Department's printed program guide
Digital sign at Fort McHenry Park
McHenry Public Library (visit, website, or phone call)
Rely on word of mouth from family, friends, or neighbors
Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Communications from lowIschools
Otherwebsite
37%
48%
24%
59%
16%
15%
27%
18%
g%
3%
z6. Which
McHenry Parks & Recreation website � 18%'0
Local
newspaper (print oronline)
City of Mcmnry government: (visit, wemite, or phone call)
io%
970
Call the Parks & Recreation main office
6%
Other website
3%
Relyonwordofmouthfromfamily, friends, orneighbors
3%
Communications from local schools
x%
social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, etc
z%
McHenryPublic Library(visit, website, or phone call)
i%b
Dig'rtalsignatFortMcHenryPark `
1%
other source `
o%
30. Do you wpport or oppose the McHenry Parks &
Recreation Department upgrading and improving
the McHenry Rec Center to meet the community's
recreational needs?This would include adding a z-
courtgymnasium; an indoor running track; an indoor
pool with lap lanes, a splash pad, andtherapy pool;
expanded Indoor play/childcare space; and an
outdoor pool and aquatic park. These expanded
facilities would mean an increase of515o in annual
property taxes
on the average home valued at
Szoo,000.
strongly Support 29%
Somewhat Sup ort go4'o
Somewhat Oppose 1 %
Strongly Oppose 1B%
15
,,^;r�Ur;rtnao,��trrtnrsu�rs: aa.s��.�
28A. Why do you oppose these proposed
improvements? Please be as specific as possible.
Taxesare alreadytoohigh
%
Would never use/ Unsure if facility
would be used to full potential
20%
Charge userfees instead of raising taxes (only
charge users/ new residents)
skeptical of 'ce
5%
Enough recreation options/ no need for more
4%
Concerns about flees increasing as well as taxes a%
Otheropposition 8%
UPP
Proposed facilities are needed 24
zBB. W by do you support these proposed
improvements? Please be as specific as possible.
Increases pro a value 1a%
PoteMialsoumeofnewrevenues 4%
•ar
Good value (low price forth* return) 6%
Cancems about %esincreasing aswAastues 7%
Taxesarealreadytaohiah 6%
zg. Which ofthose improvements doyou considerto be priorities?
Indoor pool with lap lanes, a splash pad, arrd therapy pool
y5%
Qutdoorpoolandaquatic park
23%
Indoor running track
21%
z-court gymnasium
14%
Expanded indoorplay/childcarespace
None
7%
11%
McHenry
i�
30. Otherthan the McHenry Parks &Recreation Department
parks and facilities, what facilities does your household use for
recreation or fitness? Please list specifically any other Parks&
Recreation Departments, forest preserve districts, private
Facilities (health/fitness clubs, country clubs, YMCAs, etc.)that
McHenry CountyConsenrationDistrict I 2q%
State Parks zg%
Woodstock Recreation De t. 8%
other Forest Preserve Districts
i. _ e�L a _L_% 1 5%
Centegra
Center i7%
JLake)
YMCA 6%
Golf Courses z%
Snap Fitness z%
re
Pu6licJoutdoarwalkin9 ngpathe zz44
McHenry Township Recreation z%
Center & Senior Services
DEMOGRAPHICS
3i. What isyour age? (In whatyearwere
55.64- I 17g'0
3z. What is our ender?
47g'o--
Female1 53%
17
;3. Includiny yourself, how many
people...
O
1
2
i
liveinyour household?
21%
37°0
43%
are under"ea8? —709%
26%
13VO
... are 65Orokler?
z3z3�0
%
19%
1%
3r,. Which of thefollowingidentifiesyourethnic"dy?
White/Caucasian 96%
Hispanic 5%
Asian 1%
Black/AfricanAmerican o%
Other i%
Based on multiple responses,
35-please list any languages) spoken n your home
(other than English). (n reported)
Spanish
German y
Polish y
French 3
Too fete cases( reported n's
r�:3
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
MEETING REPORT
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Municipal Center Council Chambers, 3*00 PM
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Schaefer called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm in the
McHenry Municipal Center Council Chamber.
2. Roll Call: Chairperson Alderman Schafer, Alderman Devine and Alderwoman Condon.
City Staff Attendance: Director of Parks &Recreation Hobson, Recreation Supervisor
Witt, Athletic & Aquatic Supervisor Thompson, and Parks Maintenance Superintendent
Gorniak.
Public Attendance: Mr. Jeff Andreason representing aQuity, Inc.
3. Public Comment: None.
4. Approval July 13, 2017 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Report.
It was the consensus of the Committee to approve the July 13, 2017 Parks and Recreation
Committee Report.
—�► 5. Review of Community Needs Assessment Results. Mr. Andreason from aQuity was
introduced to the Committee. aQuity is the firm contracted by the city to conduct the
Community Needs Assessment (CNA). Mr. Andreason presented the Committee with the
results of the survey and walked the Committee through the Executive Summary.
The survey was conducted for residents within the corporate 14.4 of the city. A total of
407 households responded to the survey. Date collection was performed through most of
August and September. Chairperson Schaefer noted some households outside the city
limits also received the survey and those were not included in the results. Alderwoman
Condon about telephone surveys. Mr. Andreason stated people were given the option to
complete the survey online, via mail, or via telephone of which seven households
selected. The average length of the survey was 14 minutes. Most importantly, the 407
response were compared to census data by age, race, ethnicity, neighborhood, gender,
and children in the household so we know at least demographically, the data is
representative of the City of McHenry.
Overall, the results of the survey were positive. The average rating given for the
department on a 1-10 scale was 7.3, which is considered very positive and the city
department is better known than the McHenry County Conservation District. The
average rating for school districts and agencies is about a point lower than the city.
The proportion of negative to positive responses were also reviewed. The city
department has a 10:1 ratio of favorable ratings to unfavorable ratings. Approximately
80% of residents rated the department positively and 8% were negative. The longer
someone lives in the city the more the department is favored. Questions were also asked
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 2
October 26, 2017
about the share of property taxes that go the department. Most residents think it about
5% of the share they pay. When they are told it is actually just under 1% they were asked
to rate the facilities as a good value. Mr. Andreason noted parks districts usually receive
5-6% share of property taxes.
In the survey, residents were asked to express what they like most about the department
and its strengths. The number one response focused around the programs and events
offered by the department. A close second was how well the parks are maintained; they
are clean and safe. One in five stated the McHenry Recreation Center was clearly a
strength.
When asked what they do not like about the department, almost half could not think if
anything; either they are not aware or there is absolutely nothing they dislike. Those that
did mention something stated issues around the lack of an indoor pool, need to improve
existing outdoor pool, better maintenance of specific parks and playground equipment,
and regulation prohibiting dogs in city parks.
When asked if they had been to a parks facility in the past 12-months, 84% answered yes.
Veterans and Petersen Parks, Fort McHenry and the Recreation Center were visited the
most.
When asked how satisfied they are with all the facilities they had visited, overall in terms
of safety, maintenance, and staff interaction, the scores of higher for the quality of the
park experience than the department overall. Average scores are in the 8's again on a 0
to 10 scale, with 10 being the highest score. Very few people surveys expressed
anything negative on any of those levels.
Chairperson Schaefer asked for the percentages for likes and dislikes of city parks by
name from the 84% households reporting. Mr. Andreason presented a pie chart depicting
the parks and responses received 10% and higher. For example, McBark Park came in at
13%. Mr. Andreason stated if someone did give a negative rating to any of these
elements, they were asked again in an open-ended question, why they are unhappy with
any of the parks facilities. Most often, sources of dissatisfaction were a feeling that some
of the places are not well maintained or in need of improvements. This was especially
true with the pool, Knox Park. More landscaping was requested for the dog park and
Petersen Park, and more parking at the Recreation Center and Veterans Park specifically
for outdoor concerts. For those 16% who said they had not been to any parks or
facilities, stated the reason, as they do not have the time or there are no children in the
household. For those 16%, there is an impression that what the department offers is
geared more towards families or households with younger children and not for adults.
W. Andreason noted this as a challenge and an opportunity for the city to think about
what programs could be offered to include adult households.
Approximately one-third of the households said they have not been to any facilities
because they go elsewhere —Health Bridge was often mentioned, facilities in Crystal
Lake, private studios, and fitness facilities. Some said they were unaware of what was
available in the city. Most of the other facilities mentioned were in the Conversation
District or other municipalities.
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 3
October 26, 2017
aQuity wanted to know what outdoor improvements or facilities were of greater interest
to people. The survey asked people to select what outdoor improvements or facilities
were of greater interest to them and to rate their demand. aQuity tested the list by
offering trails, open pool, pool with a water park, playgrounds, etc., and asked which of
these does your household have an interest or need. Two-thirds of the respondents
answered trails in their area; 44% expressed interest in an open pool; 39% for an outdoor
pool and water park; 33% playgrounds. For those who said they were interested in any
one of the selection, they were asked to explain how well is that demand currently being
net by the parks department or any other source. Those responses were found were
mention the most at 66% and upper 40 percentile noted pools/water park. The percent
saying my need for each of those is mostly being met, which means this is in high
demand and is being met. Athletic fields were mentioned least often in terms of demand.
The supply of playgrounds and athletic fields were found to exceed demands.
Mr. Andreason stated it was clear, an outdoor open pool, water park and splash pad were
the top three opportunities based on demand.
Chairperson Schaefer said he receives several requests for more sports fields as there are
times when the city has a high demands and not enough fields. Mr. Andreason stated
overall only one in five households stated athletic fields as a demand.
Mr. Andreason cautioned the Committee from thinking the city has a high priority to
provide trails as this demand will always be high and it is not possible to saturate
completely the city with enough trails. Chairperson Schaefer noted the city received the
same response for walking trails from the previous needs assessment. Director Hobson
noted the previous assessment was performed in 2004 and trails have been added to the
city. Mr. Andreason stated with all his clients, if he sees trails coming up as a low
priority he does the research over again. This is why we ask how your needs are being
net not just by the parks and recreation department but also from all other sources. If
the conservation district and city provide ample trails, why the city should be investing in
more trails. Director Hobson added when the city proposes new locations for trails,
connectivity to other trails is a priority.
At the end of the survey, households were asked for the one thing they would like the
Parks and Recreation Department to focus on in terms of improving or expanding.
Again, trails was the number one demand and an outdoor water park was a clear second.
Mr. Andreason noted it was interesting that earlier in the survey just a general outdoor
pool was listed as a demand however as the survey continued, this demand expanded to
an outdoor water park with a water park. When you add results for the three outdoor
water options— outdoor water park, open pool, and lap pool — comprise 38% of the
responses. No included in this was a splash pad because this feature was made more
specific to a neighborhood park.
Chairperson Schaefer comments this was interesting as out of the over. 400 respondents,
there had been 21 %who had been to the pool in the last year or 60 respondents. Mr.
Andreason noted to keep in mind, 44% or about 180 respondents said they were
interested in an outdoor pool but not even half of them had been to the Merkel Aquatic
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 4
October 26, 2017
Center. Many respondents stated they were driving to other facilities out of town to use
an outdoor pool because Merkel is too crowded, too old, too simple, etc.
Asking the same questions, almost as many respondents — 497o - said they would use,
have a need, or would be interested for a fitness center and almost as many — 43% for an
indoor walking track. Only about a third said yes to group exercise, indoor splash park,
indoor lap pool and gym courts at 28%. Of those items mentioned as a demand, an
indoor open pool emerges as the item that has the highest level of demand and a very low
level of supply or need being met. Indoor track is close behind and either splash park or
lap lanes followed by gym courts and playgrounds.
Mr. Andreason reported he was surprised gym courts did not rank higher. Alderwoman
Condon agreed. Chairperson Schaefer said people might view this as a low need because
we have use of other facilities that have courts. A discussion ensued on the limited
access the city actually has to gyro courts in other facilities.
Chairperson Schaefer said he has heard indoor pools are not used regularly by many
people and would be interested to learn just how much they are actually used. For
example, the YMCA is probably the closest to McHenry. Director Hobson stated the
indoor pool at the high school is only open to the public once a week.
Mr. Andreason reported 44% overall said they were interested in an indoor pool; 7401 of
the people who wanted an indoor pool were 35 to 54 years old, women with households
with children: Mr. Andreason noted a need for an indoor warm -water therapy pool was
also expressed among the older aged respondents, which includes another demographic
who is interested in an indoor pool.
Mr. Hobson commented on the fact that the assessment is U.S. statistically valid and
matched up to census data.
Mr. Andreason reported on the responses received for parks programs and overall 40% of
the surveyors said a household member has participated in a department program or
event. In the past year most often some type of fitness program such as group training or
a class. About half as many mentioned participation in sports. Events came up at about
28% specifically more often was the River Run.
When people were asked to rate satisfaction with programs and events, 53% rated their
satisfaction at almost 10. Only 4% were dissatisfied. Again, very strong satisfaction
scores for the department. Only 16 people said they were unhappy, mostly because of the
lack of water classes and small facilities. The same analysis was conducted for
department programs and events. The four programs/events that registered the highest
level of interest were fitness, adult programs/classes, special events, and active adult
programs for 55+. Mr. Andreason found it interesting that programs for older folks
scored at the top; for younger folks were more toward the bottom. When respondents
were asked how well things were being provided, we saw the same separation where
those that say they are interested in youth programs, summer camps, etc., this scored less
than 20% but said these programs are in good supply. Adult programs such as active
adult events and fitness programs represent the biggest gaps.
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 5
October 26, 2017
Chairperson Schaefer noted this is most likely the biggest area expanded in the past two
years. Director Hobson said this might be due to awareness. When you are a member
you see all that the recreation center offers but prior to the center, if there were not
enough people preregistered for a class it was cancelled. Now we have a much larger
selection of exercise classes but they are geared towards the membership. Chairperson
Schaefer asked if we know how many of the respondents are members of the McHenry
Recreation Center and Mr. Andreason answered that question was not asked.
In terms of one improvement, residents would like to see, the active adults classes for
55+ came up most often followed by fitness. Between 1145% mentioned youth
programs, special events, or broader health classes and programs. Alderwoman Condon
asked if this could possibly be because we are already providing that. Mr. Andreason
said this was a question about improving and expanding and it may be that with the
fitness center, the city is automatically doing more than it was two years ago however,
19% are saying it is still not enough.
Chairperson Schaefer asked if this has anything to do with the ages of the people who
responded. Mr. Andreason said these answers are representative of all adults and
households with and without children. By definition, there will be more people without
children. The census shows approximately 35% of households have children, which is
part of the reason why programs for children did come up as often. Chairperson Schaefer
said in our survey 65% were no children households. Mr. Andreason said again, this is
an opportunity for the city as the data regarding non -visitors and non -users goes back to
the biggest reason given for not utilizing the parks department is no children in the
household. This is a communication and information opportunity.
Mr. Andreason reported another open-ended question asked was for people to tell us as
far as other adult programming, general programming, and youth programming, what
specifically you would like to see. For active adults, it was more fitness or group fitness,
aquatics, yoga, exercise programs, and group events. Broader adult groups is almost
exclusively about fitness programs.
At the conclusion of the assessment, respondents were asked about the idea of the parks
department upgrading and improving the recreation center to include a two -court gym,
indoor running track, indoor pool with lap lanes/splash pad, therapy pool, expanded
indoor childcare space, and an outdoor pool/aquatic park. Respondents were told the
addition of all this would mean for a home valued at $200,000, an additional $150 in
property taxes per year and asked if they support or oppose. Clearly, a majority of
respondents support the expansion although most of that support is only somewhat.
However, the 29% who strongly support the expansion are valuable to the total number
of people who oppose it, which is 31 % combined.
Alderwoman Condon asked what is typical; the referendum process can be harsh.
Looking at the information, these seem like favorable numbers.
Mr. Andreason noted on the plus side, the response is strong in support versus opposed.
In addition, when asked why do you support or oppose it, a good number of people said
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 6
October 26, 2017
they support it not necessarily, because they are going to use it but because the
community needs it noting the expansion would be used often and improve property
values making McHenry a more desirable place to live and move to. Chairperson
Schaefer commented his surprise when he read the analysis adding he was pleased that
the question was asked.
Director Hobson said one of the things discussed about the assessment was to be specific
regarding the proposed expansion and the cost. The only referendum he experienced
through the city was in 2002 and the question asked simply do you want a recreation
center or do you not want a recreation center. This may have been too vague of a
question to ask, as the voters were not given details on what they were being asked to pay
for. He added the city must always clearly inform residents on how much the expansion
will cost and what they will get for it.
Alderman Devine asked if the respondents were registered voters and it was noted this is
just 25% of a slice of the community. Mr. Andreason noted this support was well
distributed through all age groups. This is a survey of residents, and not registered voters
or voters who actually vote. It would be a different group depending on the election,
primary, consolidated, or general. It is very easy to say yes to this while we do have
some detailed information about the cost and amenities. In addition, there is no
organized opposition to the expansion in the survey.
Regarding Alderwoman Condon's question about what is typical, these initial numbers
are very good. Mr. Andreason would be more confident if it were 40% in favor.
Superintendent Gorniak asked if respondents were broke down by location and Mr.
Andreason answered, the households surveyed were evenly distributed throughout the
city. However, for some reason when they were testing the outdoor water features,
people in the southwest quadrant of the city were more in favor of this feature than the
other reasons. The Committee and staff discussed reasons for this result speculating
more families are concentrated in this region of the city and a few high -income
neighborhoods.
Another important result shared by by Mr. Andreason was that 18% or one in five people
attached a condition to their support; 7% said if they pay more in property taxes they do
not expect to pay fees to use the new facilities; 6% said they support it but do not think
the community will support a property tax increase; and 2% said they support it but do
not believe all of the features in the proposed expansion can be done for just $150 a year
in property taxes.
The opponents gave only one reason for opposition and it was taxes are too high, this is a
waste of money, or you should charge only the people who are going to use it. In
response to Chairperson Schaefer's question, Mr. Andreason stated these were typical
responses from people opposed to the expansion or who just do not want their property
taxes to increase for any reason. Director Hobson stated the process is more difficult
because there is no way to change the opinions of people opposed to any tax increase no
matter what the reason. If we move forward with the expansion, being able to answer
every question is essential. Director Hobson added this connects to the recreation
center's membership structure and has been discussed internally between staff. If we
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 7
October 26, 2017
head down this direction, we need to be able to answer every question throughout the
referendum process. For instance, people have expressed the need for an indoor walking
track, which is something the city could offer free — no membership required. Staff
wants the community walking through the doors of the recreation center and the cost of a
walking track is minimal; not like a machine that has to be replaced every five years.
When they enter the recreation center to use the free waking track, they will see
everything the center offers such as water aerobics classes and the fitness center and it
will persuade them to pay for a membership. Offering an ala carte -type membership for
is to answer questions specifically about the entire project may ease some concerns and
sway people who are undecided about the expansion. We may not be able to change the
opinion of those who are opposed the referendum but, there are many groups who are
asking for the expansion. Mr. Andreason also noted the city's impressive record of
accomplishment. The success of the recreation center and what it has meant in terms of
memberships and interest, traffic, and usage demonstrates the city did their homework
and delivered something the people of McHenry really wanted. The recreation center is
being utilized to the point where now it is meeting only some of their needs and people
are now telling you they do not understand why a gym was not included in the original
construction. Alderwoman Condon commented the majority of those people might not
understand that they did not pay any taxes to construction the recreation center. Mr.
Andreason said it does demonstrate the city knows how to deliver what' is needed to the
community.
Mr. Andreason said as follow up half of the respondents clearly agree the most important
item needed was an indoor pool; the other half were almost evenly divided between
larger outdoor pool, indoor track, or additional gym space. One in five left the question
blank, which is separate from the 11% who are mostly all opponents of any expansion
and said none of these items is a priority. An interesting fact is the 11 % who are opposed
have no children in the household, and are either the newest or the most long-term
residents of the city.
In summary, Mr. Andreason reported people were asked where they go for information
about programs and activities that the department offers and they answered the printed
program guide remains the most used source of information. The website was a close
second followed by the city's website. Other people telephone the city for information.
Chairperson Schaefer said he was pleased by these results because for years, the city has
looked into alternatives for the printed brochure and this shows that it is being used.
Director Hobson stated the only brochure mailed out to all residents is the summer
brochure — the fall and winter/spring guides are only sent to users. This may be
something for the city to reevaluate as mailing all brochures to all residents may increase
awareness of the department and memberships for the center.
Chairperson Schaefer asked Mr. Andreason if he had data on results from past
referendum surveys. Mr. Andreason said aQuity has never shown support for a
referendum that failed. There have been instances when they did not recommend
proceeding with a referendum and the community did it is not known if it would have
been successful. Director Hobson asked what is the next step should the city decide to
proceed with a referendum. Mr. Andreason said the process to conduct a referendum
survey is different than for a needs assessment for example, the survey is only conducted
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 8
October 26, 2017
with registered and likely voters. The voter rolls are obtained and only those people who
had voted in two of the last three elections are selected. The focus is more on the
referendum question and ideally, it is drafted, as it would appear on the ballot. We are
looking for voters to respond to the survey as they would in the voting booth. The survey
would also ask why do you support or oppose. Then we would test arguments for both
sides for example we would give six reasons to support and six reasons to oppose and ask
them to rate the examples. Subsequently, the referendum question would be shown on
the survey again to find out the respondent's opinion after they have read the reasons to
support and oppose. We would then test who moved their support and if they move we
will review which arguments were most effective. We can than profile which argument
affected families with no children, with children, seniors, etc. The challenge and the
reason why aQuity does not conduct many referendum surveys is because there is now a
state law prohibiting public agencies from funding those types of surveys. aQuity is
currently conducting a referendum survey for the Fox Valley Park District that is being
funded by the parks foundation. A Friends of the Park group or foundation must be
available to underwrite the survey. Alderwoman Condon asked which election cycle is
more beneficial to place a referendum question. Mr. Andreason said there is a lot of
strategy involved and it depends on if there is another referendum on the ballot. If it was
between schools and parks, schools usually prevail. aQuity works with consultants but
they are not campaign consultants.
Director Hobson asked about the timeframe for the referendum process. Mr. Andreason
said a referendum survey takes about the same as a CNA, two or three months. In a voter
survey, people are more engaged and responsive to the survey and more interested in
expressing their opinion. The survey is first to be done in the process, then a campaign
consultant will assist with messaging and getting out the vote efforts using the
referendum survey as a target. Director Hobson asked if a campaign consultant can only
be used for that reason and the answer was yes. If the survey is conducted through a
foundation, it is legal for them to turn over the results to the city.
Director Hobson summarized the next step is to present this same presentation to the full
City Council and the Committee agreed. Chairperson Schaefer informed Mr. Andreason
that Councilmembers and members of the public will have an opportunity to ask
questions at the meeting.
Director Hobson stated he and Chairperson Schaefer had previously discussed adding a
link to the 14-minute survey on the city website to publicize the effort and staff will poll
the recreation center members. However, it must be recognized that this will not be
"clean data," but can be compiled by aQuity over the next few weeks. The information
will be made available on the city's Facebook page and website. Mr. Andreason added
when they conducted referendum surveys for the Lake County Forest Preserve, which is a
much larger geographic area than McHenry, and only approximately 600 responded to
each of the surveys and aQuity was still able to determine the level of support for the
question accurately. Comparing that ratio to 400 respondents in a community the size of
McHenry, clearly demonstrates you do not need to talk to thousands of people. Mr.
Andreason added the city should have confidence in the data.
Alderwoman Condon stated she would recommend aQuity stress this point to the full
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting
Page 9
October 26, 2017
Council, as it is important. The demographics fit what is representative of the community
including the margin for error.
Chairperson Schaefer asked how many surveys were distributed to city residents and Mr.
Andreason answer between 6,000 and 7,000. The percentage of return was a bit lower
than average. Chairperson Schaefer advised Mr. Andreason to be prepared to discuss the
fact that some of the surveys were sent to homeowners outside the city limits and that this
data does not reflect responses from those households.
Chairperson Schaefer asked if the survey indicated McHenry is a park department and
not a separate taxing district. Mr. Andreason stated this point was discussed in the focus
groups. Director Hobson noted the city is a regional provider for recreation and
activities.
Director Hobson reported the CNA would be a discussion item on the November 20 City
Council agenda.
There being no further questions for aQuity, Chairperson Schaefer thanked them for the
information and Mr. Andreason left the meeting.
After a brief discussion, the Committee agreed to bring the question of a referendum back
to the Committee prior to full City Council consideration.
Alderman Devine asked if staff had an idea for which election a referendum question
could be on the ballot noting a General Election might be beneficial. Director Hobson
said he would target November 2018 for the ballot question.
Regarding the indoor pool proposal, Chairperson Schaefer said he would be interested to
know if communities that have added indoor pools to their facilities in the past 10-20
years still receive a good draw. Director Hobson stated this information is based on
demographics and that is why offering different elements to the expansion will draw
more people to the center.
Supervisor Thompson noted the McHenry County YMCA had planned to install a 50-
meter pool, but instead they installed a 25-yard pool, missing a great opportunity. When
you go to the YMCA in the evenings, the entire pool is swim lesson and classes. The
new pool is swim team competition. When a pool is idle and losing money in the middle
of the day, it creates opportunities to partner with schools and offer pre-schools lessons
during that time to get people in the doors during slow periods. After work and after
hours those pools are filled with people.
5. Deparnt U
Director Hobson pro ' update to the Committee on the following matters:
Boat Ramp: It is substantially co ted. A few things still needed outside the original
scope of the project is lighting. Approxi ely 10 lights would be needed —three in the
middle of the parking lot, perhaps four on the , and three on the driveway entering
Derik Morefield, City Administrator
McHenry Municipal Center
333 Green Street
McHenry, Illinois 60050
Phone: (815) 363-2100
Fax: (815) 363-2119
www.ci.mchenry.il.us
DISCUSSION ITEM
TO: City Council
FROM: Wayne S. Jett, Mayor
Derik Morefield, City Administrator
RE: Information for Continued Downtown Parking Discussion
ATT: Exhibit A —Existing Parking within Riverside Drive Downtown District
Exhibit B —Existing Parking within Green Street Downtown District
Exhibit C — Existing Parking within Main Street Downtown District
Exhibits D & E — Overview of Parking Improvements within Downtown Districts
Exhibit F — Concept Site Plan for South Riverside Drive Parking Lot Expansion
Exhibit G — Concept Site Plan for Court Street Building Demo/Lot Development
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY:
The purpose of this agenda item is for Council to continue a discussion that began at the
October 16, 2017 City Council meeting regarding potential improvements to enhance parking
opportunities in McHenry's downtown business districts, anchored by Riverside Drive, Green
Street, and Main Street.
BACKGROUND:
At the October 16, 2017 meeting, Council held a discussion regarding downtown parking needs.
As a result of this Mayor Jett Cl"d City Staff have spent considerable time analyzing existing
downtown public parking and identifying opportunities to enhance access to existing parking,
expand existing public opportunities, and add additional public parking through lease
agreements with private entities or use agreements with other public entities. During this time,
Mayor Jett has engaged business owners and property owners within the downtown districts in
an effort to identify parking concerns and opportunities. Also, Mayor Jett has engaged each
Councilmember, individually, to discuss these ideas. At this time, additional information and
parking enhancement concepts are being presented to Council for further discussion.
ANALYSIS:
The following discussion will focus on first, clarifying/identifying the existing public parking
opportunities (both public lot and on street) parking, for each of the business districts.
Provided as Exhibits A, B and C are aerial maps of each of the downtown business districts.
Identified on each of these exhibits are the existing public parking lots and on -street parking
opportunities. Parking capacity in each of these districts is summarized as follows:
The City of McHenry is dedicated to prowl/ng its citizens, businesses, and visitors with the highest quality of programs and
services in a customer -oriented, efficient, and fiscally responsible manner.
1. Riverside Drive Downtown District (Exhibit A) - For the purpose of this discussion this
district is defined by the boundaries of Green Street (north of Route 120), Broad Street
(Green Street to the river), Riverside Drive (Broad Street to Venice Avenue), Venice
Avenue (Riverside Drive to Court Street), Court Street (Venice Avenue to Broad Street),
and Route 120 (Green Street to the river). This area currently has an aggregate of 408
public parking spaces — 68 of these are located in public parking lots and 340 are
located on street.
2. Green Street Downtown District (Exhibit B) —For the purpose of this discussion this
district is defined by the boundaries of Route 120 (but not including the parking on 120),
the area west of Court Street (but not located on Court Street), Waukegan Road (from
3rd Street to the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant), and Green Street (south of Route
120 to Waukegan Road). This area currently has an aggregate of 221 public parking
spaces - 60 of these are located in public parking lots and 161 are located on street.
3. Main Street Downtown District (Exhibit C) —For the purpose of this discussion this
district is defined by the boundaries of US Route 31 (from Route 120 to John Street),
Route 120 on the north, the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks on the west, and John Street
on the south. Note that the Metra commuter lot located just west of the railroad tracks
is not included as part of this discussion. This area currently has an aggregate of 119
public parking spaces — 39 of these are located in public parking lots and 80 are
located on street.
In total, the three downtown districts combined have an aggregate of 748 public parking
spaces -167 of these are located in public parking lots and 581 are on street parking.
Next, a number of improvements have been identified to enhance access to existing parking or
expand parking capacity. These include improving lighting to existing public parking areas,
increasing parking capacity on publicly -owned property, entering into lease or use agreements
with private or other public entities and, finally, identifying future opportunities to expand
public parking. For the purpose of this discussion, these concepts are being presented in 3
phases, or tiers. Aerial maps identifying these improvements and preliminary estimated costs
are also being provided as possible for each improvement.
Tier 1—Those projects that can reasonably be completed prior to the end of FY17/18 (April 30,
2017) and/or may be required for Tier 2 projects. No funding is currently allocated in the
FY17/18 Budget for these projects and budget amendments will be required by Council.
• Parking Access Improvement -Design Engineering for enhancing/expanding lighting
around Veterans Park, Court Street upper and lower lots, and Riverside alley
(identified on Exhibit D) - $35,000
• Parking Capacity Improvement -Design Engineering for improving/expanding south
Riverside Drive parking lot (identified on Exhibits D and F, 33 net spaces) - $15,000
• Parking Capacity Improvement - Design Engineering for improvements to Neumann
Park and Court Street buildings after demolition (Court Street building
improvements identified on Exhibits D and G, 22 total spaces) - $15,000
• Parking Capacity Improvement - use Agreement with McHenry District 156 for East
Campus parking lot Friday nights through Sunday (248 total spaces)
• Parking Capacity Improvement -Lease Agreement with McHenry Savings Bank (95
total spaces) — Cost TBD
• Parking Capacity Improvement - Lease Agreement with McHenry Villa
(approximately 36 spaces) — Cost TBD
In summary, Tier 1 projects would enhance access, via lighting improvements, to 147 parking
spaces (around Veterans Park and in the upper and lower Court Street parking lots); increase
parking capacity by 379 spaces (East Campus + McHenry Savings Bank + McHenry Villa); and
have design work completed for the development of an additional 55 new parking spaces
(south Riverside Drive and Court Street building redevelopment). Current estimated costs
identified above are $65,000 for improvements and design with unknown costs for lease
agreements.
Existing public parking spaces (748) plus the potential for adding the 379 spaces identified
above would bring total parking capacity to 1,127 spaces.
Tier 2 —Those projects that require additional planning, preparation and budgeting and relate
to property that is controlled in all or part by the City of McHenry.
• Parking Access Improvement -Lighting improvements to Riverside Drive alley to
public parking lot west of Riverside Drive ($80,000), around Veterans Park
($150,000), Court Street upper lot ($60,000), and Main Street south lot ($30,000)
(additional property required from adjacent owners for Main Street south lot,
identified on Exhibits D & E) - $330,000
• Parking Capacity Improvement -Construct/improve south Riverside Drive parking lot
(Exhibit F, 33 net spaces) - $200,000
• Parking Capacity Improvement -Demolish and improve Court Street building (Exhibit
G, 22 net spaces) - $165,000
• Parking Access Improvement -Repaving of Main Street north and south lots with
connection to John Street (identified on Exhibit E, additional property required from
adjacent owners) - $100,000
• Parking Access Improvement —Repaving of Court Street upper lot (identified on
Exhibit D, lower lot is concrete) - $60,000
• Parking Access or Capacity Improvement — Demolish buildings in Neumann Park and
improve as pedestrian access to Court Street parking lots or one-way driving access
with parking spaces to Court Street parking lots - $20,000 (building demolition cost
only)
In summary, Tier 2 projects would increase parking capacity by a minimum of 55 spaces, and
parking access, via repaving and lighting improvements, to an additional 222 spaces (around
Veterans Park, Riverside Drive alley lot, Court Street lots, and Main Street north and south lots)
at a total estimated cost of $875,000.
Existing public parking spaces (748), plus the 379 potential spaces added in Tier 1, plus the 55
spaces identified in the Tier 2 improvements above would bring total parking capacity to
1,182 spaces.
Tier 3 —Those projects that involve properties not controlled by the City of McHenry and/or are
considered longer -term. Costs have not been estimated for these projects. There are
opportunities in the area of Park Street and Riverside Drive where property could be acquired
and developed for parking or the City could work with private property owners to have
additional parking developed.
CONCLUSION:
As identified, significant lighting and expansion opportunities to existing public parking lots
(total estimated cost of $940,000) and opportunities to work with other private and public
property owners could greatly enhance access to existing parking lots/spaces by the public and
add an estimated 434 public parking spaces to our downtown areas. This represents a 58%
increase to parking capacity in our downtowns.
At this time, Mayor Jett and Staff are seeking Council input and direction to move forward with
Tier 1 projects prior to the end of FY17/18 (budget amendments and lease/use agreements
would come before Council for consideration) and to include Tier 2 projects in the FY18/19
Capital Improvements Program for consideration during the FY18/19 Budget development
process.
'� lA On Street Parking
Public Parking Lots
Riverside Drive
Downtown District:
68 Public Parking Lot
Spaces
340 On Street Parking
Lot Spaces
City of McHenry
333 S. Green Street
M McHenry, IL 60050
<Z*t
Exhibit A: Riverside Drive Downtown District
On Street Parking
Public Parking Lots
Riverside Drive
Downtown District:
60 Public Parking Lot
Spaces
161 On Street Parking
Lot Spaces
City of McHenry
333 S. Green Street
M McHenry, IL 60050
Exhibit 6: Green Street Downtown District
;_- r On Street Parking
Public Parking Lots
Riverside Drive
Downtown District:
39 Public Parking Lot
Spaces
80 On Street Parking
Lot Spaces
k
City of McHenry
333 S. Green Street
M McHenry, IL 60050
-
err do
OF
qm d 0" f
' .. •FOro
W121
r
s
Exhibit C: Main Street Downtown District
1AcA MGt�T !�
zr
1 1 fi • WEB MAPPING
/
(i = 1 c 1" r N N I � 1 � � APPLICATION
Date Printed: 11/1/2017 � NOTES:
Downtown Parking Facilities:
Upgrades and Maintenance
LEGEND
:- Munlcpal Llmlts
❑ McHenry County Lot Lines
/�,
, 1' �aF.G'.l�.i
Upgrade Alley & Pedestrian
,,;Walkway Lighting
V VIIN6N� VI�c3 � IGI�
This map was generated using
the City of McHenry's GIS Web
Mapping Application,
This map is a user generated
5tetic output from an Internet
Mapping Site and is for
reference only,
� NALMA' tz
� `�H MAPPING
7`L�:`l�XIL
North Main Street Lot: Lighting
Upgrades to be performed "in-house"
by Downtown Maintenance Crews
CITY OF mvm%o" Y
RIVERSIDE DRIVE PARKING LOT
CONCEPT SITE PLAN
n R.•h -�
44 \.
�l W�11 NO U0ff ���
VEN/ a� 1 ,
\ r.
CF q f
y `]IMRM
\ ?/
SITE DATA
sic ur4No aw rwnw:
_
_ ,-0Pswir saws-PNOtt i¢voeMui
Ms (014)
F _ 00MNIOYII COYYFAG01 01mbf.T
Q
P R E L I M I N A R Y
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
s
" �.
�1
L.'
CITY OF McHENRY
COURT SI & VENICE AVE.
PARKING LOT
CONCEPT SITE PLAN
L' JII
l
�i V r
I" vIod
4 Nv,»X
aw
l `•r MJ
y/ 13 '-1' ' J, I
Affim
AIL Avv
swaKu F oft
Nee va
00
„eIr
to /�'. �jm &
Av
SDE DATA:
Pia _ 0I = R.>
PARKING DATA:
rorw sr/us MWIDW: U (ev PMKING)
fll� pmKING �Mm:
1YPK.LL R WM: 24.0 (MIN.)
a
P R E L I M I N A R Y
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0
s
b
a
g
Oe
E��m
S
8
2
n
o
a
3
U
1
U
Co
U
�KM
CON
-A
City of McHenry
Revenues, Expenditures and Transfers
Budget Vs. Actual
2nd Quarter FY1748 — (May 1, 2017 — October 31, 2017)
Overview
For the 2017/18 fiscal year all departments were asked to keep the budget status quo as revenues
projections were cautiously adjusted based on historical trends as well as taking into consideration the
financial instability of the State of Illinois. With this said, the operating budget is balanced and the
community's program, service, capital equipment, and capital improvement needs will be met. The
national economy continued its strength through the third quarter of 2017 due mostly to an increase in
inventory investment and smaller trade deficits while consumer spending decreased. Across the United
States, the GDP grew at a 3% annual rate in the third quarter of 2017 and is expected to remain at a similar
growth rate for the remainder of the year. The hurricanes were the driving force of the slight decrease in
consumer spending. Consumer spending is expected to rebound in the fourth quarter. And the national
unemployment rate dropped to 4.2% from 4.9% one year ago. The state's unemployment rate is 5.0%
and McHenry County is at 4.0% as of September 2017 which shows improvement within the County as
this rate was trending higher than the national rate for many years. The State did pass a 17/18 budget
and included in this budget was a 10% reduction of Income Taxes distributed to local governments and a
2% administrative fee on home rule sales taxes, for McHenry this is approximately $312,000, On the
whole, it is important to continue to watch revenue trends as well as spending in order to be able to adjust
to the volatile market.
The City Administration continues to monitor the City's financial position on a monthly basis in order to
ensure the budget document is followed. By actively managing the finances, deficit spending can be kept
to a minimum and year-end fund balance results can be predicted and deficits eliminated. Highlights of
revenues and expenditures are included below.
Budget vs. Actual —Revenues &Expenditures (Refer to Page 4)
Overall, out of the City's 30 funds, 29 of the funds are running at levels management would expect for the
second quarter of FY17/18. The funds that received property tax receipts are all running over the
expected budgeted amount of 50% because almost 100%of property tax receipts are received by October.
Alarm board revenues are billed quarterly and are adjusted at the end of the fiscal year. Water/Sewer
fund revenues are performing close to the budgeted amounts, but management will closely watch
water/sewer revenues to ensure the budgeted revenues are met and will cover actual expenses. The
Employee Insurance fund expenditures are running over budget because 7 months of premiums have
been paid.
Revenues by Type (Refer to Page 5)
The City's revenues are on track to meet budget amounts for the fiscal year. As of the first quarter, total
revenues are at 60% of the budgeted amount which is higher than the 50% expected. Property tax
Page 1 of 8
revenues are usually received May through December, which drives up the percent of budget for the
second quarter. As of the second quarter, about 100% of property tax revenues have been received,
which is expected. Sales taxes were budgeted about 5.4% higher for fiscal year 2017-18 based on past
trends and expected increases with the improving economic conditions. As of the second quarter, sales
taxes are running at 51% of budget. It is important to note that sales taxes are received approximately
three months after they are collected. At the end of the fiscal year the tax revenue account is adjusted to
reflect what was actually earned for the year. Income taxes were budgeted about 1% lower due to past
trends and are running at about 62% of budget for the second quarter. Income taxes distributed to local
governments has also been decreased by 10%, but the state is sending out disbursements quicker in order
to help alleviate this change. Eight months of payments have been received in the second quarter and
adjustments will not be made until the end of the fiscal year to report the actual amounts earned during
the fiscal year.
Water and Sewer sales are running slightly below the expected 50% of budget at 49%. Rate increases
were put into effect in August, which has driven up sales revenue, but not quite as high as expected.
Management will continue to watch usage to see if adjustments need to be made for the FY2018/19
budget. The budget for Impact fees was increased by 133% because of past trends. The fees are currently
running at 76% of budget which is expected as the summer season is primarily when permits are issued.
Licenses and permits revenues are at about 51% of budget for the second quarter. These revenues are
running higher than expected due to vehicle stickers and increased permit issuances due to the time of
the year. Video Gaming revenues are running at about 49% of budget, even with only five months of
revenues received. Reimbursement revenues are at about 61% of budget due to billing seven months of
dispatch fees, adjustments will be made at the end of the fiscal year to correct for this. Interest income
is falling short of the expected quarterly results due to police pension investment transactions that have
not been recorded as of this report date. The interest income budgeted amount was also kept very low
as the interest rates have not rebounded. Other Revenues are running at 67% of budget because
employer police pension contributions are paid through property tax collections.
Revenues by Fund (Refer to page 61
General Fund revenues amount to 54% of the total budgeted revenues primarily coming from property
taxesI sales taxes, income taxes, and charges for services. As ofthe second quarter, general fund revenues
are at 65% of budget, which is expected as almost 100% of property taxes have been received and parks
and revenue charges for services are higher during the summer months. The Tax Increment Fund
revenues are at 120% of budget due to property tax receipts received during the first part of the year
being higher than budgeted. Employee Insurance Fund revenues are running slightly behind budget at
47%. Police pension revenues are at 64% of budget due to employer contributions which are property
tax receipts and approximately 99% of the receipts have been received. All other funds' revenues are
running at 62% for the quarter.
Expenditure by Type (Refer to page 7)
Page 2 of 8
Total expenditures for the quarter were at 567o which is slightly above the expected amount because
capital items have been purchased. Salaries represent 29% of the total expenditure budget and are only
at 47% of the budgeted amount. Overtime budgets are being closely monitored. Benefit expenditures
are at 6170 of the budgeted amount due to the city') police pension contributions being at 99% of the
budgeted amount. Police pension contributions are equal to the property tax receipts with the majority
of the collections in June and September. Contractual expenses are at 51%which is high due to telephone
costs, but management is in contact with AT&T to obtain a credit for two accounts which were billed
incorrectly.
Other expenses are running right at 56%forthe quarter. The risk management premium expense account
is at 100% of budget for the year because the premium is due in September. Capital expenses are over
budget due to water/sewer capital expenses being budgeted through the depreciation line item. At the
end of the fiscal year capital costs in the water/sewer fund are recorded as assets and depreciated. Debt
service expenses are at 10% of the budgeted amount due to bond principal payments being paid later in
the fiscal year.
Expenditure by Fund (Refer to page 8)
The total for all of the funds are running at 56% of the budgeted amount for the second quarter. The
General Fund is at 52% due to 99% of the police pension employer contribution being made. The Tax
Increment Fund is at 57% because all of the increment payments have been paid. The Employee Insurance
Fund is at 54% of budget because seven months of insurance premiums have been paid because the City
is required to pay one month in advance. A correction to the expense account is made at the end of the
fiscal year to ensure only twelve payments are recorded during the current fiscal year. All of the capital
funds, including the Water/Sewer fund, are running over the expected budgeted amounts due to most
capital items being purchased early in the fiscal year.
expected amount.
Fund Balance (Refer to page 9)
All other funds are running close to the 50%
The total fund balance as ofthe second quarter is provided on this page. This is not a truly good indication
of how fund balance will look at the end of the fiscal year because there are a lot of adjustments that are
not completed until the end of the fiscal year for both revenues and expenses. It is important to note that
fund balance is not listed for the Water/Sewer Fund, instead it is better to look at cash and cash
equivalents to get an idea of reserves for that fund.
Upcoming Quarters
In summary, the City continues to be in a stable, fiscally conservative, financial position. Due diligence by
all departments will be necessary to ensure this trend continues. Over the next few quarters,
management will closely watch revenues to make sure they are on track to meet budgeted amounts.
Adjustments can be made for this fiscal year as well as to next year's budget to ensure positive results.
City of McHenry
Revenues &Expenditures
Budget vs. Aclual
Quarterly Report
May 1, 2017-Apri130, 2018
Budget Vs. Actual -Revenues 8 Expenditures
Revenues
FY17-18 Budget
6 Months 17-18 Actual
% of Budget
21,902,609
14,274,105
65.2%
155,050
113,997
73.5%
11300
11547
119.0%
12,000
61029
50.2%
8,000
41103
51.3%
190,250
655956
34.7%
38,504
32127
83.4%
155,200
89,188
57.5%
695,644
345 122
49.6%
323,000
292,533
90.6%
326,000
377,977
115.9%
11661872
831,120
50.0%
601,500
341,654
56.8%
0.0
16,847
16,853
100.0%
1192,209
5950392
49.9%
238 370
119,234
81249,544
41210,282
51.0%
312,000
220,483
70.7%
181847
81532
45.3%
50,200
12,380
24.7%
3,493,712
11624,877
46.5%
728,491
364,651
50.1 %
536,087
268,294
50.0%
1055000
591801
57.0%
25,050
10
0.0 %
75,000
41,138
54.9%
21050
474
23.1
31234,219
2,055,064
63.5%
44,348,555
26,372,923
59.5%
Net Income/(Loss)
Fund
FY17-18
Budget
6 Months 17-18 Actual
% of Bud et
General
1,444,205
2,117,161
146.6
Tourism
65,050
64,479
99.1%
Pageant
200
381
Band
31000
7,701
Civil Defense
23700
4,103
152.0%
Alarm Board
98 250
11376
1.4 %
Audit
31211
91352
291.2%
Annexation
110,200
54,627
49.6 %
Motor Fuel Tax
91,245
28,302
31.0%
Developer Donations
(88,700)
61,003
68.8 %
TIF
23,765
204*453
860.3%
Debt Service
41850
717,642
14796.7
Recreation Center
357,490
16,758
4.7%
Special Service Area #1A
Special Service Area #4
81429
Capital Improvements
130,000
674,588
518.9%
Capital Equipment
84,150
Water/Sewer
221,164
1/835453
829.9%
Capital Development
312,000
220,483
70.7 %
Utility Improvements
18,847
68,197
361.8%
Marina
41200
13,563
322.9%
Employee Insurance
115,911
185,129
159.7%
Risk Management
549
346,874
63182.9
Information Technology
10,251
McHenry
Area Character Counts
140
Flex
33,808
Developmental Escrow
50
10
20.0%
Retained Personnel
41121
Revolving Loan
2,050
424
20.7%
Police Pension
1 222,815
11104,685
90.3%
Total
(367t2781
1,316,085
358.3%
Ex enditures
FY17-18 Budget
6 Months 17-16
Actual
% of
Budget
23,346,814
12,156,944
52.1%
90,000
49,518
55.0%
1,100
1,166
106.0%
15,000
13,730
91.5%
5,300
0.0
92,000
64,580
70.2%
41,715
22,775
54.6%
45,000
34,561
76.8%
786,889
316,820
40.3%
411,700
353,536
85.9%
302,235
173 524
57.4%
1,666,722
113,478
6.8%
958,990
324 896
33.9
16,647
8,424
50.0%
1,322,209
1,269,960
96.0%
238,370
203,384
85.3%
8,470,708
6,045 735
71.4%
76,729
46 000
25,943
56.4
3,377,801
1,810,006
53.6%
727,942
711,525
97.7%
536,087
258,043
48.1%
140
105,000
25,993
24.8%
25,000
0.0
75,000
45,259
60.3%
50
0.0%
2,011,404
950,379
47.2%
44,715,833
25,056,838
56.0%
Page 4 of 9
City of McHenry
Revenues & 6cpendilures
Budget vs. Actual
Quarterly Report
May 1, 2017 -April 30, 2018
Revenues by Type
Revenues
FY17-18 Budget
6 Months 17-18
Actual
% of Budget
% of Total
Pro a Taxes
5,335,632
5 310 960
99.5 %
20.1
%
Sales Taxes
9124 742
4,652 432
51.0%
17.6%
Income Taxes
2,726,192
1 678 049
61.6%
6.4%
Other Taxes
1 441,044
755 630
52.4%
� 2.9%
Water&Sewer Sales
7,222,565
3,511440
48.6%
13.3%
Im act Fees
715 000
544 711
76.2%
� 2.1 %
Fines and Fees
613 000
301,920
49.3%
1.1 %
Licenses and Permits
753 500
416 464
55.3%
1.6%
Reimbursements
2 025 674
1 242 364
61.3%
4.7%
Cha es for Services
6 667 645
3,429 533
51.4%
13.0%
Grants
4 599
0.0 %
Interest Income
986,250
35669
3.6%
0.1%
Other Revenues
6 735 311
4 489 132
66.7%
17.0 %
Total
44,348,555
26,372,923
59.5%
100.0%
Revenues by Type
17.0%
■Property
Taxes
■Sales Taxes
20.1°�
0.1%
■Income
Taxes
■Other Taxes
0.0%
■
Water &Sewer Sales
Impact Fees
13.0%
■
Fines and Fees
■Licenses and Permits
■
Reimbursements
■Charges for Services
4.7%
17.6%
-
■Grants
Interest Income
1.6
1.1%
2.1%
6.4%
ra
Other Revenues
2.9%
13.3%
Page 5 of 9
City of McHenry
Revenues &Expenditures
Budget vs. Actual
Quarterly Report
May 1, 2017-April 30, 2018
Revenues by Fund
Fund
FY17-18 Budget
6 Months 17-18
Actual
% of Budget
% of Total
General
21,902,609
14274105
65.2%
54.1%
Motor Fuel Tax
695,644
345,122
49.6%
1.3
Tax
Increment Financin
326,000
377 977
115.9%
1.4
Debt Service
1,661 872
831 120
50.0%
3.2%
Ca ital Im rovements
1,192,209
595,392
49.9%
2.3%
Ca ital E ui ment
238,370
119 234
50.0%
0.5%
Water/Sewer
8830591
4451677
51.6%
16.9%
Em to ee lnsurence
3,493,712
1624,877
46.5%
6.2%
Risk Mana ement
728 491
364 651
50.1 %
1.4%
Information Technolo
536,087
268,294
50.0%
1.0%
Police Pension
3 234 219
2,055 064
63.5 %
7.8%
All Other Funds
1 706,751
1 065 410
82.4%
4.0%
Total
44,348,555
26,372,923
59.5%
100.0%
Revenues by Fund
16,m00,m0m
14,0m0,mmm
lz,000,omo
lo,000,000
a,000,000
6,000,oao
■ Revenues by Fund
a,000,000
z,000,000
~ � E E 3 E _
- � c
`o « o _ � H = p
- � E � E
_ � w `o
� —
Page 6 of 9
City of McHenry
Revenues & 6cpenditures
Budget vs. Actual
Quartedy Report
May 1, 2017 -April 30, 2018
Expenditures by Type
Ex enditures
FY17-16 Budget
6 Months 17-18
Actual
% of Budget
% of Tolal
Salades
12 818,473
5,956 457
46.5 %
23.6 %
Benefits
6 817,620
4,160 450
61.0%
16.6%
Contractual
3,693 049
1 863 863
50.5 %
7.4%
Su lies
1569434
725,430
46.2%
2.9%
Other
7,216 280
4,044 362
56.0 %
16.1
%
Debt Service
2,251,418
231640
10.3%
0.9%
Ca ital
4,298 529
5,062 870
117.8%
20.2%
Transfers
6,053,030
3011,766
49.8%
12.0%
44,715,833
25,056,838
56.0%
100.0%
12% Expenditures by Type
_ -- - 24%
20% ■Salaries
■ Benefits
■ Contractual
■ Supplies
■ Other
■ Debt Service
17% ■Capital
1� � Transfers
16%
3% 7%
Page 7 of 9
City of McHenry
Revenues & F�cpenditures
Budget vs. Actual
Quartedy Report
May 1, 2017 -April 30, 2018
Expenditures by Fund
Fund
FY17-18 Budget
4 Months 17-18
Actual
% of Bud et
% of Total
General
23,346,814
12,156944
52.1%
46.5%
Motor Fuel Tax
766,689
316,820
40.3%
1.3%
Tax Increment Financin
302,235
173,524
57.4%
0.7%
Debt Service
1 666 722
113 478
6.8%
0.5%
Ca ital lm rovements
1,322209
1,269,980
96.0%
5.1%
Ca ital E ui ment
236,370
203 384
85:3%
0.8%
Water/Sewer
8 516,706
6,148,407
72.2%
24.5%
Em to ee Insurance
3,377 801
1 810,006
53.6%
7.2
Risk Mana emeni
727 942
711 525
97.7%
2.8%
Information Technolo
536,087
258 043
48.1 %
1.0
Police Pension
2,011
404
950 379
47.2 %
3.8%
All Other Funds
1 882,652
944 348
50.2 %
3.8
Total
44,715,833
25,056,638
56.0%
100.0%
Expenditures by Fund
zs,oao,000
zo,000,000
ls,00D,DOD
10,0o0,00D ■Expenditures by Fund
5,000,000
eta\ tea} `�q �\�e ec�a ¢mow 3e ac�z e�c \off zo ocae
lac `�Ja �cac �5a o�aF Qu�Qtc a�Sa \cSJt caQ,eF a`o° `Qec ra��
�' ° Pec o \`�Q� `a� �a `oaae S rya � c Q°�� P��
Ica "a �Q Q P a
S �Q OF , otF
.�a'r' �c
Page 8 of 9
City of McHenry
Revenues &Expenditures
Budget vs. Actual
Quarterly Report
May 1, 2017-Apri130, 2018
Fund Balance
Fund
Descri lion
Fund
Balance/(Deficit) -
4/30/17
Revenues
Over
Ex enses
Fund
Balance/(Deficit)
10/31/17`
100
General Fund
7,303,780
2,277,350
9,581,130
200
Tourism Fund
405,044
27,203
432,247
205
Pa eant Fund
1,811
105
1 916
210
Band Fund
19 441
999
18,442
220
Civil Defense Fund
6,318
6,318
225
Alarm Board Fund
389,081
14,180
403,261
230
Audit Ex ense Fund
17,632
13,949
31,581
260
Annexation Fund
508,507
16,904
525 411
270
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
992,315
89,903
1,062,218
280
Develo er Donation Fund
1,177,149
73,104
1,250,253
290
TIF Fund
338,695
137,111
201,584
300
Debt Service Fund
346,975
99,423
247,552
4D0
Recreation Center Fund
715,592
5,892
721,484
424
SSA #4 -Lakewood Rd. Utili
31
9,147
9,176
426
SSA #6-Hunterville
179,115
179,115
440
Ca ilal Im rovements Fund
1,771,611
158,327
1 613,284
450
Ca tial E ui ment Fund
20,505
65,064
44,579
510
Water/Sewer Fund"
4,117,249
144,728
4,261,977
550
Ca ital Develo ment Fund
799,680
799,660
580
Utilit Im rovements Fund
4,393,261
2,170,387
2,222,874
590
Marina Fund
454,136
127
454,263
600
Em to eelnsurance Fund
52,500
196,937
251,437
610
Risk Mana ement Fund
744,391
1,773
742,618
620
Information Technolo Fund
192,970
66,496
126,474
700
Em to ee Flex Fund
12,973
12 973
720
Develo mental Escrow Fund
1
1
740
Retained Personnel
Fund
993
993
750
Revolvin Loan Fund
117,031
292
117,323
760
Police Pension Fund
22,775,166
439,625
23,214,791
`Adjustments to Revenues and Expenses for year-end have not been finalized, amounts will change.
"Cash and Cash Equivalents
Page 9 of 9