Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. MANAGERS REPORT 12/07/04 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER WILLIAM J. COONEY JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DE TO: DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2004 REQUEST FOR FACADE REBATE AND INTERIOR BUILDOUT REIMBURSEMENTS - MOUNT PROSPECT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUBJECT: The Village has established a Façade Rebate Program and an Interior Buildout Program in the downtown Tax Increment Financing District. These programs offer matching grants to businesses that make improvements to storefronts in the downtown district. The maximum Village contribution is $5,000 per program. The Chamber of Commerce recently moved its offices from the Bank One building to their current location at 107 S. Main Street. They made several modifications to the interior of the building to improve the functionality of the space. These improvements included installing a new rear corridor and rear entrance, upgrading the electric service, replacing the air conditioning units, and installing new carpeting. They are also proposing a new exterior wall sign that will compliment the sign that was installed by Picket Fence Realty on the adjacent retail space. Total expenditures for their project include $11,755 for the interior improvements and $938 for the exterior signage. The Chamber is seeking reimbursement for all eligible expenses related to their project. Per the program guidelines, the Village may cover 50% of all eligible costs for each component of this project. Therefore, the Chamber is eligible for a $5,000 Interior Buildout grant (account # 5507703-590053, page 298 of Budget) and a $469 Façade Rebate grant (account # 5507703-590052, page 298 of Budget). Staff supports the Chamber's request for these reimbursements. Please forward this memorandum and attached Ordinance to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their December 7th meeting. Staff will be at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. . r. l(~\' I f! it . \~aÌ'JtV ", William J. ooney Jr. Petition for Reimbursement of Expenses in Interior Build Out Program The Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce recently relocated to a storefront location at 107 South Main Street for more visibility. In making this move, considerable expense was incurred in the build out. A wall was opened between the two store ftonts, a rear hallway was added for a rear entrance, electrical service was updated, new air conditioning units replaced the old, several layers of flooring were removed and new carpeting put down and all the walls received new paint. The totals for this renovation came to $11, 599.12. Documentation for the charges is attached. (Exhibit 1) The build out occurred during the month of June 2004. Chris Huege and Scott Wagner were contracted to do the drywall and carpentry work. Volunteers from the chamber removed flooring and painted walls. Northern Carpet Co. installed the professional grade ca~eting and Prospect Electric did the electrical work. The Chamber moved in on June 2St , 2004. A drawing of the floor plan for the build out is attached. (Exhibit 2) Whereas this improvement on Main St. has taken a vacant storeftont and turned it into an active and vibrant location with windows changing monthly and featuring local businesses; And whereas this improvement has taken place within the TIF district, we therefore petition the board to reimburse 50% of Chamber expenses for this build out. Relocation Actuals as of August 30, 2004 Invoices Received Build-Out labor $ 3,500.00 Wirinq computer/phones $ 870.00 Phone svstem move/install $ 665.00 Floor prep for carpet $ 200.00 Menards expenses Drvwall, Studs $ 1,773.00 Airconditioner $ 50.00 electrician $ 2,451.50 carpet $ 1,419.00 Misc. Menards & Home Deoot $ 256.12 (Paintina Materials) labor add door at stairwell $ 75.00 Electrician $ 314.19 Airconditioner - new Home Deoot $ 180.76 Total to date 8/30/04 $ 11,754.57 Petition Regarding Façade Improvement The Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce is interested in putting a sign on the building at 107 S. Main Street to identify itself. The sign would identify our location with only the words "Chamber of Commerce". The sign would be 13.59 inches high by 132.59 inches wide. (Attached is a rendering of this sign by Divine Signs.) There will be white letters in a Times Roman font, upper and lower case, on a maroon background. We would like to assign the work as soon as possible. Our understanding is that we may be eligible for 50% reimbursement according to the façade improvement program in a TIF area. SENt BY: DIVINE SIGNS; c: -- 0) Lt) . C\I ~ ..,... 847 534 9221 j ô ~ :;: ~ ~ ~ ð ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .--.~ ~ ~ Ç..) NOV-30-D412:3SAM; . PAGE 2/3 ..-"-....-.C."['.. -- .......-..... .-. U1 Z' l!J ~ U1 ¡ 1.\1 : ~..'. .. ... . ::" ... CJ , . .., Mollnt Prospect ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS 'Be>. ~ \L\ '\ (O~ FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2004 SUBJECT: 2005 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT - $59,706. 0 At 10:00 a.m. on November 22nd, sealed bids were publicly opened and read aloud for the 2005 T affic Signal Maintenance Contract. A notice was published in the lOOT Notice to Contractors Bulletin as well as the Daily Herald. The contract consists of the maintenance of eight traffic signals within the Village of Mount Prospect for the 2005 calendar year. Bids Results Four contractors picked-up contract bid documents and two submitted bids. A low bid of $23,706.00 was received by Aldridge Electric, Inc. and a high bid of $23,734.00 by Lyons Electric Company. The Engineer's estimate for the project was $29,600.00. All bidders submitted bid bonds in the amount of 5% of their total bids as required by the contract documents. All bids were checked for their accuracy. No errors were found. All bidders correctly signed their bids and bid bonds. Below is a summary of the bids. Bidders Aldridge Electric, Inc. Lyons Electric Company Total Bid $23,706.00 $23,734.00 Engineer's Estimate $29,600.00 Discussion The budget item for traffic signal maintenance from the 2005 Proposed Budget includes the cost of routine traffic signal maintenance as well as emergency signal repair resulting from accidents or equipment failure. Not only does this budget item include the eight intersections maintained by the Village but also accounts for intersections maintained by lOOT and Cook County in which the Vil1age must reimburse a percentage back to these agencies. The total bid for this proposed contract reflects the predictable cost of the routine maintenance work of the eight intersections and establishes hourly prices for the unpredictable emergency work. The final award to the contractor must also include funds for emergency work as well as unexpected replacement of older equipment. For 2005, Staff estimates this amount to be $36,000.00. page 2 of 2 2005 Traffic Signa! Maintenance Contract December 2, 2004 Therefore, the award price to the contractor should be as follows: Routine Maintenance Work Emergency Work Total $23,706.00 $36.000.00 $59,706.00 Funding for the routine maintenance, emergency and replacement work has been requested in the 2005 Proposed Budget. Sufficient funds are available under Account #0505405-540660 on page 234 in the 2005 Proposed Budget. Aldridge Electric has been the Village's traffic signal maintenance contractor for the past six years. They have become familiar with our traffic signals and been very responsive to Village needs and concerns. Staff has developed a good relationship with Aldridge Electric and believes retaining their services again will provide a smooth transition into next year. Recommendation This contract price includes the cost of routine traffic signal maintenance and emergency signal repair resulting from accidents or equipment failure. It reflects the predictable cost of the routine work and establishes hourly prices for the unpredictable emergency repairs. The cost of emergency repairs resulting from accidents will be able to be offset by billing the offender for the damage in the event the offender is caught. It is Staffs recommendation that the low bidder, Aldridge Electric, be awarded the contract for the 2005 Traffic Signal Maintenance Contract in the amount not to exceed $59,706.00 to cover the cost of routine maintenance and potential emergency repairs. There are sufficient funds in the 2005 Proposed Budget to cover this traffic signal maintenance contract. Please include this item on the December 7th Village Board Meeting Agenda. ~ Matthew P. Lawrie I concur with the above recommendation. Attachment: Map x: \engineering\tra ffic\s igna ls\2005maintenance\rec - memo.doc u~nlnAFiRUI '\LS\~ IF?~ll KENSINGTO~ ~ !! Ii II b ~ r¡LJU'~,;;"" :8 I I. UI,.I.U.. II.I.U,.. '.....~.:.. '....U .....Fiñr1.." ~j,LID, ll,U,í.~\.-3~ ~~~~.\.\,~,'-'. ~OR~ ~ . ~. Don' OOD'DO DO "'~J. ~ '9~~~~'P¡>: \\.ry U;> 1'\ W , ,"{ 1'0 ! 71,' Z W "'" uuLJUn[b~~bJ~DDI ~\ 7; ~ ~~ I~ r--~~(\D,Ol DmOOD~DDDD~I(\~ \ij I ¡fñìUlhriUfld t ! ~~~['~\~ ou I DOOŒJD 0 ~JUL1 \\ ' LJ LJ~! 10 I JOff:~Q' r~ Ii L.!~.....p. P,.. ~6"..~~'? 4~5';?D~r4~~ IDOLJu uU QËNJ~:J[J~ID~ ! ,~E5d DDnL-~, r=.=.:J~ ~ i DO, nOfìjW1i 10 DO '. :~ CENTRAL RD J I c:.:J~ ~ ~ > I tJuuld, ~ - 1 f= \1 I ~\~V!JDD 0 ~)~~rnDDDDDD~ 6 WlH~ n~r ~~~~DD 0 LJLJO¡ ,r~rn[]]DDDDù ~ mDO[h(fh~ I IU~I---3DDODDmD J~DO ~ nŒ:¡fdOO5JD, ~ 110000' (]OBDDrn >on~b:ì~O¡g¡;¡ lì=JlJ1liDOBn DO OriODD D::JDDODUI Œ] ! ~ ~~~L300 LJ '1 II nnUU ~aU ~DD :¡;;:;:::¡ , D = ~ DtlH~' 1 , VILLA GE OF MOU NT PROS PECT (J ~RDDD. OODoDo~= . ~ u ~ 2005 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE --~,ç;rlnCl'D~~íJDDDD~QODc:JDODDDDD~r¡[ 1 BUSSE ROAD & WILLOW LANE ~J?!t!ojl II~nDDD 0 nDDnffilf'JJlD D. DDOnUU 2 ROUTE 83 & GREGORY STREET II "ì~~glJ LJi ,L~~ -~- 3 CENTRAL ROAD & OWEN STREET ..Jn~h~ ' [dPl,n!l' 4 CENTRAL ROAD & MT PROSPECT ROAD r ~dLd~jD,¡11 r U' ,0 þ ~ 5 RAND ROAD & CENTRAL ROAD ncJf~-~ Ul d I ) ..' ~ 6 RAND ROAD & MT PROSPECT ROAD uBl J.il.' -,~ I ...:0. J~J 7 RAND ROAD & BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE I.' î! !loG I 8 WOLF ROAD & FEEHANVILLE DRIVE i.' i.i uD~~, j' - ,- 1 ,ì 11 ! ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS ~.~~ 1'2.1' 101 FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2004 SUBJECT: 2005 BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT LINCOLN STREET BRIDGE ENGINEERING DESIGN RECOMMENDATION - $13,848.00 Background Ciorba Group, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois was retained by the Village in 2001 to inspect and provide rehabilitation recommendations for twelve bridges under our jurisdiction. With the assistance of Ciorba Group, the Public Works Department developed a construction schedule for those bridges that would require rehabilitation in the coming years. The first project, designed in 2002 and constructed in 2003, included work to five bridges: William Street Bridge, Wolf Road Bridge, Burning Bush Lane Bridge, Business Center Drive Bridge and Feehanville Drive Bridge. The second project, designed and constructed in 2004, was the rehabilitation of the See-Gwun Avenue Bridge. Both projects were designed and inspected by Ciorba Group. Engineering Design Proposal Based on Staffs working relationship with Ciorba Group on previous bridge projects, they were asked to submit a proposal to design the rehabilitation work for next year's project, the Lincoln Street Bridge. Major work will include concrete beam repair, handrail replacement, sidewalk repair, creek bank stabilization and water main replacement. It is anticipated design will take place in December and January with construction to begin in April 2005. The project should take approximately two months to complete. Ciorba Group's proposal included a total fee of $13,848.00 for providing engineering design services. Tasks that were identified to be performed by Ciorba Group included: 1. Bridge inspection & data collection 2. Preliminary design 3. Final plan preparation 4. Bidding assistance 5. Attending meetings In addition, permits will need to be obtained from the Il1inois Department of Transportation Bridge Office Bureau of Local Roads. Ciorba Group will be responsible for submitting and obtaining the necessary permits from IDOT. page 2 of2 2005 Bridge Rehabilitation Project December 2, 2004 Discussion Based on their qualifications, Ciorba Group is capable of completing the project at hand. In addition to providing engineering services on previous bridge rehabilitation projects, Ciorba Group has also provided services for the Village on street light, traffic signal and pond dredging projects. With each of these projects in the Village, their work has been acceptable. Recommendation Based on the scope of the project, Ciorba Group's total fee is reasonable. Therefore, it is Staff's recommendation that the proposal submitted by Ciorba Group, Inc. for engineering design of the 2005 Bridge Rehabilitation Project be accepted with a not to exceed amount of$13,848.00. There are funds appropriated in the 2004 and 2005 Budget for this proposed expenditure. Please include this item on the December ih Village Board Meeting Agenda. ~~- Matthew P. Lawrie I concur with the above recommendation. G~ J\ttachrnent: Map x:\engineering\bridge\2005project\design Jcc - memo. doc '" .. VILLA GE OF M OU NT PROSPECT Y7 2005 BRIDGE REHABILITA TION PROJECT ~ CENTRAL RD r '1 5JD L I 0 I 1 i I :--1 \ ì I I I I I IL 00001 DD I l DD LINCOLN ST I BRIDGE . w 3: I LINCOLN 51 D 0 []]\ 0 D DO LONNQUIST BLVD " Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS ~t) M~ l2.\" lO~ FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 2004 SUBJECT: RANDHURST WATER MAIN PROJECT - $47,770.00 Background As part of the Randhurst Signage Improvement Project, Randhurst instaned a new sign at the base of r water tower that is in conflict with the water main that serves the Man. Rather than relocate the sign, the Village and Randhurst entered into an agreement to have the water main relocated by the Village. Randhurst will, in turn, pay a lump sump of $22,500.00 to the Village to have the work completed, with the remainder to be paid by the Village. The work will include relocating approximately 185 feet of water main and connection of water service lines to Randhurst, Borders Bookstore, and the Egg Factory restaurant. The water main work is expected to begin in December 2004 and be completed in January 2005, with the final landscaping completed in Spring 2005. Bids Results At 10:00 a.m. on November 29th, sealed bids were publicly opened and read aloud for the Randhurst Water Main Project. A Notice to Bidders was published in a local newspaper as required and invitations were sent to six contractors that are familiar with this type of construction. Three contractors submitted bids for this project. A low bid of $47,770.00 was received by Martam Construction, Inc. of Elgin, TIlinois. A high bid of $73,800.00 was received by Glenbrook Excavating. The engineer's estimate for the project was $45,785.00. Each of the bidders submitted a bid bond in the amount of 5% of the total bid as required by the bid documents. The bids were checked for accuracy. No errors were found. The bidders correctly signed the bids and bid bonds. Below is a summary of the bids: Bidders Martam Construction, Inc. NERI Brothers Construction, Inc. Glenbrook Excavating & Concrete, Inc. Engineer's Estimate: Total Bid $47,770.00 $54,704.25 $73,800.00 $45,785.00 Page 2 of 2 November 29, 2004 Randhurst Water Main Project Discussion The low bidder, Martam Construction, Inc. has been the contractor on several projects in the Village of Mount Prospect including the 2002 Pond Dredging Project, 2003 Bridge Rehabilitation Project, the 2003/2004 Village Streetscape Project, and the 2004 Village Water Main Project. They have also performed water main work recently in the Village of Downers Grove, Village of Forest Park and City of Elgin. Their workmanship has been acceptable. Recommendation I recommend awarding the contract to Martam Construction for the Randhurst WaterMain Project in the amount not to exceed $47,770.00. Funding for this project is shown on page 262 of the 2004 Budget under Account Code #6105510-680003. Please include this item on the December ih Village Board Meeting Agenda. ~V71.~ Donna M. Brown I concur with the above recommendation. Attachments: Project Area Map cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x: \engi neering\projects \watermain \randhurst\rec _memo. doc ", '" Mount Ptospect VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT RANDHURST WATER MAIN PROJECT DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD KENSINGTON RD. Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ~~ ~:c; t2.\ 1 þ1 TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2004 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO LEASE ONE (1) TOSHIBA E-650 COpy MACHINE FOR 36 MONTHS (TOTAL COST: $15,909.48) SUBJ: Background In the 2005 proposed budget, staff has requested funds to replace the sole high-volume copier at the public works facility. This existing unit is a Panasonic (Minolta) model 7760 originally procured in 1997 at a cost of $14,700. Currently, this unit has run in excess of 1.2 million copies. Its design capacity is 1 million copies. During the past year, it has experienced a 30% downtime rate. Staff has determined that this copier should be replaced. In 2002, the village clerk's office, fire department, and police department were in a similar circumstance. They were seeking to replace four (4) aged copy machines. At that time, representatives from these staffs compared the relative merits of purchasing versus leasing new copy machines, the cost benefits of combined purchases or leases, and perquisites of standardization resulting from a common approach to acquiring new copy machines. After much deliberation, including conversations with the village attorney and the village manager's office, this group concluded that the best interests of the Village were served by leasing all copiers from the same vendor. In November 2002, the Village Board agreed with staff's recommendation to waive bidding requirements and approve 36-month leases for four (4) Toshiba E-550 copiers from ImagTec of Des Plaines. As part of the Village Board recommendation, staff presented arguments that it would be substantially cheaper to lease and support new copiers by utilizing a sole, exclusive vendor. These units were placed in service in the village clerk's office, fire department, and police department and have performed reliably. In addition, ImageTec's support has been proficient and timely. Proposal Public works department staff has solicited a proposal from Imagetec to provide a replacement copier for use at the public works facility. ImageTec proposes to lease a Toshiba E-650 high volume, plain-paper, networkable copier at a cost not to exceed $441.93 per month ($5,303.16 per year) for 36 months. The total cost of the lease payments will be $15,909.48 over the course of three (3) years. Page 2 of 2 Request to Waive Bids and Approval to Lease One (1) Toshiba E-650 Copy Machine December 2, 2004 Discussion This proposed lease essentially expands the scope of an existing copier rental agreement. It furthers previously sanctioned efforts to utilize group procurements and standardize office equipment. The E-650 lease costs approximately $100 more per month than the E-550 lease optioned by the village clerk, fire department, and police department. However, the E-650 has more robust capabilities to handle larger paper sizes, colored and specialty papers, and is more ruggedly constructed enabling higher volumes of copies. The proposed E-650 lease features the same 0% interest rate financing offered in the E-550 lease. Consequently, the direct purchase price for this unit equals the total cost of the 36-month lease ($15,909.48). It is relevant to note that this proposed lease does not include a rebate or trade-in value for our existing copier - as was the case for the 2002 E-550 lease. Inspection of our Panasonic machine has revealed that its parts are too worn rendering the unit worthless for re-sale markets. Like the E-550s, the E-650 includes a network option enabling it to serve as a de facto network printer. Over time, service in this role could garner significant savings on printer toner and maintenance. Recommendation It is my recommendation to waive bidding requirements and authorize staff to .enter. an agreement with ImageTec of Des Plaines, Illinois for the lease of one (1) Toshiba E-650 high volume copy machine at a cost not to exceed $441.93 per month and a total cost over 36 months not-to-exceed $15,909.48. Sufficient funds for this proposed expenditure are available in the 2005 proposed budget. ~J Sean P. Dorsey I concur. Glen R. An ler Director of Public Works INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM @. TREE CfIT USA Mount Prospect Public Works Department FROM: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2004 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYST PHASE 2 STORM SEWER SURVEY CONTRACT EXTENSlbN SUBJ: Background On October 16, 2001, the Village Board awarded a contract to Stanley Consultants, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois in the amount of $126,790 to help staff comply with the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 requirements. The scope of this contract included existing ordinance reviews, best management practices recommendations, permit application assistance, a storm sewer survey and mapping project, and assistance filing a notice of intent (NOI) to join the State of Illinois general NPDES Phase 2 permit. The ordinance reviews, best management practices development, and permit application tasks are complete and were presented to the Village Board at a February 2003 Committee of the Whole meeting. The NOI was filed with IEPA in July 2003. The NOI required the Village to make certain on-going commitments to pollution prevention activities. One of these commitments was a promise to complete mapping the separate storm sewer system by the end of 2006. Stanley started field data collection in October 2001. The Village Board made subsequent contract extension awards for continuing this work in 2002, 2003, and 2004. To date, they have surveyed and mapped approximately 101 miles of separate storm sewers. Staff now estimates that approximately 17 miles of separate storm sewers remain. The attached map depicts Stanley's progress to date. It is significant to note that a large portion of the Village is not included in this project. The oldest parts of the Village, generally those around the geographic center, are served by combined sewer systems. Combined sewer systems are not being surveyed as part of this project. Proposal Pursuant to staff request, Stanley has submitted a proposal to extend their existing contract and continue storm sewer survey and mapping work. Specifically, Stanley proposes to survey and map additional storm sewer at the rate of $3,620 per mile for a cost not to exceed $75,000. They propose to commence this work immediately and complete all fieldwork before the tree canopy is reestablished in the spring. Page 2 of 2 NPDES Phase 2 Storm Sewer Survey Contract Extension December 30, 2003 Discussion Stanley proposes to continue survey and mapping work at the same rate charged in 2004 ($3,620 per mile). They believe that the 2005 project area can be completed with no fee increases. 2005 is the final phase of a five (5)-year effort to map and inventory the Village-owned separate storm sewer system. Staff expects that the entire storm sewer system will be finished upon the completion of this proposed contract award. The proposed award ($75,000) seemingly exceeds the scope of the remaining project area (17 miles @ $3,620/mile = $61,540). However, it is poignant to note that the remaining project area is estimated utilizing a street centerline measurement. Consequently, it is feasible that the actual billable quantities of storm sewer inventoried could vary from this estimate. To date, it has been our experience that the storm sewer inventory slightly exceeds the street centerline inventory when compared directly (i.e. on a given street segment, a straight line drawn down the center of the street is usually shorter than the sum of storm sewer pipe segments on the same street - staff believes this occurs because of the additional pipes needed to connect inlets and catch basins to the main storm sewer pipe). Stanley has performed extremely well during the initial phases of this project. Their personnel have proven to be technically proficient, courteous to residents, highly motivated, and very productive. In addition, they have refined an innovative and effective methodology for generating computer maps of unmapped networks using only spatial coordinates and limited attribute data. Recommendation I recommend accepting the proposal from Stanley Consultants, Incorporated of Chicago, Illinois to continue storm sewer survey and mapping work in conjunction with the Village's NPDES Phase 2 compliance efforts and extend their existing contract for a cost not to exceed $75,000. Funds for this proposed expenditure are available in account number 5907704-540582 ($75,°:;7 the proposed 2005 budget. Sean P. Dorsey Glen R. Andler Director of Public Works Encl (1) SPD/spd C:\STORM\STANLEY EXTENSION RECOMMENDA TION.doc Storm Sewer Surv .Progress M ey 2004 ap- N * T D Areas C ompleted ( . Approx. 10091 0 . miles) Areas to be S urveyed (Approx. 16 5 Mol . I es) INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2004 FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO: SUBJECT: PROPOSALS FOR AUDITING SERVICES PURPOSE: This memorandum presents a recommendation to accept a proposal for auditing services for the next four fiscal years. BACKGROUND: In Fall 2000, a Request for Proposal was mailed to several audit firms to perform the annual Village audit. After evaluating the proposals and checking references, Crowe Chizek & Company was selected to perform the audit for fiscal years ending December 31, 2000- 2003. In January 2002, the Village was informed that Crowe Chizek would no longer be providing audit services to local governments. Sikich Gardner & Company, a firm considered in 2000 when we went out for proposals originally, offered to perform the audit and would agree to hono~ the fee quotations submitted by Crowe Chizek. The Village Board concurred with the Finance Department recommendation to have Sikich perform the audit for the fiscal years 2001 - 2003. DISCUSSION: On October 21 , 2004 the Finance Department mailed a Request for Proposal for Auditing Services (RFP) to seven local and regional accounting firms that specialize in governmental auditing. The firms were: Wolf & Co.; Miller, Cooper & Co.; Selden Fox; Lauterbach and Amen; PTW Group; William F. Gurrie and our current auditor, Sikich Gardner & Co. The above firms were selected and mailed RFP's based on their participation in the IGFOA, knowledge and experience in municipal and governmental auditing, expertise with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements, and experience in ensuring that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) conform to the standards required by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The RFP asked firms to provide a fee quotation for auditing services for the fiscal years ending December 31,2004 through 2007. Multi-year proposals are usually requested due to the fact an audit firm makes a substantial investment of time during the first year of an audit and the fee is usually more reasonable if the first-year costs can be amortized over a multi-year period. Audit Proposal Recommendation November 23, 2004 Page 2 The scope of services to be performed, as outlined in the RFP, include auditing the financial statements of the Village as well as performing the Single Audit on federal assistance and the TIF audit. In addition, we asked for a fee for performing an audit on the Library's financial statements. As in the past, the Village has incorporated the Library's audit into our RFP process as a means of keeping the Library's costs down. The Library does pay its own auditing fees however. . In addition to the basic required auditing services, we asked each audit firm to present a fee quotation to perform certain optional services. These services include typing and preparing the comprehensive annual financial report, preparing the Comptrollers Annual Report, and preparing the Illinois Department of Insurance Reports for the Police and Firefighters' Pension Funds. The RFP also included the offer for firms to meet with Finance Department staff to learn more about the proposed engagement before submitting their final proposal. Three firms took us up on the offer. These firms were Miller, Cooper & Co., PTW Group and Lauterbach & Amen. Of the seven Request for Proposals distributed, six were received. Wolf & Co. declined to submit a proposal, stating that they would not be able to direct adequate staff to our audit. Attached is a summary of the fee quotations as submitted by each of the six CPA firms. Upon receipt of the proposals, each was reviewed to ensure they were able to meet the requirements of the engagement as outlined in the specifications. The two lowest bidders William F. Gurrie and Selden Fox, it was felt, did not allocate an adequate number of hours to complete our audit. Past audits have typically taken approximately 400 hours to complete the audit. The Gurrie and Selden Fox submittals allocated 244 and 308 respectively. The third and fourth lowest quotes were received from Lauterbach & Amen and Sikich Gardner & Company respectively with only $1,640 separating the two firms over the four-year period. Both allocated adequate time to completing the audit and have ample experience working with municipalities similar in size to Mount Prospect. Reference checks were made on these two firms to get an idea on how each worked with their respective Finance Departments. As expected, all reference checks came back positive. After speaking with both firms it was felt both would be able to meet the needs of the Village. Further discussions among staff led the Finance Department to recommend Sikich Gardner for several reasons. Having performed the Village audit for the past three years, Sikich has a thorough understanding of Village finances. Their work during this time has been exceptional. In 2003, Sikich transitioned the Village to the new reporting model and implemented the reporting of infrastructure as it relates to GASB #34. Fewer staff hours will be needed in assisting Sikich with the audit due to their familiarity with Village finances. This would not be the case if a new firm were selected. Finally, two key members of the Village's Finance Department who work closely with the auditors have informed the Department that they will o. Audit Proposal Recommendation November 23, 2004 Page 3 be leaving the organization for other opportunities. This makes retaining the current auditor even more vital for a smooth and timely completion of the audit. Sikich Gardner provides services to over 80 governmental clients, with 26 that annually apply for and receive the GFOA Certificate of Achievement award. Mount Prospect annually submits an application for this award. The Village has been successful for 20 consecutive years. Sikich Gardner has audit staff dedicated solely to governmental work year round and is highly involved with the development and instruction of seminars presented by the IGFOA. The first year cost of the audit (including the Library) is $31,450. The amount paid in the last year of the previous agreement was $30,300. An increase of $1,150 or 3.8%. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board accept the proposal from Sikich Gardner & Company for auditing services for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2004 through 2007. f "'; -, - ,/~:>. {'~f( ,- ~ ,;,-,<.,,-1.-- DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Attachment DOEI Copy: Carol L. Widmer, Deputy Finance Director I:\RFP Information\Audit RFP\Board Memo - Sikich Recommendation.doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT RFP FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD 2004-2007 November 15, 2004 Lauterbach Gurrie & Co. & Amen Miller Cooper PTW Selden Fox Sikich Gardner Required Services Opinion on CAFR 63,575 102,000 104,300 116,700 76,800 76,650 SAS No. 61 Letter included included included 800 3,625 included Management Letter included included included 1,600 3,625 included TIF Audit 2,150 1,260 7,950 6,900 2,000 3,375 Single Audit Report 8,600 5,400 15,450 13,800 7,100 14,825 Preparation of CAFR 28,300 8,300 15.450 20,500 12,600 25,100 102,625 116,960 143,150 160,300 105,750 119,950 Optional Services Comptrollers Report 2,150 1,500 2,700 2,600 1,325 4,100 1001 Reports 12,600 12.600 7,950 27,600 17,650 27,550 14,750 14,100 10,650 30,200 18,975 31,650 Total Fees. Village 117,375 131,060 153,800 190,500 124,725 151,600 Library Audit 22,075 14,900 10,450 34,000 8,850 13,550 Wolf & Company declined to submit a proposal saying that they would not be able to direct adequate staffing to our audit.