Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/23/1986 FC mintuesMINUTES FINANCE COMMISSION APRIL 23, 1986 I Call to Order The meet inq was called to order at 7:40 PM. Commissioners present were: Richard Bachhuber, Paul Davies, Newt Hallman, William Holloway and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Village Manager Terrance Burghard, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler and Finance Director David Jepson. II Review of Public Works Facility Report Village Manager Burghard briefly reviewed the options contained in the Public Works Facility Report and some of the reasons for the recommendation to construct a new facility at Melas Park. He pointed out that there are a number of operating inefficiencies at the current location and that the recommendation to build a new facility was based upon the long-term needs of the Public Works Department. He also mentioned that the recommendation was consistent with continued development plans of the downtown area. Mr. Burghard stated that the Village Board had indicated that any new facility would only be undertaken with the approval by voters through an advisory referendum. He also stated that costs in the report are based upon estimates and that an architect was needed to more thoroughly evaluate the options and firm up expected costs. He stated we could expect to pay $15,000 to $30,000 depending upon the scope of services requested. Public Works Director Weeks expanded upon the need for a new facility. He pointed out that the present facility was built in 1965 when the Village population was about half the current level and the Public Works workforce was approximately one-third its present size. Mr. Weeks emphasized that employee and visitor parking is a serious problem. He also stated that because of the limited storage space for equipment, it is very inefficient to park equipment at the end of the work day and to mobilize it at the beginning of the day. He mentioned that the problem is often much more serious during emergency situations. Mr. Weeks also described the difficulties of mechanics working under crowded conditions and the problems associated with the storage of materials in remote locations. III Discussion by Commissioners An intense discussion of the Report by Commissioners followed the initial overview. The questions raised by the Commissioners focused on the following issues: 1) The demonstrated need for a new facility; 2) Cost/Benefit Analysis of anew facility; and 3) Continued Downtown Redevelopment. A summary of the discussion follows: 1. Demonstrated need for a new facility. It was pointed out that the residents of Mount Prospect are receiving out- standing services from Public Works employees and that many residents would question whether a need exists. Herb Weeks responded that they receive over 2,000 calls per month for services of various kinds. These calls include street and sidewalk problems, water and sewer calls, forestry questions and a variety of other public requests. Moreover, there are numerous demands on Public Works' personnel from other Village departments. Mr. Weeks stated that they try to respond to each request for service on a timely basis, but many times the responses are delayed due to logistical problems. The circumstances of a late night water main break were described: employees would be called in; they would "jockey" equipment to get the necessary units; they would then go to a remote sight for material; and finally they would get to the break. The delays in an emergency situation often have serious effects. Herb stated they are stretched thin, and they will not be able to continue to give the level of service residents have become accustomed to without some change. Mr. Burghard added that it is management's responsibility to recommend changes before conditions deteriorate to the point where a crisis exists. 2. Cost/Benefit Analysis of a new facility. The Commissioners expressed the need for more specific information relative to potential savings. They asked if the need for personnel would be reduced; if overtime would be reduced; and what type of savings could be realized. Mr. Weeks stated that he did not anticipate a reduced need for personnel but that employees could be used more effectively. He emphasized that many jobs such as beauti- fication projects, leaf collection, forestry jobs, and water projects need additional effort. An example was given of potential savings in the water meter replacement program. Currently the Village pays JAWA approximately $1.00 per 1,000 gallons of water (plus fixed costs) and about 1090 of the water, or $150,000, is unaccounted for. 4 Each one percent the loss can be reduced would amount to a savings of $15,000. Herb stated that if he had an adequate facility, he could keep men out on the job longer than with the current facility. Commissioner Smilanic presented some preliminary figures of potential annual benefits of some $100,000. The amount was based upon reduced costs and additional revenues that would be realized from a commercial use of the Pine Street property. Mr. Burghard stated that we would be able to provide a more accurate analysis after an architectural evaluation. 3. Continued Downtown Redevelopment. Several Commissioners strongly stated their support of the plan to move the Public Works facility from its present location and to encourage commercial use of the property. The concern was expressed that if there would be an expansion or signifi- cant remodeling at the current facility, it would stifle commercial growth for some time in the future. Mr. Burghard mentioned that the current owner of the Aldi property has expressed an interest in the Pine Street property. He stated that a number of possible uses of the property could be employed, but that specific planning was premature at this time. In conclusion, each Commissioner stated his/her position on the recommendation. Commissioner Davies would like to see the facility move out of the downtown area. He believes the additional cost to taxpayers is minimal and that the project should proceed. Commissioner Smilanic supported Commissioner Davies. She stated that a new facility would produce savings and would reduce future incremental budget increases. Commissioner Holloway stated that he thought residents were getting an acceptable level of service at the present time. He does not like "gerrymandered" solutions and stated that the decision should be a business decision. The decision to build should be based upon quantitative evidence. Commissioner Hallman stated that the present location is convenient and that expansion should be investigated thoroughly. If it is not feasible to expand at the present location, then other options could be considered. He did not believe the Pine Street property is a suitable retail location. 3 Commissioner Bachhuber stated the present facility is inefficient and is an eyesore. He supported the recommen- ded move to Melas Park and emphasized that the decision should not be just an economic decision but should consider the long-term needs of the Public Works Department. The Finance Director requested that one of the Commissioners prepare a report to the Village Board that contained the Finance Commissioners recommendations. Commissioner Davies agreed to write the report, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. IV Adjournment Enc There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35.PM. 4 Respectfully submitted David C. Jepson, Finance Director