The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1366_001MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY TRUSTEES GEORGE A CLOWES TIMOTHY J, CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENDRICKS PAUL WM,, HOEFERT MICHAELE W. SKOWRON IRVANA K. WILKS VILLAGEMANAGER MICHAEL E, JANONIS VILLAGE CLERK CAROL A, FIELDS 'Village of Mount, Prospect 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 To Budget Hearing Attendees: Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TOO: 708 / 392-6064 Thank you for taking the time to attend tonight's Budget discussions. Active community participation in our local decision-making process is the only method to keep municipal officials informed about your needs, desires and your opinions. Open and healthy debate regarding issues of community concern is the only way to keep Mount Prospect a vital and thriving community. Discussion regarding the 1994-1995 Village Budget will be considered as the main item of business on this evening's agenda. Each person or group that wishes to address the Village Board on the Budget (pro or con) will be given an opportunity to speak. Additional Budget Hearings are scheduled for Committee of the Whole meetings in March. The attached sheet shows when those Hearings are scheduled. Please note the 6:00 p.m. start tame. In an effort to give everybody a fair opportunity to be heard, we ask that you observe the following guidelines: Please wait to be recognized by the Mayor. He will attempt to work his way systematically through the audience. You must speak at the Podium: All Village Board meetings are broadcast live over our local cable channel; in order to broadcast your comments, you must speak into the microphone at the Podium. You will be asked to state your name and address so that your comments can become a part of the official record of the meeting. Please keep your comments brief and to the point. If you are here as a group, we ask that you consider working through a spokesperson or a limited number of spokespersons to get your message out. If you have petitions or material you wish to present to the Board members, please have a separate individual present the item(s) to the Mayor while the spokesperson explains the nature of the presented material from the Podium. 0%0 We ask that you refrain from spontaneous demonstrations of support or disapproval for individual comments; it only serves to slow down the meeting and disrupts the on-going discussion. Each speaker should be afforded the opportunity to make their point uninterrupted. Full, fair discussion and debate regarding the proposed Budget is extremely important. We ask that you afford interested individuals the opportunity to have their items heard without disruption. If you wish to converse with others, we ask that you do so outside of the main meeting room. Your cooperation is much appreciated. VILLAGE OF MOUNTPROSPECT 1994-95 Budget Review Meetings .......... Budget Overview Budget Revenues Administration - Village Manager ow low Communications, Village Clerk Finance Department Public Works Department: Streets, Water, Parking, Refuse Disposal Police Department Pi• A« Department Fire Department Inspection Services Department Human Services Department Non-Departmentat. Co 0 & Civic Services, Pensions, Insurance, Debt Service, Contingencies Capital Improvements Final Wrap -Up ("If Needed) 2/17/94 2/22/94 The Finance Commission is scheduled to meet at 7:00 p.m. in the Trustees Room at the Village Hall. The Village Board is scheduled to meet at 69.00 p.m. on 2/22/94, 3/09/94 and 3/22/94 and at 7:30 p.m. for all subsequent meetings, The meetings will be at the Senior Center. DAVID C. JEPSON Finance Director 3142 j41 c� �L VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 100 S. Emerson Street -- (708) 392-6000 Mount Prospecto I L 60056 NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE 1616 E. GOLF ROAD DES PLAINES, IL 60016 (708) 2W92OO FAX: 296-9207 Arlington Heights Barrington Bartlett Buffalo Grove Des Plaines Elk Grove Village Evanston Glencoe Glenview Hanover Park Highland Park Hoffman Estates Inverness Lake Forest Lake Zurich Libertyville Lincolnshire Lincolnwood Morton Grove Mount Prospect Niles Northbrook Northfield Palatine Park Ridge Prospect Heights Rolling Meadows Roselle Schaumburg Skokie Streamwood Vernon Hills Wheeling Wilmette Winnetka Elk Grove Twp, Maine Twp. New Ther Twp. Northfield Twp. Wheeling Twp,, OFFICERS President Al Larson Schaumburg Vice -President JoAnn Eckmann Ubenyville Secretary- Treasurer Michael D. Kadlecilk Palatine Executive Director Rita R. Athas JEPSON, FINANCE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSp,5, 100 SOUTH EMERSON N W111 L 60056 M TO: Finance Dirertors CAM A REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS ,%IR%FL - 4iff - 11 1147 FOUNDED IN 19.58 FROA: �Eofa Klotfi Director, Government Information Center RE: Computer System Networks Survey Results DATE: March 22, 1994 Attached please find the results of a survey you recently participated in and requested about Computer System Networks. I hope you will find it interesting. Thank you for your help. 4, 4 W*)_T Ila$ W__ V 'M - NW14C GIC SURVEY March, 1994 Are your computers currently hooked up to a network system? If so, which one? Arlington Heights (Plan to implement a Novell A Pathworks network this calendar year.) Buffalo Grove Elk Grove Township Lake Zurich Lincolnwood Maine Township New Trier Township Prospect Heights Roselle Wheeling auarr ingt= Not a Novell or Lantastic type network for about 3 to 5 years. Our network involves a mainframe WANG VS proprietary with PC'?s connected via terminal emulation. Lan Manager with HP9000 845 as server. Ejjj__ Me Novell Netware v. 3,11. Evanston Ethernet 802.3 and Novell. Glen Interactive Unix,, 0 Novell 3.11, Lantastic, Unix, Apple -talk. Hgffman__Ez_tateg Novell. Mount Ero-s-D-9.gt 0 Engineering -Novell. Police -Novell. Nileg Novell, TCP/IP (Remote buildings connected by Lantastic), North VAX 8350 with 150 terminals and 3 PC's across 6 locations. We use DCA for our WAN and Ethernet for our computer site. I IH iI h* rthfleld Tgwns 112 Novell Netware 2.2. Palati Novell. ,2,ark-.Ri Digital Equipment CorpomPathworks. Hall na, Magidgws Novell Netware 3.12, Scha=hurz, IBM Lanserver d. Streamwwon,, PC's are connected to 3 Novell 2.2 LAN's in police, fire, and village hall. W i6imtt..9 Unix based network system, our software is from AE. Klawitter and Assoc. in Rolling Meadows,, The software language is BASIC. Wnetha Digital's Pathworks. on Ethernet. Give one to two benefits you are obtaining from being on a network system. Also, what was the biggest problem encountered when you hooked up to a network? a r nglgn Benefits: multiple users on integrated applications. Problems* Keeping all the users hooked up,, working PC's and trained personnel. Users tend to add independent menus, application programs, memory, etc* Quite often this causes the machines to have problems. D.Q1 S a i, n Benefits: Shared printers means purchasing fewer* Problemse Users disconnecting cables and bringing down their segment., Elk Qrgve Benefits: Sharing of data,, software applications and equipment provides for better integrated workflows with departments,. Problem: Training users in the concepts of search drives,, output queues., drive mappings, and other network related topics. Eyans&gnn Benefits: File sharing and print sharing. Problems: Bringing staff up to speed on PC's and Windows software. Glgncge Benefits: All data shared instantly. Problems: employee acceptance --I could write a book on this. teeny Benefits: File sharing, printer sharing., software maintenance, BACKUP. Problem: Learning curve. =fnda Estgt@& Benefits: Better communication, better access to information. Problems: Getting different systems to communicate. Benerit.s: Control over departmental computer environment. Better allocation of resources, information sharing and reduced expenditures on equipment. Problems: Lack of knowledge and training regarding the configuration of the network. M i 1 -ea Benefits: sharing printers and exchanging documents and spreadsheet files. Problem: choosing one. Northbrook Benefits: All users have same functions as if they were in the Village Hall. Problem: None --it went very smoothly. jggrt e ,,d. wn's, Benefit: sharing files. Problems. None. palating, Benefits: Resource sharing in savings file sharing. Problems: Standard machine set up; printer sharing. ParkM dag Benefits: System administration/backup, sharing data. Probleras: Developing the expertise to install the network and update it. Benefits: File sharing, E-mail, centralized system operations. Problems: User training. �SghaumjauLg Benefits: File sharing, lower license costs, E-mail, common calendars, etc. Problems: Technical expertise/vendor support or lack of. Streamwogd Benefits: Software sharing (wordprocessing and spreadsheet), E-mail. Problem: Typical educational problems of a new system and minor hardware problems. !1!'fl1ee,J, L ing . . ........ ... x2mahip. Benefits: All data in central location and available to all users. Problems: Training employees in usage. I'm Je Benefits: Multiple users able to access the same database files. Problems: None. Winnej;M Benefits: File sharing, access to peripherals connected to Micro VAX 3100 Host server,. Problems: Sharing printers attached to PCISQ Any unforeseen difflIc.hies encountered after estab:Lishing the a network? (For example , having to add a network administrator). I Even system administrat "Ion duties are time consuming and constant need to keep up on terms, hardware, and software. I believe a full-fledged network would require a full time position. E IX _Qr The SFT (System Fault Tolerance) III security of our police department network was more difficult than expected to implement. Since the network was established,, no other unforeseen difficulties have surfaced. Eyangtgn None. We planned and added a network/PC Administrator before we started the project,. G 1-en--c -o e Purchasing the proper software minimized the need for full time attention. Our software lends itself to user ownership and manipulation. a Training procedures. Mo-un:t Prg.Ue-ct Configuring multiple makes and types of PC equipment, including different versions of DOS, and the addition of new equipment to the network. Traffic stacks up very fast causing slowdowns. Northj2rog&I- No. Requires about 1% of may time,. fill" ,X,,gr,"t,hf jg,J�L.TQZU,ash p,. Sent staff for training --no other problems. 1sat 1U39. Growth that takes place was more than we expected,. - Probably needs more administration than we give it. For optimal performance probably need an administrator. XMIA4*01a Seeing that the organization changed to adapt to the network and 'supported the 15 functions. b No. We added (administrator) prior. StrgamwogA Proper systems administration requires a staff member to ensure smooth operations. 00. 'VRIAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1994/95 Budget Village %"n er's Office: Page 76 - Village er's Tnining Expense MIM-FT011, � 3. Village Clerk's Office: 44 Finance Department: Page 104 - Data Processing Intern Page 216 - Computer System 5 Public Works Department.* Street Division: Water Division. Parking Program: Page 203 - Senior Center Lot Rehabilitation Refuse Disposal Program: 6. Police Department: Page 126 - 3 New Police Officers 111 VILLAGE OF MOUNTPROSPECT 1994/95 Budget Issues 7. Planning Department,: Page 156 - Economic Development Program $25,000 8. Fire Department: Page 140 - Overtime to Provide 17 Firefighters Per Shift $5%000 Page 140 - Volunteer - Paid -on -Call $19,2701 Page 145 - ESDA Supplies and Training $4;355 Page 224 -Purchase of a "Quint" $52%000 9. inspection Services Department: Page 115 - Addition of a Housing Inspector $54)000 Page 116 - Addition of a Traffic Engineer $559000 10. Human Services Department: Page 91 - Bi -Lingual Social Worker PIT to FIT $19,000 Page 91 - Visions Group Programs $202000 11. Other Issues: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E, Janonis, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director'k� DATE. March 21, 1994 SUBJECT-. Impact of the New Solid Waste Contract on the 1994/95 Refuse Disposal Budget When the 1994/95 Refuse Disposal Budget was prepared, it was based upon the costs included in the current refuse contract for the first three months (May -July), and the estimated costs in a new contract for the balance of the year (August -April). In the new contract, we had assumed a modest decrease Q 0 in the pick-up charge for single-family units, an increase m multi -family costs, an increase m recycling costs, and an increase in the costs for brush and yard waste,. Additionally , there was aspgnificant increase for " tippin '9 fees" because of the new SWANCC transfer station. In total, the proposed 1994/95 Refuse Disposal Budget of $2,952,195 wasexpected, to be $242,195 more than the 1993/94 budget of $2,710,000, with $216,400 of the increase due to increased tipping fees. Bids for the new refuse contract were received on March 7, 1994, and the results are much better than had been anticipated. Based upon the recommended bid prices for the Modified Volume Based Collection Program, the 1994/95 proposed Refuse Disposal Budget of $2,952,1.95 can be reduced $455,000 to $2,497,195. The revised 1994/95 Budget of $2,497,195 is $455,000 less than had been Py anticipated and is actually $212,805, or 7.9%, less than the 1993/94 Refuse Disposal Budget. The attached schedule shows the 1994/95 Revised Budget Amounts compared to 1992/93 Actual, 1993/94 Estimated, and the 1994/95 Proposed Budget. The 1994/95 Revised Budget Amounts are made up of the amounts for May -July at the current, contract costs and 'th,e, amounts for Aqgust-April at the new contract costs. The column at the far right side represents the difference between the 1994/95 Proposed Budget and the 1994/95 Revised Budget. The reduction in the 1994/95 budget is very dramatic; however, the reductions in the 1995/96 and 1996/97 budgets should be even more remarkable. This can be attributed to the fact that the 1994/95 budget amounts include only nine months at the new contract prices. We can estimate the charges associated with the new contract with a degree of accuracy, but the amount of future tipping fees remains aquestion. We will be able to refine these figures after we have more ex,penence with the actual number of tons delivered to the SWANCC transfer station. Nevertheless, based upon current projections, the budget amounts for 1995/96 and 1996/97 should be about $700,000 per year lower than our previous projections, ichaei r. Janonis Page 2 Impact of the New Solid Waste Contract on the 1994/95 Refuse Disposal Budget On the revenue side, we have evaluated the impact of the new contract on multi -family charges and on the fee for the yard waste/refuse stickers. Additionally, we have reevaluated the amount of property taxes that will be required to fund refuse disposal. A discussion of these revenues follows. Because the new contract fees for multi -family units are being decreased $79,500, it is expected that the Village charges to multi -family units will, be reduced about $60,000, or approximately 9 % lower than 1993/94 charges. A portion of the savings will. be realized by the Village and the balance would be passed on to the multi -family residents. The change in the specific charges will. vary depending upon the number and capacity of the refuse containers and the number of times the containers are picked up each week. These changes will be worked out on a complex by complex basis and will becom effective August 1, 1994. In regard to the fee for the yard waste/refuse sticker, there is an increase, in the unit cost for yard bag collection in the new contract and a decrease in the unit cost for refuse in excess of two containers. We discussed the possibility of two rate structures for refuse stickers, i.e. one price for a refuse sticker and a different price for a yard waste sticker. However, we believe it would be easier for the residents and easier for the Village to administer if one sticker could be used for both purposes. As a result, the stickers would need to be the same price, Based upon estimated volumes for yard waste and the number of excess refuse containers, the savings from the excess refuse containers would offset the additional costs from yard waste for at least the first year of the new contract. Because of this, it would not be necessary to increase the sticker price for at least the first year and possibly the second year of the new contract. We will be able to ftnther evaluate the trade-off after we have a more accurate count of the excess refuse containers and the actual number of tons of refuse delivered to the transfer station. There will also be a greatly reducedreqw"rement for the amount of property taxes allocated for refuse disposal in 1994, 1995 and 1996. If other revenue sources in the Refuse Disposal Fund are maintained at expected levels (Multi -Family at $350,000 and Refuse Stickers at $248,500), the allocation of 1994 property taxes could be reduced about $350,000. The amount of the reductions for 1995 and 1996 are tentative at this time, but they should be in the range of $500,000 to $600,000. These potential reductions represent a major change in the amount of property taxes that will be allocated to fund refuse disposal. It should provide an opportunity to either reduce the amount of future property tax levies or reevaluate the revenue sources that are used to finance General Fund services. Personal Services Contractual Services: S/F Refuse Collection (1) M/F Refuse Collection (2) S/F Recycling MIF Recycling Tipping Fees - SWANCC Tipping Fees - Contractor (3) Yard Bag Collection All Other t M11 Commodities Total Refuse Disposal VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1994/95 Refuse Disposal Budget 1994/95 Proposed Budget Amounts Revised For New Contract March 21, 1994 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 Revised Budget Amounts 1994/95 Actual Estimated Proposed Period of Period of Total Increase or fwasts- C 2_8 a BHd 5/94-7/94 8/94-4/9 1994/95 M $ 54,214 $ 60,0835 $ 63,0095 $ 15,775 $ 479320 $ 631,095 $ 0�0079340 3009678 296?234 2597M 6001,000 M,1763 $2,4677071 OWN, $1,91202875 214,225 328,675 28,525 �.Wfflwftl 2659400 3879800 32P900 681,400 165,0000 2962100 1409 $298741)100 165,000 157P300 3.7 $7632425 $ 386950( 130PON 241 P70( 23100( 72810CH 1357301 A 112171 lls250 SIA21ju24 _ =mj 676,100 1853,900 3259700 309900 7282000 16530000 292fi00 141900 (354,500) (79,0500) (62,100) (21,000) 46fi00 (3500) $(455,000) (1) Estimated Tipping Fees of $342,500 for 1992193, $359,625 for 1993/94, and $94,200 for 1994/95 (May - July) are included under Tipping Fees -Contractor. (2) Estimated Tipping Fees of $2579500 for 1992/93, $270,375 for 1993/94,, and $701,800 for 1994/95 (May - July) are included under Tipping Fees -Contractor. (3) Tipping Fees are estimated $25.00 per ton for 24,000 tons in 1992/93, $26.25 per ton for 24,000 tons in 1993/94, and $27.50 per ton for 6,000 tons in 1994/95. AT OK11,23 W FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: 1 11 Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance DDireMcto DATE: March 24, 1994 SUBJECT: Medical Insurance Premium Calculations For 1994/95 FA M One of the requirements of the Village's Self -Insurance Program is to calculate an annual medical insurance0 1pants in the premium for retirees and Library employees. There are currently 326 partic, Village's Self -Insured Medical Insurance Plan with 244 of this total made up of Village employees, 50 are retirees and 32 are Library employees. Village employees contribute $13 per month toward the cost for single coverage and $39 for family coverage ($14 and $40 for the Police bargaining group) with retirees and the Library paying the full amount of the calculated premium. i The calculation of the medical insurance premium s fairly straightforward and consists of the following steps: 1) Determine the actual claims paid for the most recent 12 month period; 2) Add a trend factor for medical inflation for the 12 month period that the premium will cover; 3) Add the estimated administrative costs and the cost of stop -loss insurance for the new plan year; 4) Divide the total estimated plan costs from step 3 by the number of plan units to arrive at the premium per unit. (A plan unit is equivalent to one plan member with single coverage); and 5) Calculate the premiums for the other types of coverage based upon the number of assigned units. One unit cost represents the premium for single coverage, 3/4 unit is used for medicare coverage, 3 units are used for a family plan with 3 or more family members, and a special premium is calculated for a family plan with only two family members. The calculations for the premium per unit for May 1, 1994 - April 30, 1995 are included on attached Schedules 1 and 2. The estimated medical plan costs for 5/1/94 - 4/30/95 total $1,469,271 and are shown on Schedule 1. The monthly cost per unit using the existing rate structure and an alternate structure are shown on Schedule 2. The existing rate structure uses 2.75 units for the 2 member family plan and 3 units for the family plan covering 3 or more family members. The alternate rate structure uses 2.0 units for the 2 member family plan and the same 3 units for a family of 3 or more. For the 5/1/94 - 4/30/95 plan year, the calculated monthly premium per unit (single coverage) under the existing rate structure is $171. and under the alternative rate structure it is $173. The alternate rate structure is being proposed because it would be much more equitable to family units of only two members, whether it is a family unit of one parent and one dependent or a family unit of one member and his or her spouse. Under the alternate rate structure, the two member family would pay the equivalent of two single premiums rather than 2.75 single premiums. This would be a much more equitable premium structure and it would provide significant relief to current and future retirees. Michael E. Janom*s Page 2 Medical Insurahce Premium Calculations For 1994/95 Due to the change in the benefit levels that were implemented May 1, 1994, the Village's total medical costs for the current fiscal year are some $300,000 less. than had been anticiNted. This reduction can be attributed in part to higher deductibles and co -payments from plan members, but one of the other factors is that the total number of claims has been reduced. For the peri od of June 1, 1992 - December 31, 1992, there were 2,943 claims filed, and during the same period in 1993, that number has dropped to 2,347 for a decrease of 596 or 29.3k IThe reduction in the number of claims is a significant factor in the cost savings realizedf The reduction in total plan costs means that the calculated premiums for May 1. 1994 - April 30, 1995 will be reduced accord. The following table shows the existing premiums for the 1993/94 inglyfiscal year and the calculated premiums for the 1994/95 fiscal year: From the above table it can be seen that the monthly premium for single coverage for retirees and Library employees will be reduced $25 per month or $300 per year, the premium for family coverage (3 or more family members) will be reduced $75 per month or $900 per year, and the premium for the 2 member family will be reduced $199 per month or $2,388 annually. These are meaningful 9 savmgs and provide a means for passing on a portion of the plan savings to retirees and the Library. Monthly Premium Type of Premium Rates Reductions Coverage - — - - - ------- - -- . . . . ........... 1993/GA 1994/95 ........... -- --------- .............................. IIMonthly Annual . .............. Single Coverage $198 $173 $25 $ 3001 -12.6% Medicare Coverag•e $149 $130 $ 19 $ 228 12.8% Family 2 Coverage 346 $199 VM8 Family 3 Coverage $594 $519 $75 9 2. From the above table it can be seen that the monthly premium for single coverage for retirees and Library employees will be reduced $25 per month or $300 per year, the premium for family coverage (3 or more family members) will be reduced $75 per month or $900 per year, and the premium for the 2 member family will be reduced $199 per month or $2,388 annually. These are meaningful 9 savmgs and provide a means for passing on a portion of the plan savings to retirees and the Library. Schedule 1 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Estimated Medical Plan Costs 5/1/94 - 4/30/95 Paid Claims (3/1/93 - 2/28/94): Brookfield $ 927,535 PCS Prescriptions 484 $13J23,019 Less: Shock Losses 43652) $17118,367 Add: Trend Increases (14 mo. @ .75%) 117,24281 Estimated Claims 5/1/94 - 4/30/95 1 .23,5 Estimated Medical Plan Costs: Estimated Claims 5/1/94 - 4/30/95 $13,235,795 Admu*u"strative Costs: 8 months x $14.80 x 326 = 598 4 months x $15.54 x 326 58,862 Stop -Loss Insurance ($21.52 x 126) 8 months x ($58.13 x 200) — $1142692 ($23.67 x 126) 4 months x ($59.99 x 200) = 59,922 1.74 614 Total Estimated Medical Plan Costs $1 a,469 2,71, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Medical Insuran Costs per Unit 94 - 4/30/95 =I' Single 105 Medicare 21 Family 2 13 Family 2+ 561 Totals Total Estimated Costs Annual Cost per Unit Monthly Cost per Unit Annual Cost per Unit Monthly Cost per Unit L1=1 x 1 = 105 x .75 = 16 x 2.75 = 36 x 3 561 $1104691027 71 $290 $17 x 1 105 x .75 = 16 x 2.0 26 x 3 = 561 W6 $13469,271 $21075 $173 M IT; I W -I1 TO- VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: SOLID WASTE COORDINATOR VZ M sonal On March 7 bids for the Village's residential solid waste contract were opened and tabulated. A full analysis of the bid results were given to the Solid Waste Comrnission on Monday, March 14 for their independent review prior to the March 17 Comrm'ssion Meeting. (Copies of the bid tabulations and analysis are attached for distribution to the Mayor and Village Board.) As a result of the Commission's review and discussion of the solid waste bid the following recommendations were formulated by the Commission members at the March 17 meeting. In addition to theirwritten recommendations Chairman Westlake is prepared to present the recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Trustees on Tuesday, March 29. At that time Chairman Westlake and Village staff will also be prepared to respond to any questions. mouNr PROSPECT SOLID WASTE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS., RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE CONTRACT (Comnussioners Bill Donovan, Elizabeth Herbert, Holly Johnson, George Luteri, R bHarold Rentschler Ken Westlake and Mary Winkler were in attendance and od Mous, voted on each recommendation. Col=ssioner Dick Bachhuber was not present for the discussion or voting.) * Residential Solid Waste Hauler - ARC Disposz�r� The Commission unanimousIv recommended ARC Disposal Companv as the solid waste hauler to be awarded the contract. The Commission 14 s recommendation was based on the factors listed below: Low bidder (by a signifficant margin) Past performance Residential Solid Waste Program - Modified Volume Based Service (two (2) - 32 gallon contaiers/bulk item, 3 clean-up weeks and recycling - services provided through property tax. The Comnussion recommended by a vote of 7 to I to continue with the Village's current modified vol-Lu-ne based collection program. (Me one (1) descending vote was 'in support of a one (1) container modified program-, there was no support for either an uni service system or a pure user fee system.) The Commissions recommendation was based on the factors listed below: Cost benefit to the community Less costly than unlimited collection program Incentive to recycle will reduce volume of waste being landfilled; less tipping fees Maximizing use of recycling program which is paid through property taxes Commum'ty Awareness/Education Residents have adapted to current program and are aware of the need to reduce waste Citizen Input Feedback from residents supporting current system-, solid waste services paid through taxes. (Resident comments received in resporise to Trustee Wilks request for input.) Optional Recyclables - The bid specifications detined a nucleus of items that were to be collected. In addition,, bidders were asked to indicate the cost and availability of optional items to be collected. Based on the factors listed below the Commission unanimousl- I y recommended the following optional 'tems, be added to the nucleus of recyclables for both single and multifanlily recycling programs. Plastics (43, 5, 6 &7) No additional cost Will reduce the volume of residential waste Scrap Metal - parameters to be deternim'ed by Village No additional cost Will reduce 0tr-vvh_mre-of -i-c�giaiqttial w�z_ste Although car batteries were also identified as an optional item that could be added at no additional cost'.. the Commission una=ously voted not to include car batteries due to the potential safetv hazards of cuxbside collection and residents do have alternative disposal methods that are environmentally safe and available at no cost, via retailers. .W Discussion focused on the availability of services to dispose of reusable household goods already in existence. Brush Collection Option - The bid specifications included an option that would pay for the collection of brush bundles through a flat per unit/per month fee billed on a twelve, month basis. Ilis option was included pn'man'ly to determine if the current per unit fee system was the most cost-effective. The Commission members unanimously recommended that the current per bundle system be maintained based on the factors listed below: Cost Benefit Based on the estimated brush bundles collected by the hauler it remains less costly to pay a per bundle rate than a at fee per unit/per month. • The Commission would like to thank the Board for the opportunity to review the bid results and provide input into the bid award process. The Commission strongly supports the Village's solid waste management plan and feels the residents of this communitv are to be commended for their efforts m" waste reduction and resource recovery. r"e%. Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Directoi:: DATE: April 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Comparison of Refuse Costs Under the Unlimited and Two Container Limit Plans A question was raised at the Committee of the Whole meeting on March 29,1994 regarding the difference in the cost to the Village of the "unlimited" refuse pick up proposal compared to the "two container limit" proposal. The unlimited proposal is listed on bid summary as "Basic Service" on pages 1, 4 and 7 and the two container limit is listed as "Modified Volume Based Service" on pages 2, 5, and 8. The Basic Service proposal includes separate lines for single-family refuse pick up and single-family recycling, whereas in the Modified Volume Based proposal, single-family pick up and recycling are combined in one line. Under the Basic Service plan the Village would pay a fixed fee per residence for unlimited pick up of refuse and a fixed fee per residence for recycling. Under the Modified Volume Based plan, the Village would pay a fixed fee per residence for up to two containers and a unit cost for each container over the two container limit. Recycling under either Plan is unlimited. To arrive at the comparable costs between the two plans, it is necessary to estimate the number of containers over the two container limit that the Village would pay for. This is not a "hard" figure but has been estimated based upon the number of refuse stickers that have been sold. We subtract the number of bags/containers of yard waste picked up by the contractor from the total number of stickers sold to arrive at the estimate of the stickers for the refuse containers above the two container limit. Based on this process, we have estimated 64,600 units as the number of refuse containers above the two container limit. The unit charges for the containers in excess of two are $ .55 for the first year, $ .60 in Year 2 and $ .65 in Year 3. Following is a table showing the difference in the cost between the two proposals for the first three years of the contract: Ye I Year 2 Year 3 Unlimited Service SIF Refuse Pick Up $528,4018 $554,184 $582,571, SIF Recycling 3,22302Q01 338.310 35 '1 1 TOW $85'01,608 $892,494 $93,7102 Two Container Service SIF Pick Up & Recycling $797,445 $847,386 $902,160 SIF Unit Charge -64,600 Units 35 530 38,760 41,990 TOW $832,975' $886,146 $9443,150 Difference $17,633 $69348 $(6,548) Michael E. Janom*s Pge a,2 Comparison of Refuse Costs Under the Unlimited and Two Container Limit Plans From the table on the preceding page, it can be seen that Unlimited Service is $17,633 higher than the Two Container Service in Year 1 and $6,348 higher in Year 2. In Year 3, the Two Container Service is $6,548 more than the Unlimited Service. Over the three year period, the cost of the Two Container Service is $17,433 less than the Unlimited Service, I think it should be pointed out that additional unit cost for the Two Container Service is an estimate. When we established the estimate, we were cautious that we did not understate the units that would be subject to the additional charge. I believe the estimate of 64,600 units above the two container limit is a maximum figure and could be significantly lower. One of the reasons is that when we established the estimate we did not have any basis for eliminating stickers purchased but not used. This has a tendency to increase the balance that were assumed to be used for refuse containers. Additionally, with expanded recycling under the new contract, especially corrugated materials,, I think we can expect the containers above two to decline. If the Modified Volume Based plan is selected, we will monitor the number of containers above the two container limit closely to make sure this method of payment continues to be in the best interest of the Village. It is my understanding that we have the option to change in the future if we choose. ROM M. Al 'Amami,, Mount Prospect Public Works 'Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ffi I 'lot �A _M L At the March 29, Cornm'ttee of the Whole Meeting the Mount Prospect Solid Waste Conunission presented their recommendations for the new residential solid waste contract. The Public Works Department concurs with the Comnii"ssion's analysis of the bid results and recommends the contract be awarded to the low bidder ARC Disposal Company and to * lement the followm"g provisions as detailed 'in the bid IMP specifications. Modified Volume -Based Service - (two (2) - 32 gallon contam*ers/bulk items, three (3) clean-up weeks and recycling sem'ces. .0 Optional Recyclables to be added, at no additional fee, to the nucleus of recyclables outlined in the bid specifications. Plastics (#3, 5. 6- & 7) Scrap Metal - parameters to be determined by Village Brush Collection to be continued under the current per bundle fee systerri .0 The Public Works Department fin-ther recommends that the Village enter into an extended five year solid waste contract lAith ARC Disposal. The recommendation is based on the prQjected costs for solidwaste services during this five year period. As the attached graph illustrates, (Total Refuse Collection Costs- Five Years) the costs for solid waste services under the terms submitted by ARC Disposal for years four and five are lower than the next lowest bidder's submittal for year one of the contact. lo The unit price *increase for years four and five will be based on the percentage changen"i the Chicago Regional C.P.I.; a low of 4.5% and a cap of 7.5%. rr" i ne increase shall be based on the percentage change in the C. P. 1. for the prior twelve (12) months ending July 3 1. To further demonstrate the significant cost sa-vings of an extended contract a survey 'of current solid waste feessuburban communities was conducted. This cost comparison, again, illustrates that the fee for solid waste services during years four and five would be less than the current solid waste fees of the communities surveyed. (Attached graph - Solid Waste/Recyclincr Curbside CollectionYTransportation) 0 Based on these additional cost comparisons, it remains the Public Works Department's recommendation to not only award the base bid three year contract to ARC Disposal but to flirther accept ARC's ten -ns for entering into a five year contract effecti've,, August I �O 1994 through July 3 1, 1999. $4,000,000 $3,750,000 $3,500,000 $3,250,000 $3,000,000 $2,750,000 $2,500,000 $2,250,000 $2,000,000 $1,750,000 $1,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,000,000 Total Refuse Collection Costs - Five Year Modified Volume -Based Single/Multifamily Combined Totals ARC Disposal Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot BFI ARC Disposal Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot BFI Year 1 $1,244,411 $1,845,857 $1,901,596 $2,165,021 $2,408,231 $2,477,158 $3,082,089 Year 2 1,322,980 1,973,365 1,996,583 2,230,183 2,482,982 2,579,677 3,203,937 Year 3 1,407,510 2,109,943 2,097,011 2,297,374 2,561,522 2,665,796 3,331,938 Year 4 1,506,036 2,257,639 2,243,802 2,458,881 2,740,829 2,873,801 3,565,174 Year 5 1,611,458 21415,673 2,400,868 2,631,003 2,932,687 3,074,967 3,814,736 Total $7,092,395 $10,602,477 $ 10,639,860 $ 11,782,46 1 $ 13,126,250 $ 13,691,399 $ 16,997,874 Costs shown above include the following: Modified volume based single-family refuse services including recycling Additional single-family containers Multifamily refuse services including recycling Yard material collection & disposal services Years 4 & 5 are based on an annual increase of 7% Note: There are no tipping fees included for refuse. VJL [SWBID94,XLS] 411194 No tipping fees included. Year 4 & 5 costs are based on an annual increase of 7%. VJL [SWBID94.XLS]Graphics E3 Modified N Unlimited ■ ------ . . . ........... --- -- --- --- ------------ N .................... ........... . ...... Mt. 'Prof2e"Cl, Nodlibrock Morton Grove wi/Irette 10VI'le"eling Ad Palatine Elk Grove Modified $4.95/6.41 N/A $7.78 . .... . . ... ...... ..... —.- -- N/A N/A - N/A ---- ..... ..... - N/A Unfimited N/A $6.75 N/A $8.26 $8.74 $10.00 $10.48 conlrnulw�tv Unit Cost conti"act Conti"act Terir,s Hauler Current Contract Exp iration Date Mt. Pospec r $4+. bid pending ARC .......... pending Northbrook 6.75 negotiated annual increases BFI 2000 (non-SWANCC) from 4.25% to 8.48% Morton Grovenegotiated cost of living increase Groot 1997 (average 3%) Wilmette 8.26 negotiated 80% of CPI BFI 1996 Wheeling 8.74 negotiatedhauler must Waste Mtg. 1996 justify increase in labor/operating costs Palatine 10.00 negotiated CPI: 7.5% cap BFI 1998 (labor/equipment/fuel) Elk Grove 10.48 pending pending Waste Mtg. 1994 No tipping fees included. Year 4 & 5 costs are based on an annual increase of 7%. VJL [SWBID94.XLS]Graphics Mount Prospect Public Works Department To TM MY UM INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO;, Village Managemr FROM: Director Public Works DATE: March 25, 1994 SUBJECT: Disposal of Contaminated Soils Pine/Wille TIF Site C 0 Finance Director Planning Director On November 8, 1993, a document for a proposed demolition and removal contract was sent out to bidders. At the time the speci- fications were drawn up, soil reports indicated the presence of contaminated soils on the south side of the old Public Works building at 11 S. Pine. Prior to moving from that building, we removed a leaking 10,000 -gallon underground gasoline tank and there was no cleanup procedure undertaken. Further, on the interior of the building, we had some leaking hydraulic lines and cylinders under the floor in the mechanics maintenance area, and we knew the soils had to be disposed of as contaminated waste material. As there was no way we could have determined the a -mount of con- taminated soils, the bid specifications stated in part, "Any existing soils which are found to have unacceptable levels of contamination will be the Village's responsibility/cost for removal." Once the building was demolished and the contractor was removing the foundation and footing, the presence of contani- nated soils was quite evident. Using portable monitoring equipment and sampling of the soils, the demolition contractor, Albrecht Enterprises, removed 126 truck loads or 1,795 cu. yds. of contaminated soils from the site and disposed of them at a special landfill. All charges related to this special removal, including hauling, disposal, and analytical charges, amounted to $111,219,00. This testing and removal of these soils was monitored closely so that, upon its sale, it would be a clean site, yet not allowing excessive removal to drive up our cleanup costs. After our contractor and I had agreed on the final scope of removal, a consultant for the proposed developer took some additional sam- ples to evaluate soil conditions. To the best of our knowledge, the site is now clean and I recommend that Albrecht Enterprises be paid the amount of their invoice, $111,219.00, for their ser- vices. Final waivers of lien are on file at the Public Works offices. HLW/td/attach, PINE-WIL.SOI/FILES/ADMIN LMAINTAI I - Mount Prospect Public orksaP artm+ent 7M CM USA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Director Public Works DATE: March 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Removal of Excess Concrete from Pine/Wille TIF Area On November 30, 1993, sealed bids were received for the demoli- tion and removal of four Village -owned properties. These includ- ed single-family houses at 5 S. Emerson and 17 S. Wille, the former Public Works building at 11 S. Pine, and the former Aldi/Wille Hardware property at 100 We Northwest Hwy. Under the terms of the general conditions, the prospective bidders were advised to go on a conducted tour of all sites to understand the scope of the demolition project. Under the specifications, the contractor's bid price had to include removal of any asbestos and/or other hazardous construction materials. The contractor was to completely remove the walls, foundations, footings, and basements of all the buildings so that the proposed developer of the planned TIF site would have clean property on which to build his project. Also, all asphalt had to be removed from the park- ing lots and the entire site graded level. As the contractor was removing the basement floor of the former Wille Hardware, he uncovered the bottom sections of four con- crete silos that were approximately 201 in diameter and 121 to. 151 deep. While removing the asphalt outside of this area., he unearthed sections of concrete foundations, the existence of which we were unaware of 0' The demolition contractor, Albrecht Enterprises, was awarded a contract in January 1994 for $119,790.00. He fulfilled his contractual obligations - prior to March 18, 1994 at all four sites. To be able to provide the developer with a debris -free site, it was agreed that the additional concrete would need to be removed in its entirety. As thi-s-material-'s existence was unknown to us prior to bidd.l.Ag and. excavation, the contractor is requesting an additional fee for its excavation, hauling, and disposal costs. The contractor was able to acquire some photo- graphs from 1949 and 1955J. which, depict the prior existence of the four silos and a concrete hopper (which we now know were for storage of coal) plus several other buildings which had been. on the site. The previous owners of the property then razed the old buildings and built a parking 1ot over the foundations. recommend approval for payment of an additional $7,509.00 to Albrecht Enterprises for the removal and disposal of this extra material. The revised demolition contract would now be $127,299*006 � ^ \ \ ~ ^ � � � ^ ` ��. \�a a .\ �\: ?� .�\/ »\� \©:» . !. Heib-ex-t L Weeks, PINE WIL,CON /FILES /ADMIN M, ''A M%4 Mount Prospect Public 'Works Department T INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TIM MY USA TO: Village Manager FROM: Director Public Works DATE: March 31, 1994 SUBJECT: Pine/Wille TIF Dist, Infrastructure In conjunction with the pending sale and proposed development of Village -owned properties commonly referred to as,Pine/Wille TIF district, it is'recommended that the existing infrastructure be replaced. I have solicited proposals from consulting engineer- ing firms to review existing infrastructure, make recommenda- tions on improvements, redesign, bid, and inspect all Work asso- ciated with the public improvements. Current condition -s as follows: Sewers: Both on Pine and Wille Streets, we have 12" diame- ter combined sewers. These sewers run down the middle of the streets, and recent televising showed there were numer- ous cracks and separations in the tiles. The engineer will also review the size of the sewers in relation to the pro- jected increased flow. In prior years, we experienced flooding on Pine Street from storm, water runoff. 'Water, Ma,lLns: It's recommended that all water mains be re- placed. The main on Wille Street is 611 diameter and con- nects to a 1011 and 1211 main on Busse Ave,, and on Northwest Highway. Six inch main needs to be increased to a mini mum 81' diameter. On Pine Street, we have an existing 1011 main that has had to be repaired several times and it is laying within 1811 of a 70,000 volt underground electric line. At the very least, we have to replace the main at the same size, but install -it in the parkway away from the electric line. Streets: Both Pine and Wille Streets need to be removed and replaced. Pine Street needs to be reconstructed as there is a base failure, and there is a need to replace all curbing and possibly reconfigure the intersection at North- west Highway. Wille Street will be reverted back to two- way traf f ic . which will involve removal of several existing landscaped islands and possibly a reconf iguration of the intersection of Wille/Busse./Northwest Highway. Invitational proposals were sent- to foux: consulting engineering firms and two proposals were returned. The firms of Hampton, Lenzini, and Renwick Inc. plus Metcalf and Eddy chose not to submit a proposal due to their current and projected commit- ments. .The two proposals received were from: Rust Environment & Infrastructure $63r930 Civiltech Engineering, Inc. $63,962 Both proposals were carefully reviewed and interviews were held with the principals, Although the proposals.are extre'me,ly close, the experience factor of the two project teams were qui-te dissimilar. To change some of the project team personnel in the Civiltech proposal to be comparable to the Rust team would cost an additional $5800. I recommend acceptance of the proposal as submitted by Rust Environment & Infrastructure in an amount not to exceed $63,930.00. This consulting engineering service includes total street, sewer, and water design and construction fee, PUTA9W.6 i ,,xbert L, Weeks Village of Mount Prospect Year I Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 7th bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste M1g Northshore Groot Browning -Fords sposai Oiwsar 44 Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control RecvdinqUaste Industries Current Basic Service athgle-Farnill &-tose - Annual fee for 13,425 $ 528,408.00 $ 5811571.00 $ 633,123.00 $ 950,490.00 $ 916,659.00 $ 1,440,234.00 $ 1,387,071.00 $ 1,512,729.00 curbside refuse collection/transportation service per residential unit - SWANCC waste - no tipping fee included (once a week service) - No container limit 5_091_et-Eamily &M-Iftig - Annual fee for 13,425 3221200.00 462,357.00 473,634.00 4021750.00 652,455.00 389,862.00 6001903.00 333,477.00 once a week basic service; includes 50/50 split of recycling revenue. Recycling includes the following materials: aluminum food & beverage containers; linlbi-metallsteel cans including aerosol cans; clear and colored glass bottleslcontainers; all HDPE & PETE plastic containers; corrugated cardboard, telephone books; mixed paper, magazines, chipboard, milk cartons, drink boxes, formed aluminum food containers. I I - MuNmit -Bg 7892 P 172,950.72 519,249.48 475,599.48 396,531.00 466,853.64 567,651.84 467,532.12 507# 438.24 Annual cost; SWANCC waste; no tipping fee included i , - - Annual Wfiffarnfl -cvcl'rm I Toter Fee; i - 4,265 22,575.36 39,199.92 1080858.84 731800.00 61978.00 691513.72 1131256.00 221 513.02 includes 50/50 split of recycling revenues; same items as single-family Muffilamily-Repycling - Annual Curbside 335 81040.00 111537.40 11,818-80 101050.00 16,281.00 9,728.40 141994.60 8,296.56 Fee - including 50/50 split of recycling revenues; same items as single-family Multifamily Subtotal $ 203,566.08 $ 569,986.80 $ 596l277.12 $ 480,381.00 $ 490,112.64 $ 646,893.96 $ 595,782.72 $ 538,247-82 Basic Service Sint e/Muldfamly Combined Total 21,317 $1tO541174.08 $1t6139914.80 $1,703,034.12 $1,833t,621,00 1226.64 $2,05% $2,476t989.96 $21583t756.72 $2;3841453.82* Includes tipping fees These figures reflect bids with no recycling revenue split; contractor keeps all revenues generated by recycling. VJL [SWBID94,XLS] 3118/94 Long Form Page 1 Village of Mount Prospect Year 1 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 7th bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot Browning -Ferns Disposw DiAAA sposal Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control Reodin_ AWste Industries Modified Volume Based Service _%n ! g�Fa :i �JR �ef se- _nn _ �al F �ee 13,425 7971445.00 110141930.00 19013,319.00, 1,288,800-00 114781898.00 11507,896.00 210749968.00 two 32 -gallon containers/bulk items, 3 cleanup weeks, recycling; SWANCC waste - no tipping fee included - (once a week service) Modified Volume Based Unit Cost for N/A 0.55 0.90 1.25 1.00 1.75 1.38 1.58 each container/bag/bundle or bulk item not covered by monthly fee. Unit cost is for collection, transportation, and disposal at SWANCC site; all SWANCC waste; no tipping fee included. (Estimated quantity: 64,600 units) Modified Volume Based Single/ Current =I N/A Multifamily Combined Total 21?317 $ 19001,011.08 $ 1,584,916.80 $ 116090596.12 $ 1J69J81.00 $ 11969j010.64 $ 21154,789.96 $ 29670;750.72 N/A % Discount allowed Village for payment 1% N/B N/B N/B N/B N/B N/B 1% made by 20th day of following month. Yard Material Collection & Disposal Single - Family - Curbside fee per bag/ 1.23 1.20 1.25 1.96 1.93 1.38 1.83 1.21 bundle/container; estimated quantities: Bags/Containers: 129,000 Bundles: 40,000 Bumllg,�-m�h option - Single-family 13,425 0.70 1.52 1.25 0-55 0.50 N/B 0.70 N/A monthly fee for unlimited curbside bundled brush collection - 12 month billing period. Bid no 50/50 split under modified volume based service VA ISWBID94.XLS13/18/94 Long Form Page 2 Village of Mount Prospect Year 1 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 7th bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Waste S I -ems Northwest Waste Control Vs Service Options Cost per N/A item including collection/processing/ disposal - billed direct to user. tional 6d4R I -- vgk_a- - Amount to be added to monthly unit/toter fee or if none indicate N/C (no charge). Plastics (#3, 5, 6, 7) Car Batteries Motor Oil Scrap Metal aReg_u !Q §--.-ao House oO -Amount to be q Q_ _I added trimonthly single-family basic service or modified volume base fee or if none indicate N/C (no charge) SWANCC Tipping Fee; total single and multifamily (24,000 tons estimated @ 40.45 per ton) 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 25.00 Groot Browning-Ferris ing -- .1 Uas re Industries Current 30.00 20.00 N/A N/C N/C N/C N/A N/C N/A 0.25 N/A N/C N/A N/C - dropoff N/A N/C N/A N/C N/A N/A 1.00/gal N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.75 NIA N/C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.07 N/A N/A 0�1 1 970,800.00 970,800.00 970,800.00 970,800-00 970,800.00 970,800.00 9701800.00 NIA VJL ISWBID94,XLS] 3/18/94 Long Form Page 3 Village of Mount Prospect Year 2 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 71h bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste M1g Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris wosal Disposal Waste Systems Northwest " Waste Control RecyclinglWaste Industries 5tfl gle-�rW�� fu g - Annual fee for 131425 $ 5541184.00 $ 628,290.00 $ 665,343.00 $ 979,488.00 $ 9441046.00 $ 114980230.00 $ 114321179.00 curbside refuse collection/transportation service per residential unit - SWANCC waste - no tipping fee included (once a week service) - No container limit Sin le -Fail Rgc 415 638.00 671 787.00 405 972.00 596,070.00 yclij - Annual fee for 13,425 338,310.00 499410.00 492966.00 0 1 1 1 1 1 once a week basic service; includes 50/50 split of recycling revenue. Recycling includes the following materials: aluminum food & beverage containers; linlbi-metallsteel cans including aerosol cans; clear and colored glass bottles/containers; all HDPE & PETE plastic containers; corrugated cardboard, telephone books; mixed paper, magazines, chipboard, milk cartons, drink boxes, formed aluminum food containers. Single Family Subtotal $ 8920494.00 $ 1,12 7, 700.00 $ 1,158,309.00 $ 1,395,126.00 $ 1, 615, 833.00 $ 1, 904, 202.00 $ 2, 028, 249.00 Multi-fam it R ffuse Co 7,892 1861670.92 540,754.80 4991368.12 4081415.44 4801874.68 5911729.60 500,251.80 Annual cost; SWANCC waste; no tipping fee included MgWfanljl ftl - Annual Toter Fee; 4,265 231710.80 421306.60 114,026.76 760014.00 71207.92 72,319.08 117,372.00 includes 50/50 split of recycling revenues; same items as single-family Multifanailiv -Recycling - Annual Curbside 335 81442.00 120462.00 123301.20 101371.60 16,763.40 10,130.40 150436.80 Fee - including 50/50 split of recycling revenues; same items as single-family Multifamily Subtotal $ 218,823.72 $ 595,523.40 $ 625,696-08 $ 494,801.04 $ 504,846-00 $ 674,179.08 $ 633,060.60 Basic Service Single/Multifamly Combined Total 21,317 $11,111y317.72 $19723,223.40 $1J841005.08 $13889l927.04 $29120l679.00 $2,578p381.08 $2t661,309.60 Includes tipping fees - These figures reflect bids with no recycling revenue split; contractor keeps all revenues generated by recycling. VJL [SWBID94,XLS) 3/18/94 Long Form Page 4 Modified Volume Based Service Single -Family R fftfse - Annu mat Eq two 32 -gallon containers/bulk items, 3 cleanup weeks, recycling; SWANCC waste - no tipping fee included (once a week service) Modified Volume Based Unit Cost for each container/bag/bundle or bulk item not covered by monthly fee. Unit cost is for collection, transportation, and disposal at SWANCC site; all SWANCC waste; no tipping fee included. (Estimated quantity: 64,600 units) Modified Volume Based Single/ Village of Mount Prospect Year 2 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 71h bid opening and current solid waste services billing 01rArc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris oi.... Disposal Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control Recydin glrite lndustfies 13,425 8471386.00 1,095,480.00 1,064,871.00 1,327,464.00 11524,006.00 1,559,114.00 211399408-00 N/A 0.60 0.97 1.31 1.03 1.85 1.44 1.63 Multifamily Combined Total 21,317 $ 1,066,209-72 $ 1,691,003.44 $ 1,694,567.48 $ '1,822,285.04 $ 2l028l852.00 $ 292439293.08 $ 2,772,468,60 % Discount allowed Village for payment 1 % N/B NIB NIB N/B N/B NIB made by 20th day of following month. Yard Material Collection & Disposal -5 ingle-Fam"ly 1.29 1.30 1.31 2.02 i - Curbside fee per bag/ 1.98 1.44 1.93 bundlelcontainer; estimated quantities: Bags/Containers: 129,000 Bundles. 40,000 1 Uvried-blush Wioa - Single-family 13,425 0.73 1.64 1.31 0.57 0.52 N/A 0.75 monthly fee for unlimited curbside bundled brush collection - 12 month billing period. Bid no 50/50 split under modified volume based service VJL [SWI3094ALS] 3/18M Long Form Page 5 Village of Mount Prospect Year 2 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 7th bid opening and current solid waste services billing 1117Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste MIg Northshore -Groot Browning-Ferris ,Disp- osaf Dispasaf Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control Re-cycliaglWasle Industries Service Options M_,,fte_QQQ__d,s CgIle-c-fign - Cost per N/A item including collection/processing/ disposal - billed direct to user. &-dditional Reqcjaoles - Amount to be added to monthly unit/toter fee or if none indicate N/C (no charge). Plastics (#3, 5, 60 7) Car Batteries Motor Oil Scrap Metal RL —eu - — uble House _Qo� - Amount to be added to monthly single-family basic service or modified volume base fee or if none indicate N/C (no charge) SWANCC Tipping Fee, total single and multifamily (24,000 tons estimated @ 43.58 per ton) 15.00 22.00 25.00 31.50 25.00 32.00 25.00 N/C N/C N/C N/A N/C N/A 0.30 N/C N/A NIC - dropoff N/A N/C N/A N/C N/A 1.20/gal N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.80 N/C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.09 N/A N/A 11045,920.00 1,045,920.00 1,045,920.00 11045,920.00 1,0451920.00 110451920.00 1,045,920.00 VJL ISWBID94.XLS] 3/18/94 Long Form Page 6 Village of Mount Prospect Year 3 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 7th bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Lai aw Waste Mig Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris ;Posaf Disposal it Waste SWems Northwest " Waste Control Pec- i ante Industries Basic Service Single Fa Ami X q- g - Annual fee for 13,425 $ 5811571.00 $ 6781231.00 $ 697,563.00 1,008,486.00 $ 973,044.00 $ 1,557,837.00 $ 1,477,287.00 _ J _ Rg _t-§ curbside refuse collection/transportation service per residential unit - SWANCC waste - no tipping fee included (once a week service) - No container limit Sinate-FamilvRecycling - Annual fee for 13,425 3561031-00 539,685.00 513,909.00 4281526.00 6921730.00 4221082.00 636,345.00 once a week basic service; includes 50/50 split of recycling revenue. Recycling includes the following materials: aluminum food & beverage containers; linlbi-metallsteel cans including aerosol cans; clear and colored glass bottles/containers; all HDPE & PETE plastic containers; corrugated cardboard; telephone books; mixed paper, magazines, chipboard, milk cartons, drink boxes, formed aluminum food containers. Single Family Subtotal $ 937,602.00 $ 1, 217, 916.00 $ 1,211,472.00 $ 1,437,012.00 $ 1, 665, 774.00 $ 1,979,919.00 $ 2,113,632.00 MUtt3&a_Miht_�__ - �_�J[ i- - 7,892 201,438.48 562,260.12 5249344-56 4201660.12 4951305.40 6151386.40 535,257.48 Annual cost; SWANCC waste; no tipping fee included Mu-11tha-m-HORem in _ Annual Toter Fee; 4,265 24,887.40 451700.44 1199440.68 78,285.24 7o396-68 751197.76 1210488.00 includes 50/50 split of recycling revenues; same items as single-family Multifamily R, cin - Annual Curbside Cqyq1_' 335 8,884.20 131467.00 12,823.80 101693.20 171286.00 10,532-40 15,879.00 Fee - including 50/50 split of recycling revenues; same items as single-family Multifamily Subtotal $ 235,210.08 $ 621,427.56 $ 656,609.04 $ 509,638.56 $ 519,988.08 $ 701,116.56 $ 672,624.48 Basic Service Single/Multifamly Combined Total 21,317 $ 19172,812.08 $ 11839,343.56 $ 1,868,081.04 $ 1;946,650.56 $ 2g185l762.08 $ 2;681;035.56 $ 2,786,256.48 Includes tipping fees These figures reflect bids with no recycling revenue split; contractor keeps all revenues generated by recycling. VJL (SWBID94.XLS] 3/18/94 Long Form Page 7 Modified Volume Based Service abialkelEmam"Ouse - A - nu at Fee. two 32 -gallon containers/bulk items, 3 cleanup weeks, recycling; SWANCC waste - no tipping fee included (once a week service) Modified Volume Based Unit Cost for each container/bag/bundle or bulk item not covered by monthly fee. Unit cost is for collection, transportation, and disposal at SWANCC site; all SWANCC waste; no tipping fee included. (Estimated quantity: 64,600 units) Modified Volume Based Single/ Village of Mount Prospect Year 3 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 71h bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Ladlaw Waste Mig Notthstwe Groot Browning-Ferris usposat Disposal Waste Sysf ems Northwest Waste Control Re, q-dingvWaste Industries 13,425 9021160.00 1,184,085.00 1,118,034.00 1,367,739.00 1,569,114.00 106311943.00 21207,070.00 N/A 0.65 1.05 1.38 1.06 1.95 1.51 1.69 Multifamily Combined Total 21,317 $ 10137,370.08 $ 1l8051512.56 $ I p774v643.04 $ 118779377.56 $ 290899102.08 $ 2,333,059.56 $ 2,879,694.48 % Discount allowed Village for payment 1 % N/B N/B N/B N/B N/B N/B made by 20th day of following month. - Yard Material Collection & Disposal Sin_ jg�Famlly - Curbside fee per bag/ 1.35 1.40 1.38 2.08 2.05 1.51 2.03 bundle/container; estimated quantities: Bags/Containers: 129,000 Bundles: 40,000 d brq _h QpL OgndS l , a I fipp -_ - Single-family 13,425 0.77 1.77 1.38 0.59 0.55 N/A 0.85 monthly fee for unlimited curbside bundled brush collection - 12 month billing period. Bid no 50/50 split under modified volume based service VJL [SWBID94.XLS] 3/18/94 Long Form Page 8 Village of Mount Prospect Year 3 Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 71h bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris rDiWosal Disposal waste sy'stems-, Northwest Waste Control Sec yclin glWante Industries Service Options Wh Ile Goods L - i n -Cost per N/A 15.00 24.00 25.00 33.00 25.00 35.00 30.00 item including collection/processing/ disposal - billed direct to user. &ddilignal, Repy labl - Amount to be added to monthly unit/toter fee or if none indicate N/C (no charge). Plastics (#3, 5, 6, 7) N/C N/C N/C N/A N/C N/A 0.40 Car Batteries N/C N/A N/C - dropoff N/A N/C N/A N/C Motor Oil N/A 1.30/gal N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.90 Scrap Metal N/C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ryusabig House iGook - Amount to be N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.11 N/A N/A added to monthly single-family basic service or modified volume base fee or if none indicate N/C (no charge) SWANCC Tipping Fee; total single and 11133,760.00 1,133,760-00 1,133,760.00 11133,760.00 10133,760.00 1,133,760.00 19133,760.00 multifamily (24,000 tons estimated @ 47.24 per ton) VJL JSWE3JD94,XLSl 311 a194 Long Form Page 9 Village of Mount Prospect Total Refuse Collection Costs Costs projected from March 71h bid opening and current solid waste services billing Arc Sexton Laidlow Waste Mfg Notilis Groot Browning-Ferris Dispoal Waste Systeras Northwest Waste Control RecydingUaste Industries Three Year Basic Service Single/Multifamly Combined Total $ 3,338,303.88 $ 5,176,481.76 $ 5,355,120.24 $ 5,670,198.60 $ 6,365,667.72 $ 7,736,406.60 $ 8,031,322.80 Three Year Modified Volume Based Single/ Multifamily Combined Total $ 3,204,590.88 $ 5,081,432-76 $ 5,074,806.24 $ 5,468,823.60 $ 6,086,964.72 $ 6,731,142.60 $ 8,322,913.80 Total Three Year Estimated SWANCC Tipping Fees $ 311500480.00 $ 3,150,480.00 $ 3,150,480-00 $ 3,150,480.00 $ 3,150,480.00 $ 3,150,480.00 $ 3,150,480.00 VJL [SWBID94.XL5] 3/18/94 Long Form Page 10 Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, 1994 @ 10:OOAM Part 1: Refuse Collection and Disposal A. Basic Service 1,. Single -Family - Monthly fee for curbside refuse collection/transportation service per residential unit - SWANCC waste - no tipping fee included (once a week service) [Page 55] 2. Multifamily Refuse Collection Service Fee/Schedule (cost per month; containers supplied by contractor- SWANCC waste; no tipping fee included) [Pages 55-56] Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mig Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris 5posal Disposal Waste Systeras Northwest Waste Control Recycling/Waste Industries Rex Year 1 3.28 3.61 3.93 5.90 5.69 8.94 8.61 No bid Year 2 3.44 3.90 4.13 6.08 5.86 9.30 8.89 Year 3 3.61 4.21 4.33 6.26 6.04 9.67 9.17 Once a week - Year I I cu. yd. 5.22 15.67 20.00 14.68 15.77 28.64 30.44 1.5 cUyd. 7.83 23.51 24.51 18.27 22.59 30.41 34.45 2 cu. yd. 10.44 31.35 29.33 21 �85 29.41 32.91 39 49 4 cu. yd. 2088 62.70 38-80 43.34 5&69 42.25 60.06 6 cu, yd. 31.32 94.05 46-06 57.67 83,98 51.07 73.30 8 cu. yd. 41.76 125.40 654,80 72.00 111.26 6-0.63 86.08 10 cu. yd. 52-20 156.75 82.58 86.32 138.54 69.24 97.81- 7.81Twice Twicea week - Year I 1 cu. yd, 10.44 31.35 37.90 29.36 29.41 54.93 42.29 1.5 u. yd --- 15. - 66 . ....... 47.02 47.48 36.54 43.05 58.51 50.29 2 cu. yd. 20.88 62.70 57.08 43.70 56.69 62.83 59,30 4 cu, yd- 41.76 125.40 76.01 86.68 111.26 79.43 92.43 6 cu. yd, 62.64 188.10 90.53 115.34 165.82 9552 111.10 8 cu. yd. 8352 250.79 ' 129.55 144.00 220.39 112-33 129.32 10 cu yd. 104.40 3143�.49 162.44 172.64 274.95 128.20 146.43 VJL (SWBID94ALS] 3/14/94 Long Form Page I Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, 1994 @ 10:OOAM VJL [SWBID94-XLS) 3/14/94 Long Form Page 2 Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mtg Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris Rex Disposal Disposal Waste -Systems Northwest Waste Control Reqdingftasle Industries Disposal Three times a week - Year I 1 cu. yd, 15-66 47.02 57.72 44.04 43.05 81.22 54.14 No bid 1.5 cu. yd. 23.50 70.54 71.99 54.81 63.51 86.22 6-6.18 2 cu. yd. 31.32 94.05 86.41 65.55 8198 92.75 79.10 4 cu. yd. 62.64 188.10 114.80 130.02 165.82 116.61 124.80 6 cu. yd. 93.96 282.14 136.58 173.01 247.67 139.96 14&90 8 cu. yd- 125.28 376.19 195.34 216.00 329.51 164.03 172.54 10 cu. yd. 156.60 470.i47- 245-03 258.96 411-36 18717 195-05 Four times a week - Year I 1 cu. yd. -1-6 -cu, 20.88 62.70 77.54 58.72 56.69 107.40 65.98 yd. 31.32 94.05 96.50 73.08 83.98 114.72 81.99 2 cu. yd. 41.76 125.40 115.73 67.40 111.26 122.66- 98.91 4 cu. yd, 83.52 250-79 153.59 173.36 220,39 153.79 157.17 6 cu. yd- 125.28 376.19 182- .63 230.68 329.51 184.40 186.70 8 cu, yd. 167.04 501.59 261,14 268--.60- 438.64 215.74 215.77 10 cu. yd, 208.80 626.6-6-- 327.61 345.28 547.77 246,14 243.66 Five times a week - Year I 1 cu. yd. 26.10 78.37 97.36 73.40 70.34 133.79 77.83 1.5 cu. yd® 39.15 117.56 121.01 91.35 104.44 142.82 97.84 2 cu. yd. 7 -4 --cu. 52.20 156.75 145.05 109.25 138.54 152.58 118.72 yd. 104.40 313.49 192.39 2-16--.70 274.95 190 9-7 189.54 6 cu. yd. 156-60 470 24- 228.69 - 288.35 411.36 228.84 224.51 8 cu. yd. 208.80 626.98 326.93 360.00 547-77 267.44 259.00 10 cu. yd. 261.00 783-73 410.19 431.60 684.18 305-.10 292.28 Once a week - Year 2 1 cu, yd. 5.64 16.32 21.00 15.12 16.24 29.79 32.57 yd, 8.45 24.49 25,74 18.82 23.27 31.63 36.86 2 cu. yd. 11.27 32.65 30.79 22.51 30.29 34-23 42.25 4 cu. yd. 22.55 65-30 40.74 58,39--- 43.94 64.26 6 cu. yd, 33.82 97.'-94 48.36 -44.6'-'4- 59,40 86.50 53.11 78.43 8 cu. yd. 45.10 130.59 69.09 74.16 114.60 63.0-6 9211 10 cu. yd. 56.37 163.24 86.71 88.91 14170 72.01 104-66 VJL [SWBID94-XLS) 3/14/94 Long Form Page 2 Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening -!March 7, 1994 @ 10:OOAM Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mfg Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris Rex =- Sal aispasal Waste System Northwest Waste Control RecychtWWaste Industries 14's-00-4 8 cu. yd. 90.20 ,261.19 136.02 148.32 227.00 116.82 138.88 10 cu. yd. 112.74 26.48 170.56 177.82 283.20 133.32 156.68 Three times a week - Year 2 Twice a week - Year 2 1 cu. yd. 1 cu. yd. 11.28 32.65 39.79 30.24 30.29 57.13 45.25 No bid 1.5 cu. yd. 16.90 48.97 49.85 37.64 44.34 60.85 53.81 2 cu. yd. 22.54 65.30 59.94 45.01 58.39 65.34 63.45 4 cu. yd. 45.10 130.59 79,81 89.28 114.60 82,61 98.90 6 cu. yd. 67.64 195.89 95.05118.80 255.10 170.80 99.34 118.88 8 cu. yd. 90.20 ,261.19 136.02 148.32 227.00 116.82 138.88 10 cu. yd. 112.74 26.48 170.56 177.82 283.20 133.32 156.68 VJL [SWBID94,XLSI 3/14/94 Long Form Page 3 Three times a week - Year 2 1 cu. yd. 16.92 48.97 60.60 45.36 44.34 84.47 57.'93 1.5 cu. yd. 25.35 73.46 75.59 56.45 65.42 90-08 70.81 2 cu. yd. 33.81 97.94 90.73 67.52 86-50 96.46 84.64 4 cu. yd. 67.65 195.89 120-54 133.92 170.80 121.27 133.54 6 cu. yd. 101.46293.83 391.78 143.41 178.20 255.10 1415.56 159.32 8 cu. yd. 135.30-391.78 522.37 205.10 222.48 339.40 170.59 184.62 10 cu. yd. 169.10 489.72 257.28 266-73 423.70 194.66 208.70 VJL [SWBID94,XLSI 3/14/94 Long Form Page 3 Four times a week - Year 2 1 cu. yd. 22.56 65.30 81.41 60.48 58.39 111.80 70.60 1.5 cu. yd. 33.80 97.94 101-32 75,27 86.50 119,31 87.73 -2 -cu. y d. 45.08 1-30.59 121 �52 90.02 114-60 127-57 105.83 4 --cu. y& 190,20 261.19 161,27 1178.56 227.00 159.94 168.17 6 cu. yd- -135-28 391.78 191.76 237.60 339.40 191.78 199.78 8 cu. yd. 180.40 522.37 274.19 296.64 451.80 224.37 230.87 10 cu. yd. 225.48 652.96 343.99 355.64 564.20 255.99 260.72 VJL [SWBID94,XLSI 3/14/94 Long Form Page 3 Five times a week - Year 2 1 cu. yd, 28.20 81.62 102.23 75.60 72.45 139.14 83.28 1.5 cu. yd, 42.25 12243 127M 94.09 107.57 148.53 104,619 yd- 56.35 16124 152.31 112.53 142.70 158.68 127.03 cu. yd. 112,75 326A -8 202.01 223.20 283.20 198.61 202.81 6 cu- yd- 169.10 489.72 240.12 297.00 423.70 237.98 240.12 8 cu. yd. 22,550 652-96 343.27 370.80 564.20 278-14 277.13 10 cu. yd. 281,85 816.21 430.70 444-55 704.71 317.30 312.74 VJL [SWBID94,XLSI 3/14/94 Long Form Page 3 I Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, 1994 @ 10:OOAM 1 cu. yd, 12.16 33.95 Twice a week - Year 3 41.79 31.15 31.20 59.42 48.42 1.5 cu. yd. 18.24 Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mfg Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris Rex 10 DArc is Disposal Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control ReqdingWaste 'Industries Disposal 4 cu. yd. 48.68 135.79 83.80 91.96 118-03 85.91 105.82 Once a week - Year 3 203.68 99.80 1 cu. yd. 6.08 16-97 22-05 15.57 16.73 30.98 34.85 No bid 1.5 cu. yd, 9.12 25.46 27.03 19.38 2197 32.90 39.44 2 cu. yd. 12.16 33.95 32.33 23.19 31.20 35.60 45.12 4 cu. yd, 24.34 67.89 42.78 45.98 60.1-5 45.70 68.76 6 cu. yd, 36.50 101.84 50.78 61.18 8909 55.23 8192 8 cu. yd, 48.68 135.79 72.54 76.38 118.03 65,58 98-55 10 cu. yd, 60.85 169.74 91.05 91.58 146.98 74.89 111.98 1 cu. yd, 12.16 33.95 Twice a week - Year 3 41.79 31.15 31.20 59.42 48.42 1.5 cu. yd. 18.24 50.92 52.34 38.77 45.68 63.28 57.58 2 cu. yd. 24.32 67.89 62.94 46.36 60.15 67.95 67.89 4 cu. yd. 48.68 135.79 83.80 91.96 118-03 85.91 105.82 6 cu, yd. -cu. -yd. 73.00 203.68 99.80 122.36 175.92 103.31 127.20 -F0 97-.36 271.58 142.82 152.77 233.81 121.49 147.96 cu- yd. 121,30 339.47 179.09 183.15 291.70 138,65 167.65 Four times a week - Year 3 1 cu. yd. 24.32 67.89 Three times a week - Year 3 62.29 60.15 116.27 1 cu. yd, 18.24 50.92 63.63 46.72 45.68 87.85 61.99 1.5 cu. yd. 27.36 76.38 7-9-37 58.14 67.38 93.68 75.77 113.24 36.48 101.84 95.27 69.55 89.09 100-32 90.56 4 cu. yd. 73.00 20168 126.57 137.94 175-92 126.12 142.88 6 cu. yd. -yd. 109.50 - 305.52 150.58 183.55 262.75 151.38 170.48 8 cu- 146.64 407.37 215.36 229.15 349.58-177.41 58113 197.54 10 cu. yd. 182.55 509.21 270.14 274.73 436.41 262.4-5 223.31 Four times a week - Year 3 1 cu. yd. 24.32 67.89 8548 62.29 60.15 116.27 75.5 .5 cu, ydE 36A8 101.84 106.39 �77.53 89.09 124M 93.87 2 cu. yd. 48.64 135.79 127.60 92.72 118.03 132.67 113.24 4 cu-. yd, 97.36 271.5-8 169.33 183.92 233.81 166.34 1M94 6 cu. yd. 146.00 407.37 201.35 24433 349.58 199.45 213.75 8 cu. yd, 194.72 543.16 287.90 305.54 465.36 233.34 247,04 10 cu. yd. 243.40--6-78.94 361.19 366.31 58113 266.23 278.97 VJL [SW8ID94ALS] 3114/94 Long Form Page 4 Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, 1991 @ 10:OOAM VJL 1SWBID94ALS) 3/14/94 Long Form Page 5 Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste Mfg Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris Rex 334.63 Dispow Dispow Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control RecydingVftsle Industries as 0.00% 0.00% made by 20th day of following month - Year 2 1.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Five times a week - Year 3 Article IX Par. D. [Page XX] Year 3 1 cu. yd. 30.40 84.87 107.34 77.87 74.62 144.71 89.11 No bid 1.5 cu. yd. 45-.60127-3,0 133.41 96.91 110.80 154.47 112.02 2 cu. yd- 60.80 169.74 159.93 115.91 146.98 165.03 135.92 4 cu. yd. 121.70 339.47 2-12.11 229.90 291.70 206.55 217.00 6 cu. yd. 182.50 50921 252.13 305.91 436.41 247.50 256.93 8 cu. yd, 243.40 678.94 36043 38192 581,13 289.27 296.53 VJL 1SWBID94ALS) 3/14/94 Long Form Page 5 10 cu. yd. 304.25 848.68 452.24 457.89 725.85 329.99 334.63 5. % Discount allowed Village for payment Year 1 1.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% made by 20th day of following month - Year 2 1.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Article IX Par. D. [Page XX] Year 3 1.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00% 6. Optional Direct Billing Fee - Cost per item including collection, processing and Year 1 0.10 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.62 1.25 1.05 disposal. Charges to be billed direct to Year 2 0.10 0.65 0.66 0.50 0.64 1.35 1.05 resident. Year 3 0.10 0.68 0.69 0.50 0.67 1.45 1.05 B. Special Services 1. White Goods Collection Fee - Cost per item including collection, processing Year 1 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 25.00 30.00 20.00 and disposal. Charges to be billed direct 15.00 22.00 25.00 31.50 25.00 32.00 25.00 to resident. [Page 57] --"Ye-ar2 Year 3 15.00 24.00 25.00 33.00 25.00 35.00 30.00 2. Back Door Service - Monthly additional surcharge for providing rear door refuse, Year 1 20.00 10.83 10.00 9.00 4.25 6.00 18.00 recycling & yard material service; charge Year 2 20.50 11.70 10.50 9.50 4.50 6.50 21.00 to be billed direct to resident. Year 3 21.00 12.63 11.02 10.00 4.75 7.00 24.00 VJL 1SWBID94ALS) 3/14/94 Long Form Page 5 Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, 1994 g 1 O:OOAM Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste M1g Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris )T Disposal Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control Recyr*olWaste Industries Part 11: Alternate #1 - Modified Volume Based Collection A. Refuse CollectionfTransportation/DisposaI Rex 1 Modified Volume Based System - Single- 1.42 1.97 2.19 N/A 2.22 (see note). SWANCC waste; no tipping Year 2 1.27 1.30 1.49 family monthly fee, including refuse/ N/A 2.29 fees included. Year 3 1.41 1.40 1.57 2.09 2.32 N/A recycling/bulk items and two (2) clean-up Note: Unit cost submitted is contractors cost per the specification. To this price the Village will add the tipping fee, administration and commission fee which will then determine the sticker selling price. Hauler made a verbal request that adjustment be made weeks. SWANCC waste: no tipping fee Year 1 41.95 6.30 6.29 8.00 9.18 9.36 12.88 No bid to be included (once a week service) Year 2 5.26 *6.80 6.61 8.24 9.46 9.74 13.28 [Page 57] Year 3 5.60, ---*-*7.35 6.94 8.49 9.74 10.13 13.70 " Prices stated include no 50/50 split of recychung revenue 2. Optional Modified Volume Based System - single family monthly fee. Year 1 4.95 6.30 6.33 8.25 9.39 9.46 13.10 Same as #1 above with three (3) clean-up Year 2 5.26 6.80 6.65 8,50 9167 9.84 13.50 weeks. [Page 57] Year 3 5.60 7.35 6.98 8.76 9.96 10.23 1193 " Prices stated include no 50/50 split of recycliung revenue 3. Unit cost for each container, bag, bundle or bulk item not covered by monthly fee in #1 or #2. Unit cost is for collection, transportation and disposal at SWANCC Year 1 0.55 0.90 1.25 1.00 1.75 1.38 1.58 site; all SWANCC waste. No tipping fee Year 2 0.60 0.97 1.31 1.03 1.85 1.44 1.63 to be included. [Page 57] Year �i 0.65 1.05 1.38 1.06 1.95 1.51 1.69 Part III: Alternate #2 - Pure Volume -Based Collection A. Refuse Collection/Transportation/Disposal 1. Pure Volume Based System: single family pay -by -bag 'system including all basis service refuse colection/ transportation, recycling, and three (3) clean-up weeks fee per bag/container Year 1 1.21 1.20 1.42 1.97 2.19 N/A 2.22 (see note). SWANCC waste; no tipping Year 2 1.27 1.30 1.49 2.03 2.25 N/A 2.29 fees included. Year 3 1.41 1.40 1.57 2.09 2.32 N/A 2.36 Note: Unit cost submitted is contractors cost per the specification. To this price the Village will add the tipping fee, administration and commission fee which will then determine the sticker selling price. Hauler made a verbal request that adjustment be made to Part II, 1A due to error in pricing submitted; cost of recycling should have been added. For comparison purposes adjustment was made - letter to be submitted. VJL [SMID94ALS] 3/14/94 Long Form Pa9e 6 Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, 1994 @ 10:OOAM Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste MIg Northshore Groot 3posai Disposal Waste Systems Northwest Waste Control Re"dinq.4 Part IV: Yard Material Collection and Disposal A. Yard Material Collection/Disposal Browning-Ferris Rex Industries 11-sposal Curbside fee per bag, container or bundle. Year 1 1.23 1.20 1.25 1.96 1.93 1.38 1.83 No bid (Village administers sticker sales revenues Year 2 1.29 1�30 1.31 2-.62 1.98 1.44 1.93 [Page 58] Year 3 135 1.40 1.38 2.08 2.05 1.51 2.03 Village sells stickers and hauler receives revenue based on number of stickers collected B. Brush - Option #1 Single-family monthly fee for curbside Year 1 0.70 1.52 1.25 0.55 0.50 N/A 0.70 brush collection/disposal service. (Based Year 2 0.73 1.64 1.31 0.57 0.52 N/A 0.75 on 12 -month billing period) [Page 58] Year 3 0.77 1.77 1.38 0.59 0.55 N/A 0.85 Limit 4 bundles per week per unit C. Yard Materials - Option #2 Curbside Fee per Bag, Container or Year 1 1.25 1.30 1.28 1.66 2.12 1.53 1.78 Bundle (Contract retains sticker sales Year 2 1.31 1.4-0 1.34 �1.71 2.18 1.60-1.88 revenues - see note) Year 3 1.38 1.52- 1.41 1.76- 2.25 1.67 1.98 Note: Added to this price would be the Village administration fee and retailer commission as set by the Village to establish the final per sticker selling price to the resident Part V: Recyclable Material Collection A. Single Family 1. Single-family - once a week basic service Year 1 2.00 N/A 2.94 N/A 4.05 N/A 3.73 fee per unit per month, Includes 50/50 Year 2 2.10 N/A 3.06 N/A 4.17 N/A 3.84 split of recycling revenue. [Page 59] Year 3 2.21 N/A 3.19 N/A 4.30 N/A 3.95 2. Single-family - Once a week basic service fee per unit per month. UQes nq- include -a 1- Year 1 1.85 2 .87 2.45 2.50 3.75 2.42 3.59 r Year 2 1.94 3.10 2.57 2.58 3.86 2.52 3.70 revenues. Year 3 2.04 3.35 2.70 2.66 3.98 2.62 3.81 VJL 1SWBID94ALS13/14/94 Long Form Page 7 Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, '1994 @ 10:OOAM Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste M1g Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris Rex ws-at Dispoxal Waste Sys! m -s Northwest Waste Control RecyclinglWaste Industries Disposal 3. Optional - Additional recyclables: if added to basic service list of items, amount to be added to fee in #1 and #2 above or if no increase indicate "No Charge". Plastics (#3,5,6,7) Year I N/C N/C N/C N/A N/C N/A 0.25 No bid Year 2 N/C N/C N/C N/A N/C N/A 0.30 Year 3 N/C N/C N/C N/A N/C N/A 0.40 Car Batteries Year 1 N/C N/A N/C - dropoff N/A N/C N/A N/C Year 2 N/C N/A N/C - dropoff N/A N/C N/A N/C Year 3 N/C NIA /C - dropoff N/A N/C N/A NIX Motor Oil Year 1 N/A I400 gal N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.75 Year 2 N/A I .201gal N/A NIA N/A N/A 0.80 Year 3 N/A 1.30/gal N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.90 Scrap Metal Year I N/C N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A Year 2 N/C N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A Year 3 N/C c N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See recyclables list in proposal B. Multifamily Once a week service 1. Multifamily - monthly fee per 90 gallon Year 1 5.35 N/A 22.50 N/A 1.50 N/A 24.00 toter; includes 50/50 split of recycling Year 2 5.62 N/A 23.57 N/A 1.55 N/A 25.00 revenues [Page 59] Year 3 5.90 N/A 24.69 NIA 1.59 N/A 26.00 Twice a week service Year 1 6.04 N/A 42.71 N/A 2.50 N/A 42.00 Year 2 6.34 N/A 44.73 NIA 2.58 N/A 43.00 Year 3 6.65 N/A 46.85 N/A 2.65 N/A 44.00 Three limes a week service Year 1 6.83 N/A 63.84 N/A 3.75 N/A 60.00 Year 2 7.17 N/A 66.87 N/A 3.86 N/A 62.00 Year 3 7.53 N/A 70.05 N/A 3.98 N/A 64.00 VJL 1SWB1094.XLSj 3114/94 Long Form Page 8 Village of Mount Prospect Solid Waste Collection, Transportation & Disposal Bid Opening - March 7, 1994 @ 10:OOAM Part Vl: Reusable Household Goods A. Additional fee to be added to single-family monthly fee under refuse basic service or Arc Sexton Laidlaw Waste M1g Northshore Groot Browning-Ferris Rex N/A _ almposal modified volume base system; if none Waste Systerns Northwest Waste Control RecyclingUa-ste Industries Disposal N/C 0.09 N/A N/A write "No Charge". Year 3 N/C Once a week service N/C N/C 2. Multifamily - monthly fee per 90 gallon Year 1 4.95 7.84 21.42 15.00 1.25 14.32 22.00 No bid toter;dloe-s not -include, recyclinaigy-9nme Year 2 5.20 8.46 22-49 15.45 1.29 14.90 23.00 jpft- _Contract keep- all revenues- Year 3 5.45 9.14 23.61 15.91 1.33 15.49 24.00 Year 3 N/C N/A N/C NIC Twice a week service N/A_ N/A Year 1 560 16.46 40.55 30.00 2.25 27,47 40.00 Year 2 5.90 17.77 42.57 30.90 2.32 28=57 41.00 Year 3 6.20 19.19 44.69 31.83 2.53 29.72 42.00 Three times a week service Year 1 6.32 24.70 60.60 45,00 2.50 40.61 58.00 Year 2 6.65 26.65 63.63 46.35 2.58 42.24 60.00 Year 3 6.95 28.79 66.81 47.74 2.65 43.93 62.00 Part Vl: Reusable Household Goods A. Additional fee to be added to single-family monthly fee under refuse basic service or Year I N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.07 N/A N/A modified volume base system; if none Year 2 N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.09 N/A N/A write "No Charge". Year 3 N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.11 NIA N/A B. Additional fee to be added to per bag fee Year 1 N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.02 N/A N/A in complete volume base system. Year 2 N/C N/A N/C N/C 0.03 N/A N/A Year 3 N/C N/A N/C NIC 0.04 N/A_ N/A VJL [SWBID94.XLS) 3/14/94 Long Form Page 9 7111, 1,261111 IA 7071, X I ;I I I k Ik 1 6, I994/95 Budget Recommendations The Finance Commission met on February 17, March 3 and March 17, 1994 for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the proposed 1994/95 Village Budget. The Finance Commission met on March 24 for the purpose of discussing the budget in its entirety and to formulate their recommendations to the Village Board. All Finance Commissioners were present except Commissioner Earl Sutter. The Finance Commission reviewed each Departinental Budget and, with the exception of the items listed below, supported the proposed 1994/95 Budget as submitted: 1. In the absence of documentation supporting the benefits derived from Cable TV programming, the Finance Commission recommends that Cable TV programming costs be eliminated from the 1994/95 Budget and that Cable TV franchise fees be used for other needed services. 7ffie vote was 6 - 1. 2. The Finance Commission supports the Human Services 1994/95 Budget as presented. The vote was 7 - Oo 3. The Finance Commission recommends that traffic engineering services be contracted rather than hiring a traffic engineer. The vote was 5 - 249 4. The Finance Comrmssion recognizes the need for additional housing inspections. To provide, the needed personnel to complete the inspections, the Finance Commission supports the addition of staff only after the feasibility of cross training existing personnel has been explored. In either case, the Finance Commission recommends that the cost to provide the additional M'spections be financed through an m'crease m the landlord/tenant fee and/or by a charge for reinspections. The vote was 6 - L 5. A motion was made to table the addition of 3 police officers in the 1994/95 Police Budget until the value of the 3 new police officers that were added in 1993/94 be determined. The motion was defeated 3 - 40 A motion was then made stating the Finance Commission recommends that the 3 new police officers in the 1994/95 Budget be approved. 'The motion passed 4 - 30 6. The Finance Commission recommends that the monies deleted from the 1994/95 Fire Department Budget to fund the volunteer firefighters be reinstated, with the provision that offsetting reductions be made in other Fire Department Budget items. The vote was 6 - 10 7. The Finance Commission recommends that the additional $50,000 for Fire Department overtime to achieve the 17 person s&ftg level be approved. The vote was 8. The Finance Commission supports the purchase of the "quint" with the provision that when the quint and flying squad are operatioW, Fire Department sWfing levels will be reevaluated. The vote was 7 - 00 9. A motion was made to reduce the $35,000 proposed to fund the Historical Society in the 1994/95 Budget to $15,000. A motion was then made to amend the original motion to reduce the funding to zero. That amendment failed by a 3 - 4 vote. An amendment was then made to reduce the funding level to $11,500. i on the second amendment failed vote on the original recommendation to reduce the funding level for the Historical Society from $35,000 to $15,000 was: 3 in favor, 3 opposed and 1 abstention. 10. The Finance Commission strongly recommends that they be given the opportunity to review and advise the Village Board on any signcant financial matters including the consideration of new revenue sources prior to adoption by the Village Board. The vote The Finance ComMI* ssion acknowledges the quality of the information contained in the Village Budget and recognizes the commitment of each staff member in its preparation and presentation. 1 0 . 11� iMEI =;614 Richard A. Bachhuber Mar& 17, 1"4 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Chaft-man Richard Bachhuber, Commissioners John Engel, Vince Grochocinski, Newt Hallman, James Morrison, Ann Smilwn'c, and Tom Pekras. Also present were Village ' er Michael Janorlls, Finance Director Davit Jepson, and Assistant Finance Du*wtor Carol Widmer. Commissioner Earl Sutter was absent. The minutes of the March 3, 1994 meeting were accepted as presented. Fire Chief Ed Cavello, accompanied by Deputy Chiefs Lonnie Jackson and Del Ulreich and Administrative Captain Steve Dumovich presented the Department's proposed 1994/95 Budget. The proposed 1994/95 Fire Department budget of $5,625,060 is 4.5 % or $242,360 higher than tk,:,w 1993/94 budget of $5,382,700. Chief Cavello discussed significant items "in the proposed budget. The first item 'is a request to*increase hire back overtime from $82,000 *in 1993/94 to $i1in 1994/95. These additional monies would be used to *increase the staffing level at Station 14 without It 40 4 aaaing additional employees. Chief Cavello explained that this station which receives 24%f of the service calls has staffing of four *instead of the preferred five person staff. 4 The Fire Department "is also seeking approval to purchase a vehicle called a "quint" *in the 1994/95 budget. The quint would serve as a pumper as well as a ladder truck and would add flexibility to the department. One of the engines had been scheduled for replacement 'in 1994/95 and the 0 Department 'i's requesting the quint *instead. A quint is estimated to cost $520,000 as opposed to the engine which is estimated at $250,000. Other significant changes proposed "in the budget include the elimmuon of both the Fire Training Academy and the services of the Volunteer paid -on-call firefighters, for a savigs of approximately $34,000. Chief Cavello stated that the Village of Arlington Heights will provide the hazardous material training Mount Prospect had previously offered, Chief Cavello then explained in detail the current inventory of fire vehicles and their, function and current and proposed staffing at the three fire stations. This explanation helped to clarify the operations of the Department and the reasons for the budget requests described abeve 11 01 Included "in the Capital Improvement budget i's a request to update TOPO maps which are aen.. photographs of the Village. These maps are used for flood plain dratnage studies and road projects. The current maps were prepared 'in 1978 4 I'S m'ce that time many areas such as Kensington Business Center, Melas Park and Brentwood Subdivision have been developed and these new maps would proviae the staff with *information representing current conditions. There is also a request for a document scanner., Mr. Bencic explained that the division vel be able to scan plan drawings and graphics produced outside the system into the Village's CAD system. This would save valuable staff time and keep our Village maps updated, 9 'as 4 There was some discussion regaraing now the Housing Code Inspector can enforce Village codes a& the need to give landlords some tools to help them work with the Village to solve overcrowding I - problems "in various apartment complexes, John Engel questioned whether there were plans to raise building and permit fees. Mr. Janom responded that fees have not been 'increased for at least 6 years -and before an increase is proposed 1 0 4 A staff will need to address some of the inconsistencies in the current fee structure. Auman Services Director Nancy Morgan and Assistant Human Services Director Jan Abernethy presented the Department's proposed 1994/95 budget, The Department has reorganized theu* 0 0 programs to reflect the services provided to residents 'in a more descriptive manner. The Department has five major program areas'- Social Services, Nursing/Health Services, Network 50 Program, Senior Center Programs, and Blood Donor Program. The proposed budget of $464,625 is 16.07% greater than the 1994/94 budget of $400,285, # AV* Nancy Morgan discussed the signiticant changes *in the Social Services proram area gs where proposed expenaitures for 1994/94 of $303,905 are $57,665 higher than 'in 1993/94, In response to special needs identified *in the past year or two, there i's a' request to increase the part-time bilingual social worker to full-time status. Additionally, $20,000 has been included under contractual services to allow fundffia for yet to be identified programs under Visions, the ViRage-wide org uzation formed in response to the needs of the Southern area of the Village. Also, $16,500 is budgeted under A contractual services for Home Delivered Meals and $1,900 for the drivers who deliver the meals. These two amounts are offset by the revenue received from the recipients of the meals. Ms. Morgan also highlighted several of the "conservative yet M-novativelf programs available to residents ranging in age from the very young to seni'ors, The presentation prompted discussion as to gang presence and M'fluence in the community and how i .-Atv the IA[1LZ__ responds to the gang situation. Ms. Morgan cited the after school programs and the intergenerational/mentor program as examples of the Department's response to these issues. K I& v After the budget presentationt Mr. Jepson distributed an article on Community based policing and also a copy of the Police Department's monthly report for February. v UJOUMMMI The meeting was adjourned at 10 20 p. m. The next meeting wffl be bteld, on'M 24,at,,701001 P.M, Ix'US rusnon will Wlentify, and, d- gw'fi At this meeting the memberS Of the Finance COm m the proposed budget and then make didr recommendations to the Village Board. Respectfully submitted$ ski Carol L. Widmer, Assistant Finance Director I CLW/sm 2