The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0298_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 12, 1991 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, George Van Geem and Don Weibel. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Fire Chief Edward Cavello, Deputy Fire Chiefs Lonnie Jackson, and Del Ulreich, Police Chief Ronald Pavlock, Deputy Police Chiefs Thomas Daley and Ronald Richardson, Police Sergeant Dick Draffone, Finance Director Dave Jepson, Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer, Human Services Administrator Nancy Morgan, Assistant Human Services Administrator Jan Abernethy, Social Worker April Foley, Nurse Peggy Florey, Nurse Terry Sprengel; three members of the press and four persons in the audience. II. MI=S Trustee Weibel requested an amendment to the February 26, 1991 Committee of the Whole Minutes. He requested that the phrase, 'basement floors" replace the word 'basements" on page 2, line 5. With this amendment, the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of February 26, 1991 were accepted and filed. 537MIU47 There were no citizens to be heard. IV. IMAM BUD ET HEARII[N ... ............ Mayor Farley gave opening remarks regarding the Budgets to be discussed this evening. Manager Dixon then gave a General Budget Overview of the Human Services Division, the Fire Department and the Police Department budgets. Nancy Morgan then gave a presentation on the proposed Human Services Budget. The Committee asked several questions regarding the Human Services' budget. Trustee Van Geem said he still favors supporting the social agencies which the Village has supported in the past. He asked if the Village would provide the same services that these social agencies have been providing. Ms. Morgan indicated these agencies receive funding from the Townships, the United Way and so on. She said the Village's failure to contribute to these programs will not prevent these agencies from servicing Mount Prospect residents. She said that Human Services refers individuals to over 200 agencies. She said that over 80 of these agencies could request funding from the Village. She said it is very difficult and arbitrary to fund one agency over another. For this reason and due to budget constraints, the Finance Commission recommended that the Village discontinue funding to outside agencies. Trustee Van Geem said he is still concerned that the Village; is pulling the rug out from under these social agencies. He said we have funded them for years and he supports putting $20,000 back in the budget. Trustee Busse also agreed that $20,000 should be added back into the budget for the social agencies. He said he is concerned that other communities would look at the Village of Mount Prospect and cut back just as the Village has in these difficult times. Trustee Arthur does ;riot agree with ?funding these social agencies. He felt that residents should have a choice where they wish to contribute to a charity. He was disappointed with the Human Services budget because he feels it keeps going up year after year. Human Services Administrator Nancy Morgan said her Division has received a large increase in requests for services in recent years. She said her employees are very dedicated. She said they rarer take a lunch break and never a coffee break. She said they do a great deal of uncompensated overtime to get the job done. She said her Division provides an excellent range of services for a very economical cost. Trustee Busse complimented the Human Services Division for providing excellent services. He said he has only heard good comments about the program. He feels the services are as cost-effective as any organization. Trustee Floros also supported the Human Services budget including the deletion of funding for the social agencies. Trustee Corcoran said he supports the Human Services budget 100%. He said the dollars spent represent less than 9/10ths of l% of the total budget. He feels that excellent services are being provided for ,a very economical cast. He said he would go along with the cut of funding for the social agencies, but he would be open to review if the Administrator feels funding would be necessary for a particular agency. -2- Trustee Weibel said he supports the budget as submitted. He feels the Village should concentrate on Human Services programs and cut funding to these agencies. He said the Village contributes only a very small amount of their budgets while the Township provides, and rightfully so, strong support for these agencies. Mayor Farley was disappointed with the suggestion to delete funding to these agencies. He would like to support the same contribution as last year. He felt that the agencies are just as strapped as the Village is. He said at the very minimum, they should have at least one year's warning that funding would be cut off. Trustee Arthur said these agencies had a warning last year. Trustee Floros said that he would reluctantly pull away the support from these agencies. Trustee Corcoran again reiterated that he supports the budget as submitted. If the Administrator wishes to bring forth a request for funding later in the fiscal year, he would be willing to review this request. Steve Self, representing the Community Counseling Center, said that replacement funding would be exceedingly difficult to find. He said he was very disappointed in the decision not to fund his agency. Pat Burke, the Executive Director of Shelter, Inc., said the Village is not providing shelter for children. She said it would be very difficult to replace $9,000 in one fell swoop. She asked the Board to reconsider, Ms. Morgan said that she did a phone survey and found that most communities that have a Human Services Department do not fund outside agencies. Fire ftartment Budget Fire Chief Edward Cavello gave a presentation on the Fire Department budget. The Committee asked several questions about the Budget. Trustee Floros asked the question about the overtime and hire -back. He asked if we should put more realistic numbers in these line items. Trustee Van Geem noted that he looks more at the bottom line which appears to be within 1%. Trustee Corcoran also felt that a more realistic number should be included in these line items. Village Manager John Dixon said he is comfortable with these numbers. Fire Chief Cavello said there was quite a bit of schooling this year. Seven men were required to go through ten weeks of training each, an unusual situation. Mayor Farley said he supports the budget as presented. -3- Trustee Corcoran asked if the Village is putting aside money each year to buy fire trucks when necessary. Finance Director Dave Jepson said yes, the Village should be abbe to purchase this equipment in 20 years because the money is being put aside. Trustee Van Geem praised the Paid -On Call Fire Program. He also praised Lonnie Jackson for his Children's Program especially the Stop, Drop and Roll Program. He thanked Del Ulreich for his Fire Department Programs. Trustee Weibel asked what the plans were for the ESDA group. Police Chief Ron Pavlock gave a presentation on the Police budget. The Committee asked various questions about the budget. Trustee Corcoran brought up a question about the microfilm equipment versus canning equipment. Village Manager Dixon said that various Departments will get together and work on a unified plan. This matter will be discussed at a 'future Committee of the Whole meeting. The Committee suggested there be no expenditures until this plan is coordinated. Trustee Corcoran asked a question about training. Village Manager Dixon explained the Training Program. Trustee Corcoran asked about the Northern Illinois Crime Lab. Police Chief Pavlock said this Program is well worth the money and provides excellent and fast service which was never available previously. Trustee Corcoran said the Police Department budget is a good budget. Trustee Floros asked how many more communities can join Central Dispatch. Police Chief Pavlock said one or two more. Trustee Van Geem asked a question about the gasoline ;prices in all of the Village budgets. He felt that since the prices have gone done, the line items should be decreased by approximately $20,000. Village Manager Dixon said this would be done. Trustee Busse asked why there was an increase in phone costs. Deputy Chief Richardson said the Department has been using the phones more and also more cellular phones have been added. He indicated this is an excellent benefit to the Department. Trustee Busse asked a question on reaccreditation. Chief Pavlock responded about the Program. -4- Trustee Weibel asked why the Northwest Central Dispatch communities cannot share one pistol range facility to save on expenses. Police Chief Pavlock said it is actually more cost effective to repair and use our own because travel time to another facility would require more overtime. Trustee Weibel asked whether the various beats in the community are equally covered. Chief Pavlock responded to this question. Trustee Weibel commended Police Chief Pavlock and Fire Chief Cavello for their outstanding Departments. V. MANAqERIS RPP RT Village Manager Dixon reported on the following: 1. The Village just received a copy of the Park Ridge Survey. We will have a full report for the March 26 meeting. Once again, the Village is at the bottom; 19 out of 19 with the lowest per capita expenditures. 2. The Village this afternoon received disturbing news that the Village of Inverness has filed a lawsuit regarding the Village's representation on SWANCC. Mr. Dixon said he would advise the Board of the outcome. 4..! l� l.. X1 At 10:02 p.m., Trustee Corcoran moved, seconded by Trustee Van Geem to convene into Executive Session to discuss Litigation and Personnel. JPB/rcw Respectfully submitted, JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager -5- Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois "14 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: MARCH 21, 1991 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL BIDS As I indicated to you earlier, I am very pleased to report that we were able to obtain four bidders for our Contract effective August 1, 1991. In reviewing those Contracts, we find that three of the bidders were very competitive in reviewing the cost for providing disposal services and recycling services to the Village. As I had indicated several times in the past, I was concerned with our present Contract in that every time we added additional recycling efforts, there were additional costs and we never received benefits on our original base collection as far as reductions of amounts that we were taking to the landfill. Obviously, the other three bidders felt there should be a reduction since their bids reflect this kind of reduction in the cost. I am recommending that we accept the bid from Arc Disposal for a pay -per bag program to start August 1, 1991, From August I to January 1, 1992, 1 recommend we permit two containers to be picked up at no additional cost with additional items needing a purchased tag and expand the recycling program to include the two types of plastic plus the bi-metal cans. This will allow us the opportunity for people to be trained in reducing their amount of waste set at the curb. We presently have a high participation (75%) in the recycling effort, however, if one sees the benefit by not having to pay for additional containers to be picked up, I believe we will see even higher participation rates. By expanding the recycling program to include additional products, we will also see a reduction in the amount of volume that is placed at the curb every week. On January 1, 1992, 1 recommend that we permit only one container to be picked up at each residential unit at no additional cost with any additional item to have a tag which will cost $1.25 or less dependent on what the final outcome of the cost will be. We are talking with Arc Disposal so that we can have a firm price for those tags over the entire term of the three-year Contract. We have been receiving excellent service from BFI for over 30 years. We do not have anyone that recalls another contractor that has worked under the franchise arrangement with the Village including Herb Weeks' 32 years of knowledge. During that period of time, we have had very few complaints and very quick response to any concerns or issues that have been raised. While this has been a nice relationship, I believe that the coast differential causes us to not even consider the bids of BFI in any of the scenarios since they are high in every instance. We have checked the references for the other bidders and feel comfortable and confident that each of those bidders would be able to provide excellent services as well. When it became apparent that Arc was going to be the low bidder with the recommended program to be reviewed on Tuesday evening, we sat down with Arc to make sure they understood exactly what we understood was expected. In every instance, they assured us that they would be providing the services at the level we expect and in once instance, indicated they would be providing services at a much higher level than what we thought and that has to do with the trucks being available during leaf pickup season with the addition of providing their drivers. Attached are memorandums from Glen Andler concerning all of the different numbers that were generated for cost considerations from the bid. There is also a memo from Dave Jepson explaining the economic impact of this Refuse Disposal Contract. We have before us an opportunity to be in the forefront in the Chicago metropolitan area in expanding recycling efforts and reducing yard waste by going to a limited number of containers that are permitted including all items placed at the curb for pickup provided there are tags on the additional items. Because of the reduction in cost, we will have long-range, positive economic impact on our budget for years to come. We have an opportunity that is presenting itself that I believe the Board must consider. With the reductions we will be seeing from the cost for refuse disposal many alternatives will present themselves in relationship to projects that the Village may wish to consider along with abatement of taxes. That specific discussion concerning abatement of taxes and expenditures of funds saved by this Refuse Contract will be best held in November or December before the Tax Levy is adopted. A large number of staff members were involved in developing different scenarios to be bid for this upcoming Refuse Contract. I would be remiss in not identifying Glen Andler as the drafter of the Contract. He was able to put into simple enough language the different alternatives and proposals that have been recommended to be bid so that we would be able to receive the four bids. JOHN FUILTON XON JFD/rcw attachments Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director DATE: March 21, 1991 SUBJECT: Effect of Refuse Contract on the'91/92 Budget After the bids for the refuse disposal contract were received, Glen Andler and I independently calculated the contract costs for each year and in the aggregate for the three year period. We then met to analyze the bids and to evaluate the different options, and then to try to determine the best arrangement for the Village. We were very pleased with the competitive bids, and regardless of which bid would be accepted, it will mean a reduction in the amount included in the 1991/92 budget. The bid specifications included the same basic service as in the existing contract with the addition of expanded recycling and leaf disposal. The expanded recycling program adds plastic milk and soft drink containers and metal cans to the existing program. With this addition the recycling program will include: newspapers, tin cans, other metal cans, all glass bottles, and plastic milk and soft drink containers. The leaf disposal stipulation provides that the Village deliver the leaves to a specified location in the Village, and then the refuse contractor will take them from there and dispose of them. The bid specifications also called for all yard waste (grass and brush) to be handled by a sticker plan whereby the resident could use either a bag or a container but it would need a Mount Prospect sticker. One of the unusual conditions regarding refuse collection is the fact that the Village requires twice -a -week pick up at multi -family units with the Village picking up the cost of the first pick up and the apartment complex picking up the cost of the second pick up. This raised a question as to who supplied the best bid. For example, when the cost for the expanded recycling, unlimited single-family residential pick up and the cost of the first pick up per week for the multi -family are totaled for the three year period, the total costs to the Village as follows: Waste Laidlaw— Arc Managemgat BFI $6;599,180 $6,652,531 $7,013,062 $8,014,372 If only the cost to the Village is considered, the bid from Laidlaw is the lowest. However, when the total value of the contract is considered (the above totals plus the cost of the second pick up at multi -family homes) the three year totals are as follows: Waste Laidlaw Arc Management BFI $8,257,747 $8,186,314 $8,096,380 $9,022,380 John Fulton Dixon March 21, 1991 Effect of Refuse Contract on the 91/92 Budget Under these circumstances the Waste Management bid is the best. The reason for this shift is because Laidlaw's charges for the second pick up average 248 higher than the first pick up, whereas Waste Management's charge for the second pick up average 58 lower than the first pick up. The question to the Village regarding the best bid is whether it should be the cost to the Village or the value of the contract. During our analysis, we also looked at the features on the pay by bag program. Under this system the refuse contractor is paid based upon the actual number of bags picked up from the single family residences and by the number of cubic yards from multi- family residences. One of the other excellent features of the pay by bag system is a spring and fall clean up which includes anything and everything (with some minor restrictions) the resident puts out at no cost to the resident or the Village. When we looked at how the potential bid amounts for the pay by bag system were determined, it appeared that Laidlaw used 1.4 bags per week per single family residence and Arc Disposal used 1.8 bags. Arc and Laidlaw had the lowest overall costs at an average of $1.12 per bag and $1.31, respectively. Also, under this program, Arc's multi -family costs were 208 lower than Laidlaw who was next lowest. The implication of this is that if the actual number of units of refuse is less than the amount anticipated in the bid calculation, it would be less costly for the pay by bag program regardless of who paid for the service. We then discussed how a program like this could be implemented. One of the methods that we discussed was for the Village to pay for basic service and the resident to pay for anything above the basic service. We determined that a fair way to introduce this system on August 1, 1991, when the new contract would take effect, would be as follows: 1. Include 2 bags per week for single-family residents in the basic service for the period of August 1, 1991 - December 31, 1991. 2. Include 1 bag per week for single-family residents after December 31, 1991. 3. Include the cost of the first weekly pick up for multi -family in the basic service from August 1, 1991 - December 31, 1991. 4. Include 508 of the cost of the first weekly pick up for multi -family in the basic service after December 31, 1991. 5. The Village would pay for the basic service and all refuse in excess of the basic service would be paid by the residents. 6. The refuse contractor would sell stickers that would be applied to anything in excess of the basic service at an estimated cost of $1 15 per sticker. John Fulton Dixon March 21, 1991 Effect of Refuse Contract on the 91/92 Budget The effect of the three alternatives discussed above on the 91/92 budget would be as follows: The Pay -By -Bag System with the Village paying for the basic service would be a means whereby the Village could continue to pay for basic service through property taxes, put a cap on refuse disposal costs, and encourage conservation. 3 Pay -By- Cost Value 91/92 Bag to of Proposed System Village Contract Budget_ _ (Arc) _ (Laidlaw) (Waste Memt) Refuse Collection $1,750,000 $1,400,250 $1,450,300 $1,575,850 Recycling 350,000 237,500 368,350 311,800 Brush Collection 58,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Yard Bag Collection 62,500 20,500 140,500 175,500 Yard Bag Commissions _____7_59-0 3.000 8.10( 0 8,000 Totals . $2,228,000 $1,676,250 $1,982,150 $2,086,150 Yard Bag Sales < 150M0_> < 75.000> < �95.000> < 230.000> Net Cost $2., 7 O $1.600250 $1.787,,150 $1.856.150 The reason for the difference in the amount of yard bag sales is because the cost of the sticker from Laidlaw is $1.20, from Waste Management it is $1.60 per bag, and with Arc the fee is paid directly to them. The estimated Village budget costs exclusive of yard bag sales for years 2 and 3 of the contract are listed below: Pay -By- Cost Value Bag to of System Village Contract (Arc) _ (Laidjaw) (Waste Memt) Year 2 $1,197,100 $2,002,800 $2,053,000 Year 3 1,288,100 2,130,800 2,194,000 The Pay -By -Bag System with the Village paying for the basic service would be a means whereby the Village could continue to pay for basic service through property taxes, put a cap on refuse disposal costs, and encourage conservation. 3 Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Tm ary tu TO: The Recycling Commission FROM: Deputy Director of Public Works DATE: March 20, 1991 SUBJ: Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Bids In preparation for tomorrow evening's meeting I am supplying you with copies of the complete bid tabulations, bid extensions for the basic service and bid extensions for the alternate direct billing. As you recall the bid document included a variety of alterna- tives for providing solid waste collection and disposal service to our residents. Depending on which alternative is chosen, it will affect which contractor gets the final award. For instance if we award a contract for the entire basic service for years 1, 2 and 3, Waste Management would receive the award. If, however, we would offer the basic service for year I and go to a pay by the bag Alternate #1, for years 2 and 3, Arc Disposal would receive the award. Therefore it is necessary to decide up front what type of service we want to provide during the three year contract. Village Staff, including myself, Herbert Weeks, Director of Public Works; Dave Jepson, Finance Director and John F. Dixon, Village Manager have reviewed all the various options and associ- ated costs and collectively recommend that the Recycling Commis- sion strongly consider the pay by the bag alternate. Since Mount Prospect started recycling in December, 1988, our residents have averaged a 75% participation level. Because of this strong show of support and along with the upcoming expand- ed recycling program is it still necessary for the Village to continue to offer "unlimited" solid waste collection and dis- posal to our residents? By providing the full basic service package we are paying the scavenger to collect volumes of refuse that may no longer be there. The Recycling Commission, over the years has had as its goal, to achieve 100% Mount Prospect resident recycling participation and has done an excellent job in maintainin our 75% participation level. The Commission has also been actively pursuing methods to reach that 25% that are not currently participating. I be- lieve that by going to the pay by the bag alternative we would have the means to achieve that goal. Arc Disposal's recycling bid is the lowest of all four bidders. They also submitted the lowest pay by the bag system at a range of $0.98 to $1.14 and are therefore the lowest bidder. In evaluating Arc Disposal's bid price for the single family refuse collection and disposal portion of their bid, and using their $0.98 per bag price for year 1, it equates to an average of 1.9 bags of refuse per home, per week. Using this average I propose that we offer the residents a basic service package to include one container of refuse per week and unlimited recy- cling paid for by the Village. Anyone setting out more than one container whether it be bulk items or additional refuse contain- ers, would require a prepaid sticker attached to it. This then becomes an excess user's fee. Those residents who choose not to recycle or reduce wastes will have to pay for additional ser- vice. By going to this type of program we eliminate the "unlim- ited" service that we have been paying for but not fully utiliz- ing and we would cut our solid waste collection and disposal costs in half, from over $2,000,000 per year to just over $1,000,000 per year. At tomorrow night's meeting I will present a complete evaluation of all the bids along with a breakdown of how the pay by the bag system would benefit Mount Prospect and if approved, the methods of implementation. Ile'. R. Andler GRA/eh Attach. SWBIDS Bid Extensions — March 15, 1991" Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Village of Mount Prospect All figures shown are three year. totals for each service, Bidder...... Laidlaw Are Disposal Waste Mtg. BFI Part I — Basic Service Direct Bill to Village 1 Refuse Collection/ Disposal Single Family/Multi—Family A. Single Family (AI) 48 ,419,828� B. Multi—family (A2—A3) :,:$�_1,5:�3,424 �4O Total for Refuse Collection/Dispoul�03704 �2_88] 2 YarMaterials (Bl)d $589,750.00 5852,250. 571a,00D. 3 Recycling (C1—C3) X Single 51 244,743.20 5776.043. � 51 098,754.80 5 B. Multi—family $81.780.DO Total for Recycling �$1,3�,391 .W Combined Subtotal (Items 1,2, & 3) 1 $7,013,063.201 =$a, 54 =r>44,80 4 Less Discount (A6) Three Year Total Cost to Village56,599,18024 ( 5665 531.20 $7»013,063.20 i8_01a.37i,S8 Direct Bill to Users Refuse Collection/Disposal Mull—family (Aft—Ma) 51 658,567.04 S1,533782.88 51 083,316.80 51,008.204.48 Three Year Total Contract Cost ew Eadrrta W - March /9i, 101 Bofd Warta Colne tion MW Wsposa9 Yitapo 09 IV wx t P'tosprsk Biddy._.- Lxkf&w Aro Disposal Waste Mig. BFI Part I - Basic Sw%4ce Direct BIN to Village I Refuse Co6ectlorV Disposal Single Famgy/Muld-Family (Al -A2 -A3) Yw1 1 70616 1,624-5240 St,550,14020 $1599-09.96 Yw2 1 IT?9 AI Std56048.00 51 112,16 Y*%r31 PA W.162.04 11,05.012-41 St„77918124 52,190.447.36 2 Yard Msirlele (Bt) 3 Recycling (C1-C3) A. Single B. Mutli-fam0y Yw 1 St112 50040 5152,000.005260«750.00 $213,500,00 Yw 2 5211 00 106 A0 !285254.00 5238 000.00 Yw 3 #29,1AOG1.t10 5211750.00 5.306250.00 5262 500.00 Year 1 5414 14.40 5290 726,9a $995 075.40 5384 .56 Yw2 5414014.40 165.00 SJ68At2A4 $4/4,011.40 Yom 14 14.40 9275146.92 5901 .80 SN7 Q36.64 Total Recycling YOM 1 14.40 4001=14Yw 2Yw 3 20 .60 ThmeYew Total for Recycling 1,922,14920 566044J.60 51,160.534.80 St,�3;T7„�39!1;0, Combined Subtotal porta 12. b 3) YOM t 14 122,58 $2,071.148.72 52.174 417.60 $2.477 70024 Yaw 2 . .92 52294,786-0 $2.398250:60 52.605AJ4.56 YOM J .36 9Q 419702 06 52 500 601 S2,501=001 4 Lass Dlecourt (Ali) Yew "o520711.40 50.00 St2 51 Yew 00 7A7 50.00 S 13 475.17 Yew 3 324.137231 50.00 $14 406.51 Ilst Bid Coal to Visage Yew 1 014.122-540 054'143 29 174417.401 $2 465 310. 0 year 9 92 1 496-3 $2 A0 150.90 YearJ 36 09 .60 1w^ 40 Thee YOM Tow Coal to visage Ir15024� 50 120 fT 0 W 20 56 014 J,r, Tt. Direct BB to Users Rehire Collsction/Deposal Muld-la"y (A2a-A3a) Yeart .t8 t 40 594/019.02 Yaw 2 404.06 76,44 5960 411 5330 060.16 Yaw J 1S21 110 AO1 5362 40 Total CorwactAwrd Per Yew Yew 1.12 $2 1 A5 It $2,77523342 Yew 26 717.39 0 $3A18224.551 Year 31 28 0 0 1 $3229,11TAOI Three Yaw TOW �r [ i lit (611001.t(M7 .022 670, 'Aftsmate Direct SWIng' Bid EXhinslons - March 15, 1991 Solid Waste collection and Disposal Village of Mount Prospect Bidder Laidlaw Arc Disposal Waste Mtg. BF] part I - Basic Service Not Bid Cost to Village yew' 19 4=32 ' 17 417.00 465,319,701 Year 2 ffi MIZIJ93111338 250,80 156,39 Year3 36527736I $Z389,655.031500394,60 52„866,695,49 Less Amount Direct Billed To User. Single Family Year I 4 $ 1 $1,358,748.48 Y w2 0 MP175 454.1 it .2881 $1,484,WZC# =573,951.68, Year 3 $1 _270,440,96 $1,39ZI42-081 $1,W5,4272of $1 Mutd-family Year 1 $34 312.00 5417466.48 $355,40040 Year s53805570.4o=,, .4o �:�§14 $720221 3 Year 1 $407 754.00 1. Alternate Cost to Village Yearn 5631 414,40 S439.704.111 1 5624 40 5811861.38 Year 2 714.40 45 5681$661 Oz Year 3 "36 0 5713047,17 Direct Billing Fee Single Famity Year $84 .12 1 $K841,601 00 624,00 Y9.2 017,V2 �_$2103 q89120 $16,325.76 Mgg� 5230.044,60 Year 3 $89,049�60 1 3237,465,60 Multi -family Year 7.60 1 *N21.60 $10�068.00 1 $50.340.0015151,020.00 Year 2 f 1 $=.3/4=� 15156364.00 Year 3 i $70,476= 1 061.60__$65 —408= $161,068,00 Aftemate Cost to User Total wI51,124 Annual SCiongp mUnilky 284 $1.206$10j6.6 $1 80 .60 eFra -Year SWI012 1227.W48 $$ Total Single Family - Year 2 $1,261jIM641 $1 304 57644 $1,358,ODS.40 14,W88 Annual Cost per Unit - Yaw 2 1OZ4 $105.48 $109.80 pEiw $13&66 Total Single, Family -Year 31 $1,374,=l $1,464.476 F-Tl—,8=11,41728 Annual Cost per Unit - Year 3 $117 = $146.46 Total Mutd-family - Year I $955�643.76 5699 713,20 $743.01&40 Annual Cost per Link - Year 1 $106.61 $10724 $113.90 -ME lly Total Muld-farri-Year 2 $1 $904 72, $1027 Annual Cost per Unit - Year 2 $190 -4v W842.48 122-51 Total Muftl-farnlly - Yaw 3 ,92 $1 5811123 111,050ZI Annual Cost per Unit - Year 3 $130 1 X125.181 JF56531 01.761PDIO "31491 Total contract Award NINE-- Mum= Bid Results - March Is, 1991 Solid Waste Collection and Dispo. Village of Mount Prospect Bidder...... Laidlaw Arc D' Wasta�Mtg BFI Bid Deposit...... Bond Bond Bond Bond Part I - Bask services A Refuse Collection/Disposal Al Single -Family - Monthly Fee'for Curbside Rehm Collecdon/Dk;XMal Service Per Residential Unit (I xANeek) Year 1 Year 2! Year 3 A2 Mufti -Family - Monthly Fee for Rehm Collection/Disposal Service Per Dwelling Unit (Ix/week service - standard containers) . ..................... 8.05 1 :9.16 �.221 8'.6,91 '1 8.601 10.01 00 .0 'I Year 13.40 427 3.631 4.71 Year 2 3.841 4.611 3.781 5.101 Year 3 4.15 4.981 1 4.051 1552 Ata 2x/Week Fee - per month/per unit Year I Year 2 Year 3 A2b 3x(Week Fee - per month/per unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 A2c 4x/Week Fee - per month/per unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 A2d 5x/Week Fee - per month/per Link Year I Year 2 Year 3 .97 4.83 5.62 sm 3M 3.52 6.07 5.641 1 3.831 1 3.80 S.19 5.31 4.231 5.1 573 4.521 2.1 1 6.386 99 3 1 6.191 4.851 5.41 5.68 4.65 2.52 6.111 6.031 4.98 2.73 6.60 1 6-51l 5.301 2.961 5.63 6.76 1 1 5,021 2.38 6.36 .6 1 1 5.35 2.58 6.87 6.76 [:::::A 2.79 -1- Bidder...... Laidlaw Aro Vii* Waste Mt ___BFI - A3 Multi-farnity Compactors - Monthly Refuse Collection Disposal Service Fee Per Unit Once A Week Service Year 1 -3.40- 2.56 7.53 Year 2 2 61 4.U5 Year 3 ja 8.16 8.84 Twice A Week Service Year 1 4.20 2.89 3.35 1 .00 Year 2 4.75 3.121 3-581 g 1.00 Year 31 5.13 3.37 1 3.831 1 1.00 Three renes A Week Service Year I Year 2 Year 3 A4 Special Collection Fee Per Cubic Yard Year I Year2 Year 3 A5 Minimum Charge 5.20 ala 4.23- 0 5. 1 3.43 4S21 �740 6.35 3.70 435 1 1.50 8.00 15- 1 8.641 1 9.301 7.25 9.331 6-30 Year 1 0.00 24.001 9.30 --30-.0-01 Year 2 0.00 25.921 1 9.301 32.501 Year3j 0.00 27.99 9.3013525 Back Door Service - Monthly Additional Surcharge For Providing Rear Door Service Year 1 6.00 3.14 13.65 8.25 Year 2 6.9011 3.39 [14.20 8.25 Year 31 8.25 A6 % Disicount Allowed Village For Payment Made By 20th Day of Following Month Article IX Par. L Year 1 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0,50% Year 2 0.00% 1.00%1 0.00% 0.50% Year 00%j I I - t 0150% -2- Bidder...... t aidiaw FA_rcDis A7 Alternative Direct Billing Fee - Amount to be added to each of the.unft costs for single-family or muhl-family once a week service above If contractor bills residents or owner direct Year 1 0.57 0.10 0.50 1.501 Year 2 0.621 0.11 1 0.55 1.551 Year 31 0.70 1 0.1121 0.60 1.601 AB Alternative Bulk Service ABa Once a month service - Single Family fee reduction per unit per month 2.70 1.66 2.201 1 2.541 Year 1 2.701 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year 2 1 0.00 ).00 Year 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mufti -family fee reduction per unit per month Year 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year 31 0.00 0.001 1 0.001 1 0.001 A8b Direct User Fee - cost per Rem or per cubic yard (indicate) ............................... CuYd CuYd. Item CuYd. Item Year 1 6.00 8.00F_ 0.00 1.73 Year 21 6.751 8.641 F-0.00 1 1.931 Year 31 7.25 9.331 1 0.00 1 2.141 B Yard Material Collection/Disposal B1 Fee Per Bag, Container, or Bundle Year 21 1.24 132 1 1.631 1.361 Year 31 1.341 1.21 1.75 1 SO C Recyclable Material Collection & Disposal C1 Single-family - Once A Week Service Fee Per Unit Per Month Year 1 2.70 1.66 2.201 1 2.541 Year 2 2.701 1 1.681 2.40 2.70 Year 3 ar 1 1 2.551 2.871 -3- Bidder...... Laidlaw Arc [1i* Waste Mtg� [ BFI C2 Additional Racyclables: Add to Basic Fee Above or indicate No Charge Corrugated Material (Cardboard) Year I Year 2 Year 3 C3 Multi -family: Monthly Fee per Container Once A Week Service 1 Cubic Yard Container 0.25 Na - 1 1.49 �� O.Z211 0 j 0. Na 1 .63 _]a 2'51 0.32 �--0.25 Year 1 17.50 i ---- I I - F 20.10 - F -29-55 I Year 2 18-501 14.86 21.501 F----2--061 Year 3 20.00 16.05 L34.78J 1 1/2 Cubic Yard Container 27.52 29;721 22-30 29.66 Year 1 20.00 20.64 21 20 33,48 Year2l 21.M50 � 47.48 22.70 36.34 Year 31 23.00 24.07 24.25 39.431 2 Cubic Yard Container Year 1 2250 Year 2 24.00 27.52 29;721 22-30 29.66 �43]2 0' 75 5 Year 3 24.50 32.101 25.5dS � 47.48 Twice A Week Service I Cubic Yard Container Year 1 32.00 Year 2 33.00 15.55 16.791 38.50 41.20 49.34 53.54 Year 18.131 44.10 58.09 1 1/2 Cubic Yard Container Year 1 39.90 57.381 Year 2 --- 2.70 6226 Year �m 45.70 67.55 I 2 Cubic Yard Container Year 1 -37-..0-01 31.10 41.30 66.841 38.50 .59 44.20 72.52 Year 2 1 Year 31 �3628 47.25 78.681 D Reusable Household Goods Additional Fee to be added to Single-family Unit Cost Per Month for Refuse Collection Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 0.00 0.0016.0 0.10 -01 0.00 ,----O-OOJ ON, 0.00 -4- Bidder...... . Arc DsWaste Mtcf] „_BFI_ Part 2 - AtteMate 01 A Refuse CollectlorMisposal Al Single-family - Pay -By -Bag System Curbside Collection Disposal Fee Per Bag/Container Year 1 1.731 Year 2 1.34 2.30 Year 3 �A I �Al � 1.931 Cost of Printed Sticker Year 1 0.03 0.00 0.00 Year 2 0.00 0.001 E0003 0.035 .635 Year 3 0.00 0.001 1 0.041 Sticker Markup =$0=.05 A2 Mufti -family - Monthly Fee Per Container (Size) Per Weekly Service Required B Yard Material CollecftvDisposal Bi Curbside Fee Per Bag, Container, or Bundle Year 1 1.10 1.04 1.49 129 Year 21 124 1.121 1.631 1.44 Year 3j 1.34 1 1.2111.75 1.59 Cost of Printed Sticker Year 1 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 Year 2 0.031 0.0011 0.001 1 0.0351 Year 31 0.04 0.00 0.001 0L41 Sticker Markup (Retailed C Reusable Household Goods Additional Fee to be added to Single- family ingle-family Unit Cost Per Month Per Bag/ Container for Refuse Collection Year 1 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Year 2 0.0011 0.031 0.00 0.00 Year3l 0.00 0.041 0.001 1 0.00 -5- Part a — Aftemate sP2 A Refuse CollectlorMisposal Al Single—family Monthly Fee — Once A Week Service — Contractor Supplied Containers 20 Gallon (1 Can) Year 1 7.30 Na NaE Na Na Year 21 8.25 Na I NaVi qrl� r /a Year 3 Na I I . �na 32 Gallon (1 Can) Year 1 8.82 1 Na iNa Year 2 9.97 n/ Na I rvL___� Year 31 10.76 Na Na=ri/a 64 Gallons (2 Cans) Year 1 10.32 Na Na 3 Na -1 i NaI 3�j Year 2 �n/a rV Year 3 1z5g Na 96 Gallons (3 Cans) Year 1 11.82 Na rVaa n/a Year 21 13.36 1 Na Na i n/a Year 31 14.42 Na n/a ;n/a�] A2 Container Replacement Cost 20 Gallon Year 1 15.50 aNa Na I Year 2 1 6.D0 Na I Na Na I Year 3 A n/a Na I Na I 32 Gallon Year 1 17 a _n/a Ye2 18.66 n/a rVa n/a Year 3 18.50 Na I Na I Na A3 Bulk Refuse CollectiorMisposal Service Cost Per Sticker Curbside Fee per Item Year I 1.10 Na Na Na Year 2 1.24 a Na n/a Year 3 � 1.34j Na Ia Na -6- Cost of Printed Sticker Sticker Markup (Retailer) B Reusable Household Goods Bidder...... l aidlaw Arc Dig -4 Year I 0.03 Year 2 0,03 015 a n/a Na a Na n/a Na n/a Na Year 3 L Additional Fee to be added to Single -Family Unit Cost Per Month Per Container for Rehm Collection Year 11 0.00 Na I Na I -n/a Year 21 0.00 f n/a I I n/a I Na__ Year 3 0.00 Na @ Na I -7- 'olid Waste Collection & Dlspo� Multi-Fiffifly Refuse Collection Service FdWSchedule Table 2 - Bid Results (March 15, 1991) - Year 1 Bidder ................. 1 Cubic Yard 1x/week 22.75 17.081 36.30 37.60 2x/week 43.50 35.76 69.75 62.66 3x/week 66.25 37.64 104.20 87.71 4x/week 89.90 38.56 139.50 112.76 5X/week MIS 39.68 173.00 137.82 1.5 Cubic Yards 1x/week 27.75 27.54 41.85 1 44.20 2x/week S3.75 1 53.64 79.10 [- �7 6. �O3 3x/week 81.50 56.46 118.10 1 107.861 4x/week 109.25 J� 57.184 156.20 139.69 q.,5 Ea 1 9 0 5x/week 137.OD 59.52 1 194.30 1 171.521 2 Cubic Yards 1x/week 32.75 33.52 46.50 53.69 2x/week 63.76 71.52 115.30 90.82 3x/week 96.50 75.28 132.00 127.96 4x/week 129.25 173.90 165.10 1 5 5x/week 162.00 215.755 202-23 4 Cubic Yards 1 x1week 42.75 67.04 69.75 85.97 2x/week 83.75 143.04 133.00 148.61 3x/week 126.50 150.56 198.10 211.43 4x/week 169.25 154.24 261.30 274.26 -"il -2.00 - - 5x/week 158.72 325.50 337.08 6 Cubic Yards 1 x1week 50.75 100.56 95.80 113.46 2x/week 99.75 214.56 178.60 197.65 3x/week 150.50 225.84 263.20 281.84 4x/week 201.25 231.36 347.80 366.02 5x/week 252.00 238.08 �432.600 450.21 8 Cubic Yards 1x/week 72.50 134.08 120.00 137.59 2x/week 142.75 286.08 223.20 237.38 3x/week 216.25 301.12 330.20 --3.37.19 4x/week 287.75 308.48 435.20 436.99 5x/week 360.25 317.44 541.25 536.79 10 Cubic Yards 1x/week 91.00 167.60 u� �.10 164.03 2x/week 179.00 357.60 265.10 282.31 3x/week 270.00 376.40 395.25 400.58 4x/week 361.00 385.60 622.70 518.84 Sxtweek 462.00 396.80 651.00 637.11 Compactor Add or or or or -8- slid Waste Collection & Dispos, Multi -Family Refuse Collection Service Fee/Schedule Table 3 - Bid Results (March 15, 1991) - Year 2 Bidder ................. i�aidiaw Arc ois osai waste Mtn. BFB I Cubic Yard Ix/week 25.03 18.45 38.80 40.73 2x/week 47.85 38.62 74.60 67.92 3x/week 72.88 40.65 111.45 F7777_9_5.10 4x/week 97.90 41.64 149.30 122.27 5x/week 122.93 42.85 185.10 149.47 1.5 Cubic Yards 1 x/week 44.80 47.89 2x/week599.1.3 1 57.93 84.60 1 82.421 3x/week 89.65 .6 60.98 126.40 116.96 4x/week 120.18 62.47 167.20 151.491- 5x/week 1-50.70 2108.00 186.031 2 Cubic Yards ix/week 36.03 36.20 49.75 58.18 2x/week 70.13 77.24 123-40 98.47 3x/week 106.15 81.30 141'.30 139.77 4x/week 14Z18 83.29 186.10 179.06 5x/week 178.2D 85.71 �230.900 219.35 4 Cubic Yards Ixtweek 47.03 72.40 74.60 93.01 2x/week 92.13 154.48 142.30 161.17 3x/week 139.15 162.60 211.90 229.33 4x/week 186.18 166.58 279.60 297.50 5x/week 233.2D 171.42 348.30 365.66 6 Cubic Yards Ix/week 65.83 108.60 102.50 123.03 2x/week 109.73 231.72 191.10 214.38 3x/week 165.55 243.91 28-1-.60 305.73 4x/week 221.38 249.87 372.20 397.06 5x/week 277.20 257.13 462.70 488.41 8 Cubic Yards ix/week 79.75 144.81 128.40 149.22 2x/week 157.03 308.97 238.80 257.49 3x/week 236.78 325.21 35_3.25 365.78 4x/week 316.63 333.16 465.70 474.16 5x/week 396.28 342.84 579-.20 -582.35 10 Cubic Yards 1x/week 100.10 181,00 155.20 177.90 2x/week 196.90 386.21 283.60 306.24 3x/week 297.00 406.51 42_290 -431.57 4x/week 397.10 416.45 159-25 -562.87 Sxtweek 497.20 428.54 697-00 691.19 Compactor Add or or or or -9- __jolld Waste Collection & Dispo,,,_ . Multi -Family Refuse Collection Service Fee/Schedule Table 4 - Bid Results (March 15, 1991) - Year 3 Bidder ................. Laidlaw Arc Disposa� Wastete Mi BFI I Cubic Yard 1x/week 27.63 19.93 141.6 44.12 2x/week 41.71 79.90 73.62 52.64 . 1 6 -"Z-. 3x/week 80.16 90 119.25 103.11 10 :i�_.97 4x/week 107.69 159.70 132.59 Sx/week 135.22 46_.28 198.10 A162.1 0 1.5 Cubic Yards Ix/wL-ekj 33.58 47.90 F-51.89 2x/weekl 65.04 9 62.561 90.50 F-89.35 3x/week1 98.62 1 65.86 1 135.20 1-26.83 4X/week 132.19 67-47 �78.5900 164.29 5x/week 165.77� 69421 201.77 2 Cubic Yards Ix/week 39.63 10 53.20 63.05 W k 2x/wee k 77.14 1.42 132.10 106.77 3x/wee 116.77 7.80 151.20 150.49 9 0 4x/week 156.39 89.95 199;10 194.21 9 196.02 .00 237.92 5x/weekA 92.57 E247.00 4 Cubic Yards Utweek 51.73 78.19 70.06 100.84 7 2x/week 101.34 166.84 152.30 174.80 3x/week 153.07 175.61 226.80 248.75 4x/week 204.79 179.91 299.20 322.71 5x/week 256.52 184.13 372.60 396.67 6 Cubic Yards lx/week 61.41 117.29 109.70 133.41 2x/week 120.70 2_50_.26 204.40 232.63 3x/week 182.11 263.42 301.30 331.64 4x/week 243.51 269.86 398.20 430.74 Sxlweek 304.92 277.70 495.10 529.85 8 Cubic Yards 1x/week '; 87.73 156.39 137.40 161.83 2x/week 172.73 333.69 255.50 279.30 3x/week 260.45 351.23 378.00 396.80 4X/Week 348.18 359.81 498.30 514.39 5x/week 435.90 370.27 620.00 631.78 10 Cubic Yards 1x/week 110.11 195.48 166.10 192.95 2x/week 21 6.59 -417.11 303.50 332.20 3x/week 326.70 439.03 452.50 471.42 4x/week 436.81 449.77 698.40 610.64 Sxtweek 546.92 462.82 745.00 749.87 Compactor Add or or or or [:7 100 -10- A Mount R aspect Public Works Depdrtment -i TM CrrV USA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM If TO: Mayor Farley Board of Trustees FROM: Recycling Commission Chairman DATE: March 22, 1991 SUBJ: Solid Waste Collection & Disposal Bid Recommendation At last night's Recycling commission meeting the Commissioners thoroughly reviewed the bids received for the new solid waste collection and disposal contract that will begin August 1, 1991. Included in these bids were a number of options on vari- ous types of collection and disposal services. After an exten- sive discussion on how the different options would impact our residents, the Village budget, and the goals of the Commission, it is our recommendation that the Village accept Arc Disposal's bid for a volume based collection (pay -by -the -bag) system. This program is described in detail in the two memos dated March 21, 1991 by the Deputy Director of Public Works and the Finance Director, attached. In addition to the discussion of the bid results the Commission- ers also addressed -a number of issues and concerns on implementa- tion of the pay -by -the -bag program. The Public Works Depart- ment's staff time has already been taxed by developing, adminis- tering, and monitoring, the routine solid waste collection pro- gram as well as the substantial new programs that have been implemented over the last two years, such as curbside recycling and separate collection of yard material. It is therefore the Commission's recommendation that the Village Board approve the Director of Public works' request for the employment of a Solid Waste/Environmental Service Coordinator. We feel this position is needed and justifiable as we take this major step forward on implementing a volume based reduction solid waste collection program. Having a full time position will also increase the Department's ability to provide program management and public outreach as we expand our recycling pro- grams to encompass additional materials and multifamily housing. Kenneth Westlake, Chairman Recycling Commission GRA/eh Village of f%i`cunt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: MARCH 22, 1991 SUBJECT: BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA - MARCH 26, 1991 During the Budget discussions there were a number of additional Revenue items that were brought to the Board's attention. I still strongly feel that each and every one of those Revenue items that were brought to the Board's attention should be considered for implementation. The increase of the cost for parkway trees from $50 to $100, while it does not cover the entire cost, it brings it to about just under 50% of the cost for residents. I feel it is time for us to increase that amount not for this summer plantings which are already pretty well in place but for the following year. I also feel that the parking fees should be increased from $10 to $20 to keep us in line with what other municipalities are charging and also make it worthwhile for people to find legal parking spaces in the community. The Ambulance Fee at $125 for residents is also an area that I feel we should keep in place because it is reimbursed by most insurance companies. Our present procedure for non-residential users of the ambulance transportation is to collect whatever portion an insurance company pays of the $125 fee and if people are unable to pay the remainder or indicate that is all their insurance companies are able to pay, we only collect that amount and do not go any further. The Hotel/Motel Tax, I still feel very strongly about, should be enacted and it would be an ideal way for us to offset costs for the Historical Society and other community events, such as the Fourth of July, Hometown Days and other events that may come forward. In the area of Expenditures, I feel that we'should add the organizational membership for the Northwest Municipal Conference Transportation Committee at a cost of $5,051. In the Communications Division, I am recommending that we not replace the part-time secretary with a full-time position because we did not transfer the Newsletter to this Division. Instead, use the funds for capital expenditures to replace some of the equipment that is becoming outdated. In each of the accounts that has provisions for gas costs, we have reduced the amount. The Village -wide General Fund is reduced by about $25,000 of savings. In the Human Services Division, there is still the concern on funding of social agencies. There were four agencies that were funded last year; two of those agencies were funded at a $1,500 rate. Both the Resource Center for the Elderly and the Northwest Mental Health Agency. The Resource Center for the Elderly has not requested funds in this fiscal year and the Northwest Mental Health Agency's original request two years ago was for seed money. I believe that both of these Agencies should be funded. There have been several overtures made by both Shelter and the Salvation Army and I understand that representatives of these agencies and possibly other agencies will be in the audience during our discussions on March 26. While it is true that we do not provide the same services with our Human Services Division as Shelter or the Salvation Army counseling unit, that statement would also be true for most of the 80 agencies that could ask for funds. A strong case has been made for the reduction of funding to these two particular agencies without prior notice. While there have been recommendations in the past from the Finance Commission and reservations stated by staff in the past for funding for agencies, there has always been some funding. I believe it would be appropriate for the Board to establish a policy as to whether or not we will be funding agencies and if we wish to wean these agencies from expectations of funds from us that we do so in a step- down program where we would fund for example 100% this year, 50% next year and nothing the year after. This would only be for Shelter ($9,000) and Salvation Army ($7,500). We need to remember that we spend approximately $35,000 for human service needs in our community, more than most other communities in the northwest suburban area and provide excellent and outstanding service. While the needs are still there, they cannot possibly all be addressed by the Village of Mount Prospect. In the Street Division, we have increased the allocation for street resurfacing by $150,000 because of available funds in the fund balance of the Motor Fuel Fund. In addition, we recommended there be a transfer from the Parking Fund of $93,650 to pay for the expansion of parking on Prospect Avenue, I would recommend that this also be included in the Street Division for road programs. This would bring our entire road program back up to a level of $1,493,650. In the Parking Fund, there has been a request for $40,000 for parking lot rehabilitation and that has been questioned during the budgetary process. There are sufficient funds in the Parking Fund to cover this cost and it is necessary that the improvements to the lots take place in the very near future. I recommend they remain. Under Refuse Disposal, there will be discussion on the recommendation for the Garbage Contract. In addition, the payment to the Solid Waste Agency will be reduced by $31,120 and that will also be reflected in this Budget. C J s FULTON XON JFD/rcw FINANCE COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting March 21, 1991 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Commission members in attendance were Richard Bachhuber, Paul Davies, John Engel, Vince Grochocinski, Jim Morrison, Tom Pekras, and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Village Manager John Dixon, Finance Director David Jepson, Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer, one member of the press and one resident. Commission member Newt Hallman arrived at 8:15, and Village Trustee George Van Ceem arrived at 10:05. ii Agoroval of Minutes The minutes of the March 7, 1991 meeting were accepted as presented. III piscussion of Wt ir Rate._Proposals David Jepson reviewed the proposed water rate increase and various rate structure options ons for Commission members. The first option, a uniform structure, is currently in place in the Village. Under this plan each unit of water is the same rate regardless of the number of units used. The rate is established by dividing total expected costs by the total units of water that are expected to be sold. The advantage of the uniform rate is that it is not discriminatory to either large or small users. A di - sadvantage is that lower volume users do not pay their proportionate share of the cost of providing water service. Under the second option, the Peak Load Rate Structure, the customer is charged a uniform rate for a certain quantity and a higher rate for amounts consumed in excess of the base quantity. The advantage of a rate system like this is that it encourages conservation because the additional use is optional. The disadvantages are that the base is somewhat arbitrarily established, it is difficult to administer, and the revenue stream is not as dependable. The third rate structure is a Uniform Rate with a customer charge. Under this structure all customers would pay at least the minimum charge (which would include the first 2,000 gallons of water). This plan would put a cap on water and sewer charges for low volume users, it would allocate a greater portion of the fixed costs to users with larger meters and it would provide a dependable revenue stream. The disadvantage is that certain customers would be billed a monthly charge who currently do not pay anything. The Commission members discussed the proposed rate structures in depth and recommended the third option, a uniform rate with a customer charge. Commission members Bachhuber, Davies, Engel, Grochocinski, Pekras, and Smilanic voted in favor of option 3 with Commissioner Morrison voting in favor of the current uniform rate structure. IV bfua Contract David Jepson then discussed the refuse disposal contract bids just received by the Public Works Department. The bids were analyzed by the Finance Commission on the basis of lowest cost to the Village, the total value of the contract and the features of a pay -by -bag program. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of service were discussed and many questions and concerns were addressed. All members of the Commission felt much emphasis should be placed on educating the residents as to how to recycle and conserve in order to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them. A motion was made to recommend acceptance of the bid from Arc Disposal Co. for the pay -by -bag system. The motion was approved by Commission members Bachhuber, Davies, Engel, Grochocinski, Morrison, and Smilanic. Commission members Hallman and Pekras voted nay. Two Commission members recommended implementing the pay -by -bag system August 1, 1991 as opposed to following a phase-in schedule. They felt the phase-in would just add to the confusion and that it would be better to begin the program with the one bag limitation. However, they recommended that the Village relax enforcement in the initial few months and ease the transition in that manner. The Commission members then turned their attention to the remaining 1991/92 budget issues. Revenues General Fund 1. Hotel/Motel Tax The proposed Hotel/Motel Tax was recommended unanimously. 2. Resident Ambulance Fee In the discussion of this proposed fee, several Commission members felt that residents already pay for this service in their property tax and should not be asked to pay for it again. Three Commission members, Davies, Engel, and Grochocinski, voted in favor of the fee and five members were opposed (Bachhuber, Hallman, Morrison, Pekras, and Smilanic). 3. Increase Parking Fines Commission members voted unanimously in favor of this proposed increase. 4. Transfer of $93,650 from Parking Fund to reimburse the General Fund was approved by all members. 5. Commission members all approved the agreement with the firefighters to record Foreign Fire Insurance Tax receipts in the General Fund. 6. Parkway Tree Cost/Share Commission members Bachhuber, Engel, Grochocinski, Hallman, Morrison, Pekras and Smilanic approved increasing resident share to $100. Commissioner Davies voted no. Illinois Municipal Pketirement Fun I. Commission members approved the accounting change to eliminate the transfer from General Fund to Cable TV. Expenditures Public Representation 1. All Commission members approved adding $5,200 to organizational memberships for a contribution to NWMC's Transportation Committee. Villa&q Manager's office The recommendation to reduce salary adjustments from $10,000 to $5,000 was approved by all Commission members. Communications Division The proposed changes in the Communications Division prompted a spirited discussion among Commission members. They questioned how many residents actually watch the various cable programs and whether the cable franchise monies could be spent to benefit the Village as a whole. A motion was presented to eliminate the Cable Division and renew membership in the Northwest Cable Council to oversee the franchise and respond to citizen problems and complaints. The motion passed by a vote of 6 to 2. Commission members Davies, Grochocinski, Hallman, Morrison, Pekras and Smilanic were in favor of the motion and Bachhuber and Engel opposed it. In response to concerns that additional information on the Cable Division should be obtained, a recommendation was approved by all members that an independent survey be made of resident usage of the Cable TV programs and service. Police Department The recommendation that the amount budgeted for gasoline be reduced in recognition of the stabilization of gasoline prices prompted a discussion of the use of premium unleaded gasoline in the Village. Some Commission members felt regular unleaded gasoline is adequate and that the Village was spending money on premium gasoline needlessly. A motion requesting a report from staff on the need for premium gasoline in the vehicles was approved 7 to 1. Commission members Bachhuber, Davies, Engel, Grochocinski, Hallman, Pekras and Smilanic voted for the motion and Jim Morrison was opposed. Human Services 1. The issue of funding social agencies was reviewed by the Finance Commission members. The members affirmed their original recommendation not to fund social agencies. Members Bachhuber, Davies, Grochocinski, Hallman, Pekras and Smilanic voted yes and Engel and Morrison voted no by a vote of 6 to 2. The Finance Commission also expressed unanimous approval for the additional part-time clerical position in the Human Services Division. 1. The Commission members all voted in favor of adding $2,500 for affordable housing per the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Street Division 1. The Commission members favored the recommendation to increase the allocation for street resurfacing by $150,000 from available Motor Fuel Tax Funds and $93,650 from the Parking Fund. 2. The members were unanimous in support of the recommendation to change a portion of the allocation for street reconstruction to street resurfacing. Parking Fund All three recommendations for the Parking Fund were approved unanimously. These were the transfer to the General Fund of $93,650, reduction in the land lease from $27,350 to $15,350, and proposal to spend $40,000 for the parking lot rehabilitation. 1. There was unanimous approval to add the cost of squad car conversions to the pool. VI The next meeting will be April 25, 1991. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carol L. Widmer Assistant Finance Director 4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1991/92 Budget Issues Revenues General Fund 1. Hotel Motel Tax A Hotel/Motel Tax of 3% has been proposed as a means of reimbursing the Village for civic events. It is estimated that this tax would raise $35,000, 2, Resident Ambulance Fee An ambulance fee of $125,00 for all persons transported by the Village's ambulances has been proposed. It is estimated that this revenue source would provide $150,000 in addition to the $50,000 collected from non-residents. 3. Increase Parking Fees An increase from $10 to $20 in Parking fines has been proposed. This increase in revenue would raise an estimated $65,000. 4. Transfer from Parking Fund A transfer of $93,650 to reimburse the General Fund for the excess costs of widening Prospect Avenue is being proposed. This amount has not been reflected in the proposed 91/92 budget. 5. Foreign Fire Insurance Tax The recent agreement with the Firefighters approved recording Foreign Fire Insurance Tax receipts in the General Fund. This will increase revenue in 90/91 by $25,135 and in 91/92 by $27,500. These amounts have not been included in the proposed 91/92 budget. 6. Parkway Tree Cost/Share An increase from $50 to $100 has been recommended. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund 1. Eliminate Transfer from General/Cable TV This is an accounting change only and would be offset by a direct charge in the Cable Division and eliminating the transfer in Finance - Non Departmental. Library Fund 1. Add Proposed Revenues of $2,823,655. These revenues were not included in the proposed 91/92 budget. Water and Sewer Fund 1. Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Increase A 10% rate increase was included in the proposed 91/92 budget. A revised projection has reduced that amount to approximately 5%. K Expenditures Public Representation 1. Add $5,200 to Organizational Memberships for contribution to NWMC's Transportation Committee. Village Manager's Office 1. Reduce Salary Adjustments from $10,000 to $5,000. Communications Division 1, The proposed 91/92 budget includes a recommendation to replace a part-time secretary with a full-time position. A revised recommendation suggests retaining the part- time position and possibly using the estimated savings of $9,700 as an addition to Capital Expenditures for equipment replacement. 2, Village Newsletter Move responsibility of Village Newsletter back to the Village Clerk's Office. Police Department 1. Reduce provision for gas from $94,800 to $79,000. 2. Move Squad conversions to the Motor Equipment Pool. Fire Department 1, Increase Holiday Pay $15,500 and Haz/Mat Incentive $12,000 on the basis of the new employee agreement. 2, Reduce gas from $22,200 to $18,500. Human Services 1. Question Regarding Funding Social Agencies. 3 Planning & Zoning 1. Add Line -Item for Affordable Housing ($2,500) per the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Street Division 1. Increase allocation for street resurfacing by $150,000 due to available funds in the Motor Fuel Tax Fund. 2. Change a portion of the allocation for Street Reconstruction to Street Resurfacing. 3. Reduce gas from $41,000 to $35,000. Water Division 1. Reduce gas from $31,200 to $28,000. Parking Fund 1. Add Transfer to General Fund of $93,650. 2. Reduce Land Lease from $27,350 to $15,350 per agreement with CNWRR. 3. Question regarding scope of Parking Lot Rehabilitation. Refuse Disposal 1, Reduce payment to Solid Waste Agency from $97,000 to $65,880 per latest Agency budget. Capital Expenditures Motor Equipment Pool 1. Add Squad Conversions of $14,000. Community Services 1. Add Library appropriations of $2,823,655. 4 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinoix,,„„�,,,,,; INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director DATE: March 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Comparison of the Village's 90/91 and 91/92 Budgets Recently the Village received the results of the ninth annual Comparable Community Expenditure and Revenue Survey which is conducted by the City of Park Ridge. I believe this is one of the more useful surveys because it adjusts the budget amounts of all participating municipalities so that the same services are being compared. For example, if a community does not provide refuse disposal services in their budget, that budget is increased so that it will be comparable with the other communities which provide refuse disposal services. On the other hand, if one community has unusual expenditures which the other communities do not have, those expenditures are excluded. Again, this year the Village of Mount Prospect had the lowest costs per capita at $619. This amount is some $55 per capita less than the next lowest community and $290 less than the average of all communities. The information in the Survey was taken from 90/91 budgets of the nineteen participating communities. As I mentioned above, the budget totals have been adjusted to put all the communities on the same basis. Specifically, the adjusted budget totals include expenditures for refuse disposal and libraries but they exclude expenditures from bond proceeds, CDBG Projects, internal service funds, recreation or park district expenditures, funds expended for services outside the community, and for any budget amount where no capital outlay is required. The reasons for the above adjustments are: 1) Libraries are included but park districts are excluded because libraries have co -terminus boundaries but park districts do not; 2) Bond proceeds are excluded but annual debt service is included: This helps to eliminate unusually high expenditures in any one year; 3) CDBG projects are excluded because a number of the communities do not receive CDBG funds; 4) Internal Service Funds are excluded because they represent a duplication of expenditures. For example, all departments and divisions in Mount Prospect's budget have an expenditure for medical insurance. Those amounts are recorded as- an expense in the -operating departments, a revenue in the Risk Management Fund and then also as an expense of the Risk Management Fund when the claims are paid. The same is true of the Motor Equipment Pool Fund; 5) Funds expended outside the community for purposes such as fire protection districts are excluded; and 6) Amounts which do not require a cash expenditure such as depreciation are excluded. Also in this category are the normal pension costs which are covered by credits for being overfunded. When the above adjustments have been considered, the Village of Mount Prospect's adjusted budget for 90/91 is $32,901,080. John Fulton Dixon Page 2 Comparison of the Village's 90/91 and 91/92 Budgets Following is a comparison of the 90/91 budget totals with the 91/92 proposed budget as adjusted for the Park Ridge Survey: It should be pointed out that Total Adjusted Expenditures for 90/91 are $200,000 higher than the Park Ridge Survey due to the budget amendment made in December 1990. When the Total Adjusted Expenditures are expressed on a per capita basis, they equal $622.61 for 90/91 and $628.41 for 91/92 for an overall increase of less than 18. If the Village portion is separated from the totals for the Village and the Library, the results are even more dramatic. The increase from 90/91 to 91/92 for Village expenditures is $34,615 or less than 1/10 of 18. Per capita amounts for the Village for 90/91 are $574.65 and $575.30 for 91/92. As I mentioned -earlier, I believe the approach used by the City of Park Ridge is useful, and I believe the results shown above for 91/92 demonstrate the strong fiscal conservatism of the Village. DCJ/sm 90/91 91/92___ Total Village Expenditures $38,844,135 $40,344,105 Adjustments: Bond Proceeds $<5,000,000> $<6,400,000> CDBG Projects < 589,725> < 332,630> Internal Service Funds <2,036,500> <2,324,300> Forest River FPD (Est) < 50,000> < 50,000> Police & Fire Pensions < 613.750> < 64 > $<8,289,975> $<9,755,330> Adjusted Village Expenditures $30,554,160 $30,588,775 Library Expenditures 22 5� 2,823,655 25 Total Adjusted Expenditures $33,101.080 $33Al2,430 It should be pointed out that Total Adjusted Expenditures for 90/91 are $200,000 higher than the Park Ridge Survey due to the budget amendment made in December 1990. When the Total Adjusted Expenditures are expressed on a per capita basis, they equal $622.61 for 90/91 and $628.41 for 91/92 for an overall increase of less than 18. If the Village portion is separated from the totals for the Village and the Library, the results are even more dramatic. The increase from 90/91 to 91/92 for Village expenditures is $34,615 or less than 1/10 of 18. Per capita amounts for the Village for 90/91 are $574.65 and $575.30 for 91/92. As I mentioned -earlier, I believe the approach used by the City of Park Ridge is useful, and I believe the results shown above for 91/92 demonstrate the strong fiscal conservatism of the Village. DCJ/sm Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Directorc., DATE: March 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Comparable Community Expenditures and Revenue Survey The Finance Department of the City of Park Ridge recently completed its ninth annual survey of budget expenditures and selected revenues from nineteen comparable communities. The two attached schedules are taken from that survey. Schedule 1 is a comparison of adjusted budget expenditures on a per capita basis and Schedule 2 shows payments that a typical family (2.8 persons) makes directly to the municipality. The survey is dated January 1991 and was taken from 1990/91 budget amounts. In Schedule 1, budget amounts have been adjusted to represent similar services in each municipality and specifically excludes Community Development Block Grant projects. From the schedule it can be seen that Mount Prospect's per capita expenditures are again the lowest of the nineteen communities. The $619 per capita expenditures in Mount Prospect are $219 less than Des Plaines, $249 less than Arlington Heights, and some $290 less than the average of all communities. Schedule 2 shows the annual revenues that each municipality receives directly from a typical household. These direct payments include vehicle and dog licenses, property taxes, water and sewer charges, garbage pick-up fees (if separate from property taxes) and utility taxes. Mount Prospect ranks twelfth in the nineteen communities. I should point out that it is more difficult to compare direct payments than expenditures in the sample communities because of the influence of other revenue sources. However, the comparison is worthwhile and shows the typical Mount Prospect family paying $49 less than the average of all the communities. We all recognize that needs and priorities vary from community to community. However, I believe the survey information demonstrates the continuing commitment to provide necessary services to the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect at the lowest possible cost. DCJ/sm Enc Schedule 1 COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON (1) PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE COMPARISON January 1991 (1) Source - City of Park Ridge (2) Adjusted budget includes total City Budget including MFT, Library, Garbage and excluding Park District, Electric Utility, Sanitary Districts, Community Development Block Grants, Bus Service, Flood Control Proceeds, Cemeteries and Golf Courses. (3) The budget has been increased for these cities for the amount paid by all households for scavenger service. Adjusted Expenditures Rank Municipality ud 2) PoDulation PerCapita 1 Schaumburg (3) $85,949,305 68,586 $1,253.16 2 Winnetka 14,119,972 12,174 1,159.85 3 Highland Park (3) 35,393,643' 30,575 1,157.60 4 Lake Forest 19,758,129 17,836 1,107.77 5 Oak Park 58,362,457 53,648 1,087.88 6 Naperville 85,875,369 85,351 1,006.14 7 Glenview (3) 35,798,516 37,093 965.10 8 Wilmette 25,632,520 26,690 960.38 9 Northbrook (3) 29,362,573 32,308 908.83 10 Arlington Heights (3) 65,529,663 75,460 868.40 11 Skokie 51,253,080 59,432 862.38 12 Evanston 63,017,309 73,233 860.50 13 Des Plaines 44,614,090 53,223 838.25 14 Deerfield 13,793,370 17,327 796.06 15 Elmhurst 31,469,980 42,029 748.77 16 Niles 20,022,309 28,284 707.90 17 Downers Grove (3) 32,015,337 46,858 683.24 18 Park Ridge 24,372,703 36,175 673.74 19 Mount Prospect 32,901,080 53,170 618.79 MEAN $40,486,390 44,708 $ 908.67 (1) Source - City of Park Ridge (2) Adjusted budget includes total City Budget including MFT, Library, Garbage and excluding Park District, Electric Utility, Sanitary Districts, Community Development Block Grants, Bus Service, Flood Control Proceeds, Cemeteries and Golf Courses. (3) The budget has been increased for these cities for the amount paid by all households for scavenger service. Vehicle Under 35 License Over 35 COMPARABLE COMMUNITY COMPARISON ANNUAL REVENUES RECEIVED FROM AVERAGE HOME January 1991 Dog Garbage Water Utility License Charge* B ll Tax Sewer Charge City Property Tax Schedule 2 Total Direct Payments Position Assumptions for 97,000 $2,681 29,000 Sample Family 1 1 1 Gal Yearly EAV Evanston 40.00 40.00 8.00 0.00 121.89 127.65 46.69 788.51 1,172.74 1 Oak Park 40.00 40.00 10.00 0.00 203.70 126.65 92.15 575.07 1,087.57 2 Deerfield 30.00 30.00 5.00 86.16 226.93 0.00 149.12 394.40 921.61 3 Highland Park 30.00 30.00 5.00 220.80 128.04 127.65 18.00 333.21 892.70 4 Winnetka 20.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 177.26 0.00 61.22 579.42 867.90 5 Lake Forest 60.00 60.00 10.00 0.00 194.51 137.38 14.79 364.24 840.92 6 Naperville 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 203.86 137.84 110.40 332.20 792.30 7 Park Ridge 28.00 28.00 5.00 0.00 209.03 138.10 0.00 368.30 776.43 8 Glenview 20.00 20.00 5.00 192.00 191.09 127.65 48.50 150.22 754.46 9 Arlington Heights 20.00 20.00 5.00 148.56 179.45 0.00 0.00 356.15 729.16 10 Elmhurst 12.00 12.00 5.00 73.68 195.94 0.00 196.91 229.86 725.39 11 Mount Prospect 20.00 20.00 5.00 0.00 277.42 0.00 21.34 347.13 690.89 12 Northbrook 24.00 24.00 10.00 149.40 190.12 0.00 24.25 244.18 665.95 13% Wilmette 30.00 30.00 10.00 0.00 97.26 127.65 28.53 310.01 633.45 14 Des Plaines 15.00 15.00 4.00 101.40 209.52 0.00 0.00 258.39 603.31 15 Skokie 10.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 149.12 12.60 0.00 388.31 575.03 16 Downers Grove 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.60 175.05 0.00 0.00 160.98 465.63 17 Niles 15.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 178.48 80.43 0.00 169.07 457.98 18 Schaumburg 17.00 17.00 2.00 124.68 213.40 4.00 33.95 0.00 412.23 19 Mean 22.68 22.68 5.89 64.54 185.37 60.41 44.52 334.19 740.30 * Assumes once per week curb pickup where alternative levels of garbage service are available Village of Mount Prospect ro Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: MARCH 22, 1991 SUBJECT: WATER RATE IN THE VILLAGE At the Budget meeting, when the water system was discussed by the Board, Trustee Corcoran requested that we consider a seasonal rate approach for our water system. Attached is a memorandum from Dave Jepson that outlines different alternatives for water rates. The Village of 'Mount Prospect is unique in that we do not do a physical read of every household for every billing cycle. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult for us to use an excess -use rate approach since it would be hard to determine when that water was actually used. The alternative would mean that we would have to hire meter readers that would read the meters every billing cycle as opposed to the estimating system that we use now. I concur with the recommendation found on the bottom of page 8 recommending that Option 3 be strongly considered by the Board for adoption. This is the Option that provides a consumer charge of $5.00 per month including the first 2,000 gallons of use presently at $2.50, this would mean that there would be no increase for the very small user and that the rate above that would be $2.56 for each thousand gallons. This concept utilizes what many other utility systems have been using for some time and that is the availability fee. This brings a revenue from every customer each time there is a billing cycle. There are a small number of residents who may be out of the Village for extended periods of time who may not use their water who would have to pay the availability charge in the future. This is the only negative that we see with this scenario. However, it is consistent with other utilities and what has been permitted by regulatory bodies. Under this Option, approximately 1210 of the Village's customers will not receive any rate increase in this coming year and it will also allow us to keep rate increases at 5% or a lower level in the future. I believe this Option allows us to continue to provide reasonable rates for water purchase and not increase them by a large number but to increase it by small numbers over a longer period of time. JFD/rcw JOHN FULTON, IRON Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois , INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director tl_ DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed Water Rate Increase Included in the 1991/92 proposed budget is a recommendation to increase the combined water and sewer rate from $2.50 per 1,000 gallons to $2.75 per 1,000 gallons, an across-the-board increase of 10%. The increase is being proposed because the cash balance of the Water Fund will be drawn -down by about $475,000 during the 90/91 fiscal year and, without an increase, the balance will be reduced an additional $200,000 in 91/92. The reduction in 91/92 reflects the deferral of repainting the downtown water tower at an estimated cost of $275,000. When that amount is added to projected expenditures in 92/93, the resulting estimated shortfall for 92/93 is $725,000. In order to maintain a strong financial position in the Water Fund, and in an attempt to minimize the possibility of much larger increases in future years, I believe a water rate increase is necessary in 91/92. During the budget review with the Village Board, Trustee Corcoran requested that we look at optional rate structures rather than just an across-the-board increase. In this memo I will provide information on other rate structures as well as presenting a longer-term plan regarding water and sewer rates. There are a variety of rate structures that have been developed but most of these structures fall within one of five basic plans. In a report prepared for the members of the DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference, James C. LaBelle identified five basic forms of water rate structures currently in use: 1) Flat Rates; 2) Uniform Rates; 3) Declining Block Rates; 4) Increasing Block Rates; and 5) Peak Load or Excess Use Rates. Following is a discussion of these rate structures: Flat Rate Structure Under a Flat Rate Structure, similar classes of customers are charged the same amount regardless of the amount of water used. Generally water meters are not used where a flat rate is charged. The City of Chicago charges a flat rate for all its residential customers. A flat rate structure is very easy to administer, but it actually encourages wasting water. It is used only in rare circumstances. John Fulton Dixon March 11, 1991 Proposed Water Rate Increase Uniform Rate Structure Under a Uniform Rate Structure, each unit of water is the same rate regardless of the number of units used. The rate is established by dividing total expected costs by the total units of water that are expected to be sold. Mount Prospect currently has a uniform rate. The advantages of a uniform rate are that it is not discriminatory to either large or small users and it does encourage conservation especially in the higher volume users. One of the disadvantages is that lower volume users do not pay their proportionate share of the cost for providing water service. Declining Block Rate Sgl;uct4re Although the Declining Block Rate Structure is not as common as in prior years it is still used in many areas. It consists of a series of unit charges which decrease as consumption increases. Because the cost of providing extra capacity to higher volume users is less than the cost of providing basic service, it is generally agreed that a properly designed decreasing block rate structure will recover revenue from each user class more consistent with the cost of providing service than any other rate plan. A declining block rate structure is a definite advantage to higher volume users. However, this rate method has been criticized because it does not encourage conservation. In granting Lake Michigan water allocations, the Illinois Department of Transportation specifically states that water rate structures should be uniform or increasing as use increases. Additionally, another criticism is that the low volume user pays substantially more per unit than the high volume user. Increasinz Block Rate Structure An Increasing Block Rate Structure works the opposite of the decreasing block structure whereby the unit charge increases as the volume of consumption increases. It is rarely used except in circumstances where there is a water shortage. The increasing block rate structure encourages conservation, but it tends to penalize the larger users with lower peak demand requirements. Peak Load or Excess Use Rate Structure With a- Peak Load or Excess Rate Structure, the customer is charged a uniform rate for a certain quantity, and a higher rate for the amounts consumed in excess of the base quantity. Under this system the use for winter months would be compared with summer months to determine the peak 2 John Fulton Dixon March 11, 1991 Proposed Water Rate Increase load or demand. A higher rate is then established to cover the additional capacity needed to meet the peak load. The only municipality in the area with a system like this is Elmhurst. They found that their customers consistently used 308 more water during the peak months. Accordingly, they developed a rate structure which charges an additional 508 for any water used above 1308 of the base amount. For the six year period of 1985 1990 in Mount Prospect, the average billings for the months of July October have equaled 152,070 (1,000 gallons) compared to average billings of 113,602 (1,000 gallons) for the months of January - April. The higher use during the summer months represents approximately 348 more than the winter months. However, the percentage increase has not been consistent each year. The annual averages during this period range from 198 to 638. Some of the considerations that must be kept in mind while developing water and sewer rate structures are: equity, reasonableness, and sufficiency. In regard to equity, Chapman and Cutler (Attorneys), in a report to the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, stated that the courts have held that rates must be nondiscriminatory and that a municipality must serve all water customers on equal terms. However, they noted that the rules of common law do not require absolute uniformity of rates nor forbid the performance of service for one at rates lower than received from others. The definition of reasonable is vague at best. What may be reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. However, the dictionary defines reasonable as sensible or moderate. In regard to the reasonableness of Mount Prospect's current water rate, an individual can obtain 1,000 gallons for $2.50, or effectively 1/4¢ per gallon. The other consideration is that the rate must be sufficient to cover the cost of providing the water service. Chapman and Cutler determined that sufficiency includes operation and maintenance costs, an adequate depreciation fund and debt service requirements. The Village's Water and Sewer Fund is set up as a municipal enterprise fund which requires that appropriate fees and charges be established to ensure that the enterprise can operate on a self-sustaining basis and maintain a strong financial position. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) advocates that each utility strive to allocate the costs of supplying water to various classes of water users, and then recover those costs through rates that will sustain the water system and not discriminate against any class of users. In other words, rates should be cost -based and nondiscriminatory. The AWWA states that a second common goal in rate setting is stability. Unusually large and unexpected rate changes should John Fulton Dixon March 11, 1991 Proposed Water Rate Increase be avoided. Additionally, the rate structure should be understandable to the water customers. There are three general steps in the rate setting process: 1) Identify Revenue Requirements; 2) Determine the Cost of Service; and 3) Designing the Rate Structure. Using historical information since the Village has been obtaining Lake Michigan water from JAWA, we have tracked the revenues and the expenditures associated with providing water and sewer service. These amounts are included in attached Schedule 1. In that schedule, Special Service Area (SSA) No. 5 property taxes and grants, and correspondingly SSA No. 5 debt service, JAWA fixed costs and the costs associated with the SSES sewer project that was covered by grants have been excluded. Actual amounts have been used for 86/87 - 89/90; estimated amounts for 90/91, budget amounts for 91/92 and then projected amounts for 92/93 - 96/97. 1 believe this schedule covers the first two steps mentioned above. The first two sections in Schedule I use dollar amounts to show revenues and expenditures and then these amounts are converted to revenues and expenditures per 1,000 gallons. In order to show the rate requirements over the next six years (91/92 - 96/97) revenues have been calculated at the current water and sewer rate of $2.50 per 1,000 gallons. The deficit of revenues in relation to expenditures is then also expressed as an amount per 1,.000 gallons. An analysis of the schedule indicates that revenues exceeded expenditures from 86/87 - 89/90 by a total of $995,000 or 60¢ per 1,000 gallons on a cumulative basis. However, based on 90/91 estimated amounts, that amount will be reduced by $477,000, or 31¢ per 1,000 gallons in 90/91. By converting revenues, expenditures and the deficiency of revenues over expenditures at the current rate of $2.50 per 1,000 gallons, the rate required over the next several years can be determined. Schedule 2 takes the last line on Schedule 1 (Excess <Deficit> per 1,000 Gallons) and then shows the revenue requirements per 1,000 gallons that will be needed to overcome the projected deficiencies. The Schedule shows the cumulative total of revenues over expenditures for the 86/87 - 90/91 fiscal years ($.29 per 1,000 gallons) and how that balance can be used over the next four years to level out future rate increases. $.Ol is being proposed for 91/92, $.22 for 93/94 and then $.02 for 93/94 and 94/95. In total $.27 of the $.29 will be used. The result is a $.12 per 1,000 gallon increase for 91/92, a $.13 increase for 92/93 and 93/94, and then a $.14 increase for 94/95 - 96/97. The increase for each year in the model is 5% or less. Any plan such as this will be subject to revision but I think it is a useful method for looking at potential rate increases over the next several years. . The model in Schedule 2 is based upon a Uniform Rate Structure where all customers are paying the same rate regardless of the amount of water consumed. As an alternate, I am including information on two other options that could be 4 John Fulton Dixon March 11, 1991 Proposed Water Rate Increase considered. The first is a modification of the Peak Load Structure such as used by Elmhurst, and the second is a variation of the Uniform Rate Structure which includes a base customer charge and the features of a "lifeline rate." Ovtion - Peak Load Structure To develop a true Peak Load Structure, it would take a formal rate study to determine the base and the peak demand for the various classes of customers (residential, commercial, industrial, etc). Additionally, a rate structure with a number of variables would require extensive modification of the billing system. However, if a base use could be established for each meter size which was based on the four months of lowest use (billed in January - April) and a uniform surcharge was applied to any use during the year that exceeded the base, it could be implemented by Mount Prospect. In effect a rate structure like this would be a seasonal rate because most of the excess use would be in the summer months. The advantage of a seasonal rate is that the additional use during the seasonal period is optional: a customer could choose to use or not to use the additional amounts. The disadvantages are that the base has been established somewhat arbitrarily and it would be much more difficult to administer. Based upon use per meter size during 1990, the excess use would average about 390,000 (1,000 gallons) per year. ' In establishing a rate for the excess use, it would take a rate of 4.2¢ for the excess use to make up for 1¢ based upon the uniform rate. For example, if the proposed $.12 increase for 91/92 under the Uniform Rate Structure would be replaced exclusively with a rate for excess use, it would take a rate of $.50 per 1,000 gallons for the use in excess of the base established. An example of this can be shown for a residential homeowner as follows: Assume a base use of 7,000 gallons per month and actual use of 12,000 gallons during the month of August. The billing for August would be 12 x $2.50 + 5 x $.50 — $32.50. This would represent an increase of $2.50, or 8.38, over the current rate structure. The advantages of a rate system like this are that it would encourage conservation and the additional use is optional. The disadvantages are that the base has been established somewhat arbitrarily. A base use for each meter size was established, but there was a considerable fluctuation in use especially in the larger meters. Additionally, it would be more difficult to administer, it may require a new software package, and the revenue stream would not be as dependable. Ogtion - Uniform Rate With Customer Charge The second optional rate structure is a variation of the Uniform Rate structure which includes a fixed customer charge and a "lifeline rate" John Fulton Dixon March 11, 1991 Proposed Water Rate Increase feature. In both the AWWA's "Manual of Water Supply Practice - Water Rates" and the "Arthur Young Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing" publication, a customer charge representing billing costs and meter and service costs is advocated. This charge typically covers the fixed costs associated with billing and maintaining meters and in some cases a readiness to serve or availability charge. AWWA has developed an equivalent meter and service ratio based on the size of the meter that has been used to distribute service costs to user classes on a more equitable basis. Following are the ratios along with the number of meters in the Village's system: Meter Size Equivalent Meter Number of Meters _(Inches)— and Service Ratio In Village SysteLn 5/8 1.0 10,649 3/4 1.1 25 1 1.4 429 1-1/2 1.8 217 2 2.9 233 3 11.0 32 4 14.0 10 6 21.0 9 8 29.0 1 11,605 Their findings indicate that if it costs $1.00 to maintain a 5/8" service it would cost $29.00 to maintain an 8" service. A customer charge may or may not include a minimum amount of water. if it does include a minimum amount of water, it can function as a "lifeline rate." A lifeline rate is a minimum rate that in effect gives a discount to low volume users or economically disadvantaged users. For example, if a monthly customer charge was in place which included 2,000 gallons of water, that amount would not be subject to future rate increases, unless the customer charge increases. Specifically, if the Village had a customer charge of $5.00 per month that included 2,000 gallons of water, a customer using up to 2,000 gallons per month would pay $5.00 per month over the next several years regardless of the cost per 1,000 gallons. A customer charge of $5.00 for a 5/8" meter would equate to a $14.50 charge for a 211 meter and a $145.00 charge for an 8" meter based upon the equivalent meter and service ratio listed above. If a customer charge of this amount were to be implemented, the proposed water rate increase of $.12 per 1,000 gallons in 1991/92 could be reduced to a $.06 increase. However, it should be pointed out that this would be John Fulton Dixon March 11, 1991 Proposed Water Rate Increase a one-time savings and the proposed increases for 92/93 - 96/97 would still be tentatively needed. The advantages of a rate structure that includes a customer charge are that it enables the Village to recover certain fixed costs, it assigns a more appropriate portion of the fixed costs to the higher volume users, it provides low volume users with a means of capping their water and sewer bills, and it assigns a portion of the costs to inactive accounts and accounts which are for standby purposes. The Village currently has 230 fire meter accounts who usually do not pay any monthly charge. Under this rate structure they would pay a charge that could be considered an availability charge. The primary disadvantage is that some customers who do not pay a current amount (for example if they were out of town for several months or for a new house that is not occupied) would be charged the minimum bill. To put the options in perspective, the following schedule compares the monthly billing for selected accounts at the 90/91 current rate and the three options mentioned above: Meter Size Est 90/91 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 And Type Monthly Current Uniform Excess Customer Of Customer Use Rate Rate Use Rate Charge 5/8"(Residential) 12 $ 30.00 $ 31.44 $ 32.50 $ 30,60 11, (Commercial) 50 $ 125.00 $ 131.00 $ 137.50 $ 129.88 2" (Commercial) 200 $ 500.00 $ 524.00 $ 545.00 $ 515.88 3" (Industrial) 350 $ 875.00 $ 917.00 $ 950.00 $ 945.88 41' (Industrial) 500 $1,250.00 $1,310.00 $1,350.00 $1,344.88 The above schedule assumes Option 1 is based upon,a uniform rate of $2.62 per 1,000 gallons; Option 2 is based upon a base rate of $2.50 per 1,000 gallons and an excess use rate of $3.00 per 1,000 gallons; Option 3 includes a customer charge of $5.00 for a 5/81, meter with that amount increasing in relation to the ratios on the previous page and which includes 2,000 gallons per month, and a rate for additional use at $2.56 per 1,000 gallons. I realize there has been a considerable amount of information presented and that some of the concepts are not in common practice. Each option has advantages and disadvantages, depending on each customer's point of view. The following section summarizes the pros and the cons that have been presented: 7 John Fulton Dixon March 11, 1991 Proposed Water Rate Increase Option 1, Uniform Rate - A uniform rate of $2.62 per 1,000 gallons for all water use has been proposed for 91/92. The uniform rate treats every customer alike; it is easy to understand and to administer; and it will provide a reliable revenue stream to finance water and sewer operations. A uniform rate helps to encourage conservation because the higher volume users are paying a higher proportionate share of system costs. The only valid criticism is that low volume users do not pay their fair share of the costs of the system. Option 2, Excess Use Rate Structure - An excess use rate structure charges a uniform rate for each class of customers up to a predetermined base quantity and then a higher rate for the excess use above the base. This approach provides the greatest incentive of the three options for conserving water and that is its greatest value. On the other hand, the base use amounts for the various customer classes have been determined somewhat arbitrarily; it would be difficult to explain to customers and accordingly to administer; and the expected revenue stream could be reduced significantly if conservation measures were taken by many customers. Option 3, Uniform Rate With a Customer Charge - By including a customer charge along with the first 2,000 gallons of water, all customers would pay at least the minimum charge, it would put a cap on water and sewer charges for low volume users, it would allocate a greater portion of the fixed costs to the users with larger meters, and it would provide a dependable revenue stream. The primary disadvantage is that certain customers would be billed a monthly customer charge who currently do not pay anything. Under this option, approximately 12% of the Village's customers would not realize any rate increase in 91/92, and almost all the other customers would have a smaller increase than under the other options. Any one of the options could be implemented by the Village, however, the Excess Use Rate Structure would be more difficult to implement and administer. I agree that the conservation objective is very important and will become more important as time goes by. Nevertheless, I believe the level of the Village's existing rates are in themselves a deterrent to wasting water, and I prefer either Option I or Option 3. 1 believe Option 3 is the most appropriate method of achieving equity, reasonableness and sufficiency in the Village's rate structure. Enc. Revenues gad ExptKtditures Revenues: ti) Water % Sewer Charges Other Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures: (2) Personal Services Contractual Services CCaalodi t ies Capital Outlay (3) Debt Service Total Expenditures Excess <Deficit> Revenues Over Expenditures values Per 1.000 Galtons 1,000 Gallons Bitted Vater 8 Sewer Rate Revenues per 1,000 Gallons: Water 8 Sewer Charges Other Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures per 1,000 Gallons Excess <Deficit> per 1,000 Gallons Schedule 1 VILLAGE Of MMT PROSPECT Vater and Sewer System Revenue and Expenditure Analysis 86187 - 96/97 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 Actual Actuat Actual Actual Este Budget Projected Pro iected Proi tell Prolactad Projected. $3,167,556 $3,275,683 53,938,233 $3,927,906 53,810,000 0,875,000 $3,875,000 $3,912,500 $3,912,500 S 3,950,000 $ 3,95$` 396.676 374,901 707 005 637.720 454.500 535-150 L88.250 512.650 538 300 565-200 593.. %3,564,232 $3,650,584 $4,645,238 $4,565,626 $4,264,500 $4,406,15054,363,250 $4,425,150 $4,450,800 S 4,515,200 $ 4,543,500 S726,288 S 756,322 $ 845,265 $1,034,564 $1,100,255 $1,206,050 $1,266,350 $1,329,650 $1,396,150 S 1,465,950 $ 1,539,250 2,098,703 2,162,591 2,183,956 2,349,639 2,381,725 2,523,700 2,649,900 2,782,400 2,921,500 3,067,600 3,220,950 253,022 284,158 308,670 312,526 358,750 356,300 374,100 392,800 412,450 433,100 454,750 325,173 364,117 .558,191 475,684 732,475 344,900 637,250 380,350 399,400 419,350 440,350 85,000 123.498 182.917 168.865 169.175 159,750 165.060 159.700 164.340 158.22 %3,403,186 53,652,188 L.,019,580 $4,355,330 54,742,070 $4,600,125 $5,087,350 $5,050,260 $5,289,200 $ 5,550,340 $ 5,813,520 i 161.046 s< /.607> % 625.658 S 210.296 5< 477.570> %< 193.975> %< 724ADO> 5<( 5,110> 'S< 838.400> $<1.035-140> 5<1.270.020> 1,489,358 1,545,385 1,674,702 1,573,513 1,524,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,565,000 1,565,000 1,580,000 52.10 $2.10 $2.30 $2.50 52.50 $2-50 $2.50 $2.50 52.50 52.50 $ 2.13 S 2.12 S 2.35 5 2.50 S 2.50 S 2.50 S 2.50 S 2.50 $ 2.50 S 2.50 X40 _30 _34 _31 -33 -34 _36 S 2.39 S 2.36 S 2.T7 $ 2.90 S 2.80 $ 2.84 $ 2.81 S 2.83 5 2.84 S 2.86 $ 2.29 12-36 $ 2.40 S 2.77 S 3.11 $ 2.97 5 3.28 $ 3.23 !--3-38 S 3.51 5510 S -0- 5$37 iS.13 S<y31> S<-13> $<-47> $< .40> S<-54> S< -65> 1,580,000 $2.50 5 2.50 .38 S 2.88 S 3.68 $, .80, (1) Revenues do not include Special Service Area 55 property taxes, Prospect Meadows surcharge, or grants. Other revenues include tap -on fees, interest income, reiabursements, etc. t2) Expenditures do not irctude SSA N5 Debt Service, JAVA fixed Costs, or costs associated with the SSES Sewer Project. Except for Debt Service, expenditures for 92/93-96/97 are expected to increase by 5% annually. (3) Capital Outlay in 87/88 does not include the $1,000,000 contribution to new Pubtic works Building. Capital Outlay for 92/93 includes $275,000 for the Downtown Storage Tank. VILLAGE OF H"T PROSPECT Water and Sewer System Water and Sewer Revenue Requirements 1991/92 - 1996/97 86/87-89/90 90/91 86/87-90/91 Cumulative Estimated Net Increase From Schedule 1: Excess <Deficit> Per 1,000 Gallons 5.60 $<.31> $.29 Additional Revenue Requirements: Allocation of 86/87 - 90/91 Net Income Proposed Rate Increases: 4/30/90 $ - $2.50 - 5/01/91 .12 2.62 4.8% 5/01/92 .13 2.75 5.0% 5/01/93 .13 2.88 4.7% 5/01/94 .14 3.02 4.9% 5/01/95 .14 3.16 4.6% 5/01/96 .14 3.30 4.4% Total Rate Increases Total Additional Revenue Per 1,000 Gallons Schedule 2 91/92 8udaet 92/93 Protected 93/94 Proiected 94/95 Proiected 95/96 Proiected 96/97 Projected $<.�13> SS<y47> S<.40> $<y54> $<.65> ES<.80> $ .01 $ .22 S .02 $ .02 $ - 3 - $ .12 $ .12 S .12 $ .12 E .12 S .12 - .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 - .13 .13 .13 .13 - .14 .14 .14 - .14 .14 _ .14 S .12 S .25 $ .38 S .52 S .68 8 .80 3513 5547 5540 5554 E$66 LAE Rhone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 70e / 392-6022 AGENDA BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 27, 1991 Trustee's Room Village Hall 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Downtown Development Strategy Update V. NEW BUSINESS A. Informative Meeting Format - Broadacre/Owners/Tenants B. Downtown Zoning District C. Impact of Facade Program on Non -Conforming Signs D. Potential Facade Applicants E. B.D.D.R.C. Vacancies after April 2 Election V1. ADJOURNMENT MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY TRUSTEES RALPH W ARTHUR MARK W BUSSE TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN LED FLOROS GEORGE R. VAN GEEM THEODORE J, WATTENBERG Village of Mount Prospect VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON 100 S, Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK CAROL A. FIELDS Rhone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 70e / 392-6022 AGENDA BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 27, 1991 Trustee's Room Village Hall 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Downtown Development Strategy Update V. NEW BUSINESS A. Informative Meeting Format - Broadacre/Owners/Tenants B. Downtown Zoning District C. Impact of Facade Program on Non -Conforming Signs D. Potential Facade Applicants E. B.D.D.R.C. Vacancies after April 2 Election V1. ADJOURNMENT