Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0396_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 27, 1990 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald L Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Leo Floros and George Van Geem (at 7:50 p.m.) and former Trustee Theodore Wattenberg. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director David Jepson, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Pub ' lic Works Director Glen Andler, Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer, Catherine Morley and Richard Bodner of RJN and Associates, three members of the press and 26 persons in the audience. 11. MINUTES The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of November 13, 1990 were accepted and filed. III.CITIZENS TD BE HEARD George Watanabe, 607 Prospect Manor, asked when the next meeting with the residents of the area will be held concerning the results of the Engineering Study regarding flooding. Mayor Farley said this meeting will be held as soon as possible. Ken Westlake, Chairman of the Recycling Commission, made a presentation on behalf of the Commission recommending that the Village expand the Recycling Program to include plastics and tin in January. Mayor Farley noted that the Village, most likely, can get a better price for the recycling of materials if we wait until we negotiate the new contract with BFI which will end in July. Trustee Arthur agreed with Mayor Farley, saying that $52,000 is quite a bit of money to spend for the balance of the year. He suggested two sets of bids, one bid with just the garbage cost and one bid with the garbage and recyclables. Former Trustee Wattenberg indicated he favors delaying the implementation of this program until we bid out the contract. Trustee Busse said he also prefers to wait until the contract is bid out. However, he would like to see the Recycling Program expanded even further than the plastics and tin recommended by the Recycling Commission. He asked that the Recycling Commission look into this possibility. Trustee Floros supported the Village Manager's recommendation to delay the expansion of the Recycling Program until the contract is bid out. V. SMBAMTER USER CRARG Village Manager Dixon introduced the discussion on the Stormwater User Charge. Finance Director David Jepson said that a User Charge requires those receiving the service and directly benefitting from it to pay for it. He said the Village wanted to make this an equitable charge, and RJN Associates was authorized to perform a Study to this end. Catherine Morley, of RJN and Associates, then gave a lengthy presentation concerning the Stormwater User Charge Study. She noted that a Stormwater User Charge is used in over 70 communities in the United States. She said this is the most dependable and equitable way to proceed. There have been very few Court cases on these User Charges, only five, and all have been ruled in favor of the utilities. Ms. Morley said RJN recommends the impervious area method for calculation of the User Charge based on a common single-family charge. Trustee Floros asked if it is legal to send a bill to churches and schools. Ms. Morley said yes, it is a User Charge, similar to the sanitary sewer charge we now have in place. Trustee Floros asked if schools and churches are presently charged for sanitary sewer. Finance Director Dave Jepson said yes. Mr. Jepson said that according to our attorney, Jim Stucko, the Village has the authority, under Home Rule powers, to bill any school or church for a User Charge. Mr. Jepson noted that all monies derived from this fee would be used for the stormwater system. Trustee Floros said it would be hard to convince someone with a small home that they should pay as much as someone with a larger home. Ms. Morley said there is not much difference in the size of impervious surface. She noted that 80% of the properties studied were within 550 square feet of each other. Mr. Jepson said that it is not uncommon to have a flat charge as suggested by RJN. Trustee Van Geern asked why the Finance Commission has not studied this issue yet. Mr. Jepson said the Village just received this report. He noted that even if the Committee could give the go-ahead tonight, the earliest the Village could implement the Program is July 1, 1991. -2- Trustee Van Geem said that $2.00 or $3.00 per single-family sounds reasonable but voters just voted against a Referendum for the Public Safety Facility for approximately $.$0 a month which would have benefitted all members of the community much more clearly than stormwater sewer projects. He asked how much the Village is going to commit to without a Referendum. He said that the Property Tax has been shown to be a fair and equitable way of apportioning costs. He challenged whether this User Fee is equitable, He felt that everyone will think they are being cheated by a User Fee. He said be would rather stick with the proven method, the Property Tax. At least a Property Tax could be written off on Federal Income Taxes. Mr. Jepson said that properties with detention would have to pay a much greater charge for this stormwater project if the Property Tax were used. He said Property Tax is efficient but not necessarily equitable in this case. Trustee Van Geem was concerned because he felt this policy would be going against previous policy in which the Village has not been taxing schools and churches. Trustee Van Geem then took exception to the comments that the Stormwater User Fee would be simple and flexible because he felt these two terms are conflicting. Ms. Morley indicated that flexible means that a system should be easy to calculate for a new property. Trustee Van Geem said he did not feel the sewer repairs would help him because he does not flood. He said he lives near Weller Creek and if water gets into the Creek faster, he could argue it could actually hurt him. He asked how you convince people who do not flood at this point that the project will benefit them. Ms. Morley said that everyone is contributing to the water in the system so, therefore, everyone benefits. Trustee Van Geem said he supports the concept of stormwater sewer repairs because of his sense of social responsibility but he said he does not agree it benefits him or others like him. Trustee Van Geem asked if this is a permanent source of funding. He said this could scare some taxpayers away. Mr. Jepson said yes it would be permanent. He said there are phases for construction until the year 2000 with Bond Issues of 20 years. He said that after that point, repairs would be on-going. He said we know there is a need, and this is one financing option. Former Trustee Wattenberg said he did not see any of his neighbors in the audience. He does not feel there is such a pressing need for these repairs. He questioned going along with the User Fee at this time. Trustee Busse asked why we have this problem now. Ms. Morley said that growth, intensity of development and lack of infrastructure keeping pace with this growth is the cause. Ms. Morley then explained the detention credit as requested by Trustee Busse. -3- Trustee Busse then asked about roof -top detention. Ms. Morley said roof -top detention provides no significant capacity or effect on flooding problems. Trustee Busse asked if multi -family dwellings pay less. Ms. Morley said the User Charge recommended would be based on impervious surface. Thus, the higher a building goes, the less it costs per unit because there is the same impervious surface. Trustee Busse asked if this User Fee has created any hardships on non-residential properties elsewhere. Ms. Morley said no because actually the Property Tax would be much higher. Trustee Busse asked about the Appeals process and who would do it. Mr. Jepson said that Engineering would handle the appeals. Trustee Busse said he prefers this approach to the Property Tax. He said the flooding problem is something that will not go away and something must be done. Trustee Arthur agrees that this is a problem that will not go away. He said the Village has been promising to do something for quite sometime. He said he is very much in favor of this User Fee. He said he will push to get something done. Mayor Farley then opened the floor to comments by residents. A resident at 17 South Wa-Pella said he had no basement flooding the first eight years he lived in town. He has lived here for 13 years. He said there is more water now because of the Northwest Highway improvement. He said the Village made a big mistake going to a Referendum on the Public Safety Facility. He asked the Village Board not to do the same on this project because something needs to be done right away. He encouraged the Board to move ahead. A resident at 20 South Wa-Pella said he is also very much in favor of the User Charge. He said he has been living here for 20 years and has had water in his basement every year. He said he voted no on the Public Safety Facility because nothing has been done to solve his flooding problems. He agreed that homeowners in the flood -prone areas are very much paranoid about water in their basement. Peter Lannon, of 1409 Dogwood, said that even in 1987, his house did not flood. However, he is in favor of some kind of a fee to help alleviate the flooding problems. He did note though that the Village should be very careful about setting up a permanent utility. He warned that it would take on a life of its own with more employees. He was concerned that the Village would have to go through the ICC regarding the rates. He said overall it is a good program but he did not feel the Village should have a separate Utility Board. Mr. Jepson said the Village would not have a separate Utility Board. He called this a utility because it would be very similar to the water or sewer utility which we currently operate through the Village. He noted this would be established as a utility for accounting purposes only. Mr. Lannon was satisfied with this explanation and he was no longer concerned. Mr. Lannon said his heart goes out to the people with flooding problems and urged the Village to move forward. ME A resident at 909 South See-Gwun said he has had flooding since 1962. He said the time to do something is now. Mayor Farley said he would like to solve the flooding problems without a Referendum. He suggested Saturday meetings after receiving the Finance Commission report to determine how we may best proceed. Trustee Floros said he has no problem to allocate funds for the flooding conditions without a Referendum. He suggested that the Village move ahead right now with the design for Central and Wa-Pella. He said we should await the report from the Finance Commission in the meantime. He said that once we receive the results from the study that is being performed by Stanley Consultants in the Prospect High School area, the Village should then go ahead as soon as possible with the North Main and Prospect Manor design. Trustee Van Geem said he felt there is a valid reason to hold back and to study this proposal. He said this proposal envisions spending $22 million but this will only give a 25 -year flood protection. He said he does not favor a Referendum. However, he recommends a Commission which would be a blend of Engineering and Finance with residents of the Village to study the projects and make recommendations on which should be implemented. Trustee Arthur does not agree with setting up a Commission to second guess our Engineering Consultant. He said that we have to move forward now and he agrees with Trustee Floros' recommendations. A resident at 907 See -Gwen said that he was flooded twice and lost $20,000 each time which was not covered by insurance. He feels there has been procrastination. He said the Village does not need another committee. He said the Village spent a lot of money on a consultant. He said it is time to get off the dime now and move forward. Trustee Busse said he sympathizes with the victims of flooding. He agrees that the property values go down. He suggested that the Village proceed without a Referendum. He said the Village should incorporate the credit for detention. He is not in favor of another Commission. Trustee Floros made a Motion to recommend acceptance of the Village Manager's recommendations to go ahead with the Central/Wa-Pella design and to wait until the Village receives the results from Stanley Consultants concerning the Prospect Manor/North Main area and to proceed as soon as possible with the design in these areas upon receipt of that report. The consensus of the Committee was to proceed as suggested by Trustee Floros. Trustee Floros agreed with Trustee Van Geern that there should be another Commission related to this matter. 20 Mayor Farley said he has been reluctant in the past to initiate a Commission because he does not want to pit neighbor against neighbor in deciding the priorities for storrawater projects. He noted that any 'project is ultimately the Board's decision. Mayor Farley indicated that there will be a meeting immediately prior to the Coffee with Council at 9:00 a.m., on December 8, to discuss this matter further. Manager Dixon said he would also like to discuss the Finance Commission recommendation on the Stormwater Sewer Charge. Mr, Dixon noted that copies of the Stormwater User Study will be on file at the Library. flw�� Village Manager Dixon introduced the discussion of the Six -Month Budget review. He said Revenues are down but Expenditures are down even more, He also noted that overtime costs are down. Finance Director David Jepson then presented his Report on the Six -Month Budget Review. Trustee Van Geem asked if the Village is at the appropriate level of Self - Insurance. Mr. Jepson said that our broker is looking for attractively priced additional insurance. Mr. Jepson then outlined the deductibles which we carry for the various types of insurance. On General Liability, the Village has a $1 million deductible with which Mr. Jepson is not comfortable. However, he is still looking into alternate coverage at an affordable rate. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is not concerned with the $1 million deductible because any such large claim would take two to three years before payout would be made. With regard to Medical Insurance, Trustee Van Geem said he would not be embarrassed to ask the employees to contribute more considering the great increase in cost for medical care. Mr. Dixon said that Public Works did increase its contribution in a recent contract. He said that he will be discussing an additional contribution with the Police and Fire Departments. 1. Mr. Dixon reported that 49 letters have been sent to developers asking if they have interest in the triangle area. He said we will be ready for the January 5 meeting. 2.. The Manager said the Village was visited by the Department of Energy camera crew to take film of the Village's recycling program. -6- VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Busse asked for a cost benefit analysis of the proposed redevelopment in the triangle area outlining the best and worst case scenarios. Mayor Farley indicated that this was the last meeting to be attended by former Trustee Theodore Wattenberg. Mayor Farley praised former Trustee Wattenberg for his many years of excellent service to the community. He presented him with a plaque and thanked him. Trustees Van Geern, Floros, Busse and Arthur also praised former Trustee Wattenberg in a personal tribute. Village Manager Dixon also praised former Trustee Wattenberg and thanked him for his help. IX. ADIOURNME The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager -7- Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 6, 1990 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TAXI RATE INCREASE American Taxi has requested a rate increase due to escalating costs. The last increase in the Village was granted on April 21, 1987. This matter has been placed on the Agenda of the Committee of the Whole for December 11 pursuant to the Village Code which requires this within 90 days after the application is filed. Notice was given in the Daily Herald issue of November 24, 1990. Attached is a copy of the Section of the Village Code outlining the procedure to be followed by the Committee and Board and Mount Prospect's current rates. Under the proposed increase, the cost for any trip under a mile would remain unchanged at $2.00. However, a one -mile trip would increase 20%. Waiting time would increase 15.6%. The cost for additional miles would increase 16.7%. Assuming no waiting time, a one -mile trip would increase 20%, a two-mile trip 18.75% and a three-mile trip 18.2%. In other words, the overall increase is approximately 19% on average or about a 5% increase per year since the last increase. I surveyed neighboring communities regarding taxi rates. Three municipalities in my survey do not regulate the fares: Palatine, Prospect Heights and Wheeling. In Des Plaines, fares are regulated only for senior citizens. Cab companies must merely file a notice of increase with these cities a specified number of days before the increase takes effect, typically 30 days. Elk Grove Village currently has the same rates as Mount Prospect but their Board has approved the rate increase exactly as requested by American Taxi to take effect January 1, 1991. The last increase was approved in 1986. Arlington Heights has basically the same rates as Mount Prospect. The only exception is they allow slightly more for additional passengers. Arlington Heights has also adopted an Ordinance to increase the fares to the level requested by American Taxi effective January 1, 1991. However, they did not increase the waiting time which will remain at $16.00 an hour. The last increase was in March 1986. Schaumburg has the same rates as Mount Prospect. Their Finance Committee has recommended approving the increase as requested by American Taxi. The Board will consider the proposal on December 11. The last increase was in 1986. Buffalo Grove has basically the same rates as Mount Prospect with a slightly higher allowance for additional passengers. They recently received the same request for a rate increase by American Taxi but no action has been taken. Rolling Meadows has basically the same rates as Mount Prospect with a slightly higher allowance for additional passengers. They have not received a request for a rate increase. Their last increase was in 1988. Senior citizens continue to have problems with the service provided by American Taxi. A report by the Human Services Administrator Nancy Morgan is attached. After I received this memo, I was advised the Village received two more complaints from seniors about American Taxi. The proposed rate increase does not seem unreasonable, especially considering the large increase in fuel prices recently. However, the Committee may wish to defer the consideration of an Ordinance to increase rates for 90 days, thus making the increase contingent upon satisfactory performance in the Senior Taxi Program. It must also be noted that a rate increase will impact the Discount Taxi Program budget. JOHN P. BURG JPB/rcw attachments 925 E. Rand Rd. 9 Suite 204 * Arlington Heights, IL 60004 0 Phone 253-3545 Mr. I (-) h n 1) 1 �, o n v i I I a-ze manager ,,, i I lake or !,,I L . Prospect I Lit) J . I: ine r s o n Mt . F rot�posac t , I I , bOObt) October 6, 199U near Mr. 1.) 1 xc,r. : itie purpose of 011S letter is to request a criange n the ora I lianc.e concerning meter rates in Mt. vrospect. It nas been a little over ;our years sl Ce -jur last meter increase. We can no longer absorb tree costs of inflation and tLiel price increases without pat:,,!Fw, tnt=so costs aloria to our customers. According to u.5, bureau of Labor s t. 1: ; s t i cs the Consuirter Price Index nas risen s i rice I u I y of I tab, Our cost increases 11avc- pretty much paralleled this figure airrinugh in some areas it exceeds this number. t -or example. in order to compete in todays labcr market we nave ut--rn torced to increase our PHONES: 724-1000 272-8000 251-0400 673-1000 253-4411 945-9444 92oC.Rand Rd. wSuite 2CwwArlington 8ei«b�,IL60O04 # Phone o53-3of5 telephone operator's wages by 33w in the last year alone in order to attract adequate quality personnel. u|spmtcher s wages have increased 20w over the last tour ,ears. /h* rental cost "r our leased office has gone vp with our last renewal in May of \yuy. o/rectory advertising increased 9-11% yearly, forcing us each vear to reduce our au sizes to a minimum. /e|ennone costs have also risen approximately 15%, /ne or/vers arid owner -operators also are being pinched ov tnese cos` spirals. Vehicle replacement costs. as unvbouv who has bought a car recently knows. are up at least /.y% according to BLS figures, while maintenance costs or cars are up 19.2% in the last four veare because v, t1sra|at/ng parts costs and increased complexity of newer vehicles with their computer controlled engines. t-inu|/v, the cost nr rue| has risen from $1.09 per gal -Ion to $/.uy. this alone has caused a $6-$10 increase /n a gr/ver's ua|\v expenses. [he costs of taxicab /|ab///tv insurance have remained fairly stable PHONES: 724-1000 273-8000 251-0400 673-1000 2534411, 945-9444 925 E. Rand Rd. 0 Suite 204 • Arlington Heights, IL 60004 0 Phone 2.53-3545 over the last two years, although we have no indication It this will remain so. though we are always reluctant to increase prices we are compelled to seek this meter rate increase due to the overwhelming financial pressures mentioned above. theretore, we are asking the Village Hoard to approve the tollowing increase as soon as possible. included is a cost comparison to our current tares: NEW I-;AREt) C -U k R-EN.l - FAk E.S FLAU PUIA $Z.UU $2. Ou Flk',)l Alil-i: $2.41J $2. UU AUDI IIONAI- MILES $1 A0 $1.2U FKAL.IIUNAL MILE -1/7 1/6 t x S ZU I VVAIIIN(- 11MI: $16.50 $16.UU 1 PEk HOUR these t1gures, by our calculations, result in a 15.6% increase in meter tares. We believe this will PHONES: 724-1000 272-8000 251-0400 673-1000 2553-4411 945-9444 925 E. 8uod Rd. ~Suite %C4°Arlington Heights, 1�88004* Phone 2,53-3545 auequate|v cover both our rising costs and the escalating costs or our drivers. Our company has always strived to bring a nwa//tv service to the residents ot vour community. and in order to maintain our high standards. this increase is necessary. we hope that you w/// look ravurau|v upon it. We appreciate vuur speedy consideration of our request. please direct all communications to myself or our Ueneral Manager. Dan covne at the above address. Our orrice phone is 259-1555. Siq,Ce eiv, wanuoss / President PHONES: 724'1000 272-8000 25/4400 8731000 363-4411 945-9444 11.1137 BUSINESSES 11.1139 Sec. 11.1137. Procedure for Tsxkab Rate Increase Requests. A. Any taxicab company licensee may initiate a request for a taxicab rate increase by filing a written application therefor with the Village Clerk. Such application shall contain at least the following: 1. Name, address and telephone number of applicant. 2. A statement setting forth the rate increase requested. 3. A statement setting forth in detail the necessity for such rate increase. 4. Any and all documents which support the necessity for such rate increase. S. A statement verifying that all statements contained In the application and the information contained in any documents submitted in support thereof. are true and correct. B. Within ninety (90) days after a completed raw Increase application IS filed with the Village Clerk, the Committee of the Whole shall place the matter on its agenda. C. The Committee of the Whole " hold a public hearing on the requested rate increase and shall determine whether the proposed increase Is appropriate and, if so, the amount of such increase. The Committee of Whole, shall by majority vote determine whether to place the rate increase on the agenda of a regular or special meeting of the President and Board of Trustees. In its deliberation, the Committee may request and the applicant shall provide the Committee with any and all information and documents the Committee deems relevant. Failure to provide the requested information and documents may be grounds for the postponement or rejection of the requested rate increase. (Ord. 3774, 4-21-87) Sec. I11138. Duty of Operator to Throw Fug and Issue Receipts. Upon termina- tion of a trip, the taxicab driver shall throw the Mg to the nontecord- ing position on the taximeter and shall call the passenger's attention to the fare registered. Tire taximeter " not be changed until the fare has been paid or a charge ticket therefor is made out and handed to the person hiring the taxicab. Any passenger is entitled to receive, upon request, a receipt for the fart paid, showing the name of the taxicab owner, the name of the driver, the amount paid and the date. (Ord. 3774, 4-21-87) Sec. 11.1139. Right of Operator to Demand Fare in Advance; Refusal to Convey Passengers. The operator in control of any taxicab licensed hereunder may demand in advance the payment of the fare of the person desiring to be carried by such taxicab and may refuse to convey any person who shall not comply with the demand; but no operator of a taxicab shall otherwise refuse or neglect to convey any orderly person, upon request. anywhere in the Village unless previously engaged or unable to do so. (Ord. 3774, 4-21-87) IM 11.1128 BUSINESSES 11.1134 See. 11.1128. Regular Telephone Service Required. Every holder of a taxicab company license or livery vehicle license shall have and keep in service at all times, while his license is in effect, regular telephone service within the Municipality, by means of which a person desiring to rent a public passenger vehicle may call the licensee by calling the licence's telephone exchange number. The licensee shall cause the telephone number to be listed in the local, telephone directory which is published in and for the Municipality by the telephone company which furnishes local telephone service in the Municipality. (Ord. 3774, 4-21-87) Sec. 11.1129. Soliciting. No driver of a public passenger vehicle shall seek employment by repeatedly or persistently driving his vehicle to and fro in a short space before any theater, hotel, railway station or by otherwise interfering with the proper and orderly access to or egress from any such place. (Ord 3774, 4-21-87) Sec. 11.1130. Public Passenger Vehicles Licensed Elsewhere. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Article, a public passenger vehicle licensed by another municipality may discharge but shall not solicit nor accept passengers within the Village. (Ord. 3774, 4-21-87) Sec. 11.1131. Livery Vehicle Operation. A. Livery vehicles shall not pick up or solicit passengers for hire from the streets. B. Livery vehicles shall not park in taxicab stands. C. Livery vehicles shall not indiscriminately accept passengers, but shall be limited in scope of operation to carrying for hire on a contract basis at a price agreed upon prior employment and by arrangement of the parties at the time of initial telephone contract by the customer to the livery company. (Ord. 3774, 4-2147) Sec. 11.1132. Number of Passengers. No driver or operator of a public passenger vehicle shall carry more than the rated passenger load per vehicle. (Ord 3774, 4-21-87) Sec. 11.1133. Additional Passengers After Engagement. After a public passenger vehicle has been hired by one or more persons traveling together, the operator shall not pick up other persons without the express permission of the person or persons first engaging the public passenger vehicle. An appropriate sign shall be posted indicating the restrictions on shared rides. (Ord 3774, 4-21-87) See. 11.1134. Schedule of Established Rates of Fare and Charges. No owner or driver of a taxicab shall charge greater sum for the use of a taxicab than in accordance with the following rates: seg 11.1134 BUSINESSES 11.1135 A. Two dollars ($2.00) for the fust mile or fraction thereof for one passenger. B. Twelve conte ($0.12) for each additional one-tenth (1/10) mile or fraction thereof over and above the fust mile for one passenger. C. Forty cents ($0:10) for each one and one-half (1'/J minute waiting time or traffic delay. D. Ten cents ($0.10) for each additional passenger above the age of twelve (12) years for the entire trip. E. Twenty five cents ($0.25) service charge is added to the above Hues for parcel delivery and the handling of all items other than normal luggage. F. Fifty cents ($0.50) service charge is added to the above rates for all trips which do not originate or terminate within the Village. G. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained herein, an owner of a taxicab may establish flat rates for trips which originate within the Village with a destination point outside of the Village or trips which originate outside of the Village with a destination point within the Village. Any such flat rates established shall be filed with the Village Clerk. (Ord. 3774, 4-21-87) Sec. 11.1135. Posting Established Rates and Charges. There shall be affixed on the inside of each taxicab in a place conspicuous to any person riding in such taxicab, in a frame covered by glass or oilier transparent materials, a rate card issued by the Village, upon which card shall be printed in plain, legible type the rates of fare as prescribed in Section 11.1134. (Ord. 3774, 4-21-87) (See following page for Section 11.1136) sen CMERICAN • INC 925 E. Rand Rd. • Suite 204 • Arlington Heights, IL 60004 • Phone 259-1555 John Burg Assistant Manager Village of Mt. prospect 100 S. Fmarson Mt. PrurpezL, 11. 60056 December 4, 1990 Dear Mr. Burg; This letter is regard to our conversation of two weeks ago regarding our proposed fare increase. I am enclosing the following comparative cost analysis of how our owner -operators and drivers are being squeezed by current economic conditions. Hopefully, this will be useful. to you and the Board to determine the legitimacy of our tare increase. A!:, you will be able to see by the enclosed figures both our owner --operators and drivers are taking IHSS pay. Even though their bookings have inc•tiised, i;- has not kcpt pace with inflation as spelled out in my firstlei-ter. All figures are mine, based upon aiy own experiences as an owner operator of a fleet of cars fayself, and driver's description of their bookings. All figures are approximate. if this increase is granted, American Taxi Dispatch, Inc. would be limited to a $10 per week increase in their radio tees per a settlement agreement with our drivers and c-mrner-operators in 1986. The current radio ree is $80, the new fee would be $90. Drivers are currently paying an additional $5 per week voluntarily to help American Taxi offset it's cost increases, so bad has the current situation become. Our biggest problem at this point is attracting quality personnel for the wages they can earn. As you probably already know, finding qualified PHONES: 724-1000 272-8000 251-0400 673-1000 253-4411 945-9444 TAXI DISPATCH, INC, 925 E. Rand Rd. * Suite 204 0 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 0 Phone 259-1555 -2- people for any business in the Northwest suburbs is becoming more and more difficult, especially at the low end of the pay scale. While our system rewards a hard working driver by charging a flat fee Per week instead of a percentage allowing them to work additional hours a, -,,ztr cost the oil cc,Tpat.ties and repair shops have eaten into that margin of extra revenue. Some drivers are working 12-14 hour days, but are unable to do this on a week in week out basis. Currently, Arlington Heights, Elk Grove, and Daerfield have approved the increase. The Legal and Safety committees of Schaumburg and Morton Grove have recommended approval in those communities, and passage by the full board is expected shortly. The majority of uu, other communities have deregulated fares [Palatine - killing Meadows -"heeling -Glenview -Northbrook -Wilmette]. Finally, there has been some confusion and errors on our part wit" our new Senior Program in Mt. Prospect. After a meeting with Nancy Morgan last week, we feel we have identified the problems, mainly communication between our office and our drivers, and are resolved to iron out these abuses. Personally, I. would like to thank both the Staff and Board of Trustees for designing and approving a fair Senior program for the drivers. We think part of the problem may be leftover ill feelings of the drivers toward the old program. We ar: re-educating our diivarb and staff, and hopefully have these problems resolved. We will see you at the December lith Board meeting. Please let me know if you need any additional material or information for the meeting. In accordance with the Village ordinance, I hereby certify and swear that all of the above PHONES: 724-1000 272-8000 251-0400 673-1000 253-4411 945-9444 OMERICAN TAMDISPATCH, INC. 925 E. Rand Rd. 0 Suite 204 0 Arlington Heights, H., 60004 0 Phone 259-1555 -3- statements and those in my previous letter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Yours truly, e— Randy Mo - President PHONES: 724-1000 272-8000 251-0400 673-1000 253-4411 945-9444 OMERICAN TAM DISPATCH, INC. 925 E. Rand Rd. * Suite 204 0 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 0 Phone 259-1555 OWNER -OPERATORS AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS 1 19B6 1990 Cost of replacement vehicle !13250 $4350 'Lwo year,-� '"morti-ed oyer r I Insurance $2400 $3000 Repairs [50-60,000 miles] $3276 $6604 Towing $ 175 $225 Paint & Lettering $ 175 $400 Radio tees $4160 $4160 Gasoline ___$3535 ___$5714 TotBl Expenses $16,971 $24,453 DRIVERS AVERAGE WEEKLY COSTS 1986 1990 Lease fees $315 $390 Gasoline X 1 32 13 Total Expenses $447 $603 Average bookings Expenses Annual income 0900 - 447 $23.556 51000 603 $20,644 PHONES: 724-1000 272-8000 251-0400 673-1000 253-4411 945-9444 Village of N""'_'3unt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois r A- $1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 'H TO: JOHN BERG, ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: NANCY MORGAN, HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR DATE: DECEMBER 6, 1990 SUBJECT: TAXI CABS I have noticed a number of interesting factors with American Taxi Service that you may want to take into consideration when examining their rate hike request. American Taxi Service has been involved with the Mount Prospect Discount Taxi Cab program for many years. During this time, the number of complaints issued by users against this company has been extremely high. During my six and one-half years tenure with the Village, Randy Moss, President of American Taxi, has requested that the Village change the discount program claiming the problems experienced by the users were inherent with the old program. As of October 1, 1990, the Village changed the discount taxi cab program with the expectation that the service would improve. The first two months of the new program shows that there has not been an improvement in services, but actually an increase in complaints against American Taxi. The other cab company involved with the discount program, Elk Grove Cab, has had no complaints issued against it during the same two month period. Since my latest meeting with Randy Moss, on November 26, 1990, regarding the unimproved service, I have received no complaints against American Taxi. It may appear that the service is finally improved, however, this improvement should have taken place October 1, 1990, as was the case with Elk Grove cab. I would also like to address how this increase will effect the cost of the new discount taxi cab program. Presently, the discount Taxi Cab program is budgeted for $12,000. In reviewing the first two months of the new program, this line item is actually projected at $12,577 due to increased ridership. Community Cab is projected to start up with the program January 1, 1991, and other cab companies are interested in coming aboard. more cab companies involved with the program means more available cabs, and very likely will result in a boost in ridership. Using October and November 1990 statements from American Taxi, the proposed 15.6% increase from American Taxi would mean a minimum increase of $1,961.96 or paying at least $14,539 for a twelve month period. Especially interesting is Community Cab rates are less that Mount Prospect's current rates, and Community Cab is not asking for a rate increase. (See below.) American Taxi Village of Community Proposed Fare Mount Prospect Cab Fare Schedule Current Fares Schedule Flag Poll $2.00 $2.00 $1.60 First Mile $2.40 $2.00 $2.70 Additional Miles $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 Fractional Mile 1/7 1/6 1/11 Cost Per Fraction 20 cents 20 cents 10 cents Waiting Time $18.50 $16.00 $15.00 (per hour) Considering all, I would be hard pressed to endorse a rate increase for American Taxi, even considering the recent sharp increase in the price of gasoline. Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 4i TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSED CITIZENS' UTILITIES ACQUISITION Yesterday, we received the report from Greeley and Hansen which was done to firm up the costs for acquisition of the Citizens Utilities system. After reviewing the information, I recommend that we do not provide water service in the Forest River Subdivision. This would decrease the cost by $1,710,000. Des Plaines may have an interest in this area. This report also shows that the cost to improve the JAWA line at Highland does not justify the minor water flow improvement. The cost for improvements to deliver Lake Michigan water from Glenview would be $3,970,000, which is $1,588,000 more than envisioned in the January 1990 Greeley and Hansen report due to the increased scope of the project. This amount and the Rob Roy amount are the actual estimated costs instead of the $5 million used in our prior report. Once again, I am estimating $500,000 for legal expenses because Citizens' can be expected to fight the acquisition. The estimated cost for acquisition would be as follows: Acquisition Cost Area 1, 2 and 3 (January 1990 Report) $14,745,000 Additional Water System Improvement Cost to Deliver Lake Michigan Water from Glenview (December 1990 Report - additional amount over January 1990 Report) 1,588,000 Acquisition of Rob Roy/Fairway 990,000 Legal Expenses 50.000 Total $17,823,000 (Use $18,000,000) The financing information is summarized below: FIM OCIM6 IMFOg1 "ON Assumed Acquisition and Improvement Costs Equalized Assessed Valuation of Citizens' Utilities Area Annual Debt Service a 7.5% Estimated Tax Rate EIper $100 EAV Taxes per Financ-rt$ 20 Years_ $1,765,800 sl.61 $403 r C41tS Citizens' Utilities (90,000 gallonslly) Lake Michigan Yater Surcharge a 61.28 par 1,000 gals• Total Village of Mount Prospect (90,000 gallons annually) SSA #5 Surcharge 0 .261 per $100 EAV Total $ 18,000,000 $110,000,000 25 Years $1,614,600 $1.47 $366 6385.92 115. LO $ 1l-11 6225.00 65.25 Iola C i M-Zf t2 Village Owned Citizens' -Owned 5290 25 6501.12 Total Yater and Saver Costs 0 $ Taxes per $25,000 EAV (25 years) Totals Amus l SO^ Estimated Increase in Costs for 7 1 ULZ Residents of Citizens' Utilities Area or ents of the The refined numbers ares four acquisition and improvements, assuming ocate tat the estimated increase n costsf 25 -year Bond Issue Citizens' iJtlittt would be $157.13 annually or $40 less than previously estimated. There are political implications to the purchase of the Rob Roy/Fairway System. However, the purchase of Rob Roy could eelpto urchase reduce the makes sense tefor other because t costs less the Citizens' area by a small amount The p roisiand it is anticipated ons in the Village lv than improvements necessary to disconnect • There are p Ordinance to charge more to customers outside the Village imits this method would be used in the Rab Roy/Fairway area. If the Board wishes to call a Referendum in April, the Ordinance must be adopted by January 15, 1991. Mr-M3M FraT.-IMMI Mjogglsg.� JFD/rcw c: Director of Public Works Herbert Weeks Deputy Director of Public Works Glen Andler Finance Director David Jepson Phone: 708 / 092-6000 Fax: 708 / 092-6022 INFORMATION SHEET PURCHASE OF CITIZENS' UTILITIES SYSTEM BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT The three main issues for residents interested in seeing the Village purchase the Citizens' Utilities water and sewer system are improved water quality, sewer capacity and cost. The Village receives Lake Michigan water from the Northwest Suburban Joint Action Water Agency (JAWA). Preliminary estimates show that the volume of water supplied by JAWA would not be sufficient to meet the entire needs of the Citizens' Utilities customers in Mount Prospect. Citizens' has negotiated a contract with Glenview for the acquisition of Lake Michigan water. Citizens' officials report they hope to receive Lake Michigan water by late 1992. The interconnection with Glenview is expected to provide sufficient water for the Citizens' service area except for an estimated ten (10) peak days per year when they would use their wells to supplement the water and so the water quality would certainly improve. According to a January, 1990 report prepared at the Village's request by Greeley and Hansen, the estimated cost to purchase the Citizens' Utilities system would be about $15 million. Known improvements could add an additional $5 million for a total estimated cost of $20 million. A word of caution is necessary. This cost could increase depending on whether water mains in the service area must be increased in size or replaced and whether the sanitary sewer system needs major improvements. Incidentally, the purchase of the Citizens' system and any necessary improvements would be paid for by the users of the system, not by residents in other areas of the Village. This would be consistent with the JAWA arrangement and the acquisition of other water systems. The financing information provided by Finance Director Dave Jepson is outlined below. Assuming acquisition and improvement costs of $20 million and a 25 year Bond Issue, the owner of a $160,000 market value home ($25,000 Equalized Assessed Valuation) who uses 90,000 gallons annually, would pay annually $290.25 for water and sewer and a special service area tax of $408.00 for a total of $698.25. The same individual would pay $501.12 annually if Citizens' continued to own the system. The estimated increase for residents in the Citizens' Utilities area to provide for the purchase of the system by the Village would be $197.13 annually or $16.43 monthly. After the system is paid off in 25 years, the residents in the Citizens' Utilities area would then pay the Village -wide water and sewer cost (presently $290.25 for 90,000 gallons). .... °,.o.. MAYOR -m .. GERALD L.. FARLEY M. TRUSTEES RALPH W ARTHUR MARK W BUSSE TIMOTHY J, CORCORAN LEO FLOROS GEORGE R. VAN GEEM THEODORE J. WATTENBERG Village d f Mount Prospect VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON VILLAGE CLERK 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 CAROL A. FIELDS Phone: 708 / 092-6000 Fax: 708 / 092-6022 INFORMATION SHEET PURCHASE OF CITIZENS' UTILITIES SYSTEM BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT The three main issues for residents interested in seeing the Village purchase the Citizens' Utilities water and sewer system are improved water quality, sewer capacity and cost. The Village receives Lake Michigan water from the Northwest Suburban Joint Action Water Agency (JAWA). Preliminary estimates show that the volume of water supplied by JAWA would not be sufficient to meet the entire needs of the Citizens' Utilities customers in Mount Prospect. Citizens' has negotiated a contract with Glenview for the acquisition of Lake Michigan water. Citizens' officials report they hope to receive Lake Michigan water by late 1992. The interconnection with Glenview is expected to provide sufficient water for the Citizens' service area except for an estimated ten (10) peak days per year when they would use their wells to supplement the water and so the water quality would certainly improve. According to a January, 1990 report prepared at the Village's request by Greeley and Hansen, the estimated cost to purchase the Citizens' Utilities system would be about $15 million. Known improvements could add an additional $5 million for a total estimated cost of $20 million. A word of caution is necessary. This cost could increase depending on whether water mains in the service area must be increased in size or replaced and whether the sanitary sewer system needs major improvements. Incidentally, the purchase of the Citizens' system and any necessary improvements would be paid for by the users of the system, not by residents in other areas of the Village. This would be consistent with the JAWA arrangement and the acquisition of other water systems. The financing information provided by Finance Director Dave Jepson is outlined below. Assuming acquisition and improvement costs of $20 million and a 25 year Bond Issue, the owner of a $160,000 market value home ($25,000 Equalized Assessed Valuation) who uses 90,000 gallons annually, would pay annually $290.25 for water and sewer and a special service area tax of $408.00 for a total of $698.25. The same individual would pay $501.12 annually if Citizens' continued to own the system. The estimated increase for residents in the Citizens' Utilities area to provide for the purchase of the system by the Village would be $197.13 annually or $16.43 monthly. After the system is paid off in 25 years, the residents in the Citizens' Utilities area would then pay the Village -wide water and sewer cost (presently $290.25 for 90,000 gallons). It should be noted that Citizens' would most likely fight the acquisition and legal fees could be substantial. However, under a new law, it is possible to determine the worth of a system using the "fair cash market value," which could possibly result in a lower cost figure than the $15 million estimated by our engineer. This Statute has not been tested and we would estimate that the Court Case would take a minimum of three years and cost $500,000. If the Village Board decides to pursue the purchase of the system, a Referendum would be held to determine whether residents support the acquisition. If the Referendum were successful, the Village would initiate a Special Service Area which would include only residents of the Citizens' Utilities area. Residents of the Citizens' Utilities area would have to pay all costs related to the acquisition of the system including legal fees, payable in annual installments for the life of the Bond Issue estimated at 25 years. The Village would have to coordinate the project _with Prospect Heights since part of the system is in our neighboring community. FIMAMCIMf IKFOR11AT'IOM Assumed Acquisition and Improvement Costs S 20,000,000 Equalized Assessed Valuation of Citizens' Utilities Area $110,000,000 Financing Costs 20 Years 25 Years Annual Debt Service a 7.5% $1,962,000 $1,794,000 Estimated Tax Rate per 5100 EAV $1.78 $1.63 Taxes per 525,000 EAV $445 $408 Water & Sewer Costs Citizens, Utilities (90,000 gallons amually) $385.92 Lake Michigan Water Surcharge 9 $1.28 per 1,000 gals. 1150_ Total $501.12 Village of Mount Prospect (90,000 gallons annually) $225.00 SSA N5 Surcharge 8 .261 per $100 EAV ¢5.25 Total S, 1 1?a Comparison of Costs Village Owned Citizens- Owned system system,_ Total Water and Sewer Costs $290.25 $501.12 Taxes per $25,000 EAV (25 Years) 408.00 Totals SM1255 5501.12 AroA I, Mnh Estimated Increase in Costs for Residents of Citizens' Utilities Area $11�Y 516.43 9/90