Local Government Shared Services Directory Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
Jennifer Kim Roosevelt Fellow
July 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
RESEARCH METHODS, OVERALL FINDINGS, TYPES OF SERVICES SHARED, OVERALL BENEFITS OF SHARING SERVICES
SPECIFIC SERVICES 5
BENEFITS, COST SAVINGS, PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES, LENGTH OF AGREEMENTS, PRIMARY INITIAL REASONS FOR SHARING, HOW AGREEMENTS WERE FORMALIZED
ASSETS 5 CABLE TELEVISION CONSORTIA 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT AND/OR PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS 8 DRINKING WATER TREATMENT & DELIVERY 10 FIRE PROTECTION 12 JOINT DISPATCHING 14 JOINT PROCUREMENT OF SUPPLIES AND/OR SERVICES 16 MANAGEMENT OR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 20 POLICE 21 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS 23 SEWAGE TREATMENT 25 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 27 TECHNOLOGY 28 WASTE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL 30 OTHER SERVICES 31
CONCLUSION 32
BEST PRACTICES, ACTIONS FOR ILLINOIS STATE, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, OBSTACLES/NEGATIVE OUTCOMES, BENEFICIAL INFORMATION FOR STARTING SERVICE-SHARING, NEW AREAS OF INTEREST
Page 2 of 35
Municipalities that Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Share Services Not Sure Introduction 3% No Research Methods 2%
• Survey: Out of 273 municipalities in the Northeastern Illinois Yes Region, we received responses from 117 municipalities 95% (approximately 42%) • Phone Interviews: We spoke with executive directors from 7 of the 9 Councils of Government: Lake County Municipal League, West Central Municipal Conference, West Cook Municipal League, McHenry County Council of Governments, DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference, Metro West Council of Government, and SSMMA; we also followed up with phone • Responses were extremely interviews with 5 municipalities: Berkeley, Lincolnwood, Mount positive overall, from both Prospect, Oak Brook, & Clarendon Hills municipalities and COGs • Meetings: We met with WRB LLC’s William Balling, who conducted the Mayors Caucus’ initial shared service case • On a scale of 1-5, municipalities study, and CMAP, who are currently conducting a shared on average rated their success service study with sharing services at around a 4, or “successful”; COGs rated • Further Research: We took information from websites, their success similarly. The most municipality bid documents, pilot and case studies, books, commonly chosen rating was 5, conference reports, presentations, articles, and documents of or “very successful” other regional models • Services Studied: After extensive deliberation & consultation • The most common initial reasons with regional experts, we selected the 15 most commonly for sharing services are cost shared services in the region to focus upon, with some further savings and operational research on other examples efficiency • The most common benefits of Did you find sharing services sharing services are also cost savings and operational ultimately beneficial & would you efficiency continue to do so? • The vast majority of shared service programs have been No ongoing for over 10 years, although a substantial number of 1% programs across all fields have been more recently implemented • By far, intergovernmental Yes agreements is the most common 99% method of formalization
• Towns participate in programs indiscriminate of their sizes
Page 3 of 35
WHAT SERVICES ARE BEING SHARED? 66
52
36 33 32 29 24 25 20 17 15 10 11 12 6 8
POLICE ASSETS
PLANNING & SERVICES TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS DEVELOPMENT
MANAGEMENT STORM WATER PUBLIC WORKS WORKS PUBLIC CONSORTIUM DISPOSAL FIRE PROTECTION TRANSPORTATION CABLE TELEVISION JOINT DISPATCHING SEWAGE TREATMENT DRINKING WATER MANAGEMENT OR HEALTH INSPECTIONS SUPPLIES & SERVICES & SUPPLIES CODE ENFORCEMENT &
COLLECTION ORWASTE JOINT PROCUREMENT OF TREATMENT AND DELIVERY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
HOW IS SHARING SERVICES BENEFICIAL?
80
73 75 60 57 40 44 34 20 31
0 Regulatory Operational Cost Savings Addressed Better Reduce NortheasternCompliance Illinois SharedEfficiency Services Directory New Service Coordination Impact of Needs Capital Costs
Page 4 of 35
Assets [Vehicles, equipment, storage facilities, etc…]
Benefits
• Lower maintenance costs
• Less redundancy in equipment Photo: CDLApps.com
• Relieves burden of capital purchase or rental fees for specialty equipment Participating Municipalities* • Larger Auctions (ex. Vehicle auctions) attract more buyers Addison & Other • More efficient response when picking up vehicles from a Algonquin, Algonquin/LITH Fire neighboring municipality as opposed to a more distant Protection District, & Huntley private facility Beecher (through WCGL, SSMMA) • Support in an emergency or when equipment is out of service Berkley & Stone Park • Lower operating costs Buffalo Grove, Glenview, Kenilworth, Lake Bluff, & Lincolnshire Cost Savings Crete, Crete Park District & Crete Examples: School District
• Crete saves $25,000 in capital investment by borrowing crack Crete & Monee sealing equipment from Monee rather than buying it DuPage County, Woodridge, & themselves Woodridge Park District • School District 68, the Lisle-Woodridge Fire District, and Ela Township, Hawthorn Woods, Woodridge Park District all use the Village of Woodridge’s fuel Kildeer & Lake Zurich station, providing fuel at a reduced cost for the localities and Geneva, Naperville & St Charles providing a source of revenue for the Village Glenview & Northfield • The Village of Woodridge saves $2,200 a year on fuel delivery costs by purchasing through DuPage County & has determined Glenwood, Hazelcrest, Homewood through research savings of approximately $2,500 by & Flossmoor purchasing squad cars through the Suburban Purchasing Hoffman Estates & South Barrington Cooperative instead of the State of Illinois Joint Purchasing Johnsburg, Richmond & Spring Agreement Grove La Grange & Others
Page 5 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Lisle-Woodridge Fire District, School Distrct 68, Village of 10% Less than 1 Year Woodridge, & Woodridge Park District 1-2 Years 15% Long Grove & Cuba Township 50% 3-4 Years Northfield & 2 Others
5-6 Years Tinley Park & Others 15% 7-10 Years Warrenville & Warrenville FPD 10% 10+ Years Examples of Assets Shared Fuel Vehicles Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Pick-Up Truck Regulatory Compliance 5% Employees 20% Operational Efficiency 20% Equipment Sharing Cost Savings Fuel
5% Address New Service Factor Waste Needs Better Coordination Crack Sealing Equipment 50% Reduce Impact of Lift Truck Capital Costs Sweeper/Vacuum Truck How Agreements Were Formalized Bucket Truck Intergovernmental Agreement
Purchase of
39% Services Contract New Government 50% Agency Informal Agreement *Reflects responses from approximately 30% of the region 11% Other
Page 6 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Cable Television Consortia
Length of Agreements
12% Less than 1 Year 1-2 Years 13% Photo: AbleManTV.com 3-4 Years
5-6 Years Benefits
75% 7-10 Years Consortium can oversee customer 10+ Years care and maintain public access programming Cost Savings Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Regulatory Compliance Bargaining Power
13% Operational Efficiency 25% Participating Municipalities* Cost Savings 13% Beecher, Monee & Peotone Address New Service 12% Needs Burr Ridge, Clarendon Hills, Hinsdale 37% Better Coordination & Willowbrook
Reduce Impact of Indian Head Park, La Grange, La Grange Park, Riverside, Western Capital Costs Springs
Mount Prospect & Others How Agreements Were Formalized Intergovernmental New Lenox & 13 Others
22% Agreement Winnetka & Others Purchase of Services Contract New Government 56% Agency Informal Agreement 22% *Reflects responses from Other approximately 30% of the region
Page 7 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Code Enforcement and/or Public Health Inspections
Benefits Photo: I-ACE.org • Better service in expertise & number of inspections executed • Higher quality service, particularly for municipalities too Participating Municipalities* small to afford the quality of service on their own Algonquin, Cary & Huntley • Ability to attract larger firms, including national firms, through the size of the bid Bannockburn, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest & Mettawa • Cost Savings through economies of scale Bannockburn, Buffalo Grove, • Standardization/Consistency across neighboring Deerfield, Highland Park, Lake Bluff, Lake County, Lake Forest, & municipalities Lincolnshire • Ability to use other employees (ex. Fire District personnel) Barrington & Cook County when unoccupied Berkeley & Hillside • Shared policies & problem solving regarding property maintenance Buffalo Grove & Long Grove Chicago Heights, Park Forest, Richton park, & South Chicago Heights
Clarendon Hills & DuPage County Cost Savings Countryside & Cook County
Examples: Deerfield & Lake County Health Inspection • Deerfield saved $4,275 for elevator inspections through the Lake County Health Inspections Frankfort, Mokena, New Lenox, Orland Park & Tinley Park • Itasca has saved $175,000 in telecommunications Glenview, Lincolnwood, & 4 Others • Winnetka saves approximately $225,000 annually in inspectional services Golf, Glenview, Kenilworth, Wilmette & Winnetka • The Southeast Lake County Shared Services Working Group saved $22,059 in elevator inspections
Page 8 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Grayslake & Grayslake Fire Protection District Less than 1 Year 22% 18% Hawthorn Woods & Others 1-2 Years Lindenhurst & Lake County 3-4 Years 15% McHenry & Prairie Grove 18% 5-6 Years Mount Prospect & Others 7-10 Years 12% New Lenox & 3 Others 15% 10+ Years Northbrook, Northfield, Wilmette, & Winnetka
Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Oswego & Yorkville
Regulatory Compliance Round Lake & Round Lake Park 6% 9% Operational Efficiency South Barrington & Cook County 9% Cost Savings Spring Grove & Woodstock Address New Service Warrenville & DuPage County 36% Needs Better Coordination 40% Reduce Impact of Capital Costs Other
How Agreements Were Formalized
12% Intergovernmental
Agreement Purchase of Services 15% Contract New Government 3% Agency Informal Agreement 70% *Reflects responses from Other approximately 30% of the region
Page 9 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Drinking Water Treatment and Delivery
Benefits Photo: About-Bicycles.com
• Lower costs by outsourcing to another town through 1) eliminating capital infrastructure costs necessary for buying Participating Municipalities* & maintaining facilities and 2) eliminating production and personnel costs Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Palatine, & Wheeling (Northwest • Revenue from providing water to another municipality Water Commission) • Connections for backup water supply allow for flexibility for Bannockburn & Highland Park both fire flow and water system maintenance Barrington, Barrington Hills, & • Back-up capability in serious emergencies when a fire Inverness incident may drain the towers or when a water treatment Berkeley & Hillside (Hillside- plant or well malfunctions Berkeley Water Commission) • Improved quality of water & services Broadview & Westchester (Broadview Westchester Joint • Greater efficiency Water Agency) • Better water source (ex. Lake Michigan instead of Chicago, Oak Lawn, & Orland Park groundwater, also reducing groundwater depletion) that would be unavailable to municipalities too small to afford Chicago Ridge, Country Club Hills, the costs Matteson, Mokena, New Lenox, Oak Forest, Oak Lawn, Olympia Fields, Orland Park, Palos Heights, & Tinley Park
Deerfield & Highland Park Cost Savings DuPage Forest Preserve District & Outsourcing or participating in water commissions significantly Warrenville reduces costs; providing services to neighbors brings in revenue Elk Grove, Hanover Park, Hoffman Sharing costs of infrastructure allows municipalities to connect to a Estates, Mount Prospect, Rolling lower cost supplier instead of a higher-priced, more accessible Meadows, Schaumburg, & supplier, saving their residents millions of dollars Streamwood (Northwest Joint Action Water Agency)
Page 10 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Frankfort, Mokena & Tinley Park
Geneva, St Charles & West 8% Less than 1 Year Chicago 4% 1-2 Years Glenview, North Maine Township, 3-4 Years Prospect Heights & Wilmette Golf & Morton Grove 5-6 Years Grayslake & Others (Central Lake 7-10 Years County Joint Action Water Agency) 88% 10+ Years La Grange & McCook
Northfield & Other Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Northwest Water Planning Alliance Regulatory Compliance 8% 4% (70+ localities)
Operational Efficiency Round Lake & 11 Lake County Cost Savings Municipalities (Central Lake County 21% Joint Action Water Agency)
42% Address New Service Needs Winfield & Others (DuPage Water Commission) 4% Better Coordination 8% Reduce Impact of Capital 13% Costs Other
How Agreements Were Formalized
7% Intergovernmental 4% Agreement 11% Purchase of Services Contract New Government Agency Informal Agreement *Reflects responses from 78% Other approximately 30% of the region
Page 11 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Fire Protection [Fire & EMS Services] Photo: ChicagoAreaFire.com Benefits
• Strong support in dealing with emergencies or large events Participating Municipalities* • Staffing and training benefits Alsip, Crestwood, & Robbins • Mutual aid necessary for multiple calls or times when Arlington Heights Fire District, ambulances are already in service Buffalo Grove, Lincolnshire, Long Grove Fire Protection District, • Better coordination of efforts Riverwoods Fire Protection District, Wheeling Fire District • Better response to major fires Aurora, Batavia, Geneva, North • Cost savings Aurora, & St Charles • Better safety overall Barrington Countryside Fire Protection District & Barrington • Increased availability of inspectors, resulting in a larger Village available talented inspector pool Barrington Countryside Fire • Lowers worker cost structure & gives villages greater Protection District, East Dundee Fire flexibility to structure service costs to meeting building Protection District, Hoffman Estates activity demands Fire Department, & South Barrington
Cost Savings Bannockburn Fire Protection District & Deerfield Long-running arrangements & reduced need for capital investments Bellwood, Berkley, Hillside, Stone all lead to savings Park, & more Examples: Carpentersville, East Dundee, Sleepy Hollow & West Dundee • Chicago Ridge: Saves approximately $70,000+ in salary by sharing a Fire Chief with Oak Lawn Chicago Heights, Flossmoor, Homewood, Matteson, Olympia • La Grange no longer funds a ladder truck, due to automatic aid Fields, Park Forest, Richton Park, & agreements with neighboring communities that do have University Park ladder trucks; with the extra funds La Grange purchased a Chicago Ridge & Oak Lawn multi-purpose vehicle instead
Page 12 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Clarendon Hills & Hinsdale
Deer Park, Hawthorn Woods, 18% Less than 1 Year Kildeer, Lake Zurich, & North 1-2 Years Barrington 3% 3-4 Years Glenview, Glenbrook Fire 4% Protection District, & Golf 5-6 Years Hinsdale, La Grange, La Grange 7-10 Years Park, & Western Springs 75% 10+ Years Knollwood, Lake Bluff, & Lake Forest
La Grange & Western Springs Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Lisle & Woodridge Fire Protection 4% Regulatory Compliance District 10% Operational Efficiency Morton Grove, Niles, North Maine,
10% Cost Savings & Park Ridge
10% 45% Address New Service Needs Northfield & Other Better Coordination Orland Hills, Orland Park Fire 4% Protection District, & Reduce Impact of Capital Unincorporated areas of Orland 17% Costs Other Township
Palatine, Palatine Rural Fire Protection, & Rolling Meadows How Agreements Were Formalized Schaumburg & Others Intergovernmental Tinley Park & Others 7% Agreement 4% 11% Purchase of Services Warrenville & Warrenville Fire Contract Protection District New Government Agency
Informal Agreement *Reflects responses from 78% Other approximately 30% of the region
Page 13 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Joint Dispatching
Benefits
• Fewer personnel hassles, employee issues, and ULP and Photo: OrlandFire.org collective bargaining complications
• Highly significant cost savings Participating Municipalities* • Greater overall operational efficiency and higher level of Addison, Bensenville, Bloomingdale, & professional service DuPage Forest Preserve • Better, up-to-date technology Addison, Bensenville, Itasca & Wood Dale • Single point of duty for off-duty service calls Aurora, Batavia, Geneva, North • Quicker aid response Aurora & St Charles
• A large amount of administrative work saved directly related Bannockburn, Deerfield & Riverwoods to recruiting, personnel management, record keeping, and Beecher, Crete, Monee, Peotone, South supervising technical employees Chicago Heights, Steger, & University Park • Avoid delays in calling for assistance with incidents too large to handle locally Bolingbrook, Braidwood, Chanannhon, Elwood, Plainfield & Wilmington
Calumet Park & Sauk Village Cost Savings Des Plaines & Wheeling Joint dispatching, instead of in-house dispatching centers, is one of East Hazel Crest, Lynwood & Thornton the most cost-saving shared services out of all of those conducted; Fox Lake Police, Lake Villa Fire savings generally amount to hundreds of thousands per year Protection, Lake Villa Police & Lindenhurst • Crete has saved approximately $250,000 per year over the last 16 years by joint dispatching Glenview, Grayslake, Hainseville, Highwood, Highland Park, Lake Bluff, • Westchester saved $2.5 million in the first 5 years Lake Forest, Morton Grove, & Niles • Grayslake saves an estimated $400,000 per year Golf & Cook County • Countryside saved $900,000 over 5 years • Wilmington saves approximately $400,000 per year Hawthorn Woods, Island Lake, Kildeer & Lake Zurich • Park Ridge saves over $650,000 per year • La Grange, La Grange Park, & Woodridge saves approximately $1.2 million per year Western Springs
Page 14 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Libertyville, Lincolnshire & Vernon Hills Matteson, Olympia Fields, Park Forest 8% Less than 1 Year & Richton Park 6% 1-2 Years East Joliet Fire Protection District, 11% Frankfort FPD, Mokena FPD & New 3-4 Years Lenox FPD 55% 5-6 Years 8% Orland Hills Fire Protection District & 7-10 Years Orland Park
12% 10+ Years Oswego & Kendall County Prairie Grove & McHenry County
Spring Grove & McHenry County Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Regulatory Compliance 1% Joint Dispatching Centers* 2% 33% Operational Efficiency CenCom E9-1-1: (11 localities) 6% Cost Savings DU-COMM: DuPage Public Safety Communications (41 localities) Address New Service EASTCOM: Eastern Will County Needs Communications Center (11 localities) Better Coordination ECOM 9-1-1: (6 localities) 58% Reduce Impact of Tri-Com Central Dispatch: (11 Capital Costs localities)
NWCD: Northwest Central Dispatch How Agreements Were Formalized (12 localities) Intergovernmental QuadCom: (9 localities) 14% Agreement Red Center: MABAS Division 3 (14 Purchase of localities) 8% Services Contract SEECOM: Southeast Emergency New Government Communication Center (14 localities) Agency SWCD : Southwest Central Dispatch (16 Informal Agreement localities) 78% Other *Reflects responses from approximately 30% of the region
Page 15 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Joint Procurement of
Supplies and/or Services
Photo: FHWA.dot.gov Benefits
• Significant cost savings Joint Purchasing Programs* • Reduced administrative burden and staff time to procure commodities MPI: Municipal Partnering Initiative (30+ Communities, led by Glenview); • Improved bid specifications, including the option for renewal for DuPage MPI (14 Communities, began future years by Lombard, Woodridge & Downers Grove) • Intergovernmental collaboration/cooperation & sharing of best SPC: Suburban Purchasing Cooperative practices (156+ Communities, hosted by NWMC, DMMC, SSMMA, & WCGL ) • Avoids the capital expense of specialty equipment LCML CPP: Lake County Municipal • Greater efficiency & more choices for goods and service League Cooperative Purchasing Program (6 Programs) • Higher quality products & greater access to better contractors NIMEC: Northern Illinois Municipal • Guarantee of supply & dependable deliveries Electric Collaborative (140 localities)
Cost Savings Suburban Tree Consortium (30+ Communities, hosted by WCMC) Joint Purchasing allows municipalities to benefit from economies of scale, DMMC & DuPage County Joint Road which generally results in lower costs for services and supplies. Salt Bid Examples: Types of Supplies & Services* • Members of the MPI, jointly bidding on several services together, Asphalt Patching found saved overall $389,500 - $529,500 in 2011; $291,000 - Cold Patch $365,000 in 2012; $552,000 - $671,000 in 2013; and $463,000 - Concrete Flatwork $564,000 in 2014, totaling savings of $1.7M - $2.1M over 4 years Contractor Assistance Crack Sealing • In 2014, as part of the DuPage MPI, Lombard saved over 32% over Custodial Services the last year on water meter testing, 17% on hydrant painting, and Financial Services 33% on sewer lining Maintenance (Memorial, Generator, etc) Hauling & Delivery • Woodridge, bidding with other localities through NIMEC, saves Hydrant Painting approximately $5,600 a year for streetlight power and $12,000 a Landscape Services year for water/sewer power Leak Detection Mowing Services • The LCML CPP
Page 16 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Types of Supplies & Services (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Paper & Stationery Pavement Marking Resurfacing 8% Less than 1 Year Road Salt 2% 1-2 Years Sewer Lining 13% Sewer Televising Street Sweeping 3-4 Years Tree Removal/Trimming 5-6 Years Water Meter Testing 59% 14% 4% 7-10 Years Other Participating Municipalities* 10+ Years Addison & 4 Others Algonquin, Cary & Gurnee Bloomingdale & Others Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Burr Ridge & Other Regulatory Clarendon Hills & DuPage County Countryside & Others Compliance Crete & Others Operational 6% Deerfield & Lake County Efficiency Geneva & Others Cost Savings Golf & Glenview Kildeer & Long Grove Lake Zurich & Others Address New Service Lincolnwood & Northern Suburbs Needs New Lenox & Others 94% Better Coordination Northbrook & Northbrook Park District Westchester & School District 92.5 Oswego & Others Reduce Impact of Palos Hills & Others Capital Costs Park Forest & Others Round Lake & School District Schaumburg & Others How Agreements Were Formalized Spring Grove & Others St Charles & Others Intergovernmental Warrenville & DuPage County 10% Agreement 23% West Chicago & Others Purchase of Services Winfield & Winfield Park District Contract Woodridge, Woodridge Park District & DuPage County New Government Agency 43% Informal Agreement 24% Other *Reflects responses from approximately 30% of the region
Page 17 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Management or
Administrative Services Photo: CMservices.com
Benefits Programs/Cooperatives* • Insurance cooperatives provide training and services to mitigate risk that are not provided by traditional insurance companies IPBC: Intergovernmental Personnel Benefits Cooperative (Insurance; 60+ • Cooperatives also respond to needs that private vendors would localities) not fulfill MCMRMA: McHenry County • Better information & best practice sharing Municipal Risk Management Agency (Insurance; Algonquin, Island Lake, • Improved coordination with local taxing bodies so as to provide McHenry, Spring Grove, Woodstock, more comprehensive service & Woodstock Fire & Rescue)
• Higher quality service and greater variety of options for the IRMA: Intergovernmental Risk locality, its employees, and the community as a whole at a lower Management Agency (Insurance) cost HELP: High Excess Liability Pool • Ability to appoint extremely knowledgeable staff to run insurance (Insurance; 13 municipalities) pools IPRF: Illinois Public Risk Fund (Insurance/Workers’ Compensation; • Cost savings through economies of scale & from eliminating the 500+ municipalities) need for each municipality to hire extra personnel to provide the services, thereby eliminating long term employee benefit costs Other Participating Municipalities* Cost Savings Bannockburn & Lincolnshire Examples: Beecher, Bradley, Braidwood, Coal • Over a 10 year period with IRMA, Countryside has produced a City, Dwight, Mendota, Oswego, Peotone, Plano, Sandwich, & surplus of approximately $800,000 that it then redirected to Wilmington reducing premiums • Tinley Park found that sharing marketing costs allows Long Grove & Others municipalities to get twice as much ad space and exposure for Oswego & Yorkville the same amount of expenditures Schaumburg & Others • Westchester has estimated savings of $500,000 through IRMA over private insurance *Reflects responses from • Winnetka saves approximately $40,000 annually through HELP approximately 30% of the region
Page 18 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Length of Agreements 6% Less than 1 Year 6% 1-2 Years 17% 3-4 Years 53% 5-6 Years
7-10 Years 18% 10+ Years
Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Regulatory
12% Compliance 17% Operational 6% Efficiency Cost Savings
Address New Service Needs Better Coordination 65% Reduce Impact of Capital Costs
How Agreements Were Formalized 12% Intergovernmental Agreement 6% Purchase of Services 41% Contract New Government 18% Agency Informal Agreement
23% Other
Page 19 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Planning and Development
Length of Agreements
Less than 1 Year Photo: ChicagoAreaFire.com 25% 1-2 Years
3-4 Years 50% Benefits 5-6 Years 7-10 Years Cost savings through contracting to 25% another town or by paying only during 10+ Years the building months as opposed to hiring a full-time, all-year employee
Better coordination & greater Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing efficiency Regulatory Compliance 10% Participating Municipalities* Operational Efficiency 30% Bannockburn & Lake Forest Cost Savings Bannockburn, Lake Bluff, Lake Address New Service Needs 30% Forest, & Mettawa Better Coordination Batavia, Geneva, North Aurora & 10% Reduce Impact of Capital St Charles Costs 20% Other Beecher, Crete, Monee, Peotone, University Park, & Will County
Blue Island, Chicago Heights, Dolton, How Agreements Were Formalized Ford Heights, Hazel Crest, Joliet, Midlothian, Oak Forest, Park Forest, Intergovernmental Phoenix, Richton Park, Sauk Village, Agreement Steger, & Summit Purchase of Services 38% Contract Diamond & Will County Land Use 50% New Government Tinley Park & Tinley Park Park Agency District Informal Agreement Winnetka & Others
Other *Reflects responses from 12% approximately 30% of the region
Page 20 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Police
Benefits Photo: WGNTV.com
• Mutual Aid fosters greater efficiency • Better coverage and broader attention to crime follow-up Participating Municipalities* • Greater availability of resources and opportunities & more Aurora, Batavia, Geneva, North technical assistance Aurora, & St Charles
• Flexibility to meet emergencies or special events such as Beecher, Manhattan & Peotone community festivals & ability to request additional staff when Berkeley & Hillside necessary Buffalo Grove & 24 Others (Omni • More information sharing, including best practices Youth Services) • Cost savings, particularly through reduced capital investment Burr Ridge & Other • Better traffic control Carol Stream (DuPage County Metropolitan Enforcement Group – • Reduction of risk Drug Interdiction; Children’s Resource Center – Abuse) • Ability to offer additional services to a community not feasible on one’s own Chicago Heights, Flossmoor, Homewood, Matteson, Olympia Fields, Park Forest, Richton Park & Cost Savings University Park Diamond & Grundy County Sheriff, Contracting out to the County Sheriff’s Department can provide Will County Sheriff substantial savings over having an in-house police department, and joining a cooperative or organization can provide free or reduced cost Glenview (Northeastern Illinois services or equipment loans Public Safety Training Academy)
Examples: Grayslake & Hainesville
• Diamond (population: 2,500) pays less than $100,000 a year Hawthorn Woods, Kildeer, & Lake Zurich for police protection through County Sheriff Departments, less than 10% of the $1 million a year their neighbor Coal City Indian Head Park & Other (population: 5,000) pays for an in-house police department Johnsburg, Richmond & Spring • Through their association with NEMRT, Woodridge is able to Grove get free or reduced cost police training & borrow electronic training equipment at no cost
Page 21 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities
(Continued)*
Length of Agreements Joliet & Will County Sheriff
13% Less than 1 Year Kenilworth, Wilmette, & Winnetka 1-2 Years La Grange, La Grange Park & 7% Western Springs 3-4 Years 10% Lincolnwood (NORTAF, NIPAS) 57% 5-6 Years 3% Long Grove & Lake County Sheriff 7-10 Years 10% Mount Prospect & Others 10+ Years Orland Park & Orland Hills Orland Park (South Suburban
Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Major Crimes Task Force & SWAT Regional Team) 2% Regulatory Compliance 7% 5% Oswego, Community Unit School Operational Efficiency 5% District 308, DEA, Kendall County Sheriff, Montgomery, SWAT, & Cost Savings Yorkville
17% Address New Service Schaumburg & Others Needs Better Coordination South Barrington (Major Crimes 64% Task Force & Vehicle Accident Reduce Impact of Capital Investigations) Costs Other Tinley Park & Others
Warrenville, West Chicago & How Agreements Were Formalized Winfield West Chicago & Community High Intergovernmental School Districts 33 & 94 19% Agreement Purchase of Services Wood Dale (Major Crimes Task Contract Force, DuPage Arson Task Force, 3% New Government DUMEG, DUCART, FIAT) 7% Agency Woodridge (FIAT, DUMEG) Informal Agreement 71% *Reflects responses from Other approximately 30% of the region
Page 22 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Public Works Operations
Benefits
• Avoid redundant costs to taxpayers
• Greater capacity for equipment
• Additional support in emergencies, severe weather events, or
when equipment is out of service Photo: APWA.net • Reduced capital infrastructure expenses
• Greater efficiency Participating Municipalities* • Reduced equipment maintenance Algonquin/LITH Fire Protection • Cost savings District & Pingree Grove Police Department • Increased idea, innovation, & best practice sharing Beecher, Crete & Peotone • Better maintenance Berkeley & Hillside • Improved communication and coordination of efforts Bolingbrook Public Works & Woodridge
Buffalo Grove (Reliable Property Cost Savings Services, Clean Cut Tree Service) Examples: Burlington, Gilberts & Hampshire
• Woodridge saved approximately $8,300 in asphalt patching Carol Stream (IPWMA – Emergency Response) through Bolingbrook Public Works, which brought in equipment and staff to assist with the repair at no cost Crete & Monee • Crete saved about $25,000 by borrowing crack sealing Diamond (IPWMAN – Illinois Public equipment from Monee instead of buying a unit Works Mutual Aid Network) • Diamond saved over $10,000 for debris removal by utilizing Downers Grove, Lisle, Lombard & IPWMAN, IDOT and IDOC following the November 2014 Woodridge (MPI) tornado Ela Township, Hawthorn Woods, Kildeer & Lake Zurich
Ela Township & Long Grove
Page 23 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Flossmoor, Glenwood, Hazelcrest & Homewood 11% Less than 1 Year Fox Lake, Johnsburg, Richmond & 1-2 Years 3% Spring Grove 44% 3-4 Years Geneva, Consolidated School 22% District 303, Kane County, St 5-6 Years Charles & West Chicago 7-10 Years 3% Golf & Glenview 17% 10+ Years La Grange & Others
Inverness, Palatine & Palatine Township Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Regulatory Compliance Mount Prospect & Others 3% 8% Operational Efficiency Northfield & 3 Others 14% Cost Savings Oak Brook & DuPage County 31% Address New Service Orland Park (Public Works Mutual 3% Aid Agreement for South Suburban 5% Needs Better Coordination Communities) Reduce Impact of Capital Palos Park & Palos Heights Costs 36% Other Prairie Grove & Others Schaumburg & Others How Agreements Were Formalized South Barrington & Cuba Township Tinley Park & Others Intergovernmental Agreement Warrenville, Warrenville Fire Purchase of Services Protection District, Warrenville Park Contract District & Winfield Township 43% 46% New Government Wheeling & Chicago Executive Agency Airport Informal Agreement Winnetka & Others
Other *Reflects responses from 11% approximately 30% of the region
Page 24 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Sewage Treatment
Benefits Photo: BSenterprise.org • Ability to share a Class I Operator
• Better regulatory compliance Participating Municipalities* • Greater geographical choice: tying the service to where the topography of the land allows for sewer flow to follow gravity Bannockburn & Others eliminates the need for expensive mechanical lifting stations Barrington, Barrington Hills & • Significant operating cost savings Inverness Beecher & Others Berkeley (MWRD) Buffalo Grove & Lake County Sewer
Clarendon Hills (Flagg Creek Water Reclamation District – 11 localities) Cost Savings Crete & Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary Joint-bidding for sewage treatment services allow communities to District benefit from economies of scale, and outsourcing to another Fox Lake, Lake County & Round municipality can produce significant cost savings. Lake Examples: Frankfort, Mokena & Tinley Park • Members of the Municipal Partnering Initiative found Geneva & St Charles significant savings through joint-bidding: Glencoe (MWRD-GC) o Sewer Lining: $30-$50k for one group and $60-90k for another group (2011); $51-$61k (2013) Glenview (MWRD) o Sewer Televising: $16-26k (2011); $65-$75k (2012); Grayslake & Lake County Public $56-$66k (2013); $47-$57k (2014) Works Department • Crete has saved millions of dollars over the last 40 years by La Grange (MWRD) having Thorn Creek process their sewage Lake Zurich & Others Mount Prospect (MWRD)
Page 25 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Naperville & Warrenville Less than 1 Year New Lenox & Other 4% 4% 1-2 Years Orland Park (MWRD) Palos Park (MWRD-GC) 3-4 Years 5-6 Years South Barrington & Others
7-10 Years West Chicago & Winfield
92% 10+ Years
Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Regulatory Compliance 8% Operational Efficiency 12% 32% Cost Savings 4% Address New Service Needs Better Coordination 16% Reduce Impact of Capital 28% Costs Other
How Agreements Were Formalized
Intergovernmental 13% Agreement Purchase of Services 9% Contract New Government 4% Agency Informal Agreement *Reflects responses from approximately 30% of the region 74%
Other
Page 26 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Storm Water Management Length of Agreements Photo: Patch.com
Less than 1 Year 25% 1-2 Years Benefits 3-4 Years Country-wide regulations level the 59% 8% 5-6 Years playing field 8% 7-10 Years A regional approach to drainage provides for greater operational 10+ Years efficiency Cost savings
Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Collaboration results in uniform and Regulatory Compliance consistent standards across the region 8% Operational Efficiency Participating Municipalities* 17% Cost Savings Beecher (Will County Stormwater Commission)
58% Address New Service Deerfield & Others Needs 17% Better Coordination Franklin Park & Schiller Park
Glenview & Glenview Park District Reduce Impact of
Capital Costs Lake Zurich & Lake County Lindenhurst & 20 Others How Agreements Were Formalized Mount Prospect (MWRD) 8% Intergovernmental Agreement South Barrington & Others 8% Purchase of Services St Charles, Kane County & West Contract Chicago New Government 17% Warrenville & DuPage County Agency Informal Agreement Willowbrook & DuPage County 67% Woodridge & DuPage County Other *Reflects responses from approximately 30% of the region
Page 27 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Technology
Benefits
• Greater stable of innovation and specialization
• Sharing part time employees allows for a higher caliber of part time employees
• Standardization & better strategic planning Photo: srh.noaa.gov • Intergovernmental cooperation & sharing of best practices
• Cost savings Participating Municipalities* • Pooled infrastructure & reduced capital expenses Algonquin, Algonquin/LITH Fire • Better access to expert resources, particularly through the GIS Protection District & Huntley Consortium Batavia, Elburn Police, Geneva, St • Greater information sharing and access to uses for Charles & Sugar Grove (RMS) technological services (especially GIS) that multiple other communities have done Berkeley (WCMC) Buffalo Grove (Govl TC • Immediate access to data layers and a breadth of support Consortium/Interdev LLC) through the GIS Consortium that can be unaffordable to provide in-house Carol Stream (GIS Consortium) Deerfield (GIS Consortium) Cost Savings Glenview (GIS Consortium, IT Consortia, like the GIS Consortium, allow members to benefit from Shared Services Consortium) economies of scale as well as save on capital investment costs. Joint purchase and sharing of equipment and services also reduces costs. Inverness, Palatine, Palatine library District, Palatine Park District, Examples: Rolling Meadows, & School District 15 • Deerfield saved $364,683 in GIS services through the GIS La Grange (WCMC) Consortium in 2014 • Winnetka saves $1,660 per month on data processing Oak Brook & School District 53 • Tinley Park saves 20-50% on GIS services through the GIS Schiller Park (GIS Consortium) Consortium, as well as thousands of dollars on joint marketing & joint purchase of demographics
Page 28 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Participating Municipalities (Continued)*
Length of Agreements Tinley Park (GIS Consortium) 7% 13% Less than 1 Year Wheeling (GIS Consortium) 1-2 Years Winnetka & Others 27% Woodridge (GIS Consortium) 20% 3-4 Years
5-6 Years 7-10 Years Chicago Southland Fiber Network 13% (SSMMA) 20% 10+ Years South Suburban Atlas GIS Consortium (SSMMA)
Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing
Regulatory Compliance
20% 13% Operational Efficiency
Cost Savings
Address New Service
Needs Better Coordination
67% Reduce Impact of Capital Costs
How Agreements Were Formalized
7% Intergovernmental Agreement
Purchase of Services Contract New Government 40% 53% Agency Informal Agreement *Reflects responses from approximately 30% of the region
Other
Page 29 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Waste Collection and
Disposal Photo: YellowPulse.com
Length of Agreements 9% Less than 1 Year Benefits 9% 1-2 Years Additional recycling options for 9% 3-4 Years household materials
5-6 Years Cost savings through economies of scale 73% 7-10 Years 10+ Years Participating Municipalities*
Barrington & Grout Primary Initial Reasons for Sharing Beecher, Crete, Monee & Peotone Regulatory Compliance Buffalo Grove (SWANCC) 9% Operational Efficiency Glenview (SWANCC)
36% Cost Savings La Grange (WCCSWA)
Address New Service Long Grove & Others Needs 55% Better Coordination Mount Prospect (SWANCC)
Reduce Impact of South Barrington (SWANCC)
Capital Costs Wilmette (SWANCC)
Wilmington & Others How Agreements Were Formalized SWANCC: Solid Waste Agency of 9% Intergovernmental Agreement Northern Cook County Purchase of Services WCCSWA: West Cook County Solid Contract Waste Agency 46% New Government Agency 45% Informal Agreement *Reflects responses from Other approximately 30% of the region
Page 30 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Other Services* *These are examples only, and not comprehensive of the region
Housing Transportation Services Photo: BlackYouthProjects.com
Hoffman Estates Park District & Palatine Barrington (PACE) Park District Oswego & Kendall County Recreation Chicago Southland Housing & Community Development Collaborative Park Forest & Rich Township Burton Township, Richmond & (23 municipalities, hosted at SSMMA) Spring Grove Schaumburg & 2 Others • Raised far more money Countryside, Gateway, La Grange Park District & 6 Others together to address foreclosure St Charles, IDOT & Kane County crisis than possible individually • Residents are able to Palos Hills & 6 Others (Senior Bus Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Mount enroll at the resident rate Prospect, Palatine & Rolling Meadows Service) in programs in neighboring communities • Housing Collaborative: currently Electrical Aggregation focuses on senior housing issues Elgin, Hoffman Estates Park District McHenry County COG & Streamwood Park District Bellwood, Berwyn, Forest Park, Maywood & Oak Park Will County Governmental Gurnee & Gurnee Park District League • West Cook County Housing Highland Park & Park District of Collaborative: Hired a joint Highland Park • Residents saved $35 million in 2 community development financer years • Jointly financed & constructed an Aquatic Chicago Heights, Park Forest, Richton Deerfield & Lake County & Park, Recreation Center, & Park & South Chicago Heights Others Golf Course Amenities
• South Suburban Code • Residents saved approximately Schaumburg & Schaumburg Park District Enforcement Project $3 million over three years • Local building departments • Jointly developed Minor send pins on properties with Natural Gas League baseball stadium violations & desired enforcement actions to a single Northern Illinois Municipal Natural Round Lake Area Park District & “Administrative Hub”; the hub Gas Franchise Consortium School District 46 identifies necessary parties, sends notices, and records liens, • • Started by multiple Shared impact fees to thereby streamlining the process create more efficient and increasing efficiency of municipalities in order to jointly public campus requiring processing liens negotiate a contract with Nicor less land Gas
Page 31 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory
Conclusion
Best Practice Recommendations Photo: BeloitDailyNews.com
• Ensure agreements are absolutely clear: define exact, mutually agreed upon expectations, purpose, process, requirements, metrics, limits, liability and long-term costs, if any Obstacles to Service- Sharing • Explore all options before jumping in headfirst; try established cooperatives or smaller projects before initiating your own projects or • Administrative scaling larger Incompatibilities
• Intergovernmental Agreements generally tend to work better and more • Determining maintenance smoothly than informal agreements, especially if elected leadership of shared equipment & changes: informal agreements can break apart depending on who is scheduling use for each leading their implementation contributor
• Caution: Economies of scale work better for certain commodities, • Union opposition, particularly those that are more elastic, than those that are less so. For particularly when staff certain services, even several municipalities jointly bidding may not be reductions may occur or able to demand enough to jump a price tier; e.g. cold mix, which is sold department functions are by the ton. consolidated
• Have specific policies/procedures in place for any new members that • Liability concerns from would like to enter your service-sharing agreement insurance providers
• Cover all long term costs in agreements for even after their completion; • Intergovernmental pension, PSEBA, and other legacy costs can be an economic drain on the cooperation: local employer agency parochial perspectives can cause difficulties in • Review information regularly to review costs, savings, service delivery, compromising or and whether expectations are being met, as well as troubleshoot issues modifying project early on– no matter how small or insignificant they may be at the time. specifications in order to These can snowball into larger issues later on; solving them immediately facilitate sharing will strengthen partnerships. • Compatibility of • Consider all outcomes, both positive and negative, prior to entering an equipment/systems for agreement so as to plan for potential obstacles cooperating (software, • Substantiate a clear way to measure efficiency, cost savings, success, physical area failures, and completion of projects; evaluate both hard costs (i.e. characteristics, staff training, etc…) sometimes materials, project costs, etc…) and soft costs (i.e. staff time, etc…) require adjustments of • For municipality-led projects with a larger number of communities, a equipment few towns will need to lead projects, both for staff firepower and for
keeping projects on schedule
Page 32 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory Obstacles to Service- Sharing (Continued) • Seek partners based on similar goals and necessities, particularly those you already have a relationship with— an environment of trust and • Response time for collaboration is extremely important dispatching may not be optimal depending on • Evaluate variances in specifications amongst sharing agencies and how location and dispatching they can be overcome (i.e. variances due to requirements of equipment, center, although many locality of vendors, materials, etc…) municipalities have found faster response times • Strong and motivated leadership is extremely important; cooperation through joint dispatching can change with elected official changes and staff will be scared or skeptical of the unknown • Staff may be unwilling due to reluctance to “lose • Choose a project of appropriate size; for those with complicated control”, fear of the specifications, small to medium projects work much better than larger unknown, and fear of ones. Geographic location can also be important for some projects. reductions in staffing
• The more receptive municipalities are to learning how other • Having multiple partners communities conduct business, the more they will be able to identify can lengthen the decision- best practices and overcome local parochial views making process
• Vendor feedback is valuable and should be continually sought and used • Finding a suitable location to smooth out a joint-bidding process for municipalities to meet, particularly when many of Beneficial Information to Have When Starting Service-Sharing them are involved, can be (Information municipalities would have found beneficial to have had at the difficult beginning of service-sharing) • Certain vendors may not • Comparison quotes/services available at the cost that would most have the capability to service a larger project, benefit your community thereby reducing the number of bidders • Shared goals of all participants • Cooperation can fluctuate • Case studies and examples with changes in elected leadership • Clear expectations and willingness of elected officials to partner with another agency • Difference in needs (especially for IT services) • Open-mindedness from leaders and staff in overcoming political can make sharing a boundaries complex process
• Indemnification language worked out and acceptable to municipal • It may be difficult to attorneys and insurance companies explain the benefits of outsourcing public safety • Clear data on quantity and quality of supplies & vendors services to the residents
Page 33 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory New Areas of Interest*
• Clear data on the capability of different vendors to provide services [Municipalities that are already sharing services are interested in and the quality of their services expanding to these new areas] • A clear understanding of all members as to their positions on • Public Safety: Police, Fire operational matters Protection, Joint • A clear understanding of public views Dispatching, Prisons, Emergency Services • Knowing the type and level of personnel to be used for the service (Ambulances)
• The time commitment for staff unrelated to the primary task • Technology: IT, (particularly meetings) Information Services, Data Storage • Administrative work and collaboration is most burdensome in the starting stages of a shared project; however, once the documents are • Joint Procurement: Road Salt, Street Sweeping, drawn up they can be used year after year with only minor changes Emergency Repairs, Vehicle Purchases, Hydrant Actions Desired from the Illinois State Painting, Waste Collection 45 and Disposal, Other 40 Contract Services 41 35 • Inspections: Building, 30 Sewer, Electric 25 • Public Works Projects 20 22 22 15 • GIS Implementation
10 5
0 Resources Grants Policy Changes
Policy Recommendations
Grant Funding
• Despite the potential cost savings, the start-up costs of shared service programs can be prohibitive, making state grants imperative • Time frames should be flexible (at least 2+ years) so that towns with budgets already planned for the year are not caught by time
limits
Page 34 of 35
Northeastern Illinois Shared Services Directory New Areas of Interest*
[Municipalities that are not Give Proper Notice & Aid for Burdensome Policies already sharing services are • One example: with very little notice, under Public Act 99-0006 interested in trying service- sharing in these areas] towns are now required to consolidate dispatching services • Joint Dispatching • Such services require significant amounts of money and time, yet the towns are given no state aid • Public Works Operations
• The difficulties of finding a suitable partner, overcoming • Code Enforcement infrastructure and equipment compatibilities, and the loss of staff • Assets are all time-consuming and could result disastrously should they be rushed by limited time frames • Management or Administrative Services • Listening to town input prior to enacting such burdensome policies would smooth over the process for everyone • Technology
Remove Regulatory Barriers Preventing Collaboration & Consolidation • Joint Procurement of Supplies and/or Services • It is currently virtually impossible for certain towns to consolidate
fire or police departments due to burdensome procedures and prohibitions, including pension restrictions
• It is also impossible for certain towns to contract out for firefighters and paramedics; mutual aid agreements are already in place and equipment is already being shared, so it logically makes sense to take the next step and consolidate services/staff, particularly when the closest service centers to an area are within a different municipality’s borders
• Splitting the firefighters and paramedics would be beneficial so that paramedics at least could be shared, even if legislation prohibiting the consolidation of fire departments was kept in place Improve Clarity of Policies
• Not all policies are explicitly clear to municipalities in regard to *It is important to note that all of these new areas of interest are when services are shared already being shared by other municipalities in the region, who • For example, the tax implications of joint fuel services is not clear may thus provide examples, to all municipalities; there is uncertainty as to whether towns can recommendations and case studies use their tax-free ID when dispensing fuel to another town
Page 35 of 35