Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-10-PRIV-rpt.pdf - Privatization Report Committee Members Nancy Cannalonga <Chairman> Charles Benson <Vice Chairman > Patricia Carney <Secretary > Richard Michelson Donald White Donald Wilson submitted November 10, 1994 .4] eu tli 411pb au. nu Wun II II 1hill 1, sn W I 1 ,i 6111, n +1 iW e.u, n.W. W W,i1Wuu OWu.el Afe iWU1 1al J� Introduction The Privatization Committee was formed by Town Manager, Richard White, at the direction of the Board of Selectmen on July 18 , 1994 The committee was charged with the following task Examine the various activities performed by the different Town departments, including departments under the jurisdiction of the municipal side and the school side of Town government, and attempt to identify those services which could be performed at a lower cost by contracting with private vendors While conducting your review, it is requested that you attempt to identify any changes in the level of services which may occur if private vendors are retained Table of Contents I Objectives and Scope II Recommendations for Managing Town Owned Buildings III Fire Department IV Pine Meadows V Privatization by Various Town Departments VI Conclusion VII Appendix A Feasibility Study Data B Feasibility Study Summary by Service Master C Facilities Profiles - Physical and Operating D Golf Course Superintendents Report E Interviews with DPW Directors F Letter from Walter Tonaszuck OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE Objectives This committee was delighted to have been named to the Privatization Committee and of having the opportunity to contribute their ideas. As a town, we must stay ahead of a changing environment by moving beyond what we already know, moving into uncharted territories, and into the more uncertain realm of innovation. As all cities and towns are faced with tremendous fiscal constraints and scarce rescources, the Town must seek new ideas, challenge established wisdom, experiment and, of course, innovate. Innovation refers to the process of bringing new ideas into use, reorganizing cutting costs without sacrificing services and to create and develop. Application and implementation are central to this definition; and it involves the capacity to change and adapt. Innovation is risky, but think about the opposite problem, maintaining the status quo makes us stagnant and certainly does not insure our survival. We, as a committee, felt an obligation to the town, to the residents, to the taxpayers, to come up with some common sense recommendations. Recommendations that were not so outlandish that could not be workable or ever be implemented. Our mission was to look for the best opportunities -with a positive outcome. We were in a position to be far enough away from situations to see the shortcomings, yet close enough to visualize improvements. This report is being made to the Selectmen and the School Committee. The recommendations which we have set forth in this report, we feel, are in the best interests of the entire town of Lexington. SCOPE Our committee looked at all town services to determine which ones offered the most significant potential savings. Please be assured that while we attempted to identify cost-saving opportunities, we also attempted to identify any changes in the level of service which would occur if private vendors were retained. As part of this review, we examined the town services which are already privatized, and we are recommending changes where we believe they are necessary We contacted five communities to compare DPW Privatization and how it is working in their communities. We interviewed twelve different individuals involved in supervising or providing services to understand the problems of both Service Providers and Department Heads. We spent an innumerable number of hours on the telephone verifying and compiling data regarding EMT Privatization and delving into the Pine Meadows Contract. The Appropriations Committee had already begun to review school and town custodial and maintenance services, and it became clear to us that the 18 Town buildings (192,000 square feet) with a total value of $22 million dollars, and the 9 School Buildings (874,000 square feet) with a total value of over $96 million dollars, should be the most important concern to address from both a short term and long term. After discussions with the School Committee, Permanent Building Committee, Appropriations Committee, Capital Committee, Service Providers, Officials of other Communities and many local officials we determined that a Town Facilities Manager and a reorganization of all Town and School custodial and maintenance services should be our major concern, and our report deals with this primarily and in great depth. There are many people who are pulling for our committee and who would like to see some of our recommendations implemented. Just last week a letter along with an attached report was brought to our attention that was written 11 years ago. This letter is at the last page of this report. It was addressed to Bob Hutchinson, Town Manager, from the person who was then the DPW Director, Walter Tonaszuck The letter and report deals with exactly what we have been investigating-- combining custodial services and having what is called in the report "a buildings maintenance operations manager We have called this position a "facilities manager" It's discouraging to the committee to think that all of this could have been implemented 11 years ago. If that had happened, we would not have the salary discrepancies between municipal & school custodians that now exist. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING TOWN OWNED BUILDINGS tr Town of Lexington Ad Hoc Committee on Privatization Recommendations for Managing Town Owned Buildings Current Situation The Town of Lexington currently owns and maintains approximately twenty-two different buildings with a total asset value of over$110 million. This represents a little over one million square feet of facilities with the vast majority of this space currently under the jurisdiction of the school department (approximately eight hundred seventy- four thousand square feet). The oldest of these facilities is over 80 years and the most recent was built in the early 1980's. The physical condition of these buildings and their associated plant equipment ranges from good to poor. These facilities are being cleaned and maintained by two separate organizations, each with their own management structure and work force. These separate organizations have different pay scales, benefits packages, and work rules. The municipal (Town) buildings (including the Town Office Building, Police Station, Cary Hall, Visitor's Center, Public Works Facility and Library) are currently being serviced by seven town employees and three part time employees requiring a total payroll (including overtime and benefits) of $284,000. The School buildings (including administration) are serviced by fifty-one and one-half employees requiring a total payroll (including overtime and benefits) of almost $2,000,000. In addition, for all Town and School buildings, another$150,000 is spent on outside purchased services for building and grounds maintenance and/or repair Although the buildings are being cleaned in a satisfactory manner, there has been minimal emphasis on preventive and reactive maintenance due to budget constraints. These buildings are too valuable to continue to let deteriorate and they house key service delivery functions for the residents, particularly the schools. Any recommendations affecting the management of Town and School facilities must consider the cleaning and custodial requirements as well as the ongoing maintenance needs. Findings and Observations: In order to better understand the current situation and properly evaluate the alternatives, the Privatization Committee met and/or had discussions with a number of different people representing various organizations. From the Town of Lexington this included the Town Manager, Department of Public Works, School Committee, School Administration, Appropriation Committee, and Permanent Building Committee. Representatives from companies that provide a variety of cleaning and maintenance services were also contacted and discussions were held with State Cleaning, Service Master and Holt. Additionally input from other communities who have addressed this issue, including Wilmington, Lynnfield, and Belmont, was also obtained. The results of these discussions and the analysis performed by the committee led to the following findings and observations: • The cleaning of Town and School buildings is considered to be above average as compared to other communities. • Outside contract services have much lower wage and benefit costs due to the extensive utilization of part time employees. • Town employees have a lower pay scale, less expensive benefits package, and more flexible work rules than the School employees. • The maintenance of Town and School buildings and plant equipment is not keeping pace with usage and age primarily due to budget constraints. • The current expenditures on outside purchased services could potentially justify the hiring of additional trades people to bring these capabilities 'in house' • The current headcount for custodial and cleaning is at least six more than necessary based on a recent evaluation performed by the School Facilities Manager • The focus on maintenance activities at all facilities needs to be increased. • Any recommendation for downsizing the current payroll, other than through attrition, must consider the impact of unemployment costs. • Regardless of the alternative chosen (even if the status quo is maintained), appropriate performance measures for facilities management must be established and monitored. Options: In developing our recommendations, the committee explored various options for servicing the Town s buildings. Key among the Committee s concerns during our deliberations was that the quality of service and required maintenance not be diminished for the sake of cost savings and that the welfare of all current employees be taken into consideration. The options examined included. • Keeping the status quo • Introducing a 'team cleaning' approach under the current organizational structure which would allow the current headcount to be reduced by six through attrition. • Privatizing all cleaning and custodial services. This option would require that the Town and School terminate all current employees. • Consolidating the current School and Public Works facilities management departments into one new organization. This 'shared services' department would have its own budget and be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of all Town buildings. • Contracting with a professional management company that would train and direct School and Town custodians with new approaches to cleaning and maintaining the buildings. They would also provide more cost effective supplies and equipment. Recommendations: Although the complete outsourcing (privatizing) of the facilities management function may seem more cost effective, especially when comparing wage rates, the Committee did not believe that this was in the best interest of the Town at this time. Key reasons included. (1) the amount of actual savings to the Town for an extended period was unclear (2) the Town has no performance measurement system in place to determine the acceptability of the level of service provided by an outside firm, (3) the initial layoffs required would increase the Towns unemployment costs significantly the first year, and (4) the loss of flexibility with Town employees and pride of `ownership' that they have could negatively impact the services provided in each of these facilities. However, as the Town gains more experience in the privatization of services and if the costs of keeping the facilities management function in house' continues to escalate, this option should be revisited. The Committee concluded that the best alternative for the Town at this point is a combination of two of the above options. A shared services concept should be introduced which would consolidate the current School and Public Works Department facilities management organizations into one new Town wide department. This department would be responsible for the cleaning, custodial and maintenance operations of all Town buildings. The new department would have a facilities manager responsible for servicing all Town buildings and have its own budget. This position is not expected to be an increase to the current staffing (whether any of the current staff qualifies for this position or whether this position is to be assumed by a professional management company needs to be determined) nor an increase in the overall Town budget (moneys will be taken out of the current School and Public Works budgets). To assist this new manager and department in getting off the ground quickly the Town should contract with a professional management company such as Service Master This type of organization will introduce new methods and techniques for improved efficiencies and effectiveness, build in preventive maintenance programs in the daily work schedules, and supply equipment and cleaning supplies more cost effectively than the Town can. The Committee expects that this jump start approach will be a break even proposition the first year and will save costs thereafter These cost savings will accrue through having fewer employees (new methods and techniques will allow for attrition without replacement), less purchased services because of improved preventive maintenance and increased departmental capabilities (hiring additional trades people), reduced capital expenditure for equipment replacement through improved maintenance, and reduced costs for cleaning supplies and equipment. Additionally this approach will provide the Town more flexibility in the assignment of people to cover day to day requirements as well as special events. This recommendation is not without its challenges, however In order for this to work properly the department must have complete flexibility in the assignment of people and be unencumbered by any work rules. This may require changes to current contracts. The disparity between the School and Town employee wages and benefits must be addressed. This should not be solved by simply raising one to meet the other, consideration must be given to market rates. Where this new department reports to must also be determined to insure that priorities are balanced between Town and School facilities. The anticipated savings accruing from this approach should be treated as savings to the taxpayers, not as additional money to be spent by Public Works or Schools. Ultimately all facilities must be viewed as Town facilities without concern over who controls them. The focus needs to be on how to best protect the investment that the taxpayers have made in all these valuable assets and do this in the most cost effective manner Next Steps: The Committee recommends that the following steps be taken to further refine this suggested course of action. • Request a no fee audit from a professional facilities management company The purpose is identify and quantify potential opportunities for savings. • Establish performance measures for the adequacy of the cleaning and maintenance of buildings. • Determine where the new department should report to. • Prepare a job description for the new facilities manager position. • Review all contracts to determine whether there are any barriers to the recommended approach. A plan of action should be developed to remove any impediments that may exist. • Develop a request for proposal to solicit bids from professional management companies who can assist this new department as outlined above. • Define more precisely the cost/benefits of this recommendation once the proposals from the professional management companies have been received. Once these steps have been taken, the Town would then be in a position to determine how to best proceed. At that point an implementation plan should be developed to manage and monitor the transition to this new organization structure. 6 FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Department gmeroencv Medical Services (EMSt There are basically two components to our EMS system. Advanced Life Support (ALS) which is currently provided by a private contractor at no cost to the town and the Basic Life Support (BLS) which our fire-fighters currently provide. The ALS portion consists of 2 paramedic units which serve 10 communities on a regional basis. When the ALS is called to the scene of an emergency situation, two paramedics arrive in a bronco-type vehicle. They are trained in intravenous therapy cardiac defibrillation and administration of emergency drugs. This service is provided and paid for by a consortium of Lahey Clinic, Winchester Hospital & Symmes Hospital, which operates the service and bills patients for services rendered. The ALS does not transport the patient to the hospital as they arrive in a bronco-type vehicle. Our fire department does the actual transporting of a victim to one of those above-named hospitals. Our committee looked at the possibility of privatizing the Basic Life Support (BLS) services which our Fire Department provides. If this possibility occurred, we also had to weigh/balance what the savings would be and exactly what would be an acceptable level of safety for the town. Basic life support ('BLS) services are provided by emergency medical technicians (EMT's) who receive 120 hours of first aid and life support instruction in providing care to emergency victims. Currently 33 of our 50 firefighters are registered EMT's. The town benefits from these EMT's because they provide a dual-role of being cross-trained fire-fighters who are able to respond to fire and EMS related calls. When our firefighters respond to an emergency situation, and we transport a victim to a hospital, we are reimbursed for this service. In FY95, it is estimated that the town will realize from user-fees a projected revenue of $190,000. These fees-for-service are reimbursed by federal & private insurers. We ONLY receive this money If we transport a person In an emergency situation (the actual transporting of a patient) By privatizing this portion (the transportation part of the EMS system) we would be eliminatina the only revenue producing component of the system. Our committee found that the other parts of the EMS system would still have to be kept in place: (I) The Town would still need to maintain our own ambulance as a backup. (2) We would still send engine companies to the scene for initial treatment & assistance. (3) We would still want our fire-fighters to be EMT certified. (4) Have to supervise & enforce contractual obligations of the private contractor (5) We would have to house the Private Contractors ambulance in our own fire station. The committee asked also 'Let's weigh the savings and compare it to the loss in service?' The savings would be 8 fire-fighters- -($40,000/year average -plus $7500 benefits) This translates Into approximately $47,500 X 8 ■ $380,000 00 During the period of July 1 1993 through June 30, 1994 the EMS response was 1,501 resulting in 1,113 transports. The revenue billed by the 1,113 transports was $297,360 This, however resulted in a collection rate of 73 8% or $219, 501 00 The difference therefore -- -- - ----- -- -- - $181 .000.00 $161.000 Is the actual savings that we would realize If the Town of Lexington were to privatize. The committee also weighed the loss of service: Lexington has 10,000 families in town. In FY94, the EMS responded to 1501 emergencies. (the Fire Dept. responded to a total of 3214 incidents). Qf these 1501 calls. (15% of the families In town). our ambulance transoorted nennle to hospitals in emernency situations 1113 times. Let's assume we privatize: Let's assume the private contractor is Chalk. .as Chalk is the only private contractor in this area to service municipalities. They In fact, service Waltham, Newton, Wellesley & Framingham. !0 Chalk would NOT come to Lexinaton free We would have to pay a subsidy as do all of the above City and Towns. (a)The cost for Chalk to have an ambulance solely dedicated for 'on call' / 911 and emergency calls would be $200,000 to $250,000 per year Very simply put, if they do not realize this amount or more, we pay a subsidy Based on our collections for FY94- -we collected $219,500. (b) The amount of the subsidy could be lower -If they did other work with that ambulance, other than emergencies. For example, if the ambulance took non-emergency calls, or if it were allowed to be involved in mutual-aid with Waltham or another community (c) The subsidy also depends on other factors (1) if we have a very busy town with many runs, subsidy would be lower (Lexington is not considered busy) (2) Do we have a good collection rate? (No. .our collection rate is 73%). (3) What percentage of elderly? Medicare only pays $100 to $150 for those on Medicare, whereas Private insurers pay $250 per trip. If we have a low % of elderly our subsidy would be lower (Lexington has a very high percentage of elderly). The following situation happens every day right here in Lexington: Picture yourself in a tragic situation, where because of no fault of your own, your child or your spouse are forced to require emergency medical care. You are helpless, at the mercy of others, where seconds feel like minutes. .and minutes like hours. Then picture this, that attempting to come to your aid is a well-trained but very lost and confused private ambulance team, searching desperately for a new location in a strange town. It only takes one mistake to start a chain reaction of complications that can ultimately end in tragedy And it only takes one tragedy to so vividly illuminate the shortcomings of privatizing the one part of our Town which is continually praised, our EMS ambulance teams. Of all the letters that appear in Brickbats & Bouquets thanking town officials, most of them are directed to the Emergency Medical Teams of our ambulance, praising them for their compassion, professionalism and total dedication to doing what they do best- -saving lives. Conclusion* The committee feels that we have what we consider to be the BEST situation. We transport the patient- -we get paid for that service! Very simoly out- -residents have a reliance on this service and if it were eliminated, in our opinion, we would have a tremendous loss in the level of service, a tremendous upheaval and we would be stirring up a volcano. Very few private ambulance services can match the features of a fire department in delivering pre-hospital care. Troubled by tremendous personnel turnover and the location of their ambulance at that moment, most private ambulance companies cannot meet a community's needs for "first response' within 5 minutes of alarm! What we view if privatization occurs; Excessive Delays resulting in substandard service, disputes in the field, turnover rate in private ambulance personnel and potential future costs. If the private contractor does not collect his "fees-for service" arrangement with Medicare, Medicaid or Private Insurers, we will ultimately. Day the difference,. HOWEVER: There are other areas within the tire department thgt we looked Into that need to be considered as possible savInos; (I) A Regional effort for Fire Departments is being explored by Ann Taubes Warner Chairman of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Belmont. She will be contacting all of the abutters of Belmont (Lexington is such) to start discussions about the possibility of a regional effort or a joint service. (2) Our collection rate in billing of the EMS when we transport a patient to a hospital is between 66% and 73%. We must try to get this up higher perhaps to somewhere around 85 to 90%. (3) We currently have a private vendor doing our billing, which costs $16,000. (we paid $16,000 for 1113 bills). The Town of Belmont had over 900 bills and they paid Medicomps In Canton $8000. We should look into other billing possibilities. One possibility is the Fire Chief's full-time secretary Should she be doing this billing? We realize that she may need some special training, but in the long run, it would be worth it. PINE MEADOWS pine Meadows Golf Course Our committee looked into the contract, proposal and management of our golf course. Five years ago, we contracted with Golf Facilities Management Inc. in the amount of $240,000/per year, plus 5% of the gross (the 'gross' amounts to $25,000 more per year). The Management Company also keeps all of the proceeds from the snack bar pro shop and vending machines. A new contract was bid upon and awarded to this same management company in 1993 and will expire December of 1995. In the year 1995 we will pay $287,000 plus 5% of the gross, which comes to $312.000. olus snack bar. aro shop and vendino machines. in all fairness to the town, when the contract was awarded for the second time in 1993, Golf Facilities Management was the only bidder Attached is a 1992 "Golf Course Superintendent's Report" This report is a survey of 1200 golf courses, and it shows that the average 9-hole municipal golf course (such as Pine Meadows) costs approximately $115,000 to run. This includes all expenditures- -payroll, real estate taxes, benefits, water and irrigation, tools, fertilizers, electricity equipment repair etc. (see page 6 of report). According to this report, we have been overpaying this management company by approximately $200,000 per year We were able to receive some numbers and figures of what local golf courses spend: A local 9-hole PRIVATE golf course In Lexington in 1994 will spend approximately $200,000 for all expenditures. You must keep in mind that Private golf courses usually spend much more on flowers, beautification and manicuring, than do municipal golf courses. An 18-hole PRIVATE golf course in Watertown will spend $480,000, When Golf Course Superintendents speak of numbers & figures, they speak in terms of 'cost per hole" For example, the local 9-hole PRIVATE golf course in Lexington would take their cost of $200,000 and divide by 9 holes, and that translates into approximately $22,000/per hole The golf course in Watertown spends approximately $480,000 divided by 18-holes. This translates into approximately $26,000/per hole Very elite Golf Courses such as Weston, Belmont, Salem etc. spend approximately 30,000 per hole. Pine Meadows Golf Course spends 535.200/oer hole. You must also remember that we do NOT have an elite, manicured private golf course. Conclusion When Pine Meadows Is paid for in the year 2003, the taxpayers of Lexington will have paid $11 million dollars for this 9-hole golf course. If it Is at all possible for the town to come up with more revenue by running the golf course ourselves, then we should do It. We owe It to all of those families In Lexington, who have paid dearly for this golf course, to look for every opportunity to Increase revenue or cut costs. The chairman and vice-chairman of this committee met with Rick White and showed him the numbers and figures. As a result of this report, we are pleased that Rick agreed that, when the contract expires in 1995, the town shall try to come up with some other alternatives. PRIVATIZATION BY VARIOUS TOWN DEPARTMENTS Privatization by Various Town Departments Although the main focus of the Privatization Committee has been to study the custodial and maintenance services for the Town of Lexington municipal and school buildings, the Committee has also had an opportunity to look into other department's efforts at privatization This section of the report will focus on what some Town Departments have privatized, what has been successful or unsuccessful and some suggestions the Privatization Committee would like to offer Department of Public Works The Department of Public Works has privatized several of its services According to Dick Spiers of the DPW, these services include 1 Street line painting 2 Meter pole and sign maintenance 3 Trash and recycling collection 4 Catch basin cleaning 5 Fire hydrant installation 6 Supplemental snow removal 7 Removal of trees with Dutch elm disease 8 Planting and maintenance of trees 9 Installation of water and sewer service Street line painting and meter pole and sign maintenance are done by the same vendor There seem to be several problems associated with the privatization of these services Examples of problems cited are the work has not been performed in a timely fashion, sometimes taking months for meter poles or signs to be repaired or maintained; the work performed has not been of the same quality as when the work was done directly by the DPW, especially line painting services; and it is necessary for a DPW employee to accompany and oversee the line painting crews resulting in additional cost Therefore it is the recommendation of the Privatization Committee that these services revert to the direct control of the DPW. Trash and recycling collection, catch basin cleaning and fire hydrant installation are working out well and should remain privatized Removal of trees with Dutch elm disease and the installation of water and sewer services are now the responsibility of the homeowner Planting and maintenance of trees is funded by a grant The Privatization Committee feels that any grants or government funded programs should be investigated and should be actively sought when appropriate At the request of the Privatization Committee, Cindy Boecker and Michelle Martin, interns for the Town of Lexington, performed a study of some surrounding Towns' DPW's to determine what services these Towns have successfully privatized The Towns of Belmont, Needham, Norwood and Wellesley were included in the study (see appendix) Services these Towns have privatized include catch basin cleaning, permanent trench repair, tree services, granite curb installation, road paving, trash and recycling collection, supplemental snow removal, street sweeping, fertilizing, some engineering and architectural services and some automotive repairs Belmont and Watertown have combined services in two areas They share the services of a dog officer and they have a combined contract with BFI for trash removal Cemetary Department According to Dick Spiers, the Cemetary Department staff has been reduced in the past few years and it no longer hires part time employees to help with grounds maintenance in the summer months The current reduced staff now deals with more burials per week Moreover, during this period when the staff has decreased, the overall size of the Cemetary has increased As a result, the quality of maintaining the grounds, and hence the appearance of the Cemetary, has suffered Appliance Collection BFI, the Town of Lexington's trash collection vendor, currently collects old appliances for which the Town must pay Some surrounding communities charge a nominal fee for appliance collection and appliance stores such as Lechmere and Sears charge $20 to $25 to pick up old appliances when they deliver new appliances The Privatization Committee would like to suggest that the Town of Lexington consider a similar charge for the convenience of collecting old appliances These funds could then be used to offset some of the regular trash collection related expenses Police Department Chris Casey, Chief of Police, has indicated that the Police Department has successfully privatized alarm monitoring; the processing of parking tickets by Arlington Data; and the processing of traffic violations by the Registry of Motor Vehicles or the District Criminal Court Dispatching services, which will include Enhanced 911 when it comes on line in November, have been consolidated with the Fire Department Copy machines are leased As a result of its membership in the Greater Boston Police Council, significant savings have been generated on vehicle and equipment purchases The Police Department also applies for grants such as the DAR E Grant for $25, 000 Employment Resources The privatization Committee would like to pass along a recommendation from the Superintendent of Public Buildings of the Town of Wilmington, Roger Lessard Mr Lessard suggested that the Town of Lexington look into Employment Resources Inc (ERI) of Cambridge ERI provides summer part-time youth employment paid for by Federal Grant The youths work 35 hours a week and they would fill a very much needed staffing shortfall for several departments including Cemetary, DPW, Parks and Recreation CONCLUSION Conclusions The Privatization Committee feels very strongly that all Town Departments should continuously examine ways in which their services can be provided in a more efficient and cost effective manner This includes renegotiating employee contracts especially with regard to broadening job responsibilities and possibly reducing benefit packages Employees should be encouraged to come forward with ideas for cost savings If an employee has a good idea that is implemented, he/she should be rewarded with Employee of the Month status or an additional day off for instance or some other incentive that will encourage useful suggestions The Privatization Committee applauds efforts such as those by the DPW and the Police Department to take a good look at their Departments to determine areas where privatization, consolidation of services with other departments, leasing, memberships, grants, or other means might result in cost savings for the Town of Lexington Job sharing and consolidation of services with other towns should also be researched Privatization is only one of several options available when considering restructuring The process of privatization can open up more ways for various services to be performed that may result in savings The question remains as to whether levels of service can be maintained The Privatization Committee feels that all avenues of cost savings should continue to be explored Finally, a letter from Walter Tonafzuck to Robert Hutchinson dated January 17, 1983 came to light at the last meeting of the Privatization Committee held on November 8, 1994 It is interesting that this letter suggests practically all of the recommendations outlined in this report The time has come for the Town of Lexington to implement the suggestions of the Privatization Committee and others that have been made over the years FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY BY SERVICE MASTER LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS TOWN LIBRARY and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MRS. NANCY CANNALONGA, CHAIRPERSON PRIVATIZATION COMMITTEE of LEXINGTON FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY „...„.. .,,„.„.„.,,,,„.. • •-••„...r-„-.&- u4: .\ % 9^t h Stoi\ J p1 ry f F: ;F .h 4rON i .1 1 1ir �,...-aK A • 4" '# f �. A"n h�RC. f G ye- t -:.. Z �,. >-. Y _.� ji_ ._�. ...2_ � "� w�. y"y�G Prepared by: Dr. Robert J. Gerardi Management Representative Service. (ANsrl2 ServiceMASTER Education ServiceMaster Management Management Services Services company 983 Old Eagle School Road Suite 605 November 1, 1994 Wayne,PA 19087-1798 610/687-6950 Mrs. Nancy Cannalonga Chairperson Privatization Committee of Lexington Town Library and Department of Public Works Lexington, Massachusetts Dear Mrs. Cannalonga: I have reviewed the information supplied by Cindy Boecker and have prepared the enclosed Feasibility Study Summary for your review. In this preliminary report, I have conducted a macro-assessment of the Facilities Management function and have arrived at a series of issues and questions that should be answered. These questions are a result of a brief review of the data. Before any firm conclusions can be reached, a much more in-depth look at the department will have to be conducted. It is my hope that the issues presented will allow us to continue our discussions to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Cordially, Robedzz J. Gerar fid. D. Management Representative M Stra*eMaflnmbWaster rpompam' [Mated eip SenenMaaer Management °flotvaon LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS TOWN LIBRARI and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUMMAR\ OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 Lexington Salaries/Wages/Benefits $2.229.399 Contracted Services 151,574 Custodial Supplies 67 410 Building &Grounds Supplies 250,154 Utilities 1,056,391 Equipment 9.100 Total: $3,764,028 Total Gross Square Footage = 1,022,030 Total Cost Per Square Foot = $3.68 National Average Cost Per Square Foot as reported by AS&U Magazine for 1993 =$3.64 CURRENT STAFFING BREAKDOWN A. Operation of Plant FTE' Custodial Custodians 50.85 B Maintenance of Plant Area Maintenance Maintenance Worker 6.0 C. Management 4.0 D Clerical Total Maintenance/Custodial Staff and Management/Clerical 61.85 1 PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS A. General Comments Lexington Total Gross Square Footage: 1,022,030 Estimated Net Square Footage Being Maintained (86%): 878.945 B. Staffing Custodial. 2.31 weekly hours/1,000 net square feet being maintained. ServiceMaster average in Public Educational Facilities: 2.0 ServiceMaster range in Public Educational Facilities: 1.60-2.20 - Plant Maintenance and Grounds 1.07 Monthly hours/1,000 gross square feet being maintained. ServiceMaster average in Public Educational Facilities: 3.10 ServiceMaster range in Public Educational Facilities: 2.85-3.95 Custodial POM &Grounds 3.10 2.31 2.0 1.07 ■ Lexington ServiceMaster Lexington ServiceMaster 2 'C. Budget Distribution ServiceMaster Lexington Experience Salary/Wages/Benefits 59.0% 44.0% Contracted Services 4.0% 9.0% Supplies/Equipment/Materials 9.0% 10.0% Utilities/Other 28,0 37.0% Total Facilities Budget 100 % 100 % D Energy (Utility)Cost Per Square Foot $1.03 Dollars ' $ 85 Per Square Foot Lexington ServiceMaster GENERAL COMMENTS Looking at a macro-comparison of dollars being spent, the Lexington Schools and Municipal Buildings are financing a Plant Maintenance Department that appears to be understaffed, and a Custodial Department that would appear to be overstaffed. The number of hours per thousand square feet found on the custodial side is more than with a typical ServiceMaster managed facility. However, without knowing the scope of duties that the custodians are responsible for in daily operations, this could vary. The hours per thousand on the maintenance side is lower than a ServiceMaster managed maintenance department, however this could be due to the amount of minor maintenance that the custodial department is responsible for. A service worker training and development program that would include all employees in the custodial, maintenance and grounds departments would reduce the district's dependence on outside contractors, saving district dollars, and result in a more diversified department. 3 The total cost per square foot is just pennies above the national average and the difference in insignificant. ServiceMaster usually spends more in the area of Equipment/Supplies/Materials than the average public education facility. However, the Lexington Municipal and School Buildings spend close to the ServiceMaster average in this category, while spending a lesser percentage for contracted services and utilities. The level of utilities is slightly higher than one would expect with a management program. A more in-depth study is needed to verify assumptions and observations identified in this report. Also, the following major issues need to be addressed, studied and clarified: 1 A review of work requests to see what type of work is being done in-house. There appears to be savings possible in the purchased services area. 2. An assessment of the capabilities of the in-house staff to see why certain work is going out to contract. 3. Actual vendor files should be reviewed to determine exactly what outside contractors are doing. 4 A more detailed review is required to better assess current operation and needs. Discussions/interviews with key department personnel are required to determine those things that are unique to the Lexington Schools and Municipal Buildings and must be considered before a firm comparison with similar districts can be accomplished. 4 5. Review responsibilities of administrative personnel who are responsible for scheduling and work control management. 6. Proper organizational structure and concept of operations need to be further developed and refined. 7 Do budget numbers used reflect all Physical Plant costs? How are capital projects handled? 8. Is there an energy management program? Energy costs are somewhat above the standard for non air conditioned buildings. 9. Are employees utilized in areas outside of their own area of expertise, and if so, how are they utilized? 10 In what condition are buildings and equipment? An in-depth evaluation that answers these and other issues is imperative in developing an action plan that would have the greatest impact for the town of Lexington Schools and Municipal Buildings. 5 SUMMARY In general, administrators/school boards in public school systems and municipal offices are faced with the challenge of coping with increased needs, with ever decreasing funds and resources. In addition, the pressure to "be accountable" has never been greater ServiceMaster's almost 600 education and municipal customers are able to address these challenges with the knowledge and comfort that we provide the solutions and the resources without incurring additional cost. In short, maximizing value and service is ServiceMaster's specialty. We would value the opportunity to serve you. $ FEASIBILITY STUDY DATA FEASIBILITY STUDY DATA FOR JLt rn. ) 7cl/ itV lCrl - 1>()LL' I) Campus building square footage (gross/net) (in total): Including Acres: Town Office Building, Cary Hall, Police Station, Visitors' Center 106,750 and Public Works Facility 2) Full-time Equivalents Maintenance FTE• Custodial 3 FTE' Grounds FTE' Management Working Supt. 1 FTE' Supervision Working Foreman 1 FTE' Clerical FTEs Part-time/Temporary/OT FTE (Mainz.) FTE (Cust.) FTE (Grds.) 3) Annual Wages Maintenance S Custodial S 80,091 Grounds S Management Working Supt.S 44 798 Supervision Working Foremay 33,213 Clerical S Part-time/Temporary/OT FTE (Maint.) FTE (Cust.) FTE (Grds.) 4) Annual dollars spent on benefits for above. S 5) Annual dollars spent on outside purchased services for building and grounds maintenance and/or repair (air conditioning, boiler repair, lawn care, training, pest control, etc.) S 33,879 6) Annual dollars spent on supplies for building and grounds maintenance and/or repair (maintenance supplies, grounds 9, 779 supplies). S FEASIBILITY STUDY DATA Attachment A BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXPENDITURES 1920 FY94 FY95 TOWN HALL ACTUAL APPROPRIATION 51110 Wages $156,754 $157,939 51130 Overtime $12,396 $18,000 51205 Life Insurance* $0 $0 51206 Medical Insurance* $0 $0 52110 Utilities $144,043 $161,856 52230 Supplies & Materials $19,684 $55,950 52360 Contractual Services $43,078 0 52390 Equipment $9,366 $5,000 TOTAL $385,321 $398,745 Personal Services $169 150 $175,939 Benefits $0 $0 Expenses $216,171 $222,806 *Department does not request or expend Benefits 10/14/94 TOWNHALL Feasibility Study Data Page Two (Town Office Building, etc.) 7) Annual dollars spent on custodial, disposables, supplies, 9,905 chemicals and equipment. S 8) Annual dollars spent on utilities (gas, electric, oil, etc - 99,954 excluding water and telephone) f 9) Capital expenditures for equipment, etc. (maintenance and grounds) None 10) Please attach copy of current fiscal year budget and last year's actual expenditures. See attached II) Number of pools: None 12) Custodial responsibilities: a) Minor maintenance See attached. b) Cafeteria responsibilities during school lunch c) Responsibilities in shop area d) Lawn mowing e) Crosswalk duties and monitoring bus area • FTE (MI-time equivalent) = 2,080 hours/year (40 hour week) Pleas to: Dr. Robert J. Gerardi 94 Shiela's Way Lynn, MA 01904 EH )C (_ 6(1) 561 Z U5 <� FEASIBILITY STUDY DATA Attachment B 12) Custodial Responsibilities--The following tasks are performed by either the custodians, the working foreman and/or the working superintendent: Daily' Open and secure buildings. Maintain tile and terrazzo floors, including stairways (sweep, wet mop) Vacuum rugs. Clean restrooms. Collect and dispose of trash. Pick up mail, raise and lower flags. Set up and break down meeting rooms. Provide security for evening meetings. Maintain interior and exterior lights. Operate miscellaneous equipment, floor buffers, rug shampooers, small hand tools, drills, saws, etc. Pick up trash on sidewalks from the Town Office Building to the Visitors' Center daily and behind the stores weekly Provide back-up for parking lot attendants at the municipal attended lot. Weekly: Spray buff tile/terrazzo floors. Collect recyclables and put out for pick up. Perform general office dusting/cleaning, glass, countertops. Periodically on an as-needed basis: Set up and break down Cary Memorial Hall for groups and organizations. Move furniture and related office equipment when requested. Perform repairs to office furniture, equipment and buildings. Perform carpentry/masonry repairs. Maintain the sidewalk pole lights in the center of town. Check HVAC equipment (Grease, oil, change filters, etc.) Repair all flush valves on toilet fixtures. Run wiring for computer networking terminals. Replace ballasts in light fixtures. Replace small electric motors and pumps. Perform some boiler and oil burner repairs. Sub out and oversee larger repairs performed by contractors. Assist other custodial staff on repairs requiring more than one employee. Perform miscellaneous painting touch-ups and larger painting projects. Strip and refinish miscellaneous office furniture. Prepare and maintain division budget. Perform employee evaluations. Seasonally. Open and clean boilers. Change filters in blower units. Remove snow and ice from exterior walks and steps. Keep steps and brick walkways free of debris and leaves, especially when wet. Annually: Strip and reseal tile/terrazzo floors. Wash windows. Shampoo rugs. FEASIBILITY STUDY DATA FOR •lakni--' o7 k-e t ttafnh - r14c.ln AA t u I) Campus building square footage (gross/net) (in total): Acres: Main Library 38 080 so ft 47,695 sq ft Branch Library 3 , 200 sq ft 16,532 sq ft 2) Full-time Equivalents Maintenance FTE' Custodial 1 FTE' Grounds FTE* Management FTE' Supervision 1 FTE' Clerical FTE' Part-timelTemporary/OT FTE (Mainz.) FTE (Cust.) FTE (Grds.) 3 part-time staff each work less than 18 hr/wk 3) Annual Wages Maintenance $ Custodial S 20 566 Grounds $ Management $ Supervision S 28 894 Clerical S Part-time/Temporary/OT FTE (Mainz.) FTE (Gust.) FTE (Grds.) Part-time $23 , 995 Over time $11 , 673 4) Annual dollars spent on benefits for above. S 5 , 140 5) Annual dollars spent on outside purchased services for building and grounds maintenance and/or repair (air conditioning, boiler 15 '045 repair, lawn care, training, pest control, etc.) $ 6) Annual dollars spent on supplies for building and grounds maintenance and/or repair (maintenance supplies, grounds $ 5 , 375 supplies). 1 - Feasibility Study Data Page Two 7) Annual dollars spent on custodial, disposables, supplies, chemicals and equipment. S 4 , 505 8) Annual dollars spent on utilities (gas, electric, oil, etc • excluding water and telephone) S 72 ,437 9) Capital expenditures for equipment, etc. (maintenance and grounds) NONE 10) Please attach copy of current fiscal year budget and last year's actual expenditures. I I) Number of pools. 12) Custodial responsibilities: a) Minor maintenance b) Cafeteria responsibilities during school lunch c) Responsibilities in shop area d) Lawn mowing e) Crosswalk duties and monitoring bus area • FTE (full-time equivalent) = 2,080 hours/year (40 hour week) Please re to: Dr Robert J Gerardi 94 Shiela's Way Lynn, MA 01904 IRK C toll) 592- 41530 EMO 4 Cary Memorial Library ----- ' 1874 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE • LEXINGTON • MASSACHUSETTS • 02173 • 617-862-6288 l A TO Cindy Boecker, Management Intern FROM Stella Liu, Acting Library Director SUBJECT Privatization DATE October 3, 1994 One supervisor, one custodian and three part time workers complete the maintenance department Part time workers usually work less than eighteen hours a week Custodians' duties include cleaning, scheduling building repair services, proctoring, moving furnitures, setting up rooms for childrens programs and for meetings We have two buildings Total square footage for the main library is 38,000 sq ft on a 47, 695 sq ft lot The main library opens to the public seventy hours a week One custodian has to be on duty for proctoring while the library is open Usually lawn care, dusting, polishing, window washing are done during the day They also come in early to get the building ready for the public and stay behind to lock up the building and set the alarm at night Most of the vacuuming and bathroom cleaning are done before the building is open to the public The total main library attendance record is 527, 159 in FY94 Branch library opens forty eight hours a week. Lawn care, cleaning and scheduling building repair sevices are taken care of by the maintenance department Total square footage in the branch library building is 3200 sq ft on a 16, 532 sq. ft lot. Daily delivery of books between the main and branch libraries is done by our maintenance personnel. They use their own cars and the library pays them mileage plus $ 2 50 per trip Daily delivery of mail to the post office and to other town offices are also done by the maintenance personnel C t, paps '1 ?t4G40c44r it,A,. . . September 22, 1992 FY 91 FY 92 a FY 93 -_FY 94 TC -4 CoC ACCOUNT CATEGORY _ I PAID PAID APPROP REQUEST ! /4{ At4Kr5 v aett. ELECTRICITY 5-2 /117 55,928 59,767 56,237 60, 000 �c t' saae. OIL HEATING SX11 0 12, 451 13, 422 11, 000 11,000 v 52231 TOWN WATER StaII V 4 , 652 6, 190 4 ,700 4, 500 . 6 -9 BOOK BINDING S'"'Z'tGO / 242 �` Q ) 3, 966 3, 635 3 , 000 {. 4 , 000) ', L(SO 521241 R&M BUILDINGS/GROUNDS 3t, 19, 570 15, 918 15, 000 16, 000 ;;6v 5144 R&M OFFICE EQUIPMENT 4 , 820 3,706 4 , 000 4 ,000 J. ,, Ci 1 510 est, b -399 1 DATA PROCESSING 523GO 20, 104 24 , 800 30, 000 31,000 1. ' bat' TELEPHONE 5t2 1/ 0 I 8 , 126 7, 568 8, 000 8,000 59.143 POSTAGE 5-12, 3 0 1‘ 5, 822 7, 024 6, 000 7,000 51131 FAPOE f3, R 2 C' t sem- W 10--440.64044a, 5♦4a3 STATIONERY c„Z230 3, 597 3 , 532 3,000 3,500 1.42I 134424 PHOTOCOPY ,22. 30 ,, 1, 853 2 , 118 1,500 2,000 jt 221! PROCESSING SUPPLIES SJZ3C 15,968 I 9, 160 9,000 9,200 I 1 54431 HARDWARE pvc fZ3Ia ' 4 , 303 5,955 4 , 000 isrec3) Y O62 BOOKS, ETC ,5'1,1. 3 O 68, 522 66, 753 59, 5636-rOe4---^"�' 5j0 C r �,,� 1' TOTAL $230, 398 $229, 803 $215, 600 X E *i It £-4 ._. _.-- ___. �� '�1 rpt ' 1 `' ',) 211 O &Rout° ~PTtt/1""/IS� N f� - /i gin .7o , S.?30_ GRdvn Swe0t/ts # MAnn144S a It., " S.a -2----l�NCtvgLS Sot Go/1!/14Cr�'/1(., St'4 .7 :., 41100 Gnov1° "Co�✓r'Aacnin[.. Scnv16 £S i,Y \....... ,� �- -. ._ _. -- ; � AcrvActy ?!list on sterol) 7c�oo. ti-�•ggv GAavr iTwr�. civ/ ' ..... i i a 7 ': 11 ----ir" 0 . a t.'r-ca- 7-c C C r ,v},7-r ,d;zr„„-S , Lae, r »r — v.'��Grzz.. _ 4 :i . / ff2d �6a-c / 99Y — ,I i Via—- 4 • ll/ - _ 53360P. (-92,2.9rd. 11/3Ciiiixt- --- -69/0,eel Y5 37-1 X38&13✓ • iJo ►S' I i In13.4D'-- 9`.t--q•'71 - 1���3 ' // /TI -- --- - i1 i 93-'1-Ye 1 18 $9a7 Ioq ;5 b?aii= - ------ - - LS t 7' J3 jt1/6a. __8970, 3S" • j I7 - - -- '.759s 135fb&►7 . 345;13 ' '—i �1 -----T--• -=---- '_Y2gkS I:, 153UL�'' - 7oaoeSi ▪ �2'_ � �• _ Ias' v :2 t 6b.003;e- ___.5721)57:; Jo l ,p;, , I t) ,47' —I 6%`r 970 SG, 30 ✓ 2i. a ,I - .1--- _so L __-lti7±5____3_1_121F s .3;—/ 'i T?— I 9:241217S--_301a 1 c ..;i�— i — .J. SLS. 0 , )LIP9 _5.--- 1tJoy1l:) ' ,,fir lc/ — AM c)7o3 1 N O1 i q 7 io i`� I7p -12, -----_ - — �'cr —_1. fac'1 _ 3�,?5 — ._3--,- ..,57 5 r i-27 I .i 2, 1 r -- - 24 :1 — — — -;, --- 2: 1 :L Ii i i 29Ir --11- i�-----I�- -i^ __ --- -- 3c II i ,i 31 ;---- 11 - I I ii� _ _ H� I - - '32 f -T I - --1- =--- 3 �-- it- -• -- --F— I � 3 -----1,'-1-----F----1 - -- -� - - - -ri --- 2311• ( ii ll i; --------I •- --- II II I I II ii FEASIBILITY STUDY DATA FOR Y(< t;il9or) Pttbac Cr.& ccCu/ I) Campus building square footage (gross/net) (in total): Acres: P- 7y 000 At X00 t I 2) Full-time Equivalents Maintenance G FTE• Custodial '/J,-(FTE• Grounds 0 FIE' Management ! FTE• Supervision FTE' Clerical / FTE• Part-time/Temporary/0T C FTE ('Mint.) 0 FTE (Cust.) C FTE (Grds.) 3) Annual wages Maintenance S Custodial S_I J c, L 4/ ;- Grounds S - 0 . Management - Management S 3'd 'Co - Supervision S - 0 Clerical S G '- / Pan-time/Temporary/OT FTE (Maint.) FTE (Cust.) FTE (Grds.) 4) Annual dollars spent on benefits for above. ')- c a F S / i S J f 4 a 5-0 — are/ , 5) Annual dollars spent on outside purchased services for building and grounds maintenance and/or repair (air conditioning, boiler repair, lawn care, training, pest control, etc.) S /01 . 6f0' 6) Annual dollars spent on supplies for building and grounds maintenance and/or repair (maintenance supplies, grounds supplies), S )- 3 5- 000 Feasibility Study Data Page Two 7) Annual dollars spent on custodial, disposables, supplies, chemicals and equipment. $ 3 3, 0 00 8) Annual dollars spent on utilities (gas, electric, oil, etc - excluding water and telephone) $ F<PN e #0 — 9) Capital expenditures for equipment, etc. (maintenance and grounds) fry/00, --- 10) 10) Please attach copy of current fiscal year budget and last year's actual expenditures. I I) Number of pools: _ G — 12) Custodial responsibilities: a) Minor maintenance y e 5 b) Cafeteria responsibilities during school lunch yeS c) Responsibilities in shop area y e S d) Lawn mowing yes e) Crosswalk duties and monitoring bus area /Vo • FTE (full-time equivalent) = 2,080 hours.'year (40 hour week) Please re trrt to: / Dr. Robert J Gerardi 94 Shiela's Way Lynn, MA 01904 1 f AK C L1-1) 592_ €453o Lexington Public Schools Budget Summary Display 04-Oct-94 For all Buildings Program 3910 - Cperation of Plant Object FY93 FY94 Org FY94 Adj FY95 Code Descriptor Actual Budget Budget Request Difference Change 51371 Custodians 1,246,706 1,308,642 1,308,642 0 1,308,642- 100 0- 51372 Sick Leave 19,850 30,000 30,000 0 30,000- 100 0- 51374 Custodian 17,379 20,280 20,280 0 20,280- 100 0- 51375 Weekend Ch 3,859 3,960 3,960 0 3,960- 100 0- 51378 CUstndians 0 18,000 18,000 0 18,000- 100 0- 51379 Custodian 46,590 54,494 54,494 0 54,494- 100 0- 54312 Vehicle Pa 4,305 4,864 4,864 0 4,864- 100 0- 54319 Other Stipp 49,655 52,734 52,734 0 52,734- 100 0- 54382 Physical P 538 4,280 4,280 0 4,280- 100 0- 58870 Replacemen 2, 568 8,531 8,531 0 8,531- 100 0- 52211 Electricit 517,177 535,961 535,961 0 535,961- 100 0- 52215 Gas Bottle 11,312 13,596 13,596 0 13, 596- 100 0- 52231 Water Cons 96, 519 108,000 108,000 0 108,000- 100 0- 52257 Equip Sery 1,104 8,775 8,775 0 8,775- 100 0- 52335 Mop Rental 8, 136 5,800 5,800 0 5, 800- 100 0- 52341 'Pe1ephone 106,562 100, 000 100 000 0 100,000- 100 0- 52363 Built-In I 2,021 2,000 2,000 0 2, 000- 100 0- 52399 Other Gene 31, 104 25, 000 25 000 0 25 000- 100 0- 54311 Fuel Head 239,275 310 000 310 000 0 310, 000- 100 0- HOGRAM 'TOTAL 2,404, 661 2, 614, 917 2,614,917 0 2, 614 917- 100 0- 1 Lexington Public Schools SJdget Suzy Display 04-Cct-94 For all Buildings Program 3915 - Maintenance of Plant Object ' FY93 FY94 0rg FY94 Adj FY95 8 Code Descriptor Actual Budget Budget Request Difference Change 51311 Central Ad 0 52,000 52,000 0 52,000- 100 0- 51351 Secreraria 26,152 26,313 26,313 0 26, 313- 100 0- 51363 Computer T 27,446 27,270 27,270 0 27,270- 100 0- 51371 Custodians 141,647 206,105 206,105 0 206, 105- 100 0- 51374 Custodian 755 4, 000 4,000 0 4,000- 100 0- 54382 Physical P 59,448 67,604 67,604 0 67,604- 100 0- 54383 Ground Mat 583 1,459 1,459 0 1, 459- 100 0- 58870 Replacemai 0 600 600 0 600- 100 0- 52257 Equip Sery 1,950 13,200 13,200 0 13,200- 100 0- 52307 Consultant 4,972 5, 000 5,000 0 5, 000- 100 0- 52332 Roofing 6,000 10,000 10,000 0 10,000- 100 0- 52333 Glass 4,401 6,000 6,000 0 6, 000- 100 0- 52334 Fixed Equi 23, 614 26,450 26,450 0 26,450- 100 0- 52354 Electrical 22,884 24,000 24,000 0 24,000- 100 0- 52355 Plucrbing 19,423 19,000 19,000 0 19,000- 100 0- 52356 Elev-Servi 0 2,400 2,400 0 2,400- 100 0- 52362 Grounds Ma 16, 128 20,000 20,000 0 20,000- 100 0- 52363 Built-In I 98, 456 57,950 57 950 0 57, 950- 100 0- 52364 Heating Re 32,398 36, 000 36 000 0 36 000- 100 0- 52365 Painting 12,122 16,000 16 000 0 16 000- 100 0- 53382 Insect Con 3,918 5,250 5,250 0 5, 250- 100 0- 57718 Staff Tray 1,353 1,500 1,500 0 1,500- 100 0- PROGRAM TOTAL 503, 649 628, 102 628, 102 0 628, 102- 100 0- 1 FACILITIES PROFILES PHYSICAL AND OPERATING Town or Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: reioN 6FF/6E 811U,/n/ cr Building Address: /GSJ14Ss fiat Building Use: Physical Profile Age: " % • • , '` '' /972 Total Sq. Footage: 2.. 900 No. Floors: 3 Sq. Ft. Tile Areas: 4/3 40 No. Stairwells: a Sq Ft. Carpet Areas: /V6 97 No. Bathroom : G No. Rooms: UNITS B4. 134rrutooM No. Windows: //�' / /1 1/- 2 uu'rs '' 2 - 9' " .e S- 3 ,. s J - 3 ^ — Z " List major common areas: Area Sq. Footage entisn s/Tt &e Loeoy >< /vases as- rite, rflxgzzo 2. r - 6/, $ 3 fi.E SrR on isfS._ 1120 7745 4 5. 6. 7 8. 9 10. Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: 0 R ri re,O ./,t/ Nett_ Building Address: /G& C /t',4 s c five Building Use. T,enry /lcr r, 6. 5 j dA/c/ion r f 17ENrAG a-C Physical Profile Age: /9,2 7 Total Sq. Footage: 3/eco No. Floors: 3 Sq. Ft. Tile Areas: /906 i C,;�NZGO slab 9 tvo00 ( 3-1e No. Stairwells: AW 1 Sq. Ft. Carpet Areas: EA-1 /btuea Ain r rs No. Bathroom t : 3 uiDRjr¢ r,v u s e No. Rooms: f 7 tt UNITS E A. FMrffT ooM No. windows: -5-t f ` elmvo i e AF - 2 um i r.S 't 2- f16n/ 9 (air s ri 3 - 44Dacs — 7 umrrs List major common areas: Area Sq. Footage capET/Tt i.e 1 /t/a i N //,a/- 33o a2aco{ enAiWI 5 2. L"'srrim?i�niliiiiLL /D00 rRAnzzo 3, fri itu Ja8By 2/Po 8LuCsrau6 4 IALDET L.o313r/ /lop fAir'A 12-0 5. ,C,RRioaA !IS.amp 2- 3eo rCAM no 6. Tfwo P,n/Fewr-Arer genes /p PP r/As 7 Srn c. / 92 0 t loop 8. AA[l'DNr/ f ,S147:24-9REn Moo ph/Airco Cg'iuevr 9. Ont.-sone 72,5" 10. Rnsrnoonts 4q7 riefelt2.Zo Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: Pouts S'fA-r-bm/ Building Address: ti : : Ac Building Use. Physical Profile Age: /9.f7 Total Sq. Footage: /&so" No. Flours. 3 Sq. Ft. Tile Areas: 6/d© No. Stairwells: Sq. Ft. Carpet Areas: /COD No. Bathroom ice. G No, Rooms: ?� U n i rs $A. '34rf RooM No. Windows: 40 / , remir.5 - 3u.verS 42 - 2. Ir 5-_ 3 .I it 3 - 3 " p 6 - _3 a List major common areas: Area Sq. Footage aan .r/rt 1,E 1 2-06/6/9/t aelei 94/0 tic,c- 2. ASSiM/,34.7 /boat /Do0 rite 3. C'D>?R/!2nS / rao rite' 4 eae_ BLc .q 9901 fcdfours r ? renters S. _ i rcMEw in a rag 6. 7 8. 9 10. Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: Pa/T-o.7 —fe Building Address: /27.5- CLASS AVC Building Use: eEn,wsc7e opt 6n 1nwc1_= - naRAfri 4C/©4/ Physical Profile Age: /94 Total Sq. Footage: .3 2 F No. Floors: Sq. Ft. Tile Areas: /Mr No. Stairwells: 02' Sq. Ft. Carpet Areas: D No. Bathroom ids. No. Rooms: -? "'Lea A 1-57-44640#BASEA49J, UNITS Ea, $4rimooM No. Windows: .22 a / _ 9uvnrs 02 _ " List major common areas: Area Sq. Footage C4 PET/Tt r.E !1/S,o Nene 9ne4ZW 2. 8esrAli,liiSt po&,0eR Roe* S45 crRa c 3. . . c,, Pao Ian oD 4 5. 6. 7 S. 9. 10. Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name. rne.11 er l8 Bewhome¢ Operating Profile Total No. Custodial/Maintenance Personnel: ONS S'NPlAihSoR ad62 SEGS '' 40G4r/4*J No. of Supervisors: peak S7-i1ooNf extex 4e.z, T'o.S .r 105/70R5 CV/TEA- Shift Coverage: Shift No. Hours No. People 1 / S'— 7„q-iw ra ,3.30rn OA/Em Tido 2. 2 NO 3 fix, ro //P,s! A ONE- 3. 4. 5. Total Hours. 4/02,6-6 Total O.T Hours: a6/ Total $ SP, G,56. $'/ Total O T $. S ? 79• Na Parr&Ffbet/yr/AL AND Na Cti m7 r5 Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name. PDLJLF_ S'r4n4.i Operating Profile Total No, Custodial/Maintenance Personnel. No. of Supervisors: SEE 77° 8 Shift Coverage: Shift No. Hours 1/0A9.5" No, People 1 / 7'Aa! re 3,34 at, 2. 3, 4, 5. Total Hours. /737 Total O.T Hours: 47 Total S. .22,, 34 3, 12 Total 0 T S. /3 a G• 3r. Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name, G4Ry A/Egc,fMt 1/1/41- Operating /NLLOperating Profile Total No. Custodial/Maintenance Personnel: No. of Supervisors: See 7O B Shift Coverage: Shift No. Hours No. People 1 CSE ra rlOa efeltA0/4 4/5 2. 3. 4. S. Total Hours. 814'2 Total O.T Hours: 92 Total S. // 9(1.,39 Total 0 T S. /9.,10. G/ Toni. o.r NouRs PA,n /92 NowRS qy ourne Q/36,49)S SENTat Ti15 Fd4C/a1ry Tom'- enr E37©2 4 / 1 Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name. I/isirr>,_,t'_C.,trxt Operating Profile Total No. Custodial/Maintenance Personnel: No. of Supervisors: See To, B Shift Coverage. Shift No. Hours No. People 1 2, 3. 4. 5. Total Hours. 4' x/ Total 0 T Hours: /,S"0 Total S. fl'c ',n Total O T S. 02.d'75L-3/ Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: ro<wv S,w.E 24,47 Operating Profile (cont.). DpglX No. Hours Shift No Sy>) VAcuuni Rn/GS 3.S 17#58V4`2 Poe rm I.5 'e/ CLOWN F REsrRrofr/S 01 a' M mir u/ooa s , .17A ig S / / 1ASH /WA' u p 1 D/s PDSAL l I ' 2 Ili* -. AWL MON(I/ 80X / / t t te ousrnver- Glass- cceavrF/?.s / la. I OPEv/NQ= f SEcuR mio- Bi.D S -4 / / i 2 SEr uP {ag aNEcr/MG 5 / /f 2 M/SC DELA/ RFOaEsrs / 1 4 2 RESERvArows SCHEMIL/A1 - / (J REn,T- v} Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: rows o/lYeE Operating Profile (cont.): Weekly No HourQ ,Shift No. S°#n'i &uc r/6085 1/ 1 Nn nrr E,YTrR/02 5 r e s / y2 1 Ara UJ44t'$ eiadraw/R REP4125 6 / *Z AyERg4E Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: num/ efi4e€ 5104- Operating Profile (cont.)• yER,a y meal* No. Hours Shift No, 3,7) SIRii RFSF L 1/aaRs 32 / ZONA°li OVASN/N Q- 79 / fuau/f/cE REfi4 ' AL f ENTIRE CDMPLEX 392 2 RaG- sll4 fpoa20 2 STRIP Allo REA J d15• lc'ccDoi/ or e, ARa/Tuve 32 Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: Puce Srnn©./ Operating Profile (cont.). Weekly No. Hours Shift No. SPRAY Bali T/oa,eS S� / REd-%CL/Nar / Y2 MSC /The CLEAN/u�r 2 / ,yAiNr Exr33/47o/2 uhtas / r / LRNV Sn PS B1-OG/EQUIP REAR/R5 / /NSC 104/L V REGu65TJ 2 / Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: Rugs Smr/ON Operating Profile (cont.) Daily No. Hours Shift No. M�INr4/M/NG 1./D012s / / CLEAN/NQ R4esrR/x R0 s / /2 / U4C11,4/ t N!G Rud 5 MnsW R5,4011101- / / Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: Pewee 57-4/70il Operating Profile (cont.). yEgRL tit-,.,gen No. Hours Shift No. 3cuytvi WIL/COw 04-SN/HG- .57 / STRIP t REsEII L A/Gdl1 s 3� / Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: RQ 7I/E'iu WML &D4 MSXS PFRAwfideD OW A- 43 Net-1E0 gAS6S Operating Profile (cont.) Daily No. Hours bShift No. Sitn MR/Nra/il/h'o- //ooRS 2U / CLem/rn- RE.sri oowrS 93 / SelT/r/¢ UP M2 Meer/A/4-5 290 / AND .6,ivcr/c,NS r94SN D/SPosnL /, / w/NDow lc MSE,/V4- 25- / QLD4-/go1wip RFPs/RS 70 / N/fl Pn/Nriivc2 32 / mise e/m,v/ TA-sffS £9 / oPFAIMa- i 5EcuR/nv4- 37 /1 2 ,31-04- I3ESeRo4riaHls i soitvaCa/4 25' Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: d/siToRs cenreR Operating Profile (cont.). JVionthly No. Hours Shift No, 310/3 Gil/NDOIU W45d/1 I 8 / SNDIrJ /GE grit-too/U. 25 / B1.04 f [Quo) Rt-PA/RS / Town of Lexington Facilities Profile Building Name: Os/ nes etocl nw Operating Profile (cont.) Daily No. Hours Shift No. CIFkwNG R(Cr Roe sts / l MAINTA14/,/& AOR5 4. / Mise Cie/Wm 4 AND 1fl45// RFsioPAL % �RDUUN6 s/OFIVALXS from / rasmlie (ngsy) / ewer A W.Ea(peg Cop T!?RSft he i,va fie C t/ S p l'/ou(r Lel, GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS REPORT Q4.' 4 .• •. , 5 .:. rt. Vii:`�°1' i•:. 't'r•,..:.�.t r.75.+7a'3�>"q- t' `{.aa�.: :f.1 R' 1.'5. •_ F ' r '..-. .yc ,� ys�. yl.{.77,i`,eA T I +I�y�4�•� .�j4� y ♦ .- _x• .t:.. ^.,f. . . 7; ` :-, ti'.'_• •••f'w'ikC,}•A exit "•I`• !-•>:. 'r �r� ,i q r'- a<. -a i Jw .,. •r '•r.i.s •---,.s.;--7.i1F S>' 'Z Nr ai__i<QYs •�'�.5� 4 • .. ..,...s ie < - r '� C -�.,g5.,2it„ r. ,,-4, 4 -. - t).rai' 3...1d � �,,! �1.%\<..i•Y-ru' • 'j�i.`�Tf..•'t71y,@.4 �,--F ^ ��� air iu i3.._ ay ;.71',4 ti i Yom: ice` `lM�•'#r' `Yr s-S'•�'f' - ;UO C Lir' iy t - - `. N4 .r: --' ;F't' (u177 -'-.214.-;'1." -. _riag „.....,-;,,,,.-- -T.,-._ . --,-?- r `Pity�,> aeliement, r- ;_,_ - .r . i..- ; _4: -,:.- 4,45:5 "-- ' ' ?_ . .i ' ... ri ., r,_„.., '.e<i Ai'Fe .a .:e, ..-ate• x-,•'J'Fi_r4- - _- _ 2214 SFi. '9{'_•-'- ".,,_ i • .. -�' --AL _ e - 'r.-•:c -t-'c” ..?tr+,+ 11,- ;✓•,:•- _ .�. ' .y _ `-i• _ - :'"`..: - -'.,.r.7:‘,"ac:. e` -,.24- -- w_:•...+.? i. 'G''h..:ryl<- - mo i," -t - zit i %iz:i,-int"S: 2 ?.-• .i -im' .�..4:4:2:7..-4 5,-. F^ . 4. ' „Ic•- - '< d.":•t�.�3.- 52-2,-:-/c1-412:z-75,2‘42.v... :k,.i.-rJj• � V�..,� .- •. • 1'•1':.� - - _ % `4' : ..\"-i .i- rr' Y' tom..• '_ ',7..-4---: „14!-14 -•i..s C< ` 71sr "' x .,4 l >:... �.•.3:c!_} ..- s2m _ is ,.:_.. � .` y•`--;.•--2•,,;"•:1,-., __ L l 'ii” � '.: ~ r ' ..12;L.-] -.- d.. G '3 y�. . .�'.�i"---.2.i" J l: , / _I .sik .�5•`, ."ti'i '-a4y -Y:, • S .;4t+ l4,,2 ,?y- i-i,il- -, . >e - • Lry .1' 5,7','.7,-.''.,^ •:Y`r -. -i - r✓ ' �� ` ' '• +' as_y:.r .Ft .,' 0. n.: b•l • . . . .' {• 1 ft 7 • µ .,. : er.•_•r > .- r> .� x ;.1:.4; -r .c: 4 • r.-;14.17.2''s• .:•_ [ _ '•_1'Ir^I ` , �' • 1 _ • yyt - ^. f.Y Jam. . . �.. -�'_. S' ,t? s q. _ . .l. l . .- 7' ,1. ,4 s's":". • C - .• - 1.z":-. .>•r- . +, F _ r 2,..,....:,• x 1 a •r G. - ^'� . -+' •-3+ t�.mss:ii 1 :/ 9y,•„,_L:t\. 4 4. r _ : �,:�•:,,.: :'z �.= _ o1f-Course, t. _ ,- ,4,..,.., :...„,..,..-...„.. _ .. ... �C) ' ” ,]tt- R'A'•"',•' .-.t`}..•�`:a • _' "' „ .V uperi�r tendents' }Y}j -r - > .14-.4: _ E '' '-1414-' i. ^ .i` •<: 7 are, J - f �-A:~f byS '-`PCy^ ,j-'' - - r c. .- \! ?i:`- - r 712,•2 74 7 . 1� N. • _-fes -1 .. _ [ - :,..L.,...._ 4 4' ,r �. _ _ - -+ r 4. • 1. 1-- �1=1414_ . - _.s 1Yr. _r ... ' . .t_.cry'>.'' -, s Y .�*.,Y :y. • r v 1.. 'ST' ® yy• S:\""�� _. f~ 1. .i tire' 4„i4 LLL . „` '�t 01 �,%i:S4b5ry+10!If0 :' < 'd' '-_, - _ - r•?-ti.�j:.�..a. -.L- ..?. "-+. - • '• °ia >" ':>s•- S' w'a:• ..r"' ham. 7.v .iiti. •I_''-` IJ :.1414' Nnti�- Golf Coiuse Superintendents Association of Amerip ;421 R Pa&Dnve 's. - es?ird' i _ -tlawigdoe,:K5.:6407!93854; �. .�_ SS or' ,}. y � 14.14-'".?w':j: 5.••c. ,_ •-- __ �'< '. •.'r't�.�{Y �•W? v;.;.;&.....;i' ice,r ' ,�(( r.F.;y r .n; .�y _—yr , . . atmay. ..'r%. .i ,-w:•.a!%\a;';�'�'` •;4.1`;.4',;-::."cC::T.'•':.. �S..:•y '.:.-a4`„•y�?.Nic vt. -'i ). .%. 1..c'a-'kms < :.fr.•.:�. . r•-„ -r _);.4C'_�•�•Yy %::;.. -,G~'r •. -_1471 . - 4 a- K T :• Sf.<; �� a .•, .t. .i- 1 '.i. a rri•'.:1.E.t. iLL-t,' f .Y: Art � ' 1 `r 3:n`r'.�:]:•- :s`F.• '!., �:+a' 'i:�.SinS:'.es:-:Y�� r�i.+�?:w�i�::.+.:v.. �1i.�._ •:2222 5..:9.si"•i'^�1-��d. ?..��'+e'f�'-Y:!;9:.L`y�t1�'a ::?' 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Report { Introduction The Center for Golf Course Management (CGCM), a subsidiary of GCSAA, conducted the 1990 Buying Habits of Golf Course Superintendents survey More than 2,000 golf course superintendents participated in the survey The 1990 Golf Course Superintendents Report was derived from their responses. In 1991 CGCM conducted three surveys,each focusing on a particular segment of the golf course management industry pesticides and fertilizers, golf cars and turf utility vehicles, and mowers and maintenance equipment. A total of I 183 superintendents completed one of the three surveys. The 1991 Golf Course Superintendents Report was derived from responses to all three surveys and in addition contains information originally reported in the 1990 report. CGCM collected data on maintenance expenditures and equipment inventories in the spring of 1992. The 1992 Golf Course Maintenance Expenditures survey yielded responses from 679 superintendents. More than five percent of all golf course facilities responded to the Maintenance Expenditures & Equipment Inventories survey The 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Report was derived from responses to these surveys. The Center for Golf Course Management 1 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Report Statistical Interpretation The following statistical terms are defined to ensure uniform interpretation of this report. Percentile. A percentile is a score that splits the distribution. The 50th percentile (or median) is the score which divides the distribution into two equal groups (50 percent below and 50 percent above). The 25th percentile indicates the point where 25 percent of the scores fall below and 75 percent fall above. Mean. The mean is what is commonly thought of as the `average It is sensitive to the influence of extreme scores at one end of the distribution. The Center for Golf Course Management 3 1992 Golf Course Suneriniendents Renon Results Table 1 Comparison of 1989 1990 and 1991 group mean maintenance budgets by number of holes. Number of Holes 1989 1990 1991 9 5111,000 596,000 5115,500 18 5324,250 $347,000 $390,250 27 $510,250 $500,000 $534,250 36 5618,250 $637,000 $688,750 45 or more $752,500 $784,000 $787,000 Table 2. Comparison of 1989 1990 and 1991 group mean capital expense budgets by number of holes. Number of Holes 1989 1990 1991 9 $23,350 $25,450 $20,225 18 $53,225 $48,300 547,625 27 $65,875 $67,625 $59,975 36 $64,875 181 100 $77 150 45 or more $68,600 $89,675 $80.975 i 4 The Center for Golf Course Management 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Repot Maintenance Budget Categories. Table 3 Mean maintenance expenditures by category and facility type. Facility Type . Id*getnialli Budget Category Private Daily fee Municipal Resort All Total Annual Payroll $273,905 $151,397 $172,716 $323,879 $224,655 Payroll Taxes $31,585 $21,876 $17,577 $55,653 $28,625 Employee Benefits $24,136 $17,522 $34,725 $65,765 $26,084 Dues& Subscriptions $1,288 $1,063 $718 $1 114 $1,126 Travel Expenses $2,524 $1,536 $2,132 $3,321 $2,233 Consultant Fees $2,136 $2,070 $3,103 $5,613 $2,407 Administrative Overhead $21 423 $14,582 $56,015 $19,278 $28,483 Meals $4,363 $2,226 $338 $5,799 $3,765 Uniforms& Rain Gear $3,245 $2,166 $1,543 $4,469 $2,778 Equipment Repair $25,380 $18,295 $18,572 $34,809 $22,702 Irrigation System Upkeep $8,176 $6,588 $5,463 $11,872 $7 479 Irrigation Water $36,262 $48,617 $54,945 $109,500 $45,256 Irrigation Pumping Energy $15,728 $16,687 $12,909 $24,685 $16,110 Electricity $5,710 $5,636 $7 179 $14 110 $6,295 Tools $2,276 $2,197 $1,642 $4,258 $2,262 Equipment Rental $2,804 $2,953 $2,336 $2,494 $2,762 Fertilizer $21,521 $17,758 $15,761 $32,316 $20,071 Fungicides $19,140 $9,655 $10,698 $15,328 $14,776 Insecticides & Nematicides $10,512 $6,072 $5,803 $9,862 $8,484 Herbicides $8,724 $3,908 $6,192 $11,087 $6,990 Other Chemical Products $3,301 $2,906 $2,259 $3,780 $3,033 Sand, Soil&Organic Amendments $6,988 $5,532 $4,934 $12,621 $6,580 Grass, Seed&Sod $8,544 $7,696 $4,778 $16,675 $8,112 Golf Accessories $4,746 $3,511 $3,730 $6,195 $4,297 Refuse Removal $4,836 $3,216 $2,619 $10,245 $4,216 Gas,Oil&Grease $12,859 $8,804 $6,871 $17,073 $10,901 Paint $1,064 $739 $688 $561 $866 Other $27,542 $14,470 $23,200 $46,913 $24,238 Total $490,137 $295,344 $323,056 $642,381 $412,625 The Center for Golf Course Management 5 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Report Table 4 Mean maintenance expenditures by category and number of holes. Number of Holes Budget 45 Cate/ory 9 16 27 36 Of MON Total Annual Payroll $62,298 $193,669 $262,898 $797,314 $644 102 Payroll Taxes $9,737 $26,106 $33,725 $60,752 $91,558 Employee Benefits $5,547 $22,867 $33,062 $57 416 $84,297 Dues& Subscriptions $694 $1,087 $1,270 $2,251 $1,687 Travel Expenses $1,022 $2,245 $3,058 $2,873 $2,737 Consultant Fees $5,875 $2,403 $1,355 $2,712 $1,750 Administrative Overhead $6,240 526,936 $45,048 $50,000 $73,527 Meals $919 $3,953 $2,784 $3,786 $2,390 Uniforms& Rain Gear $557 $2,496 $3,005 $5,700 $7,625 Equipment Repair $7,014 $20,955 $32,952 $49,724 $77,670 Irrigation System Upkeep $1,667 $6,724 $8,680 $18,585 $35,276 Irrigation Water $4,527 $42,888 $71,088 $107 133 $62,284 Irrigation Pumping Energy $4,415 $14,287 $21,558 $49,995 $37 158 Electricity $3,256 $6,037 $7,063 $13,443 $18,205 Tools $722 $2,060 $5,259 $3,897 $5,436 Equipment Rental $1,550 $2,958 $2,725 $2,720 $2,413 Fertilizer $4,573 $18,355 $24,832 $49 117 $75,505 Fungicides $3,349 $13,928 $33,386 $27,093 $24,564 Insecticides & Nematicides $1,810 $7 423 $10,129 519,248 $37,251 Herbicides $1 428 $6,430 $10,371 $16 438 $21,515 Other Chem, Products $1 178 $3,267 $2,813 $4,261 $5,422 Sand, Soil & Organic Amendments $1,762 $6,132 $9,646 $13,550 $21,911 Grass, Seed & Sod $1 410 $7,665 $11 478 $20,970 $17,359 Golf Accessories $936 $3,869 $6,492 $9,424 $18,327 Refuse Removal $814 $3,581 $4,065 $9,687 $16,507 Gas,Oil&Grease $2,726 $9,841 $14,353 $21,874 $53,060 Paint $326 $877 $1,081 $1,707 $1,357 Other $6,973 $21,884 $35,522 $53,830 $63,043 Total $96,542 $372,523 $536,791 $1,204,843 $1,249,414 I 6 The Center for Golf Course Management 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Report Staff and Hourly Wages. Table 10. Mean number of staff and hourly wage by job title and facility type. Facility Type i -Lo/e 50I-P Courses' Job Title All Measure Private Daily Fee Municipal Resort Facilities Assistant Superintendent No. of Full-Time Staff 1 1 1 1 1 Full-Time Hourly Wage $11.67 $10.24 $11.04 $11.20 $11.18 No. of Part-Time Staff 3 2 3 No Obser. 2 Part-Time Hourly Wage $5.76 $7 16 $6.65 No Obser. $6.30 Mechanic No. of Full-Time Staff 1 1 1 2 1 Full-Time Hourly Wage $10.72 $9.39 $11 14 $9.93 $10.38 i No. of Part-Time Staff 1 1 1 1 1 Part-Time Hourly Wage $6.49 $8.96 $7 44 $7.00 $7 78 Permanent Maintenance Crew No. of Full-Time Staff 7 5 4 9 6 Full-Time Hourly Wage $7.58 $7.04 $9.17 $7.32 $7.64 No. of Part-Time Staff 2 2 2 3 2 Part-Time Hourly Wage $6.35 $6.20 $6.10 $5.50 $6.22 Seasonal Maintenance Crew No. of Full-Time Staff 7 5 5 6 6 Full-Time Hourly Wage $5.96 $6.04 $5.96 $5.37 $5.96 No. of Part-Time Staff 5 5 6 7 5 Part-Time Hourly Wage $5.81 $5.38 $5.59 $5.47 $5.62 The Center for Golf Course Management 9 1 ir 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Renort Northeastern Region Northeastern Region c. { lr � -17:_i_ 7. -----1-7‘ -C1:-.,..::: •."1%.•'::. Ilk 1 • /- A ri, 21 '" J >> The Center for Golf Course Management 11 1992 Golf Course Northeastern Region Superintendents Report Maintenance Budget Categories. Table 12. Percentile distribution of maintel fiance expenditures by category e5 (Anf e4 ��ci Ck c,o0 Per utile fr Budget cotes Category 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Total Annual Payroll $77,680 $130,000 $171,000 $237,600 $300,500 Payroll Taxes $12,000 $16,000 $23,200 $28,000 $36,000 Employee Benefits $3,000 $6,576 $14,500 $26,000 $40,000 Dues& Subscriptions $275 $500 $800 $1,750 $3,000 Travel Expenses $800 $1,250 $2,028 $3,000 $3,500 Consultant Fees $500 $750 $1,000 $3,200 $5,000 Administrative Overhead $225 $500 $10,000 $30,000 $96,730 Meals $250 $500 $1,038 $2,000 $2,500 Uniforms & Rain Gear $200 $350 $1,000 $1,500 $3,000 Equipment Repair $5,200 $13,000 $20,000 $28,000 $34,000 Irrigation Upkeep $1,000 $2,000 $3,500 $5,000 $8,000 Irrigation Water $2,500 $5,000 $10,500 $17,000 $55,000 Irrigation Pumping Energy $1,500 $3,000 $6,000 $10,000 $12,000 Electricity $1 100 $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $11,000 Tools $500 $520 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 Equipment Rental $500 $500 $1,000 $2,500 $7 440 Fertilizer $3,735 $6,000 $10,000 $14,600 $19,500 Fungicides $3,800 $6,500 $15,000 $25,680 $37,000 Insecticides & Nematicides $800 $1,000 $3,680 $6,500 $10,000 Herbicides $500 $1,000 $2,000 $4,000 $10,000 Other Chem. Products $400 $1,000 $1,500 $3,000 $4,563 Sand, Soil & Organic Amendments $1,000 $2,000 $4,750 $9,500 $12,000 Grass,Seed&Sod $1,000 $2,000 $4,000 $7,500 $12,000 Golf Accessories $600 $1,500 $2,500 $4,300 $7,000 Refuse Removal $500 $1 100 $1,800 $2,750 $10,737 Gas,Oil&Grease $2,500 $4,500 $8,000 $10,000 $13,000 Paint $200 $300 $500 $1,000 $2,000 Other $1,600 $4,959 $10,000 $27,000 $51,000 Total $116,900 $181,822 $326,010 $421 489 $550,120 I 12 The Center for Golf Course Management 1992 Golf Course Superintendents Report Northeastern Region Staff and Hourly Wages. Table 17 Mean number of staff and hourly wage by job title. Job FulI-Time Part-Time Title No. Staff Hourly Wage No. Staff Hourly Wage Assistant Superintendent 1 $12.42 3 $6.60 Mechanic 1 $12.24 1 $9.69 Permanent Crew 3 $9.30 2 $7 17 Seasonal Crew 6 $6.86 4 $6.59 The Center for Golf Course Management 15 T LETTER FROM WALTER TONASZUCK CPU" tea5f, January 17, 1983 Mr. Robert M Hutchinson, Jr. Town Manager Town of Lexington 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Dear Mr. Hutchinson Transmitted herewith is a report on the Analysis of Municipal Building Maintenance Organizations with recommendations summarized briefly as follows 1 A consolidation of school building maintenance and custodial services, as well as library custodial services under the Department of Public Works 2 A reorganization of the Department of Public Works to adequately administrate the con- solidated buildings maintenance operations 3 A professional study to determine standards of work, staffing levels, productivity standards, and frequency of cleaning operations. i 4 the use of mobile cleaning units to reduce unsupervised after-hours cleaning and increase productivity 5 Establishment of Capital Budgeting J1ti-year plan for facilities maintenance 6 A recommendation for centr?lized inventory eaBtrol anci_pote4tig1 --theft 7 An implementation goal of July 1, 1984 O It.Jv: � �IMOTO(' 1.3C MAAAACNYSCTTS AVCNYC LCXI • NAO/ACNYfCTTC 02173 • ante(an)) ..z-nYO -2- 1 Mr Robert M Hutchinson, Jr Janauary 17, 1983 Town Manager A number of experts have been interviewed both from the private sector and municipal environment. Management studies were also used to gain perspective of the technical issues pertinent to this study. Very truly yours, Walter J onaszuck, Director Dept. of Public Works/Engineering WJT/s Enclosure