Village Board Approves 3-Year Snowplow Contract for Cul-De-Sacs
Service will cover all cul-de-sacs in Oswego.
Photos
Despite the fact this December weather has no hint of snow, the Village board is planning for its arrival.
The Village of Oswego approved a three-year contract for Forest View Landscaping of Oswego for the removal of snow from Oswego’s cul-de-sacs.
Last year the Village also used Forest View on a one-year contract basis to plow 60 percent of the cul-de-sacs in Oswego for a total of $3,190 per push.
This year the cost will be $6,550 per push, but the service will cover all of the cul-de-sacs in the village, said Public Works Director Jerry Weaver.
The village received several bids, the lowest from Service Septic Systems for $5,460 a push. Weaver suggested dismissing their bid due to concerns he and assistant public works director Mark Runyon had found.
Some of those concerns included the lack of staff for Service Septic Systems, lack of communication regarding an equipment inspection and that they are not registered with Fox Valley Metro, which is required for those working in the septic industry in this area.
Trustee Terry Michels expressed concerns about approving a three-year contract. “We don’t know if last year was a good measure for service.”
Weaver said last year Forest View communicated well with the Public Works staff.
Forest View would not plow the cul-de-sacs unless called upon by Public Works to come out.
“We need to try and establish a benchmark of when you call,” suggested Michels, who said that two inches of snow wouldn’t prevent people from leaving cul-de-sacs, but a higher amount could.
Trustee Scott Volpe added the reason for approving an outside contract was to solve the problem of cul-de-sac snow removal without needing to purchase additional equipment or add more employees. He agreed that having a benchmark would be useful, but a little tricky depending on what is considered a lot of snow.
Weaver said of the contract, “It’s going to be a better service, but it’s not a cost saving.”
The village trustees voted 6 – 0 to approve the three year contract, with discretion left up to Weaver and Public Works staff on when is the appropriate time to use Forest View’s services.
In This article
-
Village of Oswego Village Hall
100 Parkers Mill Road, Oswego, I -
-
Village of Oswego Public Works Department
100 Theodore Dr, Oswego, IL
Oswegosmarts
7:03 am on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Or course ther is always a cost savuings when you contract out. But I wouldn't expect Laurel and Hardy to figure that one out. No equiptment cost, no payroll which usually ends up in overtime costs. No insurance benifits,and no pension obligation. You see a $18.00 employee cost more in the $25-27 dollar range when you add in benifits. And you get to free up your employees to concentrate on keeping the other roads clean and safe for us taxpayers. No charge for the lesson in, we work for the taxpayers 101.
TLC Carpet Floors and More, Inc.
10:24 am on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
I see a Forest View landscaping from Yorkville, but I cant seem to find one in Oswego. I Also dont see that they are a chamber member. Two minor issues that would be nice if they get money from the tax payers to plow our streets. Support your LOCAL small business you know.
Tim
12:18 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Turns out that 'reduce all levies by 20%' doesn't apply to snow removal. In fact, the chosen bid was 20% HIGHER than the lowest bid.
Where were those residents claiming there was a 'mandate' to reduce costs during this particular board meeting? Turns out, the main argument against their nonsense all along turned out to be true... that being that they are not willing to cut across the board like they claimed.
Now, we can finally bury this 'reduce everything 20%' nonsense in the trash heap of history where it belongs. Because there is NO WAY any of them will ever be taker seriously again, once they start picking and choosing services to cut.
mike ellison
1:35 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
No one ever said that each line item needs to be reduced by 20%. It's possible to lower the total expenses by 20% with a combination of higher cuts to some items and lower, or no, cuts to others. Nice try, but irrational logic.
Logansdad
1:52 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
"No one ever said that each line item needs to be reduced by 20%."
I disagree. By having a general statement that said "reduce all levies by 20%", it is implied that every single line item would be reduced by 20%.
That is why making a general statement like that is foolish.
Tim
2:19 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Your 'supporters' seem to have a different idea...
10:59 am on Tuesday, August 7, 2012
"We're not saying cut firefighters, cut police officers, cut teachers," Johnson said. "... People are just fed up (with taxes.)" Ok I will say it for you, CUT IT ALL
It was only a matter of time before you 'moved the goalposts' once reality reared its head. Anyone that wasn't swept up in the emotional frenzy this group rode in on, was able to see the multitude of problems that you were about to cause. We all now get to watch you backtracking for the next few months, before finally falling off the map entirely.
You were told that your presentation of this issue has massive problems from day one, that would cause the entire process to fail. You ignored these problems, because you were more concerned with emotional rhetoric. And just like all the problems that you ignored that led you to this very point, you continued to ignore the problems with your plan. For some reason, you seem to have expected different results from that.
This has been the criticism from day one. That there was no thought put into this, that there was no long-term planning involved. That the exact type of thinking that caused these problems is so pervasive, that you think the same type of thinking will somehow get you out of those problems. It was just a lot of reactionary rhetoric. The consequences of that rhetoric will be forever attached to this group.
You failed to control the message.
Jane Enviere
5:59 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Exactly, Logansdad. Irrational is all the "pay for your own kids, what a concept", "I don't use parks - you pay for them!" etc., nonsense that has been spewed during this 20% fantasy. There is no way that we will see a 20% reduction in all levies, and I don't expect to see anything even close to that. It's a pipe dream.
Shawn
5:22 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
FYI , TLC
Forestview operates out of Oswego and spends thousands of dollars on fuel,parts,insurance,ect. In Oswego
mike ellison
10:26 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Reducing the levies by 20% means exactly that. Various gov't agencies can reduce their levy by 20% with a combination of different expenses being reduced by differing amounts so long as the total is 20%.
Typical liberal- taking other people's statements and taking them out of context and/or stating that the first thing that people want to cut are emergency services.
Tim
10:43 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Out of Context?
>mike ellison
>10:54 am on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
>Simple fact is that the majority of residents want a 20% cut. It should be made.
>Those of you who like those sorts of services need to pay for them yourselves.
Snow plowing is not an 'emergency service'
Logansdad
9:10 am on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
"Typical liberal- taking other people's statements and taking them out of context and/or stating that the first thing that people want to cut are emergency services."
Typical conservative - making up a particular percentage and then applying it accross the board in general terms.
How was the 20% number dervived? Why not 10%, 15% or 25%? It is so easy to pick an arbitray number. Then make it into a ballot initiative that has no enforcement behind it.
I am sure if you stuck a question on the ballot that says "Do you favor paying nothing in taxes to the local, state and federal government" the majority of people would vote yes.
Smokingdiesel
10:38 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
All you fools run your mouths now, but you will be the first ones crying that you can't get out of your yuppie cul-d-sacs... It just costs money, trucks and equipment are crazy expensive, labor, fuel, insurance, maintence parts, the list goes on and on, It's just an expensive profession that's why the city out sources it!! They know what the costs associated with snow removal are!
Oswegosmarts
12:51 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Weaver said of the contract, “It’s going to be a better service, but it’s not a cost saving.” Yes Jerry it is a cost savings. But I wouldn't expect Laurel and Hardy to figure that one out
Shawn
6:19 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
That's the truth!! Smokingdiesel