New Search
Hammitt, Bob <br /> From: Rhay, Tim <br /> To: Morgan, Dick <br /> Cc: Hammitt, Bob <br /> Subject: Possible Mowing Contract With District 4J <br /> Date: Friday, February 04, 1994 12:31 PM <br /> Doug Lemley from School District 4J contacted me yesterday and requested a meeting to discuss "what the City <br /> would charge District 4J to mow their grounds for them ". He is making this inquiry at the request of his superiors <br /> at the District 4J maintenance operation. <br /> I've scheduled a meeting with him for 1:00 PM today to gather information necessary to respond to his inquiry <br /> (number of acres, number of sites, present mowing schedules, how the District sees the issue of equipment <br /> transfer as part of such an agreement, etc.) Before I respond, I need to know how you would view such an <br /> agreement as well as how Bob Hammitt would view it. Are we interested in moving this direction at all? How <br /> much is the City willing to "sacrifice" or compromise to make such an agreement work? (Cost plus overhead? <br /> True /full cost of equipment ownership? etc.) Any other parameters in which I should be working when I figure <br /> this up? <br /> His request raises several issues that should be at least discussed prior to my making any response as they <br /> could dramatically impact the potential costs of such an operation. I will list and briefly discuss the major ones <br /> below: <br /> 1. The "working figure" that the District uses in such discussions is "600 acres" of grounds. Doug gave me this <br /> number yesterday when I asked him how may acres of turf we were talking about. My impression after a decade <br /> on 4J's Landscape Management Advisory Committee is that the 600 acres includes hard surface and parking <br /> lots, shrub beds and other items as well as turf, but turf is the major surface of 4J's grounds. We mow about 200 <br /> acres of "Mode I, II, & III" turfgrass and about 500 acres of "meadowlands" or "roughs ". Given that "turf mowing" <br /> is the largest part of what is being discussed, we are looking at more than double the present acreage. We also <br /> would "get back" the turf and rough sites that 4J now mows for us under the coordinated mowing agreement, so <br /> there would be impact on the "meadowlands" mowing schedule as well. Such an expanded mowing program is <br /> possible, but not without a complete reorganization and significant supplementing of our existing crews and a <br /> re- drawing of existing mowing schedules. <br /> 2. Given the above, it is unlikely we could "stage" the operation out of the 1820 Roosevelt facility. Equipment <br /> parking and storage space here is at a premium now, as is crew working space. It would almost certainly be <br /> necessary to obtain staging areas on existing 4J facilities such as the "Bus Barn ", at least during the summer, to <br /> make this concept work. Imagine two times our present crew and equipment in the yard on a summer's morning <br /> ... chaos! I will inquire about this, but past experience makes me skeptical that I will be able to get any firm <br /> information about the possibilities /possible costs of such arrangements before Doug need the "cost figures" from <br /> me (Next Thursday at the latest). This will impact my ability to give him realistic numbers and might put us in a <br /> difficult position later if we agree to a price and then discover that 4J wants to "charge" us "rent" for staging sites. <br /> (Call me suspicious, but 1 would not rule such a scenario out.) <br /> 3. We do not begin to have sufficient equipment to mow that much acreage. The most obvious solution would <br /> be the transfer of 4J's mowing equipment to the City as part of the agreement. This sounds simple in theory, but <br /> there are some complicating factors: (a) The impact on Fleet's operation (they use different makes /models of <br /> mowers than we do - more parts to stock/obtain, in addition to needing more mechanics) (b) Some of their <br /> equipment is not in the best of shape, it's OK for "year one ", but I would want to establish a replacement <br /> schedule for the older units right away (c) In addition to mowers, we would need trailers and vehicles (pickups) to <br /> pull them. Some of their mowing is done using tractors that are used for other functions at other times during the <br /> year. 4J is only talking about mowing (so far - see below) and might not want to give the multiple -use units up. <br /> That would increase our "start-up" costs. Most of this equipment would only be used during the mowing season <br /> (6 mos. out of the year) If we are forced to pay full rental rates (cost of ownership) it could drive the costs of the <br /> Page 1 <br />