THE JOURNAL & TOPICS NEWSPAPERS | WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006
City Keeps Staffing Levels Down
By DWIGHT ESAU
Journal Reporter
Does Park Ridge have enough, or too many, municipal workers? How does the city compare to other communities?
Is there any way the city can or should cut expenses by reducing its staff?
Several weeks ago, as part of the budgeting process for 2006-07, Ald. Mary Ryan asked City Mgr. Tim Schuenke to survey some surrounding communities to determine their staffing levels, and determine where Park Ridge stood compared to other towns.
Nine communities provided some feedback.
It turns out that Park Ridge's 218 full-time workers are 54 below the average for the other nine, and that, in general, Park Ridge gets along with fewer employees relative to its population than do most other communities.
Sharing their staffing level information with the city were Arlington Hts., Elmhurst, Glenview, Highland Park, Niles, Northbrook, Schaumburg, Skokie, and Winnetka.
Park Ridge ranked 7th among the 10 towns in number of full-time employees, which ranged from 401 in Arlington Hts. (population 75,000) to 126 in Winnetka (population 12,400).
Park Ridge has the second fewest public works employees (52), the third fewest fire fighting employees (53), the third-fewest police officers (73), and ranks fifth in the number of administrative and finance employees (26). Park Ridge also ranks fifth in the number of community development employees (14) and ranks third among the 10 towns in number of employees per 1,000 residents (5.77).
In an Apr. 14 memo to aldermen, Schuenke said the survey did not include libraries since all but one of the other towns has a separate library taxing district, unlike Park Ridge. He also cautioned against a too literal interpretation of the comparative data, since other towns organize their staffs much differently.
"In the number of employees per 1,000 residents, Park Ridge is below average in every category," he said. "The results here tentatively confirm that we do better than most. If we were average, we would have 55 more employees at an additional cost of more than $3 million.
"Give yourselves a pat on the back," he advised aldermen. "We do very well by comparison."
All of which was apparently designed to advised that the city doesn't have a "fat" or unnecessarily large staff, and doesn't need to consider staff reductions as a way to cut expenses.
His memo and the survey data was discussed yesterday (Tuesday,. Apr. 25 at a city council Finance and Budget Committee meeting.
Regarding the recently approved $46.8 million city budget, the staff is still working on a proposal to increase building permit fees by an average of 10% to further enhance revenues. Last year, a record-breaking one in building activity, the city received more than $1.2 million in permit fee income.