For nearly two years now, Barrington Hills has provided virtually no-cost office space to the Barrington Area Council of Governments (BACOG). The current two-year lease will expire on June 30, and last month, our Village Board began discussing terms of a potential two-year renewal of the lease of 220 square feet of office space in Village Hall.
During their April meeting, the four Village Board members who were present were informed via a memo from Trustee Harrington, who was not present at the meeting, that the going rate for local office space ranged from $12-25 per square foot of office space per year. Trustee Harrington’s recommendation for approval was at the minimum of the scale at $12 per square foot.
The discussion that followed revealed BACOG does not pay for utilities, internet access, security system fees, interior common area video surveillance, cleaning services or conference room usage. They do, however, pay $35 per month for use of the copier and other “consumables” that are afforded in the break room or other cost items, however BACOG is not tasked with the day-to-day inventory or replenishment of those items as our Village staff is.
When it came time to determine what to charge BACOG, Pro Tem Gohl suggested $18 per square foot, but the motion for that rate wasn’t seconded. Matter of fact, if you listen to the recording, as we have, you can hear Trustee Selman mutter “Humph” and Trustee Meroni laugh a bit at the suggestion of $18. Gohl then retreated to the original recommendation from Trustee Harrington of $12 per foot, but that didn’t pass with only three Save 5 Acres trustees voting for that rate.
Their entire discussion can be listened to here.
The Observer researched available office spaces comparable to BACOG’s current 220 square foot (SF) of space and discovered the following in the Barrington area via Loopnet.com:
- 200 square feet for $20.25 per SF, per year
- 224 square feet for $33.20 per SF, per year
- 284 square feet for $28.52 per SF, per year
An expanded search of available offices ranging from 194 to as much as 320 SF resulted in an average of roughly $24 per SF, per year. We did find office space obtainable for as low as $12 per SF, however rates at this level were offered for much larger office spaces.
Given the current competitive lease market in the Barrington area, The Observer suggests the Village Board offer BACOG a very fair lease rate of $20 per square foot, per year, when they convene next Wednesday night. This is seems to be the least amount any potential lessee would have to pay for office space, and considering BACOG has paid nothing for two years, this would represent an effective lease rate of $10 per SF over four years, or in our minds, a bargain.
– The Observer
I suggest the first test should be: what does it cost? A group of one or two citizens and a trustee could easily, with the assistance of the Treasurer, calculate the approximate cost, e.g. how much does it cost to heat and A/C the total space and than allocate the proper proportion to the 220sqft BACOG occupies. You can do that with all allocable costs, i.e. liability insurance; fire insurance; lawn maintenance etc. For electricity and copier costs use an estimate with the assistance of Com Ed, etc. It should not take long for a few citizens and or trustees to see what it costs and how that stacks up to the market place. We may be stuck with $12 per sqft but if it costs us $10 do we want a profit of $2 per sqft; and conversely if it costs us $20 then how much of a gift do we want to make to other municipalities? As to the depreciation I suggest we look at cost to build today and take that over what we as a landlord would be allowed to deduct. Estimated cost over 27yrs or whatever.
I know that is just to much trouble for such a small amount. Lets just use the market. It is always better not to know why you did what you did.
Since the space was not being used, the costs to VBH are minimal. If our Village needs the space in the future, we should ask BACOG to make other arrangements. Until then, we only need to be kept whole for extra costs incurred.
Getting the market rate for rental space, while not a sin, is not essential in this case. Very few renters would fit as well with VBH’s mission as BACOG. It is very much to the advantage of VBH and its citizens to have successful cooperation with our surrounding government units and BACOG housed at VBH facilitates this.
I have run small offices before. A modest contribution for paper, marginal increase in utilities and wear & tear is needed to keep VBH whole financially. But to obsess on tracking to the penny the costs of copier and paper and misc. could cost more than it is worth. Truly large copying and significant costs need to be reimbursed; but, this discussion seems silly in light of the huge amounts of money spent elsewhere by our village, e.g., the legal costs.
I think a point that’s being overlooked or ignored here is Harrington’s memo was deceiving. His unscaled figures misled the board to an unrealistic lease rate. As a small business owner I can tell you I would LOVE to be paying twelve bucks a foot and if Harrington can get it for me I’d be very shocked.
As for this being a small monetary issue in the scheme of things, so too was the thousand or so dollar potential shortfall in funding for last fall’s Heritage Fest. Meroni, Selman, Harrington, Messer and Gohl were all freaking at the prospect of spending an unbudgeted small amount which as it turned out wasn’t needed after full funding was secured. Matter of fact they and the former president did everything they could to prevent the event from happening over chump change compared to the budget so they work the arguements both ways as they please.
While I agree with the number proposed, all the reality in the world doesn’t matter when we’ve got five trustees on the board loyal to the former president. They’ll basically do his bidding on this one and others to come until the next election, which can’t come soon enough for this fed up resident.
Drawing your attention to the obscene salary the leader commands, she should be paying rent!
Why should the village subsidize her?
The bigger question is whether BACOG is even relevant today and whether BACOG can justify continuing charging membership municipalities approximately $45,000.00 each per year. I believe Inverness said it was not and dropped out and my recollection is South Barrington threatened last year to do the same.
Please not the aquifer studies or surface water tests because for many years these studies and tests have been performed by qualified entities hired by the McHenry County Board. Are the tax payers being charged twice for the same studies or is BACOG simply extrapolating information from these studies creating the impression to the public these studies were done by BACOG?.
Like many organizations which depend on tax revenues, donations and/or grants, in time the emphasis shifts away from its obligation to the public to raising enough money to pay excessive salary(ies) for a few.
Putting the lease issue aside, I think it is time BACOG justify its existence to our elected officials and consideration be given by the Board as to whether Barrington Hills taxpayers should continue to fund BACOG.
In the private sector, you quickly become extinct when people no longer want your product or service. This is not the case in the public sector where mediocrity and irrelevance often thrives. Regarding BACOG, I am not prepared to say one way or the other whether the value it brings justifies the cost. I believe it is reasonable for our elected officials (before writing out the next check) to explain to taxpayers why this expense is necessary.
I agree with D Stieper ‘s suggestion that the trustees tell all the citizens what we pay and what we receive from BACOG before we spend any more on BACOG. I for one did not know we paid $45,000 per year and would like a quick response to the Village citizens from some or all of our Trustees. Thank You David S.
Two years ago BACOG reduced membership fees when South Barrington expressed a desire to leave the group. I believe the current membership dues we pay is $36,000/year – still a lot of money and for what tangible returns?
David Stieper has brought the real issue to the front…, finally. To me it seems rather short sighted to oppose the BACOG because someone you dislike favored it as was insinuated by a previous reply. David S. has touched on the real issue: What value is BACOG to we the people of VBH?
I frankly can’t argue details about the effectiveness or the accomplishments of BACOG. I don’t have enough information on how it operates or how successful it has been in the past.
However, the concept of using an organization like BACOG to seek common solutions to problems facing the greater Barrington Area Community – a community which is fragmented by a byzantine maze of governments in four different counties, at least four townships, several fire, library and police districts, park districts and the list goes on – makes great sense. Very few communities in America have as complicated an overlay of government jurisdictions as our greater Barrington area. We desperately need an organization to help coordinate the common interests of us all.
Since we are not able to redo the unfortunate political history of Illinois that led to this governmental mess, we need an organization like BACOG to address our common problems. We in Barrington Hills, as one of the smaller municipalities, particularly benefit from cooperation of with our larger neighbors. May I also mention that due to Illinois State laws, municipal boundaries are highly vulnerable. With our “five acres” zoning, our Village of Barrington Hills is highly dependent on inter-community cooperation to protect our borders.
For me the issue is how can we help BACOG? If BACOG can be helped by getting low cost office space at little cost to VBH, then we should certainly offer that help. If there are other roadblocks to BACOG achieving its needed and useful purposes, we should seek to remove those roadblocks as well.
I am not an apologist for BACOG. I am not close to the organization nor its leadership nor its supporters. I am not aware of any specific problems with the BACOG. If BACOG has problems, it would be appropriate to discuss them. What I am asking readers of this forum to consider, is that an organization like BACOG is important not only to our larger Barrington community’s long term success; but, the success of our little Village in the Hills as well.
Jan C.
I would like to see an accounting of the money that BACOG brings in. How much does the head of BACOG make and how much is spent and in what way?
How much is donated to political entity’s and any other dispersions. We need accountability! Just where does that money go?
Are there any openings for high paying part time jobs that I may apply for?
Jan, as I analyze your most recent comment . . . . I conclude what you are really saying is that justification for BACOG should not be based on what actual “benefit BACOG brings to the community” but whether its “intent is good” . BACOG should not be judged on any of its short comings because these shortcomings are the result of roadblocks beyond BACOG’s reach.
In other words, you subscribe to the modern day theory of government – “survival of the un-fittest”; that is to say, it is never a waste of taxpayer money as long as the “intent” of the government program is good.
You say BACOG is important not only to BH but the larger Barrington community without offering any facts in support of this contention. You acknowledge you are not in a position to argue, “details of Its [BACOG’s] effectiveness or accomplishments” . . . . . because you simply don’t know, but heck, you say the “concept” is good. Sorry Jan, expenditure of taxpayer funds based upon “concepts” and “good intentions” is not enough for this taxpayer.
You conclude we need an organization to address our “common problems” but fail to explain what these common problems are and examine whether they are or could be addressed by someone else. You provide readers with your analysis and opinion that there are too many layers of government in Illinois and then offer the solution of adding yet another layer of [quasi] government in the form of BACOG.
You say BACOG is vital to long term success of BH without saying anything more than continuing the myth espoused by the former Village President that disconnection of property from a municipality is directly related to zoning. This misinformation already cost Village taxpayers in excess of $400,000 in its misguided defense in the Duda Property I disconnection lawsuit.
Truth be told Jan, The Illinois Disconnection Statute has no relationship to municipal zoning – yes, even BH 5 acre zoning. Zoning and Disconnection are entirely two legal disciplines – ie. comprehensive plan provides rational for zoning, but has no relevance in an action for disconnection.
Jan, you don’t defend a breach of contract lawsuit by raising the defense of civil battery; it just doesn’t fit.
Wow, David!
I thought I was complimenting you on getting to the correct issue. That issue is not the price of the rent. The cost to VBH of letting BACOG use otherwise unused office space is minimal. The true issue is does BACOG satisfactorily fill a need that justifies its cost to its member units including VBH?
I fully recognize that I do not have all the knowledge of BACOG operations to give an informed opinion about how effective or cost efficient it has been.
My contention is that there is a need for coordination among the Barrington Area villages that have so many problems in common and yet fiercely guard their independence. Further, we in Barrington Hills value our 5 acre zoning and cooperation with surrounding villages is critical to our ability to resist future
de-annexations. Thus, it seems to me that an organization like BACOG could be particularly important to VBH.
Apparently you have a heavy axe to grind against BACOG. I don’t understand your arguments. That does not mean that they are not valid. It is just that I can not discern what they are.
Your points about Duda property, municipal zoning, and defense of “a breach of contract lawsuit by raising the defense of civil battery…” need more lines of connection to why BACOG is not a good investment for VBH.
David what is wrong with BACOG that makes it a bad investment for VBH and other members of its council of governments?
There are many other subjects related to VBH issues that we could discuss – lets discuss sometime the implications of the unionization of our police force – but, presently the discussion is about BACOG and why it is not worth the minimal cost of it’s “rent subsidy”. It is natural to move to the general discussion of what the value of BACOG is and if it is worth its dues assessments to our Village which is as I understand it is presently $36,000 a year.
In summary I want to repeat is that I am not wedded to continuing BACOG just as it is. My position is much more modest: There is a need for something like BACOG; and if it is broken (and I do not know that it is) perhaps it should be fixed rather than ditched.
Jan C.